Damn, I thought it was CG. Damn, I thought it was real.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2013   #1
Damn, I thought it was CG. Damn, I thought it was real.

Hi,

Now that CG is getting so good, I'm often guessing if something is CG or not when I watch scenes in movies.

I was thinking in Hugo, the automation ("An automaton is a mechanical human being or animal that historically worked via clockwork mechanisms because it predated electricity and the electric motor,") had to be CG, or at least parts must have been.

But it was all mechanical. The proof is here:
http://vimeo.com/33083224

Got any other links either way that could be CG or real, where on first viewing the audience might have got it the wrong way around?? Be fun to see some.


Cheers,
Jules
 
Old 05 May 2013   #2
I always assume Scorcese will use as little CG as possible.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #3
That is amazing! Like you I never suspected that scene was real. In the context of the film the scene felt real but like you say we are used to being fooled.

Frodo's forced perspective fooled me. I was sure it was CGI: Here.

Cheers
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
Old 05 May 2013   #4
Most digital double shots nowadays fool me. There are a few in The Avengers that astounded me.

The work done on TV shows, with regards to digital backdrops is also incredible. Ugly Betty has some AMAZING invisible work.

I recently watched Jurassic Park again...now that movie is pretty much the pinnacle of 'is it or isn't it?' in film!
 
Old 05 May 2013   #5
Originally Posted by Jules123: Hi,

Now that CG is getting so good, I'm often guessing if something is CG or not when I watch scenes in movies.

I was thinking in Hugo, the automation ("An automaton is a mechanical human being or animal that historically worked via clockwork mechanisms because it predated electricity and the electric motor,") had to be CG, or at least parts must have been.

But it was all mechanical. The proof is here:
http://vimeo.com/33083224

Got any other links either way that could be CG or real, where on first viewing the audience might have got it the wrong way around?? Be fun to see some.


Cheers,
Jules


the automaton was not always the real one, in serveral shost they used a cg model
 
Old 05 May 2013   #6
Wow, amazed that it actually draws the entire image, that's really cool.

I'm still blown away by what the animal trainers were able to get the ape in King Kong to do. When I watched the behind the scenes footage I was scared for the actors in the t-rex costumes who had to fight a full grown silverback.
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #7
Originally Posted by pingking: the automaton was not always the real one, in serveral shost they used a cg model

I guess that was the point of my thread. The part where the automaton is drawing the image from Georges Meliesís A Trip to The Moon (1902), was I assumed done in CG. Apparently not, all mechanical and no CG.

Originally Posted by Kanga: Frodo's forced perspective fooled me. I was sure it was CGI: Here.
Cheers

Cool, thanks for the link. I'll have to rewatch PJ's Hobbit now (which I'll do before part 2 anyway), just to see if I can spot the forced perspective; I guess a bit like trying to make the woman in this gif rotate either way on demand. Or if you get really good you can make her kick left/right, left/right...
http://www.moillusions.com/2007/06/...l-illusion.html

Jules
 
Old 05 May 2013   #8
Originally Posted by Kanga: That is amazing! Like you I never suspected that scene was real....

Cheers


Me neither. The fact it was a real mechanical robot makes it even more incredible than if it had been a CG one (which would also have been quite an accomplishment). All the gears, wheels and whirligigs inside are amazing to watch working.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #9
I'm actually 100% computer generated myself, but no one has noticed yet.

I'm always impressed how well Aardman incorporate CG into their stop motion movies without it sticking out like a sore thumb, the 'bunny vac' in The Curse of the Were Rabbit for example.

Cheers,
Brian
 
Old 05 May 2013   #10
Originally Posted by Jules123: Cool, thanks for the link. I'll have to rewatch PJ's Hobbit now (which I'll do before part 2 anyway), just to see if I can spot the forced perspective;


i doubt they have used (classic) forced perspektive in "the hobbit", because i wont work in stereo3d (which they shot). it only works in "2D"

but in the hobbit they used a more advanced version: they builded to 2 stages: one hobbit size and one in gandalf size and shot with 2 motion control connected cameras pairs
 
Old 05 May 2013   #11
Originally Posted by Horganovski: I'm actually 100% computer generated myself, but no one has noticed yet.

I'm always impressed how well Aardman incorporate CG into their stop motion movies without it sticking out like a sore thumb, the 'bunny vac' in The Curse of the Were Rabbit for example.

Cheers,
Brian


Ha! Good one.

IIRC, in Siggraph Pixomondo had mentioned that even the toy mouse scene in Hugo which seems to move in stop motion style was not CGI but actual model and shot as stop motion photography! Hugo has many such moments.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #12
Ah, yes, HUGO. It was awesome. I know some of the robot have to be real, but I didn't realize the drawing is real.

There is a comment that say the 'gears' was merely aesthetic and the drawing was controlled by a motorized magnet under the table. I understand but they should have show some (or was it their trade secret)?


There is also a scene in Real Steel (sorry! gotta include it ) that I didn't realize was real robot: the switch on scene. I've seen some production photos (Ambush inside the lorry) so I thought it would be a guy in suit, and get replaced. There are a lot of scenes that uses this anyway.

But they decided to go real, and didn't mention the reaction Dakota Goyo, and record his reaction (real or staged, I have no idea. I'll just take it at face value) when the robot switch on, get up, stares at dakota, and react to how he reacted (the robot control guys was staring at dakota and the robot).

Again, this is where I don't quite get. Was it cheaper? I mean ,you already have digital doubles, and you already uses it in lot of scenes, why bother with real automated ones? I understand if it require real interaction, but mostly its not. And usually they can get away with static model. But still, they decided to go with automated ones.

Which one is cheaper? Anyway, its cool!

Anyway, now that I know the switch on scene is real, does anyone know if the sleepy wake up pick up moment using cgi robot or real robot? Specially the close up. It was awesome. If 80's kid (?) have ET finger touch moment, this is my own personal moment.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #13
Lots of people come up to me saying "That guy who played the young Jeff Bridges was pretty good!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vgmn1tIstM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxvJfOBU5tE

Of course most of us know this but this of course how that was done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aU2pyMCRm0
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 05 May 2013   #14
I'm not fooled much by CG anymore. Not saying that I can't be or never am, but it's hard to think of Kermit as alive once you've seen the hand up his ass. I think that I'm less likely to question the verasamiltude of an effect if I'm drawn in by the supporting story. To me, believable ends up being much more important than realistic. I think that it's all about context and what I know or expect to be real. Obviously, a giant transforming robot sticks out much more than maybe a faithful digital recreation of old London. Honestly, I think that the last thing movie that comes to mind was Inception and its use of practical effects. Not so much surprised as impressed.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The views presented herein do not necessarily represent those of my brain.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #15
Originally Posted by cookepuss: I'm not fooled much by CG anymore.


I think you would be pleasantly surprised at what you just pass off as real in some films, where the CG has been used so seamlessly that it doesn't draw any attention to itself at all.
You have been fooled...you just didnt know it!

Originally Posted by fablefox: Again, this is where I don't quite get. Was it cheaper? I mean ,you already have digital doubles, and you already uses it in lot of scenes, why bother with real automated ones?


It depends on the shooting style of the director, and the acting style of the actor. A director who prefers a more organic way of filming, and an actor who relies on improv, would blow an effects budget out of the water with a carefully planned scene of VFX elements, because of the very nature of the shoot. You cant 'just try this' and 'maybe try that' on a carefully planned and executed VFX shot.

Take the Sky Loft in OBLIVION being mostly lit practically-they could get WAY more mileage out of those scenes than if it was green screened, as they would have to deal with spill on every single shot. Suddenly you cant just add in an extra shot, or extend a camera move, or shorten another. I also wouldn't be surprised if half of the scenes in the loft took place simply by existing in the space, and seeing what happens.

Plus, practical effects are just freaking awesome. If you guys haven't re watched Jurassic Park in 3D yet-do it. Not so much for the 3D (although it was a pretty decent conversion), but for the amazing marriage of practical and CG.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.