PT Practical Effects in the Prequels- Sets, Pictures, Models, etc.

Eh? I never said all of Kamino was CG. Anyone with working eyes can see that many scenes - like the one with Obi Wan in Django Jango's apartment are real sets. But the scene posted in a screenshot has a large quantity of abysmal quality CG. I've just checked on the DVD (and been reminded of loads more terrible work in the process). I'm also referencing the Kamino people, don't forget.

Read properly pls.

 

I am LMAO.

 

So you tell others to read properly while completely ignoring the freaking picture of the model that was posted, which directly contradicts everything you say?
The shot you talk about consists of a model and Ewan McGregor being composited into it. The only cgi in there are the two Kaminoans, and if they are the worst cgi characters you have ever seen, then you haven't seen a whole lot of movies yet.

Computer effects were used for the water and the clone facilities in the background. All the other interior-shots were either sets or models.

 

Okay, here's my two cents on the current Kamino debate. I don't know about others, but I have absolutely no problem immersing myself in a sci-fi movie to the point where, if something looks odd, it will rarely put me off in a negative way. I've always had this outlook and the same goes for the OT films, where I just don't care how much puppets are in the shot for example (okay, Jabba's palace is a bit of an overkill, especially with those new cgi creatures, but okay).

Tipoca City has always been one of my favourite places and I think it was done splendidly. It's a fascinating and mysterious alien place. It's alien guys. I don't have a problem if it looks artificial or whatever label you want to describe it with.

 

Alienware

That's my take on it, as well. In this case the purity, sterility, artificiality is character dressing for the cold science of the Kaminoans. Like THX-1138 with Greys instead of bald people.

It underlines the theme. Human dignity versus technology.

 

Great point about the immersion. That immersion has often been the first causality in the unfortunate practical effects vs CGI debate (which is more or less a proxy war for PT bashing IMO). I often find myself pointing out things in the OT that look a little less perfect as far as realism, despite the fact that I don't actually have any problem with those things when I watch those movies - I totally immerse. But with so many of the anti-PT/CGI arguments being based on some romanticized view of the OT and it's practical effects, it is very difficult to stop oneself from pointing out why you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

 

Yep, pretty much read my thoughts

 

I think a lot of the problems with the visuals on AOTC and ROTS are due to using the digital cameras. The cameras are only 1080p, and even now are showing that perhaps the technology should have been allowed to mature before being used on a movie like this. Lucas should have used 35mm film.

 

There comes a point in time where you can't just wait for things to improve. Someone has to be the one to step in and use it, to accelerate the development. I doubt that digital cameras would be as as good as they are today if it hadn't been for one of the tentpole movies starting to use them. You need someone to back new technology for it to advance. You might lose a bit early on, but you gain a lot over the longrun. Lucas has always been someone who tried to advance fimmaking-technology as a whole, not just for a single movie or movie series.

 

lovelikewinter: What Oissan said.
And I think you can't quite compare AotC and RotS, because the latter has a much higher quality in the video department. It's obvious that they improved the technology from AotC. Quoting an article from blu-ray website with which I totally agree: "Episode III is on a whole different picture quality plane of existence. This is the outright stunner of the prequels, with a degree of clarity and color that approaches Avatar and other high-profile eye-candy releases."

I am one of those who feels very strongly about going forward with digital. Not banishing film outright, because I think it does offer a very special picture and a different experience. For example, I think the LotR trilogy looks and feels better than The Hobbit films, which were shot on RED Epic cameras with 6K and 5K raw footage at high fps. But I do applaud directors going for digital. They just need time to adapt.

That being said, I don't mind Abrams using 35mm. It's gonna look just as stunning, I'm sure.

 

If you are starting out a new technology, it is unwise to use it on a huge movie. Start small, and work your way up. Clones was horrible. If you didn't get to one of the very few digital theaters at the time, the film was murky. Sith was a little better, but it still was shot at only 1080p, and that is low def compared to 35mm film.

 

The technology hadn't just started at that point, it already had reached a certain level. What was needed was for someone "big" to actually use it, to get other to hop on board as well. If no one backs a new technology, it can end up fading away into obscurity. There simply is not enough money put into the development of something that isn't really used. Add successful film-makers, and suddenly the industry has a reason to spend a lot of money on such a project, or in terms of smaller companies: finally the support they needed to spend money to make leaps in development.

AOTC didn't look murky at all to me, regardless of whether the theatres used digital or still the old fashioned way. The look that was created by the earlier cameras made some effects look a bit like plastic, but the picture quality itself was perfectly fine.

 

Just stumbled across this invariable treasure trove, and WOW. 'Tis a fountain of knowledge... a true testament toward why JJ presently desires to keep people off set who seek to take pictures... because that is where you all got these photos, right? On-set of the prequels? Yeah, I am on to you. Seriously, though, as a fan I delight in behind-the-scenes stuff as 'tis a window into the soul of the product, and many of these images I am seeing for the first time, which is a bonus!

...and although I remain adamant that there was something that just felt off about the look of certain scenes within the prequel trilogy this post reflected my own opinion better than I myself could have ever articulated:

I confess as well that I am sour on the idea of CG succeeding a tried-and-true art form that I grew up enjoying in film, ipso facto inheriting the mantle for 'eternal dibbs' on how a film is forever manufactured. As is apparent with the models/sets shown in these photos practical effects have a lot left to contribute to cinema, and I am hopeful that they do not completely fall by the wayside of the marketing juggernaut that special effects have become.

Anyhow, whilst I am not an ardent supporter of the prequels nor am I a zealous advocate to the contrary, as my stance is somewhere in the middle. That said, this highlight reel serves as a great way to look back on a trilogy that in spite of its' perceived faults deserves a second viewing. Awesome.

 

Sounds like your theatre did the old trick of dimming the lightbulb used to project the movie to extend it's life (doesn't work) I saw AOTC many times but only once digitally as there were few digital theatres then. I also saw it in IMAX and it looked amazing so this idea that 1080p is low def compared to 35mm is one I find is really a techophile arguement.

IF you scan the O-Neg at 4K and then recolortime it to match and then watch it digitally straight from the masters THEN you can know in your mind that it's a higher definition but HD is HD and AOTC is HD. As I said I saw it on both IMAX and other larger screens the next biggest to IMAX and no one was coming out of the movie complaining that things looked murky.

I noted that when I watched The Wizard of OZ IMAX that even though it was remastered from the original and all the work they put into it you still won't mistake it for a new film. Technically I suppose with the scan they did (was it 8K?) it should look "higher def" than the PT movies but it doesn't as it was shot with the cameras of that era that simply don't capture the images the way ones made decades later do. It all looks much softer and details are lacking the sharpness we are used to now.

 

It annoys me that stuff like this gets put on the front page of Yahoo: http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/2/5771814/star-wars-7-set-photos-leaked-show-giant-creature

I wish people would do some research before making blanket statements these days, and also that they could refrain from throwing in random jabs at half the saga. Whatever happened to reporting facts without bias?

 

Darkslayer

Massive puppets, eh?

Let's not get into a puppet-measuring contest, though...

 

More flashbacks

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-prequels-miniatures/

 

Still amazed how all this is old news to me, but some are just now finding out, fifteen years later.

Better late than never!

 

Is it possible the ST will cause people to face the truth about the PT? That it blended PE's and CG?

For some but I already see some of the same people who fell back on CG being the problem to "Well OK so it was more than just CG the real problem was the overuse of it and the storytelling and the..."

I really don't care. I can't change their minds on a subjective arguement whether they were into the films or not but what we can do is to prove the objective truth of the way they were made and not just on I which many people did cave in on a long time ago (because it was done on film) but the ones who still won't acknowledge it for II and III.

There assertions that the lack of PE's as well as sets took them "out of the film" when what they were looking at was exactly that!

They can go on and blame the story if they want to. That is another thing but don't blame the VFX anymore.

Even Bleeding Cool is getting in on the story.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06...these-new-star-wars-episode-vii-set-pictures/

It's all part of the now 15 year plus propagation of the myth. I just love those comments by people who despise all the CGI not knowing that they are slamming miniatures!

 

"Practical effects? Are you here in the ST? Are you all right?"

I'm very sorry. I'm afraid that there's a possibility that there will be not much more or even fractionally less of them in the ST. It seems in your ignorance, you slammed them in the PT.

This burns hotter than the flamewar had.

"No... no, it is not possible!"

You loved them. You will always love them. You could never slam them.

Never.

But you remember...

You remember all of it.

You remember the Jedi starfighter of CGI that you sought to slam. You remember the cold impersonality of CGI characters. You remember the furnace of CGI Mustafar, and the blinding white CGI of Kamino, and the hateful CGI sets you slammed -

And there is one blazing moment in which you finally understand that there was not just CGI. That there was not just greenscreen. That there were also practical effects. Also models, props, huge sets, matte paintings and puppets.

That it was also them. Is them.

Also them.

You did it.

You slammed them.

You slammed them because, finally, when you could have appreciated them, when you could have learned about the work that went on with them, when you could have researched them, you were thinking about your own unjustified beliefs...

It is in this blazing moment that you finally understand the trap of refusing to back up your claims, the final cruelty of not bothering to research -

Because now your own unjustified beliefs are all you've had for the past few years.

 

Beautiful.

 

It's unsettling and disheartening the amount of websites and site users that are praising how "awesome" the newly leaked TMZ Episode VII photos are, as if claiming some sort of moral victory over how "poorly" the PT was made. As not to spoil anything, I won't mention any of the contents (I'm sure many of you have already seen some of the images). It's just sad that so many people don't realize the stuff they are praising can also be found in the PT.

And some can blab on all they want and remain in denial, but the special effects and filming techniques in the ST are going to have much more in common with the PT than the OT. No question about it.

 

I find it funny that, in comparison to each of the prequels, for each OT film, there were basically 7-8 models and/or miniatures filmed at different angles to make it seem like a lot.

 

This screenshot does look a bit wonky, but going back and actually watching the scene on my Blu-ray causes almost all of that "wonky" feeling to disappear. I really do think there's a difference between looking at a static image and a moving picture. The same is true of still shots of some of the puppets from the originals. Your eye isn't focused on the movement, so it instead focuses on scrutinizing every single aspect of the static CGI models--and of course they're going to come up short, especially given that this is a movie from 2002. And even still, the CGI is mostly on par with or better than movies that are coming out today, IMO.

 

Sure. If you start looking at each individual frame of something then the modelness of it starts to reveal itself as you stare at it.

That model you show isn't a CG model. It's a miniature with is also enhanced with CG. The light is not natural. It's not supposed to be so comments people make about it's not being real don't realize that is the point. It's alien.

You don't want to look too close at the Death Star in freeze frame because the modelness of it becomes painfully apparent.