Ship Identification

[ETR3(SS)]

Special Effects.

[ERPP8]

The effects are too good to be CGI

Besides they had the money to build a real U-Boat, not buy it.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

The effects are too good to be CGI

As a person who both messed with CGI and has seen it's effects from people who actually know what they're doing, I'll have to disagree with you.

[ERPP8]

The ships don's match either, I found it to be a 1936B destroyer.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

The ships don's match either, I found it to be a 1936B destroyer.

The real one (Which, again, was never completed), not the one in the movie as none of these exist today (Or have existed when it was filmed).

EDIT: Whoops, that's not even right since she was supposed to be of the unbuilt 1936C class.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

The real one (Which, again, was never completed), not the one in the movie as none of these exist today (Or have existed when it was filmed).

EDIT: Whoops, that's not even right since she was supposed to be of the unbuilt 1936C class.

Exactly. If you compare photos or drawings the ship in the movie hardly resembles any WW2 era German destroyer built or unbuilt. The lines are all wrong.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

The effects are too good to be CGI

Besides they had the money to build a real U-Boat, not buy it.

I think you are underestimating what can be done with CGI.

Here's one example what an "average Joe" can do today:


Tho, I'm pretty sure that in this case, the explosion is real. In *shivers* Pearl Harbor, some of the explosions were done by laying out charges on the decks of the ships, but naturally they werent destructive charges, just something to give a fireball. Also, IIRC, from behind the scenes, they had the charges on scaffolding or soemthing like that to keep the actualy contact of the explosion to minimum with the ship's deck.

[ERPP8]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I think you are underestimating what can be done with CGI.

The biggest problem with modern CGI technology is the generated textures, they look too smooth, not random like real life.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

The biggest problem with modern CGI technology is the generated textures, they look too smooth, not random like real life.

Randomness can be adjusted by the artist easily. Especially with FumeFX, given you have a biiiig render farm, you can put the resolution very high and you get a very random explosion with lots of small details and stuff, resulting to a very real looking explosion/smoke/fire.

[ERPP8]

There will always be a gap between real and CGI though and we will be able to tell the difference.
Another thing is frame rate.
CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.

[Raptor1]

Saying 'always' is not a very good proposition...

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

There will always be a gap between real and CGI though and we will be able to tell the difference.

But will that knowing be "A-ha! I see there isnt enough wisp in the smoke for it to be real" or will it be "I dont think they'd really blow that thing up, so it must be CGI"?

Another thing is frame rate.
CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.

This is something that can be simulated in CGI.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by ERPP8

CGI will have a high frame rate and actual filming of explosions is more limited.

That depends on the type of camera the explosion is being captured on. Super Slow Motion cameras have an extremely high frame rate (10,000 FPS), allowing very fine detail to be captured in real time. The real problem is in the rendering of a 10,000FPS CGI image.