Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/15/2006, 11:08 PM
they say it intergrates in to Maya & Max, so I'd say that a) it's not available YET or b) it's on percontract use only.
jrazz wrote on 4/16/2006, 11:29 AM
Well, the company who made it said it was for in-house use and they sell their services. I wish (not that I would have an immediate use for it besides playing) they would make their good product available and I am sure they could make some good money off of it by selling the software, but I guess that takes away a lot of the need for what they do... CG as people could do it themselves and if need be, hire them for tough issues or ironing out specific sequences, etc.
Too bad it is not for sale.

j razz
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 4/16/2006, 2:08 PM
HOLY CRAP THAT WAS AMAZING

Got to be the best, bar none, CG I've ever seen.

Dave
TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/16/2006, 6:15 PM
yes, I read that after looking around at thedifferent pages.

They have an advantage this way: they can charge thousands (perhaps tens) for something that's simple to them. Like when Maya was ~$20k, you would hire out work for stuff like that. Nice stuff though!
vitalforce wrote on 4/16/2006, 8:47 PM
And I thought I was cool figuring out how to put fallen and blowing snow over green grass with Vegas and Boris FX. Sigh.
jlafferty wrote on 4/16/2006, 10:50 PM
Ridiculous! Thanks for sharing.

- jim
DGates wrote on 4/17/2006, 12:14 AM
That was kewl! They definitely have the water look down. CG has come a LONG way since SeaQuest (remember that? Done on a Toaster). And that was considered pretty good at the time.
Stonefield wrote on 4/17/2006, 2:34 AM
Absolutley Stunning.......Imagine if only Mr. Speilberg had that technolgy to help him with his little shark movie.

I'm so curious where these tools will take us.....

Stan
busterkeaton wrote on 4/17/2006, 4:53 AM
The shark is very realistic.......I wonder if they want somebody to remake Jaws.

Incredible stuff. There's something wierd about the water splashes they show in certain scenes. I guess it's simulated slow-mo, but the water seemed a little too "sticky."
GregFlowers wrote on 4/17/2006, 9:13 AM
They did make a remake of JAWS with CG sharks. It was called Deep Blue Sea and it sucked ;) Seriously, the shark video is technically outstanding and very well done.

The main criticism I have with some CG sequences in general is not with the realism of CG water or landscape or characters. It is the unnaturally dynamic camera movement which to me calls attention to the fact that its an animation, no matter how realistic the CG looks. Van Helsing comes to mind for some reason as a recent example.

In other words, the CG camera movement seems unrealistic because a real camera could never remotely move like the CG cameras do in many movies. This unnatural movement tells my brain that the images are false and diminishes my suspension of disbelief. This happens much less when the CG camera is used like a real camera would be, ie panning, dollying, crane moves etc. That being said I am very pro-CG when done correctly.
DGates wrote on 4/17/2006, 10:26 AM
That's a good point Greg. Much like "The Aviator". With the way the "camera" was floating around during the bi-plane scenes. Looked cool on a certain level, but not realistic. I'd even like to see a fake camera reflection to add credibilty to certain CG scenes.