tylergfoster

Watch at least some of the video here, and not on Vimeo (a minute or two), and then read the spoiler below.

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7809605&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&ful lscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=7809605&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&ful lscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>

The Third & The Seventh from Alex Roman on Vimeo.

Boba Fett

I saw that a few days ago and I hate to be negative but I think some of it is a hoax. If it is 100% authentic that guy needs a studio job ASAP.

tylergfoster

Supermallet

As soon as I read your instructions I knew what it was going to be. Still very well done.

Mabuse

I don't get it. Wow he made incredibly detailed and realistic renderings of real places. Why not just go to the real place and shoot? Many of those buildings are Louis Khan buildings.

He rendered digitally a bunch of things that could just as easily be photographed for real. I'm not even convinced they are digital. It's just really beautiful motion picture photography with digital details added, like smoke effects, little airplanes flying. Probably all that obnoxious focus pulling is digital too. He needs to stop doing that.

tylergfoster

Ironic. I think the focus pulling is what "sells" it for me as real.

Troy Stiffler

I don't have much hands-on with post (mostly just what I've read in books). But why would anyone complicate things by adding focus pulls in post? You just use a longer lens at closer proximities.

[Hey, I won't delete that text like a coward.]

Just read the "spoiler" in the first post. I didn't know that it was all CG. Very interesting. I guess that's the "mind blowing" part, which I didn't quite get while watching it.

I wonder how many hours to took to do the work? Just about anything can be done, with amazing detail, when there's enough labor involved. And, of course, you have access to the right software (which can range from $3k to $50k).

Mabuse

I read the spoiler, I just don't believe it. And if it's true I wonder what the point is. How useful is it to construct a CGI version of a famous building that's indistinguishable from the real building? Just go film the real building!

I think this is all authentic motion picture photography that has been processed in post using digital effects tools (like the focus pulls, steam, airplane, color correction, etc). Not 100% CGI rendered visuals.

tylergfoster

As it also says in the spoilers, there is another video showing the wireframe breakdowns and whatnot that were used to create some of the shots. Like I said in response to Suprmallet, it could be fake, but I think it's equally likely that he just found a lot of clever ways to make cheap tricks really work.

I just think it's interesting because, while of course, someday it will be possible to create, say, an entire movie out of CG and have it be photorealistic, it's still interesting to see how far they've gotten already.