Yes, I just watched a documentary on Patton and the Battle of Tunisia, and, of course, even I can tell the difference between the war footage and the CGI. I think I can even tell the difference between the stage one- or two- tank encounters vs the real thing.
Now, to a further case study.
I rewatched Kurosawa's Ran, which involved masses of real horsemen, and that would obviously be far, far better than the CGI. My question is, would that be better than photographing a dozen actors and multiplying them by a hundred times? If so, can anyone provide a contrasting example (aside from Star Wars, that is).
Actually, one of my favorite movies is "A Bridge Too Far", about the ill-fated allied attempt to take Arnhem in WWII, and the footage of soldiers and tanks were quite good. 🙂
The question cannot be resolved without taking into account budgets.
CGI is a cheap way to make a small cast look like a large one. To make it look like the one tank you were lucky to get is actually a hundred. To make tanks out of thin air because you couldn't get any. It's the way of the future because it keeps the budget down. That doesn't mean it is better, but it does mean its the more likely choice.
RJSchwarz
RJSchwarz
I hate to say it but RJSchwarz has a point. CGI does keep budgets down cause you can create anything and everything from a single room instead of a wide open area filled with props, gadgets, rigs, people, etc.
I personally prefer the latter to a fake animation (albeit a good one) but real is real.
http://www.mrgablesreality.webs.com
My site to promote my writing/opinions/and soon movies!
http://www.mrgablesreality.webs.com
My site to promote my writing/opinions/and soon movies!
Yes, I am familiar with the cost/benefit tradeoff. I can understand that CGI is cheaper than the real thing but not as artistically or visually effective.
I'm asking something specific, because I can't quite see this. I presume that shooting one tank (so to speak) and then multiplying it by a hundred is less effective on screen than the actual thing? Can you show me an example, because I saw one example on Youtube (can't find it) where they took a few real men, multiplied it, and it looked really good. But I saw this awhile ago.
I have one specific question: can a viewer tell the difference between a shot of a few men multiplied a hundred times, as opposed to a tradition movie with hundreds of extras? I presume that there is still some quality difference. If so, can you point me to a few examples of each?
My gut says that nobody will know the difference as long as the same actors do different things and cross different areas each time rather than a simple clone job so that you have the same exact movement and positioning.
I think this is the video you are talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRS9cpOMYv0
RJSchwarz
RJSchwarz
That's it! That's the video! You're a genius, RJ. 🙂
But, yes, my question is, can the viewers see the difference? I'm asking because, as I've been saying, I have very poor eyesight. I can't quite see the difference, but this could be the narrow YouTube screen.
When I first saw this, I was thinking that this could be the answer to my science fiction magnum opus. I can get a few volunteers, but, needless to say, the more I can do that, without sacrificing quality, the better.
Yes Aspiring mogul, you CAN see a difference, however...
That video was extremely well done, and as such some of the shots were pulled off wonderfully and it was very difficult to discern whether or not it was in fact CG. But, it really only came together as a convincing illusion (meaning that it passed the "oh, that's a nice effect I suppose" stage and into the "whoa, they filmed all of those people!" stage) near the end once the final colour grade was applied.
An audience, especially critical movie-goers/filmmakers, can tell a difference usually. From my experience (and I'm just writing this off the top of my head here) there are two ways to convince an audience that the CG being used is effective:
1) the audience does not notice the effect, as it is superbly life-like and indistinguishable from a "real" element (very difficult to do; I can't think of any example of this); or the effect is subtle or a background effect that is done well enough as to not draw it's attention to the audience.
2)The effect is acknowledged by the audience but is done so well that the audience forgets that it is a CG effect and isn't bothered anymore (the best example I can think of is Gollum in the last two LOTR films: you knew he was CG, but it just didn't matter because it was done so well).
So... I guess the practical advice here is that if you think the CG will enhance your film, go for it. BUT make sure it's done to the highest possible quality and isn't overdone.
----------
http://vimeo.com/corax
If you don't linger on the shot, chances are there is so much going on, that nobody will look and see that those four guys are the same as those four guys (unless they freeze frame). Again, that assumes you film the same four guys twice, doing different things, and that they aren't just copied over from one section of background to another. Also assuming you're doing a master shot and not some kind of closeup where faces would be more identifiable.
RJSchwarz
RJSchwarz
I'm learning. OK please tell me if I'm seeing it right. ?:)?
The classic Star Trek trailer involves a physical model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI
This Star Trek fan production is a CGI starship - but I must say, it does look convincingly real. I think the Klingon ships are definitely CGI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Vtr8_6KbE&NR=1&feature=fvwp
How am I doing? ?:)?
Yes the clip from the original Trek shows a model (newer versions of the original Trek have replaced the SFX with CGI however). The second trailer is definitely CGI.
If you want CGI to look better you need to add massive amounts of detail to the surfaces. The ships in the second clip look too clean and polished. It doesn't have to look as messed up as the dirty ships in Star Wars but that's sort of the example to emulate.
RJSchwarz
RJSchwarz
