I thought the water scenes in the last Harry Potter were amazing - even though I knew it was CGI it looked genuinely real to me.
I’m sure there are lots of recent films where subtle digital effects are blended in so well that they didn’t even register - background cloning etc.
I’m of the opinion that weel done effects now need to not scream “CGI!” at the viewer to really work. Explosions where a piece of debris flies right at the camera, unrealistic human movement physics…etc. All this will get better, but it seems like a good animator and director are more key now than the actual technology.
Here’s a nice vid showing CGI where you probably wouldn’t expect it (Brokeback Moutain):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPw5plmkd6Q
This link always blows me away - it shows just how much chrmokeying is done in regular TV:
Oh, come now. King Kong is a very realistic depiction of a model of New York being attacked by a Claymation monkey.
(I have nothing but respect for the movie and for its special effects, but come on).
I’m not sure whether or not everyone’s aware of this, but this is something they’re attempting in the new Tron movie mentioned in the OP. The following is common knowledge if you’ve read any sort of articles about the making of the film but I’m going to err on the side of caution and spoiler it anyway
Jeff Bridges plays both an older version of his character from the original, and a computer created clone that still appears as his 30 year old self, with the latter created using performance capture and CGI.
It’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.
One of the old buzzword goals of f/x was to make them “seamless”. As they got better and better with digital f/x they blended right into the picture.
However, I have noticed now with the introduction of 1080p blu-ray on a 50+" screen that the seamless nature of f/x is lacking. Watching demos at BestBuy the modern movies like Spiderman 3, Transformers 2, Avatar, etc. have scenes that look very cut and pasted together. Even the cutting edge “Avatar” looks like layers of various added in elements.
It’s so noticeably distracting that it’s kept me from buying a blu-ray player.
Whenever anyone assigns limits to Man’s ability to innovate, it doesn’t take long to either surpass those limits or turn science on its ear with some new way of considering the challenge.
What will keep effects from evolving towards the Sci-Fi scenario - e.g., Holodeck, or some direct sensory stimulation that feels as immersive as a holodeck?
I imagine a future where the vast majority of movies will be CGI based - even those that don’t seem to require it - standard, present-day dialogue-driven dramas, etc. This will enable directors to have far more flexibility with editing, adjusting, preparing the content for a variety of platforms, or for multi-purpose use as a movie, videogame, etc - or even swapping out actors retrospectively. Amateurs and some “Dogma 95” type indie directors will still film live action, but it will be a fringe niche…
Just thinkin’ out loud…
Hyperbole alert.
The answer is true virtual reality. Surgically implanted input jacks into the base of our skulls, some HDMI-type cables that plug into them, your brain hard-wired…this should also apply to surfing the internet.
I’m not sure how much the “quality” of the effects will get. But they will no doubt become deeper and broader in their scope. It’s likely that entertainment will become much more immersive, putting the viewer into the production to a degree that we can only imagine now. The SFX will be creating environments much more extensive in order to more fully immerse the viewer.
As for fully CG characters, the cheapening of CG effects will have some negative consequences. Productions done on the cheap might use stock “Acting” in the characters. It get to the point where a sharp viewer can ID what programs were used to create the character. “Hey, I’ve seen that smile before. They’re using MS RealActor 4.3!”
I think plugging things direct into your head are this generations ‘flying cars’, it’s gonna be ‘ten years out’ for a LONG time.
What’s going to happen is Superhal says…it’s going to get cheaper. Your iPhone will be able to insert HiDef effects into your HDTV video you just took that make your FaceTime conversation look like you’re in Avatar.
oh we’re getting there alright… a quick google images search makes my hair stand on end.
So here’s an interesting question that may slightly derail the thread.
Brokeback mountain was nominated for Best Achievement in Cinematography. But as we can see in the link, a number of shots were digitally manipulated. Brokeback Mountain wasn’t nominated for any awards relating to special effects, though those categories are available to win. The question becomes, how do we separate out that which was Rodrigo Prieto’s efforts (the director of filmography) from the guy behind the computer? In older movies, what you saw on screen was what you saw on screen. It wasn’t possible to take a mediocre shot and brighten up the skyline.
Now, no one’s saying that the CGI shots were what tipped the film in favor of an Oscar nod. But the certainly couldn’t have hurt it. So if it’s impossible to tell what’s been digitally manipulated, how can one tell what to vote on and what department is worthy of praise?
Let me pose another hypothetical. There’s a new film being released that captures Royal life in Victorian England. The costume designer goes balls out and does amazing work on all the main cast. But there are ballroom scenes and courtyard scenes with hundreds of extras whose intricate outfits have been put on through the magic of CGI. Costuming never touched them.
What if it’s so convincing of CGI that it’s impossible to tell these aren’t real costumes? What if the Oscar votes can’t tell and aren’t told they’re computer generations? What are they voting on then? Does the designer deserve the Oscar?
I guess it depends. Does an actual costume need to exist to get an award? Or just the design of the costume? Could a world famous costume designer draw up costumes for a Pixar film, the animators digitally create them, and the designer still get an award?
And as far as past cinemetography compared to todays manipulated backgrounds, even the past cinemetographers manipulated backgrounds in one way or another. Color filters, exposure filters, wide angle lenses, etc. all changed what the human eye would actually see if there in person.
You don’t separate them because, more often than not, the VFX compositor is following the orders of a) the Director, b) the Director of Photography, and c) the VFX Supervisor.
Rarely will a Compositor be allowed to direct a shot themselves, though it can happen for individual inconsequential elements (such as directing actors that are to be composited as background extras).
CGI folks are well aware of that. Why would you think otherwise? It’s just takes a vast amount of computational power to create that level of detail and “grit” in a realistic manner. Modeling randomness and imperfection in a believable, natural manner is not a simple problem.
Don’t be silly. It’ll be wireless. Of course, you’ll need someone to mod your internal simsense rig for BTL, so there’s no safety limiter on the emotion track.
</Shadowrun geekery>
That’s funny, since I just watched Tron for the first time a month ago and I thought the effects were actually pretty good given the time period. That is, it was clear that the production team worked hard on it and did the best they could with the tools they had - the degree of “realism” is immaterial to me.
And how much you want to bet Tron: Legacy sucks balls? As much as I want it to be good, remakes of classics for the sake of improving effects never are.
I loved the original Tron. I have no idea why people think the graphics were so horrible…so what is a virtual quasi-religious world supposed to look like? Was Wonderland or Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory “wrong?” Later films may have done it better, but I think Tron set the standard.
One reviewer raised a similar objection about suggestions that Zoe Saldana deserved an Oscar nomination for Avatar. He argued that she hadn’t really appeared in Avatar - her performance was just the model used for the CGI effect we saw in the theatre.
I think that purely visually, we’re basically at 100%, the only metric of improvement being cost and automation. The major thing that needs work obviously is movement. It’s hard to animate living creatures realistically, faces, water, things affected by gravity. Living things are often cheated with just recording the movements of real actors with little balls all over their tightsuit. And things like water and hair are approximated. Improving this requires that we go past our rendering algorithms, which are pretty good, and put more effort on simulation algorithms. Also there will be improvements in automation and procedural generation - the ability to automatically create large expanses of similar but still individually unique items such as city buildings or forest plants from a small number of variables.
So rendering can only get cheaper, while natural motion, procedural generation, and automation still have room for improvement.