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...
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/14 7:21pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
NZPoe posted:
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.


So as visual effects artists we are not creative? I guess if you want a VFX in your film you just scroll down the list of effects and drag-and-drop it into your film.

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Teague  926 posts
Registered: Apr '06
24109_M&M Vader
Date Posted: 5/14 7:29pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
*sigh*

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1425 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/14 7:33pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/14 7:35pm (1 edits total) Edited By: NZPoe
TrowaGP02a posted:
NZPoe posted:
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.


So as visual effects artists we are not creative? I guess if you want a VFX in your film you just scroll down the list of effects and drag-and-drop it into your film.


Good job at reading my entire post and taking issue with a single sentence - completely out of context!

applause

You sure showed me the error of my ways. rolling_eyes

I'm not implying that visual effects artists aren't creative. Didn't I repeat - TWICE - in my post that the power of a visual effect is IN THE HANDS of the artists and not the effect itself?

Did I not say that the greatest power is still the human imagination?

Did I not specifically say that my issue is the attitude that people think CGI is somehow going to 'save movies' and that CGI is a flawless solution to all visual effects problems?

Let me say again - the power of CGI to be an all-ending, all-encompassing, solution is in the hands of the ARTISTS who wield it.

NOT in CGI itself. CGI is just a tool, not a solution.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/14 8:36pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/14 8:38pm (1 edits total) Edited By: TrowaGP02a
NZPoe posted:
You sure showed me the error of my ways.


You're welcome.

Actually, the error of "your ways" is that you are blind to the fact that CG is the solution, albeit it is not yet perfected. Years ago, pre-vfx, people were dreaming of ways to create things an 11 year old with access to the internet can make today. Lucas revolutionized the film process when he created Star Wars because of the success in visual effects. Why do you think Hollywood is remaking EVERYTHING? Because if people from today's generation saw the originals, they would be like "Jesus those costumes/monsters are dumb." or something along those lines. You talk about fight scenes, like the Neo vs. Morpheus fight, and the truth is again that today's generation, especially the younger kids, need to see something bigger, faster, and pretty much unrealistically cool to be excited. Even if you are all scared to think it, it will happen. CGI is the solution, it is just not perfected yet. Kids in film school will be saying "Oh I did that practically to homage the original."

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1425 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/14 10:22pm Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/14 10:26pm (1 edits total) Edited By: NZPoe
TrowaGP02a posted:

Actually, the error of "your ways" is that you are blind to the fact that CG is the solution, albeit it is not yet perfected.


Your lack of understanding of the history of cinema and the history of technological development of the last one hundred years is staggering. You're talking as if there is some distant degree of "perfection" that - once its achieved - movies and visual effects will no longer be the same again.

Have you given any thought to the notion the things like HD and Stereoscopic films, now, are affecting our visual effects are going to be done in the future? HD is already playing havoc with makeup artists who are working hard to find new ways to keep their stars looking glamorous. Stereoscopic films and the continuing evolution of 3D movies has the potential (and I'm not saying its going to happen) to throw back the aesthetic realism of visual effects for decades.

TrowaGP02a posted:

Years ago, pre-vfx, people were dreaming of ways to create things an 11 year old with access to the internet can make today. Lucas revolutionized the film process when he created Star Wars because of the success in visual effects.

[/quote]

Yes, 11 year olds ARE doing things that people were dreaming of back then.

And you only have to troll through the stuff that gets posted in this forum alone to realize that 90% of the work of 11 year olds (or 33 year olds) are NOT comparable to the Davey Jones or Gollums of our time. 11 year olds can keep doing the work all they want, they're not going to be better filmmakers because they can do pre-viz and know their way around Maya and Shake and Lightwave. When they become consumate, creative, experienced ARTISTS - that's when they can really offer anything to the rest of the world and it takes YEARS to do that.

There is a glut of young people who are engaged MORE in visual effects than ever before, but the volume of actual talented artists emerging into the industry has NOT increased. All things being equal - if this truly WAS the case - we'd have gigantic leaps and strides and Gollum/Davey Jones-level types of characters happening every other month across the world.

Globalization and technology like the internet has allowed MORE artists to work in MORE parts of the world, increasing the global pool of visual effects artists. But the ratio of AMAZING visual effects to mediocre/bad/awful has not increased.

TrowaGP02a posted:

Why do you think Hollywood is remaking EVERYTHING? Because if people from today's generation saw the originals, they would be like "Jesus those costumes/monsters are dumb." or something along those lines. You talk about fight scenes, like the Neo vs. Morpheus fight, and the truth is again that today's generation, especially the younger kids, need to see something bigger, faster, and pretty much unrealistically cool to be excited.


Because REMAKING THINGS is what Hollywood does and your failure to understand the culture of that industry is what's making your one-sided argument so inherently flawed. Hollywood has been in the business of remaking things since the dawn of cinema.

Hollywood remade Lon Chaney's "Phantom of the Opera" THREE TIMES, shot for shot, in two years! Heston's "Ben Hur" and "The Maltese Falcon"? Remakes. Bogart's "The Maltese Falcon" - the third remake in UNDER A DECADE! "Oceans 11" - remake. "The Thomas Crown Affair" - remake. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" - remake. "Woman In Red" - Remake. "Last House On The Left" - remake. "Against All Odds" - remake. Spielberg's "Always" - remake. "The Black Dahlia", "The Blue Lagoon", "Flubber", "The Fly", "Kiss of Death", "Man on Fire", "Mark of the Vampire", "My Man Godfrey", "Scarface", "Scent of a Woman", "A Star Is Born", "The Talented Mr Ripley" - ALL remakes and part of a LONG tradition of remaking movies over and over and over for almost a century.

And as for the current resurgence of popularity in remakes - how MANY of these visual-effects extravaganza, CGI-enhanced, extra-excitement-value remakes have ACTUALLY been critically and publically well-recieved? How many of these films have gone on to be better than their originals? How many of these films have performed better financially? How many of them have been enhanced by the pure raw power of CGI (ignoring the power of the filmmaker or the artists involved) to become superior films that eclipse the original?

"Poseidon"? TWO remakes of "King Kong"? "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes"? "Godzilla"? "Rollerball"? "The Time Machine"? "Assault On Precinct 13"? "The Fog"? "Friday the 13th"? Rob Zombie's "Halloween"? "The Invasion"? "I Am Legend"? "Meet Joe Black"? "The Omen"? "Pathfinder"? "Ultraviolet"? "The Wickerman"??

Were any of these remakes better films than their original because of a) being remade and/or b) having slap-bang visual effects?

And if they were remade fifty years from now by some NEW technique for creating visual effects that surpasses CGI that we cannot predict (just as people in the 1930's could not predict computers would surpass opticals, stop-motion and miniatures)....would they be better?

Your delusion that CGI somehow makes everything better doesn't seem to go well with these jazzed up remakes that failed critically, publically and/or financially. And if your response is that "well CGI is not perfected yet", then how do you explain the GREAT films out there that have GREAT visual effects that fool everyone the first couple (or dozen) times around?

CGI is either the solution or its not. If it IS the solution, then it doesn't explain bad films and bad CGI effects that happen everyday. If it isn't the solution because its not yet perfected, then how can something like Davey Jones or Gollum exist?

To give CGI such an all-encompassing label only tears larger holes in your own argument of its so-called "power".

I posit AGAIN - there is no power or solution in CGI. The power is in the filmmakers combined with the human CG-artists sitting at the desk in front of the computers that creates power.

TrowaGP02a posted:

Even if you are all scared to think it, it will happen. CGI is the solution, it is just not perfected yet. Kids in film school will be saying "Oh I did that practically to homage the original."


There is no fear in me about CGI and where it will go. There is no fear in me that CGI may be replaced by something that I cannot even IMAGINE as yet.

The only fear in me is that the very poor grasp that people have about CGI allows bad filmmakers and creatively bankrupt people to continue to make bad, creatively bankrupt films. And that the mistaken notion that CGI is "infallible, easy and is the final word in all cases for all visual effects" will make young filmmakers lazy and have them producing more bad cinema.

If CGI somehow gets to a stage where we will never have to build sets again, never have to hire actors again, never have to use cameras again then so be it - that's FINE. The reason? CG artists aren't directors or writers or musicians or a million other things that are required to make evocative, great, films. We will still all have jobs, just different tools. There is nothing to fear from this.

But to think that because CGI CAN do those things...doesn't make "Deep Blue Sea" a better movie than "Jaws". And "Jaws" isn't a great film because it doesn't have CGI. "Jaws" is a great film because it wasn't RELYING on visual effects (CGI or, for that matter, a stupid mechanical shark that hardly ever worked) to make it awesome or terrifying or enthralling.

Just because CGI CAN do those things....doesn't make the Burly Brawl in "The Matrix Reloaded" more jaw-dropping or emotionally-engaging than Tony Jaa cracking skulls in "Ong Bak" or Jackie Chan risking life and limb in "Police Story" or "Drunken Master II" or Daniel Craig and Sebastian Fuqua free-running atop a construction site in "Casino Royale".

Just because I've seen and become numb to hundreds of buildings be destroyed by CGI, doesn't mean that I'm in any way numb to the mind-staggering sight of watching a single READ building be destroyed in "The Dark Knight".

Just because I've seen CGI F-18's shooting down UFOs in "Independence Day" and CGI cars fly around in the new "Knight Rider" show or in "Fast and the Furious"...doesn't mean that the real-life Tumbler in "Batman Begins" doesn't make my jaw drop open. In fact...it dropped much, much, MUCH further than anything that CGI or models have managed to make it.

CGI is not a solution. CGI is a tool. Tools can be used to sculpt incredible works and they can be misused to create god-awful expressions of creative inadequacy.

CGI is a tool and - like all tools - they will come and go with time and age.

I'm secure that when it comes time to create the unreal into reality, I'll have the BEST tool for my price-range at hand and I will weigh that up against the price for suspension of disbelief. I am confident that I will be able to choose whether the best tool is practical or CGI because I will always understand the limitations of each tool and use them in harmony...instead of crossing my fingers and hoping like hell that the VFX guy who kept spouting promises of "seamless photorealism" wasn't actually as ignorant and insane as he seemed during the initial consult meeting.

I'm sorry, but you can have all the John Gaetas and the 100% digital (and yet so horrifically unconvincing) Spidermans and the Van Helsings and the digital Godzillas of the world. And I wish you the best luck if you think that CGI is going to somehow get better so your own talents don't have to improve to keep up with the increasing demand of photorealism.

Personally speaking - I'll try to improve my own abilities as an artist and not rely on technology to save my butt.

Your talent, TrowaGP02a, is in YOU. Not in the box of plastic, aluminum and copper that sits before you. The computer will NOT make you a better filmmaker or a better artist. It will not make you innovative, it will not make you self-critical...it will not teach you when to walk away from it, even when it is the best option for the emotional, psychological, financial and critical success of your artwork.

If you don't want to believe me, then that's fine - less competition out there to battle with in the future.

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth_Abdax  517 posts
Registered: Jun '05
24124_Indiana Jones
Date Posted: 5/14 10:53pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
-NZPoe, too bad I'm not 21, and we're in different countries, because if I could, I would buy you a beer. Although... What's the drinking age where you are?

Rain check.

 

-----signature-----
I aim to misbehave.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
TrowaGP02a  2463 posts
Registered: Dec '04
7874_Gabe
Date Posted: 5/14 11:52pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
I am not saying there is a state of "perfection" for film. I really don't see how one could perfect art. I was talking about there being evolutions in CG and it is obviously not perfected technically, as we can site your rather long lists of films that have "bad CG". Also, about Davvy Jones and Gollum and everything I said about it not "being perfect", to me the test is a human main-character being CG and fooling the audience, not some sort of creature/monster. I'm not saying that when that movie comes out people will be like "well that's it Bob, it's perfect CG." Furthermore don't think I'm saying this is going to happen anytime soon, it's one thing to mimic a car crash in CG but I think we're far from Jar Jar being a human.


I am not saying I desire that CG take over the world of cinema, I am just saying that this is sadly the eventual path it will go down. I am not saying that CG is some all-powerful strike of genius, I've said before in this thread that visual effects and CG is not about the work but about the artists behind it, I was earlier merely defending the many of us who are visual effects artistsb, not some sort of tool or drone just used whenever. Yes Jaws was fantastic but how many other films have used practical sharks that look god-awful and horrifying. All I have been saying is that there is no argument because there are millions of possibilities and situations, in my opinion you can't compare one to another unless they're trying to achieve the exact same effect. My only argument is that CG has only ways to move forward and evolve, not that practical effects haven't gotten and will get better, but you can't argue the rate at which they're evolving.

Please don't make it seem like I am here bowing down and offering sacrifices to the CG Gods or something. I have only been saying that you are underestimating the power of CG and running off a list of films with CG that you didn't find acceptable does not mean anything in this argument. Yes, it is my OPINION that CG has about 80% removed the need for practical models (which was the original argument) and that with films like LotR and Pirates it shows that it will soon get closer to all other aspects of practical effects.

I understand if you're coming from a time and place where you had to rely strictly on doing everything practically, I understand clearly that you are hardcore about doing things practically, Honestly I think if you have the budget you should do as many things as you can practically, but as long as it's saving the studios money you're going to see more and more over used CG.

I was hurt when ILM closed their miniature department too, ok.

 

-----signature-----
blarg
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
-Spiff-  2110 posts
Registered: Jun '05
6210_Max Rebo
Date Posted: 5/15 4:53am Subject: Practical vs Digital...
I'll just throw in my 2 cents.

real photography > CGI light
real stunts > digital doubles
real chaos > CGI 'chaos'

Movies give the creators an opportunity to connect emotionally with the audience. This is possible when they show us something we can relate or aspire to. As they diverge from realism to more and more fantastic scenarios, it becomes more difficult to relate back to reality, and our emotional connection to the material suffers.

If you look back at the effects work that really holds up, it does so because it's seamless. If you can't do it for real, and need effects to get it done, do it well enough that I won't be pulled out by incorrect lighting, compositing, keying, etc.

-Spiff

 

-----signature-----
Eclipse SE now available: http://boards.theforce.net/fan_films/b10015/28647876/p1/?26
Spiff(x, |x-Phi|<small) = twitterpated
FREE THE QUARKS!!!
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Boter  1868 posts
Registered: Jul '02
44265_Chiss
Date Posted: 5/16 8:05am 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.

If we're talking about hiring people, then we're talking about a big-bidget production. Do you think that ILM does their stuff for charity? They gotta get paid too. I don't know which is cheaper, honestly - digital effects can take forever to do, whereas a miniature team made the Battle of Hoth in... well, I don't know, but that exact same sequence would probably take longer if it was all-digital.
elemental_fantasy posted:
At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship.

Wrong. There's something about the Return of the Jedi space battle that is utterly astounding, because they used actual live models. The battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, by counterpoint, does nothing for me.

 

-----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
darthviper107  2241 posts
Registered: Jun '03
40015_General Grievous
Date Posted: 5/16 11:48pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Boter posted:
elemental_fantasy posted:
At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship.

Wrong. There's something about the Return of the Jedi space battle that is utterly astounding, because they used actual live models. The battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, by counterpoint, does nothing for me.


Because spaceships blatantly coming out of nothing really looks a lot more realistic....

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1425 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/16 11:57pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
darthviper107 posted:
Boter posted:
elemental_fantasy posted:
At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship.

Wrong. There's something about the Return of the Jedi space battle that is utterly astounding, because they used actual live models. The battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, by counterpoint, does nothing for me.


Because spaceships blatantly coming out of nothing really looks a lot more realistic....


Maybe it'll be more constructive to talk about WHY we think these things affect us the way they do rather than simply throwing strengths and faults at each other? thinking

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
elemental_fantasy  1204 posts
Registered: Mar '06
48502_Qui-Gon Jinn (524091)
Date Posted: 5/17 7:59am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/17 8:04am (2 edits total) Edited By: elemental_fantasy
Boter posted:

elemental_fantasy posted:
At top class, a cgi starship beats any practical starship.
Wrong. There's something about the Return of the Jedi space battle that is utterly astounding, because they used actual live models. The battle at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, by counterpoint, does nothing for me.


Ok, let me correct you right there! The Star wars PT, mainly episode 2 and 3 had some of the worst CG in it. It just looked bad. Thats not top class CGI!!! That's one thing the PT had too much of, bad CGI.

Jedi's space battle was cool, but it really wasnt that great Boter. Not even close to astounding!
The modeling compositors had a hard time and did a very poor job of scaling the models correctly. As well, anybody else notice how tie fighters pop out of nowhere in the start space battle of Jedi? It wasn't done well in terms of realism.
If the space sequence for jedi was redone in house with Digital Domain today, it would out due the original by 100%, and if it was re-modeled, DD would still out class the practical effects house.

EDIT:

NZPoe posted:
Maybe it'll be more constructive to talk about WHY we think these things affect us the way they do rather than simply throwing strengths and faults at each other?

As for why these things affect us... suspension of disbelief.
I really dont care if it's practical or digital, as long as it is believable no matter how unbelievable the scenario, as long as I dont stop for a second and say, that looks fake.

 
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Darth_Abdax  517 posts
Registered: Jun '05
24124_Indiana Jones
Date Posted: 5/17 9:47pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
elemental_fantasy posted:
Jedi's space battle was cool, but it really wasnt that great Boter. Not even close to astounding!
The modeling compositors had a hard time and did a very poor job of scaling the models correctly. As well, anybody else notice how tie fighters pop out of nowhere in the start space battle of Jedi? It wasn't done well in terms of realism.
If the space sequence for jedi was redone in house with Digital Domain today, it would out due the original by 100%, and if it was re-modeled, DD would still out class the practical effects house.


I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say, but I think you're saying that done digitally today, the Battle of Endor would be much better than the original.

Well, Jedi was made over 25 years ago, and motion control has come a long way. I still think that practical models digitally composited would end up being more exciting than CGI. With practical models, all of the sudden the shot is subject to a physical reality, because, well, it actually exists. To me, that seems more realistic/believable and subsequently more exciting. There are no camera moves that could never happen in reality, and no physically impossible shots. It's all real.

 

-----signature-----
I aim to misbehave.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
NZPoe  1425 posts
Registered: Nov '01
13864_Boba Fett
Date Posted: 5/17 10:38pm Subject: Practical vs Digital...
Darth_Abdax posted:

To me, that seems more realistic/believable and subsequently more exciting. There are no camera moves that could never happen in reality, and no physically impossible shots. It's all real.


In my limited experience, I would posit that being limited to "real world" camera moves would certainly help a lot of filmmakers and animators think outside the square when it comes to choreographing movement and camera shots. And you would to worry less about getting the right kind of lens distortion and motion blur on the real objects as well as lighting shifts and so forth.

It is a common problem among digital graphics artists that nobody is ever happy to have their hard work thrust into the back corner of a shot or made to be out of focus, even though that is an accurate representation of what the camera would see if it was done for real (as in real-life, not real as in practical).

If you orchestrated a REAL space battle and shot action within it, the DOP wouldn't be as worried about seeing everything - they'd only be worried about telling the story. Just as DOPs and directors today are focussed on the story at hand, not trying to capture ALL the splendor of a beautiful set or location just for the sake of getting it on camera.

Set builders and costume designers dont' control the camera, they don't have to power to sacrifice the storytelling for the sake of getting their work on-camera.

VFX artists AND practical artists are in a position to do just that and so the more limitations of physics are implied, the more they would be forced creatively to think about what serves the story.

A thought anyways...

 

-----signature-----
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
VaporTrail  9950 posts
Registered: May '02
14913_Obi-Wan
Date Posted: 5/18 5:56am Subject: Practical vs Digital... - Date Edited: 5/18 5:58am (1 edits total) Edited By: VaporTrail
elemental_fantasy posted:
Jedi's space battle was cool, but it really wasnt that great Boter. Not even close to astounding!

Tell that to the folks in 1983.
And give me just one example of a space fight that massive in another movie, done practically.

 

-----signature-----
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, IGNPRDAPPW64213) 0.250