The Force Awakens Practical Effects VS CGI

[Octoberist]

Jurassic park is a bad example.

 

[nogap87]

Jurassic park is a bad example.

How so?

When it comes to the realism of the creatures, I think it holds up better than similar efforts like the '05 King Kong remake.

 

[CGHulk]

I'd like to see epic locales and amazing architecture. There should be more than just Earth locales like the desert, snow or a forest. That worked in the original trilogy because they couldn't open up the pallet because it wasn't feasible with the lack of technology to do so. The technology today is ahead of where the prequels were. I'm confident that ILM can make locals more believable than they were 7 years ago in the last trilogy.

Sorry to tell you all this, but ILM isn't using practical effects anymore, neither is Weta. ILM's old model shop was let go to become Kerner Optical. For a while there ILM was using them until 2008, but it closed down last year, it wasn't getting anymore work. The bigatures department at Weta was shut down too. Models don't hold up to 4K resolution, and they don't give the director the freedom he wants for his shots. The industry is moving/pushing forward.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Not just the quality, but they were also very smart about the mixture of cgi and practical effects. They didn't rely too heavily on one or the other, but used each effect to their strengths.

 

[Solidus]

I'd like to see epic locales and amazing architecture. There should be more than just Earth locales like the desert, snow or a forest. That worked in the original trilogy because they couldn't open up the pallet because it wasn't feasible with the lack of technology to do so. The technology today is ahead of where the prequels were. I'm confident that ILM can make locals more believable than they were 7 years ago in the last trilogy.

Sorry to tell you all this, but ILM isn't using practical effects anymore, neither is Weta. ILM's old model shop was let go to become Kerner Optical. For a while there ILM was using them until 2008, but it closed down last year, it wasn't getting anymore work. The bigatures department at Weta was shut down too. Models don't hold up to 4K resolution, and they don't give the director the freedom he wants for his shots. The industry is moving/pushing forward.

No people still can go to small studios. They are not just stuck with ILM. In that thing you posted they already said they will stick closer to the feel of the OT.

I guess from your name it means more than I thought, but honestly, it's great to have CGI, but you seem to just want to saturate the hell out the screen it does not matter, CGI still has a long ways to go to jump the uncanny valley. And the more CGI you put on screen the harder that gap is. And yes it does hold up under 4K, and there are departments that have gotten better with models and so forth, real is real, that's just what it is people look good in 4K so does models if done well.

I think you will be shocked, they will use lots of practical, they know the complaints from the PT, that and Prometheus showed the world that practical still can be as impressive with RED cameras.

 

[CGHulk]

In that thing you posted they already said they will stick closer to the feel of the OT.

That's true, actual quote.

From my understanding the movies that follow will be far more in line with the original trilogy in regards to tone and method, and from the few names I have heard being banded around I am very excited, as they are all choices that I think people will get behind.

I guess from your name it means more than I thought,

Woah!

I too am a big supporter of practical effects. The CG work was terrible in the prequels, in that they should of used more practical effects. There was more use of miniature worked used in the prequels than were used in the original trilogy. But recently CG has made some leaps and bounds, that's why the industry has walked away from practical effects houses.

but honestly, it's great to have CGI, but you seem to just want to saturate the hell out the screen it does not matter,

I don't want to over saturate the screen, I'm not a filmmaker.

CGI still has a long ways to go to jump the uncanny valley. And the more CGI you put on screen the harder that gap is.

I don’t think you are using the term the uncanny valley correctly.

“The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of robotics and 3D computer animation, which holds that when human replicas look and act almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers.”

And yes it does hold up under 4K, and there are departments that have gotten better with models and so forth, real is real, that's just what it is people look good in 4K so does models if done well.

I didn't explain myself well, and why I said what I said. The Filmmakers want to get closer to the model with a camera but they can't without losing it's illusion. Miniatures look good as long as you don't get to close to them and they are rigid tracked shots. But filmmakers want the freedom to get closer and move the camera more, that's why they are using CG, for better or worse. I too agree models look more tangible than CG. There's only so much detail you can put on a 1/20 scale model, but as you get closer to a CG model you can keep adding detail.

I think you will be shocked, they will use lots of practical, they know the complaints from the PT,

ILM let go of its practical effects house years ago, and it was renamed Kerner Optical. their last project was in 2008 and it was shutdown in 2011.

that and Prometheus showed the world that practical still can be as impressive with RED cameras.

Prometheus had no practical effects. All the ships were CG.
Here's the MPC visual effects breakdown of shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdJYlKfyjg8

 

[Spider-Vader]

There's no way in hell the movie will have all practical effects. But I think it's safe to assume, that Disney knows about the complaints of the PT & will try to fix them. I'm going to assume the sets will mainly be real, with the CGI being for all of the insane action & creatures.

 

[CGHulk]

edit.

 

[Solidus]

Prometheus had no practical effects. All the ships were CG.
Here's the MPC visual effects breakdown of shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdJYlKfyjg8

First, I'm not saying they are going all practical, that would be ridiculous so no.

Second I'm not fully using the uncanny valley right, but I mean more so with human looking creatures and so forth with CGI mainly like with the Clone Troopers, and just some of the CGI with other human like animation used in the prequels, which is what it can mean with that.

In the animation world, there’s a phrase called the “uncanny valley.” It describes how since the creation of the process, the more human you make an animated character appears, the less believable it becomes.

Third, I know Prometheus did not use practical ships, I never stated that. But it did use models for the alien at the end, that was actually enhanced with CGI for it's movements. I'm not saying you should use miniature ships ect, but in terms of lots of costumes, sets ect, should be practical. Of course CGI is needed, but not in every single aspect.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The Uncanny Valley is a phase in the process of realism. The computer rendition will look nearly real, but something's "off" about it, and the observer is left uncomfortable.

However, it can become even more realistic and go out the other side of the valley into being visually acceptable. The characters from the latest "Metal Gear Solid" games are a nice example.

 

[Solidus]

The Uncanny Valley is a phase in the process of realism. The computer rendition will look nearly real, but something's "off" about it, and the observer is left uncomfortable.

However, it can become even more realistic and go out the other side of the valley into being visually acceptable. The characters from the latest "Metal Gear Solid" games are a nice example.

Exactly. And MGS FTW.

 

[Gianakin_]

Jurassic park is a bad example.

Woah. JP is the one movie I'd use to showcase the good use of CGI.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Okay, here's the deal: Franchises like LOTR and Pirates of the Caribean ran contemporary to the prequels. There where sort of noticeable CG moments in them. The difference is that in both of those examples there where also noticeable actual stuff scenes. Long looming shots of vistas or ships in the ocean that somewhat more immersive. And the Cg was properly used. Crowds that would be seamlessly Cg'd ito scenes. That crazy effect where moonlight made the pirates seem like rotten corpses. It wasn't perfect, but it was using Cg to serve the story, rather than serving everything in cgi because they could.

This is all I would ask of Star Wars Ep VII. If you're just gonna have people in a room, maybe just get a room and decorate it, and ad some CG if there's holograms or a weirdo cg fish. Will some characters be all CG aliens? Maybe. But then, maybe then they can focus more on making those that are believable.

 

[Doc Ock]

Not just the quality, but they were also very smart about the mixture of cgi and practical effects. They didn't rely too heavily on one or the other, but used each effect to their strengths.

Indeed, I think the use of CGI shouldn't be necessarily for detail but enhancing the story with occasionally enhancing the environment with a CG alien or something.

Just like stuff in LOTR and POTC which mixed the practical and CG as mentioned.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Okay, here's the deal: Franchises like LOTR and Pirates of the Caribean ran contemporary to the prequels. There where sort of noticeable CG moments in them. The difference is that in both of those examples there where also noticeable actual stuff scenes. Long looming shots of vistas or ships in the ocean that somewhat more immersive. And the Cg was properly used. Crowds that would be seamlessly Cg'd ito scenes. That crazy effect where moonlight made the pirates seem like rotten corpses. It wasn't perfect, but it was using Cg to serve the story, rather than serving everything in cgi because they could.

This is all I would ask of Star Wars Ep VII. If you're just gonna have people in a room, maybe just get a room and decorate it, and ad some CG if there's holograms or a weirdo cg fish. Will some characters be all CG aliens? Maybe. But then, maybe then they can focus more on making those that are believable.

This kind of goes with my complaint in the prequels of "If they are walking through the Temple, make me believe they are walking through the Temple." I love the prequels, ut the scene with Mace, Yoda, and Obi-wan talking while Yoda floats and the other two walk, I can't even believe they were on that floor, because in reality they were probably on one huge green hallway.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

They should totally get Bradley Lewis to build the lightsabers:
http://www.slothfurnace.com/index.html

It's insane. They won't need to roto the blades in post, and the light will interact with the actors' faces.

 

[747]

Both ftw. Look at it from case to case. And a blend/mix is always very effective to me. Like make a practical thing but enhance and smoothen out with CGI.

 

[Solidus]

That looks stunning, I wish he would sell those things because I would buy it. However, in this case CGI is still needed for one reason, the material he is using still would shatter and splinter. The reason they use CGI for the sabers is mainly so they can actually fight and clack swords. Otherwise things like that just shatter or splinter too easily.

But man oh man....that guy should mass produce those because I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I'm sure they could figure something out. And it would upwards of a thousand dollars haha.

 

[Solidus]

I'm pretty sure they've tried. Somethings are better as CGI. Allowing them to use just metal rods and fight allows for more feasibility. Mainly though those looks sooooooo gooood (I truly want him to start selling those cuz I'd buy one) In motion they would not look as good. There is that motion that the lightsabers make with swiped that practically would not work. Even small movements there is the light trails in the films, so CGI is what they will use, I will bet that hands down.

But seriously that guy should start mass producing those because he could make a lot of money.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

There's also one made by Saber Forge which can take a beating. They could go with something like this and then adjust the trails in post - it would make tracking a hell of a lot simpler. It's sort of like how in Tron Legacy they had the option to make all the lights in post or invent a suit that could support it. The lights interact with their environments in a way CG cannot duplicate.

I just feel like it should be a mixture of CG and Practical.

 

[OutRiddled]

No shot in the Prequels wowed me at all.. because I knew it was CGI. The practical effects in Star Wars are amazing. I like how they were forced to be extra creative because of the limitations of special effects back then. Now it's all CGI, CGI, CGI... and I don't care anymore.

 

[BenKenobi]

Practical effects are usually much better for a film overall. Not only do they look better because they are real and imperfect, but by really being there allow actors to act off of more than imagination; the director to have sudden inspiration on the set to set up the scene, the camera man to be able to find interesting angles, more natural off the hand improv.

Not to mention they limit the crew and force creativity which is the true keystone of brilliance imo.

EDIT: Some CGI isn't bad though, I don't think you'll find anyone who liked that puppet Yoda in the Phantom Menace! (But really I have no idea how Yoda looked more real in 1980 than 99?)

 

[Jedi-Spirit]

There is a shot of YODA in AOTC when he's on the gunship, shortly after they rescue the Jedi & Padme that is amazing, in full on lighting, he looks fantastic...This debate is pointless...It will be 90% CG...Avengers had tons of CG, it was a huge success...Disney doesnt care about a miniscule amount of people who complain...The truth is, very few have issues with CG in blockbusters who put the time & effort into it...

 

[Solidus]

It won't be that much CGI. First off The Avengers was not near as much CGI as the PT was especially Episode II and III. And also JJ likes to do as much practical as possible, shown by Super 8, ST09 and STID.

Disney does care because of the product. And yes many have a problem with over use of CGI. Even Michael Bay uses lots of practical surprisingly enough.

lol 90% CGI. Ya that wont' happen. JJ loves sets and locations amplified by CGI like what Neil is doing for Elysium. Elysium is a beautiful showmanship of blending the two together. So is even STID.

There is nothing wrong with CGI, but it is how it's used. But when you do the majority of it CGI ala Avatar or Episode II/III then there is a disconnect. So no this debate is not pointless. People like Neil, Duncan Jones, Ridley Scott with Prometheus, Neil with D9 and Elysium are showing that use CGI but use it when it's really needed and to enhance the scene not be the scene. Nolan as well has shown making big spectacles without using tons of CGI (he never uses more than 500 shots of CGI).

The truth is CGI is becoming too expensive and many companies are starting to go back to practical aspects because in a lot of ways not only does it look better but it's cheaper too. Scott said this many times with Prometheus.

CGI is great when used appropriately. It will not be 90% CGI because I will guarantee that's not going to be the case. That and Disney with POTC used TONS of practical. But it's really up to the director a lot too, how they do it so forth. Disney just won't want him over budget. Other than that do what he has to do to succeed. And they begged for JJ to come aboard, and I'm sure they want him to do with this as what he did with Star Trek.