OpinionEven though animatronics are still used, computer graphics have now advanced to the point where it's no longer possible to tell which technique is being used.
      – Lee J Haywood, 2010-02-20 at 09:07:40   (12 comments)

On 2010-02-20 at 09:13:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I've noticed recently that the edges between the real and green screen or computer-generated worlds have disappeared. It used to be that you could tell the moment the scene switched to special effects by sudden appearance of the halo around the main character, but it seems that resolution has improved as has the blending of the images. It's particularly striking when you watch Avatar and see 8 foot computer-generated creatures interacting with normal-looking human actors. Not to mention the clever face-capture system they used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%282009_film%29#Visual_effects
On 2010-02-20 at 09:13:19, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The same is true for the extensive blending of backgrounds, which you see all the time without being aware of it. Even back in the days of Alias I couldn't see the seams, but fake backgrounds are now being used even where you'd think they're unnecessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
On 2010-02-20 at 10:16:50, Thelevellers wrote...
Wow, that video really makes this point well... Fascinating :)
On 2010-02-20 at 21:02:12, BorgClown wrote...
I had to agree after seeing the last video, but I swear I can see the wires. Ha ha.
On 2010-02-22 at 01:42:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
My brother is an ASIC contractor at Intel. He says that there are guys there that can look at video an tell which video spec and or codec used.
On 2010-02-22 at 11:12:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
But when footage is blended from 2 different sources, even if both are 'real' as in the case of a substituted background, you cannot tell where the the joins are? If there's a computer-generated element it's of a high enough quality that you cannot tell which parts are computer generated and which aren't. Actually there are some effects I've seen where both animatronics and computer graphics are used for the same character/object - so both are technically 'fake' yet you cannot tell and don't know which parts are physical and which CGI.
On 2010-02-23 at 21:42:50, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I pity those guys. I imagine you link them a nice musical video and they'll complain about the lousy choice of codecs, lol.
On 2010-02-23 at 21:43:37, BorgClown wrote...
Speaking of which, Tina Turner, luv ya! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBVZDmHUNE
On 2010-02-23 at 21:44:26, BorgClown wrote...
Tina Turner's voice sounds like a sexy brass trumpet. OK, too off topic.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:10:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: When watching a music video in the presence of my sister, I made a comment about lip-syncing. She was completely flabbergasted that the singer was not actually singing during the video. I burst her bubble, poor thing. People don't realize that there is no way to get studio quality sound while one is running around dancing on the stage.
On 2010-02-24 at 13:13:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: If you like Tina Turner, you should lookup Joyce Kennedy. She is/was? in a band called Mother's Finest from here in Atlanta. I met her and Glen Murdock at a rock bar once back in the 80s. Got both autographs.
On 2010-02-25 at 05:17:19, BorgClown wrote...
Recently there has been a flow of news about those nifty Bloom Boxes, basically next-generation fuel cells capable of providing the electricity for a house, or even a whole company. The awesome part is the understanding that we don't need to conserve energy to make a difference, we can help by consuming or producing it more efficiently. One of the many news articles about Bloom Boxes: http://earth2tech.com/2010/02/21/the-bloom-box-what-all-the-fuss-is-about/