CGI in TFA

TFA has more CGI than any prequel movie.

Prequel movies were full of practical effects. They used miniatures and sets in combinations with CGI ( creatures ).
Many things you think they are CGI in prequels are actualy miniatures and sets.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/









Also Lucas did not ruined anything with prequels. All prequel movies were huge hits. They are huge hits even now at blu-ray sales.
Star Wars was stronger than ever after prequels in the world. They created new generations of fans in the world.

I'am a fan because of them.

Also PT VFX were nominated for the Oscar.

They look very good even now 17, 14 and 11 years after.

 

I think it was in the over all execution ...

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 21, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 21, 2016 ---

THIS is exactly what I've said many times in the past except that you've put a better context to t...when you see blue/green screen in a set picture for The PT they are actually mapping in the backgrounds, plates, and miniatures, etc. into the scene .

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 21, 2016 ---

.

 

And some sets in prequels were really huge.

 

Proves that TFA is filmed using more CGI than prequels. While prequels used waaaay more practical effects than CGI.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

Only difference is in modern CGI. Although in some scenes CGI looks very dated ( Rathars and Snoke ).

Also yes age is important. Comparing 17 years old CGI with 2015. Is like comparing 17 years old selfphones with 2015. smartphones.

 

Not the best comparison. Technological advancements have allowed real-time rendering (games etc.) to progress rapidly, but the techniques involved in VFX haven't really changed that much. The most change is actually in tools and simulations to streamline the process.
It basically comes down to quality vs cost. That price has come down.
So although game graphics have improved dramatically in that time frame... film VFX has only shown smaller improvements.

 

I disagree.
CGI and VFX techniques have advanced strongly in the last 30 years.

Computers become better and faster with more memory. And with them various software and programs. Also cameras and various gadgets used in filming.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 22, 2016 ---

For example the best computer when TPM was fillmed, had only 2GB hard drive and 32MB of RAM. Modern smartphones are waaaaaaay more advanced than that.

 

(never feed the Trolls)

 

Hardware isn't that important in film VFX... (especially since ILM and similar companies typically make use of render farms)
The process is mostly unchanged
Things are still modelled with polygons.
Models are still textured, rigged, lit, and animated.
Scenes are still composited in post.

Like I said... The process has been streamlined and the costs have been reduced.The software tools used to model objects are more intuitive to use.
For example, instead of having to manually control each vertex, you can quickly subdivide it into a really high polygon mesh and deform the object like clay. To achieve the same result 20 years ago, you would have to manually position the vertices to get the result you want.

Cloth simulation is the same sort of thing... if you wanted to show cloth 20 years ago, you would basically have to animate all the vertices by hand, which would be very monotonous and time consuming work. Now you just get the computer to do it for you and more accurately.

 

Imagine how difficult was creating Jar Jar and Watto using only 2GB hard drive and 32MB of RAM.

 

Opinions are like asses. Everyone has one.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 22, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 22, 2016 ---

If that was not enough...

 

The other thing that you need to keep in mind is that modern blockbusters have thousands of VFX shots on average and it's very uncommon to have less z

 

Again.... RENDER FARMS.

ILM's "Death Star" Render farm in 2010 could move 11.38 petabit/second (11380000 gigabit/second), with over 300 TB of storage and over 5000 processors.
The original SGI built farm had 1,500 processors in 750 nodes before that was doubled for Revenge of the Sith with AMD based computers.

It didn't really matter what they had available on a single workstation...

 

And in2015/2016 it's only improved .

 

They ACTUALLY killed someone on that funeral pyre?! :'(

 

Doubling each year according to Moore's law.

I must say though... 300TB storage seems rather small even for 2010. Maybe they haven't seen a need for much more than that?

 

It also depends on a lot of what quality th footage and RAW data files are. And the VFX have to typically match that as much as possible. 300TB could maybe be a portion of the servers only or on one HARD DRIVE within the server which could have multiple hard drives .

 

You rang?

Driver was as wrong as one could be.

The PT was much better than the extremely disappointing and thoroughly unoriginal TFA.

 

What is the aim of this thread, anyway? Lucas didn't kill Star Wars so much as he mutated it into something it wasn't. Something that had appeal at all ages became a kid's franchise, and zest full irreverence in the banter was replaced with sterile statements for fear of offending someone. Star Wars went from it's true calling, PG-13, to this PG impostor.
I'd say the closest it came to being killed was the late 80s, when LFL literally wasn't producing any material. Once Heir to the Empire hit the shelves.. Star Wars became unkillable.

 

GL expanded the universe, even if you didn't like PT you can't deny what he did for the world of SW.

 

I was just reading that they had about 20TB cpacity in 2003, and up to about 170TB in 2006. Following a rate of doubling every year should have left them with more than 2500 TB capacity.

Even 170TB sounds incredibly small for 2006. 500 GB drives were on the market in 2005. Take 340 of those, and you've got 170 TB. Even if you multiply for RAID configurations, it's still a pretty small number.