[dmazzoni]

> I’ve worked in CG for many years and despite the online nerd fests that decry CG imagery in films, 99% of those people can’t tell what’s CG or not unless it’s incredibly obvious.

I've noticed people assume things are CG that turn out to be practical effects, or 90% practical with just a bit of CG to add detail.

[dagmx]

Yep I’ve had that happen many times , where people assume my work is real and the practical is CG.

Worse, directors often lie about what’s practical and we’ll have replaced it with CG. So people online will cheer the “practicals” as being better visually, while not knowing what they’re even looking at.

I’ve seen interviews with actors even where they talk about how they look in a given shot or have done something, and not realize they’re not even really in the shot anymore.

People just have terrible eyes once you can convince them something is a certain way.

[Der_Einzige]

But films without CG are clearly superior and it’s not even in contention.

Lawrence of Arabia or Cleopatra alone have incredible fully live shot special effects which can not be easily replicated with CG and have aged like fine wine, unlike the trash early CG of the 80s and 90s which ruined otherwise great films like the last starfighter