The Dark Knight Cgi Thread

I just don't think CGI is up to the quality of models and matt paintings. It can be, if enough time and money is thrown at it, but the more CG a movie has the more the quality drops.
As little as possible is preferable.
 
I just don't think CGI is up to the quality of models and matt paintings. It can be, if enough time and money is thrown at it, but the more CG a movie has the more the quality drops.
As little as possible is preferable.

This is not necessarily true. But like you said, there has to be a large budget. In the case of TDK, I think you're definately right... as little as possible CGI and more models and matte.

Last weekend I watched the 3,5 hour documentary "Dangerous Days" about the making of Blade Runner. The opening scene of the movie, with L.A. in 2019, was done with models. It looks amazing, even by today's standards.

Does anybody know what is more time-consuming: using models or using CGI?
 
Models are more time-consuming. Which is why CG is used more often these days.
 
Does anybody know what is more time-consuming: using models or using CGI?
Most likely depends on what it is and what they're doing with it. Buildings and nonorganic things are pretty easily done with CGI nowadays, and they look pretty good for the most part. I still think it's cooler when you have the weight and real texture of a model, though.

I like CGI and I think it has its uses, but also its limitations, especially in animating animals and humans. I'm also rather old-school, so I think that if you can do something for real, you should do it for real. Sometimes you just don't know what you'd get in real life and it adds a little bit of a kick. When you're generating everything in the computer, you're really controlling EVERYTHING so it seems less genuine sometimes.
 
Most likely depends on what it is and what they're doing with it. Buildings and nonorganic things are pretty easily done with CGI nowadays, and they look pretty good for the most part. I still think it's cooler when you have the weight and real texture of a model, though.

I like CGI and I think it has its uses, but also its limitations, especially in animating animals and humans. I'm also rather old-school, so I think that if you can do something for real, you should do it for real. Sometimes you just don't know what you'd get in real life and it adds a little bit of a kick. When you're generating everything in the computer, you're really controlling EVERYTHING so it seems less genuine sometimes.

Agree, there's just something about minitures. Lord of the Rings used them to great effect with added touches of CGI to help bring them to life and they came out awesome.
 
Miniatures often give the best results, Independence day anyone?

Much of the reason The day after tomorrow was so bad was because of horrible and obvious cgi.
 
I personally like it. It's not exactly what you'd expect, but it still falls well in the realm of "Two-face". Not as durastic as the Joker alterations were because acid in the face is a realistic thing.

Obviously don't expect to see a straight line down his face or anything like that.

- Jow
Was the scarred side of his face any significant color?
 
Models are more time-consuming. Which is why CG is used more often these days.

I can't imagine making a physical model then filming it is more time consuming that completely rendering a CGI shot.
Even with powerful engines, to completely create a CGI world, with all the considerations, (light, gravity, weather, time of day, etc) compared with setting up a model, and shooting it at 30 FPS to make it seem real size? I will defer to experts here, but I can't imagine that models take longer...
 
The larger the model the better it's going to look. LOTR used huge models with great details and then they added CGI.
 
I read somewhere that Richard Taylor from WETA Workshop stating that since Lord of the Rings they've gotten miniture completion down from 3 months to something like 2 weeks. That's not a huge a mount of time if you only need a few models.
 
Thau didn't really have a budget for the Donner cut. In fact, I am suprised they got what they did. And they had to work with thins that weren't shot 20 years ago.
 
The larger the model the better it's going to look. LOTR used huge models with great details and then they added CGI.
The best model work I have seen would always use 6th scale miniatures. And the thing is, back in the day, you had guys just starting out canibalizing modeling kits and using vacuformed plastics and C.A.D. laser piece sculpting. Now they have been doing it for 40 years, they can do things better in smaller scales.
 
I can't imagine making a physical model then filming it is more time consuming that completely rendering a CGI shot.
Even with powerful engines, to completely create a CGI world, with all the considerations, (light, gravity, weather, time of day, etc) compared with setting up a model, and shooting it at 30 FPS to make it seem real size? I will defer to experts here, but I can't imagine that models take longer...
Most CGI programs now come with renderosity engines, and also time of day and location on the planet so you can get close. Some you can even reference the exact same time and location that the lice action was shot. Also, HDR imaging is really changing things. A lot of Transformers used that. It is taking a 360 degree set of photos with multiple exposure settings in the same shot, and then stictching them up, to get the correct reflection, light placement, and latitude in the CGI element. Trust me, in about 5 years, CGI will be seamless with real life. UV mapping also helps too.
 
Most CGI programs now come with renderosity engines, and also time of day and location on the planet so you can get close. Some you can even reference the exact same time and location that the lice action was shot. Also, HDR imaging is really changing things. A lot of Transformers used that. It is taking a 360 degree set of photos with multiple exposure settings in the same shot, and then stictching them up, to get the correct reflection, light placement, and latitude in the CGI element. Trust me, in about 5 years, CGI will be seamless with real life. UV mapping also helps too.

Now that's the kind of answer I was looking for.
Renderosity? That's fun to say.:woot:
 
therer should be NO cgi thread in here cause tdk is going to have almost no cgi in it
 
Batman flying after jumping of the rooftop in the final scene of BB was also well done.
 
ha ha! very funny :woot:

You'll be surprised how many invisible special effects (including CGI) will be in this movie.

That's what I love about Nolan--he tastefully blends the CGI with his traditional film making style. It's not over-the-top, in your face, obviously fake CGI [see I Am Legend, as recent example]--like most blockbusters nowadays.
 
therer should be NO cgi thread in here cause tdk is going to have almost no cgi in it
TDK is going to have WAY more CGI than you think. BB had over 300 CGI shots, many of which most people don't even know about. That's what's so novel about Nolan's approach. His only goal with CGI is to accentuate, and never to completely replace, which makes it harder to spot where he's using computers and where it's real.
 
TDK is going to have WAY more CGI than you think. BB had over 300 CGI shots, many of which most people don't even know about. That's what's so novel about Nolan's approach. His only goal with CGI is to accentuate, and never to completely replace, which makes it harder to spot where he's using computers and where it's real.
I still thought it was funny when the CGI team had to prove themselves by making a completely CGI Batman doing that land in Arkham, and only Chris was able to pick out which one was fake. :woot:

For the record, I couldn't tell either. The shot was very well done.

It also helps that most of the movie took place at night. My friend often talks about how rubbery CGI-animated people look, and I agree to a point. To, the immediate thing that sticks out about CGI-animated people to me is the lack of texture in their clothing, and other things that are generally a bit off in the edges when lighting them. (They also move a bit too smoothly to be real people.) When it's dark, you don't see that as well.

I thought it was super-cool that they chose to blow up a real full-size building, since CGI explosions are pretty realistic nowadays. And the truck flip, taking place at night, would have pretty easy to do on the computer as well. Of course both shots will be taken through a computer as they are, but again, you get these little things in real life that you wouldn't necessarily think to put in CGI. :up:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"