I have to both agree and politely disagree with some of the opinions stated in this thread.
TL;DR Version: CGI has become quite capable at achieving sufficient photorealism to maintain suspension of disbelief...but only when adequate effort is invested in VFX sequences. Modern CGI is more likely to suffer from very poor lighting and terrible virtual camera movement. Practical effects have several advantages, and some notable disadvantages, yet still (in my opinion)
can be superior to current CGI.
Full Version:
First, I'll absolutely agree that CGI has made giant leaps forward in terms of photorealism, complexity, and narrowing (if not eliminating) the uncanny valley. Techniques and technologies like subsurface scattering, photogrammetry, and raytracing, among others, are enabling artists to realistically mimic the interaction of light with 3D meshes and texture maps. It's a great time for audiences...
if productions have a sufficient budget, and the inclination, to pursue realistic CGI.
Having said that, there are many, many productions putting out CGI that is extremely cartoonish (and I do not mean intentionally stylized) and not believable, even within a specific narrative context. Yes, sometimes that's a deliberate stylistic choice designed to achieve a particular aesthetic...but I have seen many, many recent A-List VFX sequences that I simply didn't believe. My eye could easily pick out the unreality of the model or character and pass along enough information to my brain to distract me...collapse my suspension of disbelief and immersion in the film/show. Yes, I was able to recover, but that doesn't change the fact that I was thrown out of the viewing experience.
I recall watching an interview with a VFX artist in which he recounted the experience of hearing an audience member whisper, "Oh, that's a great model shot!", and immediately feeling like he had failed. I can't attribute that story at the moment, and I've heard a few variations on it since, but the principle was that the audience shouldn't really be
thinking about an effect
as an effect. They might know, in the recesses of their minds, that it
is an effect (especially when the artist has created something that does not, or could not, exist in the real world), but maintaining suspension of disbelief is one of the VFX artist's biggest responsibilities.
Having waxed philosophical for a moment, let me get back to the original topic. In my opinion,
some modern CGI is absolutely stunning and totally convincing (e.g., much of the character work from the new Planet of the Apes trilogy). Also, I felt like a lot of the starship CGI model work in Rogue One was quite good (especially the Star Destroyer models, shot against the backdrop of the Death Star). On the other hand, other CGI sequences are pretty bad. Captain Marvel, for example, didn't feel very real to me. Independence Day: Resurgence was not visually compelling, despite a staggering number of VFX shots.
Practical effects like the ones being used in The Mandalorian benefit from several advantages over modern CGI:
- It's a real model (physical object), interacting with real light. The artists do not have to simulate light interacting with computer-rendered material. It's actually happening in-camera. This not only saves rendering time, it also avoids replicating physics that any human is intuitively, subconsciously familiar with through a lifetime of experience. The importance of realistic lighting in VFX cannot, must not, be understated. Many, many VFX sequences in even high-budget films get lighting wrong. All the time.
- Shooting a physical model with a camera and lens forces the VFX team to respect other laws of physics...namely, that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and a camera cannot get "too close" to a spaceship...or fly into/through its guts. A real camera cannot "phase" through a glass window, for example. That's a subtle point, but very important to maintaining complete immersion for an audience. One could argue that it's a small distraction, but it is undeniably a distraction.
- Camera movement is extremely important. Unrealistic or impossible movement is a dead giveaway that a sequence isn't real. Again, I understand that every thing in the sequence might be impossible (fictional), but that's not a valid excuse. The job of the VFX department is to make the impossible feel not only possible, but utterly convincing. Forcing the filmmakers to consider how objects move (Favreau specifically mentions going back to the OT to study ship movement and--implicitly--camera movement) also forces them to get creative, and inherently helps to protect each VFX sequence from getting sloppy with camera/subject motion. This only serves the strengthen the final product.
- Modern technology (LED lighting, 3D printing, digital control systems and motors) solve a lot of the old problems with matchmove, studio scale modelmaking, etc. Modern tech speeds up what was once an extremely laborious and time-consuming pre-production process of building all the models from scratch (or kitbashing), building custom (primitive) control systems, working with very hot, very large studio lighting (no longer a problem, thanks to LED-based cinema lighting technology), et al. What we're able to do now is marry modern materials science, crafting techniques, and computer control with tried-and-true practical techniques to ease the burdens of those classic methods. Modern motion control systems are incredible. Lighting gear is fantastic. Even internal LED lighting of scale models can be precisely (often wirelessly) controlled, with an array of effects that were not possible in the 1970s and 1980s...and with no thermal threat to the model itself. Speaking in terms of animatronics, think about how we now have access to small, powerful digital motors with incredibly precise control, wireless technology, efficient and high output Lithium-ion batteries, new material to simulate skin and flesh, carbon fiber skeletal structures to reduce weight...and so much more that I won't get into here, because it's not strictly topical.
I could go on, but I feel like I've made my point, and probably overcooked it a bit.
CGI is great. But shooting a real model under real lights, with a real camera and lens (modern lenses are also incredible...fast apertures for shooting in low light, great element design, full format coverage, etc.) is still superior in many ways to CGI. You don't have to fake it, because it's real. And when you take that practicality and marry it to CGI to hide the rough edges, add detail,
enhance the old techniques...you get a hybrid creative process that is very much the best of both worlds. The artisan's past meeting a cutting-edge present. To me, that's just a return to movie magic.
All of this is simply my own personal, over-thought opinion.
~JD
