Comments on: THIS IS CGI. ALL OF THIS.

By: ILoveYouAlexRoman

ILoveYouAlexRoman — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:27:01 +0000

Come on guys, stop complaining about the below-par physics. Without them it would be a lot harder to argue for Alex’s case that this is all (well, like @Lemonade said, except things like the Photographer, whom I am convinced is green-screen) CGI.
I am more happy that the grass is stiff, there are ripple issue (that nobody has mentioned), etc. than if those problems didn’t exist because I can convince MYSELF it is real. And the turbines? Come on TerraHertz, Tbrown, and possibly Jason, you’re being facetious right?

By: michelle

michelle — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:35:58 +0000

The most beautiful thing I have ever seen, the “film making” aspects with the shift in focus, lighting and panning; the creative element of imagining these places and buildings and concpets; the music; and most of all the CGI, I completely forget that while I’m watching it, but every so often I remember and my jaw drops in awe again.

By: Blogical

Blogical — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:04:01 +0000

This “piece” is obviouly not meant for everyone.
I see a MASTERPIECE of video rendition, so close to whatYSIWYGet that most people can’t tell the difference, and THAT IS THE POINT. Absolutely fantastic presentation card. Anyone that likes and understands rendition, be it photography, video or computer, can appreciate the degree of complexity and control present in this presentation. Kudos!!!

By: paulosopinion

paulosopinion — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:53:30 +0000

A Non E-Moose, you’re a fucktard. As are the rest of u tossers that are slating this. It’s art, and a short film, and possibly a display of just how damn good this guy is.

By: A Non E-Moose

A Non E-Moose — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:30:58 +0000

and…what was the point of this “film?”
i get it; it’s all CGI, but…so?

no story = no film

besides, creating footage of inorganic images with no direction other than showing us a pretty picture is just art with no substance. take abstract paintings for example; while they are beautiful, the offer nothing of value other than intrinsic beauty, much like this “film.”

bla bla, it’s pretty and that’s it.
overall, i give it a 3 : 10

By: paulsopinion

paulsopinion — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:35:58 +0000

that is really incredible work, so much detail!

By: Lemonade

Lemonade — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:03:20 +0000

Wow! This is really well done. Okay, the first half is really amazing and the second half is almost amazing (like others said, wind/wheat interaction is not perfect, etc). But nevertheless, what an amazing piece of work!

Also, for those of you who are still doubting: Yes, some elements are not CGI, there is some compositing: the clouds, the photographer, the airplane, the pigeons… all these where filmed normally or with a green screen and then superimposed. But hey! it is still over 95% CGI, right?

For those who really think that the building were filmed, simply analyze the textures… in several places the textures repeat and at first glance you can’t notice, but it’s there.

Please watch the compositing breakdown, it is proof that at least the first half is CGI: http://vimeo.com/8200251

Kudos!

By: cjwagner

cjwagner — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:02:55 +0000

dang, I remember stick figures on a pad of paper and flipping through them…. now that ‘used’ to be really cool.

By: dfp

dfp — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:09:15 +0000

10 bucks this is what video games look like in 10 years

By: Stephen Glyn Grange

Stephen Glyn Grange — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:20:12 +0000

The “making of” video leaves no doubt as to the CGI work. It is ALL CGI. Unreal and bravo Alex, one heck of a business card dude! See you on the big screen soon!