I am an animator and suclpter, if anyone could explain to me how they got the skin so thin on some areas of the T-rex , like juest inside of it's upper thigh by it's belly, I would really appreciate it. IT almost looks like a plucked chicken in a way, a very difficult achievement if it is a one ppour latex covering.
I am so happy they didn't go with stop motion! I know however that they used a model like this as a controller to feed the computer the movements. Software was not like 3ds Max or Maya back then, and organic animation was not even a term yet. So the film actually portrays the stop motion technique. Every dinosaur you see moving was done completely by hand on a model and not a mouse, just like this video here!
I love this. Although where is the raptor Stop motion test? I remember seeing one on the DVD of JP. It leaned back, jumped, and then ran at the viewer.
Sorry but a real food dont jitter on the ground. this is a great work and i am a fan of old school stop motion, but CGI i simply better and i love the decision of spielberg.
This looks terrifying with it's realistic looking skin, I remember reading an article where they said that they would use a computer to 'smooth out' the stop motion effects for JP. I wonder if they did it for this sequence? Looking at one of the comments by 'TheLizardMonkey' he staes that stop motion was used - is this correct?
The hype for Jurassic Park involved Amblin saying all the creatures were CGI. Not so. Almost all of the T-Rex sequence is a mixture of stop-motion puppet and animatronic scale puppet. The Velociraptors in the kitchen and commissary at the end are stop motion. CGI was used to blend both more seamlessly into their scenes with actors. The only CGI parts are of the Brachiosaurus first encounter, the gallimimus stampede, the water hole dilophosaurs.
Also I think the new film Cowboys and Aliens would have had way more people interested if they used the stop motion flying saucers (ala Earth vs The Flying Saucers) and with producers Spielberg and Ron Howard at the helm they really can't say they didn't have the time or budget for it or "it's too hard". It makes sense for a movie with an obscure theme to have obscure elements.
Brilliant idea. I've mentioned that a few times to my mates too. Besides - if they were doing this type of stop motion back in the early 90's they could probably go even better. To add my tuppenceworth to the debate, stop motion is more satisfying because: 1) It has genuine weight. 2) The light on the model is genuine. 3) It has a more individual feel. To expand slightly: the stop frame animator will spend so long on their work that ...
...there is more time and sweat literally poured into it that it will be a more interesting creation by definition. Also, stop frame is always used to create a creature that does not exist hence it WILL move in an unpredicatle fashion. This is why old stuff like Sinbad, King Kong, Clash Of The Titans et al is still so cool: it's weird and scary - like monsters should be.
@kyletitterton I still don't understand why they didn't use stop motion for Cowboys and Aliens...I mean come on...it's CALLED Cowboys and Aliens. How can it be taken seriously? Might as well have fun with it and with Spielberg as producer I'm disappointed he didn't request it.
Ha ha just follow the money. Bottom line CGI is considerably cheaper and quicker as you obviously realise. I agree totally that this would have been a perfect opportunity. I still wish Senior Spielbergo had made War Of The Worlds set 100 years ago when the book was written. A sci fi movie set in Victorian times? That would have been something. Love Steve's work but he hasn't been a vital director since Saving Private Ryan.
I actually think a combination of stop-motion and post work in the computer would achieve the most realism for puppets/characters. Motion blur between frames is the real sticking point.. with the right motion blur, a puppet animated properly can move fluidly. What is great about practical, none digital puppets is you get a lot of things free.. one of the biggest being lighting/shadows and "presence", even the best CGI often doesn't look real.
I agree completely, no matter how detailed the cgi is, it never really gets the feeling that it is a concrete object, I guess that's why the only thing that does actually look absolutely real is water lol
@tmsods There were some cases when CGI looked good. Jurassic Park, example, did not completely use CGI like Terra Nova |-( They used both actual models and computer models to make the dinosaurs look realistic
It's not so much CGI is better or Stop Motion is better. It's what is easier, less expensive, faster for the studios. It's like anything though, if you beat people over the head with a product the masses will buy into it. Stop Motion takes talent and skill, not a few classes and a few clicks of a mouse. It's an art that requires patients.
@carllelandtaylor I'm saying when you look at computer animation or anything digital really the formula is there for you in the manual. Some learn faster than other but it's all calculated. As opposed to stop motion where it requires a keen eye, sense of pace, steady hands, and patients, without the aid of a formula. There's a basic understanding of how it's done, but it takes way more skill then clicking a mouse and working on a program.
@carllelandtaylor If you read the photoshop manual enough you can do exactly what the next guy can who read just as much as you did. Now take someone who can paint a mural on the side of a a building by eye alone, no one can do that exactly like that person can. Because there's no formula for it.
Much like recording music. You can punch in overdrive guitar on protools but so will a hundred other people. There's no unique sound to it.
@TheForgottenFlesh Also how do you know English is my first language. Trying to throw in little jabs at little things like spelling is the backbone of a weak argument.
And I was using "punch in" as a general term not a musical term. If it was incorrectly used I apologize.
Please do not base hate of poor special effects execution upon the medium. It's as illogical as the hate animators had for 3D animation after Tron was released. CGI is an art in its own right.
While this is amazing use of stop motion the fact remains that CG is smoother, although at the time I felt that the makers substituted texture and lighting for a smoother motion, as the CG was not up to scratch. Nowdays, stopmotion cannot compete with realizim of CG. however its now at the point where I do not appriciate CG movies as the computer seems to do all of the work.
@aracabushcabar Realism of CGI? Jurassic Park is the ONLY film i've seen where CGI looks real. Everything else...looks like CGI, the lighting is off, the frame rate is off, and it doesn't match the rest of the action. Hell even in Avatar I didn't think the CGI matched the live action. I like effects that make me go "How the hell did they do that?" Not "Oh it's CGI".
@TheForgottenFlesh I have recently produced 3 animations, using Stop motion and plasticine, I did so because CGI cannot easily replicate stop motion, and I needed a stop motion feel. However it is still stop motion and looks like stop motion. CGI does many things that stop-motion cannot replicate such as fluidity or real motion tracking. Its easy to spot CGI when you see it, as it when you see Stop-motion I agree that stop-motion requires more input, but thats not what people want these days.
@TheForgottenFlesh There are also ways around it, it comes down to how it's filmed and how the lighting is. Most people don't realize this but there is stop motion in Citizen Kane and no one can tell.
@TheForgottenFlesh thats what I was implying. Sad really, as personally I feel that Stop-motion is an amazing art form and it would be nice to see it more often on the big screen.
CGI is a great visual effect, but instead of going for the best tool for the job, its an industry competition to have the most CGI shots. JP got the balance right with a mix of CGI and animatronics.
Is it just me, or was the CGI in Jurassic Park much more realistic than what I've been seening lately? I mean, that was, like, 1993 or something. I don't understand it.
@thisisexile66 You are right. The reason being it was used appropriately. It was built upon animatronic work to depict something that couldn't be filmed otherwise. Most CG now is used in such a way that it has no context within reality so appears fake.
@thisisexile66 It might be because your eye is getting better. Jurassic Park was pretty much the first film most people saw that used CG that much... we didn't know what it looked like, so we couldn't tell how to spot it. That said, they also used CG pretty sparingly compared to today's movies, and when you use CG sparingly and blend it with plenty of live elements (like JP did) it really hides it well.
@carllelandtaylor Definitely a good point. I know that quality CG is still around though. Admittedly, I haven't seen all of Avatar, but from the little that I did see, it was very impressive. Much more seemless than most recent CG but that all comes back to budget. The same goes for LOTR. I don't so much mind spotting the flaws in animation but sometimes it's just lazily obvious. I at least like to see some effort. Even sub-par CG is more on par when it is blended well with the live action. Dig?
carlleandtaylor's comment is a great observation, but another reason JP looked good was all the concentrated talent, large budget and high production values, perhaps worth five standard-fare cgi flicks ( like the mummy sequels) released in recent years.
carlleandtaylor's comment is a great observation, but another reason JP looked good was all the concentrated talent, large budget and high production values, perhaps worth five standard-fare cgi flicks ( like the mummy sequels) released in recent years.
You're right, the CG was better in JP than a lot of the CGI seen today. Here is why I think it was --- the people who worked on the original films had a much better understanding of film/lighting/optics than the typical person who has only ever worked behind a computer. So I think they had a better idea of how something should look to achieve realism than a lot of the digital artists today who have grown up on only CGI images.
@thisisexile66 YES. Because back then it was new, they weren't trying to push it. They just had the creatures behave realistically like animals... nowadays filmmakers seem to think realistic means doing stupid cartoonish things over the top (ie the gophers and monkeys in Crystal Skull...). The minimalist approach works way better... nothing has yet topped the T-Rex breaking out of the paddock in my opinion.
@HParker001 I totally agree. On a similar note, I WILL say that the CG in Legend of the Guardians was top-notch. Lot's of attention to detail, especially with feathers. I know it's not the same as CG/live action, but still, it's impressive.
@thisisexile66 Yeah, I was only referring to live action films, the CGI in purely animated films I don't mind because it's not trying to blend in with the live action. I think a lot of animated films have done incredible things with computer animation, and furthermore it serves their stories. Some live action movies (cough cough Star Wars) just go too far with the CGI, to the point I just want to yell, yes we get it, you have special effects, now tell a story!!
@HParker001 Yeah, it's gotten to the point where CGI has become the star, rather than simply an effect in films. It's probably why we're seeing fewer "great actors" these days. It seems like the age of great acting started to wane right around the time CGI came online. Coincidence? Of course not! Heh, I could go on and on so I'll refrain from any more ranting.
@thisisexile66 I find that the reason that is is because Spielberg 1) mixed CGI and puppets, which lead to 1a) more money allotted to perfecting the dinosaur CGI, and by meshing the CGI with real puppets, 1b) seamlessly lead to more realist look. Also, many CGI movies today aim to be over-the-top. The setting for Jurassic Park isn't far fetched. No one would dream of making a movie like JP today and NOT include explosions, chases, etc. I think JP holds up because it does a lot with a little.
@Caqui I certainly agree. I remember reading that JP really only used something like 9-15 minutes of CGI footage. Less IS more, indeed. Plus, minimizing CG definitely makes it less noticable when it IS used. These days, the backgrounds are CG, the explosions are CG, the actors are CG, the creatures are CG,etc. If 70% of a scene is animated, the live footage is certainly going to stand out like a sore thumb. CG needs to be as it is intended: as an effect, not a character.
@thisisexile66 Yeah man, absolutely. Summing up all the behind the scenes stuff I've seen of it, unless the cgi was perfect, Spielberg didn't want it. They put an amazing amount of effort into it and they really wanted to push the barrier. Nowadays it's become like clockwork, they have more of "that's good enough attitude", rather than a "let's make this shit perfect" attitude.
@thisisexile66 The hype for Jurassic Park involved Amblin saying all the creatures were CGI. Not so. Almost all of the T-Rex sequence is a mixture of stop-motion puppet and animatronic scale puppet. The Velociraptors in the kitchen and commissary at the end are stop motion. CGI was used to blend both more seamlessly into their scenes with actors. The only CGI parts are of the Brachiosaurus first encounter, the gallimimus stampede, the water hole dilophosaurs
@TheLizardmonkey I knew about the Rex and some of the raptors, but I didn't think they used any stop motion. Cool info. I'm certainly a fan of the creative usage of multiple techniques.
@thisisexile66 I think you're right. Even comparing it with JP3. However you should know that not everything on JP was CGI, and I was amazed to learn that not everything on JP3 was CGI (and it still looks like it was CGI when they were actually puppets).
@thisisexile66 It because it was expensive and used sparingly. Thats why it seemed more realistic. They still built enormous sets, make lots of robotic physical dinosaurs and used lots of practical effects. Thats what modern movies don't do (because its too expensive) everything is cgi and is obviously fake.
@thisisexile66 Yeah I does seem like CG has regressed than improved. I loved the CG from Foundation Imaging. It's funny because the CG in B5 is probably considered outdated by today's standards, but I don't know something seems lacking or seems to have regressed in CG today. It seems like they took more time to actually make it look good. I saw the effects for the Bryan Singer/Tom DeSanto BSG that was cancelled, because of 9/11, and the effects look fantastic.
@thisisexile66 I thought the same exact thing last time I saw it. The CGI was supervised by Dennis Muren, who is without doubt the best. The entire production crew was motivated by fear that the audience wouldn't buy into the new technology so they put a lot of time, energy and money into making it good. Plus, most of the dinosaurs are animatronic. The shot where the T-Rex rips down the electric cables, steps out of the forest and roars remains one of the best CGI shots ever.
CGI is amazing when used correctly. The reason people think it looks fake is because they push it past it's current capabilities. Jurassic park used puppets and CGI, NO stop motion. This test was a failure and the CGI stepped in and did a beautiful job creating fluid motion that stop motion cannot achieve with it's "jerky" effects.
I'm pretty sure they abandoned go motion for CGI in Jurassic Park. Go motion is not going to be around long. If you are animating puppets with computers, the only step you need to take next is generating realistic textures via CGI. Then you've eliminated the need for puppets all together. That's all the puppets have going for them, their lighting. But computer graphics are getting better very quickly.
@trekgeek1 Obviously you didn't understand my comment. I said they didn't use stop motion/go motion was because it was time consuming to get it that smooth. I doubt puppets, animatronics, animation will ever go away. MS Word exists, yet people still use pens. Photoshop exists but people still paint. If there are no longer options in mediums, and if art can be achieved by anybody...then that is a truly sad picture you paint.
I got your point, I just replied to one comment first then realized you had sent another. I never implied artistic mediums will vanish, I only believe that when the goal is to achieve perfect realism, a computer will prevail. Even so, putting that information into a computer is still an art form. There's no dinosaur key on a computer, well, at least I don't see one. Wait, hold on, ddddddddd, no, nothing.
@trekgeek1 Anyone with a brain, training and study of the program can achieve the goal. That's not an artist, that's a technician.
And if you want perfect realism, then a computer is way behind as The Howling, American Werewolf In London, Alien all look more realistic than anything a computer has done. So perfect realism has already been accomplished. How? Because the effect is real. It's being filmed, it's organic.
@TheForgottenFlesh I'm sure they'd consider themselves artists in a way. I've seen some art that doesn't seem to take much skill. It's a little difficult to define "artist". Yes, all those movies look better. They were up against old computers. I'm talking about computers in the near future. Art will always exist in different mediums, it may just be that the movie industry won't use them. Like you said, it's about cost, which is quickly dropping in CGI. I'm assuming you're an artist?
@trekgeek1 Of course THEY would consider themselves artists. Most pretentious and egotistical people do.
I just like to put this out there, the whole basis for Avatar's story is how something mechanical will replace something organic. Yet isn't this exactly what Cameron, and CGI is doing? Will it replace locations, actors, will it eventually replace directors, stories? I'm not against technology, i'm against the crusade of it.
Now you're implying they're pretentious and egotistical. Computers will replace actors, locations and effects. This is because it is cost effective. Dominating the movie industry is not a crusade on the world. The world is not the movie industry. There is room outside of the movies, in reality for artistic mediums and real locations and actors. Why are you so concerned with losing movies to CGI when you have the entire world to propagate your artistic view through?
@trekgeek1 I'm saying most people who claim themselves artists are pretentious and egotistical. I'm not concerned, I am simply saying it's sad. Not only will it put a shit load of people out of work, it will also lose the whole basis for what movies are. I highly doubt it will replace everything in the industry. Simply because then computer games will have no point. Which I doubt the game industry will let happen.
Interesting take. I would think video games would become more popular. Games offer interaction, which movies do not. Enhanced graphics will allow games to look like movies, while giving the user the ability to interact with the storyline.
@trekgeek1 With the advance of 3D and probably hologram you don't realize that the film industry is competing against TV and Video Games? Video Games are kicking the Film industries ass now. Movies will offer interaction because eventually if things go the way we are saying. They will create custom films. You chose the genre, the characters, the setting, the plot and the end. Then you watch. If continued this way. Films will simply become programed.
No, it's different. You could program the genre, characters, plot,etc. But it wouldn't be the same as a video game. A video game is real time interaction, not a program selected by the user. If you claim that a movie will do this, you don't have a movie. You now have movies becoming video games. When a movie offers real time interaction, it has become a video game, since that's what games have been all along.
@TheForgottenFlesh Hell, the transformation scene in The Howling trumps anything I've seen CGI come up with thus far. It boils down to this for studios, if it's easier, do it. Which is ironic since their budgets are millions of dollars. Sure it's easier to animate with a computer but there are always filmmakers/artists who actually want to WORK for their craft.
cgi is awsome. but i agree with a lot of people. it has bugs that need work. the original starwars was nearly all puppets and bluescreen. now its all greenscreen, and cgi. its not so much cgi has ruined movies, as its over use has.
Jurassic Park was one of the times I didn't mind them using CGI, but looking at this makes one wonder how it would have worked out. It looks pretty good. No jerky movements or anything.
@Moseslawgiver I agree, the first Jurassic Park worked the best because they used the CGI mesh models to enhance the presence of real dinosaurs let alone got their shape from scanned maquettes made out of clay. The reason the potential of the technique got messed up was for two reasons, one is the way it got marketed to hell as a tool and the other is the evolution of console games. Today audiences have really good reference from games alone so they know what they're looking at.
@Dinoslay I think the corruption of it all started when they began to short cut the process. T2 was made with Adobe Photoshop, frame by frame like a painting. Once you start letting the computer simulate skins and elemental effects for the artist, you lose sight of realism.
@VaughnFry Not quite. You're misquoting. They only used photoshop to clean up the enveloping rips when the cg skin would 'rip', and things of that nature - more like wire removal work. And the skin jiggle and muscle/fat ripples were not achieved with physics simulations but by hand - moving the geometry on a frame to frame basis.
@halfvader0007 He was speaking of Terminator 2 where the only computer simulated character was the T-1000. It's likely that they did indeed only use Photoshop for wire removal and simple compositing although in that film the mesh model simulation doesn't overtake the movie either. JP and T2 are both good example of CGI used well. Any effect can be overused but I think they could combine these old methods digitally via new ways. They're not useless.
I´m making a clay dinosaur for animation, but i am having realiy serious problems with the skin rig (the clay always breaks), woulda any of tou guys give me a tip so i can solve my problem?
I think stop-motion,when doing robots,is very convincing,maybe moreso than CGI.Look at Robocain from Robocop2.Imagine what they could do today.Does anyone have an example of how lifelike it has gotte????.If they could get the framerate and movement smooth.
Stop motion is NOT dead or even close to dying. If anything, its making a huge comeback and is gonna T-bag CGI's mother. In the last few years alone there were 3 full length stop motion films released in theaters and a countless number of stop motion short films. And everyday i keep seeing more and more commercials and shows on television that are animated in stop motion. CGI sucks the big ones. It takes all the talent and fun out of animating. Long live the motion of stop!
@gamramor Stop motion is NOT dead or even close to dying. If anything, its making a huge comeback and is gonna T-bag CGI's mother. In the last few years alone there were 3 full length stop motion films released in theaters
genious this. Too bad stop motion is a dying art, since I feel that the brain feels that some things just are too unreal. If I look at those horrible yeti's in the mummy3 for instance I literally get nausea from it. I spew on CGI.
@JoshOrtiz88 IT's not so much it wouldn't have worked it just would have been really labor intensive, this test looks fine, maybe touch up the go animation, smooth it out with CGI. It's possible to have realistic Stop Motion and Go Motion but it's time consuming and labor intensive, you can tell Spielberg wanted Stop Motion (do to his love of old films) but the studio saw how long it would take and he couldn't do it.
@MattAlbie It's technically foam rubber, not clay but I get what you mean. What you miss however is that stop motion can also look cool when done carefully, even better when combined with other effects. It's not all claymation but a carefully crafted art not limited to just clay. Just like CGI, it looks bad when abused and better when done with subtlety.
Tippett definitely put a good model together. It's tough to say how different the movie would be had they went this route. I know this much, the years that followed would be very different.
As well as Coraline. Those scratch the surface of what can be done. People are just too blinded by the details of today's modern montage styled presentation of film. Endless moving detail doesn't mean *fart* if it has no story behind it to connect to.
When Jim Cameron said, that he wrote the script back in '95, but the technology wasn't ready to ralize his vision I thought: It would surely have been possible, with stop motion, etc. If you had been willing to spend a billion dollars on making the movie...
Tim Burton seems to be a Stop Motion Fan. Sure, the upcoming Alice in Wonderland is mainly CGI, but "Corpse Bride" still was a Stop Motion film, greatly demonstrating the capabilities of this dead-declared technology.
Also powerful is a combination of CGI and Stop Motion, like in the music video to "Me" by ASP (can be found here on youtube).
Go-Motion was created for the Original Empire Strikes Back in 1978.
So it would have be developed more than enough buy 1994. If you dont think so just look at the AT-AT battle on Hoff from Empire. man that still hold it ground today.
The reason it was not used is that Spielberg wanted to try out the new and up coming special effects of the time. That being CGI.
The simple reason CG is better than stop motion for live action movies is down to motion blur. Due to stop motion being a series of still images, it's always jerky so doesn't combine with film. Either way, stop motion or CG, they both look kinda fake for different reasons, so who cares?
Actually, motion blur is not a problem for stop motion anymore. A technique exists called "go motion", which is like stop motion except the model moves a little during the individual exposures - voila! Motion Blur!
Go Motion was developed for use in Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back (1980). It was the technology that drove the Taun Taun mounts and the Imperial Walkers.
True, there is always an inconsistency that audiences need to forgive in order to enjoy it. That is easier with cartoons which both CGI and Stop Motion serve well. With live action actors that might be more problematic. With that a happening needs a different starting point. For other words, one needs to keep it elusive. I guess people simply expected less inconsistency with CGI when infact it can have a similar problem as Stop Motion.
This is a beautiful walk cycle for go motion, but I must say, as a kid, I wouldn't have believed it's movements as much as when they did the CGI. And I'm not saying it's because it was CGI'd, but the way in which they blended the anamatronics and animation so well. It's a shame though, stop motion is an amazing art form.
In my humble opinion the only side in CGI that ever made it revolutionary is the three-dimensional space. CGI is easier to pick out nowadays because of the way it is abused thus it makes itself very obtrusive. As detailed as it is you no longer believe that what exists on screen can be anything else than computer simulation. It's not the effect but how you use it.
This is incredible, but it screams "stop motion". When I see jurassic park I don't think "CGI!!!!". I just see the dinosaurs interacting with the people.
You´re right. When Phil Tippet did those animations back in 1992 or 1993 Stop Motion had decades to develop. You can be sure, what you see here is damn close to the climax of Stop Motion. Phil Tippet was a true master to this technique, but please be honest: It´s FAR away from being photorealistic. Where is the muscle sliding? The jiggling of muscles and fat? There´s a good reason why Spielberg decided to use CGI. It´s simply the better way of realistic visualization.
When they SAW this -HOW could they possibly choose CG over stop-motion... It's just UNBELIEVABLE to me... Tippet's work here is unparalled... Yet... We are working on making that statement no longer true... Stop-motion is COMING BACK!!! Check my channel for the video "Pursuit : Stop motion and Live action!"... Please comment comment comment!!! :o)
Because of the fact that CGI looks more real, and the movement is more smooth.. what you can do in Computers is unlimited, explosions, matte painting, everything. It can't really be done with stop motion the way it can be done with cgi, it's just not as real.
I love stop motion. I loved "Coraline."
sixstanger00 1 month ago
This would be have been nice to see in Jurassic Park, but I'm kind of happy they went cgi
x2boys 2 months ago
it looks like 3 sec and the video duplicated, good job how many thing you re position the model?
LosMt2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from StopMoWorks
awesome, very smooth
how many frames/takes is it total?
LosMt2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from StopMoWorks
I am an animator and suclpter, if anyone could explain to me how they got the skin so thin on some areas of the T-rex , like juest inside of it's upper thigh by it's belly, I would really appreciate it. IT almost looks like a plucked chicken in a way, a very difficult achievement if it is a one ppour latex covering.
gnikcuf888 5 months ago
Beautiful. The CGI in the film is incredible, but I wish this they would have gone this way.
TheUnbreakableOtaku 5 months ago
I am so happy they didn't go with stop motion! I know however that they used a model like this as a controller to feed the computer the movements. Software was not like 3ds Max or Maya back then, and organic animation was not even a term yet. So the film actually portrays the stop motion technique. Every dinosaur you see moving was done completely by hand on a model and not a mouse, just like this video here!
LastBornProductions 5 months ago
The cycle is off, but still very nice work. I prefer old school. ;)
benjamindbailey 5 months ago
This looks great. But of course it was easier to use cgi.
JitterFilms 6 months ago
Not using this was the right decision. The CGI used was quiet seamless and better then this.
blacksage 6 months ago
Wow a real dinosaur
TheCasualChristian 7 months ago
Combining stop motion and CGI would give you the benefits of both.
AJTalon 7 months ago
Very cool go motion! I love the Jurassic park movies. I bairly see the jerk in it. Very good!
DadyHouseProduction 7 months ago
I love this. Although where is the raptor Stop motion test? I remember seeing one on the DVD of JP. It leaned back, jumped, and then ran at the viewer.
SCRulerShinoda 7 months ago
CGI is just so easy filmmakers saturate films with it. God forbid one should use it sparingly and focus on the plot.
Allante715 8 months ago 3
Sorry but a real food dont jitter on the ground. this is a great work and i am a fan of old school stop motion, but CGI i simply better and i love the decision of spielberg.
quotenschwazze 8 months ago
@quotenschwazze /watch?v=s43bRbZaAOk&feature=related
TheBlackViper1007 4 months ago
This looks terrifying with it's realistic looking skin, I remember reading an article where they said that they would use a computer to 'smooth out' the stop motion effects for JP. I wonder if they did it for this sequence? Looking at one of the comments by 'TheLizardMonkey' he staes that stop motion was used - is this correct?
ewaf88 8 months ago 2
I would love to get this toy thing
Runnerrmejor 9 months ago
Is this STOP MOTION??? OH MY GOD!!!
RaphaelJ02 9 months ago
Amazing!
AndyvanKayne 9 months ago
The hype for Jurassic Park involved Amblin saying all the creatures were CGI. Not so. Almost all of the T-Rex sequence is a mixture of stop-motion puppet and animatronic scale puppet. The Velociraptors in the kitchen and commissary at the end are stop motion. CGI was used to blend both more seamlessly into their scenes with actors. The only CGI parts are of the Brachiosaurus first encounter, the gallimimus stampede, the water hole dilophosaurs.
TheLizardmonkey 9 months ago
it's alive! :0
AncaraMarte 10 months ago
Waow! This is the original test for J-P 1992!
DrHouse2004 10 months ago
Pretty darn good for stop motion.
Tapajara 10 months ago
i need that doll!!! where can i get one?
yanivcogan1 11 months ago
Looks good. The comment about JP looking better than modern day CGI is totally on the mark I have been saying that for years.
wheelzwheela 11 months ago
hahaha do you realize?? the t rex is meaking the moon walk
gladiussecus 11 months ago
Holy crap, that's the smoothest stop-motion animation I've ever seen!
jimmyjimbo72 1 year ago
Is this a real model?
Lucci 1 year ago
Didn't know T-rexs could moonwalk
EmperorOfMars 1 year ago
@EmperorOfMars
Of course he can he is T-REX king of the dinosaurs
WARP10CK 1 year ago
i like. very real
themakinerkny 1 year ago
Comment removed
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
Also I think the new film Cowboys and Aliens would have had way more people interested if they used the stop motion flying saucers (ala Earth vs The Flying Saucers) and with producers Spielberg and Ron Howard at the helm they really can't say they didn't have the time or budget for it or "it's too hard". It makes sense for a movie with an obscure theme to have obscure elements.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
Brilliant idea. I've mentioned that a few times to my mates too. Besides - if they were doing this type of stop motion back in the early 90's they could probably go even better. To add my tuppenceworth to the debate, stop motion is more satisfying because: 1) It has genuine weight. 2) The light on the model is genuine. 3) It has a more individual feel. To expand slightly: the stop frame animator will spend so long on their work that ...
kyletitterton 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
...there is more time and sweat literally poured into it that it will be a more interesting creation by definition. Also, stop frame is always used to create a creature that does not exist hence it WILL move in an unpredicatle fashion. This is why old stuff like Sinbad, King Kong, Clash Of The Titans et al is still so cool: it's weird and scary - like monsters should be.
kyletitterton 1 year ago
@kyletitterton I still don't understand why they didn't use stop motion for Cowboys and Aliens...I mean come on...it's CALLED Cowboys and Aliens. How can it be taken seriously? Might as well have fun with it and with Spielberg as producer I'm disappointed he didn't request it.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
Ha ha just follow the money. Bottom line CGI is considerably cheaper and quicker as you obviously realise. I agree totally that this would have been a perfect opportunity. I still wish Senior Spielbergo had made War Of The Worlds set 100 years ago when the book was written. A sci fi movie set in Victorian times? That would have been something. Love Steve's work but he hasn't been a vital director since Saving Private Ryan.
kyletitterton 1 year ago
@kyletitterton When the budget is 50-100 million the excuse "Well this is cheaper" doesn't really apply.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
I actually think a combination of stop-motion and post work in the computer would achieve the most realism for puppets/characters. Motion blur between frames is the real sticking point.. with the right motion blur, a puppet animated properly can move fluidly. What is great about practical, none digital puppets is you get a lot of things free.. one of the biggest being lighting/shadows and "presence", even the best CGI often doesn't look real.
dragnink 1 year ago
@dragnink
I agree completely, no matter how detailed the cgi is, it never really gets the feeling that it is a concrete object, I guess that's why the only thing that does actually look absolutely real is water lol
tmsods 1 year ago 17
@tmsods There were some cases when CGI looked good. Jurassic Park, example, did not completely use CGI like Terra Nova |-( They used both actual models and computer models to make the dinosaurs look realistic
Checkmate1138 1 month ago
The graphics are amazing. How come no one's discussing Prehistoric Channel yet? Anyone who loves JP will love this.
prehistoric28 1 year ago
It's not so much CGI is better or Stop Motion is better. It's what is easier, less expensive, faster for the studios. It's like anything though, if you beat people over the head with a product the masses will buy into it. Stop Motion takes talent and skill, not a few classes and a few clicks of a mouse. It's an art that requires patients.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
Comment removed
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
@carllelandtaylor Agreed
freakstate 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh (By that I meant that taking a few classes in computer animation does not make you a good animator...)
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
@carllelandtaylor I'm saying when you look at computer animation or anything digital really the formula is there for you in the manual. Some learn faster than other but it's all calculated. As opposed to stop motion where it requires a keen eye, sense of pace, steady hands, and patients, without the aid of a formula. There's a basic understanding of how it's done, but it takes way more skill then clicking a mouse and working on a program.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh Formula for realistic computer animation? What are you talking about dude?
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
@carllelandtaylor If you read the photoshop manual enough you can do exactly what the next guy can who read just as much as you did. Now take someone who can paint a mural on the side of a a building by eye alone, no one can do that exactly like that person can. Because there's no formula for it.
Much like recording music. You can punch in overdrive guitar on protools but so will a hundred other people. There's no unique sound to it.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh You think there's a formula for realistic animation motion?
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
Comment removed
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago
@carllelandtaylor I'm using photoshop as an example. Not as CGI.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh Also how do you know English is my first language. Trying to throw in little jabs at little things like spelling is the backbone of a weak argument.
And I was using "punch in" as a general term not a musical term. If it was incorrectly used I apologize.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
Please do not base hate of poor special effects execution upon the medium. It's as illogical as the hate animators had for 3D animation after Tron was released. CGI is an art in its own right.
HaoWenXiang 1 year ago
it looks so real.
justincolon1 1 year ago
looks alot more real than the cg dinos...
hcvang 1 year ago
While this is amazing use of stop motion the fact remains that CG is smoother, although at the time I felt that the makers substituted texture and lighting for a smoother motion, as the CG was not up to scratch. Nowdays, stopmotion cannot compete with realizim of CG. however its now at the point where I do not appriciate CG movies as the computer seems to do all of the work.
aracabushcabar 1 year ago
@aracabushcabar smoother isnt better... cg looks fake. too perfect.
hcvang 1 year ago
@hcvang agreed on most accounts.
aracabushcabar 1 year ago
@aracabushcabar Realism of CGI? Jurassic Park is the ONLY film i've seen where CGI looks real. Everything else...looks like CGI, the lighting is off, the frame rate is off, and it doesn't match the rest of the action. Hell even in Avatar I didn't think the CGI matched the live action. I like effects that make me go "How the hell did they do that?" Not "Oh it's CGI".
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh I have recently produced 3 animations, using Stop motion and plasticine, I did so because CGI cannot easily replicate stop motion, and I needed a stop motion feel. However it is still stop motion and looks like stop motion. CGI does many things that stop-motion cannot replicate such as fluidity or real motion tracking. Its easy to spot CGI when you see it, as it when you see Stop-motion I agree that stop-motion requires more input, but thats not what people want these days.
aracabushcabar 1 year ago
@aracabushcabar It's not so much that's not what people want. It comes down to what is faster to produce.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh There are also ways around it, it comes down to how it's filmed and how the lighting is. Most people don't realize this but there is stop motion in Citizen Kane and no one can tell.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh thats what I was implying. Sad really, as personally I feel that Stop-motion is an amazing art form and it would be nice to see it more often on the big screen.
aracabushcabar 1 year ago 2
@aracabushcabar It's really sad about a lot of things in movies these days.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
Tippett is pushing puppets again so don't write of stop-motion yet.
kezadrone 1 year ago
CGI is a great visual effect, but instead of going for the best tool for the job, its an industry competition to have the most CGI shots. JP got the balance right with a mix of CGI and animatronics.
SamusDrake 1 year ago
this doesnt look jerky. i wish it was used
GodzillaXAbudAwwal 1 year ago
@GodzillaXAbudAwwal That's beacuse there's a blur over it, very clever, I wish it had had a chance to evolve...
AlexFruen 1 year ago
@AlexFruen i know, wus just saying that to nerdfucked noobs who are saying "this is the absolute JERKIEST WORST GRAPHICS IVE EVER SEEN!!!!"
GodzillaXAbudAwwal 1 year ago
Is it just me, or was the CGI in Jurassic Park much more realistic than what I've been seening lately? I mean, that was, like, 1993 or something. I don't understand it.
thisisexile66 1 year ago 71
@thisisexile66 You are right. The reason being it was used appropriately. It was built upon animatronic work to depict something that couldn't be filmed otherwise. Most CG now is used in such a way that it has no context within reality so appears fake.
Areashiftybun 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 It might be because your eye is getting better. Jurassic Park was pretty much the first film most people saw that used CG that much... we didn't know what it looked like, so we couldn't tell how to spot it. That said, they also used CG pretty sparingly compared to today's movies, and when you use CG sparingly and blend it with plenty of live elements (like JP did) it really hides it well.
carllelandtaylor 1 year ago 2
@carllelandtaylor Definitely a good point. I know that quality CG is still around though. Admittedly, I haven't seen all of Avatar, but from the little that I did see, it was very impressive. Much more seemless than most recent CG but that all comes back to budget. The same goes for LOTR. I don't so much mind spotting the flaws in animation but sometimes it's just lazily obvious. I at least like to see some effort. Even sub-par CG is more on par when it is blended well with the live action. Dig?
thisisexile66 1 year ago
carlleandtaylor's comment is a great observation, but another reason JP looked good was all the concentrated talent, large budget and high production values, perhaps worth five standard-fare cgi flicks ( like the mummy sequels) released in recent years.
wildblue2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
carlleandtaylor's comment is a great observation, but another reason JP looked good was all the concentrated talent, large budget and high production values, perhaps worth five standard-fare cgi flicks ( like the mummy sequels) released in recent years.
wildblue2 1 year ago
@thisisexile66
You're right, the CG was better in JP than a lot of the CGI seen today. Here is why I think it was --- the people who worked on the original films had a much better understanding of film/lighting/optics than the typical person who has only ever worked behind a computer. So I think they had a better idea of how something should look to achieve realism than a lot of the digital artists today who have grown up on only CGI images.
dragnink 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 Completely agree.
fu6azi 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 I've been saying exactly rhe same thing for years, it's not even as good in the later Jurassic Park films.
SirStriebGriebling 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 YES. Because back then it was new, they weren't trying to push it. They just had the creatures behave realistically like animals... nowadays filmmakers seem to think realistic means doing stupid cartoonish things over the top (ie the gophers and monkeys in Crystal Skull...). The minimalist approach works way better... nothing has yet topped the T-Rex breaking out of the paddock in my opinion.
HParker001 1 year ago
@HParker001 I totally agree. On a similar note, I WILL say that the CG in Legend of the Guardians was top-notch. Lot's of attention to detail, especially with feathers. I know it's not the same as CG/live action, but still, it's impressive.
thisisexile66 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 Yeah, I was only referring to live action films, the CGI in purely animated films I don't mind because it's not trying to blend in with the live action. I think a lot of animated films have done incredible things with computer animation, and furthermore it serves their stories. Some live action movies (cough cough Star Wars) just go too far with the CGI, to the point I just want to yell, yes we get it, you have special effects, now tell a story!!
HParker001 1 year ago
@HParker001 Yeah, it's gotten to the point where CGI has become the star, rather than simply an effect in films. It's probably why we're seeing fewer "great actors" these days. It seems like the age of great acting started to wane right around the time CGI came online. Coincidence? Of course not! Heh, I could go on and on so I'll refrain from any more ranting.
thisisexile66 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 I find that the reason that is is because Spielberg 1) mixed CGI and puppets, which lead to 1a) more money allotted to perfecting the dinosaur CGI, and by meshing the CGI with real puppets, 1b) seamlessly lead to more realist look. Also, many CGI movies today aim to be over-the-top. The setting for Jurassic Park isn't far fetched. No one would dream of making a movie like JP today and NOT include explosions, chases, etc. I think JP holds up because it does a lot with a little.
Caqui 1 year ago
@Caqui I certainly agree. I remember reading that JP really only used something like 9-15 minutes of CGI footage. Less IS more, indeed. Plus, minimizing CG definitely makes it less noticable when it IS used. These days, the backgrounds are CG, the explosions are CG, the actors are CG, the creatures are CG,etc. If 70% of a scene is animated, the live footage is certainly going to stand out like a sore thumb. CG needs to be as it is intended: as an effect, not a character.
thisisexile66 1 year ago
@thisisexile66 Yeah man, absolutely. Summing up all the behind the scenes stuff I've seen of it, unless the cgi was perfect, Spielberg didn't want it. They put an amazing amount of effort into it and they really wanted to push the barrier. Nowadays it's become like clockwork, they have more of "that's good enough attitude", rather than a "let's make this shit perfect" attitude.
VeryHappyUniverse 11 months ago
@thisisexile66 it was 1993, not or something lol kid
carrierform 10 months ago
@carrierform Heh, "kid"? 30 year old kid, I suppose. I'll take it as a compliment!
thisisexile66 10 months ago
@thisisexile66 Thats because it was a mix between CGI and animitronics.
AndRod29 10 months ago
@thisisexile66 The hype for Jurassic Park involved Amblin saying all the creatures were CGI. Not so. Almost all of the T-Rex sequence is a mixture of stop-motion puppet and animatronic scale puppet. The Velociraptors in the kitchen and commissary at the end are stop motion. CGI was used to blend both more seamlessly into their scenes with actors. The only CGI parts are of the Brachiosaurus first encounter, the gallimimus stampede, the water hole dilophosaurs
TheLizardmonkey 9 months ago
@TheLizardmonkey I knew about the Rex and some of the raptors, but I didn't think they used any stop motion. Cool info. I'm certainly a fan of the creative usage of multiple techniques.
thisisexile66 9 months ago
@thisisexile66 I think you're right. Even comparing it with JP3. However you should know that not everything on JP was CGI, and I was amazed to learn that not everything on JP3 was CGI (and it still looks like it was CGI when they were actually puppets).
iviarko 9 months ago
@thisisexile66 um that is a T rex model, is not cgi, lets say its a badass toy u never seen one? there are movies made this this.. "toy" things
Runnerrmejor 9 months ago
@Runnerrmejor No,no, I understand this video is stop-motion using a model. I was just referring to CGI in general.
thisisexile66 9 months ago
@thisisexile66 oh right!, sorry
wow I know, JP technology is still impresssive
Runnerrmejor 9 months ago
@thisisexile66 It because it was expensive and used sparingly. Thats why it seemed more realistic. They still built enormous sets, make lots of robotic physical dinosaurs and used lots of practical effects. Thats what modern movies don't do (because its too expensive) everything is cgi and is obviously fake.
AlexFruen 8 months ago
@thisisexile66 Yeah I does seem like CG has regressed than improved. I loved the CG from Foundation Imaging. It's funny because the CG in B5 is probably considered outdated by today's standards, but I don't know something seems lacking or seems to have regressed in CG today. It seems like they took more time to actually make it look good. I saw the effects for the Bryan Singer/Tom DeSanto BSG that was cancelled, because of 9/11, and the effects look fantastic.
TheBwmm 8 months ago
@thisisexile66 I also think because in past productions both practical and CG were used.
TheBwmm 8 months ago
@thisisexile66 I thought the same exact thing last time I saw it. The CGI was supervised by Dennis Muren, who is without doubt the best. The entire production crew was motivated by fear that the audience wouldn't buy into the new technology so they put a lot of time, energy and money into making it good. Plus, most of the dinosaurs are animatronic. The shot where the T-Rex rips down the electric cables, steps out of the forest and roars remains one of the best CGI shots ever.
SolidSnake032486 7 months ago
CGI is amazing when used correctly. The reason people think it looks fake is because they push it past it's current capabilities. Jurassic park used puppets and CGI, NO stop motion. This test was a failure and the CGI stepped in and did a beautiful job creating fluid motion that stop motion cannot achieve with it's "jerky" effects.
trekgeek1 1 year ago 2
@trekgeek1 The cure for that "Jerky" effect is a process called Go Motion by means of animating the puppet through a computer and rods.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
I'm pretty sure they abandoned go motion for CGI in Jurassic Park. Go motion is not going to be around long. If you are animating puppets with computers, the only step you need to take next is generating realistic textures via CGI. Then you've eliminated the need for puppets all together. That's all the puppets have going for them, their lighting. But computer graphics are getting better very quickly.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 Obviously you didn't understand my comment. I said they didn't use stop motion/go motion was because it was time consuming to get it that smooth. I doubt puppets, animatronics, animation will ever go away. MS Word exists, yet people still use pens. Photoshop exists but people still paint. If there are no longer options in mediums, and if art can be achieved by anybody...then that is a truly sad picture you paint.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
I got your point, I just replied to one comment first then realized you had sent another. I never implied artistic mediums will vanish, I only believe that when the goal is to achieve perfect realism, a computer will prevail. Even so, putting that information into a computer is still an art form. There's no dinosaur key on a computer, well, at least I don't see one. Wait, hold on, ddddddddd, no, nothing.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 Anyone with a brain, training and study of the program can achieve the goal. That's not an artist, that's a technician.
And if you want perfect realism, then a computer is way behind as The Howling, American Werewolf In London, Alien all look more realistic than anything a computer has done. So perfect realism has already been accomplished. How? Because the effect is real. It's being filmed, it's organic.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh I'm sure they'd consider themselves artists in a way. I've seen some art that doesn't seem to take much skill. It's a little difficult to define "artist". Yes, all those movies look better. They were up against old computers. I'm talking about computers in the near future. Art will always exist in different mediums, it may just be that the movie industry won't use them. Like you said, it's about cost, which is quickly dropping in CGI. I'm assuming you're an artist?
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 Of course THEY would consider themselves artists. Most pretentious and egotistical people do.
I just like to put this out there, the whole basis for Avatar's story is how something mechanical will replace something organic. Yet isn't this exactly what Cameron, and CGI is doing? Will it replace locations, actors, will it eventually replace directors, stories? I'm not against technology, i'm against the crusade of it.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
Now you're implying they're pretentious and egotistical. Computers will replace actors, locations and effects. This is because it is cost effective. Dominating the movie industry is not a crusade on the world. The world is not the movie industry. There is room outside of the movies, in reality for artistic mediums and real locations and actors. Why are you so concerned with losing movies to CGI when you have the entire world to propagate your artistic view through?
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 I'm saying most people who claim themselves artists are pretentious and egotistical. I'm not concerned, I am simply saying it's sad. Not only will it put a shit load of people out of work, it will also lose the whole basis for what movies are. I highly doubt it will replace everything in the industry. Simply because then computer games will have no point. Which I doubt the game industry will let happen.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
Interesting take. I would think video games would become more popular. Games offer interaction, which movies do not. Enhanced graphics will allow games to look like movies, while giving the user the ability to interact with the storyline.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 With the advance of 3D and probably hologram you don't realize that the film industry is competing against TV and Video Games? Video Games are kicking the Film industries ass now. Movies will offer interaction because eventually if things go the way we are saying. They will create custom films. You chose the genre, the characters, the setting, the plot and the end. Then you watch. If continued this way. Films will simply become programed.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh
No, it's different. You could program the genre, characters, plot,etc. But it wouldn't be the same as a video game. A video game is real time interaction, not a program selected by the user. If you claim that a movie will do this, you don't have a movie. You now have movies becoming video games. When a movie offers real time interaction, it has become a video game, since that's what games have been all along.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1 Then they will eventually all become video games,
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@TheForgottenFlesh Hell, the transformation scene in The Howling trumps anything I've seen CGI come up with thus far. It boils down to this for studios, if it's easier, do it. Which is ironic since their budgets are millions of dollars. Sure it's easier to animate with a computer but there are always filmmakers/artists who actually want to WORK for their craft.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
cgi is awsome. but i agree with a lot of people. it has bugs that need work. the original starwars was nearly all puppets and bluescreen. now its all greenscreen, and cgi. its not so much cgi has ruined movies, as its over use has.
multibob400 1 year ago
Looks far better than CGI.
AnnaDraconida 1 year ago
Jurassic Park was one of the times I didn't mind them using CGI, but looking at this makes one wonder how it would have worked out. It looks pretty good. No jerky movements or anything.
balrog13571 1 year ago
@Moseslawgiver I agree, the first Jurassic Park worked the best because they used the CGI mesh models to enhance the presence of real dinosaurs let alone got their shape from scanned maquettes made out of clay. The reason the potential of the technique got messed up was for two reasons, one is the way it got marketed to hell as a tool and the other is the evolution of console games. Today audiences have really good reference from games alone so they know what they're looking at.
Dinoslay 1 year ago
@Dinoslay By the way, when I said "real dinosaurs" I meant the animatronic puppets.
Dinoslay 1 year ago
@Dinoslay I think the corruption of it all started when they began to short cut the process. T2 was made with Adobe Photoshop, frame by frame like a painting. Once you start letting the computer simulate skins and elemental effects for the artist, you lose sight of realism.
VaughnFry 1 year ago
@VaughnFry Not quite. You're misquoting. They only used photoshop to clean up the enveloping rips when the cg skin would 'rip', and things of that nature - more like wire removal work. And the skin jiggle and muscle/fat ripples were not achieved with physics simulations but by hand - moving the geometry on a frame to frame basis.
halfvader0007 1 year ago
@halfvader0007 He was speaking of Terminator 2 where the only computer simulated character was the T-1000. It's likely that they did indeed only use Photoshop for wire removal and simple compositing although in that film the mesh model simulation doesn't overtake the movie either. JP and T2 are both good example of CGI used well. Any effect can be overused but I think they could combine these old methods digitally via new ways. They're not useless.
Dinoslay 1 year ago
Genial!
josevicenteoliveira 1 year ago
I´m making a clay dinosaur for animation, but i am having realiy serious problems with the skin rig (the clay always breaks), woulda any of tou guys give me a tip so i can solve my problem?
watch my videos, i´m sebasrobot55.
sebasrobot55 1 year ago
It's not actually stop-motion but rather a variation known as Go-motion (hence the motion blur) developed by Phil Tippet.
Nice upload.
doomed13 1 year ago
I think stop-motion,when doing robots,is very convincing,maybe moreso than CGI.Look at Robocain from Robocop2.Imagine what they could do today.Does anyone have an example of how lifelike it has gotte????.If they could get the framerate and movement smooth.
t5239857289578947594 2 years ago
This was made more than a decade a go imagine them updating this now in 2010 it would look extremely realistic.
teta809 2 years ago
Thank you Steven Spielberg.
DrHouse2004 2 years ago
This is thé first movie in 3D spécial effect.
DrHouse2004 2 years ago
Stop motion is NOT dead or even close to dying. If anything, its making a huge comeback and is gonna T-bag CGI's mother. In the last few years alone there were 3 full length stop motion films released in theaters and a countless number of stop motion short films. And everyday i keep seeing more and more commercials and shows on television that are animated in stop motion. CGI sucks the big ones. It takes all the talent and fun out of animating. Long live the motion of stop!
gamramor 2 years ago
@gamramor Stop motion is NOT dead or even close to dying. If anything, its making a huge comeback and is gonna T-bag CGI's mother. In the last few years alone there were 3 full length stop motion films released in theaters
Are you trying to argue against yourself here? :p
Duckenheimer 1 year ago
I can't beleive how good this looks. It looks just as good, if not better than some of the shots in JP.
JurassicJones 2 years ago
genious this. Too bad stop motion is a dying art, since I feel that the brain feels that some things just are too unreal. If I look at those horrible yeti's in the mummy3 for instance I literally get nausea from it. I spew on CGI.
finnmerijn 2 years ago 14
Stop mo is quite definately un-dying at the moment, I think. However stop motion monster effects will probably never be the same again.
cartoonmarc 2 years ago 2
@finnmerijn
Damn, I love doing cg. Didnt know I was so evil :(
Chicano3000X 1 year ago
@Chicano3000X You're only evil if you make a good movie look crappy with it.
finnmerijn 1 year ago
@finnmerijn
I would take CG rex over clay Rex any day of the week.
MattAlbie 1 year ago
@MattAlbie I don't think Jurassic Park would of worked in Go Motion. I am glad it was combo of CGI/animatronics.
JoshOrtiz88 1 year ago
@JoshOrtiz88 IT's not so much it wouldn't have worked it just would have been really labor intensive, this test looks fine, maybe touch up the go animation, smooth it out with CGI. It's possible to have realistic Stop Motion and Go Motion but it's time consuming and labor intensive, you can tell Spielberg wanted Stop Motion (do to his love of old films) but the studio saw how long it would take and he couldn't do it.
TheForgottenFlesh 1 year ago
@MattAlbie It's technically foam rubber, not clay but I get what you mean. What you miss however is that stop motion can also look cool when done carefully, even better when combined with other effects. It's not all claymation but a carefully crafted art not limited to just clay. Just like CGI, it looks bad when abused and better when done with subtlety.
Dinoslay 1 year ago
Tippett definitely put a good model together. It's tough to say how different the movie would be had they went this route. I know this much, the years that followed would be very different.
VaughnFry 2 years ago
Has everyone forgotten Fantastic Mr Fox which was released last year? Brilliant reappearance of stop-motion.
BriarFilth 2 years ago
As well as Coraline. Those scratch the surface of what can be done. People are just too blinded by the details of today's modern montage styled presentation of film. Endless moving detail doesn't mean *fart* if it has no story behind it to connect to.
Dinoslay 2 years ago
Like an "analog" Avtar for example? ;-)
When Jim Cameron said, that he wrote the script back in '95, but the technology wasn't ready to ralize his vision I thought: It would surely have been possible, with stop motion, etc. If you had been willing to spend a billion dollars on making the movie...
Director84 2 years ago
That`s awesome, Phil Tippet`s go-motion work for Jurassic Park was awesome
WetKant 2 years ago 2
Tim Burton seems to be a Stop Motion Fan. Sure, the upcoming Alice in Wonderland is mainly CGI, but "Corpse Bride" still was a Stop Motion film, greatly demonstrating the capabilities of this dead-declared technology.
Also powerful is a combination of CGI and Stop Motion, like in the music video to "Me" by ASP (can be found here on youtube).
Director84 2 years ago
georginiou.
Go-Motion was created for the Original Empire Strikes Back in 1978.
So it would have be developed more than enough buy 1994. If you dont think so just look at the AT-AT battle on Hoff from Empire. man that still hold it ground today.
The reason it was not used is that Spielberg wanted to try out the new and up coming special effects of the time. That being CGI.
JUSTJUICE76 2 years ago
What the hell, this looks fine to me. Completely realistic.
TiniNormi 2 years ago
The simple reason CG is better than stop motion for live action movies is down to motion blur. Due to stop motion being a series of still images, it's always jerky so doesn't combine with film. Either way, stop motion or CG, they both look kinda fake for different reasons, so who cares?
georginiou 2 years ago
Actually, motion blur is not a problem for stop motion anymore. A technique exists called "go motion", which is like stop motion except the model moves a little during the individual exposures - voila! Motion Blur!
Macitar1 2 years ago 2
Maybe now, but not in 1994 when Jurassic Park was made.
georginiou 2 years ago
Go Motion was developed for use in Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back (1980). It was the technology that drove the Taun Taun mounts and the Imperial Walkers.
Macitar1 2 years ago
True, there is always an inconsistency that audiences need to forgive in order to enjoy it. That is easier with cartoons which both CGI and Stop Motion serve well. With live action actors that might be more problematic. With that a happening needs a different starting point. For other words, one needs to keep it elusive. I guess people simply expected less inconsistency with CGI when infact it can have a similar problem as Stop Motion.
Dinoslay 2 years ago
@georginiou Not anymore. RIGAR MOTION PICTURES.
kezadrone 1 year ago
m_) looks quite cool for being stop motion..I love the skin ...on its stomach lol, did I just say that ? ...
m_) i suck at explaining myself correctly..
not that I am obsess with stomachs and ....nevermind..
m_) madd
gatometalico 2 years ago 2
Looks real, unlike cgi
BeserkRodent 2 years ago
This is a beautiful walk cycle for go motion, but I must say, as a kid, I wouldn't have believed it's movements as much as when they did the CGI. And I'm not saying it's because it was CGI'd, but the way in which they blended the anamatronics and animation so well. It's a shame though, stop motion is an amazing art form.
S0XF0X 2 years ago
It's good but Jurassic Park animotion was even good and I guess it's less work when the structure is scanned to let it move like ever you want it to.
artfantasies 2 years ago
In my humble opinion the only side in CGI that ever made it revolutionary is the three-dimensional space. CGI is easier to pick out nowadays because of the way it is abused thus it makes itself very obtrusive. As detailed as it is you no longer believe that what exists on screen can be anything else than computer simulation. It's not the effect but how you use it.
Dinoslay 2 years ago
This is incredible, but it screams "stop motion". When I see jurassic park I don't think "CGI!!!!". I just see the dinosaurs interacting with the people.
UoBtExFODA 2 years ago
@UoBtExFODA
You´re right. When Phil Tippet did those animations back in 1992 or 1993 Stop Motion had decades to develop. You can be sure, what you see here is damn close to the climax of Stop Motion. Phil Tippet was a true master to this technique, but please be honest: It´s FAR away from being photorealistic. Where is the muscle sliding? The jiggling of muscles and fat? There´s a good reason why Spielberg decided to use CGI. It´s simply the better way of realistic visualization.
chrisakamaki 1 year ago
When they SAW this -HOW could they possibly choose CG over stop-motion... It's just UNBELIEVABLE to me... Tippet's work here is unparalled... Yet... We are working on making that statement no longer true... Stop-motion is COMING BACK!!! Check my channel for the video "Pursuit : Stop motion and Live action!"... Please comment comment comment!!! :o)
Vortex42 2 years ago
Because of the fact that CGI looks more real, and the movement is more smooth.. what you can do in Computers is unlimited, explosions, matte painting, everything. It can't really be done with stop motion the way it can be done with cgi, it's just not as real.
Giganotosaurus1993 2 years ago
How is it posible with stop motion to stretch and twitch skin like that?
Leto85 2 years ago