quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

I did a brief literature review at the local library on film production, and I've also done a search on location topics in this forum, so I have some idea of the issues involved in getting locations. I've learned that, before I ask questions, I should also do a search on the subject at hand.

But I don't understand something. If Chrome and the computer are so good at putting in virtual settings, why waste the money travelling to a real location?

A second, related question is, if cardboard props are cheap enough, why use real structures? Say I want a side shot of a castle, why fly to a castle in England when I can have a cardboard mockup of a side of a castle?

Does anyone know?

---

The question is, is it better overall to film your project entirely on a greenscreen stage or to spend the money to go on real locations and/or build sets with real walls and set dressing?

It's typically a question of money vs. art. While it might be cheaper to shoot on a greenscreen stage, your Actors will typically have a more difficult time "becoming" a character. The more "real" you can make an environment, hopefully, the more an Actor can do his/her job which will make your movie that much better.

In terms of "faking" something like a castle wall, it happens all the time. Particularly in the past decade or so, Producers have gone to locations based on tax-incentives, not based on the best location for the story so it takes a lot of extra work to make the financially "better" location actually work for the story. That said, often, the interior sets are built in the less expensive location but the production will shoot the exteriors for a few weeks to cut into the rest of the movie.

A great example of both is Star Wars. The first movies that were made (ANH, ESB, and ROTJ) were done on stages and on real locations with real models. The second set (TPM, AOTC, ROTS) was done mostly on greenscreen stages with CG filling in the backgrounds and everything else. The quality of the movies and the acting is fairly evident in both wherein the originals are much better and the Actors for the Prequels all complained about having to act almost exclusively on empty sets.

Sure, it MAY BE cheaper to shoot greenscreen (although the cost of creating images and compositing them later is high too), the overall quality of the movie may suffer if the Talent has trouble "acting" in a fake environment. Hopefully your Actors are good enough to act in any situation, but having a real environment is almost always preferable for everyone in front of camera and off.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I see - so do actors and crew prefer flying out to a real castle as opposed to working with a cardboard? I presume they do.

And which is better? Miniature spacecraft or CGI?

I really appreciate your advice, Bryan. 🙂

Personally I think the whole green screen is way over done. I'm a huge fan of practical effects. I don't care how horrible the puppetry is, at least when I look at it it looks real to me. I understand why its so big these days with how epic everyone wants their film, but for me I'd rather see real places real people.

http://www.mrgablesreality.webs.com
My site to promote my writing/opinions/and soon movies!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

I see - so do actors and crew prefer flying out to a real castle as opposed to working with a cardboard? I presume they do.

And which is better? Miniature spacecraft or CGI?

I really appreciate your advice, Bryan. 🙂

---

Well, almost always, going to a real location is preferable for a couple of reasons. The first is that, for the Actors and the audience, the authenticity of being in a real place usually helps the Actors perform better. It's like the difference between holding a real prop and having to ACT like you're holding a real prop.

Locations can be much more difficult to work in for logistics reasons (roads, weather, costs), but most Crew and Cast also prefer to leave the stage because this industry is a great way to visit places we wouldn't ordinarilly get to if we had a "normal" job. Most episodics shoot for nine months on stages and backlots and that gets really really mundane and burns people out fast. Working on features that travel to great locations for a couple months before returning to stages for interiors helps mix up the work and life experience so that the job remains interesting.

And a crew member can usually make more money on location. If someone gets a job "in town," it means that he sleeps at home, drives himself to work, works upwards of 14 hours a day, then drives home late with just enough time to maybe see the kids before bed, then does it all over again five or six days a week for three or more months.

On location, the crew is put up in a hotel, they are picked up by a crew van (driven by the Transportation Dept) and taken to the set where a Caterer usually has some kind of breakfast items available. They work all day then are taken back to the hotel. On top of the normal wage, there can be more OT and Per Diem. The downside is that you're not home to see your wife and kids, but when working in town, you're not seeing much of them anyway AND you're driving yourself back and forth, which means gas money and possible unsafe conditions as the hours build up to great fatigue.

As far as CGI or real models go, it really depends on how great your CG modelers are and how well your Visual Effects cut in with live action you've filmed. We've all seen really awful FX and we've all seen really great FX. Ideally, the best compliment an FX person can get is that the audience didn't even know there were Visual Effects. Naturally, we all know that we can't film real spaceships dogfighting around giant killer space stations so those shots will be some kind of Visual Effect, but the more "real" you can make them the better. For that reason, most filmmakers don't rely on just one tool to make their movie. Some shots are better done with CG while others may look better and be cheaper by building models. Going back to the example of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, there was a healthy dose of just about all types of Visual Effects used. A lot of Actors on greenscreen as well as some real sets plus a lot of CG characters and ships (ground and space) intermixed with scaled models.

The best thing to do is to break your script down to find those shots that will NEED some kind of effect (Special and Visual). Then you talk with your DP, Special Effects Supervisor, and Visual Effects Supervisor to discuss how best to accomplish those shots. You'll all be looking at how each method might make the shot "look," and you'll all be thinking about logistics and costs for all options. Determining whether to go on location or build a set is the same process. Can you build a set that adequately approximates the real thing (and maybe combine the practical set with a Visual Effect?) or do you HAVE TO go to the actual location and incur all of those costs?

Money, schedules, logistics... all elements of the filmmaking process that influence the creative choices. Very few, if any, "Filmmakers" have the freedom to do whatever they want. Talent schedules may keep you from traveling them to a real location. Some locations you really want may not be available when you want them, or you may not be allowed to use them, or you simply can't get a crew and the equipment there in a cost effective manner. All sorts of considerations will be evaluated when deciding whether to shoot "the real thing" or to create it with a Visual or Special Effect. There is no single answer that works across the board.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Gabs, I agree with you. I was doing research on Star Wars: ANH ("ANH"), and I watched a DVD of Akiro Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress", on which ANH was loosely based. I read a review saying that, in this day of CGI, watching a mass of real actors in fighting form was very refreshing, and nothing can compare to it. I get that impression too, and it was good to see real actors in a real packed scene. Brian, can you add anything to that?

Also Brian, I was very happy to read your post. 🙂 Let me explain why.

quote:

---

Locations can be much more difficult to work in for logistics reasons (roads, weather, costs), but most Crew and Cast also prefer to leave the stage because this industry is a great way to visit places we wouldn't ordinarilly get to if we had a "normal" job.

---

I'm taking my vacation time to do this, and so are my volunteer staff. 🙂

quote:

---

As far as CGI or real models go, it really depends on how great your CG modelers are and how well your Visual Effects cut in with live action you've filmed. We've all seen really awful FX and we've all seen really great FX. Ideally, the best compliment an FX person can get is that the audience didn't even know there were Visual Effects.

---

I've been reading this again and again, absorbing what you're teaching me, so I ask, "why would a miniature be better than a CGI spaceship?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
I've been reading this again and again, absorbing what you're teaching me, so I ask, "why would a miniature be better than a CGI spaceship?"

---

For me it's very simple. A model is a physical object
with light bouncing off it just like an actor or a set or
any other prop. The CG image is a drawing. A very
sophisticated drawing, but still not much different
than "Bambi", "Sleeping Beauty" or "Who Framed
Roger Rabbit?"

There is a different aesthetic.

Yoda in "Empire" vs. Yoda in "Attack". Sure the more
recent Yoda can jump and run around and swing a
light saber, but I prefer the way the puppet catches
the light on set. It's exactly the same way the light
catches the other actor in the scene.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Hi, CI, (does that rhyme?)

I'm getting a better understanding, but I just watched Yoda v Count Dooku on Youtube, and I already have the DVD set of Empire, but, as a member of the audience, I can't tell if one is a puppet and the other is a CGI effect. The same is true for the miniatures.

By the way, speaking of light getting off the puppets, Disney animation at its best sometimes does take care of little details like that.

You're the first person I've ever known who can't tell
the difference. In a way I envy you. I cringe when I
see CGI. I suspect you are not only in the majority
but that most people prefer CGI to models.

My only point about Disney animation is the aesthetic
difference. The animation in "Bambi" and "Pinocchio"
is astounding. The spacecraft in "Attack of the Clones"
have a different aesthetic than the models in "The Empire
Strikes Back". I prefer one over the other. Many people
prefer GCI over models. I don't think one is better than
the other.

Just like I prefer to see a real human stuntman driving
a real car in "Bullet" over the CGI car chases of "Fast
and Furious". And the 30 actual actors in makeup of
"Dawn of the Dead" (1978) over the thousands of
computer generated drawings of zombies in "Dawn
of the Dead" (2004)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

I've been reading this again and again, absorbing what you're teaching me, so I ask, "why would a miniature be better than a CGI spaceship?"

---

Again, it comes down to cost and technical issues/limitations. CG has gotten much better over the years, but there are some things that are "Better" when shot with real elements as opposed to building them in a computer.

Since we're on Star Wars, for a lot of the audience watching a clear picture (not YouTube), the Episode I: Phantom Menace Yoda is nothing like the real "puppet" that was used on a real set for Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps the technology has gotten better over the years, but there is something inherent "missing" from a close-up of a CG Yoda that is clearly evident for closeups on a real puppet.

Naturally, there are limitations with using real things, like puppets or model spaceships, so sometimes it is very helpful to use CGI instead. It's hard to make a puppet jump around the set like a frog on a hotplate so CGI has allowed Directors the ability to have these "impossible" creatures do things that they just can't do on a real set. But the skill of those who create those things (CGI or models) and the technology is a consideration as you ideally don't want the audience to sit there thinking about how bad your CGI or model looks as opposed to them remaining engaged in the story.

Take a peek at some old Ray Harryhausen dinosaur flicks for a great example of "cool for the time, but clearly fake and maybe he shouldn't have done it." Something like the old "Escape to Witch Mountain" has some truly terrible composites, that for the time, were good enough, but today's audiences wouldn't accept.

Why would you choose a model over CGI? Perhaps cost. CGI and the compositing isn't necessarily cheap so maybe building a model and filming it is a better idea for a specific shot. If the CGI scene is very involved and would take too long to render, then you might consider building a model. To do something like flying airplanes or spaceships with models takes motion-control equipment and a lot of time and patience, not to mention building the realistic models in the first place.

Overall, the idea is to create an effect in any way possible so that the audience isn't really aware of the effect. The story should be so engaging and the presentation seamless so that the audience remains inside your movie. If CGI can get you the shots you want, but they don't look as good as models or full size locations that would require a compromise, maybe the compromise is worth losing some measure of your wish for the shot in order to create the BETTER image to keep the audience in the movie as opposed to creating a less than adequate image just so you can get what you think you want.

In other words, if you want an image that would cost $2,000 to create in CGI but you only have $1,000 to do it, then you KNOW that your CGI images won't really be want you were trying to accomplish. But if you have a $1,000 for that shot and building and shooting a model would cost $1000 or less, then do it that way. Perhaps you can't do as much with the model than you could in CGI, but would you rather have a crappy CGI spaceship doing loopdeloops around the screen that the audience laughs at because it looks like a kid drew it? Or would you rather have a truly great looking spaceship that isn't flying everywhere you want it to, but the audience isn't distracted because of the quality of the image? Remember, if they SEE something bad, they will react to it. But they don't know what they ARE NOT seeing. What that means is that while YOU have an idea of what you wanted the shot to be and may be disappointed that your shot isn't "that," the audience doesn't know anything beyond what is on the screen. They don't know how much better it could've been if you had only had another thousand dollars to "do it right." They see only what's on screen so do what it takes to get all of that looking amazing.

As I've said before, if you have $5,000 to make a movie, don't try to make a $10,000 movie with it that looks like you had to compromise. Instead, take your $5,000 and make an AMAZING looking $3,000 movie then use the rest for marketing the movie and yourself. Be impressive with what you have to work with instead of compromising the overall project by overextending yourself and your resources.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

quote:

---

You're the first person I've ever known who can't tell
the difference. In a way I envy you.

---

Don't envy me - I have very poor eyesight, very poor indeed. Perhaps others can tell me if they see the difference between CGI props and the real models.

I can see the difference between the CGI of crowds of warriors over the real crowds in "The Hidden Fortress"; I am looking at the YouTube version of "Attack of the Clones", and I think I can also see the cartoony version of the CGI spaceships, though I don't know if it's my imagination. So I'm not totally hopeless. ?:)?

And a word in support of CG and fake sets. Working in a studio means you have absolutely 100% control of weather, lighting and sound. Cost wise this can be huge.

RJSchwarz

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjschwarz

And a word in support of CG and fake sets. Working in a studio means you have absolutely 100% control of weather, lighting and sound. Cost wise this can be huge.

RJSchwarz

---

Hence my interest in studio architecture.

How do you compare CGI with real sets?

Going completely greenscreen can get expensive. Its out of my
league. But then Im not making Sci-Fi epics or period pieces. I
would much rather travel to a location and shoot the actors in a
real, physical space. And right now, its cheaper to do that for
low budget films.

Lucas has been a proponent of shooting everything with the actors
on a greenscreen stage and using CG to build the entire set for
more than 20 years. The technology is catching up to his vision.

I worked on Jedi. I was on a great set (or more precisely under
it) for several weeks and I spent several months building
monsters and creatures. It was an amazing experience for the crew
and the actors. Now all thats done by very skilled computer
animators. The times, they are achangin.

I'm not really all that familiar with CG sets but I am familiar with annoying street noises screwing up takes. On the other hand, I have a friend who filmed a web series using CG sets throughout. To be honest most of the time I was distracted by the CG and you should never be distracted by a wall or desk or jail bars that are just background.

RJSchwarz