So I was watching the new Turtles film...
polycounter lvl 18
First of all, don't judge... It wasn't too bad, even if the Turtles were awful, looks wise...
But that's sort of what I want to talk about.
Now, usually the memory constraints and budgets for CGI is a lot higher, so they don't have to worry about texture resolutions, polycounts, and... Mirror seams?
Oh dear!
Do you guys have any other, hopefully better examples of CGI in films that's had some obvious errors? Once I saw this on the Bluray at home (first time I saw this) I had to stop the film at pause it! The wife was totally lost haha, but this stuff really stands out to me!
But that's sort of what I want to talk about.
Now, usually the memory constraints and budgets for CGI is a lot higher, so they don't have to worry about texture resolutions, polycounts, and... Mirror seams?
Oh dear!
Do you guys have any other, hopefully better examples of CGI in films that's had some obvious errors? Once I saw this on the Bluray at home (first time I saw this) I had to stop the film at pause it! The wife was totally lost haha, but this stuff really stands out to me!
Replies
Maybe I'm just not picky enough.
Is the mild texture rorschach symmetry in the center of the face you're bothered by?
Considering how fast the turnaround times for things like this is in movies, I don't find it terribly surprising. Given that a full character will be worked on by a whole team of people and it'll receive tweaks and adjustments to different chunks at different times, I'm actually surprised you don't see stuff like this more often.
Now this always stands out to me as "whyyyyyyyy?"
This was probably the worst thing I remember:
They basically ignored all back anatomy and just copied the front anatomy to the back:
Also the purple cloth bump map stretching is killing me.
Also the Giant gap between the eyeballs and eyelids...
oh god i need to stop looking at this xD
None of these other mistakes are too big of a deal to anyone other than us artists though. Although it is a bit funny that stuff that most entry level artists know to get rid of shows up in big budget movies.
Hahahaha !! it's because you shoud'have to see the whole scene with 3d glasses with a huge screen at the time this was running in the movies.
They tried to portrait Jeff Bridges, the original star in Tron 1 younger. In 3d it looked unnatural while at the same time well done, but still it gave you a weird feeling that was palpable by everyone in the theater.
I remember seeing a still of a hangar bay scene in one of tyhe newer bond movies and it was awful. Coppied people in the background. Pilots looked like a crappy photoshop job. But, then you realize its only on screen for a second and no one would ever notice the shoddy work unless they freezes it.
Are devs answerable to creative direction from outside the team?
Oh trust me, I have tons of those stories, but I'm pretty sure uv stretching and texturing mirroring are not something that the client pushed back on. Especially when the other 2 turtles don't have it from what I was able to see.
Could be as simple as he was briefed to be covered in moblur in midground shots for the majority of the film until the director changed the shot to an extreme closeup at the last minute.
The quality of his eye (heavy iris surface disp, and lack of detail overall suggest to me that's the case
**Early in dev pipeline**
'So this character is a background character?'
'Yeah.'
**2 weeks before ship**
'Let's bring that character to the foreground. It will make for a stronger composition.'
':<'
the feedback I hate the most is simulation. If the client is obsessing about sfx animation, as it's beyond your ability to control, bid time against or to make promises of client satisfaction.
Anything else is normally going to be a multidepartmental ballache of varying degrees of pain, but at least you can estimate how much pain and who has to endure it farily quickly.
depends on how far it is in the pipeline, once rendering started and comping and whatnot, this can become real problem. Ingame such a fix is much easier to apply than in film.
of any 3d fixes that can't be hidden in comp, texture errors has the lowest impact. straightforward rerender only.
with model changes you know off the bat your entire pipe has to reiterate, and if your change was lighting only, you're on the home stretch.
Sim is pretty late in the pipe, but i've found if the clients aren't buying it, its a processor expensive, long and unpleasant journey back on track.
The super sad thing about Dr. Manhattan there is that they've originally started with a pretty nice, sort of classical sculpture looking model from a well-known artist - and then one of the sups took it and reworked the thing completely.
Sorry I can't remember the name or any links.
ILM didn't work on Watchmen, I think it was Sony?
http://www.danplatt.com/?p=187
Completely convincing. I really hope we're gonna get a sequel with that character...
thats the sad thing about work like this , if you`re doing your job right noone will notice you did it at all
"You want us to repaint Donatellos nose every frame through this 20 minute sequence? Again? Yes sir."
Ah yes. The old forced to polish turds situation. Happens way too often. Usually enforced by someone who doesn't understand the art pipeline. Usually managers who lack foresight or don't bother to plan ahead.