ForumGarden

CGI and 3D

Well, I would have agreed with you in the 80s when it stunk...but in the post-Lord of the Rings era? Meh. It's cool.

I disagree. CGI has it's place but all too often takes over from dialogue.

Most films nowadays are made for a world market and all to many of them rely on silly action instead of acting. In fact many of them rely on CGI characters at the expense of actors.

Hate is such a harsh word only reserved for those we disagree with.

CGI "is" reality for a large portion of our population.

Well then I agree, CGI is no substitute for a good story, but it does enhance an already strong plot.

I hate...................acronyms

bruv;1439690 wrote: i hate...................acronyms


lol

I view CGI the same way I do laugh tracks.

They both can add to the enjoyment of a show, but overdone only distracts. CGI can and does well to replace a "cast of thousands" making quality movie making not only less expensive, but much easier to create.

The 3D thing I find fascinating and I believe coming to a TV near you.

I've already seen 3D broadcast on TV, so far not all that impressive but with HD TV it is only a matter to time for somebody to make a decent movie and entice people to buy the cheap lenses.

Funny this subject should come up as last Wednesday, for the first time in almost ten years I went to a walk-in theater. I went there to watch Gravity just to see how the 3D thingy was working.

I was both impressed, and unimpressed.

It was in a small theater. I believe I sat way to close to the screen to get the full 3D effect. From what I saw it was really slick.

The movie itself, hum, 3 on a 10 scale.

If that movie is ever broadcast on TV I hope it retains the 3D properties to promote the concept.

Meanwhile, I'm holding on to those glasses.

P.S. When I came home had to give a review to Mrs.Dog. Gave her my review of my total experience then she asked

"Did you spend more time watching the movie or playing with the glasses?"

Bruv;1439690 wrote: I hate...................acronyms


Not that I hate acronyms, but I do hate having to look them up.

It is often done and I don't want to beat up on the OP, but who the heck had any idea of CGI?

No doubt I am guilty of throwing out acronyms assuming they are well known to all.

Bruv;1439690 wrote: I hate...................acronyms


Snowfire;1439691 wrote: lol


Perfect, IMO

YZGI;1439696 wrote: Perfect, IMO
Oh dear.... FFS !!!

Bruv;1439690 wrote: I hate...................acronyms


Me too but they're very handy if things need shoring up..............

arena;1439708 wrote: me too but they're very handy if things need shoring up..............


cgi?

Bruv;1439709 wrote: cgi?
I have tried twice to capitalise that..........strange.

CGI?

Bruv;1439710 wrote: I have tried twice to capitalise that..........strange.

CGI?


computer generated images.

Arena;1439708 wrote: Me too but they're very handy if things need shoring up..............


I shall repeat.........CGI (I know what it means)

Suggesting it is handy if things need shoring up ?

Bruv;1439733 wrote: I shall repeat.........CGI (I know what it means)

Suggesting it is handy if things need shoring up ?


Sorry, a play on words (acronym/acroprop)

I have no particular interest in 3D, having only seen it as a motionless hologram and been disappointed with the shockingly low resolution.

As for CGI though, it depends rather on what you mean. Do you mean that the backdrop itself is computer generated, or do you mean that a real backdrop has been slipped behind real foreground imagery by digital masking in a computer program?

I'd be amazed if anyone produced a film or TV program ever again using any analogue process. Film production is digital. TV is digital. Mixing desks are digital. Every aspect of both production and post-production is digital. Masking is just one of many filters available to a post-production editor. Do we have a problem with masking - is that the aspect of CGI we dislike? The green-screen or blue-screen studio filming?

Or, alternatively, is it the generating of imagery in the animated equivalent of a painting program, perhaps melded with an actor wearing fixed-point limb markers to allow her to effectively move the generated model?

Or do we simply dislike any form of post-production which deviates from what the camera was originally exposed to?

I hate haters.

I hate 3Ds tooo, The whole experience is good only for few scenes and the glass irritaes me more than enjoying the film