Hozzászólások

Gratula, én csak túrázni voltam egyszer régen sárban de az is épp elég borzasztó volt...

Asimov meg forog a sírjában

A belinkelt cikkben szerepel, hogy a jenkiknél az elmúlt 10 évben 81%-al nőtt a halálos gázolások száma.
Ütközéseknél gondolom nehezebb statisztikát csinálni erről, de valószínűleg hasonlóan romlanak az arányok.
Végül ott a környezetvédelmi szempont is, ezt a hármat így összerakva szerintem is menjen a fenébe mindenki aki SUVot vesz, szarrá kéne adóztatni őket

Ezt tegnap már láttam máshol a neten:
https://444.hu/2020/10/20/35-millio-unios-tamogatast-kaptak-gyerektaborr...

rwurl=https://4cdn.hu/kraken/image/upload/s--zz23b40I--/7W8lZ3olw7FKCj8ms.jpeg

Egészen hihetetlen az egész, ráadásul tuti nem csak 35 milliónak veszett itt nyoma (valakik kielemezték hogy csak a kikockázott arcú csávó csuklóján a Rolex lehet vagy 5 misi)
Csodálatos még látni a drónos videón, vagy google street viewban nézve, hogy egy mélyszegénységben tengődő falu közepére bírták felhúzni az egészet

Nekem lesántulás (sötétben gödörbe lépés) volt, ráadásul pont azt a bokámat húztam meg újra, mint úgy 2 évvel ezelőtt, amikor leestem a gyűrűről. 3 hét szünet, még mindig fáj ha megfelelő irányban feszítem, de nem akarok többet várni, így is tuti sokat veszítettem az idei javulásból. De remélem még hamar vissza tudom rántani magamat...

Én inkább olyanokra gondolok hogy pl. az elő nem fizetett feature elromlik és emiatt nem tudsz ülést állítani sem. Kanyarkövetés beragad a fényszóróban és többé nem előre világít. Stb.

Kipixelezik a durvaságokat ugyan, meg nem mutatnak meg mindent, de azért akkor is elég erősen átjön hogy állatkínzás volt. Felkavar rendesen.

Game iparban is nagyon megy a befeküdés... Activision, Ubisoft, Epic - ezekben asszem mind résztulajdonos már a Tencent.

https://www.brothers-brick.com/tag/evangelion/

Lehetne akkor kérni infót hogy hova küldhetek és mennyit?

+1

Late to the party on this thread, but wanted to chime in. Sorry for the length, didn't have time to make it shorter...

Was building a miniature Razorcrest, and shooting it Mo-Co absolutely necessary? No. Did it help to make the final result better? "Better" is subjective, but I believe in this case, the answer is yes. I've never been in the "practical is always better" camp. I dislike the push to do things practical in cases where it makes no sense, and is just for the PR, or because of nostalgia on the part of the filmmaker. Too often it feels like pandering to the fans who say they hate "CGI".

In this case though, in my opinion, the final result is more interesting to look at, more tactile, and the shots feel more old-school, than if we had not done it. So yes I think the process made the result "better".

There are two aspects to this. The first is building the model, the second is going the extra mile of shooting it Mo-Co. We could have stopped with just the model, and used it simply as lighting reference, but we didn't, so I'll talk about both.

First the model...

Before we decided to build the miniature, we already had a good looking CG Razorcrest, and had even finaled a shot or two with it. However, the Razorcrest has a paint finish that is nothing like any other Star Wars spaceships. It's not as matte as the Falcon, and nowhere near as mirror-like as Padme's ship in Ep1. It's somewhere in between. If we were just reproducing a known Star Wars ship, (or a new ship, but with a finish similar to known ships), there wouldn't be much benefit to building it practically. We know how to make a CG Falcon that's indistinguishable from the model(s), for instance. However because of the unknowns, if felt like there were things we could discover with further exploration, and we chose this path to explore.

As I mentioned, we had a darned good looking CG asset, that we had created through our normal CG look dev process. Even if we had pushed on with more experimentation of the look in CG, I doubt the ship would have ended up looking much different using that particular toolset. No one was saying "ugh, it just doesn't look good". As I said, we'd already finaled some shots, and they looked great. This was more about saying "what don't we know? What can we try to shake up this process, and discover new things?"

During the process of building the miniature, John Goodson discovered things through trial and error (and his vast experience building models), and arrived at a more scuffed, dirtier, but still "aircraft aluminum" finish on the Razorcrest.
The key to this is that at least part of that result was serendipitous, and came out of the process, and materials, rather than being a clear cut goal that John was simply executing on the model. If we hadn't built the model, we wouldn't have gotten that result.

Again, is that result "better" than the CG version? Again, subjective, but it's certainly more interesting in the way it takes the light, and the complexity it communicates, and whether it's "better" (which I think it is), we definitely wouldn't have gotten that specific result any other way.

Once we had the model, we duplicated that look on the CG version. Which of course demonstrates that there is no technical barrier to creating a ship that looks like that in CG, but again, it was the peculiarities of the model building process, the materials being used, and the mind of the model builder that arrived at that particular result. Duplicating that look in CG wasn't an issue, but arriving at that result, the path to getting there, was very specific to the route we chose.

Ok, that's just the decision to build a practical model, then there's also the decision to shoot it Mo-Co, rather than just using it as lighting/texture reference.

The decision to shoot it Mo-Co was Jon's, but came out of discussions we were having about what makes the original trilogy shots look and feel the way they do. Limitations of the technology of the time, shot design decisions having to do (in part) with George using actual aerial footage from films like Battle of Britain, and Dambusters in his rip-o-matic, shooting the models separately from the star fields, photo-chemical compositing, etc. all had an effect on the final result. In discussing all those things, we thought that putting ourselves through that process (or a trimmed down version of it) might render interesting results, with the old school vibe we were after.

We wanted to follow in those footsteps. Could we have done that in CG? Kind of? In fact, each of the Mo-Co shots began in Maya with me animating them using a CG version of the Mo-Co rig (like Previs folks do when Tech-Vising a shoot with specific equipment), in order to enforce the limitations of that particular rig, and the lenses we had, etc.

We could have simply rendered out those animations in our CG pipeline, and again would have gotten a perfectly acceptable result. However, the particular, peculiar, old-fashioned process of putting the model on the pylon, looking through the lens, discovering new things under the lights, making adjustments, dealing with unforeseen problems (and opportunities), yielded a specific result, that in my opinion was worth chasing.

Ok, so up top I said I disliked when a filmmaker opts for a practical approach simply out of nostalgia for the films they grew up on (it's almost never a filmmaker who actually had to make films that way back in the day). However in this case, I'll admit that there absolutely was a component of nostalgia here. For Jon certainly, but also for us doing the work. Is that a good reason to go to all this trouble? Not at all, not if that's the ONLY reason. On the other hand, if it's merely one ingredient, and there are other compelling reasons to go that route, I don't mind. Nostalgia makes it fun, and why shouldn't it be fun?

Hal Hickel, ILM animation director

Amúgy igyekeztem ezt a két autómegosztó szolgáltatót kihasználni arra hogy próbálgassak mindenféle autókat:
A-osztály: nem rossz, de elsőre a csoda Mbux rendszer iszonyat ijesztő és nehéz megtalálni dolgokat. Egész jól megy, jó a duplakuplungos váltó is. Az mondjuk döbbenet hogy egy ilyennek az ára 14-15 millió forint lehet.
BMW 118 jópofa, jó az automata ebben is, de nagyon elavultnak látszik a Merci mellett; ugyanakkor érezhetően jobb vezetni.
BMW X1 érzésre kicsit a Konához hasonlított, furán picik a kezelőszervek, béna a kormányzás, és belülről ez se nagy.
Miniből próbáltam 3 ajtóst és az nem nagyon jött be, utána 5 ajtósat és az nagyon bevált, ott átjött a jó kormányzás (mindkettő automata)
Fentieknek mind baromi pici a belső visszapillantója és a külsők se elég nagyok, így sokszor volt olyan érzésem hogy nem látok ki és nem tudom mi van körülöttem...
VW E-up baromi jó de nem éri meg az árát. A benzines már nem annyira jó, és azon belül az automata váltó az botrány.
Kia Picanto automata: ez tök jó, egész tágas is, tűrhetően megy is, csak nagyon ordít benne a motor.
BMW I3: meglepően hasonló fíling volt mint a Kona, csak kényelmesebb és tágasabb, de ebben is magasan ülsz nagyon.
Smart elektromos: ez se rossz, a 2 személyessel tök jól lehet parkolni, és egész jól is megy.

MOL limo flottában van villanyos Kona, vezettem olyat, nekem sok apró idegesítő dolog volt benne... mondjuk a sima benzinesek kényelmesebbek lehetnek, nincs bennük középen az a tömb