"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (3/4)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- Part 4 will be released late April! Thank you for your patience.
Welcome to part 3! For more on how awesome matte paintings are, please check the blog "Matte Shot"
nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.com/
Timecodes
0:00 - Intro
1:33 - Barbie
5:45 - Bluescreen removal
7:11 - "Lazy filmmaking" / Matte paintings
13:47 - What is CGI
16:18 - What is VFX
16:55 - What is practical filmmaking
18:23 - Oppenheimer - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Turns out “every frame a painting” was actually just a true statement
Ha, accurate
He also completely missed the point that paintings unlike CG are tangible, real objects. He was creating a complete strawman.
@@EbonyPope And uh, what exactly is YOUR point?
Every Frame Is A Painting is a CZcams channel
@@thewrongvine Exactly the one I pointed out. He is missing the point. When people say they prefer real things they don't mean they don't want to see special effects. That is a strawman he is implying here. Nobody cares if you use effects. And in the example he chose there is also another aspect that isn't comparable to CG used in movies. Yes matte paintings were used. But unlike CG matte paintings is real art. You know it was painted by someone with very special fine motor skills very few people possess. You don't need special skills apart from a little bit of creativity and dedication to make a 3D model. I hope you get it now.
God this is another slap in the face for VFX artists. "We're gonna get you to work overtime 7 days a week and then we're going to give your credit to the practical effects team"
"And then we're gonna use your own work to erase any evidence of your existence from promos and BTS footage"
Being a VFX artist has to be so demoralizing. I don't know how people do it.
@@zeronightex Probably for money.
@@henriklarsson5221 Oh do I have news for you... 😃 there is no money in VFX sadly. That's why you hear so much about overworked and underpaid employees around the world.
That's one of the reasons why I moved to game development.
I was NOT ready for the altered BTS footage to hide Blue screens. That is wild!
It's a whole new level of VFX hatred performed by the studios themselves to placate ignorant nerds worshipping practical effects.
im shocked! I was a lead artist on Barbie, and im blown away by that.
That is so fucking awful from Warner Bros, holy shit.
People don't care if it was filmed in a studio or not. AVATAR IS ALMOST 100% CGI and are the two biggest box office hits of literally all time. Stop worring about showing blue screens and just make good movies.
To me, that is the most horrid thing in all of this. spending the time and money to digitally alter your behind the scenes footage just to lie to people about not using digital footage. and in the process attacking the work of thousands of real artists.
5:47 Removing bluescreens from behind the scenes footage is just *wild* 😂
No matter what Video it is on CZcams, if it mentions CGI or Blender, you comment
@@florianwiedner Well, he's the guy who got a LOT of people into 3D with his free online tutorials.
So, that's a kind of his job, to be active part of this community.
And also, he seems to be quite nice.
So, you shouldn't be annoyed by him.
@@fortissimoX okay, my comment was a little misleading. He's the one who got me into 3d and I'm not annoyed he comments. It was just a funny thing I noticed and I wanted to point it out.
you taught me how to make a 3D donut long ago! nice seeing your comment here.
god, i feel really bad for the CGI studio
Removing the blue screen from the b roll footage is ... insane.
That's like showing a slaughterhouse and replacing cows with cow-shaped sausages.
They used VFX... to hide the VFX from the b roll... demonstrating how they didn’t use VFX. 🤯
It’s insulting honestly. Studios are crazy
@@ArifRWinandar Except there are reasonable explanations for why someone would want to conceal elements of a slaughterhouse lol
Criminal, even
Those matte paintings are so seamless. It boggles the mind.
When I watched those old movies when I was a kid, I used to think "wow, they had to build all those sets." But no, turns out they didn't.
They certainly were! I think the older films were framed better for those long shots with matte paintings so they were literally background and tended to blend in. A lot of films today are CUT, CUT, CUT, and you don't even have time to notice so they can get away with anything.
It also helps that a lot of matte paintings were designed to be shown on the lower resolutions at the time too - it's harder to get away with now when using a lingering shot.
I kind of wish movies today would actually go back to that type of effect more.
@osmanyousif7849 Matte paintings don't work nearly as well in crystal clear high definition. They worked so well back then because it was filmed on celluloid which has its own grain.
Even then, it wasn't invisible.
Today's compositing is miles ahead of what they had back then.
@@wiredforstereo, what about miniatures? As I feel like those type of effects don’t get talked about as much today (even though the video here does mention Oppenheimer using miniatures). Especially since I always think about what some action scenes could look like, if CGI wasn’t used, but neither was practical, and the studio used miniatures.
So many amazingly researched moments and insights. You’re crushing it with this series!
I've watched your VFX reacts so much that this series gives me chills when he mentions any technique or concept also brought up in VFX react. It kind of feels like I didn't fail Corridor Crew in learning all these knowledge. While this series is fantastically insightful, I still want to express my appreciation for everything Corridor Crew has taught me.
Thank you! Bummed you beat me to Barbenheimer by 5 days, loved that video 😬
You should invite him to your sofa, get even more exposure onto this "no cgi"-BS.
@@IonSnake ikr!
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I wanted to say - I found your channel when you had barely 4k subscribers and the first video of this series was just posted - you are doing amazing work, have an extremely nice and likeable on screen persona, and your visual work to underscore what you are talking about - plus your research - are top quality. I wish you a lot of success!
I have been a matte painter and 3D environment artist for film for just over 7 years and I work at Framestore. It makes me happy to see more more exposure to this craft. It really is an invisible art and there are so many incredible artists that do amazing work that dont get the credit they deserve.
wow, I commend your guys work man. Many older movies are masterpieces because you guys exist.
As for Tom Cruise you dont exist, no cgi! no cgi!
Maybe a few more decades of stuff like this and screaming morons like @EbonyPope will start to diminish. In their myopic, ignorant, hilariously and publicly embarrassing view you're not an artist. Because, y'know, digital.
These videos should be automatically linked on every social media post talking about CGI.
It should automatically be the first thing people see when they turn on their computers.
We have a duty brothers and sisters
It should be the first 30 minute segment of every movie. Automatically makes movies better when you think "those ain't real, ain't it?" on every scene.
Lol thanks, people
INB4 automated Community Notes with this
18:09 There is not a single word in this sentence that was not cut together by the editor 😂😂
Good ear buddy! So funny! It's like a sound board!
Accurate
Wow I didn't catch that at first, but now I can't unhear it lol
CGS?
czcams.com/video/Ofv63miNU1g/video.htmlsi=OYNQdpQJ24PayPrn
What I really love about this series is that it's not a debunking or a takedown of misinformation but instead a celebration of the amazing achievements which made all these movies possible.
It's kind of both, actually.
@@KTSpeedrunsIt is
I wish the dumb headlines like ‘No CGi’ and ‘Film Practically’ could extend to other parts of filmmaking.
“New Tron movie shoot without any lighting”
“Dune Part 3 principle photography completed with only stand-in actors”
“Deadpool 3 required no color grading”
“Actor makes a statement about post production that they weren’t involved in”
To be honest, I think "no color grading" *would* sell tickets as a marketing line, regardless of whether it was true or not. People generally like seeing their favorite actors in a movie so bragging about not having actors sounds horrible, but if you tell them that all the beautiful shots really looked like that when they were shot? Sounds good.
Of course, that would require a general audience to know what color grading even is.
It is understandable though. Would you admire someone who said he made a magic trick and then goes to show you footage where he digitally removed the coin? Or would you rather be impressed by someone who made the coin disappear in your own hand while you stand there and watched? I think the answer is obvious. CG evolved from a tool to an outright cancer. People are just thirsty for authenticity. I get that.
“Actor makes a statement about post production that they weren’t involved in” HA sooo many times.
People get outraged by this but close to twenty straight years of "CGI IS BAD/OVERDONE" or "PRACTICAL EFFECTS ARE ALWAYS BETTER" becoming the defacto opinions of film fans online, well... Of course studios are going to play to an audience making it's druthers loudly known.
@@DanLynch2814 Oh really!! I didn't notice that scaning a actors body or face or lead actors mocap performance is a principle photography!!🤦♂
This is a must watch series for cinephiles
It should be eye-opening for some people. And it's long overdue, the "practical is better" narrative went too far.
Completely agree.
@@jackiemortesYup, a copied opinion they uphold like they came up with it completely on their own
With the millions of dollars spend for movie productions, perhaps some of this money could be spend to replace advertisments before movies with this series.
Wouldn't even be tpo dissimilar: it IS a fantastic advertisment for the genius of filmmaking.
And "CGI" haters.
Okay using cgi to make your behind the scenes footage look like they didn't use cgi is a whole new level of insane.
And I think you're way too lenient when giving all these people who worked on those films the benefit of a doubt that they just didn't realize how many digital effects these movies used.
In fairness, people from production like the costume designers, set builders, and even actors (who are not also producers) don't usually get told when their work is replaced in post. They saw the costumes and sets being used during filming.
Also, a lot of those BTS interviews are shot while they are filming the movie, when they might still think no VFX will be needed in post
It sounds like an Onion headline
How much is the interviewee not knowing things and how much is the Studio binging them contractually to PRETEND they don't know things?
Instead of them investing the money into positive press for "invisible" CGI and slowly killing the ridiculous stigma of even good effects being used, they play around the stereotypes and try to hide how much effects contribute to their approved movies. THAT is insanity...
Let's be honest. WHO cares if it's CGI or SFX or "done in camera"?? A director and editor has many tools and they should as many of those as necessary to deliver great and enjoyable entertainment. If they save money by using artificial fibers for the stand in or stunt double uniforms instead of silk and wool but it looks convincingly enough on the Silver Screen... good. Movies are expensive and everything that makes that more manageable is a good idea. As long as the product does not suffer under shoddy work. I'd rather have them use 200 more digital effects shots and the actors and crew get paid decently than the other way round, starving your employees to pay for "real effects"...
There are blue screens around the set and they still say "we're not using CGI." Like do they expect to see a big blue screen in the finished movie?
@@Ugly_German_Truths Years of bad CGI have ruined the reputation of CGI so much that no one wants to say they use it even if they do it well. They could try and rehabilitate that reputation by saying "yeah our CGI is awesome, bet you can't tell it's there," but it would probably lower their box office even if it was the best effects ever. I think most audiences want a movie to look good and don't care how that happens. Easier to lie to them so they don't avoid a movie because they think all CGI will look bad.
as a former mattepainter, this episode was a delight to watch. Thanks for puting it all together!
Awesome! I love matte paintings (if it wasn't clear already). Did you do anything we might have seen?
@@TheMovieRabbitHole You made up a strawman with that argument though. Matte paintings are a real thing after all. It's authenticity and dedication what people crave not that you don't use any visual effects whatsoever. That is a complete strawman. Nobody says this. Unlike CG though matte paintings are real art made by a real artist.
@@EbonyPope Are computer generated sets not "real art"? What about art being made in computer suddenly makes it *less* than so-called "real" art?
@@EbonyPopeit's true that a computer can help you a lot to create an image, but at the end of the day it is another tool, the same art basics and foundations apply in both media. I don't think it's fair saying one is real art by a real artist and the other is not.
@@EbonyPopelmao are you really saying that matte painting in physical form is real art but in cg it's not art? Are you being serious? Why dont you go back and use rocks and colors from trees and plants to draw on the walls of cave, I only consider that's true art. Anything that's made with human manufactured tools are fake art. Photography, digital 2D art, painting brushes and colors made by combining chemicals, not real enough for me.
The term "Practical Effects" is something that originates from the theater and it doesn't mean what they think it means. A practical effect is a stage effect that is not handled by somebody behind the curtains but by an actor on the stage. If a character has a hat that suddenly flies off his head because the actor can release compressed air into the hat by pushing a hidden button, it's a practical effect.
That is more or less what it means in film-making, - some effect that happens and is captured in camera. The "practical" denotes that it is done in physical reality and "on stage", only the distinction of who does it went away (as it is irrelevant). Practical effects stand in contrast to optical and digital effects, everything that happens "on stage" and before the light gets captured in the camera is practical.
Wow Colbert‘s sound effects for nuclear explosion was better than most movies.
They must have CGI'd those sound effects in.
@@JaximusDecimus1 They CGI'd Stephen Colbert in.
It fits that small and awful looking "nuclear explosion" very well
What I love about it is that we can so clearly picture the visuals, even down to the guy on the bicycle getting caught by the blast in its own micro scene.
Although his sound effects were based on the sound effects from those movies. The actual sound of nuclear detonation is much closer to that of a gun firing, but that's not very climactic. Movies do the same thing with bald eagles, replacing their calls with that of red tailed hawks.
lol this is crazy, im actually a vfx artists and i worked on barbie , i actually worked in some of the shots you mention and i can confirm the barbie beach shots 100% blue screens, a lot of set extentions used in the barbie land , its outrageous to see how studios take it so far as to not credit vfx artists, even more limiting the number of credit spots for vfx studios to credit theyr artists.
I tend to find heavy use of vfx in movies really distracting and I barely noticed with this movie. Congratulations on being part of such a fantastic project!!!!
Thanks for your amazing work. And shame on the producers for going so far as badly editing BTS footage to deny your existence.
As video game concept artist - Your videos are what I want to scream in people's faces when they tell me about "CGI is crap!" or "CGI is cheap way of making things!"
Thank You!
In Oppenheimer the image of the water ripples on the table was also done with a video projector, same as the room vibrating during Oppenheimer's speech.
Thanks! Where did you get this info?
i know the shaking wall projector was shown in a behind the scenes footage@@TheMovieRabbitHole
@@TheMovieRabbitHole From crew members at a guild screening. :)
@@KoolAidManOG Ohhhh nice.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole Terrific series btw, thank you for your work!
This series really opened my eyes of how pivotal "CGI" is to filmmaking. So many people shit on "CGI" without understanding that it is responsible for making everyone's favorite shows and movies a possibility.
And sometimes the very same people who shit on CGI are the same people who feel pity and bad for CGI artists, thinking they are abused and suffering within the filmmaking industry and therefore need justice done for them. Weren't those people just mocking those CGI artists for having no skills and doing a terrible job and therefore deserving of the insults? And now they're putting on a mask to look innocent. What hypocrites!
watching behind the scenes footage (if not altered like for Barbie) and vfx breakdowns can be really insightful in modern filmmaking. They are especially mind-blowing on movies we think are mostly shot "practically" like the recently uploaded vfx breakdowns by ILM for MI7 and Napoleon or the vfx breakdowns and behind the scenes for the John Wick movies. Yes these movies do impressive things in camera, but the other stuff is just as incredible. You can find a lot here on CZcams. And it's never the big shots that are the most impressive, it's the ones you'd never think were done this way.
There is also Final Destination 5. You can find here on CZcams a video that puts the "What was shot" and the final output of the bridge collapse scene side by side, truly eye opening.
Even smaller movies use CGI these days. For exmaple: this video mentions the company DNEG. They have a vfx breakdown for Nyad, not the movie I expected to be there
Maybe that's true for some people. There are others who are consistently skeptical of digital effects and feel they diminish filmmaking, both by looking quite poor in many instances and also by changing the types of stories told. (For example, there could be an interesting movie about Napoleon, but the temptation for Scott to show big battles was so great we didn't get that movie that takes place in government buildings, bedrooms, carriage interiors, and streets).
I genuinely don't like modern blockbusters as a rule, and I don't think I'm alone in this. And it has to do with how studios use CGI, and how they specifically hire filmmakers who will be push overs in relinquishing the visual identify of the film to VFX artists and studio suits. Marvel is the worst example of this.
You can even like a lot of modern films that have a definitive VFX pass over almost every image, but still be skeptical of the way the industry is headed in terms of which scripts are sold, how shooting budgets and schedules presuppose that nothing will be done in camera, and how the wonderful skills of miniatures artists, matte painters, and stunt supervisors are being lost in favor of computer graphics. There is absolutely no hypocrisy to any of this.
@@2006man Both can be true. CGI has varience in quality and a fair amount of that can be attributed to time crunches and endless forced overtime. That or poor communication or poor leadership from production management so that things aren't cohesive enough.
@@2006man *And sometimes the very same people who shit on CGI are the same people who feel pity and bad for CGI artists*
I mean, that's not a contradiction **IN OF ITSELF** , you can dislike something (even if based off of (in part or whole) any kind of misunderstanding, and not like feelike like the people doing something get mistreated.
You can dislike a genre of music without having to think it needs to be eradicated, you can think an ideology is misguided, but should be allowed to exist so long as it doesn't harm people, why should a POV on the use of CGI preclude any sort of empathy? IMO the implied requirement doesn't seem like something that is actually mutually inclusive at all.
This series has been one of my favourites regarding the use of VFX & CGI. Sad to see how many artists are completely discredited just because they did their job too well.
Can't wait for part 4!
I agree with you that insisting so much on practical effects made the explosions in Oppenheimer less spectacular than they could have been
It wasn’t meant to be spectacular that’s the whole point. The point wasn’t to glamorize the bomb and the story was more meant to show how the bomb affected the people who made it + the world at large. It wasn’t meant to be glamorous.
@@tylerjames805Well it certainly wasn't realistic either, using a gas explosion to represent a nuke 😂
@@tylerjames805True but also it literally didn't look like a nuclear explosion
@@ZachBobBob I mean it's not like this movie was ever trying to look realistic.
The section on matte paintings was an absolute treat. I had no idea about some of those. So informative. Thanks for making these videos.
Old school matte paintings and force perspective shots are tricky ones to spot for a modern audience, because our first assumption is that the filmmakers back then simply didn't have the technology or know how to do it any other way than fully in camera, on location, with full scale props and sets. But, of course, that has never been true.
14:05 I got into VFX around the same time I got into software engineering and for me CGI still means "Common Gateway Interface". I've never heard it used during the few years of my VFX career
Hahaha I forgot about that. I was also in software engineering before.
Absolutely love this series
not sure why people are so obsessed with seeing real things in movies that are about fake made up fantastical stories, it's a movie, a form of art not a documentary.
The nail on the head, yes. Everything is fake in movies, that's why we seem them.
From 25% of the comments on this channel, CGI is used as a proxy for bad movie making. Instead of blaming the director or script or studio for the bad movie, people go with what they directly experience the visuals in front of them. “ if I notice the giant robot is fake that’s why the movie is bad”. Rather then “ this bad movie has destroyed my willing suspension of disbelief and all I can do is sit here and nit pick the visuals “.
I mean, a documentary is still a form of art. But yeah, I get what you mean.
@@francesconicoletti2547Oh wow that’s a great way to explain it
It's all about immersion. If you see something that is BLATANTLY fake it breaks your immersion of that fantasy world.
Imagine being the artist who has to remove the bluescreen from the BTS-footage
I have thought a lot about that lately
almost have to wonder if it was intentionally done sloppily as a F U to the higher-ups who requested it
It's honestly kinda hilarious that the studio digitally removed the blue screen from the BTS footage of a movie all about a simulated world that is obviously fake. Like what even is the point of lying about using practical effects in a movie where you're supposed to notice how fake most of the sets are?
As a VFX artist on a lot in Hollywood, I can't thank you enough for putting a spotlight on this topic! I also love your presentation, and just want more, More, MORE!! I truly hope you have many more of these types of videos on your to-do list!!
The Oppenheimer explosion was saved by the fact the sound was sublime. But anyone who's seen footage of an A-bomb, and we all have, can tell Nolan's explosion was like fireworks in comparison. All that buildup for that. Thank God the dramatic aspect of the movie was good.
Yeah that explosion was one of the most anticlimactic things I've ever experienced when watching a movie, it was SO lame. He should have used CGI.
I adored the sound design, so I'll give it a pass. But good heavens, Nolan is so pedantic.@@gurratell7326
Yep, probably the only big thing I can point out as bad in Oppenheimer... it truly felt like I saw bigger explosions in Mythbusters, or like a MrBeast video. The final wide shot was just like... a truckload of gasoline exploded.
The explosion was a letdown but what does not sit right with me that he downplays the achievements with the other effects imo. They looked incredibly and the fact that they were done using stuff like a simple balloon blows your mind. It's this what people crave. The dedication and ingenuity you don't get with CG. There is an element that you cannot achieve any other way.
Seriously. Why not use some archival footage as elements in Nuke (the software) to stay true to his goal and maintaining the raw, realistic aesthetic he was aiming for? It would’ve looked incredible. And that scene was so expertly edited and directed. Also, the wispy little puff of dust for the shockwave was the cherry on top for how anticlimactic that explosion effect was. “I am become slight warmth, igniter of some drums of gasoline”
As a vfx artist who has been one of the many affected by the downturn in work due to the WGA/SAG strikes, this series is a breath of fresh air. Thank you so much for shining a light on these issues in such an engaging way 🙏
removing green/blue screens from bts shots is actual insanity
Lol, the lengths they'll go through to sell a lie.
What I love about matte paintings in particular is that they force strong composition upon the directors / DOPs. All you have is a static frame and you're probably going to stay on it for a little while, so you better have something interesting to show.
This has become my favorite CZcams series
Then you have become my favorite subscriber!
What's funny to me is how the same kind of discussion was applied to cinema itself when it was a newcomer to the scene in the beginning of the twentieth century and it was constantly compared to theater. It wasn't real enough, it was just some light projected onto a wall. Nowadays, we view it as real, as if that makes any difference at all. Any story requires suspension of disbelief.
Most people who complain about CGI not being real never realize how that argument could be applied to any analog aspect of filming. You can have the most immaculately made set or scale model, but turn the camera far enough and you'll see the plywood and undried paint. This argument would be equally dumb when applied to practical effects.
It's weird how often people can't let fiction be fiction and must treat it as if it operates in some sort of real world. Like there's so many fan theories that X or Y story is actually just one character having a hallucination to explain like a few inconsistencies instead of just accepting that like it's a fictional story, none of it was real in the first place.
thank god for Kubrick for insisting they film the moon landing on location
Speaking of Matt Paintings I remember a scene from the movie The Land that Time Forgot. A movie from 1974 staring Doug McClure. There is a scene in the forground of a group of guys standing and talking, at the upper part of the screen is the painting. In a quick scene the guys are starting to leave and one guy throws his jacket over his shoulder. But for a real brief second his jacket disappears behind the painting. This is so noticable that I noticed it when I was about 11 or 12 when I watched the movie on TV.
Congratulations on your mention by Corridor Crew! You're in the VFX big leagues now. Well deserved. This series has been really eye-opening and expertly crafted.
Finally! Unprecedented accuracy in explaining what CGI is, flawless wording. Congrats
The whole No CGI craze is just the next level of I did all my own stunts or that important scene was improvised. Its hollywood just telling people what they think they want to hear.
3 months, 3 videos and 44k subs, it's good to see a great creator get traction quickly.
As for Oppenheimer I was honestly disappointed there wasn't a fully CG nuke, I wanted to see something like how the nuclear bomb is described in the Tom Clancy book "The Sum of all Fears" which details the detonation process at the nanosecond scale.
Come on buddy.
That's just not Nolan's style.
I hope to see you on Corridor one day maybe another "No CGI" episode. Mainstream audience should at least be aware if the VFX Industry doesn't want to step forward when Directors and marketers are constantly putting them down. Can't wait for part 4!
That Colbert segment was perfect.
100%
This series is absolutely amazing
Finally got a chance to check out the third episode and loved that you used the segment we did with Todd!! Been really enjoying this series. You’re doing an amazing job articulating what’s happening!
Thank you! Loved the Todd episode.
It's weird that movies are loved for "Movie Magic" and yet the current marketing trend is to deny said makers of magic. I guess people really don't want to see what's behind the curtain.
Maybe it's just me, but i love to learn this stuff and it actually improves movies to me.
This series is an absolute treat. It's crazy that Colbert's impression of a nuclear explosion is more to scale and emotionally grounded (the cyclist) than the movie's shot.
Absolutely THE highest quality series that dives into this topic on the internet right now.
It's a privilege we are getting this content for free. Thank you so much for your dedication and passion towards this subject. It makes working in VFX just a lot less depressing than it should be right now.
Honestly, I would love to see a big action movie made with no 'CGI', a true call back to 50-80's cinema, the way people seem to want. But if that happened people would complain and say the movies look bad because now we are used to a sort of homogenous aesthetic where everything is so amped up and glossy that reality looks drab by comparison.
I don't know, the bad physics often get me, especially CGI car chases and accidents.
Lot risk involved in those types of movies, better to use CGI but bad physics makes it worse
@@wiredforstereobecause the crop duster chase in North by Northwest had such great physics . Or the bat plane machine gunning the bad guys in the second bat man movie had such great physics. Or the spinners in blade runner don’t look like they are on cables.
@@francesconicoletti2547 I am not hearing what your point is.
Me: "This thing takes me out of the experience."
You: "This other thing is also bad!"
@@wiredforstereoTheir point is that just like CGI can have bad physics practical effects can too, and that it ultimately just comes down to effort, budget, creativity, and artistic merit. Use or no use of CGI doesn't by itself degrade or improve a movie.
Just incase anyone missed it... the matte painter at 11:12 was James Cameron
Thank you for the more bare bones straight to business approach of your videos so far. After seeing an overload of videos with annoying editing styles, filler, and repeating the same stuff uninspired again and again it's very refreshing to see a professional just explaining something in a more novel way.
I absolutely love this series! All the work I've wanted to put in to explain to casual film viewers (and people who quote the set designer/actors that no CGI was used) that they're simply wrong - it's all done right here. Thank you!
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought that the nuke in Oppenheimer didn't look up to snuff.
100%. I was hoping to see the most magnificent mushroom cloud we’ve ever seen. We have actual footage of real nuclear explosions, and it’s usually grainy and in bad color, etc. But we know what they’re supposed to look look like. The movie didn’t show the most recognizable feature of a nuclear explosion, presumably, because that would be impossible to get without filming a real nuclear explosion, or creating one with CGI. He made the wrong choice there by filming and editing and underwhelming series of practical explosions instead of creating a stunning nuclear explosion with CGI
@@JoeLion55 I wouldn't expect the first test explosion to have had any spectacular size or bombastic majesty of the cloud (most of the tests we KNOW footage off were many times larger and that should scale up almost exponentially with such things). But as you absolutely can cause mushrooms to form with conventional explosions, that alone wouldn't have been a hurdle and could have been done properly if Nolan really wanted. It's just expensive to find a remote place where you can blow up enough stuff to make a mushroom that is convincingly sized.
@@Ugly_German_Truths Absolutely true, you can make "simple" explosions form a mushroom cloud. My father was an army man and he described the process to me. Unfortunatly, as I'm not native english speaker I can't translate the terms he used. But you can do it, and that's what matters!
@@Ugly_German_Truths Here's colorised footage of the actual 1945 Trinity test to see how it compares czcams.com/video/18ZFUCOT8Xc/video.htmlsi=slBiQT0U8WV3jdd7
The fire tendrils in the Oppenheimer version are pretty decent recreation of so called "Rope Trick" effects caused by the surface of guy wires vaporising in the intense heat from the fireball. I don't think there's any footage of this happening from the Trinity test and the archive film used by the filmmakers was from a 1955 test czcams.com/video/hEMVJn00LnI/video.htmlsi=Z2B8a8tP0a4zLOep
Probably the most amazing footage I've ever seen is from these 1953 tests which show how the shockwave bounces off the ground in a way that I'd imagine would be very hard to replicate with practical effects.
Test 1 czcams.com/video/fPshfLoxWjM/video.htmlsi=lQqKdi7CljgbmB70
Test 2 showing the sheer scale of the blast czcams.com/video/dflLFFZcZ0w/video.htmlsi=QGFCEKYsZtgEbwb8
So glad you mentioned the lackluster Oppenheimer explosion at the end...Love Nolan, but being in the industry myself, I can't help but feel if he had embraced "CGI" in this film than he might have contributed to some of the coolest shots in cinema (like he already has with DNEG in other films).
I was so excited to see an insane DNEG Nuke blow my pants off, but instead got hit with a cute little gas fart.
Great video and excited to for the finale (I will be sharing it with all of my friends and family for education purposes).
My thoughts exactly so glad he mentioned it!This is not discussed enough. Now all we hear about this movie is no CGI.... that explosion really could have used some more cowbell 🎉😢
That gasoline nuke was a lesson on what audience gets if movie makers refuse to embrace CGI effects.
The explosion was an example of _what a nuke really sounds like,_ instead of what the average movie makers imagine it to sound like. For a comparison to the real thing, go listen the nuke test recording "Atom Blast, Yucca Flat, Nevada, 03/17/1953".
thank God someone addressed the rocket launching shot ion Oppenheimer. Its not even the most questionable "non CGI" shot in the movie and people are swearing on their dead grandmother that it was done with computer graphics lol. I'm also glad that you addressed composting as a visual effect/VFX technique and that combining 2 real images is NOT CGI
It can be achieved with cgi as well, that's why
@@OhioNPC911 well…yeah…lmao. Basically every shot in every movie can be achieved with CGI lol
Man this is the best gift for every movie lover. Absolutely love this series and I am recommending it to everyone
So fun to see some of our work on Mad Max Fury Road showcased in this and the last episode. You’re doing fantastic work with this series. Well done!
Absolutely love this series. Been waiting for Oppenheimer coverage since part 1.
A movie that seemed to so openly flaunt "no CGI," here I was waiting for that to be torn down but was pleasantly surprised at the nuanced breakdown of what that even means.
Brilliant!
As a 3D & VFX artist myself, I have to tell you how much I love your series and can't wait for part 4. Hollywood is telling people what they think they want to hear and that is "no CGI". You are doing a very good job at putting a spotlight to the artists that work in the industry. They are giving their best in almost all productions and remain one almost invisible name in the credits, among 1000 others - best case. Their work needs to be valued so much more, which you point out in a very entertaining form. Great work, love it!
Honestly, the fact that certain scenes are CG instead of being shot on camera makes them even more impressive to me
I had no idea Oppenheimer was a true (kind of, more or less) 'no CGI' type of movie, as opposed to the usual case of using the notion for marketing when it isn't true at all. Very very cool. For real Trinity test spooks I'll take the Twin Peaks version myself.
20:33 great catch (the fire tendril being composited and recycled from the main explosion)
Man, that Warner Bros removing the blue screen from behind-the-scenes shots got me hard....
That's stupid AF.
BTW, once again a great video and always on spot.
Seriously one of the highest quality YT channels out there, can't wait for what's to come!
They fake and hide behind the scenes stuff in animated movies too. Ive had animator friends tell me that a LOT of the stuff you see in those 90's and 2000's Making Of docs (really Electronic Press Kit fluff) are staged and don't reflect the actual process of creating a hand drawn animated movie. Heck, when Disney World in Florida used to have that massive studio that you could walk around and see animators working (they were real and actually were doing work that went into the movies, but I digress), they had a section dedicated to the ink and paint process, showing an artist hand painting cels for a 90's Disney movie just like they did in the old days...even though Disney's in-house animation had completely switched to using a digital ink and paint system by that point! As far as I know, the only honest Making Of doc about what it was like working in the animation industry of that time was The Sweatbox (which covers the Making Of The Emperor's New Groove and it's painful transformation from Kingdom of the Sun in a brutally honest, un-PR friendly way) and it's not an accident that Disney has gone out of their way to bury it.
just a regular film fan here, i hope views for these essays skyrocket. so tired of the studios and the media pushing this nonsensical narrative and even more tired of people buying it. ive had people tell me that the last mission impossible used no cgi/vfx after they saw it. like, get your eyes checked. or better yet, check the whole damn head.
They're saying "no CGI" like they're prohibition-era bartenders
But who is to blame for that? There's very loud and very UNHINGED elements of film fandom that has made its position on things well known and because film studios are reactive above all else we get time and resources spent trying to placate a demographic who, frankly, have silly and obtuse opinions.
I wish the Oppenheimer explosion had some kind of CGI. It looks so obviously like a miniature in the movie.
Must say, this is one of the best researched videos on youtube about films!
I was honestly waiting for the next part. No kidding!
I'd been thinking about everything from the previous two videos and watching everything with a new lens.
tbf i used to be like the "no cgi" kind of person but i admit, you did convince me in the first 50 seconds, you should probably make that a youtube short
I'm loving this series. I feel like you're doing an excellent job in explaining this topic.
LOL the historical coverage is especially great. Thank you!
This video series is an absolute gem! I've learnt so much already and it definetly refined/changed some views I had before. Your videos are always fun, informational and a joy (and sometimes pain) to watch.
Currently working with friends on our own no budget Sci-Fi short film, so as a digitally trained painter, Matte Paintings are an obvious choice for the VFX. I will definetly have to pick up the Invisible Art as I have been fascinated with Anime Background painting for some time (and tried myself) but never ventured into the Film world of it.
These videos are a formative part of my understanding of film making and the concept of "CGI". Thank you so much for making them and having them available for all of us to see. Good on you, sir!
I love this series; it's calling out BS beautifully.
Even silent cinema era used a lot of matte apintings. The first real VFX movie was Melies 1902 a trip to the moon. You could make a breakdown of that as a special episode and an homage to the beginning of cinemas movie magic for VFX. Love your Invisible VFX series. It is amazing and your touch of humor is great.
Gareth Edwards “The Creator” is a wonderful celebration of VFX/CGI and practical action. He openly acknowledges that it’s pointless to spend ridiculous amounts of money on creating pure CGI shots when it’s better to actually go somewhere on location and create a wonderful merger of the two worlds. Brilliant film with some incredibly inventive VFX and beautiful cinematography!
I love you man. Being a aspiring director, you are the only guy saving the faces of the most important crew members out here. Thanks for that.
lol people who hate on cgi have no idea what they are talking about. Thanks for making this vod.
This is the first video of yours that I have seen and despite your warnings, I have subscribed and will watch the next video. But before I go to the back catalogue, I wouldn't be surprised if in the earlier parts of this series you used a David Fincher movie. He does a ton of subtle CGI. I specifically remember how much they used when filming Zodiac to get the cars on the street right, the time of day, and other period specific stuff instead of going all Tarantino and having Hollywood Blvd recreated as it was 60 years ago. I love both directors but when I first saw Zodiac in the theater, it didn't look like they did anything and I think that is the mark of good use of CGI. Just like Matte Paintings before, just make them as invisible as possible and no one will care.
Now to the back catalogue!
Who else is pausing and going forward and backwards frame by frame every few seconds? this is amazing!
Knocked it out of the park once again Jonas. What a great series. I have to thank you again for taking the time to make these videos. They are extremely well produced and I can only guess at how much work it takes you to make them.
Looking forward to the next one already!
I totally agree with you on the Oppenheimer explosion. It just felt flat compared to the real world videos of the Trinity test. Some CGI would've been welcome.
the nuke explosion in Oppenheimer was such a letdown that it nearly ruins the movie.
and just to think that back in 1991 they made it look more real in T2.
Fantastic work & research. In all my years on YT, it's the only channel that I subscribed after watching just one video, while it was the only video on this channel.
So happy I stumbled upon your channel...this series has been incredible! THANK YOU for putting in so much effort for this marathon collection! Its absolutely brilliant !
sub'd. love to stumble on a man talking positively about barbie movie. i get a sense of honesty and integrity from you. congrats on almost 45k, you definitely seem to deserve it on initial viewing. here's to enjoying more of your content! cheers!
Love Barbie, love Greta. Not so happy about Warner :D
I don't want this series to ever end
This is the first video of the series I´m watching and I´m so glad I´ve stumbled upon this content. As a video editor and an admiror of everything related to film making, this is pure gold content. Gotta make some popcorn to watch the other three parts right now!
I’m so glad you held up the “The Invisible Art” book. I love that book and reread it every now and then. I continue to be spellbound by the artistry, years of experience rendered by the nameless talents who remain invisible and uncredited. The same goes with the CG artists who, when doing their job well, leave the audience fooled into thinking: oh, they did that with practical effects. Kudos to the unsung heroes of moviemaking. ❤
Great work/great series. I completely agree about the recreation of the Trinity test in Oppenheimer. It was a good film, one of Nolan's best (I'm not the biggest Nolan fan for the record), but that sequence was one of the most underwhelming in the film. It's interesting that Nolan was recently praising "The Curse" and comparing it to "Twin Peaks", which means he has almost certainly seen Lynch's 100% CGI recreation of the Trinity test from Season 3. Only Nolan grovelers would argue Nolan's recreation did a better job capturing the terrifying power of a nuclear explosion.
What really puzzles me is why didn't he just use original footage for the wide shot of the nuke and just ran it through modern upres and denoising software?
It's a cheap method, absolutely real - therefore powerful, authentic and frightening. Nobody would have blamed him for using original footage.
For the closeups, rather than using a big fuel explosion, they should have looked at high speed footage of a real (miniature) explosions (using real explosives not just fuel) like The Slow Mo Guys are doing regularly. These look awesome and very detailed even in smaller scales and zoomed in.
Not only was the nuke underwhelming, the shock-wave afterwards was also kinda lame.
The TV show Manhanttan did a much better job on it too.
@@RyoMassaki Because by that point is that even the original footage? Any upres software is artificially improving something, it just uses math to do so.
@@RyoMassaki Upscales don't tend to look that good (yes, I think all those Peter Jackson upscales look rubbish) . I think they should have just used the real footage and framed it as seeing what the camera in the scene was recording (because that's how that footage actually was captured). Because that's what the footage needed the most: the actual 'money shot' fireball.
@@GrandHighGamer It's 2024 and we don't even have a proper machine learning/AI driven upscale algorithm that can take old footage and make it look like brandnew?
It's a shame actually, but with or without, original footage would have been much better.
Someone replicated the Oppenheimer effects, don't remember the name but they sure pulled them all in camera. The chroma background removal BTS is wild!
These guys and yes, this is great! czcams.com/video/o2FqU2f6DRc/video.html
@@TheMovieRabbitHole yeah! Was trying to find it to paste the link too, by all means keep doing what you're doing right now. Doing the lord's work.
Always excited to see your videos on my feed. Brilliant explanation as ever sir!
I think this has been the best episode so far. 👏 Looking forward to Part 4.
A youtuber actually did a pretty good job recreating Oppenheimer effects
Yes, I saw it! That was so cool.
In case anyone wants to see it the video is titled:
'We RECREATED the Nuclear Explosion from Oppenheimer with ZERO CGI'
Excellent rundown. No notes. Totally reasonable takes on everything.
Absolutely beautiful video series. The deep dives into historic films are fascinating.
The fact that CGI animators do not get recognized for their work is RIDICULOUS! 😮
I can't wait for the next episode, these are some of the best video essay's i've ever watched. Incredible work.
Also, the "Nolan did stuff in practical no one's ever seen before" belies the fact that Aronofsky did it better in The Fountain. 18 years ago.
The Die Hard 2 matte painting was the first to be 'digitally manipulated'.
Oh I feel there's something here I should have dived deeper into. :) Please do tell more
@TheMovieRabbitHole The size of the painting would have had to be 30 feet long and taken the best part of a year to make if done traditionally. Plus, it was to incorporate 6 live action elements.
So they had to scan in 4 photographs and manipulate them when zooming out.
The 35 second shot made for a very 'memory intensive project', but usually, paitings are used for around 5 seconds before the illusion fades.
That's just something I read about.