Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Matrix article

  1. #1

  2. #2
    mmmmmm.....Matrix.

    I told my wife it's a good thing our wedding anniversary doesn't fall on May 15th... because I have plans.

  3. #3
    That...is...incredible.

  4. #4
    disclaimer:

    i Loooooooooooove the matrix! gotta be one of my favorite films in the last decade and it has re-articulated to me that there's only a point of doing something if it has something new in it.... whether that's stories, visuals, whatever....

    and i too am going to be in line and giggling when that fateful day of may 15 2003 arrives.

    and the animatrix stuff so far has been ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

    -----------------------------------------

    that was a long disclaimer for a small critique and observation on the matrix article:

    you can get 90% of the way to what they've got with probably less than 1% of their budget with common techniques and affordable tools like lw.

    sure, they go the extra 10% and eke out every ounce of verisimilitude that hollywood can buy and there is the unmistakable high budget sheen, but it's hardly as cutting edge as what bullet time was when it came out.

    and the cut is that if you look at the superbowl trailer, you can STILL TELL that it's CG.... i thought so before i read the article but the article confirmed it.

    you can tell mostly in the hands and in the faces. faces are still tough to get right in cg and darn it if it still doesn't show. don't get me wrong, it looks damn good but it still shows. at least to cg people.... i suppose most non geeks won't look at it twice except to oggle at the unbelievable spectacle.

    for those of you who want to frame by frame it with me - the 'burly brawl' where keannu takes on the legion of agent smiths, in the slow mo where smith and keanu (with a pole) fly at each other, look at agent smith's hands... even that is what weaving was doing, an animator should have tweaked it cuz it looks BAAAAD... actually, what it looks like is that the animator simply did not bother to animate his hands at all! in that same slow mo framing, look in the background at an agent smith flying to the floor... small in frame but man, that looks cg. as the battle develops, most of the smith attackers have a cg look to them and although keanu's face emotes properly, it looks just a tad bit... cg.

    as i said, for me, this is enthusiastic fx geek talk... i'm not trashing anything or anybody. all tiny niggling nitpicks by admission. and it still looks freakin' unbelievable.

    in the shot on the freeway where an agent jumps onto a speeding car and smashes it into the pavement, the actor looks very very CG. but the car does not.... if that's cg, i would be impressed.

    jin

    p.s. i think squaresoft's cg movies kinda miss the point. why limit yourself to reality when you're working in the medium of cg animation? in most of the conversation shots, i was thinking the whole time, why not just use a human actor?!?!?!

    in fx shots for movies where cg is meant to look real, fine, go for real. but if you're making a cg animated movie about realistic, photoreal humans - and let's say they just sit and chat... what the F#$% is the point? it has value as cg r&d for the fx industry i guess - but not necessarily a shining example of the medium of cg animation.

    along those lines, the mocapped sword fight in final flight of the osiris looked absolutely TAME compared to ANIME sword fights from other japanese movies! hell, take a look at the animatrix short 'the program'! they could have hand keyframed animation to really tweak and move those characters and go for the gusto....

    instead, they opted for very real looking but pedestrian and stilted mocap.....

    ack.

  5. #5
    Originally posted by jin choung
    that was a long disclaimer for a small critique
    That's a small critique! I'd hate to see a long critique.

    Sorry, I didn't read your critique after reading, " you can get 90% of the way to what they've got with probably less than 1% of their budget with common techniques and affordable tools like lw."

    What about the 25 micron body scans? The 1 GB per sec uncompressed HD res face scans? The photogrammetry algorithms? The bidirectional reflectance distribution clothing scans? Did you even read to article? This makes the techniques used in the first Matrix look archaic.

    Yeah, you might be able to get 90% of the way, but I think that the extra 10% will make all the difference in the world.

    And why are you reviewing something that hasn't even come out yet?
    Last edited by takkun; 04-09-2003 at 03:46 AM.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    333
    I hate to say things like this, but currently LW is not as competent tool as maya or xsi is. Be honest, maya`s strength is it`s open structure, and the almost infinite customizability. XSI is just fine as it is.

    Maya is cool for assembling stuffs, because almost anything is connectable with anything. In LW it`s limited, and requires many plugins (most of them are not free)

    If I collect all plugins, what I need in addition to LW I get a higher price than Maya Complete with Mental Ray. XSI is out of view with it`s $6700 price. But maya is affordable, and let`s say honestly, it`s future is more clear, and looks more stable than LW. I wish, if I could purchase modeller as a separate program...

    But looking at stuffs, my friends are creating within weeks (Sudden Strike II`s anim (not the german release) were created with maya, within 50 days or so and ca 5-8 people was working on it). I think it speaks for itself...I saw their working style, and it wasn`t performable in LW. Currently LW`s only advance is it`s modeller, and the bone system`s flexibility. Maya has mental ray for free, and in the future version it will have many other render capabilities...


    Sorry for the long post
    Jester

    Me is me you are you,
    Who is the jackass?
    Me or you?

  7. #7
    CORE 5718 mattclary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    5,228
    Well, at least we know why they call you Jester now.

  8. #8
    Jester, Maya is only$2,000 if you're happy with the stripped down version. Full version (unlimited) is $6,999. Even more out of reach then XSI.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    333
    I know all that. But what do you mean stripped?
    I`m a little pissed off by fanatical lw users, who think LW is ubermensch, and it knows everything other sw knows, but better and faster.

    I think Maya complete is not so stripped comparing to LW. Maybe I am not so familiar with LW, but I couldnt solve one simple problem, for example. To scale an object along it`s local axis. I have very limited UV texturing tool, this ridiculous UV mapping requires usual unwelding merging, etc. It`s the best modeler ever, I couldn`t wish best in my life, but honestly, when it came to production, it lacks a lot of things. Spline animation, vertex animation, edge handling, etc, etc, etc. I do hope, that LW8 will be Maya killer, because I have my faith, that LW is among the best.

    And I became Jester after my very first 3d character, a Jester...
    Jester

    Me is me you are you,
    Who is the jackass?
    Me or you?

  10. #10
    hey takkun,

    well, that was precisely the kind of hostile response that the disclaimer was aimed at defusing... oh well.

    anyhoo, if you're gonna criticize, you really should read the whole post... especially since in the end, you end up pretty much agreeing with me, and i with you - i did indeed say that that last 10% adds and costs a great deal.

    i'm not reviewing the film. i'm reviewing the effects shot(s) that i and you have access to from the web - goto whatisthematrix.com and download the superbowl trailer to see what i'm talking about.

    yes, they have micron scanning stuff and yes, that's the final 10%.... but my point is that you can still tell it's cg.... and for the types of shots that i've seen so far, such expensive solutions may have been overkill. i would say the pores are never gonna register - even at film res. and their shots certainly don't get close enough in the 'burly brawl' to require it.

    because you can still tell it's cg.

    are you saying that from what you see in that shot, a talented modeler couldn't have done that stuff working off of a good photo?

    as for the bdrf stuff.... well.... you can still tell it's cg.

    yes i read the article. please don't get so worked up and defensive. have a look at the trailer and let me know if you think what i say is wrong.

    especially since what i say comes not from malice but enthusiasm.

    jin

    p.s. MOST fx end up being 'you can get 90% of the way there with less than 10% budget' in this day of cg. a lot of people at home can turn out shots that rival ILM stuff with literally 0% budget. and certainly, tv has been riffing on this principle for a while now.

    sure, digital stuntmen were refined to an absolute art in TITANIC but they were still used in episodes of next generation for less. etc.

  11. #11
    jin,

    I think your missing the point. The audience is never going to watch the matrix movies, frame by frame.

    The illusion takes place at 24 frames per second.

    I'm happy for you that you noticed that everything is CG, good for you. Keep up your hard work.

  12. #12
    i miss nothing.

    "i suppose most non geeks won't look at it twice except to oggle at the unbelievable spectacle."

    i would say that in fact, you are being overly defensive for something that is NOT MEANT IN MALICE.

    y'know, afficionado talk? like a bunch of car geeks bulling about the latest honda?

    chill out. you didn't work on it did you? did your uncle? jeez....

    jin

  13. #13

    Talking

    mmm, matrix, sucky movie, especially the stupid superman rip off at the end. Not to mention cheesy over exaggerated martial arts.

  14. #14
    HarHar,

    That practically borders on blasphemy!

  15. #15
    How Old? Really? Aww Heck colkai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    7,809

    Wink

    Jin,
    Even not scanning frame by frame, that 'car jump' looked wrong somehow. It was the same with spiderman, it just seems "stretchy" if you know what I mean. Maybe it's because it isn't something we expect to see, so it's hard to define what would be "right"?

    The big fight scene, some definite 'CG Actor' moments there, but certainly better than any close-up action so far. Though I think LOTR Helm's Deep is still my "what da?" moment. When I saw how many 'real' folk there were compared to CG fighters. Oops, straying off-topic here.

    I think it is a sad fact of life that pursuing something means you lose some of the wonder of it. When I see a film with music in, it's painful to watch the guy "playing" the guitar. Also, watching a concert, if the guitarist hits a bum note, "ouch", I feel it. Mind you, it's good to watch these films and whilst we know they are CG, there is still that "talented bas*ard" thing going on!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •