What's real anymore?
- Thread starter ussinners
- Start date
The simple act of choosing what to shoot ignores everything else happening outside the frame. Film/Video/Photography is inherently manipulative. I don't see this as anything different than a painter choosing a color or a brush.
I think it's a good thing... if you want reality, go outside! I'll sit in front of my movie screen chomping pop corn and swilling soda. I don't mind it at all... it allows the filmmaker to help suspend our disbelief (the set extensions - not jar jar). I watch these shows for entertainment, if they entertain me, I don't care how they do it
I think it's a good thing... if you want reality, go outside! I'll sit in front of my movie screen chomping pop corn and swilling soda. I don't mind it at all... it allows the filmmaker to help suspend our disbelief (the set extensions - not jar jar). I watch these shows for entertainment, if they entertain me, I don't care how they do it
Sorry about misunderstanding your post. I focused on your comment
about feeling cheated watching new films. I missed the part about
story.
I agree. Story is the most important aspect of a movie. Special
efx that help or enhance the story are a wonderful tool. That clip
you posted showed that we filmmakers can expand our stories these
days. We are no longer limited by our small budgets.
I never feel cheated when I see amazing efx. I feel cheted only
when I sit through bad storytelling. And I’ve seen hundreds of bad
stories that didn’t include even on special effect.
the background or the effect. Some filmmakers (Lucas is an example)
are much more interested in the effect. But there are so many who
are not. So many who are using those background effects well that
most of the time we don't even notice.
Go see "The King's Speech", "Winter's Bone", "The Kids Are All Right"
and "The Social Network". Background replacement was used well in
those films.
I agree with you that efx can be used badly - but nowadays that's
not all there is.
about feeling cheated watching new films. I missed the part about
story.
I agree. Story is the most important aspect of a movie. Special
efx that help or enhance the story are a wonderful tool. That clip
you posted showed that we filmmakers can expand our stories these
days. We are no longer limited by our small budgets.
I never feel cheated when I see amazing efx. I feel cheted only
when I sit through bad storytelling. And I’ve seen hundreds of bad
stories that didn’t include even on special effect.
These days there are many movies made that are not written around
the background or the effect. Some filmmakers (Lucas is an example)
are much more interested in the effect. But there are so many who
are not. So many who are using those background effects well that
most of the time we don't even notice.
Go see "The King's Speech", "Winter's Bone", "The Kids Are All Right"
and "The Social Network". Background replacement was used well in
those films.
I agree with you that efx can be used badly - but nowadays that's
not all there is.
I'm not even sure why it's such a pet peeve of mine (noticeable green screen). I can sit through a Harryhausen stop motion sequence and love it, even though it looks far from "real", but let me see that little halo around an actor telling me he's standing in front of a green screen and I change the channel instantly.
Green screen bigot! BURN HIM! BURN HIM!
For those of you who do a lot of green screen work, after watching that video I have a question. I've always been told that green screens need to be carefully and evenly lit in order to key out effectively. Many of the screens in that sample seem to have been thrown up without concern for shadows, seams, wrinkles, etc. I spent a great deal of time lighting my green screen and actors and still had a bear of a time in AE trying to get an even key. How is it theirs can be so seemingly haphazard?
I read somewhere that a lot of big production greenscreen footage still gets rotod by cheap Indian labor, no seriously..
Mostly you just need to light it well:
Im watching that very closely.. there's a lot to glean from that..
For example, seems to me that most shots have little detail moving over the green screen. Where the subject IS on the green, then I note the hairstyles are mostly close cut or very "controlled" few of the difficult to handle fly away whispies.. also, camera movement seems to be very important to the believability of it. That is harder for us indies, we need to learn to 3d motion track with the little makers on the greenscreen.. I think set extension is much more dooable in my budget. With proper camera angles, little action need actually take place on the green .. just my thoughts..
For example, seems to me that most shots have little detail moving over the green screen. Where the subject IS on the green, then I note the hairstyles are mostly close cut or very "controlled" few of the difficult to handle fly away whispies.. also, camera movement seems to be very important to the believability of it. That is harder for us indies, we need to learn to 3d motion track with the little makers on the greenscreen.. I think set extension is much more dooable in my budget. With proper camera angles, little action need actually take place on the green .. just my thoughts..
It's important to remember that filmmaking itself is inherently deceitful. It's not just special effects, it's acting, cutting together of footage, lighting, and so on. Nothing in film is real.
So, I think it's funny all this clamoring to say "real" puppets are better than CGI or "real" sets are better than CGI. It's all lies, so what's the difference?
So, I think it's funny all this clamoring to say "real" puppets are better than CGI or "real" sets are better than CGI. It's all lies, so what's the difference?
As filmmakers we alter your perception of reality. It is nearly impossible to get some of the shots that green screen brings to life.
usually you can tell when something has been key-ed in, but those green screen shots were phenomenal.
I'm a fan of the green screen, technology can make films better if you use it correctly
usually you can tell when something has been key-ed in, but those green screen shots were phenomenal.
I'm a fan of the green screen, technology can make films better if you use it correctly
But the only question i have is the footage behind the actors. Do you preplan and shoot your shots before the green screen shots? Because how do you match the scenes up if there wrong? Sorry if im confusing anyone..
Yes, well keyed shots have a lot of planning behind them. You have to know what you're lighting is in the background and match it, as well as plan for any movement or anything else.
Just like everything else in the film world, the more Pre-production the better the product.
Just like everything else in the film world, the more Pre-production the better the product.
For a simple background, you can replace what's on the greenscreen, until it looks right. As you may notice, a lot of fx, like the burning ship, are done in post-production. You can color adjust the images independently, so you would probably find it easier to do than you think - at least for static shots.
Anyway, if you are an indie and you fail, so what? You look at what you did wrong and you do it better on the next try. If you are directing a commercial shoot and don't know what's going one, ask your FX Superviser!
Now, when it comes to walking circles around your own self and having both of you interact with the same objects, it takes a little forethought.
I shot this and played both guys, thanks to greenscreen. This is my first attempt at "circling."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HOW3Jx2Rjo
I watched your videos, pretty cool stuff you are doing there. What FX software did you use?
The oldest film discussion
This one has been going back and forth for 20 years.
Do SFX make a movie, no. Did almost every movie you loved have SFX? Probably. SFX are another storytelling tool, they are not in and of themselves a story as many beginning horror directors think. But as soon as I say that I think of the original Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Nobody talked about anything but the special effects. There was really no story in Friday the 13th, not compared to most films anyway. They were national phenomenons.
Star wars was great, and the Matrix was great, one used almost exclusively live action, and the other was 80% greenscreen and set extensions. In both cases SFX were integral to the presentation of the story itself, and not an added extra. The key seems to be building SFX to a high level organically from the composition of the script up.
There is always an advantage to technology advancing and offering us new options. I think people become lazy because SFX are so available as a crutch, but that's a problem with people, not the technology.
Modern SFX are a huge benefit to us all, and there's no question they improve films if used correctly.
is there even one person here that thinks Back to the Future would have been a better film if the Delorian didn't leave flaming tire tracks?
This one has been going back and forth for 20 years.
Do SFX make a movie, no. Did almost every movie you loved have SFX? Probably. SFX are another storytelling tool, they are not in and of themselves a story as many beginning horror directors think. But as soon as I say that I think of the original Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Nobody talked about anything but the special effects. There was really no story in Friday the 13th, not compared to most films anyway. They were national phenomenons.
Star wars was great, and the Matrix was great, one used almost exclusively live action, and the other was 80% greenscreen and set extensions. In both cases SFX were integral to the presentation of the story itself, and not an added extra. The key seems to be building SFX to a high level organically from the composition of the script up.
There is always an advantage to technology advancing and offering us new options. I think people become lazy because SFX are so available as a crutch, but that's a problem with people, not the technology.
Modern SFX are a huge benefit to us all, and there's no question they improve films if used correctly.
is there even one person here that thinks Back to the Future would have been a better film if the Delorian didn't leave flaming tire tracks?
It kind of opens your mind with a tire iron and then forces you to keep it open.
like the ending of spun: "Allllwayyyss..."
There's a risk in it, to people's mental health... But then on the other hand, those same people would probably pay money to see traditional and time-honored values portrayed in the cinema, themselves personally.
So, I just kind of close my eyes and have blind faith in the balancing power of consumer choice. It's really the best way.
like the ending of spun: "Allllwayyyss..."
There's a risk in it, to people's mental health... But then on the other hand, those same people would probably pay money to see traditional and time-honored values portrayed in the cinema, themselves personally.
So, I just kind of close my eyes and have blind faith in the balancing power of consumer choice. It's really the best way.