Computer Animated Movies Vs. Videography

[LightBright]

It seems to me that computer animated movies such as Avatar is making people feel that they need less and less actual videography, because they think it will soon be obsolete. I however don’t think it’s like that at all. I feel that the people who feel this way, are the ones who would rather live in a fake world, with fake robot wives/husbands, and hate reality. Not really, but that is what comes to mind when I hear people telling me these silly things lol. But I really do think most people at this point in time are on a “future high” with the ideology that everything new is always better than anything “old”, however what they don’t understand is that time is an illusion. That’s kinda my point, "real" Photography and cinematography are here to stay because it is the closest visual medium to being even close to reality, next to actually experiencing it. Real actors/actresses, real props, real captured light. Yes, it takes more time and effort, but that is why it is so special... And when I say "real" I also mean no exaggerated photoshop in the photography department. This is why I love photojournalism, they actually fire photojournalists if they find out they have been exaggeratedly altering there images.

Opps I got a little off topic, anyways....


Personally I think that computer animated movies and cinematography movies should have completely separate award shows. I love them both, but it doesn’t make sense to put two completely different visual/sound mediums in the same room.


Any thoughts on this?


.

[BlueRob]

Is like the old discussion of digital PP in photographs...the never ending topic...purist will stay out and the majority take it as part of photography itself.

mmm I dont get the point...most if not all movies involve some sort of digital enhancement....you mentioned Avatar...it has both digital and analog if you like...in what category does that fall?

Movies and other media like photography does not relay only on the medium or process. The core is far beyond that.....Avatar is not great because of the complicated of its graphics....it is not meant that way...the core is the story and the mixed and harsh feelings it produces on the spectator......just like any other movie.
If the digital world is one tool to achieve this...great....if not...it is OK also....different approaches just that.

I guess I like to see the subject in a broader way and leave aside the mediums used....for me a good set of digital effects (when they are good) really aids.

[LightBright]

“mmm I dont get the point...most if not all movies involve some sort of digital enhancement....you mentioned Avatar...it has both digital and analog if you like...in what category does that fall?”

Well there are by far more digital effects than analog so it goes under the animated department I would think.

In "motion picture" the first thing we notice is the picture. This is what most of us base things off of. This is the same thing with novels, we base things not of the image, but instead the story. I like both mediums; I just really feel the need to have them both in different award shows in order to give full appreciation to both arts/crafts. These award shows do go beyond what technology they use to get the image. But, how about the actors/actresses, videographers, makeup artists that go along with it. I am pretty sure the actors and actress are mad that they are being compared to a CGI performer.