• Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    But also a ton of practical effects. The CGI was mostly there to help the practical effects, the movie wasn’t full on CGI like Avatar.

        • kokopelli@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Stop posting youtube. I don’t watch youtube.

                I posted an article that states clearly they flew the planes. Read it and stop posting youtube.

                • kokopelli@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Well, if that’s how you win an argument, I don’t read IGN.

                  But for those who are curious, in the first posted video he talks about a timeline walkthrough that the editor did. All the jets are CGI covers over F-14s painted grey with lighting markers, except the F-18s. HOWEVER, there were only ever 1 or 2 F-18s in the air, so when you see a squadron of them, the others are CGI.

                  So yes, there were some real jets, but that wasn’t the argument you made. You said the film was done practically, which is not true. Even if you have 2/4 jets really in the air, that’s not “practical” and still counts as CGI.

                  And I can see where you got this opinion, the news outlets at the time and all interviews spouted “NO CGI!!” Because it is good marketing, but it’s not true.

                • koberulz@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Video evidence is far more convincing than someone’s say-so.

                  • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    In a comment thread about CGI and VFX, you really want to talk about how accurate the video is?

            • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is incorrect; take it directly from the movie’s editor, Eddie Hamilton ACE, on how the VFX CGIs were done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE1pOMpQvbw You can see at the 4 minutes mark where the actual jets in the movie were just stand ins, and VFX artists are told to use CGI to reskin them with the jets in the final movie.

              • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                That is the Russian and F-14. I already acknowledged those two were CGI. We don’t have access to an SU-57, and they are not flying F-14 anymore.

                The F-18 are real planes with the send seat edited out.