Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by peacebeard 73 days ago
In practice digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do. In many cases, especially when used liberally, digital effects still clock as amazing digital effects rather than reality. It can be enjoyable but I don’t see what would move forward other than recognizing cgi isnt the best solution for everything.
1 comments
CyberDildonics 73 days ago
This is not true, you just don't notice the vast majority of effects. You sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, there are 1000 shots that have been altered, pretty much anything that isn't two people talking in a room.

The advertising tries to tell you "we did everything practical!", it's always a lie and you believe it.

link
ghusbands 70 days ago
True, but that’s using “effects” in a broader sense than people seem to mean here. The discussion seems to be about the visible effects the audience experiences as effects, and whether those age well, not invisible digital cleanup, compositing, or set extension.
link
CyberDildonics 69 days ago
It's not true either way. Very little is actually practical, it's just that when something looks good people think it is practical because they want to believe that.

Marketing feeds into this and tells people movies were done all practical or made "heavy use of practical effects" and it's just lies.

This is 5 part series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo

Even before this people were saying stuff like mad max was done "almost all practical" because they saw behind the scenes stuff of flipping a few cars even though the movie is wall to wall digital effects. Sometimes the elaborate "practical effects" don't even move right and are used for reference and completely replaced.

link
peacebeard 72 days ago
This comment doesn't respond to what I actually said. I said that heavy-handed CGI tends to read as CGI. You responded by "informing" me that more nuanced CGI is commonplace. Everybody knows that.
link
CyberDildonics 72 days ago
That's not at all what you said in your first comment, this is a total back pedal.

Let's forget for a second that "heavy handed cgi" is tautological because it wouldn't look "heavy handed" if it looked real, and forgetting that some things like energy beams have no analogue in real life so are obviously effects.

You said "digital effects haven’t approached being convincing the way practical effects do" and the truth is this isn't true at all, you just don't know that you're seeing digital effects and you think you're looking at photography or something practical.

link
peacebeard 71 days ago
Not sure if you're misreading what I wrote or arguing in bad faith, but either way I'm done here.
link
CyberDildonics 69 days ago
What you said is very clear, no one is misreading it, it just isn't true and you tried to change what you said in your reply.

You can throw your hands up, but I think if you could explain why what I'm saying isn't true you would have done that instead.

link