Originally posted by: chrisdo
I've been talking about perfection. The CGI Whitzehouse will definitely look better than the original. It is not real, it looks better. In reality there is a lot of dirt no matter how much you clean it
)
I like the perfection of cgi graphics and at least they look much better than those old muppet tricks)
Chris
I've been talking about perfection. The CGI Whitzehouse will definitely look better than the original. It is not real, it looks better. In reality there is a lot of dirt no matter how much you clean it
)I like the perfection of cgi graphics and at least they look much better than those old muppet tricks
)Chris
See ... my view, and probably the majority view, is that visual effects should duplicate reality as closely as possible. A perfect CGI White House would include every piece of dirt, every nick, every scratch, and every streak on the window. If it lacks any of these things, it is imperfect; it is not a perfectly true representation of the reality.
A model that looks "better" than its subject will inherently look stylized, even "cartoonish" to some people. That is why great care is usually taken to make CGI models look weathered, used, dirty, etc. Notice that the X-Wings in the Special Edition do not have perfectly scrubbed exteriors with fresh paint jobs. That's an example of good CGI; not coincidentally, it's also an example of CGI that was created to match an existing model.