The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On Tuesday I have to give a ten minute presentation on CGI. I've prepared a video with footage of Willow (one of the first films to use CGI) The Abyss (a big breakthrough) Terminator 2 (the next big breakthrough) Indepdence Day, Phantom Menace, Pearl Harbour, Black Hawk Down, Blade 2, Spiderman (yes, I said Spiderman, not Spider-Man) Attack Of The Clones and probably some more I'm forgetting. I have a few facts about CGI (for example, Spielberg thought it would be blocky SNES style graphics before work on Jurassic Park started) and I can give a brief outline of how it's done, but apart from some pointless trivia, I don't know a heck of a lot. My video almost lasts 10 minutes by itself, but it'd be nice if I could give some more information.
Anyone know the first film to use CGI? I've heard it's Looker (made in the 80s) but I also heard The Black Hole used it (probably for the crazy effects at the end as they go through the black hole) and that was made before Looker. I can touch on how The Last Starfighter used CGI for all it's ships etc.
So anybody have ANY facts/triva/knowledge of computer generated imagery? Like how many effect shots were in certain films? How much the effects budget was for certain films? Anything you've seen on IMDB? I need some help!
Anyone know the first film to use CGI? I've heard it's Looker (made in the 80s) but I also heard The Black Hole used it (probably for the crazy effects at the end as they go through the black hole) and that was made before Looker. I can touch on how The Last Starfighter used CGI for all it's ships etc.
So anybody have ANY facts/triva/knowledge of computer generated imagery? Like how many effect shots were in certain films? How much the effects budget was for certain films? Anything you've seen on IMDB? I need some help!
Page:
Evening, Mate,
Read your message a bit late, I'm afraid, but if you have any more questions on the subject, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
I'm a filmmaker, specialising in Visual FX and CGI and I'd be glad to help if you find yourself in a similar predicament in the future.
Good luck,
LCDR Niles Edwards.
Read your message a bit late, I'm afraid, but if you have any more questions on the subject, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
I'm a filmmaker, specialising in Visual FX and CGI and I'd be glad to help if you find yourself in a similar predicament in the future.
Good luck,
LCDR Niles Edwards.
Well OBVIOUSLY I mentioned The Last Starfighter. Only two or so people in my class had actually heard of it, though.
My presentation went pretty well, got good reviews from everybody, and even the tutors said it was interesting (some people's presentations were about Granada... boooooring)
Left out loads of stuff I knew about, but I only had 10 minutes to fill. It lasted 11 minutes, which was pretty good since some people's went on for almost 20.
My presentation went pretty well, got good reviews from everybody, and even the tutors said it was interesting (some people's presentations were about Granada... boooooring)
Left out loads of stuff I knew about, but I only had 10 minutes to fill. It lasted 11 minutes, which was pretty good since some people's went on for almost 20.
mikelar wrote:
> Tron used CGI and that was quite....revolutionary.
>
> Steal the first paragraph here:
>
> http://www.tron-movie.com/
> production/Computer%20Generated%20Imagery/
>
> it seems fitting.
Wasnt Tron more famous for its lack of computer generated effects, with about 15 minutes of computer graphics against an hour or so of traditional animation?
If your talking about computer graphics in Movies, you should'nt leave out the Last Star-Fighter! ;)
> Tron used CGI and that was quite....revolutionary.
>
> Steal the first paragraph here:
>
> http://www.tron-movie.com/
> production/Computer%20Generated%20Imagery/
>
> it seems fitting.
Wasnt Tron more famous for its lack of computer generated effects, with about 15 minutes of computer graphics against an hour or so of traditional animation?
If your talking about computer graphics in Movies, you should'nt leave out the Last Star-Fighter! ;)
BEARDS. wrote:
> Mystique wrote:
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
>
> Actually, as he refers to himself as "Spider-man" at
> multiple times throughout both comics and film rather than "a
> spider-man", it is used as his name.
Er...you don't make sense.
> Mystique wrote:
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
>
> Actually, as he refers to himself as "Spider-man" at
> multiple times throughout both comics and film rather than "a
> spider-man", it is used as his name.
Er...you don't make sense.
Tron used CGI and that was quite....revolutionary.
Steal the first paragraph here:
http://www.tron-movie.com/ production/Computer%20Generated%20Imagery/
it seems fitting.
Steal the first paragraph here:
http://www.tron-movie.com/ production/Computer%20Generated%20Imagery/
it seems fitting.
Mystique wrote:
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
Actually, as he refers to himself as "Spider-man" at multiple times throughout both comics and film rather than "a spider-man", it is used as his name.
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
Actually, as he refers to himself as "Spider-man" at multiple times throughout both comics and film rather than "a spider-man", it is used as his name.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Wasn't a bullet hole, the T1000 nutted the window. And that clip is in
> my video, heh.
You still see few effects to this day matching that one part.
And it's ten years old.
It rules. I just hope T3 is half as good.
Oh, and maybe it doesn't stick in my mind as much as I thought.
> Wasn't a bullet hole, the T1000 nutted the window. And that clip is in
> my video, heh.
You still see few effects to this day matching that one part.
And it's ten years old.
It rules. I just hope T3 is half as good.
Oh, and maybe it doesn't stick in my mind as much as I thought.
Dunno if this helps, but you could say something like:
"From the traces of CGI in [INSERT FIRST CGI FILM HERE], we've gone in leaps and bounds to present day, where films such as the Matrix Reloaded feature over 2,500 CGI effects!"
Hope I helped :|
"From the traces of CGI in [INSERT FIRST CGI FILM HERE], we've gone in leaps and bounds to present day, where films such as the Matrix Reloaded feature over 2,500 CGI effects!"
Hope I helped :|
Mystique wrote:
> MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Spiderman (yes, I said Spiderman, not Spider-Man)
> *****
>
> Why say it then? Why? If you're doing a thing on movies and stuff WHY
> don't you say/write their names properly? WHY? Urgh, if you put
> 'spiderman' instead of 'Spider-Man' in any essays you have to write
> and I was your tutor, I would so fail your ass.
>
> Yes I would.
>
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
But "Spiderman" looks better.
> MoJoJoJo wrote:
> Spiderman (yes, I said Spiderman, not Spider-Man)
> *****
>
> Why say it then? Why? If you're doing a thing on movies and stuff WHY
> don't you say/write their names properly? WHY? Urgh, if you put
> 'spiderman' instead of 'Spider-Man' in any essays you have to write
> and I was your tutor, I would so fail your ass.
>
> Yes I would.
>
> IT'S SPIDER-MAN NOT SPIDERMAN! IT'S NOT HIS NAME, IT'S WHAT HE IS!
> HE'S A SPIDER-MAN! NOT PHIL SPIDERMAN!
But "Spiderman" looks better.
It's still Spiderman in my boxy eyes.
Page: