🧵 Silent Hill (1999) 3DCG
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 15:30:29 UTC No. 916731
https://youtu.be/s7-E1-J-FS8?t=18
What do you think about the intro video to the original Silent Hill? How does it fare against other animation of the era, and how does it hold up today? It was a fairly small production, and all the pre-rendered scenes were created by just one man in two and a half years, starting in 1996. The shot of Lisa (the nurse) at 0:59 is my favorite.
There's also a "blooper" movie that plays after the game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJw
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 20:07:46 UTC No. 916760
>>916731
>Intro:
AI removes all the rack focus and soft focus from the shots and tries to convert it to a deep focus, which means meaning of a scene shot with a certain focus is lost.
Shallow focus is useful to center the attention
to a character emotion or show the importance of something, and soft focus create a dream like shot, which most of the intro is shot this way.
>The blooper:
The AI is somehow messing with the capture rates and presentation rates, It maybe because the AI is trying to make it all the same while in reality different frame rates are used for different feelings sometimes in animation, slow, fast and normal motion which work with a ratio of capture/presentation rates.
>VERIDIC
you probably can get away with using AI for something, but the more you use it the more chances it messes something up.
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 20:11:33 UTC No. 916761
>>916731
count.
>What do you think about the intro video to the original Silent Hill?
it look good still today, it more about a narrative that sells it, along with good uses of cinematography techniques.
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 20:13:32 UTC No. 916763
>>916731
final count.
Also the original intro looks better btw than the AI one.
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 20:23:54 UTC No. 916764
Good for the time as there was probably no to very little documentation.
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 20:33:22 UTC No. 916766
>>916761
I'm talking more about the technical aspects, the modeling and animation, and not cinematography and such. I chose the AI version because it's from a superior source (a DVD of some kind) and the remastering isn't messed up like in some other videos.
What would have been the state of the art around 1996-1999 for realistically modeled and animated humans?
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 21:07:38 UTC No. 916768
>>916766
>technical aspects of modeling and animation
>the state of the art around 1996-1999 for realistically modeled and animated humans?
The fondamental are still pretty similar to this day...
They had to work with extreme low polycount, low res texture and low memory, so they actually made miracles with what they had. I would say we are less technical today than old artist that literally had to hack the console to get a few megabytes more out the system.
Also CPU and GPU were following Moore's Law on the years1996-1999, so it was a completely different to work on any of those years.
We cannot really compare because our tools are way faster, less buggy and we work with systems 100x more powerfull than even the richest studio had at the time. But the fundamentals are still the same... hell you probably could can better effects from old methods if you read 3D books from 1996-1999 because they were all about optimization; today we... really just don't care much (our machines are beasts).
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Sep 2022 21:12:02 UTC No. 916770
>>916766
also if you REALLY want to know what was like around those times just get books from those times and read.... (Spolier:it actually pretty similar)
Anonymous at Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:03:32 UTC No. 916798
>>916731
looks better than that mafia investigator game w\ their faces superimposed over their heads & shitty mocap
Anonymous at Sun, 11 Sep 2022 23:28:08 UTC No. 917596
No not with those puddy skin models.