When Is CGI going to go away

D

davidevans10

I read an article the other day about it being used all the time instead of when its needed.

When is a director going to catch on and do it like they used to?
 
CGI will never go away. No one is going to "do it like they used to".
We filmmakers move forward. We use tools that are available to us.
I, personally, have no desire to go back to the sodium vapor process.
 
I'm with Rik.
Eventhough I almost never use CGI, it will only go away when the technology is no longer available.
Filmmakers will always reach for the best tools to bring an idea to life.

That doesn't mean everyone has to use CGI.
Filmmakers today and in the future can still chose to not use it :)
Just like I recorded songs on an 8-track tape, while using a computer was easier.

Technology creates possibilities.
Filmmakers can just make more choices now than 100 years ago.
That includes the choice to do it the old way.
 
when people talk about CG it is allways a chat about the good old times, or that real effects (what ever it is) look better, but that is not the point of CG, not at all. using CG is a question of money, it is simply cheaper. so if you have endless resources then don't use CG, if you don't have the resources to shoot in thailand then maybe a nice mattepainting will do. or if you can not afford expensive props then maybe CG can help, or if you can not feed 200 extras, then maybe CG is the only way.

so the debate about pros and cons of CG should also include that saving some money by using CG can be used i.e for better locations, better actors, better catering or what ever.
 
When everyone stops making films with sync sound.

When everyone gives up on color and goes back to black and white.

When everyone gives up on digital altogether.


Need I go on? As has been mentioned we move forward, not backward. It's just another tool in the toolbox. If some over-use CGI that will be to their benefit - or detriment.

If you don't like CGI, don't use it and go back to doing things the "old" way - real film, 100lb. cameras, tens of thousands of watts of lighting, rear screen process shots…….
 
movie-grinder.com said:
yes that is true, i am working in vfx for only a little over 20 years now, from tv commercials to hollywood blockbuster, i should not make a statement that early in my career ;)
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.

I don't think James Cameron should have made Avatar until he could actually afford to go and film it on Pandora! And preferably all in a single unedited shot with a hand cranked camera. :)

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
I'm with you on this one.

I don't think James Cameron should have made Avatar until he could actually afford to go and film it on Pandora! And preferably all in a single unedited shot with a hand cranked camera. :)

G
Click to expand...


;) ;) yes with scifi it is super obvious that is is cheaper to build the enterprise in CG than building the real thing. but even with the tiny things. have a look at "girl with dragon tattoo", there is not sooo much CG envolved, but DD added snow in many shots. obviously snow is not the most fancy thing to get. you can either borrow a snow machine, or wait for the perfect weather, but both is way more expensive than just add it later in post. or let's have a look at "mad max - fury road" they really did a lot of practical effects but still, especially on the environment they changed a lot. i am sure you can find the perfect locations for these shots, but that means the whole team has to travel, you need the permissions etc etc. just add a few rocks in post and you are done. easy, cheap and nobody can see the difference between real and CG rocks, so why not. there are many examples like these. i would not deny that sometimes CG effects are more expensive than the real thing, but in that case it was a mistake by the vfx supervisor or consultant, no doubt that this sometimes happens, when you have to plan a show with 2500 vfx shots then maybe you made 100 wrong decisions, sure we are all only humans, but in general it is way cheaper for most things. it is important to keep a good balance, and it is important to do only things in CG where you can deliver the quality that is required to sell the shot.
 
Are you talking specifically CGI or VFX in general?

There's so much VFX on films these days, most of which you would never be able to pick, let alone CGI.

So - to what extent do you want CGI to go away? There's a significant amount of VFX work on Force Awakens, and that's a film that was supposedly all about 'doing it the old way'.

Alcove Audio said:
If you don't like CGI, don't use it and go back to doing things the "old" way - real film, 100lb. cameras, tens of thousands of watts of lighting, rear screen process shots…….
Click to expand...

Would be fun for a while.. ;)
 
movie-grinder.com said:
yes that is true, i am working in vfx for only a little over 20 years now, from tv commercials to hollywood blockbuster, i should not make a statement that early in my career ;)
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. If you were working in vfx for just a few days you would know that CGI costs lie on a spectrum. It can cost anywhere between dirt-cheap and insanely expensive depending on the level of detail.

And generally, when it comes to practical vs cgi, it's only cheaper or easier for action shots such as explosions. You want a creature in your movie that looks good, you're going to need a LOOOOOOT of money. You put hair on that creature, it's going to increase the cost exponentially. You want it to move around? You increase the cost exponentially. Oh, you want it to look realistic? You increase the cost exponentially.

And that's just one example of the many possibilities
 
mussonman said:
I don't believe you. If you were working in vfx for just a few days
Click to expand...

you don't belive me, wow, well then go to www.movie-grinder.com and see my filmografie:
http://movie-grinder.com/filmografie/

do you know the guy from the AOL commercial, it is Borris Becker and the commercial is from 1996 or the Zentis Commercial it is Michael Schumacher, i think that was 1997.
Or "Ice Planet" the first feature film i worked on, if i remember right it was 1999. And you can see examples of my work till today, including vfx academy award winner "Hugo" from Marin Scorsese or "Total Recall" or "Dredd". But how ever.

i have never said vfx are cheap, i said it is cheaper than shooting it in kamera. when you talk about CG creature effects, then it is expensive to create a realistic CG caracter, no doubt. but try to shoot "life of pi" with a real tiger. good luck. it is either impossible or more expensive coz you need 10 main actors that all look the same in case the tiger gets hungry or angry.

first think than write.
 
movie-grinder.com said:
but try to shoot "life of pi" with a real tiger. good luck.
Click to expand...

Bad example.. the CGI for life of pi was so expensive the VFX company went bankrupt.

Something like Brokeback mountain where they added hundreds of sheep to the background is a good example. It's much cheaper to do blurry background CGI sheep than it is to buy 200 and keep them fed and stabled during filming.
 
movie-grinder.com said:
i have never said vfx are cheap, i said it is cheaper than shooting it in kamera. when you talk about CG creature effects, then it is expensive to create a realistic CG caracter, no doubt. but try to shoot "life of pi" with a real tiger. good luck.

first think than write.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I was only providing one example; creatures. (and there's NO reason Life of Pi couldn't be shot without a real Tiger. And you would be hard-pressed to explain your reasoning for that statement)

CGI can be cheaper, while practical can be cheaper. It all depends on what the effect calls for. You ought to know that. You have more control over CGI, but time = money as well



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top