458 Videos From Mugello!!!

Can't get enough....

 

wow!!!

 

Thanks for posting

 

It's not obvious to you guys that this is a rendering or video game?

 

I thought I was going crazy for thinking that

 

It's not a render.

 

Check those eyes with your local doctor!

These are out-takes from the Mugello launch film, shot using a steady-rig on a specially equipped Mercedes ML. NOT CG.

 

Are you really serious?

Ok, open the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHEOZzllaxI

Look at the motor at 5:00. The animation is much lower quality during this segment. That doesn't look animated to you? Look at the ridiculous interior shots from 5:00 - 5:45.

If you somehow think a helmet cam would look like that, and can't catch on to the unrealistic head motion for over 1 minute, keep looking...

Look at the hand at 6:40-6:44. I hope your hand doesn't look like that! If so you may need a doctor, or you may be a Pixar character.

BTW, I have worked with computer animation and taught at a top 5 engineering school in the country, and I have the best vision of anyone I know (not an exaggeration - I have yet to encounter a fast food menu I can't read from the back wall of any restaurant).

 

I have taught at no schools but I think you are wrong. lol

 

My thoughts exactly...perhaps there are some real elements blended with CG shots.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Somewhere between real and CGI. The weak and muffled sound was the final element that made me think it's not entirely real.

 

Looks like cgi. Maybe for Gran Turismo 5?

 

If you look at Official movie for the 458, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Br6f_BCVc&NR=1 , you can see parts of the video clips posted earlier in the thread. So it may be cgi especially at the 1:49 mark of the 458 Official video. The arm just doesn't look right.

 

Alright pal, you asked for it:


The *live action*, "making-of" 458 Italia video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYREz9atHpM&feature=player_embedded#


See those Steadi-rigs? See the lipstick cams? Look, I don't mean to slam you (that's not F-chat cool) but between your "Pixar" insult and all that boasting about your credentials, I had to reply.

Besides: A) CG shots for running footage that was never used? You know how expensive that is? B) You're looking at footage some kid posted on Youtube. Try Ferrari's footage or the HD stuff. Pixelated video on a computer looks flat.

 

Kind of scary seeing as you obviously can't tell what's CGI and what's real...

 

Yes, that is a real video.
But the first one is still not, or it's run heavily through a paintbrush video effect type filter.

The out of car shots may be real video run through a filter effect or rendering program, but the in car shots are *definitely* rendered! NO ONE's head moves like that...

And does your hand really look like that hand...?

 

+1

 

Sorry, but you're completely wrong.

As you were touting your credentials earlier you should have noticed the colours in the footage. That's your clue that this is unused footage. I'll say no more as, with your experience, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about...

 

I respectfully disagree, and am not interested in saying any more. Believe what you want. Even if either of us is wrong, this proves a point: reality (at least reality in video) is becoming blurred with CGI.

 

That is true, but this piece of footage does not prove the point as it's clearly footage. Just because you are mistaken doesn't make this an example. And, by the way, my reference to the colours earlier was with regard to the fact that this is clearly ungraded footage. Rarely will the expense of 'post' be squandered on footage that doesn't make it into the final edit and I think that might be what's throwing your eye. If this was CGI the colours of the cars would be far closer to the fully saturated coulours you see in the final footage. There still might be some tweaking but the saturation would be far closer to the final result straight out of the render engine. Even on some of the examples you pointed out your call just doesn't hold up. The engine bay, for instance, would be far more 'yummy' on the eye if it were a render.

 

You'll say no more, eh? And you agree that the line is blurred, but this isn't an example only because I am wrong? You are funny. Again, I respectfully disagree with you.
We could go back and forth, but this is becoming a bit annoying to me. Keep your opinion.

 

The "I'll say no more" comment was related to the preceding sentence. And yes, I do agree that the lines are blurred - I do photoreal CGI for a living (so my "opinion" is informed). But an example that is clearly footage and not a render does not become a defining example just because one individual can't tell the difference.

 

Not to muddy the issue , but it definitely is real footage. The reason for the strange colors and effects are that it was shot on a Red camera. A fairly new Super-Hi-Def digital camera that is taking the movie world by storm. It is so much higher resolution (4000) than anything else used commercially that it definitely has a whole different look to the footage. Also the footage is shot in "Raw" format and then processed later for final characteristics, Saturation, contrast, tonal range etc. What you are seeing that looks different is the movie-makers "style". Very common in fashion photography.
And I too am in the industry of digital imaging.