The problem is that the camera stays on the CGFOs to much. Decent animators (or Hollywood camera men for that matter) know that you should delay the camera motion. Let the subject leave the frame for a second to keep the shot realistic.
I wouldn't be surprised if the entire shots are CG. The palm trees look very familiar to those from Vue d'Esprit (Eon Software):
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/Pictures/Nature/Cerro-Verde.jpg
The individual palms vary little in shape and size, and look too 'clean'. The leafs look kinda tidy and 'flat', as in alpha textured polygons. The animation of the leafs looks a bit uniform too (noisy sine wave).
Camera movement and focal blur looks very well done in these vids. The former may have been mo-capped, I should say. The low exposure is very convincing, not uncommon in 'amateur' recordings.
Furthermore, in the DR video, the effect where the CGFO moves over the sun (lens flare, glare, shadow over foreground objects) is hard to achieve unless you do everything CG. If the background is real footage, then it is very well composited. But to me it makes more sense to do the shots all CG, which is easier than inserting CG elements into a background plate. It would involve to much rotoscoping and camera tracking.
The backdrop is probably a matte comprised of a number of photographs mapped on a skydome. Notice that in both videos the ground structures are very similar (if not identical).
The plot thickens.
No comments:
Post a Comment