4 ms·

Disagree. CGI is getting "easier" in the sense that even low budget films can do things that used to only be reserved for large budgets. And there's so much CGI

Disagree. CGI is getting "easier" in the sense that even low budget films can do things that used to only be reserved for large budgets. And there's so much CGI in use that you don't notice these days because it's so seamless / not the center of attention (e.g. check out this before/after about Wolf of Wall Street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g). But at the end of the day, you still need good direction and editing that involves understanding the limitations of doing things on the computer vs. in camera. I think this video about Dune provides great examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKupTibxKQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKupTibxKQ. One example provided is that using green screen can sometimes result in "flat" unrealistic lighting because the camera doesn't expose the image the same if representative lighting isn't used to actually capture the shot.

viraptor 4y ago
I really don't get the part around 1:20 with the house swap. It's not some crazy location - why would they CGI that? Cutting the cost of actually filming away from the studio?
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  Exactly. Film equipment is heavy and expensive. Why pay everyone to move however far away the desired house is, for a few shots of the exterior?
lc9er 4y ago
I think you can see a similar effect in the music industry. Technology has practically eliminated the barrier to entry for recording. On top of that, sales are down, recording budgets are slashed. Why spend valuable studio time tweaking amp settings and mic positioning when you can record direct and scroll through a list of plugins - or so the logic goes.
- coldtea 4y ago
  To be frank, "tweaking amp settings and mic positioning" was never a requisite for good music. Just an obsession, inspired by the Beatles and later bands "use the studio as an instrument", that often worked to the detriment of traditional musical skills, and is part of what turned the focus from songwriting to production, that enabled today's "just scroll through presets".
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    "It don't take me no three days to record no album." — John Lee Hooker * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lee_Hooker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lee_Hooker
coldtea 4y ago
>Disagree. CGI is getting "easier" in the sense that even low budget films can do things that used to only be reserved for large budgets (...) But at the end of the day, you still need good direction and editing What you disagree with? Because that's exactly what the OP said: “I believe CGI is getting worse even as the tech advances.” (the tech being CGI tech, and the first reference to CGI meaning "CGI as applied by most current films/directors").
- syntheweave 4y ago
  There's definitely an angle of "actually this unrealistic treatment is director's intent", but it's hard to know on the basis of one out-of-context clip. The live action Speed Racer film also got blasted at release for overuse of "cheesy" techniques that mimic the cartoon source material rather closely. It's become a cult classic, though. A lot of this is predominant tastes preempting the discussion. American pop culture has focused for quite some time on achieving high detail and realism in photographic treatments, so when the trend is bucked for any reason it gets dinged as being not serious. I kind of like the "90's FMV game" look to it, myself. Though it probably won't make me watch the film.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Near the end of Speed Racer is maybe the best use of CGI I've ever seen, and it has nothing to do with trying to be realistic. The movie is worth it just for that part, which I rewatch every couple of months on its own.
throw0101a 4y ago
> Dune Worth checking out interviews with the (now Oscar® winning) cinematographer Greig Fraser. The scene with the Sardaukar floating down into the abandoned science station was supposedly one of the more challenging shots: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8228w-XzV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8228w-XzV4 They could only shoot the scene between 10:31 and 10:53 so that the shadow is in the exact place that they wanted it. It was all natural lighting (the sun) because artificial lights (HMI) couldn't give them the look that they wanted.
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Timestamp?
  - agoose77 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/S8228w-XzV4?t=358 https://youtu.be/S8228w-XzV4?t=358

viraptor 4y ago

I really don't get the part around 1:20 with the house swap. It's not some crazy location - why would they CGI that? Cutting the cost of actually filming away from the studio?

DoctorOW 4y ago
Exactly. Film equipment is heavy and expensive. Why pay everyone to move however far away the desired house is, for a few shots of the exterior?

lc9er 4y ago

I think you can see a similar effect in the music industry. Technology has practically eliminated the barrier to entry for recording. On top of that, sales are down, recording budgets are slashed. Why spend valuable studio time tweaking amp settings and mic positioning when you can record direct and scroll through a list of plugins - or so the logic goes.

coldtea 4y ago
To be frank, "tweaking amp settings and mic positioning" was never a requisite for good music. Just an obsession, inspired by the Beatles and later bands "use the studio as an instrument", that often worked to the detriment of traditional musical skills, and is part of what turned the focus from songwriting to production, that enabled today's "just scroll through presets".
- throw0101a 4y ago
  "It don't take me no three days to record no album." — John Lee Hooker * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lee_Hooker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lee_Hooker

coldtea 4y ago

>Disagree. CGI is getting "easier" in the sense that even low budget films can do things that used to only be reserved for large budgets (...) But at the end of the day, you still need good direction and editing What you disagree with? Because that's exactly what the OP said: “I believe CGI is getting worse even as the tech advances.” (the tech being CGI tech, and the first reference to CGI meaning "CGI as applied by most current films/directors").

syntheweave 4y ago
There's definitely an angle of "actually this unrealistic treatment is director's intent", but it's hard to know on the basis of one out-of-context clip. The live action Speed Racer film also got blasted at release for overuse of "cheesy" techniques that mimic the cartoon source material rather closely. It's become a cult classic, though. A lot of this is predominant tastes preempting the discussion. American pop culture has focused for quite some time on achieving high detail and realism in photographic treatments, so when the trend is bucked for any reason it gets dinged as being not serious. I kind of like the "90's FMV game" look to it, myself. Though it probably won't make me watch the film.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Near the end of Speed Racer is maybe the best use of CGI I've ever seen, and it has nothing to do with trying to be realistic. The movie is worth it just for that part, which I rewatch every couple of months on its own.

throw0101a 4y ago

> Dune Worth checking out interviews with the (now Oscar® winning) cinematographer Greig Fraser. The scene with the Sardaukar floating down into the abandoned science station was supposedly one of the more challenging shots: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8228w-XzV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8228w-XzV4 They could only shoot the scene between 10:31 and 10:53 so that the shadow is in the exact place that they wanted it. It was all natural lighting (the sun) because artificial lights (HMI) couldn't give them the look that they wanted.

cercatrova 4y ago
Timestamp?
- agoose77 4y ago
  https://youtu.be/S8228w-XzV4?t=358 https://youtu.be/S8228w-XzV4?t=358