CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

For discussion of the upcoming films based on The Hobbit and related material, as well as previous films based on Tolkien's work
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by yovargas »

Alatar wrote:
yovargas wrote: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!
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
eborr
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:36 am

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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
Since 1410 most Welsh people most of the time have abandoned any idea of independence as unthinkable. But since 1410 most Welsh people, at some time or another, if only in some secret corner of the mind, have been "out with Owain and his barefoot scrubs." For the Welsh mind is still haunted by it's lightning-flash vision of a people that was free.

Gwyn A. Williams,
User avatar
Elentári
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Green Hill Country

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by Elentári »

sauronsfinger wrote: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?
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10778
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by Alatar »

yovargas wrote:
Alatar wrote:
yovargas wrote: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.
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
Frelga
Meanwhile...
Posts: 23335
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:31 pm
Location: Home, where else

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by Frelga »

Elentári wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote: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.
"What a place! What a situation! What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."

Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 47800
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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!
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
sauronsfinger
Posts: 3508
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:25 am

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by sauronsfinger »

Elentári wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote: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.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
User avatar
Elentári
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Green Hill Country

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by Elentári »

sauronsfinger wrote:
Elentári wrote:
sauronsfinger wrote: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...
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
Passdagas the Brown
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by yovargas »

Alatar wrote: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.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
Passdagas the Brown
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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!
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by Primula Baggins »

yovargas wrote:
Alatar wrote: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.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Passdagas the Brown
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
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!)
Last edited by Passdagas the Brown on Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by yovargas »

Primula Baggins wrote: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. :)
Last edited by yovargas on Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
Passdagas the Brown
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
narya
chocolate bearer
Posts: 4939
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:27 am
Location: Wishing I could be beachcombing, or hiking, or dragon boating
Contact:

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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 :P )

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.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. ~ Albert Camus
Passdagas the Brown
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Re: CGI - When did photorealism become so important?

Post by 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
Post Reply