by - great_kahn on Wed Sep 14 2011 13:07:06
Thought the CGI was really bad, jerky, low quality, the backgrounds look simple and rushed, rather than using real locations. I've seen better on
youtube made by "amateurs".
Walking with dinosaurs was superior.
I saw Planet Dinosaur, came on here, saw people comparing it to Walking with Dinosaurs, so I decided to check it out as well. My opinion? Planet Dinosaur is obviously better on the CGI department. The CGI on Walking with Dinosaurs was very BLURRY. The lighting was way off, too, especially in the long shots. The CGI models stuck out like sore thumbs.
The CGI in Planet Dinosaur is still very obviously CGI, but at least the rendering is sharp, and they blend very well with the environment. The environment in Planet Dinosaur is very fake, though, almost like something you'd see on James Cameron's Avatar, but still, I salute them for their consistency (CGI dinosaurs and the CGI environment).
Both shows had a problem with jerky movements. In Walking with Dinosaurs, most of the jerky movements probably came from the animatronics; in Planet Dinosaurs, it probably came from bad calculations. But then again, the jerky movements have NOTHING to do with the actual CGI models, which is the subject of this thread.
I must say, though, that I was quite impressed with the CGI in Walking with Dinosaurs in the "Cruel Sea" episode. That was the only time the CGI creatures didn't look blurry (maybe the fact that it was set under the sea had something to do with it), and the lighting was actually very spot on (as far as an average joe like me can say).
reply
share
Vihktor-24
13 years ago
I think much of the hate for PD's CGI does come from the artificial environments. Of course the entire thing looks like it's just computer effect when it really is.
WWD had the benefit of real-life backgrounds, and that's why it looked better as a whole. But after having re-watched a scene or two, I find it striking how bad the dinosaurs (as in, the CGI) have aged. I mean, that running Diplodocus kept sprouting new and distorted muscles as I watched! Even as a kid almost religiously addicted to the series, I remember being baffled at many of the SFX goofs that I had discovered.
WWD may have had an overall better and more lifelike imagery. But that wasn't because of the computer graphics, in fact those are in many ways inferior to PD's effects.
reply
share
phil-983
13 years ago
This was a DELIBERATELY stylised show folks!! Sorry it gets very boring hearing people thinking this should have been "better" CGI than WWD. People who understand CGI will know it comes in many flavours. People seem to be referring to good CGI as photoreal? This was deliberately not photoreal. PD unfortunately created an expectation of another WWD but updated. It's a totally different show, and as such addresses a lot of the issues people had with WWD. There was NO time or budget to go out and shoot thousands of backplate shots in far corners of the globe (having ALREADY prevized), bring them back clean up, roto, track, ingest, match, comp etc etc etc. This is TV on current TV budgets!! Integration of creatures with environments, facts presented well to back up the stories, non-animatronic close ups and lots of new evidence presented well - these are the hallmarks of PD. MORE SHOTS - like many many more, that told interesting stories and played out with an immersive camera. Not just watching some dinos mooching about amongst the bushes.I think people need to revisit WWD a bit better - it was great for the time, but really is an entirely different show in another era. Compare PD to what else is out there on Dinos with similar constraints. You will see that with limited budgets they have really really struggled to integrate their CG dinos successfully and tell any kind of stories. OR worse been hugely restricted by numbers of shots.
reply
share
gonk-half_loaf
13 years ago
I've found watching the series there seems to be some parts very good cgi and some not so good, it's not stopped me watching the whole thing so far it's been very good and educational to watch
reply
share
cayates1
13 years ago
If only the producers had made as much effort making a decent job of PD as you have in defending this sorry mediocrity. You've really opened up the throttle & gone for broke.
Patronising those who rightly brand it a failure is a deft touch.
<DELIBERATELY stylised> has no meaning unless you want me to compare it to cartoons,in which case why all the vain efforts to make it seem credible & scientific with all those pseudo-scientific datagrams?
<People who understand CGI will know it comes in many flavours>
Again, patronising. I do understand,there's good & then there's this.
<deliberately not photoreal> as in deliberately bad? Orwellian.
Are you by any chance connected with Jellyfish Productions?
TV budgets were fine for WWD & computing power is always getting cheaper.
You say it's a good production but all the pleading of poverty tells me you know in your heart it is not.
It's not just the CGI though; how about this gem from the end of episode 6,"It was only with an unprecedented extra-terrestrial impact that finally saw the end of PD".
Unprecedented? Really? I know enough to know it was far from unprecedented; such impacts had happened several times before & been easily as devastating.It's this kind of lazy, sloppy hyperbole which signals how flawed this whole project is.
As for your defence I would say, "Nice try but no cigar".
reply
share
Vihktor-24
13 years ago
A bit harsh there. What's this poor show done to ya'?
I think that even with all its scientific and visual shortcomings, PD is still among the best SFX-heavy dino docus produced in recent years (if no the best), for which I definitely applaud most of the effort the creators put into it, even though I too wanted the program to be so much more. But it's a step in the right direction on a handful of fronts.
Compared to shows that very recently dominated prehistoric documentaries, like Jurassic Fight Club, Clash of the Dinosaurs and Monsters Resurrected... yeah, PD's on a level way above those. It even has an edge over the "sacred" WWD in that it shows the evidence. In no way a failed production in my eyes, though still disappointing in many ways.
reply
share
phil-983
12 years ago
cayates1 - what do you do? Perhaps you're one of those people who spend your time abusing other people's hard work because somehow you've never managed to produce anything yourself. A wannabe?
what mystifies me is if you hate it so much why do you carry on watching it, and then actually take the time and effort to continually criticise it? Do you really have nothing better to do?!
I think you would gain considerably more respect if your criticism was constructive rather than abusive and sarcastic.
The team that made Planet Dinosaur did so under huge time pressure, this is fact and in the circumstances produced a very successful show, which was watched each week by 6-7 million viewers in total.
reply
share
cayates1
12 years ago
I've certainly triggered a fine response in you my friend.
I watched all 6 it's true so no one can say I didn't give it every chance.
<Do you really have nothing better to do?!> So says the man who ardently defends this rubbish.
Sarcasm? There's not one instance of it in my critiques. Your response seems weak-minded & you're clearly very wounded.
It's not sarcasm you see, it is however anger, disappointment,bewilderment & a strong sense of being cheated. It is me who is entitled to feel wounded.
I'm in the unfortunate position of seeing the BBC turning out a succession of very poor quality productions.
For instance 'The Hour' made me choke, the dialogue was full of anachronisms & the plot was so childish I concluded a child had written it.
You still haven't stated if you're connected with Jellyfish Productions - you are aren't you?
Why was the time pressure so huge, clearly you're involved so you know.
<watched each week by 6-7 million viewers in total>
Really? I've checked BARB & you're being totally dishonest. It only made the BBC1 top30 on weeks 1&3, the maximum being 4.74 million. 6-7 million? You're not adding up the viewers over the entire 6 weeks are you? I can't believe that, only a snake would do that. So how do you claim 6-7 million?
By contrast Walking with Dinosaurs got between 18.91 & 15.69 million.
You need to stop deluding yourself - there's no defence for this.
reply
share
phil-983
12 years ago
You sad person. I think it's absolutely hilarious that you obviously have nothing better to do than watch 3 hours of televison that you claim to hate. But what makes it worse you actually take the time to continually write on various blogs and forums that you hate it and the BBC are rubbish. What is your agenda? Really sad, most people would stop watching something they didn't like and move on. Life is short, clearly you really have nothing better to do. For me my sad friend this is the end of the matter, because i'm totally convinced you are a waste of time...
For others reading this: 7 million is the cumulative total for each episode (it includes recordings and iplayer viewings, this was for family viewing, loved by kids and many had to watch on catchup as it was past their bedtime). WWD was another era when there was no cable (only 4-5 channels) and nothing else to view content on, so people sat down and watched live. Very very different. Nothing gets those viewing figs now if you don't count occassinal soap episodes.
Time pressure was huge because the budgets are a fraction of what they were and animation equals time. Not only did the production have little over a year to wrap from start to finish (WWD had nearly 3 years), but it had a fraction of the budget. It's really very simple TV now DOES NOT have the budgets of that generation, and if you have more money you have more time to complete shots and everything can be perfected and reworked. If you're dealing with a production this size you have to create parameters strictly and work within those, or it never gets made. One thing is certain shooting live action environments costs lots of time and money to integrate properly into a CG series like this. Simply not an option in this case. This production had to create 3 hours of full CGI (two fully animated feature films) but on a budget 1/60 of the size...
The end result was incredible.
reply
share
cayates1
12 years ago
OK I'm sad but you're an hysterical windbag. Only used this forum in fact.
You seem very driven so Jellyfish Productions is clearly pulling your strings.
<7 million is the cumulative total for each episode (it includes recordings and iplayer viewings,>
Very misleading again. As the BARB FAQ states:-
"VCR, DVDR, PVR playback and "catch-up" VOD services is reported if it takes place within 7 days of the original broadcast. This viewing (known as timeshift) is then added to the live data to produce the final, minute-by-minute consolidated audience, available 8 days after the original transmission date."
iplayer is "catch-up" so was included in the 4.74 million max. figure.
<loved by kids> so is Scooby doo. It was on at 8.30pm so only toddlers might miss it; as you say it was for family viewing.
<Nothing gets those viewing figs now> Maybe not but 'Frozen Planet' got 8.81 million w/e 30 Oct 2011. Even 'Merlin' got 7.4million.
<budgets are a fraction of what they were> You obviously have inside knowledge so I can't comment but they're not skimping on 'Frozen Planet' which certainly takes time. 'Death in Paradise' seems to have a fat budget too.
<everything can be perfected and reworked> so you concede it needed reworking & perfecting. You see you do agree with me you just haven't quite realised it yet.
The lack of <live action environments> is the least of its failings.
reply
share
phil-983
12 years ago
Planet Dinosaur - just been voted by The Visual Effects Society (the elite of the industry around the world) for outstanding VFX in a broadcast series 2012....
Say no more....
The Head of the VES said "The standard of the creative work that is being considered this year is unbelievably high across all categories,” said Jeffrey A. Okun, Chair of the Visual Effects Society. “The judges faced a huge challenge because all of the work was so far above the norm. We’re honored to have the opportunity to focus the spotlight on the outstanding work that has contributed to some of the highest grossing films and broadcast projects of all time.”
reply
share
cayates1
12 years ago
<Planet Dinosaur - just been voted by The Visual Effects Society (the elite of the industry around the world) for outstanding VFX in a broadcast series 2012.>
Er - no it hasn't & you know it you crook.
It was merely nominated. Terra Nova won.
You're very sly.
reply
share
phil-983
12 years ago
When this was posted the winners weren't even announced. Being nominated was an honour and endorsement itself. It also won a New York Festivals Gold medal for animation.
Just suck it up and admit your opinions are just that opinions, and you really don't understand this business, therefore fairly worthless...
reply
share
cayates1
12 years ago
<When this was posted the winners weren't even announced. Being nominated ...>
No kidding - that was my point. You made your grandiose claim of victory on Jan. 11 2012 when the winners were not announced for another month. You claimed victory not a mere nomination.
How do you explain such brazen indifference to the truth?
It seems much like your claim of 7 million viewers when BARB stated a maximum of 4.74 million.(Refer to previous posts 02/11/11)
Take consolation though - PD was at least better than the lamentable 'Dinosaurs on a spaceship' Doctor Who rubbish.
reply
share
prop_fan
12 years ago
You people are blind. The CGI in WWD is very blurry.
Planet Dinosaurs creatures are brilliant!
reply
share