CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

[sauronsfinger]

I love photorealism in both still art and CGI. I take my fantasy seriously and want it to look as real as possible. When I look at Smaug on screen it is as close to the real deal as technologically possible - and that helps with the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important in the acceptance of fantasy.

When something looks fake - it serves to break that willing suspension of disbelief and hurts the film.

[yovargas]

Raise your hand if you think post-CGI Star Wars looks more appealing than pre-CGI Star Wars?

Which version yov? The original where you can see the strings holding up the models, the digitally enhanced version or the Special Editions?

You tell me!

[eborr]

Its all about consistency of vision if you shoot a film that styalised, then thats fine if you buy into that style, if you mix people and CGI and you dont do the CGI properly you get Roger Rabbit at best, or in the case of the Waaargs in TTT muddy images. Btw, the digital backgrounds in ROTK ruined that film for me

[Elentári]

I love photorealism in both still art and CGI. I take my fantasy seriously and want it to look as real as possible. When I look at Smaug on screen it is as close to the real deal as technologically possible - and that helps with the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important in the acceptance of fantasy.

When something looks fake - it serves to break that willing suspension of disbelief and hurts the film.

I agree....Smaug looks fantastic, and presumably a great deal more man hours were spent on him than say some of the other CGI. However, thinking about earlier points, do we think Smaug looks more real than the digital dwarf doubles simply because he is a fantasy creature, and therefore we have, in our mind's eye, less in-built points of reference than we do for something more approaching a humanoid figure?

[Alatar]

Raise your hand if you think post-CGI Star Wars looks more appealing than pre-CGI Star Wars?

Which version yov? The original where you can see the strings holding up the models, the digitally enhanced version or the Special Editions?

You tell me!

Personally I think I like the middle version best. The physical models cleaned up and post processed to look as real as possible. The thing is, the Special editions of LotR were at the very beginning of the CG revolution, while the original Star Wars movies were standing on the shoulders of decades of physical effects. As a result, the early CG in Star Wars Special Editions and the Prequel Trilogy were probably best equated with Harryhausen or even earlier in terms of physical effects. We're probably 20 years on from that now in The Hobbit, so CG is approaching the level of maturity that the physical effects were in Star Wars.

[Frelga]

I love photorealism in both still art and CGI. I take my fantasy seriously and want it to look as real as possible. When I look at Smaug on screen it is as close to the real deal as technologically possible - and that helps with the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important in the acceptance of fantasy.

When something looks fake - it serves to break that willing suspension of disbelief and hurts the film.

I agree....Smaug looks fantastic, and presumably a great deal more man hours were spent on him than say some of the other CGI. However, thinking about earlier points, do we think Smaug looks more real than the digital dwarf doubles simply because he is a fantasy creature, and therefore we have, in our mind's eye, less in-built points of reference than we do for something more approaching a humanoid figure?

I think motion capture in general produces more realistic results. Take Gollum, for instance, who held up very well in the scenes with live actors.

Actually, I find Cumberbatch in the mocap suit to be more terrifying than the resulting dragon. I could probably suspend disbelief enough to swallow him playing the dragon in costume and makeup.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree, Frelga. And did anyone else hear him say "button lady" in the dragon voice at SDCC? I had thought that that voice was done largely with sound effects, but apparently not. An impressive piece of voice acting.

With regard to digital replacements of the actors, the only time that bothers me through the entire five movies so far is when the fellowship is running through Moria. So incredibly fake looking!

[Primula Baggins]

I wonder if PJ will succumb to the temptation of fixing some things like that, when it can be done entirely digitally, and reissuing the films on whatever medium (if any) we're using in 2025.

[sauronsfinger]

I love photorealism in both still art and CGI. I take my fantasy seriously and want it to look as real as possible. When I look at Smaug on screen it is as close to the real deal as technologically possible - and that helps with the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important in the acceptance of fantasy.

When something looks fake - it serves to break that willing suspension of disbelief and hurts the film.

I agree....Smaug looks fantastic, and presumably a great deal more man hours were spent on him than say some of the other CGI. However, thinking about earlier points, do we think Smaug looks more real than the digital dwarf doubles simply because he is a fantasy creature, and therefore we have, in our mind's eye, less in-built points of reference than we do for something more approaching a humanoid figure?

Elen - I suspect you are correct that when the creature is pure fantasy like a dragon its easier to make it look 'real' or 'get it right' since we really have little to compare it to in order to evaluate what went wrong. For my money, I notice in the HOBBIT films that Azog looks pretty real but Bolg looks far less real and not so convincing. Despite my loathing of the Great Goblin design, I suspect they did put in a lot more time on that figure and that is why it looks so convincing.

[Elentári]

I love photorealism in both still art and CGI. I take my fantasy seriously and want it to look as real as possible. When I look at Smaug on screen it is as close to the real deal as technologically possible - and that helps with the willing suspension of disbelief that is so important in the acceptance of fantasy.

When something looks fake - it serves to break that willing suspension of disbelief and hurts the film.

I agree....Smaug looks fantastic, and presumably a great deal more man hours were spent on him than say some of the other CGI. However, thinking about earlier points, do we think Smaug looks more real than the digital dwarf doubles simply because he is a fantasy creature, and therefore we have, in our mind's eye, less in-built points of reference than we do for something more approaching a humanoid figure?

Elen - I suspect you are correct that when the creature is pure fantasy like a dragon its easier to make it look 'real' or 'get it right' since we really have little to compare it to in order to evaluate what went wrong. For my money, I notice in the HOBBIT films that Azog looks pretty real but Bolg looks far less real and not so convincing. Despite my loathing of the Great Goblin design, I suspect they did put in a lot more time on that figure and that is why it looks so convincing.

Equally Gollum, despite my earlier reference to "humanoid" figures, probably has some leeway in our imaginations as well. But of course, looing at the images of Gollum over the years is also the best example of how CGI technology has improved in leaps and bounds. V's reference to the CGI Fellowship in Moria is one of those things you can simply put down to "bad" CGI in the same way the earliest version of Gollum from that movie looks "bad" compared to what we have now, but it's not enough to bring the whole thing down...

[Passdagas the Brown]

Al,

There are brilliant professionals doing CG work for PJ. However, that doesn't mean they live in a fantasy world where they have all the time in the world to perfect all the shots for a finished film. Especially with a PJ film, where he is known to ask for new fully CGI shots at the last minute!

There was a vlog, for example, released only a few weeks before AUJ, and depicting CGI work being done very close to the deliver date. One artist was tasked with creating the Goblintown "dwarf chute" sequence because PJ wanted something more exciting than the dwarves just dropping straight into the cage. This sequence, IMO, looks pretty shoddy. I don't think that's a reflection of the talents of the artists. I think that's a reflection of there being finite time and capacity, making it hard to get things perfect.

And the more CGI shots there are in a film, the more an effects team will have to "prioritize" about which sequences to spend the most time on... And PJ probably makes that clear. This doesn't mean that the effects team doesn't care to get everything right. It simply means that they are forced to focus on the most important sequences, as perceived by the director.

[yovargas]

Personally I think I like the middle version best. The physical models cleaned up and post processed to look as real as possible. The thing is, the Special editions of LotR were at the very beginning of the CG revolution, while the original Star Wars movies were standing on the shoulders of decades of physical effects. As a result, the early CG in Star Wars Special Editions and the Prequel Trilogy were probably best equated with Harryhausen or even earlier in terms of physical effects. We're probably 20 years on from that now in The Hobbit, so CG is approaching the level of maturity that the physical effects were in Star Wars.

Do you think the upcoming SW films - presumably extremely CG heavy - will manage to look as cool as the old ones with all their fantastical miniatures and such? I'll definitely take CGI creatures over the old puppet things (which I usually hate) but in terms of non-living things, I say real still beats CG 9 outta 10 times.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Yes. Inanimate objects, especially structures and vehicles, usually still look a lot better as physical models.

But not always! When the CGI work is subtle and minimal, virtual structures can look 100% real. I hate to annoy Voronwë again (or do I?) but there are some extraordinary examples of this in Game of Thrones, done with far less money than PJ has! Take a look at these short CGI reels from each season, with particular attention to the inanimate objects (but also landscapes and armies):

Season 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0nROPGmZQ
Season 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVitvEv ... -WhgKYQxjc
Season 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU3TW0285d8
Season 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlgvuywT9oM

IMO, almost every example here (in particular, the structures and landscapes) looks almost completely real. IMO, this is due to excellent staging, cinematography, and restraint. And as little studio filming as possible! For many of these scenes, I had no idea CGI people and places had been inserted (my favorite examples being the Tywin's camp scenes at the beginning of the season 1 reel, and the scenes between Roose and Ramsay Bolton, at 2:41 and 3:06 of the season 4 reel).

Also, however, you might notice that by season 4 (and a bit in season 3), as the production gets more and more awash in money, the directors seem to get a bit more daring with the CGI, adding more of it in places than they might have otherwise, trying more unusual camera angles (including overhead shots), and going for bigger spectacle. And when they do, as with the army arriving in the North, Dany's army outside Astapor, the wide shot of Braavos and the ship approaching the Titan - the Argonath-esque statue (which is 100% virtual), the Eyrie and Bloody Gate, and some of the dragon shots, the CGI doesn't look as good as it did in the earlier seasons.

If I am ever a big movie or TV director, I'm going to deliberately keep the CGI budget low. It seems to inspire better (and more believable) results!

[Primula Baggins]

Personally I think I like the middle version best. The physical models cleaned up and post processed to look as real as possible. The thing is, the Special editions of LotR were at the very beginning of the CG revolution, while the original Star Wars movies were standing on the shoulders of decades of physical effects. As a result, the early CG in Star Wars Special Editions and the Prequel Trilogy were probably best equated with Harryhausen or even earlier in terms of physical effects. We're probably 20 years on from that now in The Hobbit, so CG is approaching the level of maturity that the physical effects were in Star Wars.

Do you think the upcoming SW films - presumably extremely CG heavy - will manage to look as cool as the old ones with all their fantastical miniatures and such? I'll definitely take CGI creatures over the old puppet things (which I usually hate) but in terms of non-living things, I say real still beats CG 9 outta 10 times.

Have you seen some of the stills from the new SW production? A batch of them were leaked online a few weeks (months?) ago. I found them extremely heartening. They are building darn near everything, from ships to robots to giant alien beasts! And filming on location, on elaborate practical sets, and putting people in costume and makeup to create many of the aliens.

I'm sure there will be lots of CGI as well, as there was in the Star Trek films. But an awful lot of those were filmed with real objects on real sets, such as a Budweiser brewery that stood in for the engine room of the Enterprise, or an old blimp hangar (!) that figures in the final sequence of the second film, including the looooong slide when the two men in spacesuits boarded—which was an actual long slide by two actual men in spacesuits.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Prim,

I really don't think it has to do with physical sets vs. CGI, but more about how well physical sets and CGI are integrated into natural environments, or among people. If you have 15 minutes or so, definitely take a look at the reels above (and below) from Game of Thrones. They demonstrate, IMO, that CGI sets, props, etc. can be just as convincing (in terms of photo-realism) as physical ones.

Season 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f0nROPGmZQ
Season 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVitvEv ... -WhgKYQxjc
Season 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU3TW0285d8
Season 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlgvuywT9oM

Frankly, I think a lot of these examples essentially end the debate on the merits of CGI vs. physical objects/ characters. It's not the medium. It's how you use it!

And if the makers of the new Star Wars use more of a mix between physical sets and CGI, that could be a good sign. But if the filmmakers do a bad job of integrating the two with real people, and into the story, and utilizing a cinematographic style that enhances the believability of both the physical and CGI elements, then it could still be a big flop (though nothing, IMO, can be worse than the Lucas-directed prequels. Nothing!)

[yovargas]

Have you seen some of the stills from the new SW production? A batch of them were leaked online a few weeks (months?) ago. I found them extremely heartening.

I'm not even an SW fan and I find that heartening. Didn't know that about JJ's ST films either both of which I thought looked fantastic.

[Passdagas the Brown]

All I know is that Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fischer will be in them, and that's all I care about! Though some of the new actors are promising, including Gwendoline Christie.

[Primula Baggins]

I think we can trust Abrams far more than Lucas to realize the value of providing real environments in which the actors can act. In the prequels, Lucas famously often filmed scenes in which the key characters were filmed months apart and never even saw each other during the production—they were standing in front of a green screen and speaking their lines to a tennis ball on the end of a rope. This explains how Lucas managed to get a record number of good-to-excellent actors to deliver the most wooden, stilted, artificial performances of their lives.

[narya]

PtD, thanks for the videos. On the one hand, I love the behind the scenes explanation of how the screen magic is made. On the other hand, when immersed in the magic I want to stay immersed. I do not want to be yanked out by something clearly incongruous, like sail boats going at fair speed while their sails are luffing in a light cross wind. (Yes, I've spent too much time messing around in boats )

One of the delightful aspects of pre-CGI films is that the monsters were off stage most of the time, and left to our imagination. I'd hate to see a recreation of Jaws with a pod of gigantic shark porpoising out of the water, and loooong close ups of rending flesh and spurting blood, rather than ominous music, terrified looks, and ripples in the water.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I feel similarly, and it's especially jarring in this case (as with most movies, where the CGI begins and ends is more obvious).

The interesting thing about the Game of Thrones example is that aside from the dragons from time to time, and the more ambitious CGI shots (such as those involving ships and the Titan of Braavos, for example) the CGI integration (particularly of structures and armies, etc) is incredibly seamless. There are whole stretches of seasons 1, 2 and 3 where I thought there was no CGI being used at all, but there was a lot of it!

It's not just how the object is rendered, and whether or not it's photoreal. It's about how it is integrated into a shot, and whether that integration is seamless and naturalistic.

Though I think the film with the most successful CGI EVER is the inimitable The Trollhunter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM