why do bad cg effects in movies always look faded?

[BisexualMMA]

I view Resurrection and the AvP's as post-shark jump aliens. When the general reaches behind his head and grabs a piece of his brain and looks at it I visualized a xenomorph on skis behind a motorboat.

Leaked test footage from Blomkamp's Alien 5...

 

[BVG]

A brown great white:

View attachment 123083

Show me anywhere else in that frame that's black...

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Leaked test footage from Blomkamp's Alien 5...

And that's enough interneting for me today

 

[BVG]

Game of thrones brown brown brown

In the first pic, the overall hue of the shot is...brown. So making the castle NOT brown would make it not blend into the shot.

Not sure what the hell you are referring too in the second shot.

The dragon's darks are slightly darker than the darkest background elements...helping it stand out. But making his dark absolute black would make the dragon pop out of the scene because hardly anything is ever absolute black.

 

[Organic Damage]

Cel animation had that problem. Like, if there was a scene with people trapped in a bricked-up room, you knew which brick was the door to a secret passage because it was a slightly different color than the rest of the bricks. This was because there had to be two cels, one for the background and one for the moving brick. Even if both cels were drawn using the same color value, it affected how the light cast through. Same thing with tinted windows, if you wear sunglasses too it'll be that much darker.

CGI is created independently of the actual film stock, so coloring is recreated then overlaid onto of the film image. Sometimes the CGI house comes really close, or even nails it, but the human eye and brain are so good at noticing disparity that for some people this difference really stands out. Even if it's just one little thing -- lighting, color, motion, focus, clarity, variation -- the illusion is ruined. This problem has been reduced significantly with the advent of digital film but fidelity still depends on the artistry. The question becomes do we recreate the image the way the eye would see it, versus the way the camera would capture it? What's the priority? Storytelling? Looking cool? There's a lot to control and thus a lot to get wrong. With fast approaching deadlines, there's never enough time to get it perfect.

Even Michael Bay continues to finetune his films after they've hit the theater, for the home market.

Plus special effects guys are not working with a movie theater sized monitor. Equipment affects. Not only in the making of the film but also in the broadcast. Most heavy CGI films don't look as great on a television broadcast because the output just isn't strong enough to maintain the contrast you're looking for. Even AVATAR and MAD MAX FURY ROAD suffer from wash-out.

Smoke and haze is difficult because generally speaking you can't see through smoke. Even thin smoke, the lens has trouble piercing through it. The camera captures no visual information. What should happen is the image is obscured in places and not so much in others, but CGI tends to add smoke that's just this blanket screen with a lowered opacity. There's no waver. Too much clarity is often an issue with CGI movement, which was quite problematic with the MATRIX fight scenes where the multiple Smiths' movement looked clunky. There are people who move so quickly the camera can't capture it, so when you see every single pixel in startling clarity, your brain's gonna go WHOA WTF.

Even if you may not know it consciously, your brain can still tell when things are "off" or too perfect.

I wonder sometimes if the haze isn't intentional to reduce rendering demands (in addition to making it look like an atmospheric effect).

 

[minute bull]

I wonder sometimes if the haze isn't intentional to reduce rendering demands (in addition to making it look like an atmospheric effect).

 

[SoberAwakening]

I don't know, ask Zack Snyder.

 

[Matt4786]

Taking a shot in the dark, but I think it's out of focus to trick your eyes into not focusing on it, and thus making suspension of disbelief easier.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

I want to praise the CGI for Sharknado here. It was horrible. But it was like hey whatever crazy shit we can think of lets just fucking do it.

 

[Smelldog]

I wonder sometimes if the haze isn't intentional to reduce rendering demands (in addition to making it look like an atmospheric effect).

I think this may be it, hence cheaper cgi looking worse or more fuzzy, they just go fuck it, make it blurry/hazy and you might not notice how shitty it looks.

 

[DIABOLUS]

They "blend" the CG in so it wouldn't look out of place.

too much contrast makes CGI way more unrealistic. Example in the second part of the picture below:

That is a fucking embarrassment to the Terminator franchise. So much hype about that movie returning to the roots of the franchise, only to come out with that trash. I remember the scene after old Arnold killed the Asian T-1000, and the skin had melted off his arm. Looked fake as shit like they couldn't be fucked to create a robotic arm mockup (or hell, use the same one from T2).

 

[the ambush]

What are you talking about? There's no cgi in that shot from Empire.

I am still enamored with how the CGI visuals from old movies compare to contemporary movies. Take for example the ESB still I posted and just look at how the background contrasts to the rest, it looks smooth and real. The scene itself could have appeared phony and goofy taking the viewer away from the movie experience, yet it did not. There were plenty of opportunities where the CGI visuals could have been off, but Kershner put an amazing effort in.

They tended to use things like front and rear projection, which I much prefer to the look of to CGI.

It works because it's still an actual moving image caught in camera.

I still like the look of the rear projection James Cameron used in Terminator 1 and Aliens. It was basically a filmed scene of real miniatures, played on a curtain behind the actors as they were performing their scenes. It's not perfect, but it looks and feels more honest.

I always enjoyed how Cameron's pictures have turned out. I even thought True Lies had its moments. Some people gripe about certain CGI visuals in Aliens, however, I have never caught on but what do I know. To me T2, Terminator, Aliens, True Lies, and Abyss still look very good.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

I am still enamored with how the CGI visuals from old movies compare to contemporary movies. Take for example the ESB still I posted and just look at how the background contrasts to the rest, it looks smooth and real. The scene itself could have appeared phony and goofy taking the viewer away from the movie experience, yet it did not. There were plenty of opportunities where the CGI visuals could have been off, but Kershner put an amazing effort in.

Once again, what cgi are you talking about? There's no cgi in Empire (at least not until the "Special Edition"). CGI means computer generated imagery. There's visual effects in Empire, to be sure, but CGI.