Digital effects or real effects

A general forum for all messages that don't quite fit into the other forums.

Moderators: Admin, Moderator Team

DO you use digital effects or real time effects?

digital effects
3
15%
real time
17
85%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
MasterMike
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by MasterMike » Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:21 pm

Ornsack wrote: But yeah, effects... I prefer it when Grant actually blows something up compared to composits which never look right.
Heheheh, you're going to HATE a shot we're working on for The Forest II - particle-sim explosion that's about ten times bigger than anything that could really come from a grenade, digital stunt doubles being blasted around, digital debris, composited smoke and dust.... deliberately over-the-top, like our muzzle flashes, since it's all a bit of a parody of action anyway.
[url=http://www.secret7000.co.uk]Join The Secret 7000[/url]

User avatar
foxwood
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Vrigina Commonwelth University
Contact:

Post by foxwood » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:05 pm

its all in how they are used how they look and the movie. In a low budget thing I am more forgivng, but I do like it when I know they actualy blew something up etc. As long as it looks good I'm cool with it. Though in almost every case I hate CGI blood.

Darzeth
Member
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:46 am

Post by Darzeth » Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:22 pm

i agree with foxwood cgi blood isnt all that great. I rather make the blood and if im forced to add it digitally i would chroma key it in.

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:17 am

I was talking to someone on another forum and he spent about 50 hours to make his cgi blood look real! come on now how hard would it have been to spend 10 bucks on half a gallon of blood, or at least some kool aid.
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

User avatar
maj_barnes
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:09 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Post by maj_barnes » Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:32 am

I thought these look pretty real.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Yfr_R1k5q0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Yfr_R1k5q0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:12 am

yeah but that had money put into it ^.^
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

User avatar
videofxuniverse
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:25 pm
Contact:

Post by videofxuniverse » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:28 am

i actually watched that film in bed with my mrs last night. for a simple thriller, you wouldn't believe the amount of cgi that went into that film (panic room) If anyone has the dvd watch the camera move sequence at the point when the dudes break in, the camera pans from jodie foster in her room asleep to downstairs, and it passes through a wine glass and pretty much the whole house to the point where forest wittaker breaks in. and its absolutly amazing. so the cgi blood hit really is a minute part of that film compaed to the other cgi editing they did
[img]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3115/veuwn5.jpg[/img]

Visit my forum
[url=http://www.video-fx-universe.tk//Video_Fx_Universe/]Video Effects Universe[/url]

User avatar
maj_barnes
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:09 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Post by maj_barnes » Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:48 am

yeah but that had money put into it ^.^
But still incredibly simple. Stock blood and a good reaction is all you need. Play around with color settings on the stock and there you go. It's not hard, it's just too many people try to make their blood hits too obvious, have a shitty reaction, or don't track motion if the shot is mobile. Check out the final shootout in Miami Vice, there's quite few digital blood hits- I only caught one due to some lazy motion tracking. While others relied on a physical prop or effect to emphasize the digital effect. Say you're throwing some muzzle flashes in, if you make the first shots believable, then everyone will believe that the rest are pretty real- even if there are no more muzzle flashes.
If anyone has the dvd watch the camera move sequence at the point when the dudes break in, the camera pans from jodie foster in her room asleep to downstairs, and it passes through a wine glass and pretty much the whole house to the point where forest wittaker breaks in.
I remember watching that part thinking to myself- hell, the whole movie is going to be one shot, it was pretty seamless (minus a few floor changes).

User avatar
videofxuniverse
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:25 pm
Contact:

Post by videofxuniverse » Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:15 am

yes i agree you watch any film and there is about 30 camera cuts per minute, that scene was a whole camera scene in 3 minutes
[img]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3115/veuwn5.jpg[/img]

Visit my forum
[url=http://www.video-fx-universe.tk//Video_Fx_Universe/]Video Effects Universe[/url]

User avatar
Ornsack
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 11:43 pm
Location: Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by Ornsack » Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:02 pm

MasterMike wrote:
Ornsack wrote: But yeah, effects... I prefer it when Grant actually blows something up compared to composits which never look right.
Heheheh, you're going to HATE a shot we're working on for The Forest II - particle-sim explosion that's about ten times bigger than anything that could really come from a grenade, digital stunt doubles being blasted around, digital debris, composited smoke and dust.... deliberately over-the-top, like our muzzle flashes, since it's all a bit of a parody of action anyway.
When we needed a big explosion in Jesus 2 I remember spending a night making fireballs in my back garden for compositing later, but I just couldn't get it so it'd look good, so we had to resort to CGI.

As you can see from the shot (which is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilMOG6YiQo8 ) I'd say it looks good (if I do say so myself), and definitely psudo-real... but when you actually think about it, an explosion of that size would look absolutely nothing like that.

When we did Chemical Ali all those years ago we did a mix of pyro shots and particle effects. To be honest not many people noticed the difference which is great! But when you look back knowing the difference, it's pretty obvious (9:57mins in for the CGI, 10:16mins in for the pyro)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFABl-1Zcw]THE SALESMAN - YouTube[/url]

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:55 am

maj_barnes wrote:
yeah but that had money put into it ^.^
But still incredibly simple. Stock blood and a good reaction is all you need. Play around with color settings on the stock and there you go. It's not hard, it's just too many people try to make their blood hits too obvious, have a shitty reaction, or don't track motion if the shot is mobile. Check out the final shootout in Miami Vice, there's quite few digital blood hits- I only caught one due to some lazy motion tracking. While others relied on a physical prop or effect to emphasize the digital effect. Say you're throwing some muzzle flashes in, if you make the first shots believable, then everyone will believe that the rest are pretty real- even if there are no more muzzle flashes.

your most likley right, I dont know jack about cgi, only makeup , clay, latex and some stunt work and etc
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

User avatar
rhys
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:01 am
Location: Victoria, Australia

Post by rhys » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:09 am

that scene was a whole camera scene in 3 minutes
OMG!!! U GUYS!!! Watch grindhouse!!! There is a single angle in that movie that goes for 10 minutes!!! A WHOLE 10 MINUTES!!! WOW!!
Hide or fight for your life?

Kentertainment
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Post by Kentertainment » Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:11 am

I doubt that. *Children of Men had a shot that was about 10 minutes long, but it was composed of about 3 different hidden cuts. I myself am a little disappointed in the digital effects age, there are so many things in modern movies that would look better if they'd just do them physically.

*clip is in a different language

User avatar
videofxuniverse
Member
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:25 pm
Contact:

Post by videofxuniverse » Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:24 am

i loved children of men, it really wasn't what i originally expected and was surprised, but yes at the end in the "saving private ryan" type scene, there where quite a few scenes where the camera never cut to another angle
[img]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/3115/veuwn5.jpg[/img]

Visit my forum
[url=http://www.video-fx-universe.tk//Video_Fx_Universe/]Video Effects Universe[/url]

User avatar
foxwood
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: Vrigina Commonwelth University
Contact:

Post by foxwood » Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:14 pm

part of my resistance to CGI is that as a filmmaker its just more fun when shooting to do live pyros and blood, i'm convinced you haven't really made an action or horror movie untill you have layed on the ground covered in fake blood, as its drying to your skin and hair, etc.

User avatar
maj_barnes
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:09 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Post by maj_barnes » Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:54 pm

but yes at the end in the "saving private ryan"
Yea, like when the take out the half-track and blow away six Germans and finally find Ryan- a whole minute and a half, I was surprised just by all the effects the had in there in perfect sync.

User avatar
MasterMike
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:49 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by MasterMike » Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:15 pm

Ornsack wrote: When we needed a big explosion in Jesus 2 I remember spending a night making fireballs in my back garden for compositing later, but I just couldn't get it so it'd look good, so we had to resort to CGI.
I did see that, nice tracking. CGI obviously has its place for low-budget people whose skill is more computer--based. For The Forest II, only the one explosion is CGI - sparks, (most) smoke, and the like are composited stock. Although I did paint the muzzles myself.
[url=http://www.secret7000.co.uk]Join The Secret 7000[/url]

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:56 pm

The movie 300 had some pretty good effects all out but some really showed they were fake like i forget the scene but everyone was in front of the sky and it was just so fake but nice looking
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

KyleG
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:21 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Post by KyleG » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:30 am

Hi everyone, first post etc etc.

In the few short films I've made for my Film Studies class I've found I much prefer actual effects than just recreating it by computer. Sitting in a room making a 3d models of everything is boring where as running arround in the forest splattered with mud, facepaint and golden syrup dyed red is far more fun :D

Plus even the most advanced CGI looks dated even after only a couple of years. The alien in The Thing still looks real 20 years later. The Warg scene in The Two Towers looks so fake its unbelievable. Especially the horse than trips and slides directly at the camera. Ask me 5 years ago and I would have sworn it was a real horse. Now, even my 6 year old sister can tell its a computer.

Shocker727
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:33 pm

Post by Shocker727 » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:50 am

I'm more of a realitic movie creator. I don't really make things that are out of the ordinary (aliens, monsters and what not) so i have to say that real effects are the way to go. The only exception being safety and laws. If u can make a real explosion, do it, as long as it's done safely. It adds the more realistic effect. Same for stunts, unless your doing a movie that stretches the imagination of the human body, do them for real. It adds the better effect. Just stay safe while doing it. This my first post btw :D :D :D

User avatar
Ornsack
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 11:43 pm
Location: Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by Ornsack » Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:41 pm

Nice to see all these newbies! Welcome!
KyleG wrote:Plus even the most advanced CGI looks dated even after only a couple of years
I think this is a major problem at the moment. I think people are making it too advanced and putting too much detail in to things.

If you watch the first Jurassic Park and then watch the third one, the dinosaurs look so much more real in the first one!

I think for what they lacked in CG detail they made up for by intergrating the dinosaurs in to the scene better, and filming them as if they were actually there. These days they put far too much detail in to these things, and rely on post for intergration a bit more... and then they ruin it by having CGI cameras flying around all over the place etc

Watched Terminator 2 the other night and the effects are still amazing and I'd still rate them over the effects in the third one. The scene where they smashed a crane through a building was ruined by a CG Arnie with too much motion blur
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFABl-1Zcw]THE SALESMAN - YouTube[/url]

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:18 am

ornsack, im glad you know that, alot of people dont know that the dinosuars in jurassic 1 were mechanical ones and some cgi but a huge majority of real time ones
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

User avatar
Ornsack
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2002 11:43 pm
Location: Bristol, England
Contact:

Post by Ornsack » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:57 pm

smokeythebear wrote:ornsack, im glad you know that, alot of people dont know that the dinosuars in jurassic 1 were mechanical ones and some cgi but a huge majority of real time ones
I think in total there's just 3 minutes of CGI in the first film. CGI is used for the full body shots and everything else is puppets.

There's one shot (when the girl shines the torch out of the window) where the T Rex starts of mechanical, before running off in CG film. It's a faultless effect.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFABl-1Zcw]THE SALESMAN - YouTube[/url]

User avatar
smokeythebear
Posting Freak
Posting Freak
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Norton,ohio
Contact:

Post by smokeythebear » Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:29 am

It really is a great effect, If you interested in good movies and their fx background then u should check out the winston effect. Btw does anyone need real time spfx advice help, maybe even some work done if appicable.
www.myspace.com/kendallfx

User avatar
MattexFilms
Member
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Maidstone, Kent, UK
Contact:

Post by MattexFilms » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:37 am

I can only do digital effects because I don't have the tools needed to make the FX's I would need in the films I make.
Ok, who pulled the pin on this one...

www.freewebs.com/house-wars
www.youtube.com/mattexfilms2006

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests