On vimeo

Someone on another forum posted this "realistic" CGI film someone did (not 100% of it is CGI but most is), so I thought I'd pass it on to you all to take a look at and comment on.

Hate the jerky focus changes and abrupt cuts, although I know those were style choices and show superb technique and cost a lot of CPU time and labor to do.  The little film is at its best when it is least affected and "film school".  At times it looks like it's shot with an autofocus camera with a busted sensor - technically a cool effect, but wayyyy overused.  There is some great dynamics and particle work though.

Though very nice, perhaps a bit self-indulgent.

Constructive criticism: Agreeing with PJZ99 the Depth Of Field / Blur effect is used so often that it loses its appeal and impact. Perhaps OK as an exercise for overkill for a presentation.

Clearly not Firefly. In order of opinionated preference, I'd say: VRay, Maxwell or mental ray and lots of rendering time to boot. As a PRman fan boy, I appreciate how much easier it can be to achieve this look with other renderers. - most of the lighting is so soft and it looks amazing. Don't want to imagine how long this took to render.

I hope I'm not the only one that thinks that 12 minutes is a bit long. Perhaps broken up into several three minute segments could be more effective? Honestly, if you're trying to get hired, do you really think a company will give you 12 minutes to prove your worth? I'm gonna say no.

I think the concept is kwel, looking at life through the lens of a camera...but overall it could have been condensed to a 3 minute reel and done just fine.

Saw this on the FRONT PAGE of CG society
I think it is some of the best CG "Cinematography"  Ever done
both technicaly and stylisticly.
he used Max & Vray.
If is this "self indulgant" with off the shelf software
what is "Avatar" at $500 million and proprietary technology??

visit the poser  "pinup" gallery lately??
the very essence of "self indulgance"

Quote - visit the poser  "pinup" gallery lately??

I haven't, now that you mention it-I should indulge myself. :lol:

As far as the film goes, it is technically wonderful, but I was put off in the beginning when it showed Polaroid prints hanging up to dry... :glare:

Technically beautiful, thematically boring!
dph

Quote - Technically beautiful, thematically boring!
dph

You perfectly described Avatar too!!  LOL!!

Gerard

I have to disagree with all the opinions, I found this one of the most beautifull CG movies I've seen in ages, as a lover of modern achitecture I found all the modeling of the barcelona pavilion of Mies van der Rohe, the works of Santiago Calatrava, Louis Kahn,the bilbao guggemheim museum of Frank Gehry and others extremely well done. I didn't find it boring at all: it's just as they are supossed to be, serene, silent and impressive.
Besides some extreme effects like the giant waterdrops there are only a few things that showed it wasn't a real movie.

Thanks for sharing.

best regards,

Bopper.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it was boring - I didn't, it's a great piece of work - just that it's ruined by the excessive focus fiddling.  I know that's a hard technique to employ and it shows a lot of work, but it got irritating after the first minute or so, that's all.

Quote - Technically beautiful, thematically boring!
dph

That.  I couldn't watch the whole thing without getting bored out of my mind.

Quote - I have to disagree with all the opinions, I found this one of the most beautifull CG movies I've seen in ages, as a lover of modern achitecture I found all the modeling of the barcelona pavilion of Mies van der Rohe, the works of Santiago Calatrava, Louis Kahn,the bilbao guggemheim museum of Frank Gehry and others extremely well done. I didn't find it boring at all: it's just as they are supossed to be, serene, silent and impressive.
Besides some extreme effects like the giant waterdrops there are only a few things that showed it wasn't a real movie.

Thanks for sharing.

best regards,

Bopper.

Quoted for agreement!!!
it is a true work of ART
created by someone who is quite obviously a skilled
photographer/Cinematographer.
BTW it  is a Short film
NOT  just a demo reel
which is why it is longer that 2-3 minutes

+10 for "bopper" for his Keen artistic eye.

Cheers

CGI realism..YAWN
Anybody who spends 20 hours modeling and lighting 20 strips of negative film need his/her head examined.
He could have hung, lit and shot the scene using real negatives in under 2 hours.
"Realistic" CGI is only good to shoot an object or situattion that cannot exist in reality or would be prohibitively expensive to shoot.
Modeling a realistic cueball to sit on a realistic pooltable under realistic lighting is a gigantic waste of time IMHO.
"Well we need the cueball to roll in a "realistic" manner."
"Well after we model and light the scene we can use the computer to animate the cueball so that it rolls in a "realistic" fashion or we can roll a real cueball on a real pool table and shoot the scene for about $25.00."

Cameras and film negatives are abundant and cheap.
Water is pretty abundant too BTW.

^_^

As far as 'm concerned, once you've seen one frank LloydWright, you've seen them all.  For me, all modern arcchitecture has a certaqin futuristic soulessness about it.  Living in Israel, and having frequently visited the Old City of Jerusalem, I've seen buildings and structures that date back thousands of years, and for me the modern stuff just can't compare in charm.
That, and the constantly changing focus caused me eyestrain are the two primary reasons why I quite after 7 minutes.
dph

Modern architecture is just like modern art, you like it or not, period!
I like the movie and can appreciate the efforts to make it.
Off course modern architecture isn't "charming", it was never intended to be.

best regards,

Bopper.

"Off course modern architecture isn't "charming", it was never intended to be."

And that is its essential failure, in my eyes.  I fail to see why function needs be so berift of charm.  Q structure should delight the soul as well as servrv the body.
dph

A boring video made by a max user, so no surprises there.