ctskapski x
11/06/19 2:44 pm
Generally, but it depends. At this point CGI can be used to render realistic shorts in real time (as in without any pre-rendering on a consumer graphics card.
Examples of this can be found in nvidia's 'reflections' RTX demo
youtu.be/lMSuGoYcT3s
Or in Unity's ADAM demos
youtu.be/GXI0l3yqBrA
Both of which are available in executable form, as well, if you've got the card for it (ADAM runs on my old GTX 960, and reflections runs on my 2060 Super) and both of which are, again, not pre-rendered.
So it depends on the skill of the artists and the resources they have.
But, generally, I still agree.
Talren Solidarity Forever
11/06/19 4:56 pm
No. It entirely depends on context. Certain things lend themselves better to practical effects, and others lend themselves better to CGI. You’d be surprised just how many things you see in movies are CGI.
The reason people are so biased against CGI is because due to the nature of it, the only time you even notice that it’s there is when it’s bad. It’s very hard for people to appreciate good CGI when they don’t even know it’s CGI in the first place.
.
ctskapski x
11/06/19 7:57 pm
Also, I cannot express enough how much of a limitation it is to make something render in real time.
For large productions it's not unheard of to have each frame take hours to render.
Tools like houdini for making particle effects (like fluid or smoke) or programs to automate crowds, like we've seen in movies like game of thrones and lord of the rings... cgi is powerful when it's done well.
The same can be said about practical effects.
They both require a lot of talent. CGI just takes a lot more in terms of resources for a good result.
You need texture designers, modelers, after-effects, lighting experts.
It's a lot, but it can really be worth it.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment