Sometimes I think CGI is CGI.... that it's barely much better than the days of JURRASIC PARK. But a photo like this reminds me how far along this artform has come. Bravo, ILM!
Very true and in 2003 we thought the hulk couldnt get much better portrayed and yet he did. And he's angrier as well :)
Compare the 2003 Hulk to the 2008 Hulk - and you'll see a large image jump there too.
2008 vs 2012 isn't as pronounced.
A lot of this is based on the fact that ILM didn't use Normal & Displacement maps in their pipeline much. Whilst displacement mapping had been around for sometime, it wasn't part of higher end pipelines. With the advent of the work done at Weta on LOTR (which pushed normal and displacement mapping to the cutting edge of CG pipelines), ILM incorpoarted this into their pipeline.
ILM used ZBrush as part of their pipeline for Pirates of the Caribbean 2 - Dead man's Chest.. That was really the new 'measure' for CGI rendering at the time.
I quite liked the 2008 Hulk :)
But the new 2012 has a lot of character.
Well the main differences I find in these two designs, is the older one, looks real, less sweaty, but more in contribution to its inferior design to the new, he looks like a baby face...no imperfections in the face, no wrinkles or anything like that. Plus you never see that kind of color green in nature (I know its all supposed to be fabricated, but these are things that add to realism or not.) But the main thing that gets me personally, is the first hulk really doesn't look much like Eric Bana, while the new Hulk looks very much like Mark Ruffalo, which for me added a whole layer of realism. :)
P.S. SSS shaders were in their infancy when the first one came out, many things attributed to the inferior image, yes...things have come a long way in 9 years :)
Yes, sub surface and ambient occlusion were used more in still rendering, not as much in sequential.
I did a quick google, but couldn't see any 2003 Hulk images that were the equivalent of the 2012 beauty render... the 2003 looks more like a movie grab rather than a PR image - so it might not be quite as bad as we remember (?) :)
I remember using depth maps (zbuffers) fed into translucency channels to get ears looking right, as SSS was painful on render farms... (been involved in CG since 1989 - anyone remember Cubicomps and Symbolics?) - ahh the good old days - LOL.
I agree with Solomon, the real clincher on the new hulk is the similarity to Mark Ruffalo, that 'sells' it more than anything :)
Although, I did like the look of the 2008 version, but it was a bit more CG 'cutscene' (videogame style).
Pretty drastic jump from late 70s/early 80s CGI...
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|