There is some crazy tricks they figured out for movies 100 +/- years ago. Way more interesting as CGI is just CGI, Green screens etc. This is why the CGI people at Corridor Crew focused more on practical effects on old movies too.
5:13 they really used this shot as a "bad" example when this is one of the most convincing painting shots I've ever seen. They even cut holes in the painting and flashed lights through them to simulate movement
The Wizard of Oz holds up better than most movies. Doesn’t even make sense. Especially with how well it’s been remastered. It shouldn’t be so convincing. Makeup and fx
Although not touched on here, one thing I will always admire is the practical effects of the 80's right before CGI took off, when the practical effects were at their peak. I'm not a fan of horror, but it always boggles my mind the sorts of practical effects seen in in movies like The Thing or The Fly. CGI is getting better all the time and I'm all for that, but it has yet to replace the sensation of something physically there.
Exactly I feel the same way. But shows like the mandalorian and the dark crystal mix both. Movies like Jurassic Park also do the same. To me that's the best way to do it.
They showed a lot of creativity in these early days. I think modern filmmakers become too dependent on CGI and it gets overused. I remember the early 2000's there was a ton of movies that used early CGI that looked terrible and now it looks completely dated. I think the best is when you don't notice the effects are there, this way it won't date the movie.
@@impcityangel3245 I used to love movies with animals in them, like Homeward Bound. I don't watch the new ones anymore because it's all CG animals and it's awful. The new Call of the Wild could have certainly used a real dog.
New technology and techniques always looks dated, simply by virtue of it still being immature and unrefined. This applies to both CGI and practical effects too. Early practical effects look comically fake compared to what would be done 60 or so years later.
It's cheaper to CGI everything. PDs, art directors, set decorators and set dressers have unions. Guess who doesn't? The studios don't even get enough time to finish most of the shots
The gelatin dead sea parting looked really convincing, especially when I watched it in our tiny old TV. Now I can't unsee the gelatin after watching this video.
A lot of old stuff gets overly criticized because we are watching it on 65 inch TVs in 4K as opposed to the busted little ghetto TVs they were originally meant for. If you watch it on one of those TVs, it still would look fantastic.
Original matte paintings were not put in afterwards, as stated (although this did begin to happen with the introduction of digital effects); the original matte paintings were on glass, and the cameras filmed live performers on sets through the holes in the painting, meaning the complete shot was done in camera, matte and all. Sometimes, as possibly in the Citizen Kane clip, extra holes were left or cut in the painting, which could then allow for some movement to be made behind it, to disrupt what might otherwise look like a flat still picture. Absolute works of art, matte paintings!
Matte paintings where not done in camera except maybe in rare cases. Because you'd end up having parts actors disappear behind the background as they moved through the set. They were overlayed afterwards using mirrors and projections and such. Honestly anyone complain about how CGI ruined movies has no idea what they were talking about, you effectively had analog versions of green screen back then and analog versions of post production where you would overlay a stop motion puppet onto a projection of the actor fighting thin air. Seriously go and watch old movies and you will find action scenes that are stop motion and matte painting heavy, with the same issues that CGI heavy movies have today. It's just that most of them are forgotten or niche now, and the few movies that pulled those techniques off make it seem like that was the norm. The amount of old films that successfully pulled off the old methods is probably similar to the amount of films that successfully pulled off heavy CGI use without it being too noticeable.
@@123mandalore777 I think the reason people criticize bad CGI today is because we have examples of "good CGI". Nobody complains about the special effects in Star Wars A New Hope, or Jurassic Park even though the work is objectively bad compared to what is possible these days, because they were done with the limitations of the technology in mind, same as the matt painting effect in Wizard of Oz, I mean that is an objectively bad effect by today's standards, but because the blocking was done with this technological constraint in mind, it doesn't take you out of the picture in the way that some of the very front and centre PS2 effects in a lot of 2000s movies do. In A New Hope, they took care to always have helmets on the actors when they used blue screen to limit the blue line around the hair, and in Jurassic Park, they kept the CGI to scenes where they had everything in their favour for their use (giving them cover, hiding them in shadows, intercutting with practical effects and never showing the subject for more than a second or so).
@@123mandalore777 This person is correct. They 100% put in the matte paintings later using optical compositors. You can see this very well in some of the old ILM/Star Wars/Indiana Jones specials.
Kong was never “Claymation”, he had a mechanical armature too, and had muscles and skin built up in layers of foam rubber and liquid latex. Ray Harryhausen’s puppets were typically all sculpted and then cast in foam rubber, with the mechanical armature inside.
The rabbit fur F/X expert Willis O'Brien used on Kong did sometimes look a little odd when the figure was animated. But the scene of Kong fighting the T. Rex was not equaled until 60 years later in "Jurassic Park," in the CGI T. Rex scene at the end.
@@wildman2012 I know they couldn't take the time out to do the proper research on the special effects of the original King Kong, thus making it sound more crude than the actual process was. There is a special magic to the original King Kong and to all of Ray Harryhausen's films that truly inspire whenever I watch them.
Not many of the modern examples mentioned in this clip were successes but I’ve heard of and seen almost all of the old ones. I wish more work was spent on scripts today, it is the most important part of a movie after all.
Sadly, the great special effects master, Douglas Trumbull, passed away early this month. He created the special effects and miniatures for 2001, A Space Odyssey (1968), and Blade Runner (1982). It's amazing how good they look even at this date. Foe Blade Runner, he used smoke to make his miniature city look realistic as the focus got hazier, the further you looked into his city. Practical miniature effects can be amazing when done well. The Blue Danube scene from 2001 is still awe-inspiring and I even still like the opening shot of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) with its massive ship ( a copy of the Queen Mary) sailing through rough waters.
It's a shame the Pepper's Ghost trick wasn't touched on here, since that was a pretty effective special effect that started off in theatres for stage plays before being utilised by movies. How they even came up with it in the first place is pretty mindblowing.
Small correction: the shot of Tippi Hedren driving from 'The Birds' is referred to as an example of "rear projection", but the shot was actually achieved as a Sodium Vapour Process Composite (a Travelling Matte technique that took advantage of the narrow spectrum of light produced by Sodium Vapour lamps, which could be filtered out using a specially created dichroic prism without affecting the overall colour of the live action elements, unfortunately the process fell into disuse because only a few of the prisms used were ever successfully manufactured and the process required a purpose-built two-strip camera to film with).
@@HenryLoenwindI've sometimes wondered how hard it would be to make a four-CCD camera with red/green/blue/sodium sensors, and use that for shooting high-quality composite shots which, as you note, could include translucent objects which woudln't work with blue screen or green screen.
@@flatfingertuning727 It'd be quite some challenge. Not the sodium sensor; that one's trivial. But you now need a filter material that filters out the sodium frequencies very narrow-banded from the red and green sensors. The existing filters for red, green and blue are wide-band, even overlapping each other (mimicking the filters in the human eye), and, most importantly, are continuous. And you need that extra filtering if you want transparency; otherwise, transparent areas are brighter from an "invisible light source" (i.e. instead of a "blue/green/black fringe", you get a "yellow fringe"). I don't think making such a thing is impossible with enough money, but that ship has sailed---Post-processing for green screen is so good nowadays; we can get everything a sodium screen would get us out of the computer. I recently was quite shocked by how a green screen shot looked---a RUclipsr had just unpacked a green screen, had someone holding it up all wrinkled and recht behind them, in a room with mixed lighting, and a huge shadow on the greenscreen, i.e. making every single mistake you can do when using a greenscreen. The result was flawless. No fringe (neither positive nor negative), no background flickering, no "cutout effect". The software they used even managed to tweak the light intensity to match the inserted background image well enough that it didn't stand out.
@@HenryLoenwind Didymium filters do a pretty good job of filtering out sodium light while passing through other wavelengths. Some colors look a little "off" when viewed through a didymium filter, but sodium light is pretty well negated. Trying to remove ordinary red and green while capturing sodium may be harder, but that could be dealt with by using retro-reflective film for things that should be transparent and putting a sodium light on the camera so that the image captured without a didymium filter would be dominated by sodium light that overall sensitivity wouldn't need to be very high. Incidentally, I wonder how the effectiveness of magenta screen would compare with that of green screen. I know green is chosen becuase many cameras have higher spacial resolution for green, but I would think that when shooting light objects, having the mask condition be "green is zero" could yield a sharper mask than "both red and blue are zero".
5:14 - The crowds scene for Kane's speech was a poor selection for a static matte painting. Orson Wells poked small holes in the matte and shined light behind it to create the effect of movement in the crowd. Another example of Wells' brilliance.
There is a scene in Hitchcock's movie, " Family Plot, " showing Dern and Harris in an out-of-control car driving down a mountain road. Even though rear projection is used, Hitchcock edited it so well that the tension is palpable. Brilliant!
I watched the DVD extras for Roger Rabbit. it's pretty amazing how they did that. They actually had robots underneath the animation. So when Roger is pouring himself a dram of scotch, that's actually a robot arm under his animated arm picking up the glass and bottle.
To be honest I prefer the labor and love used to give the audience the belief of the movie magic. They missed out to mention the films that used a mixed use of traditional and CGI FX's. The T-rex from Jurassic Park is a perfect example of a mastery of combining two styles.
Jurassic Park and Independence Day both had incredible effects that combined both and I love when modern filmmakers try to do that, or go entirely practical. While far from perfect and often over the top, the two Terrifier films had some great fx.
Citizens crowd in the foreground is also a matte painting. So in a sense Citizen Kane is a two stage approach to it. Foreground was „animated“ with light just enough to make it look lively enough to ignore the more static matte painting in the background on the first watch
I wondered how them 40s hand-drawn animations had different planes moving at different speeds, just lifelike. Whoa that were physical layers attached to the camera
Those layers were not "attached". They would move each layer at a different speed in front of the camera, background slower, foreground faster. This lady has no idea what she's talking about.
Great stuff, but one small correction: King Kong was not claymation. Kong had a metal armature with sponge rubber used for the body's musculature, which was then covered with rabbit fur. It used the same three-dimensional animation technique, though.
Working 43 years in film making, 38 of that in computer graphics and image processing; never seen "convincing" CGI to this day. It's still all very cartoon-y to me. :)
The most amazing part, is back in the early film making days, they did not have computers to do any of the work. Everything had to be done manually with physically splicing film. Far more tedious and difficult! So even though these effects may be crude compared to today's standards, they were still pretty amazing accomplishment's for the time, considering what they had to work with or lack of!
I’m so glad you Mentioned Disney’s multiplane camera. I was thinking about a documentary I saw that included that technology and I was hoping you would go over it! Also Ray Harryhausen was great. Loved his skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts! Great video thank you so much.
The old low tech effects were so expensive and time consuming that the movie makers actually couldn't afford to put so many effects in, so they still relied on good scripts, story and acting for the bulk of the film. Now lots of films just shove tons of cgi sequences in the whole movie at the expense of characters and story.
That's true 👍 Watch any modern CGI based war or action movie, the aircraft such as in that pile of crap Pearl Harbor seem to ignore the laws of physics. They fly in such a way that in reality the G forces would snap the wings off not to mention the pilots head!😅
He's awesome! Especially cleaning up with some of those "traditional good, computers bad" misconceptions as well. There's also the "No CGI just means invisible CGI" series that might help educate on the current trend of CGI bashing... 😊
Nice video but have to correct something. The original King Kong was not "claymation." Kong was a miniature articulated metal armature figure covered in fur.
I believe the shots on THE MANDALORIAN were first used on Tom Cruise’s underrated film OBLIVION. This is what gives OBLIVION its incredible lighting look also.
If you want to get technical. Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo from 1958 was the first film to make use of CGI, in it’s opening sequence. But it was made using a mechanical computer, not a digital one, so you can go ether way with that claim.
I think I invented the substitution splice when I was about 7 years old without realizing it already existed. I always wondered how effects like appearance were done, so I always presumed that was how.
Matte paintings definitely can have a more fantastic look, depending on the quality of the art. The best approach is to change the illusion from shot to shot.
I always picture the Wizard of Oz characters breaking through a matte painting before the director yelled 'CUT'. Note: Harryhausen. He's DA MAN!. I still love Jason and the Argonauts.
The Mandalorian is the future. A dome of LED or OLED etc., but a closed environment with actors. And this worked very well. This is the new way forward and I expect many other studios to copy this idea.
If I ever become a director I’ll do everything practical as much as I can. Too me the practical effects still look the best. When I saw 1983 The Thing and learned it was all practical effects I loved that movie even more because it all looked really good.
One critical note: the narrator referred to King Kong as a claymation creation. Willis O'Brian created Kong with a metal armature skeleton and covered with rabbit fur. No actual clay was used.
What always amazes me when I see actual matte paintings and actual miniatures that were used in movies is that matte paintings often lack detail. Brush strokes are left in but they don't show up on screen. Miniatures are the opposite-- they have amazing detail and the workmanship is extraordinary. Small details like rust or wear and tear are carefully painted on the model.
It's part of the illusion with matte paintings to lack detail... If it had sharper images we might focus on them... but by lacking detail our brain ignores the background and focus on the live action... that and it's cheaper to paint.
Pan's labyrinth, Hellboy, Shape of water and Pacific Rim are amazing films which their special effects stand up to this days. Guillermo del Toro and his team combines the best of Cgi and the best of practical efects.
Honestly this is what makes me want to be in the Movie business, Acting business or just outright make a amazing movie. Today Movie making and video production is more straight forward using either Blue or Green Screens, But Now Blue Screens are the biggest Movie production. I've worked with both Green Screen and Blue Screen and finding how they managed movies back before I was even born and how movies handled "CGI" Was more physical based and painted on or drawed... Something like Tim Burton films, Especially time Burton films using Stop animations is revolutionary and I fully admit that Stop Animation movies was or is still popular in my opinion. Again, Movie Production is one of the biggest things that go oversighted and the Visual effects teams are usually unappreciated because of the Marvels "Icon" Actors, But the real people who made that movie and made the Actors career is the people of the production. WIthout them, These movies would never be possible. Take a moment to thank people of the production and Art Designers, Video Development and Effects Teams.
As a lifetime casual enthusiast for VFX that was born in the 60s I can tell you all that approx 20% of that was just plain wrong, or was sort of right but was graphically depicted wrong. Still, it was mostly right, just a bit confused here and there.
The 1933 King Kong wasn’t done in “claymation”. It used stop motion with an 18” model. Front projection, rear projection, matte painting & matte shots (Dunning Process) were all used.
Regarding the 2020 version of 'The Invisible Man', I'm pretty sure that the folks wearing the green body suits were digitally edited out in Post Production and that no second version of the same scene was required. This process gives a more natural, organic reaction and is also helpful in establishing the eyeline. Unless anyone knows different of course. Great movie too - Elizabeth Moss conveys so much emotion without saying a single word.
@@thedarksiderebel ah - now that is a very good point you've made - I never thought of that, but it does of course make perfect sense. You're obviously well up on that kind of stuff, whilst I....well, not quite so much. Always good to learn something new 😊👍
When shooting "The Empire Strikes Back" Lucasfilm made a special effects documentary narrated by Mark Hamill, were he says, while explaining stop motion and miniatures "you can do this right at home with your toys." Really shines a light on how simple many of the effects from back in the day were. Surprisingly many of them still holds up as well
With regard to the thumbnail, and The Wizard of Oz film, MGM were unique in having most of their matte work done with pastel crayons on heavy black paperboard, rather than painting on glass or painting on some other type of artboard.
'oz' matte paintings might seem laughable, but still look better than 99.9999999% of the cgi crap today.. . i can't remember which film historian said it, but i think they put it best: "old school effects look fake, but feel real; while modern cgi looks real, but feels fake"
A LOT of movies today look "cheesy". CGI does not "awe" me. In my opinion, the technique is most effective when it is used in places you'd never suspect. A good example of CGI is the making of Forrest Gump--Chasing Gump with the truck, LT Dan's legs (Especially the apartment scene on New Year's), and the Vietnam scenes. But, using CGI to create characters, like talking animals, aliens, and monsters still looks cheesy.
cgi is very often used, where you'd never expect it, just think of all the digital set extensions. But you are right about cg characters, they look more often than not fake
@@jaredharris1970 the tools became better and artists use digital tablets instead of paper (undo anyone?). For 3d animation it's basically digital puppetry. The recent Arcane series on Netflix is a good example of mostly handcrafted animation (likely with the help of some motion capture here and there)
I wonder how prevalent these LED Boxes like used in Mandalorian will become? I'm sure there must be some quite steep limitations somewhere, but they seem like an extremely useful tool which is a massive stepup from green screen (the fact that the actors are able to see more of their environment must surely be a boon, although I wonder if it will ruin spontaneity a little since all the camera movements need to be preprogramed
Why do you think the camera movements need to be pre-programmed? There have been several instances of a handheld virtual camera being used in real-time in virtual environments. The Volume works in the same way, where the the camera's movements are tracked in real-time and the background displayed on the screens changes to keep the camera's view consistent in terms of parallax and depth
@@aridragonbeard745 Post-production compositing may allow certain levels of flexibility that would be problematic both with physical sets and models, and with pre-created interactive virtual sets. A nice real-world example of a shot illustrating this issue occurred an outtake for the Doctor Who serial "The Two Doctors", where Peri, photographed through a wrought iron fence, runs sideways and stops before addressing the doctor. In the outtake, she stopped in such a way that her face was obscured by one of the bars of the fence. If the fence were going to be added in post, the actress could have stopped anywhere and the fence could have been placed so as to not obscure her face. Because the physical fence placement was set in concrete before the shot, however (I think it was a real-world practical fence), the actress' movement had to be choreographed to fit.
the paintings in the wizard oz adds to the fantasy and children storybook feel which adds charm to it
Makes it more magical. Plus u can really see it.
Knowing how difficult it was to create these effects back then is what makes them so much more entertaining.
Exactly. Kind of removed the fun with movies now that we know they fix everything in post production
There is some crazy tricks they figured out for movies 100 +/- years ago. Way more interesting as CGI is just CGI, Green screens etc.
This is why the CGI people at Corridor Crew focused more on practical effects on old movies too.
@@dgeg1000 typical armchair warrior. How often have you been on set?
5:13 they really used this shot as a "bad" example when this is one of the most convincing painting shots I've ever seen. They even cut holes in the painting and flashed lights through them to simulate movement
It's kinda rude of them.
I would have had no clue the painting wasn’t onto the set
The Wizard of Oz holds up better than most movies. Doesn’t even make sense. Especially with how well it’s been remastered. It shouldn’t be so convincing. Makeup and fx
@@userunknown398 I think they're talking about Citizen Kane, not Wizard of Oz.
Ikr, realistic ≠ Better. For example all the disney "live action" remakes
Although not touched on here, one thing I will always admire is the practical effects of the 80's right before CGI took off, when the practical effects were at their peak. I'm not a fan of horror, but it always boggles my mind the sorts of practical effects seen in in movies like The Thing or The Fly. CGI is getting better all the time and I'm all for that, but it has yet to replace the sensation of something physically there.
Exactly I feel the same way.
But shows like the mandalorian and the dark crystal mix both. Movies like Jurassic Park also do the same. To me that's the best way to do it.
Kamen Rider Shin has really terrifying practical effect. Stuff of nightmare.
They showed a lot of creativity in these early days. I think modern filmmakers become too dependent on CGI and it gets overused. I remember the early 2000's there was a ton of movies that used early CGI that looked terrible and now it looks completely dated. I think the best is when you don't notice the effects are there, this way it won't date the movie.
It especially gets overused with animals.
Because burnouts are really common for the people who design them, generic monsters are the norm in films nowadays.
@@impcityangel3245 I used to love movies with animals in them, like Homeward Bound. I don't watch the new ones anymore because it's all CG animals and it's awful. The new Call of the Wild could have certainly used a real dog.
New technology and techniques always looks dated, simply by virtue of it still being immature and unrefined. This applies to both CGI and practical effects too. Early practical effects look comically fake compared to what would be done 60 or so years later.
It's cheaper to CGI everything. PDs, art directors, set decorators and set dressers have unions. Guess who doesn't? The studios don't even get enough time to finish most of the shots
I actually really love driving scenes with the obvious projector behind them 😅
See ‘Airplane’!
@@AtheistOrphan I was thinking the same…
Pulp fiction in the cab
Personally I’ve always hated it
Same here! There’s a quaintness to it, and an overwhelming feeling of nostalgia whenever I see it.
The gelatin dead sea parting looked really convincing, especially when I watched it in our tiny old TV. Now I can't unsee the gelatin after watching this video.
A lot of old stuff gets overly criticized because we are watching it on 65 inch TVs in 4K as opposed to the busted little ghetto TVs they were originally meant for. If you watch it on one of those TVs, it still would look fantastic.
The Ten Commandments SFX still amazes me. And Buster Keating's stunts are still mind boggling to this day.
Harold Lloyd also did some crazy practical effects in his films...
*Keaton.
Original matte paintings were not put in afterwards, as stated (although this did begin to happen with the introduction of digital effects); the original matte paintings were on glass, and the cameras filmed live performers on sets through the holes in the painting, meaning the complete shot was done in camera, matte and all. Sometimes, as possibly in the Citizen Kane clip, extra holes were left or cut in the painting, which could then allow for some movement to be made behind it, to disrupt what might otherwise look like a flat still picture. Absolute works of art, matte paintings!
Yes, that’s what I understood. It’s how they shot Tara in Gone With The Wind.
Matte paintings where not done in camera except maybe in rare cases. Because you'd end up having parts actors disappear behind the background as they moved through the set. They were overlayed afterwards using mirrors and projections and such. Honestly anyone complain about how CGI ruined movies has no idea what they were talking about, you effectively had analog versions of green screen back then and analog versions of post production where you would overlay a stop motion puppet onto a projection of the actor fighting thin air. Seriously go and watch old movies and you will find action scenes that are stop motion and matte painting heavy, with the same issues that CGI heavy movies have today. It's just that most of them are forgotten or niche now, and the few movies that pulled those techniques off make it seem like that was the norm. The amount of old films that successfully pulled off the old methods is probably similar to the amount of films that successfully pulled off heavy CGI use without it being too noticeable.
@@123mandalore777 I think the reason people criticize bad CGI today is because we have examples of "good CGI". Nobody complains about the special effects in Star Wars A New Hope, or Jurassic Park even though the work is objectively bad compared to what is possible these days, because they were done with the limitations of the technology in mind, same as the matt painting effect in Wizard of Oz, I mean that is an objectively bad effect by today's standards, but because the blocking was done with this technological constraint in mind, it doesn't take you out of the picture in the way that some of the very front and centre PS2 effects in a lot of 2000s movies do. In A New Hope, they took care to always have helmets on the actors when they used blue screen to limit the blue line around the hair, and in Jurassic Park, they kept the CGI to scenes where they had everything in their favour for their use (giving them cover, hiding them in shadows, intercutting with practical effects and never showing the subject for more than a second or so).
it was mostly done afterwards
@@123mandalore777 This person is correct. They 100% put in the matte paintings later using optical compositors. You can see this very well in some of the old ILM/Star Wars/Indiana Jones specials.
Some of those old effects are very convincing though
Ahhh yes, what a special effect, a well written script and great acting.
Kong was never “Claymation”, he had a mechanical armature too, and had muscles and skin built up in layers of foam rubber and liquid latex. Ray Harryhausen’s puppets were typically all sculpted and then cast in foam rubber, with the mechanical armature inside.
I'm glad you made this observation; I also had a problem with 'claymation' with Kong's reference.
The rabbit fur F/X expert Willis O'Brien used on Kong did sometimes look a little odd when the figure was animated. But the scene of Kong fighting the T. Rex was not equaled until 60 years later in "Jurassic Park," in the CGI T. Rex scene at the end.
@@wildman2012 I know they couldn't take the time out to do the proper research on the special effects of the original King Kong, thus making it sound more crude than the actual process was. There is a special magic to the original King Kong and to all of Ray Harryhausen's films that truly inspire whenever I watch them.
I think it’s so cool how inventive they were. We improve on what we know.
Not many of the modern examples mentioned in this clip were successes but I’ve heard of and seen almost all of the old ones. I wish more work was spent on scripts today, it is the most important part of a movie after all.
Sadly, the great special effects master, Douglas Trumbull, passed away early this month. He created the special effects and miniatures for 2001, A Space Odyssey (1968), and Blade Runner (1982). It's amazing how good they look even at this date. Foe Blade Runner, he used smoke to make his miniature city look realistic as the focus got hazier, the further you looked into his city.
Practical miniature effects can be amazing when done well. The Blue Danube scene from 2001 is still awe-inspiring and I even still like the opening shot of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) with its massive ship ( a copy of the Queen Mary) sailing through rough waters.
Sometimes practical looks so damn convincing compared to cgi. John Carpenter's The Thing will always blow my mind.
It's a shame the Pepper's Ghost trick wasn't touched on here, since that was a pretty effective special effect that started off in theatres for stage plays before being utilised by movies. How they even came up with it in the first place is pretty mindblowing.
A variant of the Pepper's Ghost technique was used in The Lord Of The Rings for Shadowfax to appear to be rearing up over the funeral pyre.
Small correction: the shot of Tippi Hedren driving from 'The Birds' is referred to as an example of "rear projection", but the shot was actually achieved as a Sodium Vapour Process Composite (a Travelling Matte technique that took advantage of the narrow spectrum of light produced by Sodium Vapour lamps, which could be filtered out using a specially created dichroic prism without affecting the overall colour of the live action elements, unfortunately the process fell into disuse because only a few of the prisms used were ever successfully manufactured and the process required a purpose-built two-strip camera to film with).
Woah, that's pretty neat!
@@brickman409 It gets even neater when you realize that this process allows you to use translucent objects like silky clothing.
@@HenryLoenwindI've sometimes wondered how hard it would be to make a four-CCD camera with red/green/blue/sodium sensors, and use that for shooting high-quality composite shots which, as you note, could include translucent objects which woudln't work with blue screen or green screen.
@@flatfingertuning727 It'd be quite some challenge. Not the sodium sensor; that one's trivial. But you now need a filter material that filters out the sodium frequencies very narrow-banded from the red and green sensors.
The existing filters for red, green and blue are wide-band, even overlapping each other (mimicking the filters in the human eye), and, most importantly, are continuous.
And you need that extra filtering if you want transparency; otherwise, transparent areas are brighter from an "invisible light source" (i.e. instead of a "blue/green/black fringe", you get a "yellow fringe").
I don't think making such a thing is impossible with enough money, but that ship has sailed---Post-processing for green screen is so good nowadays; we can get everything a sodium screen would get us out of the computer.
I recently was quite shocked by how a green screen shot looked---a RUclipsr had just unpacked a green screen, had someone holding it up all wrinkled and recht behind them, in a room with mixed lighting, and a huge shadow on the greenscreen, i.e. making every single mistake you can do when using a greenscreen. The result was flawless. No fringe (neither positive nor negative), no background flickering, no "cutout effect". The software they used even managed to tweak the light intensity to match the inserted background image well enough that it didn't stand out.
@@HenryLoenwind Didymium filters do a pretty good job of filtering out sodium light while passing through other wavelengths. Some colors look a little "off" when viewed through a didymium filter, but sodium light is pretty well negated. Trying to remove ordinary red and green while capturing sodium may be harder, but that could be dealt with by using retro-reflective film for things that should be transparent and putting a sodium light on the camera so that the image captured without a didymium filter would be dominated by sodium light that overall sensitivity wouldn't need to be very high.
Incidentally, I wonder how the effectiveness of magenta screen would compare with that of green screen. I know green is chosen becuase many cameras have higher spacial resolution for green, but I would think that when shooting light objects, having the mask condition be "green is zero" could yield a sharper mask than "both red and blue are zero".
The Harryhausen effects still wow today. Amazing.
He was an artist who did the work of a scientist/magician!
5:14 - The crowds scene for Kane's speech was a poor selection for a static matte painting. Orson Wells poked small holes in the matte and shined light behind it to create the effect of movement in the crowd. Another example of Wells' brilliance.
There is a scene in Hitchcock's movie, " Family Plot, " showing Dern and Harris in an out-of-control car driving down a mountain road. Even though rear projection is used, Hitchcock edited it so well that the tension is palpable. Brilliant!
That skeleton fight looks more real than some things today!
It really doesn’t 💀
The only thing lacking is motion blur, which was hard to create with stop-motion puppet armatures.
I’m looking at you, Scorpion King!
@@pokkemuur6539 yea ur right 💀💀💀
Better than those UFO footage 💀
Ah yes, having someone in a mocap suit to portray a dog is much more advanced than actually having a dog on set.
Thank you for putting all of these together.
I watched the DVD extras for Roger Rabbit. it's pretty amazing how they did that. They actually had robots underneath the animation. So when Roger is pouring himself a dram of scotch, that's actually a robot arm under his animated arm picking up the glass and bottle.
5:05 - glass matte shots are done "live", with the camera pointing through the pre-painted matte. They are not optically composited later.
The 'old' technology keeps on coming back. We can see on the utilization of that big curve lcd movie set
I find special effects in older films to feel more natural and beautiful than nowadays (if done correctly)
I was born in the early 2000s and even I feel like older films that don't have believe-able effects has a at home natural feeling into them
To be honest I prefer the labor and love used to give the audience the belief of the movie magic. They missed out to mention the films that used a mixed use of traditional and CGI FX's. The T-rex from Jurassic Park is a perfect example of a mastery of combining two styles.
And a;ll of the work done on Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films.
Jurassic Park and Independence Day both had incredible effects that combined both and I love when modern filmmakers try to do that, or go entirely practical. While far from perfect and often over the top, the two Terrifier films had some great fx.
Okay the skeleton fight was actual gold
Citizens crowd in the foreground is also a matte painting. So in a sense Citizen Kane is a two stage approach to it. Foreground was „animated“ with light just enough to make it look lively enough to ignore the more static matte painting in the background on the first watch
I wondered how them 40s hand-drawn animations had different planes moving at different speeds, just lifelike. Whoa that were physical layers attached to the camera
Those layers were not "attached". They would move each layer at a different speed in front of the camera, background slower, foreground faster. This lady has no idea what she's talking about.
Hey, there's nothing bad about old special effects.
Sometimes they can look primitive, but the creativity shines.
"it's still hard to overcome the flatness of a painting" THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT GOOD AAAAAAAAAA-
Great stuff, but one small correction: King Kong was not claymation. Kong had a metal armature with sponge rubber used for the body's musculature, which was then covered with rabbit fur. It used the same three-dimensional animation technique, though.
“The rocks stunt double”😮 that and him not coming off the top with promos is like finding out Santa isn’t real
Working 43 years in film making, 38 of that in computer graphics and image processing; never seen "convincing" CGI to this day. It's still all very cartoon-y to me. :)
this is insane how'd they even come up with this 9:33
Even today in 2024, the Ray Harryhausen films look *AMAZING!*
The most amazing part, is back in the early film making days, they did not have computers to do any of the work. Everything had to be done manually with physically splicing film. Far more tedious and difficult! So even though these effects may be crude compared to today's standards, they were still pretty amazing accomplishment's for the time, considering what they had to work with or lack of!
I’m so glad you Mentioned Disney’s multiplane camera. I was thinking about a documentary I saw that included that technology and I was hoping you would go over it!
Also Ray Harryhausen was great. Loved his skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts! Great video thank you so much.
Ray Harryhausen’s Stop motion has an art and charm of its own and it pulls you into the fantasy like nothing else.
Great job !! In few minutes you showed the most used image tricks of cinema history. Well done.
Greetings from Brasil
Some of those "low tech" effects are still better than the physics defying cgi effects we see today.
The old low tech effects were so expensive and time consuming that the movie makers actually couldn't afford to put so many effects in, so they still relied on good scripts, story and acting for the bulk of the film. Now lots of films just shove tons of cgi sequences in the whole movie at the expense of characters and story.
That's true 👍
Watch any modern CGI based war or action movie, the aircraft such as in that pile of crap Pearl Harbor seem to ignore the laws of physics. They fly in such a way that in reality the G forces would snap the wings off not to mention the pilots head!😅
The first time I saw 2001 as a kid I thought the Dawn Of Man section was shot on location because it looked so convincing.
Until I saw this video, I thought that, too.
If you enjoyed this you should check out captain disillusion, he goes in depth on many of these techniques in fun ways
He's awesome! Especially cleaning up with some of those "traditional good, computers bad" misconceptions as well. There's also the "No CGI just means invisible CGI" series that might help educate on the current trend of CGI bashing... 😊
They really put a lot of effort into creating those old techniques
Nice video but have to correct something. The original King Kong was not "claymation." Kong was a miniature articulated metal armature figure covered in fur.
Yeah, I hate when people use "claymation" interchangeably for "stop motion".
"Claymation" is a trademark. And, so is "Animatronics."
ahhhh yes... modern cinema... where people put more effort in special effects instead of making a well constructed and interesting plot
And much of the time the effects still look worse somehow. Great success 🙄
Well, i mean, car go kaboom is kinda fun
true
We live in a society
Yes, because older movies all had well constructed and interesting plots. Lmao
I believe the shots on THE MANDALORIAN were first used on Tom Cruise’s underrated film OBLIVION. This is what gives OBLIVION its incredible lighting look also.
If you want to get technical. Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo from 1958 was the first film to make use of CGI, in it’s opening sequence. But it was made using a mechanical computer, not a digital one, so you can go ether way with that claim.
Not, reaally, but technically maybr
Some of these OG effects still beat the crap out of the new CGI. (Black Panther ending fight scene was hilarious).
Those effects are so amazing during the times of Cinema
I think I invented the substitution splice when I was about 7 years old without realizing it already existed. I always wondered how effects like appearance were done, so I always presumed that was how.
When you watch corridor crew and know some things!
we have an intellectual among us
Yeah
Bandstand fam comeback with the fire samples vids
Julie "The expert Professor" gives us the most obvious take on each scene. "The old movies didn't have computers, so they used paint and stuff."
I know I'm in the minority but I really like the look of matte painted set extensions.
Not me. It looks distracting and fake to me.
Matte paintings definitely can have a more fantastic look, depending on the quality of the art.
The best approach is to change the illusion from shot to shot.
I clicked it on time!!!
Hey MovieInsider🤚
The green suit performer is a cool concept I like that
To make it short, visual artists back then have more creativity without having the technology we have today.
I always picture the Wizard of Oz characters breaking through a matte painting before the director yelled 'CUT'. Note: Harryhausen. He's DA MAN!. I still love Jason and the Argonauts.
Informative and well narrated. Not 8 minutes if unrelated junk, just a smooth and entertaining voice-over job.
Well done.
The Mandalorian is the future. A dome of LED or OLED etc., but a closed environment with actors. And this worked very well. This is the new way forward and I expect many other studios to copy this idea.
The technology is proprietary. It was developed by Disney's Industrial Light & Magic.
Matte Painting the backdrops was used to incredible effect for the OT Star Wars Movies!!!!!!!!
i liked this, showing how all our fancy techniques now are just the evolution of past ones!
Disneys early cartoon animations are impressive.
Walt Disney was the undisputed leader of classical animation. The company's management was foolish for abandoning the medium in feature films.
Wow, that’s encredibel, the amount of shear ingenuity
If I ever become a director I’ll do everything practical as much as I can. Too me the practical effects still look the best. When I saw 1983 The Thing and learned it was all practical effects I loved that movie even more because it all looked really good.
Yeah, the reality of the situation is that unless you have some clout in the industry, the producers will force you to use CGI.
One critical note: the narrator referred to King Kong as a claymation creation. Willis O'Brian created Kong with a metal armature skeleton and covered with rabbit fur. No actual clay was used.
Thank you
FX ideas.
✨👍✨
Isn't it cool!? Incredibly creative people entertaining us.
What always amazes me when I see actual matte paintings and actual miniatures that were used in movies is that matte paintings often lack detail. Brush strokes are left in but they don't show up on screen. Miniatures are the opposite-- they have amazing detail and the workmanship is extraordinary. Small details like rust or wear and tear are carefully painted on the model.
It's part of the illusion with matte paintings to lack detail... If it had sharper images we might focus on them... but by lacking detail our brain ignores the background and focus on the live action... that and it's cheaper to paint.
Ray Harryhausen was a genius, and his films are a lot better than some of the tripe which gets released now.
Even with the artifacts on old film it still looks way better than modern movies going full cg
Pan's labyrinth, Hellboy, Shape of water and Pacific Rim are amazing films which their special effects stand up to this days. Guillermo del Toro and his team combines the best of Cgi and the best of practical efects.
Hellboy toooo. I am really fascinated by the characters when I watched them as a child, especially the fish guy one.
Honestly this is what makes me want to be in the Movie business, Acting business or just outright make a amazing movie. Today Movie making and video production is more straight forward using either Blue or Green Screens, But Now Blue Screens are the biggest Movie production. I've worked with both Green Screen and Blue Screen and finding how they managed movies back before I was even born and how movies handled "CGI" Was more physical based and painted on or drawed... Something like Tim Burton films, Especially time Burton films using Stop animations is revolutionary and I fully admit that Stop Animation movies was or is still popular in my opinion. Again, Movie Production is one of the biggest things that go oversighted and the Visual effects teams are usually unappreciated because of the Marvels "Icon" Actors, But the real people who made that movie and made the Actors career is the people of the production. WIthout them, These movies would never be possible.
Take a moment to thank people of the production and Art Designers, Video Development and Effects Teams.
8:01 weird explanation
Harry Harryhausen.
Never stops amazing
Fascinating! Thanks for making this video!
Every video Insider makes is top shelf! Good stuff... cool. Thank you...
First time to learn such things. Mind blowing!
Now I need a video like this but talking about practical effects in horror movies. Cause those new one sometimes look... weird.
using jelly for movie is crazy bro💀
Many thanks for all the work and the insights!
As a lifetime casual enthusiast for VFX that was born in the 60s I can tell you all that approx 20% of that was just plain wrong, or was sort of right but was graphically depicted wrong. Still, it was mostly right, just a bit confused here and there.
This really feels like something put together with as little research as possible and just for views.
So why not SAY what was wrong then instead of "yeah that's like 20% wrong but I'm not gonna say what parts"?
@@BJGvideos because a year later only one person cares.
IMHO nothing has ever been done better than the skeleton fight scene in Jason and the Argonauts
The 1933 King Kong wasn’t done in “claymation”. It used stop motion with an 18” model. Front projection, rear projection, matte painting & matte shots (Dunning Process) were all used.
That was an excellent piece.
Very informative and interesting. Thank you!
Black Narcissus had amazing effects.
Watch the scene in which they ring the bell in the morning, or when one character falls over a cliff
@4:13 shout to that beautiful temple in Tamilnadu ❤
Regarding the 2020 version of 'The Invisible Man', I'm pretty sure that the folks wearing the green body suits were digitally edited out in Post Production and that no second version of the same scene was required. This process gives a more natural, organic reaction and is also helpful in establishing the eyeline.
Unless anyone knows different of course.
Great movie too - Elizabeth Moss conveys so much emotion without saying a single word.
The "second version" was a clean plate pass with a motion control camera. Got to have something to go under the erased green suit
@@thedarksiderebel ah - now that is a very good point you've made - I never thought of that, but it does of course make perfect sense. You're obviously well up on that kind of stuff, whilst I....well, not quite so much. Always good to learn something new 😊👍
I miss the days of practical effects. seems like most films just rely on CG way too much now
When shooting "The Empire Strikes Back" Lucasfilm made a special effects documentary narrated by Mark Hamill, were he says, while explaining stop motion and miniatures "you can do this right at home with your toys." Really shines a light on how simple many of the effects from back in the day were. Surprisingly many of them still holds up as well
And that’s how we got Robot Chicken.
@@peterkrochmalni673 Hahaha that's true
Just an awesome video, thank you!
With regard to the thumbnail, and The Wizard of Oz film, MGM were unique in having most of their matte work done with pastel crayons on heavy black paperboard, rather than painting on glass or painting on some other type of artboard.
'oz' matte paintings might seem laughable, but still look better than 99.9999999% of the cgi crap today.. . i can't remember which film historian said it, but i think they put it best: "old school effects look fake, but feel real; while modern cgi looks real, but feels fake"
A LOT of movies today look "cheesy". CGI does not "awe" me. In my opinion, the technique is most effective when it is used in places you'd never suspect. A good example of CGI is the making of Forrest Gump--Chasing Gump with the truck, LT Dan's legs (Especially the apartment scene on New Year's), and the Vietnam scenes. But, using CGI to create characters, like talking animals, aliens, and monsters still looks cheesy.
cgi is very often used, where you'd never expect it, just think of all the digital set extensions. But you are right about cg characters, they look more often than not fake
My gripe is hand drawn animation vs computer generated animation I miss old school hand drawn because it’s just classic
*computer "aided" animation. Outside of motion capture, most animation in film and games is still hand crafted.
@ I was not aware i thought hand drawn on actual paper went extinct I used to spot drawing mistakes in cartoons
@@jaredharris1970 the tools became better and artists use digital tablets instead of paper (undo anyone?). For 3d animation it's basically digital puppetry.
The recent Arcane series on Netflix is a good example of mostly handcrafted animation (likely with the help of some motion capture here and there)
I wonder how prevalent these LED Boxes like used in Mandalorian will become? I'm sure there must be some quite steep limitations somewhere, but they seem like an extremely useful tool which is a massive stepup from green screen (the fact that the actors are able to see more of their environment must surely be a boon, although I wonder if it will ruin spontaneity a little since all the camera movements need to be preprogramed
Why do you think the camera movements need to be pre-programmed? There have been several instances of a handheld virtual camera being used in real-time in virtual environments. The Volume works in the same way, where the the camera's movements are tracked in real-time and the background displayed on the screens changes to keep the camera's view consistent in terms of parallax and depth
@@aridragonbeard745 Post-production compositing may allow certain levels of flexibility that would be problematic both with physical sets and models, and with pre-created interactive virtual sets. A nice real-world example of a shot illustrating this issue occurred an outtake for the Doctor Who serial "The Two Doctors", where Peri, photographed through a wrought iron fence, runs sideways and stops before addressing the doctor. In the outtake, she stopped in such a way that her face was obscured by one of the bars of the fence. If the fence were going to be added in post, the actress could have stopped anywhere and the fence could have been placed so as to not obscure her face. Because the physical fence placement was set in concrete before the shot, however (I think it was a real-world practical fence), the actress' movement had to be choreographed to fit.