>it wasn't possible for the new mask to look as good as it did back in 2004's CGI because... it just heckin can't ok?????
It wasn't possible for the new mask to look as good as it did back in 2004's CGI because... it just heckin can't ok?????
Julian Hernandez
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Jack Hernandez
autism
Anthony Hernandez
Jacob Evans
>zoom in on camrip
>upscale it using AI
>complain about minor changes
The fuck? Yes it's a different mas but what exactly is your point here?
Brandon Mitchell
it's an official still you dumb nigger
plebbitor MCU defenders need to not respond
Blake Adams
The 2004 shot isn't CGI
Charles Morris
I don't know what this thread's about, but the Raimi suit is still objectively the best.
Ethan James
TASM2 suit is the best.
Adam Reyes
Maybe if TASM2 didn't exist
Sebastian Lee
ENTER
Xavier Evans
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Alexander Miller
I would argue this is better if only we get a clear shot, pic related is fan made
Leo White
His cock is massive
Juan Adams
Joseph Foster
This
/thread
Grayson Lee
It is user, back in the day we went to these movies to see the special effects
Christopher Brooks
How old are you guys?
It's very clearly the actor on a track platform. You can see the studio lights in his eye lenses
Jaxon Clark
That's not the case, but even if it were. Here is another shot that is CGI.
youtube.com
Aiden Rivera
The TASM2 suit is just a low quality ripoff of the Raimi suit. The only good thing about is the eyes. Everything else from the spider to the web pattern is inferior.
Isaac Bell
>The only good thing about is the eyes
And they were only good at certain angles and were useless for the Kuleshov effect, Andrew had to overact to make up for the fact he was just standing looking like a weird lanky alien
Jacob Torres
But...it is tho.
THAT shot is CGI, yes, and you can see VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCES.
In the first shot, you can see the fuzz on the mask. In the second, it's smooth.
The first shot is *very* well edited, and bookended by two CGI shots, and I'd hazard to guess that the feet behind his head are included in the rest of the background that is obviously CGI, but the head itself, in this specific shot, from 0:07 to 0:20-ish is real. Compare that shot to the one you just linked, and you can tell very obvious differences.
Hell, in the Doc Ock fight, you can even see when they cut between real footage and CG if you look closely.
Adam Nelson
different renders wont look the exact same user
Blake Flores
>different renders wont look the exact same user
The fuck does that even mean
I don't think you know how CG works. Or what they were capable of in 2004.
Hudson Jenkins
>Or what they were capable of in 2004.
A fucking lot, these movies did so fucking well because of how good the CGI was. It's why we went to see it user
Isaac Watson
>these movies did so fucking well because of how good the CGI was.
That's not why.
I mean yeah, the CGI was good for the time, but that's not why people saw them.
And the shot in OP isn't CGI.
Henry Williams
You clearly weren't around in the leadup to Spider-Man user