Jedi Council Forums - Practical vs Digital...

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...
NZPoe Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 5/11 5:16pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	VaporTrail posted: 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. Yes, but that is exactly what I'm arguing for - CGI is a tool and tools are used in accordance with OTHER tools to achieve the best result. My posit is that the amount of money, work and time required to do a movie where Hellboy and Abe Sapien were ENTIRELY Digital or the Fawn was entirely would not have achieved the best results, given the constraints of filmmaking. My additional posit is that I never ever bought the digital stunt versions of (say) Hellboy or Abe Sapien - the instant I could tell it wasn't the actors doing the stunts, falls, hits, live in front of the camera and pushing the human ability to its limits...my interest and suspension of disbelief drops. I am all for what you are saying here - using CGI when its appropriate (e.g. Davey Jones, Gollum, giant armies, etc) and not using it everywhere, for everything, because its easier (as demonstrated by films with poor CG work where getting something done easily costs you the psychological and emotional impact of the effect WHEN it could have been done partially practical and for a similar time-frame and monetary cost). I honestly feel that thinking CGI is a SOLUTION to all the world's visual effects problems is deluded thinking - that's just my opinion, i'm sorry if it offends people. It is not. A solution denotes a total, complete, all-encompassing answer to a problem. CGI is not that. There is enough bad CGI, lazy CGI, CGI done too fast, too cheaply, executed by inexperienced people, in countless, hundreds, THOUSANDS of films that can be brought up as evidence AGAINST such a notion that CGI is a solution. CGI is a tool - a powerful tool, but only a tool. It's ability to resolve problems in visual effects and filmmaking comes down to the artisan and the sensibility of how that artisan approaches the problem. But if anyone out there really WANTS to argue that the CGI Alien Queen in "Aliens vs Predator" is somehow better than Ripley in a power-lifter kicking a mechanical, live-action, Alien Queen's butt in "Aliens"....then lets talk about it -----signature----- My Showreel: http://www.vimeo.com/channels/poe http://www.youtube.com/nealnz
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TrowaGP02a Registered: Dec '04	Date Posted: 5/13 5:05pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/13 5:14pm (2 edits total) Edited By: TrowaGP02a
	NZPoe posted: A solution denotes a total, complete, all-encompassing answer to a problem. CGI is not that. There is enough bad CGI, lazy CGI, CGI done too fast, too cheaply, executed by inexperienced people, in countless, hundreds, THOUSANDS of films that can be brought up as evidence AGAINST such a notion that CGI is a solution. Do you drink RC Cola and say Coca-Cola sucks? I think the bigger thing here is budget. If we are talking about studio funded Hollywood pictures, I think you are a fool to think that CG is not your biggest weapon up there with cinematography and production design. I really don't see how this could be debated anymore without a specific desired effect in mind to compare pros-cons (and I don't mean "the robots in random movie with robots were CG and they were crappy but the robots in random movie with robots were practical and they were awesome so practical wins). If we are talking about indy, student, and all other not-huge-budget films, yeah the CG is probably going to be a little crappy because people don't either have the time to do it or they're not getting paid enough to care. It's not the position or technique that matters it's who's in that position. -----signature----- blarg
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedsithor Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 5/13 6:37pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	Even Lucas did a lot of stuff for real on the Star Wars prequels. The thing with cgi is that the quality seems to vary from one scene to the next, never mind one movie to the next. Wolverine is the perfect example of this. It's a question of quality, cost and speed. Right now there are only a handful of movies that have even come close to pushing the boundaries as to what's real and what isn't. I didn't know that Davy Jones was cg until after I read it online a few weeks after seeing Pirates 2. CGI can be convincing if used correctly. The question of whether or not it should be used extends far beyond miniatures and digital doubles though. What if you shot a movie entirely on green screen and then in post you basically added the set? I don't mean in a stylised way like Sin City or Sky Captain. I mean building a world around your actors that looks as real as any set. Shooting a scene of a character walking in front of green screen and then adding New York City around him in post. Imagine entire movies shot on green screen, no location shoots required, very few props...just actors and maybe some green boxes to signify furniture or something. People have done it in fan films, shooting on green screen and trying to put in a real-looking set. When that becomes possible on the scale that I'm thinking of, there will be no location shoots, no elaborate sets built...just actors with everything else put in afterwards. That kind of work is going to be time consuming and expensive but the cost will gradually come down. When that option is there, will it mean an end to location shooting? To Production Designers? You could theoretically shoot a scene with your actor wearing all green and then just add the costume in post. This is where we're heading and when cgi humans look and act real...what then? I know it's been said that it will never happen, that the subtleties of the real world can never truly be replicated in computers. But it's not so long ago that human beings thought we would never reach the moon. I happen to think that by the time it does happen, we'll have moved on from cinema as we know it to more interactive and immersive entertainment but for arguments sake, let's say that a year from now what I'm suggesting becomes possible. Where do we draw the line? -----signature----- KOTOR Movie Trilogy Forums: http://z11.invisionfree.com/KOTOR_Movies
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TrowaGP02a Registered: Dec '04	Date Posted: 5/13 6:55pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	The line is right before what you just said. -----signature----- blarg
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedsithor Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 5/13 7:11pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	TrowaGP02a posted: The line is right before what you just said. So...we stop at cgi dogs then? -----signature----- KOTOR Movie Trilogy Forums: http://z11.invisionfree.com/KOTOR_Movies
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
elemental_fantasy Registered: Mar '06	Date Posted: 5/13 7:21pm Subject: Practical Models vs Digital Models... - Date Edited: 5/13 7:23pm (1 edits total) Edited By: elemental_fantasy
	This thread got off topic a lil. thread titles fault... Dorkman posted: I think practical models will always have their place. Sure, you can develop shaders and digital models and tweak the lighting and make sure it self-occludes and doesn't self-intersect and yadda yadda...or you could build it. And shoot it. And get all of that for "free." Umm... I understand where your coming from, but that last part... "Get all that for free" Gaffers, grips and electricians cost money, as well as the studio space for model work. Unless you do it yourself, then it's the same as doing it yourself digitally, depends how good of an artist you are. BenMcEwan posted: To be honest, if you shoot something digital that could've been done for real, you're an idiot. Pretty much just throwing money and realism out the window.. Thats not really true. It depends. At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship. Lord_Charisma posted: Star Trek recently showed how 100% CGI (the Enterprise) can be both convincing and appropriate. This is what I am talking about!!! That is why I started this thread. I think digital "models" are there. Star Trek is a prime example. To build the U.S. Enterprise actually would cost more practically then it would digitally, and it would take longer. As well, then you have to film it, and you have to know EXACTLY what you want or that's $$$ for a re-shoot. If you build it digitally, then you have complete control over all her aspects. You can change the lighting any time you want to. Frame it however you want, and are not constrained by the actual limits of filming practically. If you have the top model makers compared to the top digital masters, it would be cheaper, more efficient, and more practical to build digitally. And it would blend easier. When it comes down to it, digital model work at a large scale tends to be above practical work.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rhys Registered: Jun '05	Date Posted: 5/13 7:41pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	Some people are obviously afraid of CGI because they think it will replace too much of the process behind film making as it currently stands, and i can appreciate that. People refer to CGI as a tool; i refer to it as an art. In fact, not only do i think it's the most complex, interesting and sophisticated aspect of film-making today, but all art in general. Not just from the front-end aspect of things (modeling, texturing, etc) but the work that goes into making things like rendering possible, moreso since i've studied openGL, raytracing, radiosity and so forth as part of my degree recently. Having said that, there's a medium and a forum for such things, and in many cases the full realisation of the capability that CGI art can bring to the table is best suited to characters like Davey Jones, or showcases like the 3D Choice Gallery on places such as 3DTalk.com. There have been many cases where i've been quite annoyed at the choice of CG actor replacement; Superman 3, The Matrix sequels, Blade 2 to name three that particularly irked me. Pirates of the Caribbean was a masterpiece of CG work - Superman in a viewport instead of on a wire was a pointless waste of time. In the case of miniatures though i see the line a little blurrier. It falls into the realm of fabricating some visual aspect of the film that otherwise does not exist, and in that department CGI in my eyes has every right to be there, if not more so (disregarding practical considerations like time and money). -----signature----- http://rhys-works.com
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Lord_Charisma Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 5/13 7:46pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	elemental_fantasy posted: Umm... I understand where your coming from, but that last part... "Get all that for free" Gaffers, grips and electricians cost money, as well as the studio space for model work. Unless you do it yourself, then it's the same as doing it yourself digitally, depends how good of an artist you are. I don't think he meant literally "for free" - obviously a lot of craftsmanship and money is still going to go into setting up and lighting a miniature properly - but since you're shooting a physical object, you're not jumping through hoops trying to copy the subtleties of light and surfaces in real life. -----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
elemental_fantasy Registered: Mar '06	Date Posted: 5/13 8:02pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	^ I see. And agree, I know with starwars PT they actually filmed some minatures as reference for lighting, but they were later replace with full CG versions. I also agree that digital is a tool for filmmakers just like actors are a tool. As well, they are also there own art's as they both can survive without film.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Scott_M Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 5/13 8:37pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	But if anyone out there really WANTS to argue that the CGI Alien Queen in "Aliens vs Predator" is somehow better than Ripley in a power-lifter kicking a mechanical, live-action, Alien Queen's butt in "Aliens"....then lets talk about it The Queen model in AvP was alright - the problem was in the animation. It didn't move like the original model Queen; it moved like a dinosaur, which was dopey. As for CGI vs practical, people don't need to be against CGI - just bad CGI. Same with bad practical effects or bad compositing (ref. Alien3 while we're on the Alien thing). George Romero said in an interview about Diary of the Dead, that as much as he loves practical effects, Diary... didn't have a massive budget, so CG effects made things a lot easier. If you have to blow a squib and it doesn't come off properly, you have to spend time and therefore money, resetting everything for another take. Not so with CGI. Assuming of course the CG is up to par.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darthviper107 Registered: Jun '03	Date Posted: 5/13 10:06pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	Bring this question up again after Avatar comes out later this year.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_Abdax Registered: Jun '05	Date Posted: 5/13 11:14pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/13 11:26pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth_Abdax
	I think that limitations can often breed creativity. Instead of simply creating the first shot that pops into your head, you're forced to find a creative solution to your problem. Steven Spielberg (and John Williams) created a much more menacing shark due to technical malfunctions and limitations. I love it when filmmakers visions are limited; when they're not, we get things like the "Star Wars: Special Editions." I do realize this can be an issue of preference. Personally, I'll take the gritty realism of the Battle of Endor over the opening sequence of "Revenge of the Sith" anyday, but I do realize that some people prefer the scale that CGI allows. To me, shots like that scream they're fake. When "Fast and Furious" makes it's cars digital to allow some crazy complex camera moves, I can't help but feel they gave up something. For example, I found the chase at the end of "Death Proof" to be one of the coolest car chases I'd seen in a while. Or because I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan, The bugs in Indy 4 vs the Snakes in Raiders. Yes, at a lower budget level, it can make sense to choose CGI over practical effects. However, I know at some point in my career I want to do a movie only with the techniques they had in the 70s. That said I wouldn't mind switching from optical to digital compositing for the occasional matte painting or greenscreen shot. Sort of what we all wished for on Indy 4 but didn't get. -----signature----- I aim to misbehave.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NZPoe Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 5/14 1:16am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	My opinion lies along side Darth_Abdax. I have no fear of CGI overtaking practical miniature elements nor anything of that sort. Technology is technology, a different form doesn't change its nature. If it helps us make better films then I'm all for it. But CGI alone does not help us make better films. CGI is not a solution to making better films. Just because you can put CGI in your film, it doesn't mean that it will somehow lift the game of your film. CGI is a tool - its usefulness and power is only as good as the people who wield it. And CGI makes it very easy for a filmmaker to throw up their hands and have an expectation that CGI will provide the solution for them than actually do the proper work to maintain quality all the way through. Spectacular CGI is exactly that - its spectacular and paradigm-shifting and should be applauded. But the quantity of excellent films with excellent CGI and visual effects has NOT significantly increased since the artform's advent. We have more and more films being made today that would not have been greenlit - twenty years ago - because of how easy CGI makes it for achieving its visual elements...but they are not necessarily better films nor do they, necessarily, feature better visual effects than the days of shonky optical composites, stop-motion, miniature-effects and so forth. Darth_Abdax suggests - correctly - that limitations enforce creativity and the widespread usage and accessibility of CGI has made it easier for filmmakers who were lazy to begin with to have an excuse to be lazier. Gollum and Davey Jones and Benjamin Button occupy only five films between them, but there are THOUSANDS of films with digital characters that look as "bad" as anything from the pre-CGI days. Would "JAWS" have been a scarier film if we DID see the shark right from the beginning? Was "Star Wars: Special Edition" any better with the CGI Jabba that was in the theatrical/VHS edition? Were a higher percentage of the audience more grossed out by the CGI ants than they were by the live-action bugs in "Temple of Doom"? I am not decrying CGI - believe me. I intend to use a lot of it as a filmmaker. What may problem is lies in the connotations of using CGI as a "solution" instead of a tool. My problem is that people think CGI is that vital missing link that cinema was standing around waiting to be invented. I am trouble by an attitude that some people have that before CGI was invented, movies were ineffective or somehow handicapped. I have always detected - and it could be my imagination - an attitude that before CGI came into widespread use in motion pictures, that visual effects and motion pictures as a whole were "broken". And that CGI can make "anything" come to life, therefore it is a tool that has more power over movies than anything. In the case of what John Gaeta was bragging about - the fact that he could replace Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix Reloaded" with a digital stunt double and that we would 'never be able to tell' and that we'd see more 'thrilling and incredible martial arts and fighting than ever before'. In this specific case, has there ever been a more tragic example of "epic FAIL"? Gaeta's assumption that because he could replace reality with something better, that would instantly become more enthralling, shows a great lack of understanding of audience psychology. Gaeta forgets that people were watching movies that had NO visual effects for over a hundred years and being enthralled, moved, touched, changed and entertained. The power to do these things has NEVER - EVER - and if you doubt me, I will argue you with you till we both go stark raving mad - EVER been in the hands of visual effects. It is in the hands of the people who use the tool of visual effects, in combination with everything ELSE, to create a perfect moment of suspension of disbelief, empathy and experience. John Gaeta's 30-40 seconds of digital Neo's mighty kung fu skills impressed very few people who did not have a passion for visual effects...but Jim Cameron's single digital stunt double that hit the propeller of the Titanic made the world GASP in horror. Practical vs Digital = why would anyone really care when the truth of the matter is that there is NO power in visual effects, there is NO power in practical effects or CGI? The power is only in the hands of the human performers and artists who build a cohesive, emotional, experience. CGI is not a solution. A solution implies a complete, total, perfect, answer to a problem - the problem of bringing impossible things to life and make them seem real as life. But how can it be a solution when "Dragon Wars" says you're wrong? When "Mortal Kombat Annihilation" says your wrong? When "Snakes on a Train" says you're wrong? When "Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus" says you're wrong? When the Shaak in "Attack of the Clones" says you're wrong. When both "Hulks" say you're wrong? When the Scorpion King in "The Mummy Returns" says you're wrong? When digital "Spiderman" double says you're wrong? When "Van Helsing" says you're wrong? I could go on and on and on.... CGI is not a solution - if it WAS a solution, we wouldn't have crap visual effects and (the way some people talk) crap films either. CGI is a tool, just like practical effects and just like doing something for REAL. The power to make it work is not in the hands of the tool, but the people who wield it. And the people who are REALLY smart at doing this...they do NOT care whether its practical or CGI - all they care is whether or not its the right tool, for the right job, for the right amount of money and resources they have available to them, to make a great film. And sometimes the answer is - as Spielberg accidentally discovered - to walk the hell away from a visual effect altogether and be a bit more creative. The single greatest visual effect in the universe is still the human imagination. End of story/end of rant. -----signature----- My Showreel: http://www.vimeo.com/channels/poe http://www.youtube.com/nealnz
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CRIMSON-JACK Registered: Oct '02	Date Posted: 5/14 10:46am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	Sam Rockwell's latest film Moon has been praised for it's use of old school miniature work for the FX scenes, such as those of the Moon Rover's on the lunar surface, director Duncan Jones purposely wanted to shoot as many FX as miniatures ! -----signature----- My Art Blogspot http://glazy.blogspot.com/ Just my Artwork http://ag-jma.blogspot.com/ My IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2182110/
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Scott_M Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 5/14 5:13pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
	I just hope those Moon miniatures are lit properly. I saw some stills and while the models were nice - they looked just like models. Was "Star Wars: Special Edition" any better with the CGI Jabba that was in the theatrical/VHS edition? No - but the new shot of the Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley was really nice. Otherwise a commendable rant. On the digital Spider-Man thing, I always found the wide shots of him swinging away, incredibly fake. It seemed like he was made of rubber a lot of the time. It's stuff like this that some film-makers overlook. No matter how intricate the model is and how well it's comped into the environment, the pyshics need to look real. Hulk suffered from the same thing. And similarly, I distinctly remember a big wide shot in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen of the Nautilus, but it was so fast it look fake as. It's like no one thought, "Okay this shot has to look like it was shot from a helicopter, so the camera should move as fast as a helicopter would". It moved too quick and looked crap. And for all the fantastic shots in LOTR that DIDN'T fall into that trap - the first shot of Gandalf fighting the Balrog in the tower in The Two Towers, DID. Shame when they'd gone to the extreme lengths of having digital birds nesting in the eye of one of the Argonath statues that were disturbed by a non-existant helicopter flying past.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Previous | Next | Reload