It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Editing issues aside (now that they have been fixed), does anyone have anything (de)constructive to say about it?
Editing issues aside (now that they have been fixed), does anyone have anything (de)constructive to say about it?That be a solid list, but I do have some minor quibbles. There are much better Gundam shows you could have chosen than 00 and Wing (e.g. War in the Pocket). Having tried to rewatch it recently, Wing is only good through the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. You should probably air the movie adaptations of MSG instead of the actual series. Other than that maybe the order you show them in since you could probably do a pretty cool 6 Degrees of Hayao Miyazaki (or whoever) thing if you did it right. Add Damekko Dobotsu up in there too.Over how long of a period are you gonna air these?
Luke, it looks like you're showing a different facial expression in the left mirror. If this was on purpose, it's really cool, otherwise you might want to fix that. It's a really interesting shot, regardless.
To make it more dramatic, take two pictures with different facial expressions, and then use Photoshop.
Sort of like Star Wars original trilogy's clever filming techniques vs prequels' CG.
It would look better, but there's something a whole lot cooler about doing that without Photoshop. Sort of like Star Wars original trilogy's clever filming techniques vs prequels' CG.
I don't think it's cooler.
That's way cooler to me.
I prefer practical effects because, for the most part, they still look better. Avatar, as pretty as it is, looks painfully fake to me.
Again, this is not due to the tools they used. It is a conscious decision by the artists. Think of an average movie that you have seen that isn't sci-fi or fully loaded with special effects. Something like a generic comedy or romance movie that has no fantasy or anything. If it's a modern movie, it's absolutely loaded with CG and Photoshopped effects all over the fucking place. The thing is, you don't notice any of it, because they choose to make it look like real life, and it does.
Alright, now I think about it, you're right. I do find, though, that the best looking movies have roughly a 50/50 blend of practical and CG effects. Anything by Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, or Guillermo Del Toro, really.
It costs more money to do it that way, takes longer, and is much more difficult. What other reason should there be to do something the old fashioned way other than education and giving you the warm fuzzies when you think about it?Personally I get more warm fuzzies about something done the modern way, it's much more impressive. Some guy built little models and pointed a camera at it. Pretty good. This other guy was able to create an insanely more detailed and flexible model using nothing but electrons, transistors, and magnets, how does that shit work?! Computers are much more impressive.
Then take the footage of those armies and CG the hell out of them, mostly to increase the size of the army and such.
Just like there's no reason to use a vinyl record other than to sell to hipsters.
Sorted: lighting (mostly) and mirror positioning. Now I just need to get a hair cut, and take the final damn photo.