The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Gianakin_]

Yes, Deakins in SF showed me yesterday that digital has a future, with the right people involved.

 

[Octoberist]

Just avoid that silvery/video look with digital and you're good to go.

 

[Gianakin_]

 

[Octoberist]

Devin Faraci made a good point about digital filmmaking, that either cinematographers are still getting used to the format, struggling with a new lighting system* or they go gung-ho with the 3D tech without thinking too much about how the movie will eventually look.

*Lighting plays a high part in the jump from film to digital because some colors bleed too much, or they'll end up being too muted. Also in night shoots, the blackness can be an issue along with the digital grain. They can't keep the same techniques that they employed with film so it can make for a rocky transition.

 

[CGHulk]

I think CG has arrived since the last trilogy. I'm fine if they want to use a lot in CG.

 

[Octoberist]

It's gotten better. It's not so much too much CGI in my case, that but I think green screen replacing actual sets have their limitations. Again, it feels like black box theater but the CG fills in instead of your imagination.

That's why I love G. del Toro and how he is able to merge the two seamlessly, and create a sense of awe. I'm not anti-CG, but there are plenty out there who abuse it, leaving it as window dressing to cover up the weak story.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Oddly enough I remember just this shot as the one time the cg troopers ever looked good, and in retrospect even this doesn't hold up.

There is absolutely no reason for this to be cg.

The prequels were practically the Who Framed Roger Rabbit of computer animation.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Digital can't reproduce the aesthetic of film. Digital will give you noise (and it looks horrible) where film will give you grain (which gives the film a tangible feel) - also the way it processes light and it's contrast ratio are insane.

Go see Master on a 70mm projector and compare it to Sky Fall on a digital 4K projector - it's no contest. I've seen both and worked with both and I know the theory behind both. You can get digital to look VERY close, but unless you do weird filters (grain overpass and scratches) - which you'd need blank film-stock for anyway, it won't look the same.

EDIT: For the record, I haven't seen Sky Fall in its entirety yet (not out over here yet) but I'm using the 4K trailer as a reference.

 

[Solidus]

I think CG has arrived since the last trilogy. I'm fine if they want to use a lot in CG.

Yes it's better now but still looking at films like Transformers just too much CGI, it takes you and the actors out of the film. Most CGI especially if you use too much the brain detects this and it can take you out of an experience or scene. When it is used right, it blends so well sometimes people don't know what they are looking at, is it real or not? That is what they need to strive for, have CGI in there, but not over saturating the screen.

It truly is about using as much practical as possible, then use CGI where needed. Whether some liked the film or not, visually Prometheus was a perfect example of how to do sci-fi in the modern era.

 

[Iceman]

Yes it's better now but still looking at films like Transformers just too much CGI, it takes you and the actors out of the film. Most CGI especially if you use too much the brain detects this and it can take you out of an experience or scene. When it is used right, it blends so well sometimes people don't know what they are looking at, is it real or not? That is what they need to strive for, have CGI in there, but not over saturating the screen.

It truly is about using as much practical as possible, then use CGI where needed. Whether some liked the film or not, visually Prometheus was a perfect example of how to do sci-fi in the modern era.

Agreed that Transformers has too much CGI, although a lot of it looks good, especially considering that nearly all the action takes place on Earth. I agree with everything above but Star Wars will need that little bit more CGI than the usual CGI heavy film just because the whole universe is both fictional and fantastical as opposed to some of the less diverse, elaborate & colourful similar-to-Earth universes in other epic films. Do as much practical as possible & then embrace the extent of the very best modern day CGI to complete the images. Like you say the main thing is that it needs to be more or less undetectable to the eye to work well.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Two words:

REAL. SETS.

 

[Doc Ock]

Two words:

REAL. SETS.

Yes please.

 

[Solidus]

Agreed that Transformers has too much CGI, although a lot of it looks good, especially considering that nearly all the action takes place on Earth. I agree with everything above but Star Wars will need that little bit more CGI than the usual CGI heavy film just because the whole universe is both fictional and fantastical as opposed to some of the less diverse, elaborate & colourful similar-to-Earth universes in other epic films. Do as much practical as possible & then embrace the extent of the very best modern day CGI to complete the images. Like you say the main thing is that it needs to be more or less undetectable to the eye to work well.

Of course it will require some more CGI then that of other films, but it does not need to be extremely heavy. The OT did it with out that, so can a modern film.

Just use it wisely.

Two words:

REAL. SETS.

Yes, this this this this. Real sets, real locations, make as much of it as real as possible then add the CGI for whatever is needed. Real actors, real things on sets, no CGI Clonetroopers ect. Use as much tactile props as you can.

I will say it again, look at Prometheus that is how you visually blend CGI and practical together.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Two words:

REAL. SETS.

One word..

Agreed.

 

[Iceman]

Of course it will require some more CGI then that of other films, but it does not need to be extremely heavy. The OT did it with out that, so can a modern film.

Just use it wisely.



Yes, this this this this. Real sets, real locations, make as much of it as real as possible then add the CGI for whatever is needed. Real actors, real things on sets, no CGI Clonetroopers ect. Use as much tactile props as you can.

I will say it again, look at Prometheus that is how you visually blend CGI and practical together.

The OT did it without because the tech wasn't available. It was still the most advanced technical thing of its time and that was a part of its appeal. To do a modern Star Wars the same sort of justice CGI will be a lot more important. The film universes of other epic film franchises, even sci-fi ones are just more realistic & easier to do with sets & props. They have higher proportions of humans to non-humans, humanoid characters relative to all the diverse freak SW races, internal-ship focused seqences & earth-based environmental planets/locations (as opposed to for eg water planets, gas giants or lava planets).

Some of what we see as overuse of CGI is also plain bad CGI. At the time of the prequels CGI was nowhere near ready enough for what he used it for. If it had looked good & convincing enough it wouldn't have been called overused (except in the instances where it was used for no reason).

Everyone (apart from George Lucas) agrees practical effects as far as possible & real sets & that it is much more diffcult to make CGI look real. But many also see CGI as the devil (because of their prior bad experiences) when it is just as useful as all the other tools the filmmakers has at his disposal. I see that as a similar attitude towards 3D which has been terribly implemented so far (I hate nearly every thing I've seen that has used it up to now). That doesn't mean in 25 years when 3D tech is high end that those same people won't enjoy it even if it's used for the whole runtime of every fantastical film.

 

[Solidus]

The OT did it without because the tech wasn't available. It was still the most advanced technical thing of its time and that was a part of its appeal. To do a modern Star Wars the same sort of justice CGI will be a lot more important. The film universes of other epic film franchises, even sci-fi ones are just more realistic & easier to do with sets & props. They have higher proportions of humans to non-humans, humanoid characters relative to all the diverse freak SW races, internal-ship focused seqences & earth-based environmental planets/locations (as opposed to for eg water planets, gas giants or lava planets).

Some of what we see as overuse of CGI is also plain bad CGI. At the time of the prequels CGI was nowhere near ready enough for what he used it for. If it had looked good & convincing enough it wouldn't have been called overused (except in the instances where it was used for no reason).

Everyone (apart from George Lucas) agrees practical effects as far as possible & real sets & that it is much more diffcult to make CGI look real. But many also see CGI as the devil (because of their prior bad experiences) when it is just as useful as all the other tools the filmmakers has at his disposal. I see that as a similar attitude towards 3D which has been terribly implemented so far (I hate nearly every thing I've seen that has used it up to now). That doesn't mean in 25 years when 3D tech is high end that those same people won't enjoy it even if it's used for the whole runtime of every fantastical film.

Eh, yes Star Wars changed film from a technical standpoint a lot. But that is not what keeps the OT enduring to so many people and in so many top lists to this day even against all the new modern technical wonders. Star Wars really was popular because of a great story and characters, on top of that great adventure enhanced by groundbreaking SFX. But that's what went wrong with the pruequels, GL just tried to out do himself and focus purely on the SFX, and funny he never one an Oscar once for the PT. Because even though he was doing more than anyone else, it did not matter, and really was not as impressive as other films effects, like how LOTR used great mix of old practical, like the orcs, and so forth, and blend of CGI. If it was GL he would made every single orc on screen CGI, just like the Clonetroopers, as well as every thing you see.

True technical wonder is where no one can tell the difference, and CGI is still not to that point yet, true technical wonder is how people are immersed into the film and forget it's fake. And CGI can do that, but not to the extent that a lot of filmmakers like Bay and Lucas use to think.

 

[Iceman]

Eh, yes Star Wars changed film from a technical standpoint a lot. But that is not what keeps the OT enduring to so many people and in so many top lists to this day even against all the new modern technical wonders. Star Wars really was popular because of a great story and characters, on top of that great adventure enhanced by groundbreaking SFX. But that's what went wrong with the pruequels, GL just tried to out do himself and focus purely on the SFX, and funny he never one an Oscar once for the PT. Because even though he was doing more than anyone else, it did not matter, and really was not as impressive as other films effects, like how LOTR used great mix of old practical, like the orcs, and so forth, and blend of CGI. If it was GL he would made every single orc on screen CGI, just like the Clonetroopers, as well as every thing you see.

True technical wonder is where no one can tell the difference, and CGI is still not to that point yet, true technical wonder is how people are immersed into the film and forget it's fake. And CGI can do that, but not to the extent that a lot of filmmakers like Bay and Lucas use to think.

I think we're now in complete agreement!

 

[DChero]

I went to school for visual effects, and can certainly agree with Asteroid-Man about how lighting/shadows can come across differently. HD is much better than it used to be, however they should test both before going into production. On the other end, it's easier to composite (post-production) with HD because it usually provides a little more contrast in color. That's my experience at least.

Question: Since Lucas is no longer the end-all when it comes to editing, does that take away wipes?

 

[Skrilla31]

As long as it's visually compatible with the original trilogy, then I'm fine. The prequels never really looked like Star Wars movies.

The original films were magical because they look as if they were filmed on location. Tatooine, Hoth, Dagobah, the Death Star, the star destroyers, the falcon... everything is just so tangible. As someone stated earlier, watching the prequels reminded me of a videogame cinematic and it never quite drew you in and captured your imagination. It looked fake and it looked sterile.

 

[Destructus86]

Aliens should be CGI. (there are farrrr too many different kinds to do any other way) Enviroments should be a mix of both.

 

[Octoberist]

The originals were a more visceral experience than the prequels in my eyes. Almost a surreal experience where you want to a place like Cloud City, etc. Not so much with te prequels.

 

[Octoberist]

Aliens should be CGI. (there are farrrr too many different kinds to do any other way) Enviroments should be a mix of both.

I depends on what kind of alien; humanoid or monsterish/beast of burden. Or a mix of both make-up/animatronics with CG.

 

[Solidus]

I depends on what kind of alien; humanoid or monsterish/beast of burden. Or a mix of both make-up/animatronics with CG.

A lot dismiss animatronics, and do not realize alongside CGI the advancements with robotics has increased a ton. Watching the making of Prometheus: Furious Gods really showed incredible things as well. I mean even watching Hellboy a lot of them were practical.

CGI really should be a last resort.

 

[CGHulk]

Yes it's better now but still looking at films like Transformers just too much CGI, it takes you and the actors out of the film. Most CGI especially if you use too much the brain detects this and it can take you out of an experience or scene. When it is used right, it blends so well sometimes people don't know what they are looking at, is it real or not? That is what they need to strive for, have CGI in there, but not over saturating the screen.

It truly is about using as much practical as possible, then use CGI where needed. Whether some liked the film or not, visually Prometheus was a perfect example of how to do sci-fi in the modern era.

Disney will settle for no less than a spectacle!

 

[nogap87]

Practical with a dash of CGI. Original Star Wars and Jurassic Park still hold up because not every damn thing on the screen was the result of a computer.

Hell, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is still the best live-action movie mixed with traditional animation mostly because they used animatronics to give the illusion that the toons were really interacting with real life objects.