1 minute reading time (278 words)

CGI offcuts: when the process is worth as much as the output

CGI offcuts: when the process is worth as much as the output Cool 3D World

Large-scale cinematic works from the likes of Pixar require massive amounts of graphical and data grunt in order to push just 5 minutes of CGI, let alone 90.

Let us not forget, however, that CGI is essentially computer programming. It's possible for an animator to make a mistake on paper for a frame; it's possible for an animator to do the same in graphic software or code in CGI.

We rarely see what happens in paper mistakes; they are scrubbed or binned. Sometimes, however, the mistakes in CGI are valuable themselves – as are the works which are artistically valid but less polished – or simply different. Of course, there is a whole universe of otherness below the movies that we buy and watch. The production values, the discipline, the relationship with the viewer, the sense of scale – are all different. (Johnson's Scale pallet scale)

As art critic Joanne McNeil argues in her recent essay Glitches in the Matrix and as claimed by CGI artist Alan Warburton, CGI is now at a stage where it is so photorealistic that what's interesting is not the quality of CGI any more, but all of the stuff that is different.

Great heat wrap for cables

Brian Tessler and Jon Baken's Cool 3D World project is one massive glitch. With other-worldly plots, renderings, atmospheres and soundtracks, the works have a car-crash quality to them: they are a glorious mixture of horrific and ethereally beautiful and as such it's hard to turn away from them. 

Cool 3D World

Glitches in the Matrix 

(Oh, and here‘s how to find the best Laser Measurement Sensor.)


(This article contains paid placement links.)

How does clothing make(th) the marketer?
The strategy of strategy