Dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures

[Effectz]

Really good watch,Horizon documentary.They found cells and soft tissue inside the fossilized remains of A T-Rex.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uzF9VyKcd34

[King Rathalos]

I never noticed it was grabbing onto the chair.

omg this scene just became even shittier and went straight up into the shitosphere of shit.

Spoiler

[close]

[Greedo]

Really good watch,Horizon documentary.They found cells and soft tissue inside the fossilized remains of A T-Rex.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uzF9VyKcd34

Yeah I watched this too the other day , very interesting.

The Women wanted to try and revive the T-Rex with the DNA the mad banana.

[DoomRulz]

I never noticed it was grabbing onto the chair.

omg this scene just became even shittier and went straight up into the shitosphere of shit.

Spoiler

[close]

Hey, even raptors need to worry about turbulence. Even the acid-induced ones!

[Greedo]

Anyone prefer the Dinos to be...

1.CGI?

2.Animatronic?

3.Suits?

[King Rathalos]

Anyone prefer the Dinos to be...

1.CGI?

2.Animatronic?

3.Suits?

None.

I want my cloned robot raptors with plasma cannons already.

[Greedo]

I got to say the Compsognathus   is one of my all time favourites...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyfy8rrfOkM#ws

[Sabby]

Barring some gigantic leap in rendering technology, physical special effects will always trump computer generated. Even bad practical effects look better then good CGI.

[OmegaZilla]

Even bad practical effects look better then good CGI.

lolno

[Sabby]

Watch any Godzilla movie, even the black and white ones, any old episode of Power Rangers, and tell me those cardboard buildings being blown up with fireworks looks 'less real' then Transformers 3.

[OmegaZilla]

I've seen every single Godzilla film. And yes, I'll tell you that this



in no way looks better than this, just as an example.



But let's be 'fair' and let's put in some CGI that's actually older than that.

[Sabby]

The problem with CGI can't be expressed through pictures, since it's the motion. Bad practical effects still appear real to your brain, so you perceive it as something that's actually happening, where as CGI moves too smoothly to get that genuine reaction from your senses.




When you look at that, do you look at it as a fictional thing or a real event? Like, is it something conjured up or something based in reality? As advanced as rendering technology is, it lacks the roughness of reality.

[OmegaZilla]

To help your argument, rightfully, you posted some of the most mediocre theatrical CGI that has come in recent years. In the films I posted there is so far better rendering it's not even a contest.

Bad practical effects are real objects -- but if they are bad, they look like what they are: bad effects. Which is the point here. There is no illusion in a bad rubber suit, or in a bad miniature, as there is not in a badly animated digital character or a badly rendered digital city.

I am a practical effects guy. I f**king love practical effects and would take them over CGI anyday. But good CGI (and I mean good -- not something like that bulk of crap) is by no means worse than a bad practical effect.

[Sabby]

Hmmm, I see where your coming from, and I think the issue is we're coming from different angles here in what we value in effects. I find it very hard to be immersed without a sense of reality, and I can't perceive generated images as real images. I assume that's not a problem for you though, and I can respect that. Sorry if I misunderstood ya there.

[King Rathalos]

http://socialcomotion.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/zombies.gif

why must you poison dis thread?