How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?
Computing and PC help and advice, programming, games, digital audio, mobile phones and electronic miscellanea.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
-
- Thread Starter
- Overlord in Training
How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?I'm watching Star Wars IV: A New Hope and there really isn't that big a difference after watching Revenge of the Sith. The only obvious (but still subtle) improvement is with the lasers, also there's just a lot more going on in the later films. Jabba the Hut and the Millenium Falcon look like they could be in modern films, I definitely don't identify it with 1977!
Why is this?Last edited by The_Last_Melon; 20-06-2012 at 02:30. -
- Reputation:
- Full Member
- Location: Peterborough
- Posts: 110
Re: How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?Maybe you can't see the difference but trust me it has changed a lot. Maybe it is not so noticeable, but the way things are actually made or done in films has changed a lot. You have no idea how much of the stuff that you see in films is 3D/animation - of you don't know much about it, you won't notice it.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Scotland
- Posts: 5,838
Re: How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?Unless you're watching the remastered edition, almost nothing in the original trilogy is computer-generated. You're looking at models, animatronics and other in-camera trickery. (For example, even the opening scrolling text was produced by laying out a large tablet and smoothly rolling a camera along it.) If you are looking at the remastered edition, there is some computer-generated content but you're now looking at only a decade's progress rather than three - and with what was probably a generous budget by that point. There are significant improvements, in the sense of rather clever things having been done, but perhaps these are less visible if computer graphics isn't an interest.
You might also find this video interesting. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Yorkcastle
- Posts: 6,052
Re: How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?Well, they were using models and such in the original (1977) Star Wars films, so you could argue that the CGI must be getting along pretty well since you don't see a large difference between the a real life model and one that is computer generated. Or it's between the remastered ones from 1996, which isn't so much of a big jump.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Southampton
- Posts: 2,121
Re: How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?30 years ago there wasn't much CGI in films. A lot of things were done using models and other similar techniqes. At that time CGI was slow and expensive
These days CGI is used a lot. Quite often the background in a film is CGI rather than a purpose built set. There are also a lot of thing to combine CGI and real world acting - like the motion tracking used for the Hulk in Avengers. -
- Thread Starter
- Overlord in Training
Re: How come CGI has changed so little in the last 30 years?It must have been the remastered edition. Cheers for the post.(Original post by TheUnbeliever)
Unless you're watching the remastered edition, almost nothing in the original trilogy is computer-generated. You're looking at models, animatronics and other in-camera trickery. (For example, even the opening scrolling text was produced by laying out a large tablet and smoothly rolling a camera along it.) If you are looking at the remastered edition, there is some computer-generated content but you're now looking at only a decade's progress rather than three - and with what was probably a generous budget by that point. There are significant improvements, in the sense of rather clever things having been done, but perhaps these are less visible if computer graphics isn't an interest.
You might also find this video interesting.
