[HN Gopher] The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren't CGI
___________________________________________________________________
The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren't CGI
Author : zdw
Score : 471 points
Date : 2021-11-14 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| pm90 wrote:
| Fascinating stuff. I guess CGI probably killed all the creative
| ways you had to work with materials to get the effects you need
| like this one.
| ourmandave wrote:
| Here's the two minute Pepsi commercial featuring the effect.
|
| https://youtu.be/bhL8WlDHKaY?t=158
| tyingq wrote:
| Interesting they went with mud. I'd be curious what it would look
| like if you shot a block of gallium. I couldn't find that, but
| did find a video of someone shooting a block of lead(Pb):
| https://youtu.be/lCMUrp58cPg?t=325
| themgt wrote:
| Wait until you hear about how Cameron filmed the scene with a
| helicopter going under a highway overpass.
|
| https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/
| ghoward wrote:
| As an aspiring helicopter pilot, I am both awed and repulsed.
| Vietnam was something else for helicopter pilots. That level of
| skill would be hard for a perfectly-programmed autopilot to do.
|
| With regards to Vietnam, a legend that I was told (but cannot
| confirm) was that Hueys had such bad tail rotor authority that
| they would take off straight up with the whole airframe
| spinning. Once high enough, the pilot would start the
| helicopter moving forward, which would allow the tail rotor to
| bite more, and the helicopter would stabilize.
|
| Crazy if true. And after seeing a stunt like that by a bona
| fide insane and top-tier veteran pilot, I believe the legend.
| ilamont wrote:
| Check out the book "Chicken Hawk" by Robert Mason, who flew
| Hueys in combat in Vietnam. These pilots were able to pilot
| in and out of some very dangerous situations using the unique
| qualities of the aircraft. I remember one involved taking off
| from a hilltop artillery battery by using gravity to drop the
| aircraft backwards off the steep hill after making a dropoff,
| or landing in a jungle using the rotors to chop away the
| vegetation (branches and leaves only, not trunks) to verify
| that a crashed U.S. aircraft had no survivors. He also talked
| about a stunt that another helicopter attempted to do,
| lifting a heavy pole or beam without the proper stabilization
| which resulted in uncontrollable spin and the death of all
| aboard.
|
| Interview here:
|
| https://rotarywingshow.com/rws-46-chickenhawk-robert-mason/
| ethbr0 wrote:
| How far are you along training? I'm trying to decide between
| helicopter or fixed wing. Or did you start from fixed wing
| and go to rotorcraft?
| chrisgd wrote:
| Not too long after two children and an adult actor were killed
| on the set of the twilight zone movie.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
| coldcode wrote:
| If people survive such a crazy stunt, you congratulate them, if
| not, you bury them and the director. Risking people's lives for
| a few seconds of film is not worth it.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Does the director really have the expertise to evaluate how
| safe a stunt is? Seems like the wrong person to give that
| responsibility to.
| psahgal wrote:
| I believe this evaluation is usually done by a stunt
| coordinator instead. This is an experienced stunt performer
| that finds the right person for each stunt, and
| communicates with the performers on any safety issues that
| come up.
|
| More info here: https://www.nfi.edu/stunt-coordinator/
| aprdm wrote:
| That's like saying a cto should be aware and competent of
| the technical details of everything happening in his
| organization
| robertlagrant wrote:
| More like the CEO.
| sneak wrote:
| I think it is moral and ethical (and is and should remain
| legal) for professional adults to voluntarily consent to
| risking their lives in exchange for payment.
|
| It's not really anyone's place to dictate someone else's risk
| appetite. Stuntmen and Stuntwomen know what they are signing
| up for. They are the ones choosing to risk their own lives,
| not anyone else.
|
| Some people really love doing crazy shit and making wild art.
| I still quote Terminator 2 decades later; it is epic art
| regardless of whether you personally like it or not.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Yep, unfortunately, this is where the culture of the world
| is going. More woke everyday. Can't take risks, no one will
| invent anything, FDA will ban all new drug discoveries,
| sports are a bygone era activity because it promotes
| inequality, math is racist, competition and hard work will
| be a criminally punishable offense, everyone is constantly
| offended, etc etc.
| gdrift wrote:
| Reminds me of this Vonnegut short story:
| "amendments to the Constitution dictate that all
| Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter,
| better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else.
| The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality
| laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for
| those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt
| thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy
| weights for the strong or athletic. "
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm fairly sure the people doing these stunts do them because
| they love doing them, not because they are being forced to
| perform them. If people want to risk their lives for a few
| seconds of film, why stop them? People are into all kind of
| weird stuff, as long as they don't hurt others, I don't see
| what the problem is.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| Tell that to the Twilight Zone victims.
| capableweb wrote:
| What am I supposed to tell them? That they chose to be in
| a risky business (or their parents chose for them to be
| in a risky business) and in risky businesses there is a
| chance to get hurt?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Reality is far more complex than that. Yes, stunt people
| tend to be a risk seeking crowd. But there's also the risk
| of losing their livelihood if they refuse a director's
| demands. Film business is a precarious way to make a
| living, and the power gulf between the director and the
| stunt person is massive.
|
| History is full of "I think this is a bad idea, but I'll do
| it" accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and
| regularly do dangerous things against their better
| judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise
| pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to
| drastically over simplify the situation.
| capableweb wrote:
| So again, they chose between doing stunts or doing
| something else. You don't work to do the stunts in the
| movie? Fine, don't work on the movie, it's not essential
| to life anyways so continue on with your life.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Continue with your life, and risk losing your career. I
| think if you're not accounting for this risk in how
| people think, then you are absolutely misunderstanding
| what motivates people to do what they do.
|
| Again, _people regularly do things against their best
| judgement because of social and economic pressure_. Stunt
| people are not magically excluded from this process.
| [deleted]
| msrenee wrote:
| Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they
| should be expected to do them in an unsafe way? Only
| people who are willing to do things in unnecessarily
| dangerous ways should be stunt people? I feel like you've
| got a false dichotomy here. A perfectly reasonable
| solution is for the director to take their staff's safety
| into account and not risk people's lives for a movie.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Because they chose to do stunt work as a living, they
| should be expected to do them in an unsafe way?
|
| No, did someone claim that? Stuntmen regularly decline to
| perform stunts they perceive to be too dangerous. It's
| part of their job to do risk evaluation and say yes or
| no.
|
| > Only people who are willing to do things in
| unnecessarily dangerous ways should be stunt people?
|
| Eh, yes, that's literally the definition of being a
| stuntman, you do things that are dangerous in place of
| someone else because you know how to manage the dangerous
| situation compared to the other non-educated (in
| dangerousness) person you're replacing for that scene.
|
| > A perfectly reasonable solution is for the director to
| take their staff's safety into account and not risk
| people's lives for a movie.
|
| Yes, agree! That's why there is a whole stunt team on
| set, not just the director and the stuntmen themselves.
| As a team they evaluate the stunts and stop them if they
| are too unsafe.
|
| Unfortunately, every single stunt in the industry carries
| the risk of death, so if we want to be really safe, we
| simply cannot have action movies anymore at all.
| it_citizen wrote:
| Take a look at what Cameron did on The Abyss:
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/trivia
|
| > Ed Harris reportedly punched James Cameron in the face
| after he kept filming while he was nearly drowning.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The movie industry has a long history of callously risking
| its own workers lives. It's gotten somewhat better than in
| the 1930s, but clearly there is more work to do.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| If I were an actor in danger and the camera man stopped
| filming I would be rather annoyed unless the rescue effort
| was assisted by stopping filming.
| dymk wrote:
| Do you really think you can put yourself in the headspace
| if an actor who narrowly escaped death from drowning?
| RubberbandSoul wrote:
| The actors started to call the movie "The Abuse" while
| filming it. James Cameron almost died himself on another
| occasion. He lost his air while submerged and the guy
| supposed to check on him didn't do his job correctly.
|
| There's a great documentary on YouTube:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k43KHV1fDU
| kwonkicker wrote:
| How many people have died in movies?! I'd guess it is
| negligible. People have died during theater performances. And
| it doesn't get safer than a theater.
| bscphil wrote:
| There are a surprisingly large number of them. Even more
| when you include serious injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org
| /wiki/List_of_film_and_television_ac...
|
| A woman was shot and killed by live ammo on a movie set
| about a month ago.
| wruza wrote:
| Before turning seven or so I and my friends thought they
| really shoot people on set. All for the sake of the art,
| you know, somebody has to sacrifice to make a good movie. I
| remember that we argued whether it's fake or not, and the
| consensus was it seemed real.
| [deleted]
| marcodiego wrote:
| Something a bit crazier was performed in Brazil in the 60's for
| a film: https://youtu.be/rSH3FVzcDSo?t=519
| russdill wrote:
| Seems like if you just wanted the side shot and not the
| straight on shot as well, you could of just pulled the
| helicopter on a low trailer using the median partition to
| block. The straight on shot would of required deleting the
| trailer which may have been difficult but certainly would look
| better than any CGI attempt
| capableweb wrote:
| Or just CGI. But as Cameron himself puts it (copied from the
| article linked in parent):
|
| > we could've run a CG helicopter under the freeway overpass,
| but it was so much more fun to do the real thing.
|
| I'm guessing the same applies from pulling a helicopter on a
| trailer. It's simply not fun.
| jandrese wrote:
| That is an incredible feat of flying. I would be terrified of
| some kind of reverse ground effect from the road overhead.
|
| It's basically a 1990s version of barnstorming.
| lisper wrote:
| From TFA:
|
| "I was curious about how the overpass would affect the ground
| effect of the helicopter. Tragically, I have no brain for
| physics. But I do know a helicopter pilot, so I asked him.
| Apparently, at 60 kts, there wouldn't be significant ground
| effect because the down flowing air off of the rotor disk
| would mostly be tailing off of the helicopter. Had Tamburro
| taken the stunt slower, the down flowing air would be more
| directly underneath the helicopter, creating an (obviously
| undesirable) effect."
| jandrese wrote:
| That part was talking about the traditional ground effect.
| There isn't much study about what happens when you have a
| ceiling over a helicopter because that doesn't happen very
| often in real life. Note the discussion of the air flowing
| off of the blades.
|
| I was thinking more of the low pressure zone above the
| helicopter being disrupted by the overpass. Apparently it
| wasn't too bad since the pilot managed the stunt twice
| without injury, but it's a possibility that would have had
| me crapping diamonds if I were asked to pull it off.
| pomian wrote:
| I think the term we are looking for would be, ceiling
| effect? Just recently saw footage of Fred North* flying
| into and out of a building, so it must be a negligible
| effect. * helicopter pilot for movies.
| lisper wrote:
| I feel an aircraft-on-a-conveyor-belt moment coming on.
|
| So first of all, GE in a rotorcraft is different from GE
| on a fixed-wing aircraft. The fundamentals are the same,
| of course, but in a rotorcraft the relative velocity of
| the blade/wing isn't connected to the velocity of the
| airframe the way it is in a fixed-wing aircraft. In a
| fixed-wing aircraft the velocity of the wing and the
| velocity of the airframe are the same, of course. But in
| a rotorcraft things get very complicated. The upshot of
| all this complication is that the GE effect is reduced as
| the rotorcraft's airframe starts to move. The faster it
| goes, the less GE you have. So you _might_ notice some
| differences while _hovering_ under an overpass, but
| shooting through at 60 MPH the GE is effectively a no-op.
|
| If you really want to know the gory details you'll have
| to read up on helicopter theory. It's way too complicated
| for an HN comment.
| ambicapter wrote:
| He's not talking about ground effect, he's talking about
| the overpass above the blades "cutting off" available air
| for a second.
| lisper wrote:
| Yes, I get that. "Reverse ground effect" was how the OP
| phrased it. What exactly do you think would happen in
| that case? Suppose the available air were "cut off" by
| the overpass (it wouldn't be, but let's suspend disbelief
| for a moment). What would be the result?
| jandrese wrote:
| Loss of lift due to the interruption of the airflow
| causing the helicopter to crash into the ground at speed?
| Or suddenly lower pressure above the helicopter causing
| it to be "sucked up" into the ceiling.
|
| I think the pilot is probably correct that the stunt
| could only be pulled off at a higher speed where you can
| outrace the low/high pressure zones the blades are
| creating.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| A heck of a lot of the famous ILM Star Wars effects were old-
| fashioned models, stop-motion, and matte paintings.
| weare138 wrote:
| None of the original movies used CGI. It was insane what they
| did to produce the effects in the original Star Wars movies.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Hey ! except the simulation before the battle. Wireframe but
| done on computer IIRC.
| kadoban wrote:
| If you're into this kind of thing, the Corridor Crew youtube
| channel will likely be right up your alley:
| https://m.youtube.com/c/corridorcrew/videos They have a long
| running series of "VFX Artists React" that are fun and lightly
| educational.
| [deleted]
| breakingcups wrote:
| Do note that while some of them go into quite a lot of detail
| with good visual explanations, quite some videos have also
| become watered down and light on the technical content,
| weighing much more heavily on the "react" aspect than the "VFX
| Artists" aspect.
| not1ofU wrote:
| Reminded me of this (not sure if the channel is related or not)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE
|
| ^ you want skynet, because this is how we get skynet. :-)
| anonymfus wrote:
| _> not sure if the channel is related or not_
|
| YSK that you can click on the Channels tab of both of these
| YouTube channels and see interlinks that they added.
| kadoban wrote:
| Yeah, that is their "main" channel, same group of people. The
| "Crew" one started as like a behind-the-scenes I believe.
| dariosalvi78 wrote:
| the device they used is visible in this documentary:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwRI0dHqps
| knorker wrote:
| Yeah that was completely obvious. Check out the scenes that
| actually were CGI. They are trivial to spot, with a 2021 eye and
| DVD level quality media or better.
|
| The whole shot that "went through the computer" has a completely
| different feel to it than scenes that don't.
|
| Compare 3:38 and 3:44 in
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY.
|
| It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera, or
| going into a mini-dream state.
|
| I mean it's _extremely_ well done. It holds up so well even...
| jesus christ 30 years later?!
|
| But it's _extremely_ obvious which scenes got the CGI treatement.
|
| Oh, and if this is one of those "once you can see it, you can't
| unsee it" things: Sorry about that.
| [deleted]
| anonymfus wrote:
| _> It looks like it was shot with a completely different
| camera_
|
| First it's a one single still frame up until the full closure
| of wounds, may be it's the reason for a dream effect that you
| feel. It was shot on the same camera as other shots from the
| John's point of view in this scene, but processed differently,
| as it went trough film scanner and laser film recorder.
| knorker wrote:
| Exactly. And you can tell, is my point.
|
| Same with other CGI scenes.
|
| Amazing for 30 years ago, but very not possible to confuse
| with practical effects.
| sneak wrote:
| We're all on this website reading this comment because doing it
| all inside the computer in software is simply...
|
| easy money.
| bhaak wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I'm looking at
| the still frames in 1080p.
|
| I see the bullet holes absolutely don't match up. At 3:38 they
| are not as deep and wide as in 3:44. But also the actors
| position is different especially the mouth (closed in the
| first, open in the other). Continuity errors.
|
| The morph effect is somewhat cringy but to be fair, they always
| were. At least in DS9 and Terminator 2 there were in-universe
| explanations why they existed.
|
| There's also something weird going on with the eyes to the
| T-1000 after the morph effect has finished. Not sure if that
| was intentional.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The part that jumped out to me in that CGI was the mannequin.
| The bullet hole morphing is so obvious that in a way it's
| less objectionable.
| knorker wrote:
| 100% of the frame has a different quality in the clip that
| went through the computer.
|
| Like they smeared something over the lens.
|
| Also check out the "goes through the bars" shot. Once you see
| it, you can't unsee it.
|
| Look at things like color grading, and things that look like
| "upscaling" (but aren't).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Those Bullet Effects in Terminator 2 Weren't CGI
|
| The film came out in 1991... they obviously didn't have anything
| like the tracking to do effects like that as CGI back then.
| jandrese wrote:
| Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film.
| It's not out of the realm of possibility that they could have
| done the splash effects using a similar technology.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Wasn't Abyss the introduction ? the pod morphing into
| Mastrantonio's face was the same software as in T2 IIRC
| pierrec wrote:
| > Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film.
|
| As someone who grew up watching Willow (1988), I beg to
| differ... Note the box office was about 1/4 that of
| Terminator 2, so you could say it reached the public pretty
| well.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKzbsDG58pc
| mkl wrote:
| That's 2D image morphing, not 3D CGI, but yes, jandrese
| didn't specify.
| evan_ wrote:
| They did plenty of effects tracked to actors before computers,
| they just tracked them manually, frame-by-frame.
| CodeArtisan wrote:
| They filmed Robert Patrick with a grid painted all over his
| body then did the animations by hand.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0xp74uIZO4
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
| knorker wrote:
| You say that, but through brute force they managed to have
| camera movement + CGI in (only?) this scene:
|
| https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275
|
| But yes, obviously they could not have done the bullet stuff
| with CGI.
| rasz wrote:
| Yes, they actually had to kill one of the twin actors, melt his
| corpse and then project it in reverse for this scene
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXsyn-9VLVA practical effects
| ftw!
| knorker wrote:
| I'm not an expert, but it's not obvious that the camera angle
| actually changes (as opposed to postprocess movement) in the
| one shot where the camera actually moves.
|
| This one was probably much more effort:
| https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275
|
| You're not contradicting the parent comment though. It's not
| obvious that they had tracking back then. I wouldn't be
| surprised if they did it all manually, frame by frame.
|
| I'd say not a chance in hell they'd be able to do a good job
| in 1992 doing effects on a running Robert Patrick while the
| camera is on a vehicle.
|
| It was cutting edge back then, but not _that_ cutting edge.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Yet Jurassic Park was just two years later and combined CGI
| with moving cameras in some scenes.
|
| It could also have been achieved without camera tracking by
| painstakingly rotoscoping the effect into each frame by hand,
| which I guess would also count as "CGI".
| not1ofU wrote:
| I remember watching [0]"Asterix at the Olympic Games [2008]" at
| the cinema while on acid. The CGI was quite obvious. Should
| probably watch it again and compare.
|
| [0] -https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463872/?ref_=kw_li_tt
| beebeepka wrote:
| Duh. There were just tinfoil.
|
| Watch the incredible rescan from a few years ago. You can clearly
| see them.
|
| Still one of the best movies ever. I watched dune recently and
| while very well done, it felt more like theatre than a movie.
| Cameron and Verhoeven are my directors. They know how to do
| action
| dllthomas wrote:
| They were metal plated rubber.
| h2odragon wrote:
| I'll argue that finish was the truly artistic part; the foam
| trick had probably been done before to "make meat pop out".
|
| It's a _beautiful_ finish on film and survives the packing
| and unpacking and some rough motion. That 's nothing to
| sneeze at. I'm sure someone with more experience could go
| into more detail, and would appreciate more education on it
| myself.
| the_af wrote:
| The most fascinating non-CGI effect from Terminator 2 is a cut
| scene which can be seen in the director's cut, where they use
| Linda Hamilton twin sister in a surprising way: to fake a
| "mirror" scene where Sarah is operating on the Terminator's head.
|
| They are in front of a mirror. They wanted to actually use Arnie
| in the reflection to show his face; they wanted a dummy for the
| head closest to the camera, to show the surgery inside the head.
| So they used a window in the wall instead of a mirror! Linda
| Hamilton and her twin sister are mimicking each other's movements
| to make it seem it's a mirror image.
|
| (The other use of Linda's twin sister, the scene where the T-1000
| fakes being Sarah, is better known)
| 5faulker wrote:
| Ah... the brilliance of the old days.
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| Thank engineers
|
| Thank Terminator
|
| Thank Hackaday
|
| Thank Hacker News
|
| Thank messenger zdw
|
| Thank the_af commenter
|
| Thank God
|
| for idea that
|
| twins are like
|
| cd ~/./../.../new_environment
|
| git clone human_genes
|
| configure
|
| make
|
| new
| sho_hn wrote:
| I agree this is super neat, but for what it's worth, the "the
| mirror is actually a hole in the set" technique is kind of a
| standard go-to in movie making.
|
| I am very enamored with the iconic "impossible mirror" shot in
| Robert Zemeckis' "Contact" instead, which used subtle CGI to
| brilliant effect to innovate over the practical bag of tricks.
| It's my single favorite effects shot in movies:
| https://youtu.be/avRdYf78kLk (from 1:10 for the impatient)
| gregmac wrote:
| On the topic, another neat video covering several "impossible
| mirror" shots in movies (including Contact):
| https://youtu.be/VASwKZAUVSo
| LaserDiscMan wrote:
| "Oh boy!"
|
| The same technique of using an extended set to fake a mirror
| was frequently used on Quantum Leap.
| klodolph wrote:
| Or in Airplane!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-n0yctyGY
| dtgriscom wrote:
| It was at least the third or fourth watching when I noticed
| that one. One of the densest movies I've ever encountered.
| knorker wrote:
| Huh? Do you have a reference for that?
|
| This is what I remember from T2 director's cut:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiBHj8Xs4sg (at 0:21).
|
| When I saw the theatrical cut it always confused me how John
| could tell who was the T1000. And it also annoyed me that Arnie
| shot the frozen T1000, seemingly only speeding up his thawing.
|
| In the director's cut you see that T1000 is actually damaged,
| but not damaged like a non-liquid robot would be. It's not
| losing mobility (control) of an arm, but instead losing control
| of its morphing functions.
|
| It's complete genius that was (almost[1]) entirely cut from the
| theatrical cut. It's ridiculous that the edit it out.
|
| [1] There's exactly one "flicker" of T1000 metalliness in the
| theatrical cut. A small remnant of a genius idea.
| the_af wrote:
| > _Huh? Do you have a reference for that?_
|
| I can't find the "making of" video where they tell how they
| did this, but here is the cut scene:
| https://youtu.be/tZNE637BeEI
|
| In scenes where you see Arnie's face in the mirror at the
| same time as his head being operated on, it's not a mirror,
| and one of the two Sarah's is not Linda Hamilton (whoever's
| face is shown less clearly).
|
| Edit: lots of hits on Google saying this is how they did it,
| but I cannot find a single authoritative reference, like a
| making of video or someone involved in the production saying
| so.
| knorker wrote:
| Ok, I was being an idiot. I was thinking of the other
| Hamilton-twin scene.
|
| Got it, yeah that was a good use of her.
| gmueckl wrote:
| This is explained in one of the DVD extras on my copy of
| Terminator 2. I don't remeber if it's in the director's
| commentary of the movie or one of the extra videos and I don't
| have time to look it up. But it's definitely there.
| h2odragon wrote:
| I recall debating this with a dude who was into makeup and masks;
| he pointed out the blooms moved like rubber as the character
| runs; seemed pretty conclusive.
|
| I love how prosaic and simple some of their practical effects
| are; but the real accomplishment to me is how _hard_ it is to pay
| attention to those details, to notice them; when everything flows
| so smoothly into captivating scenes.
| Someone wrote:
| > he pointed out the blooms moved like rubber as the character
| runs; seemed pretty conclusive.
|
| Is it? If we could build such robots, they would be plastic.
| Any holes shot into them wouldn't be rigid, and would deform
| when they moved.
|
| Or are you saying "moved like rubber" obviously looks different
| from whatever way the stuff this robot is supposed to be made
| of would move?
| h2odragon wrote:
| "Moved unlike CGI" is what i meant.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I remember rewatching T2 on computer after seeing stan winston
| studio showing props. The movie shows a lot of these physical
| props for very small frame numbers. Very hard to notice if you
| slow things down but at normal speed it just flows through the
| context of the scene. It's a minimal amount of detail that your
| brain needs to have to accept continuation. Probably a
| byproduct of the time.. can't CGI all the things so you have to
| optimize and find the best bang for your bucks in every
| dimension.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| Reminds me of one New Years Eve party where Aliens was playing
| on the TV and a friend walks past and says "Watch Bishop's
| severed body now as he grabs Newt to stop her getting sucked
| out the air lock...", and clear as day you can see the lower
| part of the actors body come out a hole in the ground when he
| grabs Newt. I had probably seen the movie a dozen times before
| but never noticed it.
|
| In a similar vein, just after having watched X-Men 2 in a
| cinema a (different) friend who did CGI animation for a living
| pointed out that during the scene where Magneto moved the
| bridge, you can see that the shadows on the water don't move
| with the bridge. His theory was that the special effects team
| were likely completely aware, but looked at the amount of
| effort required and hoped no one would notice. I never noticed
| the problem myself until it was pointed out.
|
| I guess back then when special effects were monumentally
| difficult and computers weren't as capable as they are now,
| directors often relied on the audience's attention being
| elsewhere at that moment and thus being less likely to notice.
| noja wrote:
| > and clear as day you can see the lower part of the actors
| body come out a hole in the ground
|
| Screencap: https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs?file=A2bl
| actorholep...
|
| (fixed in the bluray)
|
| from https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs
| RubberbandSoul wrote:
| There's a couple of those.
|
| The "caseless" ammo assult rifle is obviously ejecting spent
| casing in some scenes.
|
| The rotating light on top of the mecha suit loader is smashed
| when the queen drags it down into the airlock but is whole
| again once down in the pit.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Hey. It's only hard because most movies are still a blurry 24
| FPS mess. Look what happened to the Hobbit movies. I had a
| friend complaining more FPS suck because he was able to see
| makeup and everything else wrong with the movie. That's why
| certain directors don't want any advancements in this area. It
| will make their job a lot harder than it is now
| willis936 wrote:
| 24 fps can have good motion clarity with a strobed image.
| Theatres used to have shutters. I don't think DLP does, but I
| may be mistaken.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| DLP response time is insanely fast (~2 us) because they're
| basically using PWM to modulate the brightness, but instead
| of each pixel getting a specific pulse width they're
| essentially sending bit-planes where the per-bit-plane on-
| time corresponds to the bit-plane's weight.
| willis936 wrote:
| Sample and hold makes motion clarity worse. You only help
| motion clarity two ways: shorter frame duty cycle and
| higher frame rate.
| kadoban wrote:
| It's _mostly_ due to how human vision works really. Our
| visual system is good at focusing on certain parts, and the
| rest just gets elided unless you specifically focus on it.
| VFX are magic tricks put to film.
| rebuilder wrote:
| The Hobbit just looked bad, IMO. They seem to have lost their
| heads with color grading.
|
| I remember seeing a video where Jackson was raving about how
| they can relight shots, showing a pretty uniformly lit shot
| in Hobbiton. They went on to try to add directional light,
| shadows etc. using masks, and the image just got worse and
| worse until it was an inconsistent mess. But apparently they
| liked that.
|
| And don't get me started on how they smoothed the dwarves'
| skin out so they look like glamour models. I really can not
| fathom what they were thinking.
| seoulmetro wrote:
| >They went on to try to add directional light, shadows etc.
| using masks, and the image just got worse and worse until
| it was an inconsistent mess. But apparently they liked
| that.
|
| You'd be surprised how much the average human can enjoy
| fake lighting and fake elements in photography/videography.
|
| For anyone with the slightest lighting knowledge though it
| looks horrendous.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| I read recently, that the Hobbit films have been re-colour
| graded to align them with the main Lord of the Rings films
| in the latest UHD 4k box set.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| They are not a blurry 24 FPS mess. They are an efficient 24
| FPS sweet spot
| kuschku wrote:
| In many movies, I just can't see motion and the blurry mess
| becomes entirely impossible to see. Which is why I end up
| reading plot summaries on wikipedia instead.
|
| 24fps is far too low.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| The blurry mess of fast CGI is NOT down to the 24fps
| problem. As the action is so fast, it's faster to render
| complex scenes in lower detail CGI as the eye (mostly)
| can't see it.
|
| However if you pause the action, you can clearly see
| where the rendering shortcuts have been made (The
| Transformers movies are a good example of this).
| wongarsu wrote:
| 24 FPS used to be a reasonable sweet spot back when movies
| where slow-paced and high frame rates made for huge film
| reels (not to mention the lighting requirements for early
| color film).
|
| Today there are no technical problems or impracticalities
| with high frame rates, and modern cinematography is hitting
| the limits of what you can do with 24 fps (and sometimes
| crossing them). 24 fps has become a local maximum because
| that's what we've done for decades, but it is also a blurry
| mess.
| bscphil wrote:
| There literally are some impracticalities, though. For a
| Blu-ray player to support 60fps at 1080p, it's got to
| support level 4.2 of the AVC specification. Many (most?)
| players do not do this (and in fact some older models
| supported only 4.0), because it's more costly to include
| a decoding chip that can handle the bitrate needed for
| the uncompressed video stream.
|
| Furthermore, much of home entertainment is streamed these
| days. I imagine introducing 60 fps on top of 4k would
| increase bandwidth requirements beyond what many
| consumers have access to. It may also be more than
| Netflix et al want to pay for, so one imagines they'll
| want to tack on a surcharge as they did for UHD.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The jump from HD to UHD quadruples the number of pixels,
| the jump from 24 fps to 60 fps only increases framerate
| by a factor of 2.5. Not to mention that the panels in any
| old HD TV will happily work with a 60 fps signal via
| HDMI, while the upgrade to UHD requires a new TV.
|
| Yes, more frames means more data, but it creates fewer
| problems than the 4k/UHD upgrade everyone willingly goes
| through, while doing more to increase fidelity.
| bscphil wrote:
| Right, but everyone agrees that UHD is an enormous
| improvement worth buying new hardware for. You said
| "there are no technical problems or impracticalities" to
| high frame rates, but 2.5 times the uncompressed bitrate
| _is_ a technical problem, and so you have to have a
| situation where people are willing to pay for an upgrade.
| Most people seemingly don 't care enough.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Does a lower frame rate actually mean more blur? The frame
| rate gives an upper bound for exposure time but not a lower
| bound.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| In general, films are shot with a slow shutter speed
| because the low FPS would otherwise create a strobe-like
| effect. Unless that effect is being sought (famously,
| Saving Private Ryan), blur is preferred.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Isn't a strobe light effect due to how long you project
| each image, not how long you expose it for?
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Maybe strobe isn't the best word for me to use. Choppy?
| Whatever you want to call it, the result is kind of
| nauseating.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Film is single-exposed for recording but has been multi-
| exposed for projection for >100 years, because a 24 fps
| projection makes everyone throw up (this is a first hint to
| those "eye can't see more than 24 fps anyway" folks).
|
| To get a "natural-looking" amount of motion blur the
| exposure angle is generally around 180deg, which is ~1/48 s
| exposure time for each frame. If you use a small shutter
| angle (short exposure time) you get less motion blur and
| things start to look -very- choppy (another hint for the
| "eye can't see more than 24 fps" fraction). Generally this
| translates to moving things being almost always blurry.
| This is also why pans are usually so slow in cinema films,
| because if you'd pan faster everything would just be a
| blurry mess. Another factor here is that film is not very
| sensitive - so short exposure times are kinda out of the
| question anyway. Look at e.g. The DaVinci Code, most of the
| darker scenes were shot on 500 ISO film and it's already
| very grainy and soft.
|
| Apparent motion blur is also worse on sample & hold
| displays (LCDs, OLEDs etc.) compared to strobed displays
| (especially CRTs). Viewing 24 fps content on most displays
| at their native refresh rate (~60 fps) requires on-the-fly
| frame rate conversion, which is necessarily of poor
| quality. If you ever watched popular Youtubers and wondered
| why the heck their videos are so incredibly janky, it's not
| just because the YT web player drops frames like crazy, but
| also because you're viewing 24 fps content on a 60 fps
| display (they all shoot in 24 fps for the "professional
| look").
|
| The _reason_ why cinema is stuck on 24 fps even in the
| digital age is mostly because people have been culturally
| programmed to associate janky motion with quality film, and
| fluid motion with cheap TV production. That 's all. It's an
| objectively far inferior format that was chosen at a time
| when film was quite expensive per meter, and so you'd
| wanted to use as little film as you could get away with.
| The _only_ advantage a low frame rate has (today) is that
| you get a stop more light because the exposure is twice as
| long at preferred shutter angles. Digital cinema cameras
| already have base sensitivities of 500, 800 or 2500 ISO
| though - much faster than high quality film _ever_ was
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > The reason why cinema is stuck on 24 fps even in the
| digital age is mostly because people have been culturally
| programmed to associate janky motion with quality film,
| and fluid motion with cheap TV production. That's all.
|
| I kinda assumed it was because it was too expensive and
| difficult to produce higher frame rate video that was of
| comparable quality. I have yet to see a high frame rate
| movie that didn't leave me forced to pay more attention
| to the bad film props and questionable acting than to the
| story line.
| CPLX wrote:
| That's like saying the only reason rock music is stuck on
| tube distortion is because of cultural programming, and
| hi res solid state amplifiers are objectively "superior"
| in some way.
|
| We're making art here. The format that people find the
| most compelling isn't inferior.
| MarcScott wrote:
| OT a little, but I learned today that the scene from Live and Let
| Die where Bond runs across the back of a bunch of crocs wasn't
| faked. As a child I'd always been told that the stuff you see in
| movies is not real, but it turns out that sometimes it is.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeUzB12ln8
| capableweb wrote:
| Well, not sure you can call it "real" really, the crocodiles
| were kept in that specific place, it was attempted many times
| and so on. What people wanted to convey is not that it's not
| actually real life, but it's most likely faked real life, just
| like that Bond stunt.
| ksec wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if these "tricks" are still better than CGI. A
| bit like using LED wall with Unreal Engine as Hybrid rather than
| everything CGI.
|
| https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-...
| wpietri wrote:
| I think there are different kinds of better, so for some people
| the answer is definitely yes.
|
| I think CGI is coming up on "effectively perfect", especially
| with the way it has gone from a post-production thing to
| becoming part of the world around the actors:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft
|
| So once people get used to perfection, I expect there will be a
| revival of "practical effect" productions, where people go for
| intentionally imperfect but more "human" approaches to making
| scenes. It'll be niche, of course, like low-fi games or fancy
| barista pourovers. But that's what feels like "better" to some
| people.
|
| I'd certainly love that in the right context. In the same way
| Stranger Things was a success as an 1980s revival, I could
| imagine modern takes on sci-fi films of the 50s-70s that are
| intentionally done without CGI.
| bscphil wrote:
| > I think CGI is coming up on "effectively perfect"
|
| Then why does it still look ... like CGI? I've seen several
| of the biggest budget productions from recent years, and it
| seems to me like CGI is not getting any better. Take
| buildings with debris destroyed in recent Marvel movies for
| example, or almost any scene in the last film in Peter
| Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, or even Dune, which I just saw in
| theaters. The CGI sandworms look like CGI.
|
| > especially with the way it has gone from a post-production
| thing to becoming part of the world around the actors
|
| I can agree with you on this point. The good / unnoticeable
| uses of CGI are to add background details around the actors,
| not replace action / stunts, and use as few digital models as
| possible (the models are still the weak point). Mad Max: Fury
| Road was the one film where I'd say the CGI approximates
| "perfection".
| __s wrote:
| I've been watching a lot of films recently. Films started
| getting better during the 80s, leading to a golden era from 90s
| to 2000s, I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality.
| Especially in action films
|
| I've also tried to avoid selection bias: I've seen bad (& not
| funny B-movie bad) films from the 90s
|
| Death Proof is a masterpiece discarding CGI
|
| This isn't to say there aren't good films anymore, there
| definitely are, CGI isn't what makes them good tho
| pm90 wrote:
| Hah, Death Proof is a classic, there's the scene in Texas
| Chilli Parlor where Stuntman Mike talks about how CGI is
| replacing what he did... was that the scene you're
| referencing? Or is it that the movie itself is made with no
| cgi? Those last scenes couldn't have been easy.
| __s wrote:
| The movie itself is made with no cgi. Helps when the cast
| is made up of stunt actors
|
| Tarantino on JRE described how the car crash scene
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ) was done by
| pulling the two cars together with a wire & dummies for the
| gore
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially
| in action films
|
| This is a logistics issue not a technology issue of the major
| players who make action movies these days. Your average
| Avengers film has the action sequences already pencilled out
| and being created and finished before the rest of the plot is
| even really figured out and the connective tissue of these
| scenes is filmed later which is why the action scenes all
| feel like just random set pieces that are sometimes tonally
| different and also often don't really have any plot
| development or repercussions to the rest of the movie because
| they're just set pieces the director is slipping their story
| between.
| rectang wrote:
| I still remember seeing Tron as a 11 year old with my Dad.
| His reaction as we left the theater: they spent millions of
| dollars on special effects and a couple thousand on plot.
| kzrdude wrote:
| CGI contributes to making everything bigger (see late GoT
| seasons), which isn't better storytelling or more compelling,
| just more "badass", which is what they were optimizing for
| anyway.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Late GoT seasons lacked books to be based on. Heck, Winds
| of Winter hasn't been released, yet.
|
| "They say" GRRM is rewriting it because we disliked HBO's
| GoT story. I say he had no idea what to write and now he
| knows what not to write.
| leetcrew wrote:
| CGI can be beneficial, it just can't carry a film or show by
| itself. think about star wars OT. for a trilogy that's
| ostensibly about a galaxy-wide struggle for freedom, we spend
| an awful lot of time following a few people around in small
| rooms and remote earth biomes. as a product of the time, they
| hold up just fine, but like, where are all the normal people?
| are the rebels fighting for the freedom of a few dozen
| moisture farmers on tatooine and some small bears? the crew
| of a single star destroyer must be larger than the combined
| population of every world we see in the original trilogy
| (note: we don't actually "see" alderaan). the prequels (for
| all their faults) show that there was a very large part of
| the star wars universe that george lucas simply couldn't
| depict in the early 80s. I suppose some might argue it would
| have been better if he hadn't, but I digress.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yes, budget. The newer versions of ROTJ for example have
| scenes of celebration on other planets inserted after the
| DS2 explodes.
| hammock wrote:
| More to do with budget than limitations of lack of CGI.
|
| Take a look at epics like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia.
| They use HUGE scales with no need for CGI.
| leetcrew wrote:
| if we do a naive inflation adjustment to 2021 dollars:
|
| star wars ANH: $50 million
|
| star wars ESB: $100 million
|
| star wars RoTJ: $90 million
|
| lawrence of arabia: $137 million
|
| ben hur: $144 million
|
| so yeah, the movies you mentioned had significantly
| larger budgets, but not massively so (at least compared
| to ESB and RoTJ). I'd argue the bigger difference is the
| subject matter. you can do a large 1930's battle without
| CGI just by throwing money at the problem. there isn't an
| amount of money you could spend in 1970 to do any of the
| prequel trilogy coruscant scenes. they probably could
| have done most of the naboo scenes, though.
|
| I'm also not arguing that huge CGI renders are always a
| good thing. most stories are really just about the
| interactions between a few people. I do think it's a
| significant value add for the scifi genre especially,
| where the world itself is often a character.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Except now those huge budgets went from shooting
| everything on location to shooting everything on a sound
| stage and the movie being 95% CGI.
| remir wrote:
| CGI can be incredibly well done and definately enhance a
| scene. But is has to be used by a competent director.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| There's a whole generation of filmmakers that shoot
| everything on a sound stage and have all the complicated
| stuff done in post. As the generations from the 70s/80s/90s
| who blended practical effects with tasteful CGI use retire,
| their knowledge and wisdom will be permanently lost.
|
| It's part sad and disgusting.
| girishso wrote:
| Whatever I was clearly "stunned" after watching the movie the
| movie in a theater. That's what counts.
| agumonkey wrote:
| We went to see it by accident. I saw that movie half a dozen
| time over a few years, every time it was in theaters I bought a
| ticket.
|
| Such a pivotal moment in my life.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Related, Hollywood used to intentionally use real ammunition in
| order to make scenes more immersive. The Captive (1915) had the
| director "encouraging" extras to use real bullets resulting in
| one death. Angels With Dirty Faces (1938) had a planned scene
| with live ammo where a ricochet almost killed the main actor.
| protomyth wrote:
| On the same vein, I am do glad John Carpenter used practical
| effects when doing The Thing.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The effects in Terminator 1 were very creative. In one scene they
| used smoke from cigarretes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-14 23:00 UTC)