| Author/speaker | Audience | Context | |
| Source 1 | SimplyMaya. SimplyMaya is a website that teaches the computer program Maya, a popular 3D modeling and animation program. Due to their involvement in the industry, they are likely to have a valid opinion on the topic. | SimplyMaya's audience would be those involved or interested in computer animation. It would either be students or hobbyists interested in Maya. | The uncanny valley is a huge hurdle for animation companies to overcome. SimplyMaya, involved in the education of 3D modeling, would have an interest in educating its readers on the number one hurdle that animation companies have yet to overcome. |
| Source 2 | Frank E. Pollick, professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Glasgow. As a professor of psychology, Pollick could have a lot to say about the "why" of the uncanny valley. | Published as an article, Pollick's paper would be aimed towards his peers in psychology. The paper likely assumes a background in psychology when reading. | As the uncanny valley deals with human acceptance of near-human objects, its interest to psychology is obvious. Since the uncanny valley is simply a hypothesis, and at the time of this writing not proven, a scientific insight to it seems as though it could be rewarding. |
| Source 3 | Popular Mechanics is a popular science and technology-based publication, frequently dealing with concepts like robotics and animation. They would sit in an position to discuss the sciences of the uncanny valley. | Readers of Popular Mechanics may not be scientists or engineers, but they would have an interest in science and technology. The article is not aimed at the academic level, but likely assumes the reader has some background in science or technology. | The article actually delves into the fact that the uncanny valley is not scientifically supported. It's never been tested or validated with any empirical evidence. This would have strong implications on popular Mechanics reader base, many of whom likely base some of their design choices around the uncanny valley. |
Saturday, September 26, 2015
5.8 Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations
5.7 Developing a Research Question
While researching my topic for Project #1, the one aspect that seemed to have the most discussion or controversy around it was the concept of the Uncanny Valley, or the idea that as something reaches a level of almost-but-not-quite human, our emotional response will turn to disgust. I formed 4 questions on this topic:
1. Will we ever 'cross' the uncanny valley (create a digital person or robot indistinguishable from a human)?
2. Is the uncanny valley a real, scientifically validated phenomenon?
3. What features, specifically, are difficult to reproduce on a robot or digital model?
4. What are the implications, for either robotics or animation, if we can create passable human analogues?
1. Will we ever 'cross' the uncanny valley (create a digital person or robot indistinguishable from a human)?
2. Is the uncanny valley a real, scientifically validated phenomenon?
3. What features, specifically, are difficult to reproduce on a robot or digital model?
4. What are the implications, for either robotics or animation, if we can create passable human analogues?
5.6 Reflection on Project 1
What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?
The big challenge was finding credible sources. There's a bunch of social media and forum threads bashing CGI and movies, but trying to find a well researched article on it is challenging. Also trying to find images that are free use.
What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
The one particular video by Freddie Wong was a good summary on why CGI wasn't so bad. In fact, most other articles I could find were just referencing that video, which didn't really work for me too well.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
Since most of my sources focused on the 'CGI is good' side of the argument, I structured my article from the point of view of the 'CGI is bad' to give that side a voice. I would usually ask a hypothetical question from their perspective and then try to answer it.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
It was hard to write in a 'point/counterpoint' layout, since I didn't have too many anti-CGI viewpoints. I mostly had to address why their anger was unjustified (occasionally ceding on a few points) since I couldn't find a good source on why CGI was bad.
How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
I still had to find sources and back up my points with those sources. The layout was different, but the requirements were the same.
How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
Having the article broken up into sections with the intent of viewing on the internet. Most writing I've done was with the intent of printing on a 8.5x11 sheet, 12pt Times New Roman, double spaced. etc. This is the first major writing that wasn't like that.
Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
Being able to locate sources, especially scholarly sources, will definitely come in handy in future classes,
Project #1: How Computer Generated Imagery is Ruining and Saving Cinema
In 1991, a security guard is getting a soda from the vending machine as the digital face of Robert Patrick rises up behind him, forever cementing Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) as the backbone of cinema for the foreseeable future. The film is Terminator 2, one of the first films to utilize CGI to create a fully digitized character [4]. Since then, nearly every film made seems to have some degree of digital effect.
CGI can be great. It can take us to worlds, see people, things, and creatures not possible 30 years ago. But as some would point out, sometimes CGI is just awful. We’ve all seen a film that blows us away with how terrible the animation is. In 2001, Universal Pictures releases The Mummy Returns, which has a scene where Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson emerges as the terrifying Scorpion King [10].
Many lovers of cinema will cringe at the sight of such CGI. Some people want to return to an age of practical effects, where special effects are done through puppets, animatronics, or miniatures. These so-called “real effects” are actual physical objects, and don’t age as quickly as CGI. These opinions have led to a clash of ideals between cinema fans and producers over this central issue: are computerized graphics ruining movies?
Why use CGI at all? Shouldn’t it only be utilized for shots that can’t be done with practical effects?
Do you ever wonder why Jurassic Park’s (1993) CGI still looks so good? The fact is that a lot of the film wasn’t CG at all. Jurassic Park used a combination of miniatures, animatronics, CGI and people in raptor suits to create the effect of the dinosaurs.
Many would argue that this is the way it should still be done. CGI should be sparse, used for scenes of a T-Rex running or when an animatronic can’t quite move quick enough. On the movies community of Reddit, user Shiftyzem [9] calls out for a return to the ways things were. “Does anybody else think [that] live puppets, robots, and small scaled buildings should come back to get rid of [these] god awful CGI creatures, scenery, [and] violence people half ass for movies?”
The truth is, there are a lot of situations where using a computer has its benefits. Freddie Wong of the online film school and media site Rocketfish says that scenes such as car chases or crashes are almost all CGI nowadays [2]. The practice is safer due to not needing to endanger real stunt drivers, cheaper than real car stunts, and gives more control of the outcome.
Doesn’t CGI stand out? It’s so obvious when a shot has CG elements and it’s all I notice.
A lot of viewers feel pulled out of the moment when seeing an obvious example of CGI. Freddie Wong addresses this as well. The truth is that even films that aren’t effects heavy can have an abundance of CG effects. Even a film like 2015’s Mad Max: Fury Road, which was praised for its use of practical effects, had an enormous amount of CG effects that nobody noticed [2]. In fact, Wong goes on to show how nearly every film that comes out nowadays has some CG animation.
As Wong points out, good CGI is “invisible” [2]. Things will be composited in such a way that you wouldn’t even think that they are fake. As Wong says, “We only notice bad CGI”.
But practical effects have a certain magic to them that CGI can’t create.
In Star Wars Episode III, Obi-Wan Kenobi faces off against the terrifying cyborg General Grievous, who drops his cloak and pulls out 4 lightsabers, spinning them mere inches from Obi-Wan’s face. Obi-Wan doesn’t flinch even a bit. Maybe it’s because the Jedi are trained to repress their emotions, putting logic and reasoning beyond all else. Or perhaps it’s because Ewan McGregor, the actor playing Obi-Wan, is standing in a green room, staring at a green wall, and has nothing to react to or act against.
When an actor is placed on a green screen set, where the only tangible thing on screen is themselves, they have nothing to base their performance on. General Grievous doesn’t exist, he’ll be added in post-production.
This may be the one place that CGI has difficulties competing with, and many viewers would agree. A twitter user named Lauber Kungar [5] tweets in response to the news that the small rolling robot in the newest Star Wars film is not a CGI construction: “I want to take a moment to express my general appreciation that they BUILT that rolling robot, it's inspiring. CGI is CGI. Real is Magic.”
But even the newest Star Wars film won’t be entirely using practical effects. The solution likely lies in a blending of the two, using CG elements composited into real footage to create more realistic imagery. It’s a technique discussed as far back as a paper on CGI effects published in 1992 by Fournier, Alain et al. at the University of British Columbia [3]. The careful blending of CGI and practical is why Terminator 2 still holds up. More of that was practical than you’d care to admit.
But what about the Uncanny Valley? Doesn’t it mean that CGI will never create effects able to trick the human eye?
GNU Free Documentation License
The uncanny valley is a theoretical point in animation and robotics for where something starts looking too real. As described by Jamie York on NPR [8], the more realistic you make an animation, the more accepting we become...up until a certain point. After a while, our acceptance turns to disgust when the animation gets almost human, but not quite. As described on NPR [8], “a 95 percent lifelike robot is a robot that's incredibly lifelike. A 96 percent lifelike robot is a human being with something wrong.”
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
The uncanny valley is why the Scorpion King animation looks so bad. Sure, it looks like the Rock, but not quite. It doesn’t move quite right, it’s skin is somewhat plasticy, and we can tell it’s fake.
As Freddie Wong points out [2], we can animate things pretty well, such as cars or helicopters, but people are tricky. We can pass off crowds and people at distances with CGI, but we’re programed to be able to notice small details in people’s faces. It’s something that CGI just can’t quite get right. It’s also why films like The Polar Express had the animation called creepy.
Yes, the uncanny valley is an observable phenomenon, and nobody has yet been able to create a fully CGI human being that can trick the brain into not seeing the fakeness. But the bottom line is that CGI is a tool to use like any other. It isn’t a end all solution to all problems like some would think. Actors placed in heavily digital environments may not give us as convincing performances. CGI can’t create a face that can fool us, and maybe it never will. But CGI has its place, and while we grow tired of overly digitized films, we have to remember that if the digital effects artists do their job correctly, you won’t be sure they’ve done anything at all.
Sources
---
[1] Marine, Joe. (2014, Jan 01). Here's How the Controversial 'Photoshop' Music Video Was Created [Online]. Available: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/photoshop-boggie-nouveau-parfum-music-video
[2] Wong, Freddie. (2015, Aug 04). Why CG Sucks (Except it Doesn't) [Online]. Available: https://school.rocketjump.com/learn/vfx-container/why-cg-sucks
[3] Fournier, Alain et al. (1992). Common Illumination between Real and Computer Generated Scenes, [Online]. Available FTP: ftp://ftp-admin.cs.ubc.ca/ Directory: .snapshot/hourly.7/local/techreports/1992/ File: TR-92-38.pdf
[4] Abbot, Stacey, “Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film,” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 89-108, Mar 2006.
[5] Kungar, Lauber. (2015 Aug 5). I want to take a moment to express my general appreciation that they BUILT that rolling robot, it's inspiring. CGI is CGI. Real is Magic. ™. [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/lauberkunga/status/640385480526196736
[6] Ihnatko, Andy. (2015 Jul 4). The core truth was, is, and always will be: “Bad effects are bad. Good effects are good.” [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/Ihnatko/status/617526945182560256
[7] Rose, Emily. (2013, March 7). Breaking Dawn Part Two - Bella Meets Renesmee. [Online Video]. Available: https://youtu.be/bgI_oMMIU0E
[8] York, Jamie, (2010, March 5) Hollywood Eyes Uncanny Valley In Animation [Online Transcript]. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=124371580
[9] Shiftyzem, (2012) Does anybody else think live puppets, robots, and small scaled buildings should come back to get rid of this god awful CGI creatures, scenery, violence people half ass for movies? [Online] Available: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/rciyr/does_anybody_else_think_live_puppets_robots_and/
[10] Watchmojo.com, (2013, Aug 15) Top 10 Worst CGI Movie Effects [Online Video] Available: https://youtu.be/5ZlOn9V_MmE
5.3 Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns
This is a link to my document on grammar patterns. One thing I noticed was how my sentences weren't exactly like the book's examples, and how a lot of sentences seemed to follow the same format. I should probably work with more variety in my writing, since it seems that a lot is laid out the same.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
4.10 Paragraph Analysis
My Copy for Paragraph Analysis
I learned by doing this that I don'y think I got transitions down quite right. Each point in my article just seems to end and pick up at the next point. I should probably add more transitional phrases.
I learned by doing this that I don'y think I got transitions down quite right. Each point in my article just seems to end and pick up at the next point. I should probably add more transitional phrases.
4.8 Reflection on Project 1 Draft
I commented on Felicia and Scott's drafts.
Who, specifically, is going to be reading this document? Who am I trying to reach with my argument?
Obviously, these QRGs are going to be read primarily by my classmates and instructors. Still, they should be formatted in a way as to where an average reader with no experience in the written topic should be able to comprehend what it's about, especially since I don't know my classmates' experience with it.
What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?
As a QRG, the article should be written for the everyman to be able to understand. The values and expectations could vary quite a bit. Therefore, my article should be well-organized, non-confrontational, unoffensive and explain complex ideas in simplistic ways.
How much information do I need to give my audience? How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their expertise?
A QRG is intended to boil a complex and intricate topic down to a article a couple of pages long. The amount of information I can give is limited by the length of the article, and also by the context of what I'm writing. A QRG on nuclear fusion isn't going to be able to deconstruct every minuscule detail to allow you to construct your own fusion power plant. It's going to give the basic run down so that when someone mentions 'nuclear fusion' at dinner, you have some idea of what he's talking about. I should assume my audience has no background information on the topic, and someone with a lot of expertise on the subject probably isn't reading the QRG.
What kind of language is suitable for this audience?
Obviously, as a wide demographic may be reading it, it should be unoffensive while using simple, easy to understand language.
What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?
It should be friendly and probably remain unaffiliated with either side of the debate. If I do a QRG on Coke v. Pepsi, then proceed to berate Pepsi drinkers and call them communists, my QRG will probably come across as an opinion piece rather than a reference guide. I should provide a fairly unbiased position on the topic, unless of course that topic is something like ISIS, in which case it might be suspicious if I refuse to take sides.
What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?
There isn't really a formal standardized QRG format, but there are some basic points you should have. The article should be broken into a Q&A format, with headings to break up topics, images and/or hyperlinks leading to extra content, and citations to back up my claims. I believe I have most of that at the moment.
What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?
The article should provide a debate of some sort, with both sides represented in some way, along with citations, images, social media posts, and whatever helps my article, I believe I meet most of these.
Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?
The article should reflect the citation style I chose, along with the books examples on organizations, openings, conclusions, etc. I believe it should follow that well.
Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?
There have been comments made on my Google Docs page. They haven't all been addressed yet, but they will be by the time this is finalized.
4.3 Thoughts on Drafting
What parts of the book’s advice on the above bulleted topics are helpful for writing in this genre? What parts of the book’s advice on these topics might not be so helpful, considering the genre you’re writing in?
Drafting a Thesis Statement
The advice on a thesis statement is to pick something concise and manageable that accurately represents my reading. This should be achievable since my topic isn't too complicated in terms of scope. It can also fit into a QRG format.
Writing paragraphs in PIE format
This is actually good advice and would help organize ideas. Especially with a QRG, points need to be brief and simple and this sort of format helps with that. The only modification may be that each 'section' or 'heading' would be in PIE format rather than each paragraph.
Writing introductions
The advice is starting with something like a quotation, surprising fact, anecdote, or rhetorical question. I believe I do this with a Terminator 2 reference to open up the essay. I agree that captivating an audience quickly is important, especially since QRG would be an online article, and it's easy to lose readers quickly if you don't engage them online.
Organizing information
A simple 'beginning, rising action, climax, falling action, conclusion' probably wouldn't work in a QRG due to its list-like format. A QRG reads more like a question-and-answer session than a typical narrative or essay. Because of this, organization between points and paragraphs is different. The 'flow' from one point to another is usually interrupted by a big, bold heading into the next topic. It's not that flow into each paragraph isn't important to a QRG, it's just not going to work the same as a typical essay.
Writing conclusions
Due to the Q & A format of a QRG, your conclusion may have to fit into your last bullet point, or an appendix to the end of it. The advice of 'So What?', 'circle back', etc. still applies, it'll have to just fit into the format of the QRG. It won't change too much from the books advice other than that.
EDIT: After reading Andrew and Anthony's blog, most people discuss the PIE format. Andrew supported the format for organization while Anthony thought it would make the article too wordy. I lean towards Andrew's thinking, but I can see Anthony's perspective.
Things that need addressing:
1. Work on transitions between sections.
2. Better organizing through use of PIE format.
3. More visuals or other things to engage readers.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
3.15 Draft of Quick Reference Guide
My current draft can be accessed here. I still want to add more media, but a lot of the content is from copyrighted films that don't really have a free use or creative commons license.
I also think it's probably still a bit rough in places, so be honest if you see anything. Thanks.
I also think it's probably still a bit rough in places, so be honest if you see anything. Thanks.
3.7 QRGs: the Genre
What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?
How are those conventions defined by the author’s formatting and design choices?
What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?
Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?
How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?
They do use images. Images probably help a reader visualize a topic, either by putting faces to people named or diagrams to functions. If we're talking about Bernie Sanders, it probably helps to see a picture of Bernie Sanders so you can visualize what we're talking about.
EDIT: After reading Andrew and Cynthia's posts, it didn't occur to me that the headings of each section could also serve as a summary for the paragraph. We all seemed to be in agreement that images help visualize parts of the article, or help with summarizing.
EDIT: After reading Andrew and Cynthia's posts, it didn't occur to me that the headings of each section could also serve as a summary for the paragraph. We all seemed to be in agreement that images help visualize parts of the article, or help with summarizing.
3.5 Cluster of Bad CGI Controversy
I divided my controversy into 2 distinct camps: For CGI and Against CGI. The For camp has a simple enough argument: CGI is fine if it doesn't suck. I broke up the Against camp into 3 parts: abolish it, use it only when necessary, use it in tandem with practical effects. I also put, more or less, where each source will be used at what point in the debate.
EDIT: After reading Andrew and Cynthia's maps, I like how organized and constructed they are. Andrew did a good job showing how each point was related to the other points, and Cynthia did a good job dividing up her information. I hope my map is as easy to follow, as I tried to organize it similarly.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
2.17 Annotated Bibliography in IEEE Style
2.17 Annotated Bibliography in IEEE Style
Source #1
Marine, Joe. (2014, Jan 01). Here's How the Controversial 'Photoshop' Music Video Was Created [Online]. Available: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/photoshop-boggie-nouveau-parfum-music-video
This article focuses on a music video featuring a editing program used to make a woman appear more attractive. The video is a commentary on society's use of editing to improve appearance.
Source #2
Wong, Freddie. (2015, Aug 04). Why CG Sucks (Except it Doesn't) [Online]. Available: https://school.rocketjump.com/learn/vfx-container/why-cg-sucks
This article/video attacks the misconception that CGI ruins movies by focusing on well utilized CGI the audience may have missed.
Source #3
Fournier, Alain et al. (1992). Common Illumination between Real and Computer Generated Scenes, [Online]. Available FTP: ftp://ftp-admin.cs.ubc.ca/ Directory: .snapshot/hourly.7/local/techreports/1992/ File: TR-92-38.pdf
This article, released in 1992, discusses the technique of compositing digital effects with real-life elements. This is an effect well in use today.
Source #4
Abbot, Stacey, “Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film,” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 89-108, Mar 2006.
This article discusses the use of CGI in the science fiction genre and how the two are linked.
Source #5
Kungar, Lauber. (2015 Aug 5). I want to take a moment to express my general appreciation that they BUILT that rolling robot, it's inspiring. CGI is CGI. Real is Magic. ™. [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/lauberkunga/status/640385480526196736
This is a tweet featuring a popular opinion that real elements in a film are intrinsically better than digital elements.
Source #6
Ihnatko, Andy. (2015 Jul 4). The core truth was, is, and always will be: “Bad effects are bad. Good effects are good.” [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/Ihnatko/status/617526945182560256
This is a tweet in response to an idea that digital effects are bad. The poster argues that bad effects are bad, but good effects are good.
EDIT: I read Deb and Christopher's bibliographies along with other's, and saw a lot of format's that I didn't recognize. No one seemed to be using IEEE, which is understandable since I've never heard of it before. Some of the more scientific fields seemed to have better sources than I could find, but that's understandable.
Source #7
Rose, Emily. (2013, March 7). Breaking Dawn Part Two - Bella Meets Renesmee. [Online Video]. Available: https://youtu.be/bgI_oMMIU0E
This is one of the most popular examples of bad CGI I could find: the baby from Breaking Dawn: Part 2. This is popular for two main reasons: the seemingly unnecessary use of CGI to create a baby when obviously a real baby could have been used, and the perceived 'creepiness' of the not-quite-human-looking baby.
Source #8
York, Jamie, (2010, March 5) Hollywood Eyes Uncanny Valley In Animation [Online Transcript]. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=124371580
This is related to the previous source about the Twilight baby. It discusses a theory in robotics and animation known as the uncanny valley. Essentially, the more human and lifelike something becomes, the more accepting we are of it...to a certain point. There is a point where a CGI element goes from a very lifelike model to looking like a human that has something wrong with it. Human beings are programed to notice the small motions and textures of a face, and when something isn't quite there it creeps us out.
Source #9
Shiftyzem, (2012) Does anybody else think live puppets, robots, and small scaled buildings should come back to get rid of this god awful CGI creatures, scenery, violence people half ass for movies? [Online] Available: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/rciyr/does_anybody_else_think_live_puppets_robots_and/
This is a popular opinion for the idea that CGI limits movies. The comment comes from the /r/movies subreddit from Reddit where people discuss CGI and movies. Some quotes from the conversation:
"no you're just getting old...
they have always made far more ****ty movies then good ones, cgi did nothing to change that." - J334
"I think a lot of people look back at the old creature puppets with rose tinted glasses. They look like they're physically there, sure but do they look like living breathing creatures with proper skin, muscles etc. ? For me, 90% of the time the answer is 'no'." - russkev
"Now, having done some CGI for commercials myself for about 10 years, I can sadly confirm that bad CGI is way more profitable (at least here in Albania). Good CGI is hard to sell because clients don't usually appreciate the kind of work involved to achieve good seamlessness. But make it a bit shinier than real life, make it scream "HELLO I AM THE 3D EFFECT YOU ORDERED!" and you can make a decent living. It's funny how even for the most basic crap, you can usually sell the thing at an extra 30-50%, if you make sure the client can "see the 3D". - zhubrixxx
Source #10
Watchmojo.com, (2013, Aug 15) Top 10 Worst CGI Movie Effects [Online Video] Available: https://youtu.be/5ZlOn9V_MmE
This source list 10 different films that are known for their bad special effects. It's usually films like these that affect people's notions about what CGI looks like.
Source #1
Marine, Joe. (2014, Jan 01). Here's How the Controversial 'Photoshop' Music Video Was Created [Online]. Available: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/photoshop-boggie-nouveau-parfum-music-video
This article focuses on a music video featuring a editing program used to make a woman appear more attractive. The video is a commentary on society's use of editing to improve appearance.
Source #2
Wong, Freddie. (2015, Aug 04). Why CG Sucks (Except it Doesn't) [Online]. Available: https://school.rocketjump.com/learn/vfx-container/why-cg-sucks
This article/video attacks the misconception that CGI ruins movies by focusing on well utilized CGI the audience may have missed.
Source #3
Fournier, Alain et al. (1992). Common Illumination between Real and Computer Generated Scenes, [Online]. Available FTP: ftp://ftp-admin.cs.ubc.ca/ Directory: .snapshot/hourly.7/local/techreports/1992/ File: TR-92-38.pdf
This article, released in 1992, discusses the technique of compositing digital effects with real-life elements. This is an effect well in use today.
Source #4
Abbot, Stacey, “Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film,” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 89-108, Mar 2006.
This article discusses the use of CGI in the science fiction genre and how the two are linked.
Source #5
Kungar, Lauber. (2015 Aug 5). I want to take a moment to express my general appreciation that they BUILT that rolling robot, it's inspiring. CGI is CGI. Real is Magic. ™. [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/lauberkunga/status/640385480526196736
This is a tweet featuring a popular opinion that real elements in a film are intrinsically better than digital elements.
Source #6
Ihnatko, Andy. (2015 Jul 4). The core truth was, is, and always will be: “Bad effects are bad. Good effects are good.” [Online]. Available: https://twitter.com/Ihnatko/status/617526945182560256
This is a tweet in response to an idea that digital effects are bad. The poster argues that bad effects are bad, but good effects are good.
EDIT: I read Deb and Christopher's bibliographies along with other's, and saw a lot of format's that I didn't recognize. No one seemed to be using IEEE, which is understandable since I've never heard of it before. Some of the more scientific fields seemed to have better sources than I could find, but that's understandable.
Source #7
Rose, Emily. (2013, March 7). Breaking Dawn Part Two - Bella Meets Renesmee. [Online Video]. Available: https://youtu.be/bgI_oMMIU0E
This is one of the most popular examples of bad CGI I could find: the baby from Breaking Dawn: Part 2. This is popular for two main reasons: the seemingly unnecessary use of CGI to create a baby when obviously a real baby could have been used, and the perceived 'creepiness' of the not-quite-human-looking baby.
Source #8
York, Jamie, (2010, March 5) Hollywood Eyes Uncanny Valley In Animation [Online Transcript]. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=124371580
This is related to the previous source about the Twilight baby. It discusses a theory in robotics and animation known as the uncanny valley. Essentially, the more human and lifelike something becomes, the more accepting we are of it...to a certain point. There is a point where a CGI element goes from a very lifelike model to looking like a human that has something wrong with it. Human beings are programed to notice the small motions and textures of a face, and when something isn't quite there it creeps us out.
Source #9
Shiftyzem, (2012) Does anybody else think live puppets, robots, and small scaled buildings should come back to get rid of this god awful CGI creatures, scenery, violence people half ass for movies? [Online] Available: https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/rciyr/does_anybody_else_think_live_puppets_robots_and/
This is a popular opinion for the idea that CGI limits movies. The comment comes from the /r/movies subreddit from Reddit where people discuss CGI and movies. Some quotes from the conversation:
"no you're just getting old...
they have always made far more ****ty movies then good ones, cgi did nothing to change that." - J334
"I think a lot of people look back at the old creature puppets with rose tinted glasses. They look like they're physically there, sure but do they look like living breathing creatures with proper skin, muscles etc. ? For me, 90% of the time the answer is 'no'." - russkev
"Now, having done some CGI for commercials myself for about 10 years, I can sadly confirm that bad CGI is way more profitable (at least here in Albania). Good CGI is hard to sell because clients don't usually appreciate the kind of work involved to achieve good seamlessness. But make it a bit shinier than real life, make it scream "HELLO I AM THE 3D EFFECT YOU ORDERED!" and you can make a decent living. It's funny how even for the most basic crap, you can usually sell the thing at an extra 30-50%, if you make sure the client can "see the 3D". - zhubrixxx
Source #10
Watchmojo.com, (2013, Aug 15) Top 10 Worst CGI Movie Effects [Online Video] Available: https://youtu.be/5ZlOn9V_MmE
This source list 10 different films that are known for their bad special effects. It's usually films like these that affect people's notions about what CGI looks like.
2.13 Ideology in My Controversy
Who is involved…
Who are some of the major speakers/writers…
What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power…
Is there a power differential…
Is there any unacknowledged…
This is a debate on whether the use of CGI (computer generated imagery) in movies is essentially hurting the quality of these movies. There are essentially two camps to this debate: that CGI is a tool, like any other tool, and can be used well or used poorly. Or that CGI offers producers an 'easy way out', and that CGI could be used as a shortcut. That lazy film-making during production was fine because they could just 'fix it in post'.
Who are some of the major speakers/writers…
It's hard to break this into a 'this camp vs. that camp' debate, especially given the ample room for middle ground. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino have spoken out against the newer digital era. Most directors are fine using digital or at least some hybrid of digital and practical effects. Mostly, the debate will be between the producers and fans who notice some of the bad CGI.
What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power…
This one's simple. The producers write the checks, so the producers decide whether or not CGI gets used. If less CGI makes a film better, and a better film makes more money, then perhaps CGI heavy films don't go as far. Money has the real bargaining power, and usually CGI is cheaper to implement than practical effects.
What does each group value?
Audiences want better movies and producers want profitable movies. Audiences may be under the illusion that CGI is a shortcut and lessens the value of the film, but there's nothing wrong with CGI used well.
Is there a power differential…
The production companies have the power in that it's their money that gets spent, so they want to use it safe or cheap methods that are more likely to guarantee a return. Audiences do have buying power though, and decisions that lead to audiences abandoning a movie will not typically be reused on later projects.
Is there any acknowledged common…
There are in fact very few people wanting a complete boycott in CGI. Most people against it are just against unnecessary uses of CGI or poorly executed CGI. It could be argued that both sides want a convincing and well executed effect that won't draw attention to itself. Producers just want it to be cheap.
Is there any unacknowledged…
Audiences want to see a movie and producers want to sell them the ticket. In actuality, all that needs to happen is for the effects of the movie to be convincing and well executed. Audiences have already shown that they won't notice your editing if you do it well.
Do the various groups listen...
They talk with their wallets. With twitter and social networking what it is nowadays, word of a bad movie spreads quickly and a movie can bomb after just one day of bad reviews. When audiences don't like a movie, they won't pay for that movie. Producers will follow strategies that make them the most money.
2.11 Evaluation of Social Media Sources
These tweets continue on the debate of whether CGI is ruining movies. I managed to find two tweets on the topic. One, by Chicago Sun Times columnist Andy Ihnatko, sums up a lot of what I hear people in the industry say: If you notice the bad CGI, it's bad. You won't notice CGI done well.
Lauber Kungar, as far as I can tell, doesn't appear to be anybody important. She's has few followers of her own and doesn't appear to make very many tweets. This seems representative of an issue I ran into in this search: people aren't as outraged by CGI as I thought they were. Sure, I can find YouTube videos of '10 Films with Awful CGI", but I had assumed there were communities of 'CGI ruins movies' out there. There really aren't.
2.8 Evaluation of Scholarly Sources
Continuing on the topic of whether CGI is lowering the quality of movies, I found this article published from the University of British Columbia through a Google Scholar search:
Fournier, Alain et al. "Common Illumination between Real and Computer Generated Scenes" 1992 via Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia
This article is a bit older (1992) but focuses on the blending of CGI elements with real footage to create more believable scenes. The age of the article is of interest, since it comes one year after Terminator 2 (the first film to have a fully CG character). The blending of real environments with CG elements is actually one of the preferred ways to composite a scene nowadays. The article does cite similar articles to its own research.
Abbott, Stacey "Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film" 2006 via Science Fiction Studies
The above article is published by a publication called Science Fiction Studies. The article makes note of a recent poll showing that 30 films out of the top 50 for best special effects were science fiction films. The article discusses the link between sci-fi and SFX, discussing how CGI may be needed to convey imaginary worlds that don't exist.
Fournier, Alain et al. "Common Illumination between Real and Computer Generated Scenes" 1992 via Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia
This article is a bit older (1992) but focuses on the blending of CGI elements with real footage to create more believable scenes. The age of the article is of interest, since it comes one year after Terminator 2 (the first film to have a fully CG character). The blending of real environments with CG elements is actually one of the preferred ways to composite a scene nowadays. The article does cite similar articles to its own research.
Abbott, Stacey "Final Frontiers: Computer-Generated Imagery and the Science Fiction Film" 2006 via Science Fiction Studies
The above article is published by a publication called Science Fiction Studies. The article makes note of a recent poll showing that 30 films out of the top 50 for best special effects were science fiction films. The article discusses the link between sci-fi and SFX, discussing how CGI may be needed to convey imaginary worlds that don't exist.
2.6 Evaluation of General Sources
While searching for controversies in video production, most of what I stumbled across were controversies about specific television shows or movies. But I finally found an issue that I've heard a lot about: the over-reliance on CGI.
CGI (computer generated imagery) basically refers to film/video effects done inside a computer. The art form began in the 1990's with films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Ever since then, there's been a controversy about whether films rely on them too much.
The first article is about a controversial music video featuring a singer being 'photoshopped' into a more attractive, glamorous star. The music video itself is a commentary on the industry needed to 'edit' actresses to make them more attractive. Ironically, although the video focuses on a fake image editor being used to fix the actress, most of the effects were done practically. The CGI portion of the video was more in establishing transitions between takes rather than actually editing the woman directly. Most of that was done through make-up and lighting.
The article focuses more on the 'making of'' aspect of the video rather than the social commentary, but does link to interviews with the directors about the video.
The next article discusses a sort of flip-side to the debate on the over-reliance on CGI. It's not the over-reliance on CGI that's a bad thing, it's that bad CGI is a bad thing. Practically every film that comes out nowadays has CGI packed into it, but we only notice the bad parts.
CGI (computer generated imagery) basically refers to film/video effects done inside a computer. The art form began in the 1990's with films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Ever since then, there's been a controversy about whether films rely on them too much.
 |
| Marine, Joe "Here's How the Controversial 'Photoshop' Music Video Was Created" 01/31/14 via No Film School |
The article focuses more on the 'making of'' aspect of the video rather than the social commentary, but does link to interviews with the directors about the video.
 |
| Wong, Freddie "Why CG Sucks (Except it Doesn't)".08/04/15 via Rocketjump |
Freddie Wong shows numerous examples of films that you wouldn't have realized even had CGI to show how it can be used effectively. The bulk of his discussion is in a video posted on his site (which as film is a visual medium, makes sense), but scroll down lower and he has links to behind-the-scenes shoots from all sorts of films.
2.3 My Profession
Although my field of study is computer science, I am brand new to this major and haven't even taken any Computer Science courses yet. Because of that, I've decided to write on my two other previous degrees, which were in video production.
What do students in your program learn how to do?
It really depends exactly what it is they want to do. There are a lot of jobs that can be done on a production set, so someone could learn directing, editing, writing, camera operation, etc. I always focused on editing and post-production.
There are basics that every student would need to know how to do. Everyone would need to know how to frame a shot, how to light a scene, where to place the microphone and the basics of writing a script. Obviously, depending on what you wanted to specialize on, you would get more in depth training than "point the microphone at their face".
For editing (what I would specialize in) you need to pick a non-linear editor to specialize in. There are three big ones being used in the industry right now, which are Apple's Final Cut Pro, Avid's Media Composer, and Adobe Premiere. Specializing in any one of them can help further your career, but I'm a personal fan of Premiere. A good editor would learn all three.
What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?
If you're me, you don't get work but rather a bunch of emerging entrepreneurs who can't afford to pay you now but will gladly pay up "once this thing gets rolling". It never does. Or an aspiring director who will gladly give you a share of the profits once a major studio finally picks up his zombie film he shot on his iPhone.
If you're really good, maybe you'll get signed on to a major production company working on a multi-million dollar film. You could also get signed on at a TV station for more regular work. If you can't get an actual studio to hire you, you may be able to do projects like weddings on the side. Be careful though, weddings are a miserable pit of agony and pain.
What drew you to this field?
I would always make short films with classmates back in high school and really wanted that to take off into a career. I went to school, studied and felt I got really good at it. It's a hard field to break into though, which is why I'm returning for a different degree to hopefully expand my options.
Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why? These could be individual people or specific companies, organizations, businesses or non-profits.
There are obviously the multi-millionaire filmmakers out there, such as James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. For editors, there's Michael Kahn, who edited a lot of Spielberg's films, Paul Hirsch, who did The Empire Strikes Back, or Walter Murch, who did The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now.
Editors usually don't get a lot of fame or recognition for their work. Typically, if you notice the editing, you did it wrong.
What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published? Give us the names and locations of at least 3. (HINT: If you have no idea what the answer to this question is, try Googling “What are the top journals in [insert field of study]?” and peruse the results). Make the titles of each journal into a working hyperlink to the website for that publication. (NOTE: if your links aren’t included or don’t work or if the page it directs us to is blocked from public view, I will not be able to assign you full credit for this exercise).
Screen Published on behalf of the University of Glasgow
What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?
If you're me, you don't get work but rather a bunch of emerging entrepreneurs who can't afford to pay you now but will gladly pay up "once this thing gets rolling". It never does. Or an aspiring director who will gladly give you a share of the profits once a major studio finally picks up his zombie film he shot on his iPhone.
If you're really good, maybe you'll get signed on to a major production company working on a multi-million dollar film. You could also get signed on at a TV station for more regular work. If you can't get an actual studio to hire you, you may be able to do projects like weddings on the side. Be careful though, weddings are a miserable pit of agony and pain.
What drew you to this field?
I would always make short films with classmates back in high school and really wanted that to take off into a career. I went to school, studied and felt I got really good at it. It's a hard field to break into though, which is why I'm returning for a different degree to hopefully expand my options.
Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why? These could be individual people or specific companies, organizations, businesses or non-profits.
There are obviously the multi-millionaire filmmakers out there, such as James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. For editors, there's Michael Kahn, who edited a lot of Spielberg's films, Paul Hirsch, who did The Empire Strikes Back, or Walter Murch, who did The Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now.
Editors usually don't get a lot of fame or recognition for their work. Typically, if you notice the editing, you did it wrong.
What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published? Give us the names and locations of at least 3. (HINT: If you have no idea what the answer to this question is, try Googling “What are the top journals in [insert field of study]?” and peruse the results). Make the titles of each journal into a working hyperlink to the website for that publication. (NOTE: if your links aren’t included or don’t work or if the page it directs us to is blocked from public view, I will not be able to assign you full credit for this exercise).
Screen Published on behalf of the University of Glasgow
"Screen is the leading international journal of academic film and television studies. From video art to popular television, from Hollywood to Hong Kong, from art cinema to British film finance, Screen authors cover a wide range of issues, both contemporary and historical, from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Each quarterly issue combines substantial scholarly essays with reports and debates on conferences and current research, along with book reviews." - http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/ quote taken 09/05/15 via Oxford JournalsFilm Criticism Published on behalf of Allegheny College, Meadville, PA
"Film Criticism recently completed its thirty-seventh year of continuous publication, making it the third oldest academic film journal in the United States. FC has published work by such international scholars as Dudley Andrew, David Bordwell, David Cook, Robin Wood, Janet Staiger, Ann Kaplan, Andrew Horton, Wheeler Winston Dixon, Marcia Landy, and Peter Lehman. Equally important, we continue to present work from a new generation of film scholars representing multiple critical, cultural and theoretical perspectives." - http://filmcriticism.allegheny.edu/ quote taken 09/05/15 via Film CriticismAlphaville Published on behalf of University College Cork, Ireland
"Alphaville is a fully peer-reviewed online journal edited and published by staff, PhD and postdoctoral researchers in Film and Screen Media at University College Cork, Ireland. Alphaville offers a dynamic international forum open to the discussion of all aspects of film and screen media history, theory and criticism through multiple research methodologies and perspectives. It cultivates inspiring, cutting-edge research, and seeks work that displays a clear engagement with current debates and with methodological issues. The journal is open access to make a full contribution to international debates in film and screen studies and beyond, and considers articles, book reviews and festival, exhibition and conference reports. We are interested in the interfaces between cinema and all new media, and aim to utilise the online platform to its full capacity. Alphaville is published twice a year, in Summer and Winter, with both themed and open issues. It currently only accepts submissions in response to specific calls for papers that are advertised via the journal website and subject lists." - http://www.alphavillejournal.com/AboutAlphaville.html quote taken 09/05/15 via AlphavilleEDIT: I read Felicia's blog and Oscar's blog. Oscar is in a similar field to what I'll be going into, even though I didn't write on it. Felicia's major is in the news a lot recently and I'm interested in what she has to say on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)