[dagmx]

Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious.

It’s the same for GenAI, though I think there are more tells. Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.

[dmazzoni]

> I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious.

I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.

[dagmx]

Yep I’ve had that happen many times , where people assume my work is real and the practical is CG.

Worse, directors often lie about what’s practical and we’ll have replaced it with CG. So people online will cheer the “practicals” as being better visually, while not knowing what they’re even looking at.

I’ve seen interviews with actors even where they talk about how they look in a given shot or have done something, and not realize they’re not even really in the shot anymore.

People just have terrible eyes once you can convince them something is a certain way.

[Der_Einzige]

But films without CG are clearly superior and it’s not even in contention.

Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra alone have incredible fully live shot special effects which can not be easily replicated with CG and have aged like fine wine, unlike the trash early CG of the 80s and 90s which ruined otherwise great films like the last starfighter

[dagmx]

I’m sorry, but you make an absurd argument.

You’re taking the best films of an era and comparing them to an arbitrary list of movies you don’t like? Adding to that, you’re comparing it to films in the infancy of a technology?

This is peak confusion of causality and correlation. There are tons of great films in that time frame with CG. Unless you’re going to argue that Jurassic Park is bad.

[jacobr1]

Jurassic Park isn't just a good example of CG, it also a good example of making the right choices on practical vs CG (in the context of technology of the time) and using a reasonable budget. You can have great CG and crappy CG by cutting corners. Plenty of people that decry CG don't actually know how much there is, even in non-sci-fi movies like romcoms, just for post-editing. But when it is done well nobody notices, the complaints only come when it looks like crap. Great use of technology to achieve the artistic vision will stand the test of time.

[lancesells]

It's also directed by one of the best directors in history.

[qingcharles]

The worst bit about working in CG, or film-making in general, is finding it harder to enjoy films because you are hypersensitized to bad work.

[dagmx]

Yeah, totally. It’s not even just bad work, but I’m constantly breaking down shots as I’m watching them.

Especially because I’ve done both on set and virtual production, it’s hard to suspend disbelief in a lot of films.

[circlefavshape]

> Still, most people cannot tell reality from fiction. If you just tell them it’s real, they’ll most likely believe it.

This goes for conversation too! My neighbour recently told me about a mutual neighbour who walks 200 miles per day working on his farm. When I explained that this is impossible he said "I'll have to disagree with you there"

[schoen]

Maybe not strictly impossible, just slightly better than an ultramarathon world record pace?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultramarathon/comments/xhbs4d/sorok...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Sorokin

So, not very convenient for a non-world-champion runner to do (let alone while doing farm work) (let alone on more than one occasion).

[Cthulhu_]

That's a cultural issue that seems to have developed in the past years (decades? idk), where people take their own opinion (or what they think is their own opinion) as unchallengeable gospel.

In my opinion anyway, I'm gonna have to disagree with any counterpoints in advance.

[dagmx]

This is partially the result of being taught that every opinion is valid. What was taught as a nicety (don’t dismiss other people’s opinions was the intention) has evolved into all opinions are equal.

If all opinions are equal, and we’ve reinforced that you can find anything to strengthen an opinion, then facts don’t actually matter.

But I don’t think it’s actually all that recent. History is full of people saying that facts or logic don’t matter. The Americas were “discovered” by such a phenomenon.

[mandmandam]

What's weird is the projection you get when you challenge someone's opinion in any way. All of a sudden, you're the arrogant one who thinks they're always right, no matter how diplomatic (or undeniably correct) about the issue you are. Or is that just me?

[5040]

>Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content

A related phenomenon is not being able to hear the difference between 128kbps and 320kbps. I find the notion astonishing, and yet lots of people cannot tell the difference.

[lancesells]

> Most people have terrible eyes for distinguishing content.

But also in the case of the fluffy train there's nothing to compare it against. The reason CGI humans look the most fake is because we're trained from birth to read a human face. Someone that looks at trains on a regular basis will probably discern this as being fake quicker than most.