CGI is getting better all the time

Mr Bulbous · 2 Mar 2006 at 08:08

Just found this CGI clip of WW2 Mosquito's and Spitfires, incredible stuff, looks as real as it gets.

The implications of this kind of CGI in future films are staggering, not just for fantasy stuff like Star Wars, Dinosaurs ETC, but historically accurate films at last.

Even the Battle of Britain that used real aircraft, had to use Heinz 97 mix and match of different variant Spitfires that were never used in the Battle of Britain, not to mention the borrowed Spanish Air Force to represent the Luftwaffe that only looked accurate if you half closed your eyes.

Enough of my yakking though, check it out 5MB clip

Gilly · 2 Mar 2006 at 09:17

Wow, that looks pretty damn impressive.

The tail light at the end looks a bit dodgy, as do the mountains in the background. The sky halfway through does as well, but overall thats pretty fantastic.

floatindolphin · 2 Mar 2006 at 09:55

it's ok.

I work in the CGI industry (I'm a CG Animator) so reakon I can give it a good critique.

The planes seem too smooth in their movement. they could do with being a little twitchy. I guess they weren't the easiest things to fly.

They grey nose just stands out as a basic shader. Even it that's how they look in real life it's too distracting.

The blades look too.....er..........don't know how to describe it.......ah!

William · 2 Mar 2006 at 09:58

Even though its great, I thought it was a bit iffy when the landing gear came down on the mosquito and landed without bumping too much and nearly no dust.

If IL2 was like that I would be

!

HEADRAT · 2 Mar 2006 at 10:19

Pretty nice, the airfiled was also "very" flat but it's amazing what they can do now, for me Gollum was the first believable CGI character and up until then I could always spot CGI a mile off.

HEADRAT

Royality · 2 Mar 2006 at 22:39

To be honest CGI is obvious to me - I absolutely hate CGI infested movies. King Kong has tons of ugly, fake CGI movements.

philio16 · 2 Mar 2006 at 23:34

I'm doing Digital 3D design at uni and looking to go into the cgi industy......yet I too believe cgi kills most films these days

Bit of a hypocrit really lol. If its done right, then I dont mind it, but when its used to do something that would be feasible in reality then it just gets pointless and boring.

00bob00 · 3 Mar 2006 at 00:18

i remember seeing this when it was posted the first time round and after you point out the flaw, it still is pretty damn impressive

NathanE · 3 Mar 2006 at 00:42

A lot of the realism comes from the shakey camera I think.

Is this clip apart of something bigger? Is somebody making a full blown WW2 air combat film or something?

Mr Bulbous · 5 Mar 2006 at 05:27

William said:
Even though its great, I thought it was a bit iffy when the landing gear came down on the mosquito and landed without bumping too much and nearly no dust.

If IL2 was like that I would be !

I hear what your saying.

Consider this though.

The animation from the Mosquito landing gear lowering is smooth, even the reflections from the props, (look at it again) is meticulous.

The question is, not how well CGI can be used in the future, and that is a question of historical research and how well the *painter using CGI, uses his 2006 canvas* Don't forget, the people that do CGI only produce animations from raw data, that is often wrong.

As regards the Mosquito landing, it looks real enough to me, many who have actually flown real aircraft will know about the "cushion effect", or the "ground effect" You actually have to force a light aircraft onto the ground sometimes.

Face it ... CGI is with us, what we need to see is more accurate painting on the CGI Canvas to convince us.

CGI is a great tool, and we are going too see a lot more of it, like it or not.

Mr Bulbous · 5 Mar 2006 at 05:48

Forgot to mention, with CGI, we can have any camera angle we want, looking back at the classics, even though we had real Lancaster's in "The Dambusters" movie, and with "The Battle of Britain", we can now see historically accurate moving images, and the only limit is the (CGI) artists talent and knowledge of the era.

At the end of the day, and its a sobering thought, we have no more real flying Mosquito's in the UK, no more ... zilch, nada.

No More real Mosquito's.

We have the BOB memorial flight of Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane that enthusiasts get to see, once a year, but their time is numbered too, eventually these aircraft will be grounded, and of course their roles in producing any future WW2 aviation movies are out of the question.

I'm cool with CGI.

HEADRAT · 5 Mar 2006 at 09:45

Mr Bulbous said:
At the end of the day, and its a sobering thought, we have no more real flying Mosquito's in the UK, no more ... zilch, nada.

No More real Mosquito's.

Very true and very sad, the only way that our children or their children may ever see a flying Vulcan or Concorde is CGI.

HEADRAT

SexyGreyFox · 5 Mar 2006 at 15:13

What you should have done was started a thread called 'My favourite aircraft' and seen how many experts came on and noticed it was CGI.

Eliot · 5 Mar 2006 at 16:10

Mr Bulbous said:
Forgot to mention, with CGI, we can have any camera angle we want, looking back at the classics, even though we had real Lancaster's in "The Dambusters" movie, and with "The Battle of Britain", we can now see historically accurate moving images, and the only limit is the (CGI) artists talent and knowledge of the era.

At the end of the day, and its a sobering thought, we have no more real flying Mosquito's in the UK, no more ... zilch, nada.

No More real Mosquito's.

We have the BOB memorial flight of Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane that enthusiasts get to see, once a year, but their time is numbered too, eventually these aircraft will be grounded, and of course their roles in producing any future WW2 aviation movies are out of the question.

I'm cool with CGI.

isnt it possible to remake them in the same way as the 1940's?

philio16 · 5 Mar 2006 at 23:16

Eliot said:
isnt it possible to remake them in the same way as the 1940's?

My thinking exactly.....£12000 wasnt it to first develop the spitfire?

Ok so it wouldnt have the character the original ones had, but at the end of the day it is a machine, and should be easy enough to recreate

Nitefly · 5 Mar 2006 at 23:25

I think CGI should be banned. Well... for realistic situations.

Take the Terminator series. In terminator 2, there is a huge explosion of a whole floor of a building, MASSIVE! Its a real explosion and has so much WOW factor its incredible.

Terminator 3. A chase scene involving a flipping up truck. Words fail me. This could have been reproduced without CGI and could have looked so much better. For some sci-fi, yes. For things that are obviously not real, yes ala lord of the rings. For things which could be reproduced without CGI, for the love of god NO.

Saying that the CGI soured the already rancid king kong, so maybe its always bad...

William · 6 Mar 2006 at 08:29

philio16 said:
My thinking exactly.....£12000 wasnt it to first develop the spitfire?

Ok so it wouldnt have the character the original ones had, but at the end of the day it is a machine, and should be easy enough to recreate

It would cost a damn sight more to buy/rent/make a squadron, fuel it and stock it with pilots and then film them than it would to pay a few guys to do a CGI scene so I guess this is why it is done.