Alexrd said:
walking_carpet said:
the idea behind cgi was not just animation but photorealism...
And isn't that what happened?
No.
The cartoon version looks exactly like what it is - a drawing of something that existed in the physical world. The texture is wrong, the lighting is wrong, and the depth of field is wrong.
Anchorhead said:
Alexrd said:
walking_carpet said:
the idea behind cgi was not just animation but photorealism...
And isn't that what happened?
No.
Lets take a look at an actual screenshot:
How is this not photorealistic? It may have flaws (of course, nothing is perfect), but photorealistic CGI has been already achieved back in the 90's.
All they had to do was use a good looking puppet, and everything would have been fine.
Alexrd said:
Lets take a look at an actual screenshot:
Yes, let's do that.
Poorly shaped puppet not withstanding, to me the CGI version still looks like what it is - a drawing. The shadows aren't consistent with the puppet or the world it existed in, the texture is softened, and the depth has been erased. The cartoon version looks flat.
For the record, I know I'm trying to make my point to an apologist. I get that. I don't even remember the puppet looking so bad when I was in the theater - I was fairly disengaged at that point anyway.
Frink summed it up perfectly. Had they paid more attention to the Empire puppet and duplicated it correctly, this would be a non issue.
Anchorhead said:
Poorly shaped puppet not withstanding, to me the CGI version still looks like what it is - a drawing.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then.
The shadows aren't consistent with the puppet or the world it existed in, the texture is softened, and the depth has been erased. The cartoon version looks flat.
I'll give you that the texture has been softened, but that's because that scene has a good amount of DNR. I hope they have a new transfer for the 3D release.
For the record, I know I'm trying to make my point to an apologist.
Apologist of what? As I said, I like both methods. It only depends of the end purpose.
Frink summed it up perfectly. Had they paid more attention to the Empire puppet and duplicated it correctly, this would be a non issue.
I agree (at least in TPM, that is).
CGI could never replicate this.
^Kill it with fire!!
Hey!
(references current avatar)
Alexrd said:
How is this not photorealistic?
Uh, well, everybody's different I guess. To you, yoda just looks like he was there on the set and photographed with everything else? not arguing, just wondering.
Your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them.
none said:
Your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them.
creepy where is everyone finding this stuff? lol
Want to DOMINATE In Star Wars: The Old Republic? --> Click Here
First of all, I always thought that a special effect is done correctly ONLY if you don't realise you have just seen a special effect !
The original Yoda puppet used for Episode V and VI was an example of a correctly done "special effect" - even now, when I have seen literally hundreds of movies, most of them special effect-oriented, and I know how Yoda was created, when I look at the 2 movies, he looks REAL to me. He really looks like a little grey-green old alien warrior-philosopher. He simply looks REAL, and he delivers a great performance. BTW for many years I thought he wasn't a puppet, I thought he was simply a midget in a costume, that's how real he looked (and looks) to me!
However something very, very bad has happened in the prequels. The TPM puppet looks like - well, it looks like a puppet. It looks nothing real, it looks like a poorly done puppet. The magic from the original trilogy didn't happen. So what did the ILM fools do ? They replaced a crappy looking puppet with a crappy looking CGI model. The puppet looks like a puppet, and this new digital Yoda looks like a cartoon character, I can't decide what is worse, but one thing is for sure - I hate Yoda in the prequels. They have done absolutely EVERYTHING wrong - the level of detail, the movement, the ears, the face ... everything looks good enough for a cartoon, or a video game, not for a movie
Baronlando said:
Alexrd said:
How is this not photorealistic?
Uh, well, everybody's different I guess. To you, yoda just looks like he was there on the set and photographed with everything else? not arguing, just wondering.
Using the picture above as reference, he looks realistic (different from real) to me. But then again, so does the puppet.
I'm not sure the Yoda in the poster is even the same CGI model used in the movies.
Where were you in '77?
Alexrd said:Using the picture above as reference, he looks realistic (different from real) to me. But then again, so does the puppet.
Sure I see what you're saying but forget the puppet for a second, when the FX guys say "photorealistic" is the goal, they very literally mean that you would just never know it wasn't actually there. You're supposed to just say "man, that is a really athletic midget in a great costume."
SilverWook said:
I'm not sure the Yoda in the poster is even the same CGI model used in the movies.
Agreed. The poster unfortunately shows a Yoda with an especially 'painterly' CGI look overall I reckon. It would have benefited from being a more dramatically shadowed shot rather than a brightly-lit one, as the effect just seems lacking here. And the robes don't even seem to have the nuanced 'roughened' look that the movie CGI shots do, that are shown in certain posts above.
However, I much prefer that there's a replacement CGI version which at least ties in with the same look of the one shown in 'AOTC' and 'ROTS' now, as opposed to the ridiculous original 'TPM' puppet which didn't.
Sure, the overall CGI-heavy 'sheen' of the prequels give them a very different look compared to the original trilogy movies, but that is the least of their problems. So while I far prefer the 'ESB'/'ROTJ' puppet of course, I'm certainly heartened that the prequel trilogy Yoda's at least match together now.
Alexrd said:
...the texture has been softened, but that's because that scene has a good amount of DNR. I hope they have a new transfer for the 3D release.
They haven't. I seen a hell of a lot of footage from TPM 3D already and it's the same DNR-ed source they used for blu-ray.
As I said previously, I believe that the new DVNR-ed master was made specifically because of the 3D release. I have two reasons for this belief:
A) If it wasn't for a pending 3D conversion and subsequent theatrical release, I doubt they would have even bothered making a new transfer.
B) Grain doesn't exactly look great in 3D - it is natural to a 2D film image and the human eye usually doesn't detect it as making the image unrealistic, however in a stereoscopic 3D image, the grain seems to cover 3D objects as a moving-grain layer on their surface, which is something the human eye recognizes as unnatural - For example, I have seen Avatar 3D projected both digitally and in IMAX and in IMAX the grain added by the 70mm film used made for a very distracting effect.
And I fully expect that if it ever comes to releasing the OT in 3D, appart from further meddling with the films themselves, we can expect a similar amount of DVNR applied, albeit probably to the current masters...
CGI Yoda vs. (true) Puppet Yoda the gif version!
CGI 
Puppet
CGI
Puppet
CGI
Puppet
CGI
Puppet
CGI
TPM Puppet
CGI
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwbdr30aCb1qdrcu7o1_500.gif
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvi76vr8Sd1r6jezpo1_500.gif
Puppet
TPM CGI
TPM Puppet still images
ESB behind the scenes still
I found the above gifs randomly browsing through Star Wars related tags on tumblr. To me the original tilogy puppet wins. CGI Yoda has too much of a performance that is too computery. Every movement just tries so hard to get you to except that "Hey look at me! I'm a real thing!" Hell CGI TPM Yoda gifs I found there make him look happy at the funeral! He practically almost goes into a smile. CGI Yoda is not only directed by George Lucas he's meticulously put under a microscope by him; until any natural performance by the CG artists is gone. What's left is the constant "winking to the camera" that yeah the CG thing in front of you is real. Believe us, please, pretty please! Who then gets turned cartoony when it's time to fight. Watto escaped this. Kamino alien clone dealer escaped this. CGI Yoda not so much, it's the George Lucas microscope for you! TPM Puppet Yoda looks like some odd look-a-like Yoda they hired to get drunk before filming. All my opinion of course. 
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
Baronlando said:
Alexrd said:Using the picture above as reference, he looks realistic (different from real) to me. But then again, so does the puppet.
Sure I see what you're saying but forget the puppet for a second, when the FX guys say "photorealistic" is the goal, they very literally mean that you would just never know it wasn't actually there. You're supposed to just say "man, that is a really athletic midget in a great costume."
I took it as looking as realistic as possible. I'm supposed to take it as a real character (not object) that interacts with the environment.
Ever since I saw Yoda (or any other puppet for that matter) in the OT, I immediately recognize them as puppets. That's the first reaction. A couple seconds after, I accept them as characters. Same thing with certain background, objects etc. That doesn't mean they were badly done, because if that was the case, I would always have a hard time watching the scenes they appear in (which is the case with Jabba, for example).
In the PT it's the same thing. I know what is CGI. But I quickly accept it as part of the scene because they are well done (for what they are, that is).
If I were supposed to take CGI Yoda as an "athletic midget in a great costume", then it wouldn't do any good. It would be the same thing as saying "this fakeness is supposed to look like another fakeness". The purpose is to show a believable character.
I hate to say it, but CPY actually looks decent in this shot...
It must be the lighting. And who knew George gave the cast free massage?
This is for me is the most unintentionally funny shot in ROTS...
because without any FX, it's just a blue screen of Wookiee crotch!
Where were you in '77?
FAKE!!! that's not willow smith.
here's another recent official Yoda for discussion:
... I have to say that watching through all those GIFs of Yoda... I really preferred CGI, with the exception of the crawling in the vents portion.
For some reason puppet Yoda strikes me as inconsistent, especially when he says "You will be" and a lot during RotJ.
Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000
nightstalkerpoet said:
... I have to say that watching through all those GIFs of Yoda... I really preferred CGI, with the exception of the crawling in the vents portion.
For some reason puppet Yoda strikes me as inconsistent, especially when he says "You will be" and a lot during RotJ.
Pssst...gifs aren't real.
Alexrd said:
I took it as looking as realistic as possible.
Well, doesn't matter how you take it, the point was that when the FX guys, not me, are aiming to make it look photoreal they don't mean that. I wasn't being super-literal with the midget thing, just trying to illustrate that THEIR (the fx people) goal was to make it look like something that was always there. But I've tried like 3 times to say that and I'm failing, so I'll recuse myself.
