5 ms·
A common and worthwhile counterpoint to that is that people only notice bad or rushed CGI. Properly good CGI is never criticized because nobody can tell its CGI
by thereddaikon 5y ago
A common and worthwhile counterpoint to that is that people only notice bad or rushed CGI. Properly good CGI is never criticized because nobody can tell its CGI. The digital artists have the same problem as IT staff. People only notice you when something goes wrong. When everything is going right, you might as well not exist.
A timely example is Disney's Book of Boba Fett. The show is almost entirely CGI except for the actors. There have been some criticisms about particular assets like the biker gang's speeder bikes. But I've yet to hear anyone complain about the environments looking fake. Mos Espa is almost 100% CGI and it looks like a real set.
When it works your brain just accepts it. CGI is incredibly good at environments. I'd go as far to say that it has been indistinguishable from reality for the better part of a decade now. Where its gets noticed is in places where it doesn't do so well or when there were time or budget limitations. Fully CGI humans are still not believable and will probably be the last thing to get right. CGI non-human creatures have varying success. Compositing can still be difficult. Often its better to replace an actors entire body, save for the face, and create a CGI version in a fully CGI environment. Compositing a real person in a CGI scene is prone to floating body syndrome and lighting issues.
The real answer isn't necessarily that one is better than the other. But these are tools which should be used together to make a better product. And I think you'll find that modern films with the best overall effects do blend the two. Mad Max Fury Road is a good example, the vehicles are real with real stuntmen climbing on them but the environment is artificial. Shooting a film in the middle of a desert with nothing in sight is not practical. But shooting the scene on a sandy path and compositing in the CGI desert is.
- chx 5y agoYes! I remember a Game Of Thrones CGI breakdown reel, can't find it now, which showed the Lannister camp and it was very interesting how much of it was actually real but at the same time how much was augmented by CGI. You absolutely couldn't tell.
- tshaddox 5y ago> A common and worthwhile counterpoint to that is that people only notice bad or rushed CGI. And similarly, people don't bring up the vast amounts of bad or rushed practical effects being produced at the same time films like Star Wars and Lawrence of Arabia were produced.
- fvdessen 5y agoYou don’t have to not notice it for the cgi to make the film worse. You could certainly for example, film ‘once upon a time in the west’ in a green room and overlay the actors upon a western themed cgi environment, and have it look believably realistic. But are the actors going to act as if they were under the burning sun as believably ? Will they avoid looking at the sun ? Will they tend to seek the shadows ? Will they sweat ? Probably not, and the feeling you’ll get from the film will be different, without you being able to know why
- babyshake 5y agoI do think the Dune film suffered from this problem. I didn't really believe the actors were actually in an environment like Arrakis.
- 2III7 5y agoArrakis was mostly filmed in a desert, how did it not feel real? The CGI in Dune was pretty decent IMO and the highlight for me was the ornithopters wing flapping. The motion blur of the wings was simply amazing.
- fvdessen 5y agoFrom the making of I can see online it seems most of it is actually filmed in studio, especially when actors are involved up close. It is noticable that it’s not filmed in a hot place because the actors are never sweating, they move too fast, their skin doesn’t have the color and texture of a strong tan, they don’t seem affected by transitioning from hot to cold, they touch sand with naked hands, etc. Compare with western movies that are actually filmed on location, they somehow feel like they’re filmed on a hotter planet than arakis EDIT: seems that most of the scenes in the desert filmed in situ were also in relatively cold deserts as the filming crew is wearing down jackets
- slaw 5y agoI can't imagine not using on Arrakis any head cover and sunglasses.
- babyshake 5y agoThere are also far less obvious examples of CGI not being noticeable. These days a filmmaker, especially a highly opinionated one like David Fincher with the necessary resources, can decide that they want something like an extra car parked on a street and add it in post with CGI. The audience never even considers the car wasn't there the day of filming.
- Corrado 5y agoSo, you're saying that there is tons and tons of CGI that never gets noticed. I can totally see that. Something like replacing a missing button on a characters coat, or adding a clock on a wall in the background. As CGI gets better, bad CGI stands out more.
- karaterobot 5y agoThat's not necessarily a counterpoint: it doesn't matter how much great CGI doesn't destroy the reality of a film, so long as there is any bad CGI which does. It's like how nobody talks about all the oysters that didn't make them sick. I don't really think that bad CGI ruins films in most cases, but I think the author of this article does.
- gfxgirl 5y agoMost non-fantasy, non-sci-fi is CGI and has been for over a decade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k
- CollinEMac 5y agoThere is a difference between CGI and using a green screen. I didn't watch the whole video but I didn't see any Computer Generated Imagery.