Here's an easy way to see if a war movie is being truthful: If you see an explosion on a faraway hillside and the sound of the explosion and the detonation of the bomb happen at the same time - if they're putting the sound and the vision together in the same moment - they're going toward our cultural understanding of war, not the reality of war.
If the technical innovations of the Impressionists led merely to a more accurate representation of nature, it was perhaps of not much value in enlarging their powers of expression.
The very act of drawing an object, however badly, swiftly takes the drawer from a woolly sense of what the object looks like to a precise awareness of its component parts and particularities.
Photorealism's goal is to reproduce a photograph. The best photorealism can't beat a printer, and I have a really nice printer.
I can only draw what I see.
Let's face it, the human eye is clumsy, sloppy, and unintelligible when compared to the camera's eye.
I once got a little camera to use for details of architecture and so forth but the photo was always so different from the perspective the eye gives, I gave it up.
People say that soundstage sets never quite look like reality. But actually, they can. They can be as real as you want as long as you pay attention to the kind of detail that is given for free in a real place.
It isn't an easy job to paint oneself - at any rate if it is to be different from a photograph. And you see - this, in my opinion, is the advantage that impressionism possesses over all the other things; it is not banal, and one seeks after a deeper resemblance than the photograph.
Sometimes, cameras can't capture a scene like your brain does. But the use of apps can help get it just a little closer to reality.
There are always things I have to remove. I might look at a shot for five months, when somebody new to the screening room will say, 'hey, there's a modern air conditioner in that window.' It's a process.
Your camera is the best critic there is. Critics never see as much as the camera does. It is more perceptive than the human eye.
The photograph isn't good enough. It's not real enough.
I definitely pay attention to details. I think one of the hardest things about making a movie is that it can be scrutinized over and over again. If anything just isn't right, it's going to take you out of the film.
One of the biggest mistakes a photographer can make is to look at the real world and cling to the vain hope that next time his film will somehow bear a closer resemblance to it.
The key to digital effects is to do things that are visually accurate but done cheaply and approximated.
When I see myself in the videogame it's amazing how realistic I look. This is the most authentic and realistic soccer game I have ever seen. It is like I'm looking in a mirror. The attention to detail is incredible.
The high-definition picture is still a perspective picture. That's the real problem, the perspective picture.
Compare constantly, lines and angles... Hold looking-glass before your model and your drawing. Take a second's glance only, and see if the impression be the same. If it be not, ask, 'What is the difference?
