Register | Login | Search | Help | New Boards | Harassment Policy | Rules of the JC | TOS | Markup Codes
Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: Practical vs Digital...
bobaandy123  879 posts
Registered: Jan '05
6893_Atari 2600, ESB
Date Posted: 5/8 8:42pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
You mean it's not?

 

-----signature-----
"I know the movies! Why don't Spielberg?!"
~Michael “Dorkman” Scott, Geekza! Episode 50
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
darthviper107  2241 posts
Registered: Jun '03
40015_General Grievous
Date Posted: 5/9 2:17am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
With actors it's always preferable to film it (unless it's physically impossible), it costs almost nothing more to do and it looks better. As far as other stuff, it just depends on what's cheaper/quicker. Certain effects can be very expensive to do, like explosions, or building miniatures. But otherwise it could be even more expensive to do it with CG.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lrd_Radon  77 posts
Registered: Apr '09
6641_Rancor
Date Posted: 5/9 11:54am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
VaporTrail posted:
Whereas my girlfriend still thinks the sand in A New Hope is digital.


Probably because of the various matte paintings used in those sequences....but it was from 1977 so.....

 

-----signature-----
Formerly LordRadon (blasted Biggs, I forgot my password)
Intergral (1/Cabin) dCabin = Natural Log Cabin
"Its hard to tell a hand to be emotional" -Anonymous hand photographer
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
CRIMSON-JACK  298 posts
Registered: Oct '02
6621_Star Destroyer
Date Posted: 5/9 2:15pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Dark Knight had some amazing miniature work in it, so amazing it's impossible to spot in amongst the rest of the action, practivcal work will always be around in some capacity, otherwise they might as well just make the whole film CG.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
WormieSaber  6766 posts
Registered: Oct '00
8163_Anakin and Padme
Date Posted: 5/10 11:12pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/10 11:12pm (1 edits total) Edited By: WormieSaber
Dark Knight had some amazing miniature work in it,

Yes, it had minature work on a grand scale. The minature subway was amazing in Dark Knight. Models are still used extensively in filmmaking. There is a time when building and using a model is a lot cheaper, faster and far more realistic than doing it CG.

 

-----signature-----
"Award winners don't push brooms" -- Turbo
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lord_Charisma  2465 posts
Registered: Feb '01
6293_Bongo
Date Posted: 5/10 11:50pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
CRIMSON-JACK posted:
Dark Knight had some amazing miniature work in it, so amazing it's impossible to spot in amongst the rest of the action, practivcal work will always be around in some capacity, otherwise they might as well just make the whole film CG.


The sequence in the Dark Knight where the Joker chases Harvey Dent in the truck is some of the most amazing miniature work I've ever seen - it just needed a few CG enhancements (wheel spin, dust and the like) and it's entirely convincing.

 

-----signature-----
Master Mike of the Secret 7000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqajaBoV-I - 2009 Reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSCMwmB0mgY - Boobyhatch: Matrix Energy
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1424 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/11 1:57am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
The miniatures and vehicles in "The Dark Knight", the free-running, hand-to-hand combat and stunts in "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", Obi-Wan vs Darth Maul in "Episode I", the Hades landscape from the opening shot of "Blade Runner", Indiana Jones dragged behind a truck in "Raiders", the armies of bugs in "Temple of Doom"...hell even the first time you saw Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishburne doing kung fu in the training dojo in "The Matrix"...

isn't it funny how often movies that do things FOR REAL in interesting, fresh and ambitious ways tend to stick on your mind...???

CGI is a tool. It is NOT, by any stretch of any imagination, a solution.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/11 2:30am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
I disagree entirely. Although it may not always be the best solution, it is very much so a solution to a lot of problems.

Davy Jones in Pirates. The robots in Transformers. Gollum. You say all those things should have been done live-action?

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lord_Charisma  2465 posts
Registered: Feb '01
6293_Bongo
Date Posted: 5/11 3:15am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/11 3:16am (1 edits total) Edited By: Lord_Charisma
NZPoe posted:
CGI is a tool. It is NOT, by any stretch of any imagination, a solution.


I'm not sure about that. Star Trek recently showed how 100% CGI (the Enterprise) can be both convincing and appropriate. For the most part CGI should be used to enhance what's already there, but the consummate skill of CG artists at the top of their game can't be questioned.

 

-----signature-----
Master Mike of the Secret 7000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqajaBoV-I - 2009 Reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSCMwmB0mgY - Boobyhatch: Matrix Energy
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1424 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/11 3:26am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/11 3:32am (1 edits total) Edited By: NZPoe
Abe Sapien and Hellboy was done in live-action.

The Skeksis and Mystics in "The Dark Crystal" was live-action.

The T-800's in "T1" and "T2" were done in live-action.

The Alien Queen, Aliens and the Power-Lifter were done in live-action.

The Fawn in "Pan's Labyrinth" was done in live-action.

The near flawless miniature effects in "Total Recall" were live-action.

Robocop was done in live-action.

I'm not trying to suggest that "Gollum" or "Davey Jones" were in anyway inferior (I would have another conversation about the mind-bogglingly stupid transformers, but that's beyond the point we're discussing here).

Gollum, Davey Jones, the T-Rex in the original J-Park (which was a combination of CGI and awesome full-scale animatronic), the T-1000, the compositing of the Harrier Jet sequence in "True Lies" are all PHENOMENAL and AMAZING visual effects and appear in great and memorable films.

But both art forms have limits and these limits are actually still in a region where the eye can perceive and glimpse the illusion unless its done VERY well - at a level, I dare say, where the medium (CGI or practical) isn't important, but the sheer artistry and execution of it.

It would be excessively difficult to create Gollum out of practical effects (e.g. say getting someone to lose weight like Christian Bale did in "The Machinist" and then use prosthetics), but by the same breath its very hard to make CGI give you the thrills of watching Neo fight Morpheus in the training dojo or watch James Bond chase a parkour-trained bomber up a crane or see an actual, real-live, building blow up in "The Dark Knight".

Everything has its place, everything is a tool.

CGI is still not a solution - there's a hundred bad CGI films I could list that would show how lazy CGI has made visual effects today. Only the best do the work that's buyable to the human movie going experience and they're geniuses in either field - CGI or practical work.

But practical work still makes audience jump in action sequences that CGI rarely does. Case in point - Aliens vs Predator CGI "Alien Queen" vs Aliens "Alien Queen"?? I mean - come on - there's NO contest there!

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1424 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/11 3:34am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/11 3:35am (1 edits total) Edited By: NZPoe
Lord_Charisma posted:
For the most part CGI should be used to enhance what's already there, but the consummate skill of CG artists at the top of their game can't be questioned.


Are you suggesting that the consummate skill of a CG artist at the top of their game can replace the practical thing when/where the practical thing is a viable (if equally expensive and risky) option to take?

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lord_Charisma  2465 posts
Registered: Feb '01
6293_Bongo
Date Posted: 5/11 4:18am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/11 4:22am (1 edits total) Edited By: Lord_Charisma
NZPoe posted:
Abe Sapien and Hellboy was done in live-action.


Fair enough. As they designed the character, nothing beyond practical was neccesary.

NZPoe posted:
The Skeksis and Mystics in "The Dark Crystal" was live-action.


The Dark Crystal is one of those films I was told was good from childhood, but on viewing it never captured my attention enough to watch it through to the end. Despite being (almost) forcibly sat down to watch it many times, I couldn't tell you anything about it except it has a midget, a crystal and a lot of muppets. I can't comment on this one.


NZPoe posted:
The T-800's in "T1" and "T2" were done in live-action.


You're citing the T-800 from T1 as how to do live-action properly? Good lord. That scene is gigglesome these days. The Terminators from T2 are, however, very convincing, and if for some strange reason CGI hadn't reared it's average head at this point Go-Motion would have become a standard. I would say, however, that neither the T-800 battle shot nor the hilarious shots of the de-skinned T-800 from T1 were anywhere near the most memorable shots from either movie. The woek involved in rigging up a Go-Motion miniature, however - I wonder how that compares to setting up a CGI midel, a la T3?

NZPoe posted:
The Alien Queen, Aliens and the Power-Lifter were done in live-action.


This is one I can't really critique since I've seen the film only once and many years ago.


NZPoe posted:
The Fawn in "Pan's Labyrinth" was done in live-action.


Again, I've not seen it.

NZPoe posted:
The near flawless miniature effects in "Total Recall" were live-action.


Once more....

NZPoe posted:
Robocop was done in live-action.


I'm going to, again, say this is a bad, bad, bad reference. The miniature work in Robocop was just awful. Not even slightly convincing.

NZPoe posted:
I'm not trying to suggest that "Gollum" or "Davey Jones" were in anyway inferior (I would have another conversation about the mind-bogglingly stupid transformers, but that's beyond the point we're discussing here).


Is it? The Transformers were about as spot-on as anyone could have hoped. The ones in the original cartoons and comics were simple for a reason: you can only convey so much with hand-drawn materials. If you want to push things further - to the extent that they're going to look nothing short of amazing and get a big box-office return - then ILM is your friend.

NZPoe posted:
Gollum, Davey Jones, the T-Rex in the original J-Park (which was a combination of CGI and awesome full-scale animatronic), the T-1000, the compositing of the Harrier Jet sequence in "True Lies" are all PHENOMENAL and AMAZING visual effects and appear in great and memorable films.


Nothing to disagree with here.

[quote=NZPoe]But both art forms have limits and these limits are actually still in a region where the eye can perceive and glimpse the illusion unless its done VERY well - at a level, I dare say, where the medium (CGI or practical) isn't important, but the sheer artistry and execution of it.[/quote]

You have assumed that CGI has limits, and I agree. However, I think these limits are beyond what we would consider real-looking. There are no limits to what CGI can do in regards to believability. We simply edge closer as each paradigm passes. The work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, for example, has beated the "uncanny valley" - IMO proving that it exists - but has not quite got 100% there.

[quote=NZPoe]It would be excessively difficult to create Gollum out of practical effects (e.g. say getting someone to lose weight like Christian Bale did in "The Machinist" and then use prosthetics), but by the same breath its very hard to make CGI give you the thrills of watching Neo fight Morpheus in the training dojo or watch James Bond chase a parkour-trained bomber up a crane or see a CGI building blow up in "The Dark Knight".[/quote]

As an example of a CGI scenes that gave me such thrills, I would cite the opening scene if SW3 (Ooooh! Controversial!). By citing the Neo-Morpheus fight from The Matrix, you have assumed that CGI advocates such as myself would be comfortable with complete replacement of real people with CGI. This is not true. You may as well have cited the Fatherood reveal scene from ESB.

[quote=NZPoe]Everything has its place, everything is a tool.[/quote]

I do agree with you on what is appropriate, and what isn't. Would having the Enterprise in the new Star Trek film as a practical model have altered the production in a positive way?

[quote=NZPoe]CGI is still not a solution - there's a hundred bad CGI films I could list that would show how lazy CGI has made visual effects today. Only the best do the work that's buyable to the human movie going experience and they're geniuses in either field - CGI or practical work.[/quote]

Calling it "lazy" CGI is a little off-centre, I feel. How about "low-budget CGI"? The exact same thing can be applied to cheap model shots. Miniatures have a problem with scale that can be entirely avoided with CGI.

[quote=NZPoe]But practical work still makes audience jump in action sequences that CGI rarely does. Case in point - Aliens vs Predator CGI "Alien Queen" vs Aliens "Alien Queen"?? I mean - come on - there's NO contest there![/quote]

You're not kidding. But those two films don't equate on anything.

 

-----signature-----
Master Mike of the Secret 7000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqajaBoV-I - 2009 Reel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSCMwmB0mgY - Boobyhatch: Matrix Energy
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Boter  1868 posts
Registered: Jul '02
44265_Chiss
Date Posted: 5/11 6:57am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Lrd_Radon posted:
VaporTrail posted:
Whereas my girlfriend still thinks the sand in A New Hope is digital.

Probably because of the various matte paintings used in those sequences....but it was from 1977 so.....

To sidetrack for a sec, I like that matte paintings haven't totally died out; they're fairly noticeable, for instance, in cutscenes in the last act of Halo 3.

 

-----signature-----
Organizer, TF.N Filmmaking Workshops III and IV
Member, Key Pixel Gathering of Filmers (partial filmography in profile)
I Knew a Jedi.
What *IS* Meatball?
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
VaporTrail  9950 posts
Registered: May '02
14913_Obi-Wan
Date Posted: 5/11 7:08am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/11 7:08am (1 edits total) Edited By: VaporTrail
NZPoe posted:
Abe Sapien and Hellboy was done in live-action.
The Skeksis and Mystics in "The Dark Crystal" was live-action.
The T-800's in "T1" and "T2" were done in live-action.
The Alien Queen, Aliens and the Power-Lifter were done in live-action.
The Fawn in "Pan's Labyrinth" was done in live-action.
The near flawless miniature effects in "Total Recall" were live-action.
Robocop was done in live-action.

You say these were done in live-action, but most of your list here wasn't achieved on live-action alone. Hellboy had CGI versions of it's characters, the T-800 was a stop-motion effect in T1's climax. The Fawn had parts of it's leg mechanisms digitally removed.

They may have looked good when the live-action scenes were done, but they still weren't able to do the whole movie without additional effects work.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/11 3:52pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
It also comes down to having options IMO. You get to the edit and realize your costumed monster (or whatever) looks like crap, too bad!

If CGI is a tool, it is the most powerful tool you can ask for.

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64212) 0.218