CGI- Wrong idea?

[Guest fstop]

I think cinematography, direction, script writing and design are the areas that have brought down special effects filmmaking in the last 15 years. Basics please.

[Matthew McDermott]

"Can you make that guy thinner?

 

I don't do much editing, but I was once asked this. It was just a bunch of head and shoulders interviews and one of the subjects was the producer's girlfriend. Apparently she thought she looked too fat on film. Which of course she didn't. I just stretched the frame a bit and called it a day. It was so silly but everyone was happy.

Edited January 6, 2005 by Matthew McDermott

[David Mullen ASC]

For example - here's an easy one... set extensions... these make perfect sense - shoot your actors on the set you have then just build out the top of the set.  Renting a stage that is 50' high for one shot isn't really worth it... and would be very expensive... great time to use a CG effects for the establishing shot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Set extensions are actually a very old idea -- the earliest glass matte paintings in the Silent Era were used to add ceilings to sets, tops to buildings, etc. Particularly useful in the old 1.33 aspect ratio because your wide shots were bound to see off the tops of sets.

[Mark Allen]

Set extensions are actually a very old idea

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably most of the really functional effects are old ideas because they relate directly to story telling rather than trying to think up a new idea. The only thing new about them is that they are easier and cleaner to do now so filmmakers are leaning towards doing more of them. Here's a neat little 3D representation of how a composite was acheived many years ago on "O'Gill and the Little People": http://www.dominik.ca/motion.html (click top right movie). Then imagine how it would be done now. However - the audiences are getting more and more demanding and sophisticated.

 

Georges Méliès set the stage (literally... a pun!) when he was making films at the turn of the previous century - He did a ton of special effects right off the bat (check out Voyage to the Moon (1902)). I think special effects are integral to the nature of filmmaking... but if they are used purely as an exploitational element - then it's no better than porn... not to say that people don't like porn, just to say it isn't really pushing the art of drama and storytelling anywhere.

 

My point is scattered - but if I were to sum it up in relationship to the orginal post. I don't think filmmakers should gage their use of special effects by budget as much as by storytelling need.

Edited January 6, 2005 by Mark Douglas

[Guest Kai.w]

Personally, I think if it's possible to do something traditionally, it's always going to look better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just can't agree on such a general level. As David was pointing out, all the passes when working with optical printers are a good example of the benefits of working in the digital realm.

For sure the real world is the real world is the real world. But I guess it's always been about illusions and cheating reality.

Going to a different medium of course is problematic and yet it makes certain things easier. So I'd really say, it depends...

And then... what do you define as "traditional" ;-)

 

-k

[Matt Pacini]

Oh, I should have said "in camera".

I agree, a lot of the moving matte shots in pre-CG films are pretty obvious.

 

I'm referring to stuff you can actually film in the frame with your live elements, whether it's miniatures, or just real stuff.

I mean, if you have a real explosion, it's always going to look better than one that's composited in later, or the whole shooting characters in front of a bluescreen.

The last couple Star Whores.. uh, I mean Wars films are shot like stage plays.

The most boring composition and camera work I've ever seen, and it's all to make the CG easier.

That's a case where you're trapped into comprimising the dramatic effect for the visual effect.

 

Matt Pacini

[K Borowski]

I just can't agree on such a general level. As David was pointing out, all the passes when working with optical printers are a good example of the benefits of working in the digital realm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have never understood why multiple passes were necessary. Theoretically, one should be able to take the original negative elements, junk mattes, hold out mattes, and background and combine them onto print film with only the consequences of matte lines and increased dust if one isn't careful. Why is there any need for additional generations when you can just get the right setup, and make several interpositives just as one would with a regualrly shot, non-SFX negative that can be spliced in among other interpositives. Kubrick did something like that on 2001, where everything was converted to YCM and effects were always made from original YCMs and not dupes.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

I have never understood why multiple passes were necessary.  Theoretically, one should be able to take the original negative elements, junk mattes, hold out mattes, and background and combine them onto print film with only the consequences of matte lines and increased dust if one isn't careful.  Why is there any need for additional generations when you can just get the right setup, and make several interpositives just as one would with a regualrly shot, non-SFX negative that can be spliced in among other interpositives.  Kubrick did something like that on 2001, where everything was converted to YCM and effects were always made from original YCMs and not dupes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure if you understand the optical printer process. And all the efx for "2001" were finished to the 65mm internegative stage and cut into the original 65mm negative of the movie, not into later IP's and IN's for release printing. If you look at the original negative of "2001" you see original camera footage plus efx footage -- some combined first-generation onto original negative using multiple exposures, and the rest of the efx using dupes (65mm camera neg --> three b&w positives (YCM's) --> 65mm IN). He didn't dupe the entire movie through YCM's just so that the optical printer efx would end up the same generation as the rest of the movie. That would have lowered the quality of the entire movie. Using YCM's is not a "lossless" copying process.

 

Efx need to be finished to an internegative so that they can be cut into the original negative. You don't combine them onto print film if you're going to need multiple prints.

 

If the original photography was shot on color negative stock, you need to create IP's for the projector side of the optical printer so that they can be combined onto an internegative in the same format as the original photography for intercutting.

 

And a lot of the matte composite work in "Star Wars" used YCM's just like Kubrick did.

 

The only difference is that instead of one color IP off of the original negative, you make three b&w fine-grain positives -- but they are still combined onto one color IN. You don't save any generations of duping, you just get better grain and more color control using b&w separations than color IP (at least, until IP stock was improved.)

 

And the point doesn't go away that in order to do chroma key composites in an optical printer, you need to have multiple pieces of film made from the original negative (beauty, garbage, positive and negative hi-con b&w hold-out mattes, etc.) plus the background plates -- and the number climbs if you choose to use YCM's instead of IP's -- and there's no way to reduce the amount of work no matter what format (IN, IP, print) you finally combine all of these elements to.

[Guest Kai.w]

I'm referring to stuff you can actually film in the frame with your live elements, whether it's miniatures, or just real stuff.

I mean, if you have a real explosion, it's always going to look better than one that's composited in later, or the whole shooting characters in front of a bluescreen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think there's a lot of clever use of bluescreen "on set". Like you have a real set but for some reason you need a matte. So you just put a piece of bluescreen into your set. I think the biggest problem with greenscreen (and CGI!!!) is to match the lighting of foreground and background, which you can avoid if you try shooting both at the same location which of course is often not practicable/possible/reasonable.

But often you just need a matte for something and then I'd always chose this approach.

 

The last couple Star Whores.. uh, I mean Wars films are shot like stage plays.

The most boring composition and camera work I've ever seen, and it's all to make the CG easier.

That's a case where you're trapped into comprimising the dramatic effect for the visual effect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess this problem occurs with every effect whether done in CGI or in camera.

 

-k

[Mark Allen]

I think the biggest problem with greenscreen (and CGI!!!) is to match the lighting of foreground and background, which you can avoid if you try shooting both at the same location which of course is often not practicable/possible/reasonable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes... on both accounts. Even (or especially) if the screen is only covering the moving element. this is a trick that is totally underused though. People will do a location shoot and then go "back to the studio" for the screen work. While location shoots are generally more expensive, if it's just one or two shots - it's going to be cheaper on location and it has a lot more potential for selling the shot.

 

Now, when you are blue screening because your actor is sick and couldn't make it to the location... not much of a choice there.

[Jon Allen]

I've noticed we're using Fantasy/Sci Fi movies as a base here. No one's mentioning the use of CGI and greenscreen in movies, say like Forrest Gump or Titanic. Both those relied heavily on the use of compositing- mostly digital.

I'm thinking of a few key shots in Titanic when you start with the CG Titanic on a huge wide shot then (completely uncut) the camera moves in to the deck of the ship where the captain is standing- apparently the seam between real and CG is somewhere in the turn of the captain's head.

I don't know if this really helps the overall storytelling, but it's definately interesting what we can push ourselves to do- given enough time and resources.

Has anyone else been finding themselves as of late to go see movies for the special effects instead of actual storytelling? (ie I, Robot, Matrix 3, Constantine?)

Also note how most of these movies that are so fantastical (and CGI-driven) are never nominated for any awards (outside of "Best Special Effects, etc).

[Mark Allen]

I've noticed we're using Fantasy/Sci Fi movies as a base here. No one's mentioning the use of CGI and greenscreen in movies, say like Forrest Gump or Titanic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, Forrest Gump got a lot of buzz about it's effects and, in fact, won the Best Visual Effects Oscar in 1995. I think that movie is a great example of the effects helping to tell the story. I think Apollo 13 is another good example.

 

I know that in my former visual effects supervising career 90% or more of the effects we did were meant to go unnoticed.

 

Now, personally, I like visiting wonderous fantasy worlds and while I know everyone loved Lord of the Rings - I think there is definitely a lot more room for good storytelling in fantasy films. Personally (and I know this is an unpopular thing to say) - but I like Lord of the Rings, but I did think it had some major story issues - but I realize if he strayed from the books too much he'd have been crucified.

[Jon Allen]

Personally (and I know this is an unpopular thing to say) - but I like Lord of the Rings, but I did think it had some major story issues - but I realize if he strayed from the books too much he'd have been crucified.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, in your opinion, do you think that LOTR was a good book for screen adaptation?

One could say that if your movie needs over 3 hours to tell it needs to be told on a TV miniseries.

[Mark Allen]

So, in your opinion, do you think that LOTR was a good book for screen adaptation?

One could say that if your movie needs over 3 hours to tell it needs to be told on a TV miniseries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fortunately for me, careers are not built and destroyed on my opinions... but... I should mention I didn't read the books ever so I'm looking at the movie as an entity unto itself. As such - the movie suffered from what a lot of movies are suffering from lately - something I call the "exponential monster syndrome" - which is simply that the movie goes from one fight to the next fight with a bigger monster, to the next fight with an even bigger monster. Harry Potter had this problem as well (though #3 actually had some interesting stuff in it). Now, LOTR did have a lot of good character stuff - but it was weakened by a lot of scenes which I felt were requisite to the book and didn't really create a dramatic situation. Scenes that talk about what your going to do or what others were doing or talk about the history of something - these are big danger areas that Hollywood fantasy movies love doing.

 

I think Raiders of the Lost ark was a good example of a movie which had a very strong structure.

[Jon Allen]

LOL!!! Exponential Monster Syndrome. I agree, my friend, I agree.... sigh....

I can honestly say that I read the hobbit and the first two books in the trilogy, I started reading ROTK and I was bored senseless.

I think Tolkein wrote fine books, but I honestly thought the books went into waaaaaay too much detail, especially as he plodded along through the middle book. Note that nothing really happens in the 2 Towers, a few more friends, a lot more enemies, a big battle, nothing really to further the story of the ring getting destroyed. "Whoops, we almost got killed, but now we're back where we were at the beginning of the book." (ABA structure)

It's one fantastical scene after another, after another... la la la... we forget that movies aren't built on special effects and CG.

IMO the indiana jones trilogy are some of the best movies made. I saw an article once that showed how they used painted glass to create the matte for the big palace in the distance, pretty cool stuff, and no CG. Not to mention stories, great stories, almost melodramatic, but hey, what's a cool hero like indiana jones without a cool villian?