• commented on the post, Post 4, on the site Elisey 6 years, 3 months ago

    I think its totally OK if you use first person. The whole “don’t say I thing because we know you wrote this” rule is a load of shit. Yes the reader knows you wrote it, but being forced to change your language to […]

  • wrote a new post, Beta Build, on the site Blurpity 6 years, 3 months ago

    Ok this more like a Late Alpha build, Had to move out of a apartment and had a final to study for so i wasn’t as up to date as i desired to be.

    Also take notice, no design is going to be done until the actual content is finished. So its basically going to look like crap until Monday or Tuesday.

    https://sites.google.com/site/blurpityproject/home

  • One of the biggest… no not biggest. One of the absolute worst offenders of this would be the prequel to 1982’s John Carpenter’s the thing which came out in 2011. That is nearly thirties years of advancement in computers and effects and they look worse in every single way. The 1982 versions effects have aged nearly flawlessy… Scratch that they have not aged at all they still look great. Their secret?  They are all done in practical effects.

    “For 1982, the special effects featured throughout John Carpenter’s The Thing are spectacular. Even to this day in a world full of state of the art CGI wizardry, the old-fashioned practical effects showcased here continue to shine. The creatures themselves are disturbing horrors conjured from the darkest corners of the most insane nightmares. The first glimpse we as an audience get of The Thing commences when an infected Husky dog finally decides to show its true colors. First the skin on this pooch’s face peels back, revealing a raw, alien façade. Then squirming from its body like writhing snakes burst a bundle of tentacles that proceed to latch onto a group of surrounding dogs. Then before you know it, we’re looking at an unholy abomination, tentacles bursting in every direction and skin all but missing. It’s a gross sight to behold, but one that’s unquestionably unique and imaginative.”

    That is what we are dealing with here, The new versions effects just don’t look right. Nothing has a sense of weight it, everything feels like it’s made of air instead of meat (I mean seriously its actually made of something even less substantial then air when you think of it but whatever).

    I don’t think this is a beautiful example of how i want it look, but its uhh not a terrible now is it? I’ve found rereading some of my work that it comes out research papery at times. I really want to avoid that for a variety of reasons. The first, The first is this; i hate reading and writing that type of crap soo i uhh really don’t want it sound that way so ill probably edit it to sound alot more conversational after the rough draft is done. I think that of everything i want out of this project a conversational tone is this the most important. I don’t want to some jackass sitting on their stupid freaking pedestal spouting rhetoric about my subject. What i want is to sit down with who ever the hell is reading this and have a discussion, not an argument mind you, arguments are for pundants and bores who have nothing better to do then try to convince people to their way of thinking instead of not being an asshole and leaving them alone. How is a discussion any different, Well its only as different as i make it in my mind. To me a discussion is this, we are both talking about it because we are both already interested and if someone changes their mind over the course of it no big deal, there is no winners or losers, just two people talking about a mutual interest.

     

    I left that as a blockqoute for now just because i wasn’t sure what i really wanted to do with it beyond that i liked how he put it, and he has more to say on the subject later on so ill probably have a few more things that dude was saying throughout my “the thing” analysis

  • Lets keep this short and sweet shall we? I chose to house my project on google sites. I felt it was easily customizable and unlike other websites I had looked at it did not overly hold my hand; So I could actually […]

  • commented on the post, Partial Draft, on the site Just an average guy 6 years, 3 months ago

    “The problem with understand esports” You should add an Ing to that Understand…

    “Esports also offers many opportunities for growth as an industry aside from just being a professional player and has worked to […]

  • As of Now I have not found a different place to hold my final assignment so this will have to do for now.

    Since the early Nineteen-Ninties there has been an explosion in the use of computer generated graphics in films, television and other media. Prior to this period of time they were either prohibitively expensive or non sufficiently advanced to warrant use to create an effect. But since then due to shrinking costs and rapidly improving quality they became more and more common. And by nature of CGI becoming more prominent other forms of effects such as stunts, make-up, and other forms of visual effects have receded in popularity. Other forms of effects peaked in the 1980’s due to them having reached their most advanced point without being over shadowed by CGI

    The issue with a significant amount of research is that it ignores what is lost when you replace an older technology in its totality with a newer one. It also in general focus far too much on where CGI has succeeded in creating visuals and not enough on where it has failed. This is important because its hard to really argue  against something when its only achievements that are ever acknowledged are its triumphs and its failures are ignored.  Most of the research is also fairly shallow, with no real focus on any one source; I intend to have a large focus on singular films as examples instead of cherry picking scenes from dozens of movies. Why? simple, a more in-depth look is really needed to understand why some things fail and others succeed.

    This is what I claim, what I stand with, what I am telling you is true. CGI has become overused, for a variety of reasons, but still overused to the point of ridiculousness. Some research says its more popular now because its cheaper, which is generally not true. It’s also been said that  because that’s what audience demand, the real reason though is it has just become the paradigm because of rapid advances leading to a fad diminishing, which is not to say its all bad because it’s not. And finally I say that both CGI and other forms of Visual effects are used to their full potentially only when they are used in a complementary fashion to each others; instead of on their own.

    The increasing reliance on CGI as the sole generator of effects is not a good thing, and there is many, many reasons why. To start with it is frequently used in a fashion to create something that could have been much easier done in the real world, such as a wound being covered in blood, or a car crashing into a cinder-block wall. Frankly it is also frequently a much more costly substitute for these effects costing much more to create what would of cheaply been done with other forms of effects

    While costs and ease of creation are obviously important there are more important reasons why using CGI as the default tool for visual effects is not always the right choice. CGI  has issues with portraying an event in a realistic way that  stem from it not being a physical thing that other forms of effects do not suffer from, and by using it the way it has been this feeling was lost. Another great reason the over use of CGI is harmful to Media is because of this; it ages poorly; What was once cutting edge and realistic looks fake within a few years after a much more advanced visual has been created, essentially dating what ever it was to a moment in time and aging it the day it’s created.

    • It’s also been said that because that’s what audience demand, the real reason though is it has just become the paradigm because of rapid advances leading to a fad diminishing, which is not to say its all bad because it’s not. ?

      CGI has issues with portraying an event in a realistic way that stem from it not being a physical thing that other forms of effects do not suffer from, and by using it the way it has been this feeling was lost. CGI is less realistic than x

      a wound being covered in blood, or a car crashing into a cinder-block wall. Frankly it is also frequently a much more costly substitute for these effects — Is it more expensive to use CGI (a computer generates the image of a car crashing) than actually crash a new car (cost of car)?

  • wrote a new post, Research Trends, on the site Blurpity 6 years, 3 months ago

    ThumbnailSo here were the research trends I identified. A MS paint Diagram… Thing fit me more then a power point

     

     

     

     

    Sorry for how small it is, it was scaled down repeatedly every time that it was […]

    • Thanks for this visual Blurpity. It helps me see your research — and emerging sub-claims you can make. The idea of the aging of CGI (never thought about this!), the role industry experts take in your research — i.e. it’s clear your scholars (at least some of them) value industry people’s voices. Also you say that 3 of 8 sources look at specific movies and do an analysis of their effects. This is something you, as researcher could do as well in your project. Take a theory of a researcher, and apply it to a specific movie, or specific scene in a movie. Nice work! You are ready to write!!

  • wrote a new post, Research Nugget #7, on the site Blurpity 6 years, 3 months ago

    Citation

    Why Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion effects were more real than CGI. (n.d.). Boing Boing Why Ray Harryhausens stopmotion effects were more real thanCGI Comments. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from […]

  • wrote a new post, Concept Experiance #6, on the site Blurpity 6 years, 3 months ago

    It has been shown through research that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. If you see more positive posts than negative posts, then you start posting more positive posts as well.-

    The second link is […]

  • Perhaps I am an idiot, but I already have a research nugget 6, so uhh yea, this is its own things.

    Several professional animators wanted to be able to draw and
    paint pictures which could then be animated in real time by
    simply showing the system roughly what was wanted.
    Desired changes would be made by iconically editing the
    animation sequences

    A pretty short paragraph: No? I mean not to cop out here but this more or less relates to any bit of research that has anything to do with CGI that i have done. Because that’s all it is, drawings in a computer being animated. For instance in Dark and Light the author about just creating a bridge on a computer instead of shooting on one that already existed. Another good example would be “Is it Real of is it fake” which is all about creating characters on a computer and super imposing them over human movements on the film. And anything thats not basically practical effects only this type of information comes into play in

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    Uhg i hate that song too, same goes for Happy, by Pharrel WIlliams. That song makes me so mad THERE IS NOTHING TOO IT, HES JUST SAYING THE SAME SHIT OVER AGAIN FOR THREE MINUTES. Anyways Even with them using the internet to diversify their radio stations finding one that plays something other than country, soft rock, pop, or Hip hop is impossible…[Read more]

  • commented on the post, Research Nugget #5, on the site Elisey 6 years, 3 months ago

    I think there has probably been some backlash from the people who grew up with the internet as far as its relevance. I am sure there is some amount of people who just always had the internet so everything new on […]

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    I don’t find it very surprising that Hip-Hop/rap is aligned with Objectification, i mean its basically the premise of most of it, That or weed, All the weed. But yea, i generally like to think people have the capacity to separate what they consume with how they act, on the reverse of that however people who are already in line with those themes…[Read more]

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    Yea i also felt the visuals were adequate for the length of the paper. Anymore without adding additional writing would make it almost like 50/50. I am glad i am not the only one who would of added more opinion, I think this whole thing is too slimy to just give it a pass without saying anything about the potentially unethical status of it all.

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    Yea i found this article to be vague as well. Its like the author barely felt the need to explain the significance of anything that happened, or to take a stance other than “all research is good and exciting Yay!” And i do appreciate the link to the study, its appalling that wasn’t in there to start with.

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    I think in the realm of south park references the Human-centipad episode with where Stan kept not hitting accept without reading would of a been more relevant lol. Also i agree with there not being much analysis, honestly it seemed to me like the author just went “o hey facebook and research this is good right ” without realy thinking of the…[Read more]

  • Citation: Freedman, Y. (2012). Is It Real…or Is It Motion Capture? The Battle to Redefine Animation in the Age of Digital Performance. Velvet Light Trap: A Critical Journal Of Film & Television, (69), 38-49.

    Link

    The claim is this; There is an increasing amount of motion capture being used in films; replacing more traditional forms of animation (computer generated or otherwise) and the author looks to see who deserves credit for the effectiveness as a medium.

    ” The definitions of both animation and live action, there-fore, hinge upon how we understand motion capture. The technology may have advanced to the point where raw motion-capture data can constitute a performance, but the images still require significant manipulation before they are considered viable for exhibitions”

    “Bird was insistent that motion capture was only as good as the additional artistry layered on top of it. “if you don’t muck with mo-cap” he claimed, “you don’t get the nuance of real actors and you don’t get the selective caricatures of animation. The best mo-cap that I’ve seen has all been messed with by animation, in much the same way the best rotoscope done in Disney’s time was really mucked with”

     

    Ok before delving into the nuggets that were torn asunder from Yacov Freedman’s text, let them be summarized in a most brief fashion.

    The good scholar duth explore the depths of how motion capture is created, and implemented by its creators. Yacov continues by comparing it to its ancestor Rotoscoping (drawing a picture over a model) and how it was begot from that most exalted practice. finally it is spoken upon how even the greatest of mo-cap’s requires the hand of a skilled artist to guide it to greatness.

    And that my friends leads into what Freedman says in those nuggets. Both of these nuggets deal with the limitation’s of motion capture technology and how it needs to be later enhanced by a visual artist for it to truly be realized in its full glory. I like this for two reasons, one it shows the limits of a form of CGI i had not really looked into before. Secondly Practicle effects are also only at there best when they are altered in post production. This creates a tentative link that both forms of visual effects are flawed and require extra work to be brought to their full potential.

    Interestingly enough, this state of needing touch ups agree’s with some of what Barbara Roberston said in her article Dark and Light. In a lot of area’s the effect was created, such as the flying Bat mobile thing, and something needed to be taken out to make the shot believable. Such as the car that it was basically nailed to the top of, or the crane that was lifting it off the ground.

    • Sorry about my lack of film knowledge — but what is motion capture? Is it a form of CGI? You say this article “shows the limits of a form of CGI i had not really looked into before.” How so? (This passage leads me to think that motion capture IS a form of CGI).
      Motion capture needs “another layer of artistry” — what does that mean? I’d like to hear more about this.
      I do think this article seems to give you some information I haven’t seen before in your earlier summaries. : )

    • I myself don’t have a whole lot of background in film but i’ll take your word, and his for it! Having an expert’s opinion on motion capture is the way to go in order to make your argument better. In a day when computer animation and CGI are taking over practical effects, I think we need to try to keep focus on what makes what we see on screen the most authentic.

  • posted a new activity comment 6 years, 3 months ago

    In some ways i can see spotify and other services being good for musicians because they expose bands that are maybe less popular to people. I for one had no idea about Avantasia until they came up on a Pandora feed i was listening too. But i think the free nature of things more negatively effects the low-medium popularity people then others. Like…[Read more]

  • wrote a new post, (no title), on the site Blurpity 6 years, 3 months ago

    Thumbnail

     

    By William Hughes

    Jun 27, 2014 3:30 PM

    Scientists at Facebook have published a paper showing that they manipulated the content seen by more than 600,000 users in an attempt to determine whether this […]

    • We definitely need to be more careful on what we post on social media, or we could unknowingly we part of an experiment as well. People usually don’t take what they say and add to their facebook and other accounts too seriously unfortunately.

    • Godwin’s law was certainly interesting. It’s something I never heard of before and until I read your explanation in your reflection, I was thoroughly confused by the last hyperlink.