How does this site work how do you know they aren't just pocketing your money and never making the project come to life
It doesn't pay them unless the goal is met. Also you don't know that, but pocketing your money like that won't promise those people a good future so they have no reason to do it... example: you are payed to make a game that could earn you a lifetime of income. Why pocket the money for temporary riches (and giving yourself a bad name) instead of make the game?
Cryoma wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
That's because you have shit taste in everything. _________________
How does this site work how do you know they aren't just pocketing your money and never making the project come to life
It doesn't pay them unless the goal is met. Also you don't know that, but pocketing your money like that won't promise those people a good future so they have no reason to do it... example: you are payed to make a game that could earn you a lifetime of income. Why pocket the money for temporary riches (and giving yourself a bad name) instead of make the game?
Cryoma wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
That's because you have shit taste in everything.
Their work looks good and I appreciate the 80's look, but once he started implying that real looks more real than CG I just didn't want to listen anymore.
1. If you record a video of something real or generate the same thing digitally, you're relying on technology either way, and the more advanced the technology, the more realistic the final product can look.
Sure, in the 80's CG looked god awful and physical fx was the way to go.
Now, CG tech is getting more and more photorealistic, so I don't doubt that in another 10 years or so we'll have a tech demo of ultimate photorealism through CG from autodesk or someone.
2. Monsters aren't fucking real, who gets to say what looks real and what doesn't?
OBAMA REPTILIAN WEREWOLF!!! OBAMA REPTILIAN WEREWOLF!!!! Obama and all elites are actually werewolves. I know it sounds strange but it's all proven in my new video: OBAMA REPTILIAN WEREWOLF. I highly suggest everyone that sees this comment to go and watch my video. You will finally learn the truth that has been hidden for centuries; that all elites are werewolves. Please help me spread this message. OBAMA REPTILIAN WEREWOLF; WATCH THE VIDEO, LEARN THE TRUTH, THANK YOU. -Bieberskingofmusic _________________
How does this site work how do you know they aren't just pocketing your money and never making the project come to life
It doesn't pay them unless the goal is met. Also you don't know that, but pocketing your money like that won't promise those people a good future so they have no reason to do it... example: you are payed to make a game that could earn you a lifetime of income. Why pocket the money for temporary riches (and giving yourself a bad name) instead of make the game?
Cryoma wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
That's because you have shit taste in everything.
Their work looks good and I appreciate the 80's look, but once he started implying that real looks more real than CG I just didn't want to listen anymore.
1. If you record a video of something real or generate the same thing digitally, you're relying on technology either way, and the more advanced the technology, the more realistic the final product can look.
Sure, in the 80's CG looked god awful and physical fx was the way to go.
Now, CG tech is getting more and more photorealistic, so I don't doubt that in another 10 years or so we'll have a tech demo of ultimate photorealism through CG from autodesk or someone.
2. Monsters aren't fucking real, who gets to say what looks real and what doesn't?
Did you see the new The Thing? The CGI made it look horrible...
And what if they did Hellboy in CGI? Or maybe Alien movies?
Stop speaking out of your asshole, give me an example of where CGI monsters look more believable than classic special effects.
I'll use this video as an example of why classic special effects are superior:
I'm not saying CG is superior, I'm just saying it eventually will be capable of replacing physical effects, and therefor shouldn't be knocked.
One day, yeah... what's that got to do with any of this?
These guys are a bunch of special effects masters hoping to make a monster movie without it being invaded by shitty CGI, hopefully making others realize that CGI isn't superior (not right now and not for a long time).
Yes, eventually CG will be superior in this area... but I don't see it happening for at least another 10-20 years. _________________
He's saying, "Why bother when CGI is going advancing so quickly."
But it isn't advancing very quickly... and my god they just wanna make a movie that isn't tainted. They're not trying to stop the advancement of technology or anything. _________________
To me, it looks even more real than what you can do with latex, no matter how skilled you are at sculpting. Physical materials are a limiting here.
I get it, there is still love for animatronics, I really like them too. But they should have moved on, They could make a whole new genre of entertainment. How could would it be to be in a play with animatronics playing live? I think that's where they should have migrated with the birth of CGI for cinema.
Make did, most sculptors migrated to digital and now make their creations in CG instead of physic.
I love animatronics, but not anymore for films. I think they should move on.
-Yes, I think CGI is superior. I do think virtual is superior to physical in this aspect, it gives you more freedom.
To me, it looks even more real than what you can do with latex, no matter how skilled you are at sculpting. Physical materials are a limiting here.
I get it, there is still love for animatronics, I really like them too. But they should have moved on, They could make a whole new genre of entertainment. How could would it be to be in a play with animatronics playing live? I think that's where they should have migrated with the birth of CGI for cinema.
Make did, most sculptors migrated to digital and now make their creations in CG instead of physic.
I love animatronics, but not anymore for films. I think they should move on.
-Yes, I think CGI is superior. I do think virtual is superior to physical in this aspect, it gives you more freedom.
Can't really say those are relevant... 3D models/sculptures alone are almost limitless in detail... but I have never seen them properly animated or implemented into a film to the point where they look real. Especially a monster film. Physical effects still look better at the moment. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Reputation: 126
Reputation: 17
Reputation: 27
Reputation: 125
