How Star Wars Filmmakers Created Elaborate Scenes Before CGI
- Thread starter BenCozine
- Start date
I can recommend the book "The invisible Art" by Mark Cotta Vaz http://www.amazon.com/The-Invisible-Art-Mark-Cotta/dp/0811831361
I feel so damn old reading that head line. When I bought http://www.amazon.com/Industrial-Li...10&sr=1-2&keywords=industrial+light+and+magic in 1989 I was so happy that I was able to learn so much about VFX. And now it´s considered movie history and all the kids take CGI work for granted. What if they discover that there were things like "in camera fx", i.e. matte paintings or even scaled models that were put in front of the camera and filmed with the actors. Shock horror. I can´t remember what member sports that famous quote, but it fits perfectly into this thread:
I feel so damn old reading that head line. When I bought http://www.amazon.com/Industrial-Li...10&sr=1-2&keywords=industrial+light+and+magic in 1989 I was so happy that I was able to learn so much about VFX. And now it´s considered movie history and all the kids take CGI work for granted. What if they discover that there were things like "in camera fx", i.e. matte paintings or even scaled models that were put in front of the camera and filmed with the actors. Shock horror. I can´t remember what member sports that famous quote, but it fits perfectly into this thread:
Last edited by a moderator:
C´mon, you know what he meant. Copy and paste is not an invention of the CGI-agers but a synonym for lazyness. Every great artist has a few tricks up his sleeve to ease the workload. It´s just that they aren´t known so well to the general public
I did not know that "photo shortcut", so thanks for sharing that secret knowledge, especially since those tricks of the trade may be forgotten sooner than later.Boy did I hate a lot of the CGI matte work in "Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow"! Cut and paste, no, but reusing textures without checking if it was obvious or not. Ugh.
And to close the circle, IIRC George Lucas had to unearth a lot of the old technologies AND artists. Rediscovered and then lost again?
BenCozine
Active Member
CGI even good CGI for me just looks like a very, very well drawn cartoon. For background stuff it's great, but when it's everything it fails no matter how well it's done.
In a perfect world old school mixed with new school would be best, but children always only want the new toy.
In a perfect world old school mixed with new school would be best, but children always only want the new toy.
I think a few people could benefit from a little perspective here. A huge and I mean HUGE amount of what would have been matt painted landscape and large set backgrounds are now generated digitally using real world data capture ie photographed or filmed from actual existing physical sources, which is then enhanced and altered by many effects software programs to be seamlessly integrated with the live action shot. The number of productions (not just Sci fi or fantasy) that do this constantly would surprise you and its not just limited to the big effects film houses like ILM, many smaller firms focus entirely on the TV industry.
Its a massive time saver and allows levels of realism never seen before. Infact much of it is so good these days you won't even realize you've seen it. Honestly as much as I admired the often fantastic work done by old school artists, (the snow landscapes of Hoth were breath taking) much of todays work leaves most of them well behind for consistent and superbly imagined results. Many of the old matts just don't hold up when veiwed in high def and had to be used because they just couldn't composit an effects shot any other way. Admittedly alot of the original CGI work looks just as ropey if you go back a decade or so, but today its really only the budget end stuff that suffers by comparisson or when what I call "stupid physics" in action shots just looks so bizarrely unreal and improbable it takes you out of the moment.
Its a massive time saver and allows levels of realism never seen before. Infact much of it is so good these days you won't even realize you've seen it. Honestly as much as I admired the often fantastic work done by old school artists, (the snow landscapes of Hoth were breath taking) much of todays work leaves most of them well behind for consistent and superbly imagined results. Many of the old matts just don't hold up when veiwed in high def and had to be used because they just couldn't composit an effects shot any other way. Admittedly alot of the original CGI work looks just as ropey if you go back a decade or so, but today its really only the budget end stuff that suffers by comparisson or when what I call "stupid physics" in action shots just looks so bizarrely unreal and improbable it takes you out of the moment.
Similar threads
