Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cgi'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Navigating and Using MLP Forums
  • Site Problems & Questions
    • Subscriptions & Donations
  • Moderation and Rules
  • Roleplay World
    • Equestrian Empire
    • Everfree Empire

Categories

  • Approved Characters
    • Approved Cast Characters

Categories

  • Regular Banner Submissions
  • Contest Banner Submissions

Categories

  • Fanfiction Requests
  • Pony Fanfiction
  • Non Pony Fic Recordings

Categories

  • Canon Characters
  • Original Characters

Calendars

  • Pony World Cup
  • Forum Events
  • Episodes
  • Making Christmas Merrier
  • Golden Oaks Library Readings
  • BronyCon

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Forums

  • My Little Pony
    • Welcome Plaza
    • FiM Show Discussion
    • Sugarcube Corner
    • Equestria Girls
    • My Little Pony: The Movie
    • Classic Generations
    • Pony Life
  • Events
    • Forum Events
    • Making Christmas Merrier
    • Golden Oaks Library
  • Roleplay World
    • Everfree Planning, OOC & Discussion
    • Everfree Roleplays
    • The Archives
  • Octavia's Hall
    • Commissions
    • Requestria
    • Octavia’s University of the Arts
    • Canterlot Gallery
  • Beyond Equestria
    • General Discussion
    • Media Discussion
    • Forum Games
    • Ask a Pony
    • Forum Lounge
  • Canterlot
    • Throne Room
    • Feedback
    • Site Questions & Technical Support
  • Poniverse
    • Canterlot Avenue
    • Equestria.tv
    • Pony.fm
    • PoniArcade
    • Ponyville Live!
    • Gallery of Goodwill
  • Conventions

Product Groups

  • Subscriptions
  • Commissions
    • Valtasar's Digital Art Commissions
    • Midnight's Commission Shop
    • Ariida-chi's Commissions
    • Ambergerr's Art Shop
    • Ody's Commissions
    • SonicPegasus Commissions
    • Berry-Bliss Commissions Store
    • Unicornia Workshop
    • Usager
    • PoisonClaw's Traditional Commissions
    • Alex Vepra's Commission Shop
    • Lucha
    • Nihi The Brony's Commission shop
  • Hosting
  • Commissions Closed
  • Test

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Discord Username


Discord Server


Skype


Twitter


Fimfiction


deviantART


YouTube


YouTube


YouTube


Steam ID


Location


Personal Motto


Interests


Role


How did you find us?


Best Pony


Best Princess


Best Mane Character


Best CMC


Best Secondary/Recurring Character


Best Episode


Best Song


Best Season


Hearth's Warming Helper


Fandoms Involved In

Found 17 results

  1. CGI has been a pretty mixed back for the better part of 40 years. It's either so seamless you don't notice it or so glaring that it's distracting. It's been a spectacular sight to behold and a sight that breaks the immersion. Some has aged well and others have aged like milk. And it always feels like the CGI is getting worse and worse each year. But what are some examples in film or TV where the CGI isn't on par, but it still contributed in it's own way? Or where the CGI went for a less real or life like approach and instead opted to make something more fantastical and out there. My example for the former would be the sci-fi show Babylon 5. Great graphics, for 90s TV. People say they haven't aged that well, looking more like PS2 cut scenes. But I think it makes the action scenes even more vibrant and spectacular, as more realistic graphics and camera motions would've slowed things down and made things less dynamic. And the second would be from Courage the Cowardly Dog and how that show used "bad" CGI to make things more unsettling and surreal. Your turn. Any CGI that isn't the best, but still works? EDIT: I don't mean pointing out examples of CGI that's just plain bad. I'm referring to CGI that hasn't aged well but still looks cool or bad CGI being used in a creative way.
  2. I finally decided to make a new showreel of my previous works, and it's finally here! It contains many different projects I have made in the past so I hope you find this enjoyable to watch! <3
  3. (Before i explain this vid, i want to say that it was proven to be fake. No one died in this vid, even if the description tries to fool you) This was a video that i discovered not even an hour ago, eventhough it has been on Youtube for years now. I must say, that i really must congratulate the man who is responsible for this incredibly scary vid, because this is incredibly well made, especially for the time it came out. It's almost like the room is getting pulled to hell by a demon Gotta warn you guys. This vid is not for the faint of heart:
  4. A couple months ago, I made 3D models of the mane 6's cutie marks. (https://mlpforums.com/topic/161389-3d-cutie-marks/) A couple days ago I realized that there are loads of other ponies who I could do! And these are the results. All images are 1920x1080p. First Up: Celestia and Luna. When I saw Celestia's cutie mark, my first thought was that this was a perfect opportunity to use the fire simulator. And after 15 minutes of modeling, 30 minutes of fiddling with render settings, and an afternoon of simulation/rendering, it came out like this. To keep the balance, I tried to make Luna's equally realistic. Luna's was pretty interesting too, actually, because the moon never actually does that in nature so that was fun to figure out. After that, I did Princess Cadance and Shining Armor. I learned something sorta interesting here, that the crystal heart in the empire is not the same shape as the crystal heart on Cadance's cutie mark. Unlike the actual crystal, which is constructed of quadrilaterals, Cadance's cutie mark is made of triangles, which turns out to be a super noticeable difference. Unfortunately, Shining Armor's cutie mark is pretty flat (It seems to run in the family). And it was difficult to make it pop in 3D. I tried to use a more cartoonish style for these renders. Finally, the Cutie Mark Crusaders! These were pretty easy. I just made a base since they were all so similar then carved out the symbols and colored them. These ones were all pretty flat and I didn't render them at an angle, so they came out in a very 2D way. Not really what I wanted, but still came out really nice so I'm happy. Overall, really fun to do, and good practice! Made with Blender 2.76b.
  5. Realized how long its been since I posted here and decided to make the Crystal Heart! Here's the final result.
  6. It was a bit harder than I thought it'd be, but I'm still pretty happy with the results. The only one that really bugs me is rainbow dash, I couldn't for the life of me get that cloud right... I perhaps could've also put more effort into the lighting, in retrospect.
  7. It's a mare, to be specific. I'm really more used to architectural stuff but I gave this a shot anyway. Obviously I haven't added any fur or color, but it's a good base.
  8. So for those who haven't heard, Disney and Jon Favreau have confirmed that the latter has been pegged to direct a "live-action" (i.e. CGI) remake of their beloved 1994 classic, "The Lion King." OK... I have some thoughts... Sorry, needed to get that out of the way. Ahem, now that that's over, let me proceed to tell you all why this is a horrible, bad, terrible, no-good, rotten, dumb, asinine, and completely nonsensical idea. First, some background. For some years now Disney has been engaging in a rather lazy and obvious cash grab by remaking many of their past films, both classic and obscure, as live-action remakes. Their justification for this is that they are "updating" the stories for modern audiences. While the quality of these films varies, most of the ones they've released so far can be justified for a variety of reasons: (1) "Maleficent": while the movie itself ranges from bad to mediocre, the idea of focusing on the villain in retelling the story is a good one, it just wasn't executed well because Disney went for the easy "oh, the villain is just misunderstood and is really a tragic and good character" cliche, which especially doesn't work for a villain as unapologetically evil as Maleficent. (2) "Cinderella": again, while the film actually failed in some of the ways it tried to update the original (prominent Internet critics like Doug Walker have pointed out that Cinderella actually comes off as more incompetent and less in control of her life in the new one than in the original) it makes sense that a movie as old as this one, and a classic fairy tale no less, could get a modern retelling. However, that modern retelling already exists in the far superior "Ever After" starring Drew Barrymore. Still, the justification for making the film is there. (3) "The Jungle Book": it's weird even calling this a remake since all it remade was the Disney film from the 1960s, which has virtually nothing to do with Rudyard Kipling's far more interesting collection of stories. The biggest justification for remaking it is in having an actual child actor (and an Indian one no less) starring in it, and as a technological achievement it's pretty amazing. That said, most online critics I've watched who reviewed it have said that while it's perfectly harmless, it also felt completely unnecessary, and elements from the original that they tried to call back to were awkwardly shoehorned into that film (more on that later as it pertains to "The Lion King"). (4) "Pete's Dragon": this movie was so obscure to begin with that no one in their right mind would even give a flying buck that it was being remade. The remake itself sounds like it's perfectly fine, and there's absolutely no surprise there considering it's not some beloved classic to begin with, hence the filmmakers probably had plenty of freedom to just make a perfectly original update. It got good reviews but very much underperformed compared to these other remakes, most likely because, again, who the buck was asking for a "Pete's Dragon" remake? Disney is also releasing and/or planning to have remakes for "Beauty and the Beast," "Mulan," "The Little Mermaid," "Peter Pan," "Tinker Bell" (not sure how that qualifies considering there's no original Tinker Bell movie besides "Peter Pan"), and most likely many more. Now that this quick overview is out of the way, let's get into why Disney may be pushing their luck with these remakes, and why "The Lion King" is the perfect example of a movie they should DEFINITELY not be making. (1) What does 'timeless' mean to Disney anymore? As you can see, with most of these films, Disney has justified them by saying that they "need" to be updated for modern audiences. Now none of these remakes needed to be made, BUT so far there has been nothing wrong in and of itself with the idea of remaking them (although Disney has most definitely exaggerated how many updates have been made, the importance of them, or how they've "enhanced" these stories). But now we're REALLY getting into the cream of the crop of Disney classics. To this point, the closest to classics that Disney has remade were Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, both of which, while certainly beloved, were both old, old films and also drawn from fairy tales themselves, hence there is plenty of room for retelling. Today, however, Disney's walking on thinner ice with some of these, namely in the proposition to remake their landmark titles from the Disney Renaissance which are barely over 20 years old. These movies, upon release, were hailed as instant classics: "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," "Beauty and the Beast," and "The Lion King." They're Disney at its finest doing what it does best, and people young and old hold them dearly today. But if they're so great (which Disney has no trouble proclaiming), then one has to ask, why remake them in the first place? If a movie's timeless, it's presumably perfectly fine as it is, with no need to change it. Thus, Disney can't simultaneously proclaim a movie a timeless classic while also going forward with remaking it; either the movie's not a timeless classic and thus in need of a remake, OR Disney is just lying to us in order to poorly justify remaking a movie that doesn't need a remake. The phrase "nothing is sacred" gets thrown around a bit too liberally sometime, but here it actually seems apt to use it; Disney is sacrificing the creative integrity of its studios (which are doing plenty fine as is with no need of these remakes) for the sake of making a few more dollars. Hardly surprising, but from a creative standpoint, deeply disappointing. (2) The new medium doesn't work for "The Lion King" Another element that has been key in Disney justifying these remakes is the idea of having live action, human characters thrown into these classic settings from animated movies. Even "The Jungle Book" was able to do this with Mowgli, even if the rest of that movie was all CGI. Again, this is a weak justification, but it at least somewhat justifies the new medium, to a certain extent. In the case of "The Lion King," however, the justification completely falls apart and we see how weak it really is for any of these remakes. Simply put, there are no human characters in "The Lion King." It's a very human story (heck, it's based off of Hamlet for crying out loud), BUT the setting is inhabited entirely by animals. Why did such a story work so well as an animated film in the first place? For very much the same reason "Bambi" works as a film as well; in both instances, the filmmakers utilized the strengths of their medium to their advantage. Animation allowed them to make the animal characters look very realistic while also giving them just enough human features to come across as characters with human mannerisms and emotions recognizable to human audiences. The animals make facial expressions that their real life counterparts cannot, and display an emotional spectrum that only humans possess. In animation, this is acceptable because it's a part of how one tells a story in that medium; people don't expect animation to perfectly reflect real life, but rather depict it's own set of characters in its own particular setting in its own particular way. This is also why in animation, you can have such a wide range of characters in film or television and still tell a story that audiences can latch onto; whether it's something as outrageous off the walls as Ren and Stimpy, as cheap looking as South Park, as massive as anime like Gurren Lagann, as small-scale as a show like Rugrats, or, yes, as seemingly naturalistic looking as Bambi or The Lion King, in all of these humans are able to accept the characters presented to them as characters somewhat like them because they understand that they inhabit an animated medium, where liberties can be taken with appearances and the laws of physics. The animated medium also allows for musical numbers to be seamlessly blended into the storytelling in a way that even the best live musicals/musical films can't do. One minute Simba and Nala can be talking to each other about ditching Zazu, the next minute they can be bursting into song with dozens of other animals that have really no reason to be singing with them, and we as an audience accept it because we know it's an animated setting, where something like that can just happen and then never be brought up ever again. In "The Lion King," the liberties afforded to the animated medium are on display in ways that many animated features do not capture. The anthropomorphism of the animals in that film is a very strange balance of naturalism with fantasy; they look for the most part like their real life counterparts, and they even exist in an ecology which reflects a real life savanna ecology, but at the same time, they display emotions, mannerisms, and facial expressions that only humans can, some look more cartoonish than others (like Timon and Pumbaa, Zazu, and the Hyenas), break out into song on occasion, and even have things happen like a lion cub getting raised by a warthog and a meerkat and growing up to live beside them. All of these elements were critical in telling the story that the makers of "The Lion King" had unfold in their film. Now then, having said all that, we must ask ourselves this very important question: can you do ALL of this in a CGI/live action medium which is supposed to depict the animals as realistically as possible? I for one do not believe that it's possible. Let's take a look at the film that will probably closely resemble this proposed Lion King remake the most, the 2016 Jungle Book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noZF9Mh4y08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUi5rquFiB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKkm2h8STrY Right away, there's a couple things one notices. Now, as far as CGI goes, this all looks gorgeous, no doubt. HOWEVER, if one is comparing it as a remake of an animated film populated by anthropomorphic animal characters, then it fails UTTERLY. How so? The expressions. ALL of the emotion conveyed by any of the animal characters here hinges ENTIRELY on the voice acting. There are a FEW things they can do with the mouths and the eyes, but not much; in making the animals look so much like their real life counterparts, they've sacrificed a major storytelling feature of the animated medium. The most interesting character to look at is Mowgli, since he's played by a real kid, and "The Lion King" won't even have a character like that. Thus, faces like the following will be entirely impossible for the remake to achieve. These are CLEARLY all facial expressions that animals do not make in real life, and thus in the remake, we shall lose a CRITICAL element of what made the characters in "The Lion King" come to life. All emotion will be purely conveyed through the voice acting or body movements, but NOT the faces! It doesn't help that character designs like Scar's won't even be possible; Scar is clearly very exaggerated and cartoonish in his appearance, which helps convey his status as villain. I anticipate that the live-action one by comparison will look far more dull and generic. In addition, you'll notice a rather jarring musical transition in the second clip with Mowgli and Baloo. The song "The Bare Necessities" just kind of... starts out of nowhere. The bad singing doesn't help, but more than anything it just comes across as completely awkward because you have no idea WHY they're even singing in the first place! This again shows a damning limitation of the CGI/live action medium, particularly when it comes to remaking films largely if not entirely populated by animals. Transitions to singing in live action are tricky things to handle no matter who the characters are; in musicals, the audience is just supposed to accept that it's a thing that happens, but even then they need to be led into because the characters themselves are the ones always breaking out into song. Animation, however, affords some flexibility, and "The Lion King" is a perfect example of this. There are two types of songs in that film: (1) songs which the characters sing in real time (i.e. "I Just Can't Wait To Be King," "Be Prepared," and "Hakuna Matata") and (2) songs which are sung off-screen or in the character's minds (i.e. "The Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight"). Again, these work in the animation medium because they function as a part of telling the story in their own way. However, I have NO idea how this is supposed to work in a CGI/live action remake, ESPECIALLY for "The Lion King." If the animals LOOK as realistic as possible, then it is simply not possible for a song like "I Just Can't Wait To Be King" or "Be Prepared" to happen. ANIMALS DON'T DO THAT, hence it would simply be entirely bizarre for two lion cubs that looks like this- -to suddenly start singing in real time. They MAY be able to keep "The Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" since, again, those songs are sung offscreen, and I'm sure they'll find a way to shoehorn in "Hakuna Matata," but again, in a movie that is supposed to be entirely populated with as realistic looking animals as possible, making it a musical simply doesn't work! (3) What is there to add? This ties back into my question about timelessness earlier, but more specifically in the case of "The Lion King," what is there to add? If the film is as timeless as most people seem to think it is, what could Disney possibly add to it? Making it "live-action" clearly isn't something, because as I've already covered, this will most likely take more away from the film than it adds to it, namely so much of what made the original film work. There are storylines that got cut out of the film (some of which were added to the Broadway musical) which they could add, but these would not work for a family film. The most prominent I can think of is if they choose to expand Nala's part in the story (in a bid to say that they're "expanding the most important female character's role," and don't get me wrong, I love Nala, but that would be such a weak way to promote it) by adding in "The Madness of King Scar" scene. For those of you who don't know, this scene was originally shelved from the Lion King film but added to the Broadway musical; in it, King Scar's madness is on display as he basically attempts to seduce, and then nearly rapes, Nala, prompting her to flee the Pridelands in search of help. In the Broadway musical it works very effectively, namely because of the unique and beautiful way in which that story is told through a blend of live actors and GORGEOUS puppetry, but it was very wisely shelved from the film. Children would not understand such a scene and it might very well scare them to see such a thing as potential sexual violence depicted in a family film. Naturalistic looking animals, many of which at many points in "The Lion King" are chasing characters to either eat or kill them, will also look very unsettling to children; in an animated medium, they can look intimidating one moment but then the next second normal, hilarious, or even adorable. But again, as CGI/live action animals, there are only so many expressions they can give them, hence some of the perilous situations in the film may be too much for children to handle. The warmth and charm of the original will most certainly be updated, but in its place will be cold realism and naturalism; that doesn't exactly sound like a worthwhile update. So again, I am left asking myself, what is there to add to such a timeless classic as "The Lion King." In conclusion, let me just put it this way... this seems like a bad idea. I can't pretend to be unbiased; "The Lion King" is my all-time favorite Disney movie and holds a VERY special place in my heart. But these questions I raised don't just apply to "The Lion King"; many of them, I believe, are going to increasingly apply to more and more of these planned Disney remakes. Is every Disney remake a bad idea? Of course not! But some of them seem at best completely unnecessary, and in "The Lion King's" case we find a project which seems to have every potential to utterly fail as a remake to a movie that quite frankly didn't need it and surely won't be improved by making its characters look more realistic. Sometimes, timeless is just that, and doesn't need to be touched one bit. Let's hope a majority of audiences agree and decide not to reward Disney if this cycle of remakes starts to get out of hand. Feel free to leave your thoughts below, I'm interested in what everyone else has to say about this rotten news.
  9. I was watching the trailer to Moana. I wish for the movie's success (because Disney) but I just feel so tired of CGI movies. I mean, are they just doing CGI because it's popular? It's not because it's cost efficient right? I feel like it's the wrong thing to say one things art while the other one isn't. And it is wrong. But what is true is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And I am a beholder of traditional hand drawn animation. The Kickstarter project Hullabaloo was an exciting thing for me to hear. Old Disney animators coming together to bring back what made me want to be an animator when I was a kid. Now looking at Moana makes me just feel like I'm incapable of being hired as a 2d animator for movies. Yeah there is the TV route with Adventure Time and all that, but I wanted to animate for movies. Yeah there is the whole practice makes perfect thing with CGI. But I practiced drawing back when I was a kid, now I am 29 years old (as of this post) and I have little to no practice with CGI. It just sucks feeling old when I'm not.
  10. Another Undertale 3D model I created, because why not?
  11. A sp00ky Halloween scene I made in Blender Cycles. I've been thinking of doing a MLP version by replacing the pumpkin faces with MLP villains. If you'd like to see that, just comment that you'd like to
  12. We're you scared by the shrek technical goofs as a little kid. They were a special feature that showed errors that took place during the production of the movie. I was scared of these as a kid. We're you?
  13. On January 28, 2013, a new CG special titled The Powerpuff Girls: Dance Pantsed was announced to premiere that year, though it was later delayed to January 20, 2014. I just watched the episode and I LOVED IT Everything from the voice acting to the animation to the plot line, it was all close to perfect in my eyes! (Though I admit some parts were a tad rushed) You can watch the episode here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7olAH0rDog What are your thoughts? Are you excited for this all new Powerpuff Girls?
  14. Huh I was just thinking of what would happen if a live action film with the mane six as CG characters were made what do you think it would be like? What would your expectations be, what would the film be about, could it ever happen?
  15. Mine will probably be traditional animation, I like all animation If It is done right, but traditional has this magic look to it that I just love so much. what is your favourite animation type
  16. Has anyone else heard about this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_aQrt8qkZI
  17. Just some 3D models I created a while ago when I was still using Maya. I have been out of the game for over 5 years now but I am tempted to return to it just for some fun and practice my lighting techniques. What do you ponies and Agents of Chaos think?