Computer graphics vs practical effects

[hashbaz]

There was a discussion yesterday in the favorite movie thread about visual effects (i.e., computer graphics) and practical effects (e.g., puppets, animatronics, and prosthetics), their strengths, weaknesses, trade-offs, etc.

So today I happened across this video which is about that dynamic.  It's long but fascinating.  Anyway just wanted to post this given that people seem to have an opinion.  Feel free to continue discussion/arguing below.

A TLDR version is

And here's an interesting featurette on Jurassic Park's switch from stop-motion to computer graphics:

[tp4tissue]

they say you need both... but.. honestly. you can probably get away with just CGI as long as it's the 150,000,000 US Dollar CGI...

[baldgye]

Practical effects are by far the best, CG dates super quickly.. you only have to look at the 90s movies that uses it.. then compare it to stuff in the 80s that uses practical effects...

[noisyturtle]

CG will be there in less than 15 years. You won't even be able to distinguish it from real life. Not there yet. Those who say otherwise must be blind.

[calavera]

Well, in Tim Burton's massive fail of a movie Planet of the Apes, the practical effects were very convincing and well used. But there are certain limits. Where as with CGI there is none. A good example is Hulk's muscle flex and veins..etc. You can't do those intricate details with prosthetics.

Games alone have come a long way whether its in-game or cgi. Ryse and Crysis 3 (both using same game engine lol) come to mind.

[baldgye]

CG will be there in less than 15 years. You won't even be able to distinguish it from real life. Not there yet. Those who say otherwise must be blind.

idk about that, I can show stuff to my grandparents that they cant distinguish from real life simply becasue they are not used to looking at CG...

[tp4tissue]

Practical effects are by far the best, CG dates super quickly.. you only have to look at the 90s movies that uses it.. then compare it to stuff in the 80s that uses practical effects...

I'd argue that it's already there...

ray tracing is all we needed.. it's a stupidly slow process but.. brute force it, and it is indistinguishable.


The reason you can still "sort of" distinguish CGI is because it's usually used to make Objects that do not exist in real life...

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

[luisbg]

The best result is when CG and practical effects are combined, they don't have to be exclusive.

Take Inception for example. Perfect combination of both.

[baldgye]

idk about that... I feel like the best example of CG is Terminator 2. That looks just as good now as it did back then

[luisbg]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

[Findecanor]

I would say that there isn't any conflict between CGI and practical effects any more, in new movies. Back in the '90s when the tech felt new and exciting, it was grossly overused and it did not look right.
What computers are used for the most is compositing - copying and pasting different elements into the shot, mixing both CGI, models and live footage.

But practical effects have always been there. There was a huge amount of practical effects in Jurassic Park. Most of the time in Terminator 2 when you see the shiny liquid-metal Terminator, that is most often a practical effect. Yet people think they are also CGI because of the few CGI effects that were were talked about so much.
The Star Wars prequels are disliked for things looking like CGI, but just Episode 1 actually contained more practical effects and models than the original trilogy combined - it is just that things looked different and were more clean, and often composited together with other things.

[Oobly]

Use both, but don't overuse either.

Both techniques get dated. The more you see of each, the more you get used to which techniques were used and the easier it is to spot them. I was quite horrified at the bad CGI used in the 3rd Aliens movie when I watched it recently. It really detracted from the movie, IMHO, whereas the practical effects were better, if not actually good (Bishop, for example).

On the flipside of the coin, I feel that MOST of the effects used in the original Star Wars movies were excellent and don't detract from it at all. Some of the explosions could well be improved on, but not easily with 70's technology.

I prefer practical over CGI, but that's largely because I can spot CGI effects pretty easily and hate when they're done poorly.

Good CGI used sparingly and mixed with practical techniques can be very convincing. Jurassic Park is a good example, although the animation (movement of the CGI models) wasn't quite up to the quality of the rendering. It's still acceptable, whereas a lot of othe movies from the same time that used CGI have become dated more quickly.

TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.

[theeattre]

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.

[luisbg]

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.

Schooled.

[hashbaz]

TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.

Yep.  I work in the CG industry and even here the popular consensus is definitely that balance and playing to the strengths of each technique is the key to success.  Like I said in the other thread, it appears that the new Star Wars film is tipping its scale back towards practical stuff where possible, which I think is great.  Abrams knows how to use CG effectively as well, so I'm sure there will be plenty of that where it's needed.  I hope that it all blends well and establishes a new standard of not disregarding practical effects in favor of CG.

[tp4tissue]

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.

No , I'm using it properly.. I had no intension of using suspension of disbelief..

I meant exactly what I said..   Suspended belief..  as in I've suspended my belief.. as in NOT fully believe..


Take your crummy antiquated rigid prose elsewhere you hack...   

Tp4 logical matrix is perfect..

[luisbg]

Yep.  I work in the CG industry

That is very cool. Congrats 

[baldgye]

TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.

Yep.  I work in the CG industry and even here the popular consensus is definitely that balance and playing to the strengths of each technique is the key to success.  Like I said in the other thread, it appears that the new Star Wars film is tipping its scale back towards practical stuff where possible, which I think is great.  Abrams knows how to use CG effectively as well, so I'm sure there will be plenty of that where it's needed.  I hope that it all blends well and establishes a new standard of not disregarding practical effects in favor of CG.

That's really good to hear! My one major worry about Ridley doing a follow up to Blade Runner is the use of CG kinda being man dated by the studio's becasue its alot cheaper than building all those models...

[tp4tissue]

TLDR: Use the right tool for the job, moderation is important.

Yep.  I work in the CG industry and even here the popular consensus is definitely that balance and playing to the strengths of each technique is the key to success.  Like I said in the other thread, it appears that the new Star Wars film is tipping its scale back towards practical stuff where possible, which I think is great.  Abrams knows how to use CG effectively as well, so I'm sure there will be plenty of that where it's needed.  I hope that it all blends well and establishes a new standard of not disregarding practical effects in favor of CG.

That's really good to hear! My one major worry about Ridley doing a follow up to Blade Runner is the use of CG kinda being man dated by the studio's becasue its alot cheaper than building all those models...

is it really cheaper?  any big movie these days cost $150 million..  how much of a difference is that with/ without CG..

[hashbaz]

One of the main points of the video in the OP is that the CG/practical decision is typically about flexibility rather than money.

[eth0s]

Well, personally I don't care what they use to animate my favorite movies, just as long as it looks good, and as longs as they show me some boobies.  And they better be real boobies, not CGI boobies.  Well, then there's the silicone issue, but that's a discussion for another thread.  What I'm saying is there should be more boobies in movies.  Also, I agree with hashbaz, who seems to be saying movie makers should strive to use as much practical effects as they can, and resort to GGI only where practical effects are impossible, like the Hulk's bulging muscles.

Did you mean the Brazilian Hulk?  Ain't nothing wrong with him.

[Coreda]

Might watch the videos later, thanks for the links.

I've said it before but the one thing practical has over CG most of the time is the 'physicality' of the models and movement. This has partly to do with the natural lighting real models get for free, but also I think the quality of movement and animation some scenes received.

Was watching Star Wars: V with a younger friend last year, and they couldn't believe that the effects weren't a modern revision. The stop-motion Tauntaun Luke was riding on in the snow they assumed was CG when it was revealed from the aerial shot. The spaceships in particular haven't dated at all, and still look remarkable.

When I watched the prequels in the cinema the thing that stood out to me was the lack of 'weight' to the CG animation. Movements and collisions seemed too flexible and unreal. This is getting much better nowadays in CG though, and there is a lot of CG that goes unnoticed in films.

[noisyturtle]

must be blind.

my grandparents

[noisyturtle]

The only reason CG is so expensive is due to the sheer amount of manpower. CG itself is cheap as ****, but you are paying armies of highly trained professionals to do something that takes a really long time really quickly. That's where the money goes.

[theeattre]

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.

No , I'm using it properly.. I had no intension of using suspension of disbelief..

I meant exactly what I said..   Suspended belief..  as in I've suspended my belief.. as in NOT fully believe..


Take your crummy antiquated rigid prose elsewhere you hack...   

Tp4 logical matrix is perfect..

Show Image

oh my, you do know that there's a term for NOT fully believing, right? it's called disbelief.

[tp4tissue]

So.. the suspended belief in say the iron-man suit alone is enough to detect CGI in use..

first, the term is suspension of disbelief. second, you're using it improperly. your suspension of disbelief is exactly what makes the iron-man suit a success: you know it can't be real, but the cgi is convincing enough that you look past it. your suspension of disbelief would be halted more by him rising from a brutal battle one to many times.

No , I'm using it properly.. I had no intension of using suspension of disbelief..

I meant exactly what I said..   Suspended belief..  as in I've suspended my belief.. as in NOT fully believe..


Take your crummy antiquated rigid prose elsewhere you hack...   

Tp4 logical matrix is perfect..

Show Image

oh my, you do know that there's a term for NOT fully believing, right? it's called disbelief.

Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..

 You're welcome..

[Lanx]

robocop vs. robocop 2014

squibs!

[hashbaz]

Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..

You didn't dumb it down, you obfuscated it.

[User Was Banned]

This "argument" is worthless when the only examples people keep bringing up are old classics and modern blockbuster Michael Bay superhero flicks aimed at teenagers.

[Air tree]

In terms of horror films it's always better to go with practical effects.

But you can't use practical effects for everything, namely a movie like the "Avengers" without CGI, the film would hardly be as awesome as it is.


as long as you don't use CGI as a backbone of a film I'm fine with it *COUGH Transformers COUGH*

[Oobly]

Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..

You didn't dumb it down, you obfuscated it.

yes..

Eschew obfuscation!

[tp4tissue]

Of course " I " know the term.. but since I had to explain it to an arrogant child, I did the courteous thing and dumbed it down just-for-you..

You didn't dumb it down, you obfuscated it.

how so?

[tp4tissue]

This "argument" is worthless when the only examples people keep bringing up are old classics and modern blockbuster Michael Bay superhero flicks aimed at teenagers.

It comes down to best presentation..   at this point we've seen it all as far as story..

so every movie is just the same stories arranged slightly different, little bits cut from here/there..


Then, when we actually rate the movie.. the only real novelty is the visuals... done using the best technology we have today

WHICH IS WHY the modern michael bay stuff is appealing... 


same stories

alien + robot + fight + kung fu + guy gets pretty girl + cars..

there are millions of movies about that ^^^

but... none had $200*million budget.

[microsoft windows]

The best computer graphics I saw were in Powerpoint '97.

[paicrai]

as long as the boobs are practical effects everything else can be cg

[tp4tissue]

as long as the boobs are practical effects everything else can be cg

well........  where does the real vs silicone fall into this...   the jiggle just isn't right with silicone IMHO..

[paicrai]

as long as the boobs are practical effects everything else can be cg

well........  where does the real vs silicone fall into this...   the jiggle just isn't right with silicone IMHO..

real boobs plz

[TheSoulhunter]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

[Lain1911]

Hi I like black and white motion pictures.

[hashbaz]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO.  The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later.  The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so.  T2 on the other hand looks like early CG.  The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.

[exitfire401]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO.  The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later.  The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so.  T2 on the other hand looks like early CG.  The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.

T2 was one of the least impressive movies to me CG wise even at the time. Nothing really wowed me about it.

[tp4tissue]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO.  The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later.  The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so.  T2 on the other hand looks like early CG.  The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.

T2 was one of the least impressive movies to me CG wise even at the time. Nothing really wowed me about it.

When I saw it in 1991, I nearly shat myself when the T1000 walked out of the flame after crashing and exploding with the truck he was driving while chasing arnold on the motorcycle..

[TheSoulhunter]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO.  The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later.  The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so.  T2 on the other hand looks like early CG.  The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.

Perhaps for me it's just that the T1000 is a weird machine unlike anything I have ever seen in real life,
while the Raptors are biological creatures, so I expect natural motion and look of em...

Anyway, I also think that the effects of Jurassic Park hold up well for a 20y old movie, I really like it.
But the difference between T2 and JP is that there was no way to do some of the important T1000 shot's without CGI,
the raptors on the other hand could have been done all animatronics with just some changes in camera angles (except for the vs T-Rex scene).

Of course, some movies like The Avengers or Planet of the Apes Prevolution would be impossible without CGI,
and great practical effects like in Tim Burtons Planet of the Apes can not really save a bad movie.

[TheSoulhunter]

Have you seen it lately? Jurassic Park holds up a lot better. They combined animatronics with CG.

So did T2...
To me the CGI raptor scenes at the end are far more unconvincing than the few T1000 morphs.

Jurassic Park holds up extremely well IMO.  The T-rex and raptors still look photoreal 20 years later.  The brachiosaurus at the beginning and the gallimimus herd less so.  T2 on the other hand looks like early CG.  The quick melting and reforming stuff in dimly-lit closeups looks good, but the shot of the T-1000 walking out of burning wreckage in broad daylight isn't aging well.

T2 was one of the least impressive movies to me CG wise even at the time. Nothing really wowed me about it.

When I saw it in 1991, I nearly shat myself when the T1000 walked out of the flame after crashing and exploding with the truck he was driving while chasing arnold on the motorcycle..

XD

I watched it in the cinema back then when I was 10 years old (my dad smuggled me in... thx so much dad!)
According to him, after the opening scene, I sat there with my eyes and mouth wide open for the entire movie.

[TheSoulhunter]

Btw, I was bored, so I did some comparison images:

Yoda - Practical vs CGI


Terminator - Practical vs CGI


Alien - Practical vs CGI


Planet of the Apes - Practical vs CGI

[Coreda]

Btw, I was bored, so I did some comparison images:

Often the differences are more apparent in motion. Still, the quality of CG rendering is getting better year by year.

[Binge]

Great mixture of practical and CGI is the latest Rid**** film.  Somewhat NSFW in the first few seconds because of scantily clad lady peoples,

[tp4tissue]

Great mixture of practical and CGI is the latest Rid**** film.  Somewhat NSFW in the first few seconds because of scantily clad lady peoples,

sigh... if only he didn't do all those roids then decide to get fat... he could've been a much bigger action star than he is..

[smarmar]

CG will be there in less than 15 years. You won't even be able to distinguish it from real life. Not there yet. Those who say otherwise must be blind.

Those who say otherwise are still watching their motion pictures on their CRT television sets and their VHS tape cassettes. 

[noisyturtle]

wasn't there another thread about this?