You are 100% correct. My love for film has been waning for several years now because of CGI. I started a production company and I'm teaching myself filmmaking so I can make the kind of movies with practical effects I grew up loving in the 80's. Thank you for your great content!
😂😂get with the times 😂all movies use special effects and the fact you think trying to go backwards is going to be successful then you couldn't be more wrong 😂why pay 50 people to create a set when one guy with a laptop can do it😂why shoot on location and waste time and money? No permissions needed no public getting in the way😂anyone that tries to do backgrounds any other way then cgi will waste loads of time. The only things that should be real are the things that actually affect the actors for example a monster
I’m a Virtual Production & Filmmaking educator - as in, I teach filmmakers how to make films, and then incorporate Virtual Production and ICVFX into their tool set and work flow. I produced a proof of concept short last year (short BTS doco on my channel) with my students and a filmmaker I frequently collaborate with to explore how to better use the tech. One conclusion I came to is filmmakers need to understand how to layer their composition in their shots with foreground, mid ground and background and really think about depth within frame. And yet, it still comes down to story, and performance, blocking, camera and lighting, production design and everything else in between. Putting a couple of actors in front of a LED wall with nothing else, to me, just doesn’t work enough. To me it’s a marriage between great physical production design and great virtual production design.
I think Hollywood is going in a road with a dead end. the producers and share holders are using CGI and virtual production excessively to save time and money, but in the other hand they sacrifice artistic quality and storytelling. recent movies seems empty, meaningless. and you get the feeling that you're watching a thech demo instead of a real movie.
I disagree. Having watched Mandalorian and West World, the quality of those productions was fantastic. The story, acting and cinematic quality were all top notch. The main reason to go for virtual production is budget and the speed of turn around from shooting to finished render.
i won't even think of it as a replacement for greenscreen cause I've heard from numerous artists on how even after shooting with volume, they go in to do extra work even deep into rotoscope
Crimson Engine, I just wanted to say thank you for your channel. I am not a filmmaker in any way, and my interest is more towards 3D animation, but your channel is still valuable for putting the filmmaking role into words.
In Vietnam you could tell newbie’s from experience men by the physical shape they exhibited. This is why many green screens scenes look fake; people engage in a physical activity, and they do not perspire or even breathe hard. Green screen is more dream than reality; even real people look a little cartoonish.
To an extent I agree. It seems like virtual production is being used almost as a gimmick. It's the shiny new toy so people use it just to use it, even when there are better methods. It also has at least on blatant giveaway [and flaw] which is the inability to properly convey outdoor scenes. You can instantly tell when something is filmed in one of these sets because the light is always soft and thus the sky is almost always shown as overcast. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. If it were true that something is lost by not having actors in a real location, then stage plays, which have been around for thousands of years and continue to exist prominently would have died out in the 60's when movies began to become more grand in scope. Many of the greatest actors were trained on a stage, without the benefit of exotic locations or even elaborate sets. I find that a bigger hindrance to film making today, perhaps highlighted by these volume sets, is that it doesn't allow for actors to really do anything. Again, look at a stage performance. You will frequently see actors moving across the entire set over the course of a scene. A "lifeless" stage feels more alive. Classic films had this as well. Actors could explore the entire set. Now, because of the way things are filmed and the tools used, EVEN when you have all this effort put into production design, you will see actors play statues. They will enter scene, move to their spot, and stay right there until scene is complete. Look at 'Star Wars: Ahsoka', where this was done to the extreme and is probably why that show was often seen as being very boring. But even something that was praised, like the recent 'Shogun' series had the same problem. The Virtual sets make it worse because in order to maintain the illusion, the cameras and angle and props and actors all have to remain pretty much in a static position. You can have the most elaborate location, or the blandest, and a good actor - given the freedom to actually act - can make it work.
agree, it is great for shooting car comercials, especially close ups with a defocused background and the added benefits of "real" reflections, which are definitely a huge pain point in post otherwise, but yes it feels completely different having a real built set rather than a LED backdrop. Not only technical limitations like Moire, not having a real sun light intensity and such, but also the lack of real atmospheric effects like wind, water and dust makes it pretty sterile. For effects heavy movies with tons of CGI characters it is a great replacement or a previz tool, to actors react to cues and correct eye lines and such, but as others also mentioned is the post production process still an invaluable step to ensure artistic freedom and change things later down the line. I think somehow the same way like Christopher Nolan who still prefers to shoot on film and use SFX rather than fully cmoputer generated effects. There is something nitty gritty about film (emulation and other artefacts) that cannot be easily replicated in a digital manner. A real explosion still looks far more convincing than a digital one,...nothing beats reality !!
You do know you add dust and other particles with vfx right😂you said a bunch of nothing. Just admit it's to complicated for you to understand and so you think keeping it old-school will help but it's not
@@MarkStefenelli based on your reply your definitely a old guy that refuses to change with the times. I'm most likely the same age as you but the difference is I'm smart enough to embrace technology not automatically turn my nose up. You have missed the boat and your bitter
@@MarkStefenelli you're so full of crap 🤣you just went on a big rant about how bad cgi is but you have an LED wall 🙄🤦🏽♂️I don't know who trying to impress but you sound stupid every comment you make. You spent a 100k or more on a wall you won't use 🤡yea right
while i ABSOLUTELY agree with your points here, i'm also really split over a fair amount of them: on one hand, i'm a filmmaker (writer, director, cinematographer) and could think of nothing better than having the chance to shoot on location and make the experience less contrived and more reactive. on the other hand, i was trained as an actor at the [now sadly defunct] webber douglas academy of dramatic art and worked professionally for many years as such. my training (and i'm confident in saying MANY others) revolved around imagining whole worlds / hellscapes / cathedrals while in a magnolia painted shoebox of a rehearsal room, only to find that professional engagements then were basically exactly the same during a professional run of a production. similarly, i was brought up in a theatrical family, my earliest memories are of standing in the wings in west end theatres or waiting for various members of family to finish takes at places like pinewood or ealing studios - i can tell you that, from the actor's perspective, SO often all you're seeing is the crap side of MDF uprights that only look good from the exact opposite direction you're facing. acting is about imagination and making your own truth in a setting that couldn't be further from the reality you're relied upon to present with emotional authenticity, to win over a famously suspicious audience to suspend their disbelief for that moment you're with them. i'm all for weeks spent in the wilderness, often in shitty weather conditions, but no matter what - there will always be a small or sometimes large team of people in cagoules, brashly coloured padded gilets and warm hats, often munching on a leftover wrap from their lunch break and staring RIGHT in your eyeline. part of the craft is to make all that go away.
I feel that cinema is presently diverging into two directions. One will be the high budget "product" that studios create using technology like this. The current strikes have already revealed the end game, the studios ultimate goals are to create large screen VFX spectacles based upon proven sequels, reboots, re-imaginings and to create them with as little human interaction, other than CGI technicians, as possible. The goal isn't to place actors in LED stages, this is transitory technology, the goal is to completely eliminate actors, other than as voice, 3D and mocap input sources for AI. Same with crews, the studios desperately don't want to "shoot" films anymore, the goal is to replace crews with CGI artists and to create entire features in the computer, period. In CGI, everything can easily be commoditized, automated and made as efficient as humanly possible. The studios want to be out of the actor and crew business because there are too many variables, making films with humans is expensive and unpredictable. We live in the era of "good enough" and if enough audiences embrace these non-human created products and make the studios enough money, that is what studio features will become because it maximizes profits for shareholders. There will be a backlash to this computer and AI rendered "product" and I believe that people will hunger for true cinematic art made with real actors, real human crews and yes, of course, those films will have CGI and VFX but we're talking films that are created for much smaller budgets, shot in real locations or at least on real soundstages rather than inside of a computer. The only question is what the ratio of AI conceived and executed product will be popular and in the cultural zeitgeist versus relegated to relative obscurity for niche audience of cineastes? I liken this to the streaming versus vinyl ethos. Sure, vinyl has had a huge resurgence, but in relative terms, who consumes vinyl? Hipsters and those who care about it from the past, it's a tiny, tiny percentage overall of music consumed. Maybe "real/human crafted" films will be the same way? Who knows, perhaps we'll even see the resurgence of 80s to 90s indie type films and even art films? It wasn't that long ago that films like The Artist, Hugo were mainstream hits. Even now, films made with more creativity and artistry on small budgets like "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once" ($25mm) have been sizable hits and critical hits. Sure, lots of VFX and CGI but definitely made by humans on a relative shoestring. I've been on several LED volumes and to me, there is just something off about the footage from them. The Mandolorian looked pretty good to me but everything else I've seen from LED Volumes looks like a tech demo, not a great film visual. I've shot in some epic places, the Sahara Desert, the Atlas Mountains, the rain forest in Brazil and I don't see LED stages being able to do more than a poor facsimile for most locations. It's sort of like experimental theater or Kabuki, it asks a lot of the audience to believe that the actors are really there.
As I documentary filmmaker I totally agree, but this industry along with travel and location costs etc have gotten so incredibly expensive, how do you create big film projects today without insane budgets?
What do you think it costs to send an entire crew, equipment, cast, not including accommodations, shuttles and all, without reliable weather to the Sahara desert, Faraway forest or even shooting exteriors when a major city is at sleep at night? It's all about the money.
Great insight. Most modern films suck because of this while Lawrence of Arabia, Flight of the Phoenix and even the spaghetti westerns have a timeless realism. I stopped going to theatres about 10 years ago. Too woke, too fake, too boring.
Idk man. Maybe you dont understand that the sets for citizen kane are only built half built with the cellings open for light's and no 4th wall for thr crew. Nothings real expert the telents of cast and crew. Of course if it looks fake because of the quality of the CGI thats one thing. But as SW goes the new ones are shot to be more video game like. They could of match the old style exactly whitch they didn't do. Only at that point could you debate apples to apples. If your next video is about how alfred hitchcock's use of rear project ruined his films, then id agree with ya. Ed wood movies looked as fake as most of the new movies coming out these days. Id agree with that.
I couldn’t agree more with your perspective on this. Even though I see it’s place in modern day films (such as creating a sci-fi environment that can’t be done otherwise (for budget reasons or others) I still think it’ll take away from the problem solving and creativity that historically has inspired amazing films.
yo old man film is safe.... think of it as McDonalds of tv shows.... some directors like it.... some respect themselves... now chill and spent some time with your grandkids
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
The future is now, old man
You are 100% correct. My love for film has been waning for several years now because of CGI. I started a production company and I'm teaching myself filmmaking so I can make the kind of movies with practical effects I grew up loving in the 80's. Thank you for your great content!
check out www.canonmasterclass.com
😂😂get with the times 😂all movies use special effects and the fact you think trying to go backwards is going to be successful then you couldn't be more wrong 😂why pay 50 people to create a set when one guy with a laptop can do it😂why shoot on location and waste time and money? No permissions needed no public getting in the way😂anyone that tries to do backgrounds any other way then cgi will waste loads of time. The only things that should be real are the things that actually affect the actors for example a monster
I’m a Virtual Production & Filmmaking educator - as in, I teach filmmakers how to make films, and then incorporate Virtual Production and ICVFX into their tool set and work flow. I produced a proof of concept short last year (short BTS doco on my channel) with my students and a filmmaker I frequently collaborate with to explore how to better use the tech. One conclusion I came to is filmmakers need to understand how to layer their composition in their shots with foreground, mid ground and background and really think about depth within frame. And yet, it still comes down to story, and performance, blocking, camera and lighting, production design and everything else in between. Putting a couple of actors in front of a LED wall with nothing else, to me, just doesn’t work enough. To me it’s a marriage between great physical production design and great virtual production design.
Thanks for your perspective. I feel like there are lots of uses that haven't been explored yet.
This sounds strangely like the film vs video debate of 20 years ago ....turns out it didnt matter.
I think Hollywood is going in a road with a dead end. the producers and share holders are using CGI and virtual production excessively to save time and money, but in the other hand they sacrifice artistic quality and storytelling. recent movies seems empty, meaningless. and you get the feeling that you're watching a thech demo instead of a real movie.
I disagree. Having watched Mandalorian and West World, the quality of those productions was fantastic. The story, acting and cinematic quality were all top notch. The main reason to go for virtual production is budget and the speed of turn around from shooting to finished render.
i won't even think of it as a replacement for greenscreen cause I've heard from numerous artists on how even after shooting with volume, they go in to do extra work even deep into rotoscope
Crimson Engine, I just wanted to say thank you for your channel. I am not a filmmaker in any way, and my interest is more towards 3D animation, but your channel is still valuable for putting the filmmaking role into words.
Im not an actor but I do can see some benefit of not having cold or hot weather and not becoming overly exhausted in these enviroment.
In Vietnam you could tell newbie’s from experience men by the physical shape they exhibited. This is why many green screens scenes look fake; people engage in a physical activity, and they do not perspire or even breathe hard. Green screen is more dream than reality; even real people look a little cartoonish.
Also through virtual production it's easy to act better like with green screen it gets hard but through vp i can feel and express better
Spot on. It’s watching a video game. I can’t take it.
Q: But don't professional/trained/talented actors 'act'? Isn't tuning out the crew, cameras, lights, studio etc etc their stock and trade?
Wooo, amazing this VR studio!!
Could you tell me where is it locating?
To an extent I agree. It seems like virtual production is being used almost as a gimmick. It's the shiny new toy so people use it just to use it, even when there are better methods. It also has at least on blatant giveaway [and flaw] which is the inability to properly convey outdoor scenes. You can instantly tell when something is filmed in one of these sets because the light is always soft and thus the sky is almost always shown as overcast.
On the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. If it were true that something is lost by not having actors in a real location, then stage plays, which have been around for thousands of years and continue to exist prominently would have died out in the 60's when movies began to become more grand in scope. Many of the greatest actors were trained on a stage, without the benefit of exotic locations or even elaborate sets.
I find that a bigger hindrance to film making today, perhaps highlighted by these volume sets, is that it doesn't allow for actors to really do anything. Again, look at a stage performance. You will frequently see actors moving across the entire set over the course of a scene. A "lifeless" stage feels more alive. Classic films had this as well. Actors could explore the entire set. Now, because of the way things are filmed and the tools used, EVEN when you have all this effort put into production design, you will see actors play statues. They will enter scene, move to their spot, and stay right there until scene is complete.
Look at 'Star Wars: Ahsoka', where this was done to the extreme and is probably why that show was often seen as being very boring. But even something that was praised, like the recent 'Shogun' series had the same problem. The Virtual sets make it worse because in order to maintain the illusion, the cameras and angle and props and actors all have to remain pretty much in a static position. You can have the most elaborate location, or the blandest, and a good actor - given the freedom to actually act - can make it work.
Never worked in VP, was thinking of doing it someday, but deep inside me I had that feeling that you have expressed verbally very accurately.
agree, it is great for shooting car comercials, especially close ups with a defocused background and the added benefits of "real" reflections, which are definitely a huge pain point in post otherwise, but yes it feels completely different having a real built set rather than a LED backdrop.
Not only technical limitations like Moire, not having a real sun light intensity and such, but also the lack of real atmospheric effects like wind, water and dust makes it pretty sterile. For effects heavy movies with tons of CGI characters it is a great replacement or a previz tool, to actors react to cues and correct eye lines and such, but as others also mentioned is the post production process still an invaluable step to ensure artistic freedom and change things later down the line. I think somehow the same way like Christopher Nolan who still prefers to shoot on film and use SFX rather than fully cmoputer generated effects. There is something nitty gritty about film (emulation and other artefacts) that cannot be easily replicated in a digital manner. A real explosion still looks far more convincing than a digital one,...nothing beats reality !!
You do know you add dust and other particles with vfx right😂you said a bunch of nothing. Just admit it's to complicated for you to understand and so you think keeping it old-school will help but it's not
@@moneymanifestation9505 based on your tone I assume a) too young b) not that experienced thus a comment like yours is disqualified !!
@@MarkStefenelli based on your reply your definitely a old guy that refuses to change with the times. I'm most likely the same age as you but the difference is I'm smart enough to embrace technology not automatically turn my nose up. You have missed the boat and your bitter
@@moneymanifestation9505 hahaha...you are funny, I am a co-owner of a huge LED stage....no comment 😂😂
@@MarkStefenelli you're so full of crap 🤣you just went on a big rant about how bad cgi is but you have an LED wall 🙄🤦🏽♂️I don't know who trying to impress but you sound stupid every comment you make. You spent a 100k or more on a wall you won't use 🤡yea right
while i ABSOLUTELY agree with your points here, i'm also really split over a fair amount of them: on one hand, i'm a filmmaker (writer, director, cinematographer) and could think of nothing better than having the chance to shoot on location and make the experience less contrived and more reactive. on the other hand, i was trained as an actor at the [now sadly defunct] webber douglas academy of dramatic art and worked professionally for many years as such. my training (and i'm confident in saying MANY others) revolved around imagining whole worlds / hellscapes / cathedrals while in a magnolia painted shoebox of a rehearsal room, only to find that professional engagements then were basically exactly the same during a professional run of a production. similarly, i was brought up in a theatrical family, my earliest memories are of standing in the wings in west end theatres or waiting for various members of family to finish takes at places like pinewood or ealing studios - i can tell you that, from the actor's perspective, SO often all you're seeing is the crap side of MDF uprights that only look good from the exact opposite direction you're facing. acting is about imagination and making your own truth in a setting that couldn't be further from the reality you're relied upon to present with emotional authenticity, to win over a famously suspicious audience to suspend their disbelief for that moment you're with them.
i'm all for weeks spent in the wilderness, often in shitty weather conditions, but no matter what - there will always be a small or sometimes large team of people in cagoules, brashly coloured padded gilets and warm hats, often munching on a leftover wrap from their lunch break and staring RIGHT in your eyeline. part of the craft is to make all that go away.
Very interesting video. Thank you.
I feel that cinema is presently diverging into two directions. One will be the high budget "product" that studios create using technology like this. The current strikes have already revealed the end game, the studios ultimate goals are to create large screen VFX spectacles based upon proven sequels, reboots, re-imaginings and to create them with as little human interaction, other than CGI technicians, as possible.
The goal isn't to place actors in LED stages, this is transitory technology, the goal is to completely eliminate actors, other than as voice, 3D and mocap input sources for AI. Same with crews, the studios desperately don't want to "shoot" films anymore, the goal is to replace crews with CGI artists and to create entire features in the computer, period. In CGI, everything can easily be commoditized, automated and made as efficient as humanly possible. The studios want to be out of the actor and crew business because there are too many variables, making films with humans is expensive and unpredictable. We live in the era of "good enough" and if enough audiences embrace these non-human created products and make the studios enough money, that is what studio features will become because it maximizes profits for shareholders.
There will be a backlash to this computer and AI rendered "product" and I believe that people will hunger for true cinematic art made with real actors, real human crews and yes, of course, those films will have CGI and VFX but we're talking films that are created for much smaller budgets, shot in real locations or at least on real soundstages rather than inside of a computer. The only question is what the ratio of AI conceived and executed product will be popular and in the cultural zeitgeist versus relegated to relative obscurity for niche audience of cineastes?
I liken this to the streaming versus vinyl ethos. Sure, vinyl has had a huge resurgence, but in relative terms, who consumes vinyl? Hipsters and those who care about it from the past, it's a tiny, tiny percentage overall of music consumed. Maybe "real/human crafted" films will be the same way? Who knows, perhaps we'll even see the resurgence of 80s to 90s indie type films and even art films? It wasn't that long ago that films like The Artist, Hugo were mainstream hits. Even now, films made with more creativity and artistry on small budgets like "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once" ($25mm) have been sizable hits and critical hits. Sure, lots of VFX and CGI but definitely made by humans on a relative shoestring.
I've been on several LED volumes and to me, there is just something off about the footage from them. The Mandolorian looked pretty good to me but everything else I've seen from LED Volumes looks like a tech demo, not a great film visual. I've shot in some epic places, the Sahara Desert, the Atlas Mountains, the rain forest in Brazil and I don't see LED stages being able to do more than a poor facsimile for most locations. It's sort of like experimental theater or Kabuki, it asks a lot of the audience to believe that the actors are really there.
Thank you ! 100& to the point !!
100% agree. But at the end of the day, what the studio wants, the studio gets.
As I documentary filmmaker I totally agree, but this industry along with travel and location costs etc have gotten so incredibly expensive, how do you create big film projects today without insane budgets?
As opposed to standing in front of a green scene?
What do you think it costs to send an entire crew, equipment, cast, not including accommodations, shuttles and all, without reliable weather to the Sahara desert, Faraway forest or even shooting exteriors when a major city is at sleep at night? It's all about the money.
Great insight. Most modern films suck because of this while Lawrence of Arabia, Flight of the Phoenix and even the spaghetti westerns have a timeless realism. I stopped going to theatres about 10 years ago. Too woke, too fake, too boring.
Scenic painters now only use one colour....greenscreen. its a shame, such talent never to be seen.
It’s about quantity not quality. Studios will shoot a movie in a basement if it saves time and money.
As long as the large audience will "buy" it, yes you're right.
Idk man. Maybe you dont understand that the sets for citizen kane are only built half built with the cellings open for light's and no 4th wall for thr crew. Nothings real expert the telents of cast and crew. Of course if it looks fake because of the quality of the CGI thats one thing. But as SW goes the new ones are shot to be more video game like. They could of match the old style exactly whitch they didn't do. Only at that point could you debate apples to apples. If your next video is about how alfred hitchcock's use of rear project ruined his films, then id agree with ya. Ed wood movies looked as fake as most of the new movies coming out these days. Id agree with that.
time to retire😢
I couldn’t agree more with your perspective on this. Even though I see it’s place in modern day films (such as creating a sci-fi environment that can’t be done otherwise (for budget reasons or others) I still think it’ll take away from the problem solving and creativity that historically has inspired amazing films.
+1
yo old man film is safe.... think of it as McDonalds of tv shows.... some directors like it.... some respect themselves... now chill and spent some time with your grandkids