Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeMay 1st 2009
WANTS
SEE
NOW
BIG
ROBOTS
TEH
FUNS -
- CommentAuthorMarselus
- CommentTimeMay 1st 2009
Glad they used Jablonsky´s score in the trailer btw.Anything with an orchestra or with a choir....at some point will reach you -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeMay 1st 2009 edited
Marselus wrote
Glad they used Jablonsky´s score in the trailer btw.
Well, that music kinda IS the new generation Transformers isn't it? That music; every kid and teen and basically everyone born from 1990 onwards know Jablonsky's music to be an integral part to Transformers.
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeMay 1st 2009
Yeah; that trailer is.....interesting.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
I'm looking forward to the utterly devastating sonic awesomeness of chaos and destruction in multiple channels, big home theatre nut that I am...
"considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
And my exams will be over then so it'll be uber-cool to watch this in theatre!
-
- CommentAuthorThomas Glorieux
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Very Good Trailer, but not excellent
But man, this movie is going to kick ASS
Have you seen these special effects?
waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Special effects? You mean that wasn't real?
-
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
I saw the first film.
Fantastic special effects.
The end.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009 edited
Some of the humour was good for a one-time laugh too.
But I loved the scene where [spoiler]the soldier talks to the Middle Eastern phone operator in the Scorponok scene[/spoiler]!
-
- CommentAuthorThomas Glorieux
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Anthony wrote
Special effects? You mean that wasn't real?
yeah, where will it end?
Can they still improve upon the visual effects scale?waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentAuthorlp
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Thomas Glorieux wrote
Anthony wrote
Special effects? You mean that wasn't real?
yeah, where will it end?
Can they still improve upon the visual effects scale?
Yes, they can, in term of how efficient they can deliver 1080p definition images with as much realistic details as possible. Trust me when I say that the amount of details in those Michael Bay effects are insane and would be extremely time consuming and tedious to do and improve. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Timmer wrote
I saw the first film.
Fantastic special effects.
The end.
Yep, spot on. It's an absolute masterwork of special effects. But as a film, it's retarded. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
I saw the first film.
Fantastic special effects.
The end.
Yep, spot on. It's an absolute masterwork of special effects. But as a film, it's retarded.
Totally!
I thought the special effects were amongst the best I've seen but there was no other reason to watch it whatsoever.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeMay 2nd 2009
Maybe to see Megan Fox, but if that's the case you might as well go for gold and watch a porn film. (Which is what Michael Bay needs to make just to get it out of his system.
)
-
- CommentAuthordgoldwas
- CommentTimeMay 4th 2009
lp wrote
Yes, they can, in term of how efficient they can deliver 1080p definition images with as much realistic details as possible.
Sorry, but movies are not made in 1080p.
Shot on film, there is no "resolution". But if you scan the negative (or shoot digitally), it's usually done at 4k resolution, or 2k resolution. Then the images are downsized to fit on 1080p for Blu-ray or HD broadcast.
So a digitally projected image is still higher resolution than a 1080p image.I consider a project a success when Thor says he won't buy it -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeMay 4th 2009
I've seen Armageddon in better-than-1080p quality. It's sweeeet! -
- CommentAuthorlp
- CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
dgoldwas wrote
lp wrote
Yes, they can, in term of how efficient they can deliver 1080p definition images with as much realistic details as possible.
Sorry, but movies are not made in 1080p.
Shot on film, there is no "resolution". But if you scan the negative (or shoot digitally), it's usually done at 4k resolution, or 2k resolution. Then the images are downsized to fit on 1080p for Blu-ray or HD broadcast.
So a digitally projected image is still higher resolution than a 1080p image.
Dan, we were talking about the limits of animation, as in how "real" CGI can get, and I was talking about the requirements for a realistic animation. The amount of modeling and animation and rendering required to be realistic even at the current HD resolution is staggering, not even mentioning at IMAX resolution. The constraints are largely time and resources. Directors like Michael Bay who demands massive level of details are just pushing the computing limitations and the bar will always rise as long as time and resources permits. -
- CommentAuthorlp
- CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
Anthony wrote
I've seen Armageddon in better-than-1080p quality. It's sweeeet!
WANT. How? -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
lp wrote
Anthony wrote
I've seen Armageddon in better-than-1080p quality. It's sweeeet!
WANT. How?
A friend works for a cinema and somehow got a copy of the print. He's got a projector at his house and we watched it there one drunken evening. -
- CommentAuthorlp
- CommentTimeMay 5th 2009
DAMNED. still want. -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
-
- CommentAuthorThomas Glorieux
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
Anthony wrote
Final transformers poster.
Megan looks sooooo good waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentAuthorAnthony
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
I read that as Megantron then and thought "wait a minute?" -
- CommentAuthorThomas Glorieux
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
Anthony wrote
I read that as Megantron then and thought "wait a minute?"
waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentAuthoromaha
- CommentTimeJun 3rd 2009
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
I saw the first film.
Fantastic special effects.
The end.
Yep, spot on. It's an absolute masterwork of special effects. But as a film, it's retarded.
Perfectly said.
It is impossible for me to watch the first one in one sitting.
However, I will see the second one in theaters for the awesomeness of the effects. -
- CommentAuthorchristopher
- CommentTimeJun 5th 2009
omaha wrote
Steven wrote
Timmer wrote
I saw the first film.
Fantastic special effects.
The end.
Yep, spot on. It's an absolute masterwork of special effects. But as a film, it's retarded.
Perfectly said.
It is impossible for me to watch the first one in one sitting.
However, I will see the second one in theaters for the awesomeness of the effects.
How could you tell the effects were good? The camera never stays on anything long enough for you to tell what it is! -
- CommentAuthoromaha
- CommentTimeJun 6th 2009 edited
If Michael Bay doesn't do good effects, what is he good for? :shrug: -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeJun 6th 2009
omaha wrote
If Michael Bay doesn't do good effects, what is he good for? :shrug:
...and
he loves On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeJun 6th 2009
omaha wrote
If Michael Bay doesn't do good effects, what is he good for? :shrug:
Porno? He's clearly wanted to make one ever since his first movie.
