Digital Blood (HERE!)

rhys · Post by **rhys** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:52 am

No offence, but that blood looks terrible.
You should do what i did, get a picture of realistic blood splattered, then enlarge it quickly and make it disappear.
It looks suprisingly real.

rhys · Post by **rhys** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:52 am

No offence, but that blood looks terrible.
You should do what i did, get a picture of realistic blood splattered, then enlarge it quickly and make it disappear.
It looks suprisingly real.

rhys · Post by **rhys** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:54 am

Very sorry about the double reply.

aaronv2 · Post by **aaronv2** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:35 pm

and i thaught you guys were film makers... such a shame.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:41 pm

I like it for the use. I tryied the blood splatter thing, for me it doesn't look too good.

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:23 pm

I cannot seem to download it anymore it says that it has been deleted.

realism is all that matters in this world.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!! if you wanted realism watch a documentry, what if you want the blood to look fake, maybe because that would make the film look better! have you thought of that. Realism isnt very easy to find in ARTISTIC films (please note that they are called artistic films, and not realistic films) For those who have seen the new Zatoichi film in 2003, you will know what i am talking about, if they were to use real as opposed to CGI it would have looked like a violent slasher film, but the CGI blood was (i cannot find the right word so i am going to call it beautiful)

=JDL= · Post by **=JDL=** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:07 pm

CGI is ruining films these days.They use it for way too many useless things. I dont think there 100% useless but id rather do my special effects non-digitally, especially blood. I think blood in movies should look realistic. If your going to shoot somebody in the head, why not give it that extra realistic 'kick'? The only thing i think CGI should be used for is large sequences like all the troops and boats coming to shore right after D-Day in SPR, and for Science Fiction films like Star Wars because you can obviously not create space without CGI. CGI costs alot more too.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:19 pm

=JDL= wrote:CGI costs alot more too.

It cost more to get a squib set up than to add a smoke puff or blood. Watch SPR more closely and you'll notice alot of digital blood and hit puffs.

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:49 pm

Fact: Neither of you know what you are talking about.

Everybody seems to forget what motions pictures are about in this era. ENTERTAINMENT!!! It's whether something looks realistic, or used a squib or compositied graphics, or even whether it really makes sense. However, a filmmaker should have a moral responsability to get things historically accurate if based on actual events. But as for something silly like who used what for this and that to make which whatever, as long as it works, who gives a darn!?

Computer graphics is not always cheaper or more expensive, everything is relative!!! Sure squibs may be realistic solution... but if you are THAT freakin hooked on realism to start farting your mouth at all CG, then why not use REAL BULLETS instead? It would sure as heck look a lot more real than a squib... Hell, the acting would be quite real then too!

DO REALIZE that everything in Hollywood is FAKE FAKE!!!!! FAKE. Now how can you start going off about realism?

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:05 am

Epsilon wrote:then why not use REAL BULLETS instead? It would sure as heck look a lot more real than a squib... Hell, the acting would be quite real then too!

I was, but I found out that they clam it to be against the law; I'll find a loophole eventually.

=JDL= · Post by **=JDL=** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:24 am

maj_barnes wrote:
=JDL= wrote:CGI costs alot more too.
It cost more to get a squib set up than to add a smoke puff or blood.

How do you figure? What about computer software expenses? Last i heard they cost a butt load of money. Not everone uses squibs either.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:08 am

If your making a movie, then you should have decent editing software, with basic keying effects.

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:45 am

this is being looked at in the wrong way, these blood effects DONT look real, MAYBE they were made to look how they do, maybe not, i myself sometimes do digital blood on purpose (please note the sometimes in the previous sentence) not to make it cheaper, or more realistic but because i want it to look a certain way, maybe because i want it to look CGI. Tell me what makes painters such as Michelangelo, etc. more famous than photographers, because (although photography IS an art) it is not nearly as artistic as paintings, if you want realism look at a photograph, if you want beauty, or something magical, or special, etc. look at a painting. REALISM IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER!! and most basic editing programs have some sort of basic keying effects, so if you do editing you should be able to do some basic keying. maj_barnes, i am sure that many people appreciate the effort of some digital blood, and oh By the way the second blood test link doesnt work, the website says that the file has been deleted.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:55 am

maj_barnes wrote: I have to warn you, this is DIGITAL it will not look as good as the real thing.

Also, yea, I've been deleting alot of stuff from my site, because I've been filling it with other files; if you want the test, just give me your email.

DEDFX · Post by **DEDFX** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:26 am

Garry King said squibs cost more, like sometimes $1,000 each... remember =JDL=?Ã‚Â¿

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:14 am

Epsilon wrote:Fact: Neither of you know what you are talking about.

My bad...

NONE of you know what you are talking about.

(except crossfire)

=JDL= · Post by **=JDL=** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:19 pm

DEDFX wrote:Garry King said squibs cost more, like sometimes $1,000 each... remember =JDL=?Ã‚Â¿

ya, you can make a blood effect non-digitally without CGI, or squibs. Im not just talking about gunshot wounds, im talking about anything.

But in the end i think this all comes down to opinion. Some people lile CGI. Fine. Some people like using squibs and other man made effects. Fine. Lets stop babling.

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:28 am

Epsilon wrote: NONE of you know what you are talking about.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

aaronv2 · Post by **aaronv2** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 5:08 am

You people sit here and argue the realism of 3d and the qualms about using it. you say it is for realism and that realism makes your films better. this is of course untrue.

The only thing that makes films good is the people who make them. and let me tell you we dont worry about wether something will look real, fake, stylized, cool its simply a matter of knowing what you want. Movies aren't about special effects and who does the most outrageous stuff its simply about the telling of a story to have an emotional impact on whoever is watching it.

bickering about wether your blood looks real why 3d is bad and squibs are good blah blah is side tracking you from the obvious truth that you all pick up these little things over your experience of what you read and agree with.

your conversation is not unlike that of music or religeon you argue about all the stupid meaningless bits and forget the underlying theme.

lets get one thing straight. 3d is in no way bad and depending on its use can look completely real. Digital imagery like set extension and attention to detail and the small stuff that gets changed is barely visible except to someone who knows what to look for in 3d and sometimes it even fools them. The simple fact is you use your effects and etc to make the emotional response in your movie better not to please all the people who just go there to see a magnificent 3d battle scene...

the thing i dont get is no matter what you use you people still dont like how it looks. wether its the "dummies look too fake" or "3d people look too fake" I dont agree with what you guys are doing.

you look at things with your mind already made up... you have no creativity to make things your own and make your own way... that is what makes a good film maker. as long as he/she can picture what they want and find the best way to get it to look the way they want. Then the producer tells them to find a cheaper way and theres some arguments. anyway.

just think about it. instead of arguing.

crossfire · Post by **crossfire** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:39 pm

Bravo very well said

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:32 pm

I like arguing, gives me something to do.

aaronv2 · Post by **aaronv2** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:21 am

why not do some creative work instead?

Epsilon · Post by **Epsilon** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:32 am

I've always said that! But does anybody ever listen? Nope!

maj_barnes · Post by **maj_barnes** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:40 pm

Because in arguements, you might find something new and be able to use it.

Catscratch44 · Post by **Catscratch44** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:42 pm

There is just to much controversy between digital and real if your good at real go real if your good at digital then go digital I personally like to mix digital and real to get the best effect possible

MattHawkins Online - Film Making Forum

Digital Blood (HERE!)

Digital blood

Digital blood

Digital blood