I don't often comment on UA-cam videos, but this series is some of the most well done educational videos I've ever seen. Serious without being dry, smart without being unapproachable. Bravo.
Although I'm writing this about 14 years after the release of this video: in this one you are so relaxed in your presentation. I like it that way! Thanks for making/sharing.
There are an unbelievable amount of comments going on about how wrong the final statement is. They are all missing the point that it really is all about what's on the screen. You don't like cheesy CGI? That's because what made it _onto the screen_ was cheesy. Had the CGI itself been better, you wouldn't have noticed, nor been complaining about it. Great informative video.
It's not the quality of the of the CGI effects. It's the almost masturbatory compulsive over-indulgence in it. It's like Billy Flynn singing "Razzle Dazzle." Throw so much dazzle at them that (you hope) they won't notice that there's no actual substance.
Personally the uncanny valley is what kills it for me. The important fact is that the human eye can tell the difference between a true tangible object and something digitally made.
@@jackmp4 Yes and no? Again, it's the quality. There's a lot of things that can make CGI so realistic that you can't distinguish it from the real thing at all. It's just that, usually, that level of quality is limited to certain studios due to budget or even exclusivity. Anything even slightly lower than that quality falls into the uncanny valley and you end up being able to tell that it's fake, or at least, that something is off.
Blair Palmerlee See the Toupee Fallacy: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Toupee_fallacy Also, men in rubber suits in schlocky 50s B-movies are basically the same thing as schlocky movies today...
Blair Palmerlee You said CGI doesn't look real enough... which I countered Toupee fallacy. Then I addedthat there's plenty of examples of horrible practical effects from the 50s - that they are no different than the bad CGI of today. And you come back with all this straw man nonsense without furthering your point or even bothering to correct my assertions. Sounds like you're the one that needs a lesson in reasoning...
Blair Palmerlee jeez, seriously get over yourself. I countered your argument which you take as personal attack. Reread it, there's no personal attack, just two points given. When its just additional points no need to go creating a new straw man by calling straw man and resorting personal attacks. Sheesh, I know this is the internet but this is basic rhetoric. To clarify: I pointed to the toupee fallacy which is the break in logic that all toupees look fake. The fallacy is how would you know if it fooled you -it's only noticeable when it's obvious. This is a response to your original statement that CGI isn't good enough to be used as widely as it is... It's a bit old but look at reactions to digital set extensions for Wolf of Wall Street or even Gone Girl. Even Ugly Betty was utilizing fake sets in the 90s. No one knew, no one complained. The second half was a reference to fact that at no point in history of Hollywood did the lack of a really good effect prevent cheap producers from throwing poor films
+Filmmaker IQ Ugly Betty was not in the 90's ,,, it first aired in 2006 .. Hardly any tv shows in the 90's used digital set extensions, but i agree History Channel re-enactment sets look fake compared to HBO fake sets.. I understand, but we at a point where we see something and now question it... thats the "magic" in digital ...
This video really sparked my love for those old movies, of how creative and inventive those amazing people are, and boy I hope their work will live on!
Most people that complain there is too much CGI in cinema don't realize that 90% of their favorite "raw" shots involve some kind of VFX comp. A sky replacement, lighting change, maybe the guys on set just completely forgot a simple element like a sign.
It’s interesting how much fringing was accepted in the old days - presumably because the attempted shots were so new and astounding. Even Star Wars 1977 was shot with major fringing that they got rid of by hand-drawing it out on the animation stand. One of the artists complained that in some places they were actually creating the matte frame-by-frame (anyway that’s why the movie looks so good).
I always loved making videos! When I was around 9 my parents got me a green screen cause they saw how much I loved doing videos... And right now to be honest I absolutley LOVE stuff like that. This just brightens up my day sooooo much! Especially editing. Probably my favorite part of making a video. Thanks for making awesome stuff like this :) Keep it up folks!
I hear too many people saying "There's too many special effects used in movies wah wah waaaah". Well, to that I ask the question- What else can you use special effects for? They can't give you a ride to work. They can't buy you a drink. They can't clean your windows for you.
I think what people mean is that too many films and filmmakers relay on cheap (and I don't mean in monetary terms) spectacle rather than compelling storytelling. Is a 12 minute fight scene four times more exciting than a 3 minute one? Are 5 explosions five times more exciting than 1 explosion? No, there are diminishing returns. That's especially true if we don't care about the characters involved. If they have become 2 dimensional puppets to be hurled around with no physical reality then there is no jeopardy. Even for the biggest films of the past every spectacular shot had to be really justifiable because of the comparative costs and also the difficulty in producing convincing effects. That led to a conciseness which is now largely lacking in current major effects films. Effects are great when they are used wisely by a good storyteller, they suffer when they are indiscriminately as a distraction from inadequate storytelling. Icing on a cake can be great in moderation, too much makes you feel ill and won't disguise a bad cake.
During the 1940's 50's into early 60's my grandparents lived 3 blocks south of Paramount on N Bronson Ave & it was a fun & historically rich neighborhood to live, walk around & socialize- my grandfather managed the Hollywood Post Office on Cherokee Ave & came to know some of the people who worked in the industry like actress, Helen Hayes who was a periodic dinner guest at their Bronson Ave home-Their son, my dad went to Joseph Le Conte Middle School on Bronson Ave where Carol Burnett attended some yrs after my dad- Desilu Studios was a stone's throw from Paramount which use to be RKO & KHJ Radio & Television were right in the mix at 5115 Melrose Ave of which Capital Records shared that bldg. as well & was called 'Capital Melrose' where Sinatra & Nelson Riddle & Billy May & Nat Cole etc.. were turning out Some fine records.... 'until Capital Records relocated to their newly completed 13 Story Capital Records Tower on N Vine St. in April of 56 which I recall going up layer by layer 'Nickodell's Melrose was a fascinating restaurant just a few yards south of Paramount's Bronson Ave Gate riddled with history.
3 роки тому+14
I see the UA-cam algorithm has brought us together. The video is a perfect history. Which one shall we watch next
I do agree overall but it kills me when he says "the only thing that matter in ON that screen". Everyone forgets about the thing that is OFF that screen. No one needs it in AAA blockbusters. Don't get me wrong. I do work at VFX company myself and VFX makes my income in the end of the day. I just feel sorry everyone forgets that. But that is how it goes.
Vladimir Savadov-Senchenko it's true that some actors find it difficult and uninspiring to work in front of a blue/green screen. At least that's what Ian McKellen complained about when filming The Hobbit films.
Digital cameras and digital trickery are likely two of the best things to happen to film making. They give what was once limited to big studios with big sound stages to pretty much everybody.
Oh Thank You for making this video! I went to films school back in the 80's, and right after I graduated, most everything we learned was about to become obsolete with the advent of digital. I just found this video to explain about green screen - and watching it refreshed my memory, as well as filled in some valuable info. Thanks again!
When he sais "the only thing that matters is what's on that screen" a fly climbs up his shoulder and then disappears behind his back. That fly had quite a good sense for drama :) from c.a. 16:45
Wow! I probably would've seen it better on my desktop at work, but on my tiny phone, I had to rewind 3 times to see that! Thanks, great catch! Anything can be captured on the fly...
Some people don't really understand, let me clarify this for people once and for all since I do VFX myself and studied it. Sure, there were good old days of using the props, but then again when there was CGI introduced, people begun to use CGI more due to the flexibility of the alternative itself. There is a budget for every movie people, understand that, and having roots in the VFX industry myself, you have to understand that as much as VFX artists want to use props (so we dont have to spend extra time to render every single thing), we have to simulate and bake explosions. Why not use TNT ? What if something goes wrong? What if we want to change the radius of the explosion? What if something didn't blow up when it was supposed to? Are we going to spend extra cash and time just to build everything back together again? It's just not within the budget. We want to have control over the outcome, to be able to change variables at will, to be able to adjust properties with simple nodes so it goes our way, and if it doesn't, we will change it again. I support props, like I've mentioned, but since VFX is available and we have such fast rendering softwares such as vray or iray now, why not turn to those instead? Transformers would have been way over budget (sure it made over 2 bil but no one knew that before the film was released), had been everything were props, although I can agree new techniques should be found to capture the interests of the general public
I think it should be a balance of both props and effects as well as cgi but for locations and props to go completely extinct in favor of cgi would be a shame especially if every film was just simply made on a green screen and sometimes spectacular shots are made from accidents it’s pros and cons to both
This was such an incredibly informative and entertaining video! Even when it goes into the more complex details such as The explanation to Vlaho's MGM 65 Millimeter process, I found my self engaged and locked in on every word, something that Doesn't happen to me too often. This is a video I would Highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about Green Screen effects!
Seriously, I've read and watched so many "history of special fx" books and videos, and you still managed to show me something I hadn't seen before. Amazing. Thank you Filmmaker IQ!
Absolutely incredible video including a well thought out dialog and history brief. I stumbled on to this by clicking through various other UA-cam links in an internet browsing frenzy. Despite having no ties to the film world, I was sucked in by the amazing technical overview, and learned more than I could have imagined from a short video. I wanted to be sure to post and thank you for posting such a well made documentary.
This is a terrific video. I've worked in motion picture visual effects for over 30 years and this is the best description of this topic I have ever seen or heard. Good Job!
That was very informative. I've never seen a presentation with such a historical perspective. In the end, green screens are juste another tool in the bucket. It's neither good nor bad. Just like any other tool, it all depends on how we use it.
Alfred Hitchcock's movie, "The Birds," rented the the sodium vapor screen from Disney to create the bird swarms. If you look carefully in the beginning, you'll see that the bird swarm silhouette matches many of the swarms in the movie, meaning that they used the moving mat to create the edgy yet simple opening title sequence.
First time here, after 17:29 min I am more informed, have been entertained and am impressed by your research and presentation, you earned my subscription and hopefully many more.
This was fuckin' brilliant! I LOVE this video! It doesn't assume the viewer is stupid - quite the opposite. TBH I couldn't barely follow the second blue-screen process when he explained it, but I'm sure I could if I tried.
Wow! I learned a lot to. that was a great history leasson.
10 років тому+1
This video is a must see for anyone interested in cinema (as I do) I love VFX and CGI, and this video has been for me more better than any breakdown of any modern film, by far. Bravo, Sir. Subscribed
Very well done. Excellent research and detail. I remember being fascinated by bluescreen as an 8 year old kid, and today I still get a thrill every time I pull a great key from green!
People are always giving George Lucas crap for using Digital Technology in his prequels. There are a few things I agree with from those people but it's little and far between. Ultimately the team used every trick they could to make those. Are there weak points? Well yes but you cannot deny each movie has amazing digital and mixed effect strong points and they still amaze me!
Very good video. One tiny error at 11:26 about sodium screen. After the prism sends the yellow light to the B&W strip for the matte, the remaining light goes to a regular color negative, not a 3 strip Technicolor arrangement. A 3-strip Technicolor camera actually has two gates and movements, not 3 because for 3 strip two of the strips are bi-packed through one gate. As adapted for the Disney sodium system with the special "dydymium" prism, the matte film goes through one gate, color negative through the other. Also, btw, the special lamps used were low pressure sodium. The streetlights you see most often today are high pressure sodium. They have that pink-yellow look. It's a somewhat wider spectrum. Low pressure sodium has the narrow band you described. You do see them occasionally as outdoor lighting...sometimes underneath some underpasses, but they are not too common anymore. You will know them if you see them because they emit a very deep yellow like a traffic light, not the pinky yellow of high pressure bulbs.
+filmteknik Okay, I get my misunderstanding. It was a retired 3 strip camera they used, but the extra gate was for the Sodium Vapor film. www.theiwerkscollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SodiumVaporInside-e1390768442174.png They must have put that out after the video else I would have found it and used it :) Regarding the low pressure lamps - you're right about the modern sodium lights. But our modern high pressure lamps were invented in 1964. When researching this I remember an anecdote about the folks at Disney raiding the Department of Water and Power for lamps. The lamps they used were most likely streetlamps - from their day, not modern ones. :)
@@FilmmakerIQ Yes, 3 strip Technicolor actually shot on 3 strips of b/w film only lasted for just over a decade or so. Many films after that described as 3 strip actually had a single reel of colour stock in the camera and the separations came later. The single reel cameras were the same as those used for b/w films so were far more available and far less bulky. The process was also cheaper.
Wow, fantastic video. I think what people mean by "too reliant on CGI" is that it still looks phony in many applications. The whole point of special effects is to make it look real, or possible. CGI used to compliment a movie... like the first 3 Lord of the Rings, or even the Matrix have mind boggling realism. More current movies with insane car wrecks, or crazy car stunts, planes, even the new Hobbit when they slide down the gold are just too fantastical to believe.
You got to have both - I'm sure some shots were mostly CG batwing - some were practical parts... it's getting increasing hard to tell. Look at the VFX before and afters of things like "Wolf of Wall Street" or "Gone Girl" and see how much set extensions have come to creating new fabricated realities. We're already at the point of photorealism - give it another 10 years and there will be hardly any difference.
What a remarkable video it was. I'm impressed not only how informative and interesting the video is, but also by Mr. Hess. You are a great story teller. Thumbs up, and thank you.
That was a great Thesis you closed with. I agree one-hundred percent with your statement. I believe those who go against more complicated shots, may not be very practical with effects. I believe that when Star Wars was released in 1977 that many of those workers in the filming field stated that Star Wars had ruined film making forever. A blight with special effects occurred on Star Wars Return Of The Jedi where the director had very little experience with special effects causing delay's and warnings during filming. Your video is very professional and informative. Thank you!!!
I've come back to re-watch many of your videos, John, and I just have to say, you're a master. Why you aren't hosting a multi million dollar docu series, is beyond me.
"If you want to make a beautiful movie its really simple, put something beautiful in front of the lens"! Sir Ridley Scott. I Know its only the 7th of January but it would be rude of me to go without saying, this is the best UA-cam video I have seen this year! 😂 Keep up the great work, and Happy new Year ... Consider me subscribed. 🏆
when i was in school i did a fair bit of film making and i always wondered why it was called matte. cause knew what matte (ie matte black cars) but i didn't know the reason why it was called matte. tsk damn i wish i pursued film making instead of engineering :/
Wow man. I'm a high school student getting ready to graduate and I'd love to make films but I'm about to pursue an engineering degree. Your comment captured my exact thoughts, that I'd regret it.
It depend what you really want or like. a lot of my mate in my art subject were quite surprised that I took engineering instead of something a long the lines of art. I had ambitions to go into the automotive industry particularly for auto racing design and engineering. But when reality hit, it hit hard. just know what you love.
Chris Watkins Hey Chris... It's really hard right now in the film industry. Jobs are scarce and they are leaving the US. Be prepared to work extremely hard to get a entry level job at a film studio. If you want to do this job: * previs - learn how to draw and paint extremely well * storyboard artist - learn to draw extremely well and how to tell a story with the camera. * 2D animation - learn flash * Visual Effects - learn Houdini and minor in Computer Science * 3D animaiton - learn Maya * 3D modeling - learn Maya, Zbrush, Mudbox... learn to UV map. * 3D rigging - learn Maya and minor in Computer Science * 3D texturing and shading - learn Mari, Zbrush, Mudbox... learn to make shaders procedurally in these common render engines: Mental Ray, RenderMan, Vray, Arnold, Mantra... Learn about Linear workflow and UV mapping. * 3D lighting - Learn how to light in Mental Ray, RenderMan, Vray, Arnold, Mantra... learn about render passes and linear workflow. * Compositing (what this video is talking about) - learn Nuke, After Effects, maybe Flame... learn about linear workflow * Director of Photography - nobody ever walks in as a DP at established studios so try and get a job in story or become a runner on a film crew. * Actor - can't help you there * Director - Spend years in the industry. These jobs tend to go together but may vary between studios: * Visual Effects and Compositing * Modeling and Rigging * Lighting and Compositing * Modeling, Texturing, Lighting, Compositing Studios only care about what your stuff looks like, can you take direction, can you work with others, can you learn quickly and hit your deadlines. Start to become acquainted with people at film studios because they will be your ticket into the industry. Look into digitaltutors.com, cmivfx.com, linda.com, gnomonschool.com before going to school. Schools in this industry are mainly beneficial for connections... how much are you willing to pay for your connections? There are plenty of independent artists offering professional classes that will help you develop your artistic eye and will cost thousands less. Seriously consider school but be smart about it so you can save yourself money. A lot of studios are only hiring for the duration of the project (which may be only for a couple of months) so be willing to jump from one job to the next. Let your passion drive you to become better. Learn to take criticism and always be willing to improve. Constantly draw so you can keep developing your artist eye. I highly recommend minoring in something (consider Computer Science) so you have something to fall back on when times get rough. This industry isn't for the weak of heart. Best of luck to you.
So very well said! "The ends justifies the means", is an extreme oversimplification of this kind of progress, yet one which encompasses your argument. Traditionally progress, for progress' sake, leads to naught but ruin. Here, it is a unique entity, as it only influences our story telling, and by extension ability to educate, and inspire. To that end, it can never be the responsibility of the medium, of what heights it's capability becomes, but it remains in the entity that controls it. Much the same as developing a sword, into a pistol, itself is harmless. The children who've found the new toys, however, could yield some terrifying results. I like what I see on the screens that some of the most talented of us, chose to paint their masterpieces. I'm not so optimistic about what the vast average populace could be "shown" by unpredictable sovereigns, that would be able to control, (at their whim) what ever is "happening" in the world. I love movies. I simply hope we are mature enough, and independent enough, to enjoy art, and not simply believe something because it was on TV...yet, this behaviour is all too common, and if I were a powerful entity, I would show my subjects, what ever I felt I had to, to keep them subjugated. I'm coming across as anti-government, and this is not the case. Trust and order is a good thing. Asking questions, and critical thinking is becoming lost to this generation. Instant gratification. Questioning, has been matched with instant information, BUT, the critical thinking part has all but disappeared.
Ok, loved the video. The last minute was kind of weird for me though. I don't think anyone in this day and age is implying that we shouldn't use special effects, just that computer generated graphics may not be the best option ALL the time. We've all seen those moments where poor CGI takes us out of a moment, or even completely out of a movie, because of how bad it looked. Low budget movies that try CGI fire are the most common occurrence. What, they couldn't possible film a big fire explosion in a secure location instead of trying to recreate it poorly? Now, that being said (and I mostly agree with this statement) what you said is true. We can't go back. Not because those days neer existed because that's false. There was a time before CGI. It even gave us an Hulk TV show. But let's be honest, we don't ever again want our Hulk to be a bodybuilder spray painted green. This show would simply not work in a day where we have seen a CGI Hulk. So we are in an age where we do have most tools, but it also means some options that were possible simply aren't anymore. In the same way Godzilla just cannot be stop motion picture or actors in costume in a miniature replica of a city anymore. Not since Jurassic Park. I mean they could do it. We still have the technology. But you would never get the audience to see it because we now expect to believe in a T-Rex chasing the car we are in. Sorry, that was a lot to say about the last comment made on a video but simply put, I have nothing to say about the video. It was awesome and brilliant and great! Keep up the good work.
I'm not saying that CGI always existed - but that Hollywood Trickery has always existed. From the very beginning filmmakers have been crafting false realities (all with varying degrees of success). CGI shouldn't be thought of as something that suddenly "breaks" the tradition, but is the most recent CHAPTER of the tradition of faking it.
I'm sorry but what you said is "There are cynics today that believe modern film is too reliant on CGI [...] but as I hope you learned this era never existed." That's the "last minute" that was bugging me. CGI stands for computer generated imagery. CGI is not blue screen. It's not green screen. Even a green screen scene can be transposed on a painting (as you shown) or another filmed exterior, interior... Again, my point is not to "piss" on this video. It was awesome. But the last few lines felt really weird, probably mainly because you strated talking about CGI despite the fact that little, if anything, was about CGI in your video. I think a real history video on CGI would be great, if only to see that it started earlier than most people understand it (we all kind of think it started with Jurassic Park, some of us remember the Abyss but few even know it started in the 60's) Anyway, sorry to bother you like that. great video. Keep them coming.
Jean-Francois Charbonneau You took the quote out of context. I said "There are cynics out there that believe modern film is too reliant on CGI - that we should return to a simpler form of 'real' filmmaking" The point is there has never been a time of 'real' filmmaking - Matte Paintings and split screen effects of Edwin S. Porter's days have become CGI (as in the Avengers example at the end which totally recreates New York City as a backdrop). The spirit and tradition of trickery is alive and well only with new tools. The inclusion of this bit in the end draw the connection to a larger point and deflate some of the anti-computer effects attitudes I've seen around in pop culture with historical context.
Filmmaker IQ - People's gripe (including mine) is that many films have become overly reliant on CGI as their main feature and selling point -- at the glaring expense of such things as story and character. And they are often accepted and applauded by fans quite uncritically. This *is* a problem, but it's not really a new problem. It might seem like it because there is so much lionisation of technology these days, but there have always been crappy films whose main selling point was their "great special effects." The problem isn't with the technology itself: it's with the mass market mentality of much commercial film. But that, too, is nothing new.
Holy crap. I learned and took away more from this video than all the years at film school. You are perfect in the way you present topics and the pacing was great. Thanks!!
344 thumbs down... Cocky people with a lot to learn but they think they know it all... Thanks because I didn't know their names... Even tho I'm in the cinema business.. what a shame..
Loved the ending. So true about using what's at our fingertips to create something, instead of restricting our filmmaking. That's why I have huge respect for the digital effects teams that work on MCU films.
A film is what it is, and special effects are tools of the trade. Having a good set of tools is always very helpful if you know how to use them, but many projects can be accomplished with very little, if you have the imagination and creativity. Awesome video, nice job!
What's on that screen is not the only thing that matters, not anymore. Viewers have grown weary of cgi characters and sets, which are little more glorified cartoons. If the day comes that we can perfectly copy an actor, voice and all, in the computer so that one could not tell the difference, knowing that that "actor" possess no soul destroys the believe-ability of the film. The same is true for any object in a movie. If it can be tangible but is not, a piece of the movie's soul is lost. Why do you think fans are so excited about J.J. Abrams use of practical effects, sets and characters for Episode VII? Because what's on the screen is not the only thing that matters.
+Shannon Peacock The anti-cgi movement in popular culture based on oversimplification of the process and a fair amount of nostalgia stained glasses. Sure JJ Abrams is trying to incorporate more real sets - the whole virtual set where EVERYTHING was CGI that started with Sky Captain and then used soulessly and vapishly for the Star Wars prequels has proven to be a pretty ineffective tool... but... If you think JJ is only using practical effects for Episode VII you're way mistaken. That crashed star destroyer - the Millennial Falcon dogfights - those are all completely CGI. CGI set extensions are probably in every shot. Look at Abram's last film: Star Trek Into Darkness: - he knows what he's doing with CGI: ua-cam.com/video/mKiZfmL_g2I/v-deo.html The use of CGI didn't stop movie goers from enjoying Avengers - Ironman and Hulk were never on set the way they appeared in the film. One of the greatest films of the summer that the anti-CGI crowd touted, "Mad Max: Fury Road" had 2/3rds of the shots touched in some way with CGI (no, they didn't cut off Charlize's arm) What's on the screen IS THE ONLY THING that matters. CGI got a bad rap because it was used by ineffective filmmakers using it as a crutch - hoping the cheap spectacle would make up for forgettable characters and weak stories. But every effect suffers at first in ineffectual hands, it's only that film has lost so much of it's novelty that early stumbles are more "unforgivable"
You made some good points, but I never claimed to be anti-CGI. In fact I'm the opposite. I embrace the evolution of film making, including technological advancements. We can now see amazing things that before weren't possible. And I certainly know about Abram's use of digital set extensions and so forth. It's a necessity. But what I said was "If it can be tangible, but is not..." There may be an element of nostalgia with practical effects, but knowing that this set, character, set piece, etc actually exists/existed and was seen by, made eye contact with the cast gives it a life and connection to the viewer that cannot be manufactured in a computer. And what about the future possibility (probability in fact) of virtual actors that are in every way identical to the real thing? People like actors for one reason and cartoon/cgi characters for another. Knowing that it's a virtual actor (including a non-human digital voice) in a film will never garnish the same connection as an actual human. Since nearly the dawn of film even behind-the-scene articles/stories (not on screen) have influenced the movie-going experience. And my original point concerning what really matters is categorically proven by millions of film viewers who say, "It matters to us."
+Filmmaker IQ Btw, I should say that I love your channel and I'm subscribed. Really great insights for an amateur like me. Don't want to just throw the negative at you 👍
First of all thanks for being a subscriber - I'm glad a discussion on this can occur without devolving into personal attacks :) The fact is, it is categorically proven by millions and millions of ticket sales that it isn't CGI but connection to the story that really matters. Of those that think real props matters - it's a fairy tale. The anti-CGI thing is mainly touted by (for lack of a better term) hipsters who think they know cinema but really haven't any first hand experience with how it's made or thought more deeply about the artform. Of course Abrams (and Miller when Mad Max came out) pay them lip service - saying they're using practicals - they are - but it's all a bit of marketing. They're magicians - they want you to believe the magic. The ironic thing about it is as the rail against CGI they're getting exciting and consuming CGI when they don't even know it. I think everyone knows Gollum isn't real... but that doesn't stop us from loving the character on screen. Everything in the Marvel Universe is CGI reliant, hasn't stopped them from raking in the tickets... There are no physical props from "Up" but that doesn't keep the opening montage from striking every human heart deeply. The problem too much fakery isn't that the audience doesn't buy into the reality of the scene - it's that the ACTORS don't buy into the reality of the scene. Human beings have evolved into lie detecting machines when it comes to faces - an actor can try to emote but if there's nothing to go on, it won't gel, nothing to build upon with imagination. That comes across in the final product. Compound it with the notion that if you greenscreen it you can decide in post production what you want to put in there... and then we loose all connection and it's a recipe for disaster. Again - it comes down to what's on the screen - and only what's on the screen. Can you buy into what's happening on the screen? That goes for CGI backgrounds and characters AND cheap plywood facades and rubber suits. Does the magic trick work or not? That's the only thing that matters.
+Filmmaker IQ More good points, but my main issue is that when cgi is used but doesn't have to be it affects the experience knowing that it's such, even when the performance is great. I also think that tickets sales aren't always a measure of how much viewers like a film. At least one of the Transformers movies was generally viewed as absolutely awful, but still was a huge summer blockbuster (just one example). I do, however, agree that real sets and characters often do affect an actor's performance, which of course influences the moviegoing experience.
Thank you for this awesome video and history lesson. I look forward to watching your other episodes :) I will share this with my like minded friends as I'm sure they will enjoy it as much as I did. When I was a kid I impressed my friends by making myself disappear as I had 2 vcrs. I did a similar thing recently digitally yet I kept the effect simple for old times sake. :)
He has to explain everything in a certain short amount of time. The film industry is well over a 100 years, explanations may tend to be too long or to go overboard and off topic with the main point he's trying to explain.He has to stick to the point, so it's better to summarize everything. Reading makes it simple, easier to understand and shorter to watch.
Wow man, great vid. Your final statements apply to other artforms too. Nothing "traditional" is being destroyed by using new techniques and tools, because "traditional" artworks also employed some manner of manipulation. We in the digital age are simply extending and going beyond what people before us could ever imagine.
Can I just say that I discovered your channel just over 24 hours ago and in that short space of time, I've learned so much. By far the best UA-cam channel imho.
The only thing that really matters is story. Of course we all strive for the best we can squeeze out of the current technology and the actors in which to tell the story through a performance with a great director to push the performance, but in the end it really comes down to story. The real talent behind any motion picture, be it film or video or even stage are the writers that can produce the story.
existem formas de fazer a história e existem formas de contar a história.. uma boa história só existe quando bem contada.. logo a história não é tudo.. apenas o caminho fio condutor de quem as conta
John! I absolutely LOVED this episode (as I do with so many of yours)! I adore "how it's done/how we did/do it" expositions like this! Even with all this good info, I also adore how tools like Hit Film allow me (a lovely amateur) to create images that only the pros could at one time; an awesome era we exist in, eh?
This even more interesting and well put together than I had hoped! It could easily have been an hour or more longer and I would have been riveted still!
You make learning about all aspects of film and the history it comes from entertaining, I have learned a lot from you and I can’t wait to learn more. Thank you for what you do!
Future generations will look back on our films with selective memories and say, "Those were some good years for film"
I don't often comment on UA-cam videos, but this series is some of the most well done educational videos I've ever seen. Serious without being dry, smart without being unapproachable. Bravo.
Although I'm writing this about 14 years after the release of this video: in this one you are so relaxed in your presentation. I like it that way! Thanks for making/sharing.
When you posted this comment, this video was 8 years old, though.
Amazing video, and the way you end it is great! Very informative and fun to watch.
Lonrot ,que haces aquí viejo 😲😲
I am 17 minutes and 30 seconds smarter in the art and history of greens screen. Thanks.
Actually 36
Ha! Thanks for keeping me legit.
actually 17 minutes and 27 seconds
29 seconds
Ikr
Well done! Easy to watch with great info! Thanks.
Nice to see you here Toby. Great channel, i've learned a lot from you.
Ben Mensah Thanks Ben. I appreciate that!
I learned more in this video than I have in the 1000's of "CGI-Breakdowns" that I've seen...
Well yes, of course. This is about the *history* of green-screen. Most CGI-breakdowns are just that - breakdowns of a certain film or shot.
There are an unbelievable amount of comments going on about how wrong the final statement is. They are all missing the point that it really is all about what's on the screen. You don't like cheesy CGI? That's because what made it _onto the screen_ was cheesy. Had the CGI itself been better, you wouldn't have noticed, nor been complaining about it.
Great informative video.
It's not the quality of the of the CGI effects. It's the almost masturbatory compulsive over-indulgence in it. It's like Billy Flynn singing "Razzle Dazzle." Throw so much dazzle at them that (you hope) they won't notice that there's no actual substance.
Personally the uncanny valley is what kills it for me. The important fact is that the human eye can tell the difference between a true tangible object and something digitally made.
@@jackmp4 not always but tangibility helps effects feel satisfying
@@jackmp4 Yes and no? Again, it's the quality. There's a lot of things that can make CGI so realistic that you can't distinguish it from the real thing at all. It's just that, usually, that level of quality is limited to certain studios due to budget or even exclusivity. Anything even slightly lower than that quality falls into the uncanny valley and you end up being able to tell that it's fake, or at least, that something is off.
Blair Palmerlee See the Toupee Fallacy: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Toupee_fallacy
Also, men in rubber suits in schlocky 50s B-movies are basically the same thing as schlocky movies today...
Blair Palmerlee You said CGI doesn't look real enough... which I countered Toupee fallacy. Then I addedthat there's plenty of examples of horrible practical effects from the 50s - that they are no different than the bad CGI of today.
And you come back with all this straw man nonsense without furthering your point or even bothering to correct my assertions.
Sounds like you're the one that needs a lesson in reasoning...
Blair Palmerlee jeez, seriously get over yourself. I countered your argument which you take as personal attack. Reread it, there's no personal attack, just two points given. When its just additional points no need to go creating a new straw man by calling straw man and resorting personal attacks. Sheesh, I know this is the internet but this is basic rhetoric.
To clarify:
I pointed to the toupee fallacy which is the break in logic that all toupees look fake. The fallacy is how would you know if it fooled you -it's only noticeable when it's obvious. This is a response to your original statement that CGI isn't good enough to be used as widely as it is... It's a bit old but look at reactions to digital set extensions for Wolf of Wall Street or even Gone Girl. Even Ugly Betty was utilizing fake sets in the 90s. No one knew, no one complained.
The second half was a reference to fact that at no point in history of Hollywood did the lack of a really good effect prevent cheap producers from throwing poor films
+Filmmaker IQ Ugly Betty was not in the 90's ,,, it first aired in 2006 .. Hardly any tv shows in the 90's used digital set extensions, but i agree History Channel re-enactment sets look fake compared to HBO fake sets.. I understand, but we at a point where we see something and now question it... thats the "magic" in digital ...
Ah - you're right - for some reason I thought it was the 90s... Probably because the person that uploaded the making of video used a 4:3 version :P
+Blair Palmerlee After 6 months it seems appropriate to ask, does the burn still hurt?
This video really sparked my love for those old movies, of how creative and inventive those amazing people are, and boy I hope their work will live on!
Most people that complain there is too much CGI in cinema don't realize that 90% of their favorite "raw" shots involve some kind of VFX comp. A sky replacement, lighting change, maybe the guys on set just completely forgot a simple element like a sign.
Exactly. Even a real life stunt is often augmented with a ton of CGI
It’s interesting how much fringing was accepted in the old days - presumably because the attempted shots were so new and astounding. Even Star Wars 1977 was shot with major fringing that they got rid of by hand-drawing it out on the animation stand. One of the artists complained that in some places they were actually creating the matte frame-by-frame (anyway that’s why the movie looks so good).
Probably because back then, the quality wasn't as sharp as today so it was less noticeable.
This was excellent, learned so much. Special effects has been there since the beginning.
I always loved making videos! When I was around 9 my parents got me a green screen cause they saw how much I loved doing videos... And right now to be honest I absolutley LOVE stuff like that. This just brightens up my day sooooo much! Especially editing. Probably my favorite part of making a video. Thanks for making awesome stuff like this :) Keep it up folks!
I hear too many people saying "There's too many special effects used in movies wah wah waaaah". Well, to that I ask the question- What else can you use special effects for? They can't give you a ride to work. They can't buy you a drink. They can't clean your windows for you.
Actually, if you capture your dirty windows i can clean the in digital
I think what people mean is that too many films and filmmakers relay on cheap (and I don't mean in monetary terms) spectacle rather than compelling storytelling.
Is a 12 minute fight scene four times more exciting than a 3 minute one? Are 5 explosions five times more exciting than 1 explosion? No, there are diminishing returns. That's especially true if we don't care about the characters involved. If they have become 2 dimensional puppets to be hurled around with no physical reality then there is no jeopardy.
Even for the biggest films of the past every spectacular shot had to be really justifiable because of the comparative costs and also the difficulty in producing convincing effects. That led to a conciseness which is now largely lacking in current major effects films.
Effects are great when they are used wisely by a good storyteller, they suffer when they are indiscriminately as a distraction from inadequate storytelling. Icing on a cake can be great in moderation, too much makes you feel ill and won't disguise a bad cake.
During the 1940's 50's into early 60's my grandparents lived 3 blocks south of Paramount on N Bronson Ave & it was a fun & historically rich neighborhood to live, walk around & socialize- my grandfather managed the Hollywood Post Office on Cherokee Ave & came to know some of the people who worked in the industry like actress, Helen Hayes who was a periodic dinner guest at their Bronson Ave home-Their son, my dad went to Joseph Le Conte Middle School on Bronson Ave where Carol Burnett attended some yrs after my dad- Desilu Studios was a stone's throw from Paramount which use to be RKO & KHJ Radio & Television were right in the mix at 5115 Melrose Ave of which Capital Records shared that bldg. as well & was called 'Capital Melrose' where Sinatra & Nelson Riddle & Billy May & Nat Cole etc.. were turning out Some fine records.... 'until Capital Records relocated to their newly completed 13 Story Capital Records Tower on N Vine St. in April of 56 which I recall going up layer by layer 'Nickodell's Melrose was a fascinating restaurant just a few yards south of Paramount's Bronson Ave Gate riddled with history.
I see the UA-cam algorithm has brought us together. The video is a perfect history. Which one shall we watch next
What a fantastic look into the filmmaking process, and a perfect message at the end to the anti-technologists.
Watched the entire thing, it is definitely presented in an excellent way.
So true
I do agree overall but it kills me when he says "the only thing that matter in ON that screen". Everyone forgets about the thing that is OFF that screen. No one needs it in AAA blockbusters. Don't get me wrong. I do work at VFX company myself and VFX makes my income in the end of the day. I just feel sorry everyone forgets that. But that is how it goes.
Vladimir Savadov-Senchenko it's true that some actors find it difficult and uninspiring to work in front of a blue/green screen. At least that's what Ian McKellen complained about when filming The Hobbit films.
Vladimir Savadov-Senchenko c
Digital cameras and digital trickery are likely two of the best things to happen to film making. They give what was once limited to big studios with big sound stages to pretty much everybody.
Oh Thank You for making this video! I went to films school back in the 80's, and right after I graduated, most everything we learned was about to become obsolete with the advent of digital. I just found this video to explain about green screen - and watching it refreshed my memory, as well as filled in some valuable info. Thanks again!
Now I finally get an inside joke that I didn't even know was a joke - on Fraggle Rock, Gobo's uncle was named "Traveling Matt." It's funny, NOW!
I have to say, I've really enjoyed this new format of a show you have. These lessons in history are beyond what I ever got in college. Keep it up!
When he sais "the only thing that matters is what's on that screen" a fly climbs up his shoulder and then disappears behind his back. That fly had quite a good sense for drama :)
from c.a. 16:45
Péter Várnai damn bro your eyes are ridiculous! Lol
great catch!
Thats insane!
Wow! I probably would've seen it better on my desktop at work, but on my tiny phone, I had to rewind 3 times to see that! Thanks, great catch!
Anything can be captured on the fly...
his whole point got disproven by a little fly lol
Some people don't really understand, let me clarify this for people once and for all since I do VFX myself and studied it. Sure, there were good old days of using the props, but then again when there was CGI introduced, people begun to use CGI more due to the flexibility of the alternative itself. There is a budget for every movie people, understand that, and having roots in the VFX industry myself, you have to understand that as much as VFX artists want to use props (so we dont have to spend extra time to render every single thing), we have to simulate and bake explosions.
Why not use TNT ? What if something goes wrong? What if we want to change the radius of the explosion? What if something didn't blow up when it was supposed to? Are we going to spend extra cash and time just to build everything back together again? It's just not within the budget. We want to have control over the outcome, to be able to change variables at will, to be able to adjust properties with simple nodes so it goes our way, and if it doesn't, we will change it again.
I support props, like I've mentioned, but since VFX is available and we have such fast rendering softwares such as vray or iray now, why not turn to those instead? Transformers would have been way over budget (sure it made over 2 bil but no one knew that before the film was released), had been everything were props, although I can agree new techniques should be found to capture the interests of the general public
I think it should be a balance of both props and effects as well as cgi but for locations and props to go completely extinct in favor of cgi would be a shame especially if every film was just simply made on a green screen and sometimes spectacular shots are made from accidents it’s pros and cons to both
2019, thiz is still the best explanation of special effects
I second that in 2021
This was such an incredibly informative and entertaining video! Even when it goes into the more complex details such as The explanation to Vlaho's MGM 65 Millimeter process, I found my self engaged and locked in on every word, something that Doesn't happen to me too often. This is a video I would Highly recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about Green Screen effects!
that was pretty interesting.
NAOMI!!!! It's Natalie!!!
You found me!!!!!!
:D
I did indeed! ;)
I love my name too
Seriously, I've read and watched so many "history of special fx" books and videos, and you still managed to show me something I hadn't seen before. Amazing. Thank you Filmmaker IQ!
Absolutely incredible video including a well thought out dialog and history brief. I stumbled on to this by clicking through various other UA-cam links in an internet browsing frenzy. Despite having no ties to the film world, I was sucked in by the amazing technical overview, and learned more than I could have imagined from a short video. I wanted to be sure to post and thank you for posting such a well made documentary.
I could not have said it better myself.
This is a terrific video. I've worked in motion picture visual effects for over 30 years and this is the best description of this topic I have ever seen or heard. Good Job!
That was very informative. I've never seen a presentation with such a historical perspective. In the end, green screens are juste another tool in the bucket. It's neither good nor bad. Just like any other tool, it all depends on how we use it.
Wow! The most indepth history lesson in film making I've seen in a while.
Alfred Hitchcock's movie, "The Birds," rented the the sodium vapor screen from Disney to create the bird swarms. If you look carefully in the beginning, you'll see that the bird swarm silhouette matches many of the swarms in the movie, meaning that they used the moving mat to create the edgy yet simple opening title sequence.
First time here, after 17:29 min I am more informed, have been entertained and am impressed by your research and presentation, you earned my subscription and hopefully many more.
This was fuckin' brilliant! I LOVE this video! It doesn't assume the viewer is stupid - quite the opposite. TBH I couldn't barely follow the second blue-screen process when he explained it, but I'm sure I could if I tried.
Sir, i applaud the obvious love and joy of film you transmit. It's a pleasure watching you delivering your message. thank you.
You look like Al the toy collector from Toy Story 2
omg ikr????
More like the comic book collector guy from the Simpsons haha
i had to google Al the toy guy but you are sooooo right
Hello..... Newman.
Hey John I'm taking an entry exam to a french film school next week and your videos are more than helpful. Keep rocking man!
Wow! I learned a lot to. that was a great history leasson.
This video is a must see for anyone interested in cinema (as I do) I love VFX and CGI, and this video has been for me more better than any breakdown of any modern film, by far.
Bravo, Sir. Subscribed
This was an amazing. Well done.
As a budding audio engineer, I yearn for a Soundmaker IQ channel. This is beautiful.
My ex-girlfriend had a history of faking it :(
+Conversation Domination We would love to help you, but we don't provide those types of educational videos.
XD thanks for not getting angry at my jokes man! Unfortunately people that take jokes lightly are very rare these days...
here, have some internet
Is she in Hollywood?
@@FilmmakerIQ hahahahaha
Very well done. Excellent research and detail. I remember being fascinated by bluescreen as an 8 year old kid, and today I still get a thrill every time I pull a great key from green!
People are always giving George Lucas crap for using Digital Technology in his prequels. There are a few things I agree with from those people but it's little and far between.
Ultimately the team used every trick they could to make those. Are there weak points? Well yes but you cannot deny each movie has amazing digital and mixed effect strong points and they still amaze me!
As an appreciator of film effects, I appreciate this video more than you can imagine. Thank you!
Very good video. One tiny error at 11:26 about sodium screen. After the prism sends the yellow light to the B&W strip for the matte, the remaining light goes to a regular color negative, not a 3 strip Technicolor arrangement. A 3-strip Technicolor camera actually has two gates and movements, not 3 because for 3 strip two of the strips are bi-packed through one gate. As adapted for the Disney sodium system with the special "dydymium" prism, the matte film goes through one gate, color negative through the other.
Also, btw, the special lamps used were low pressure sodium. The streetlights you see most often today are high pressure sodium. They have that pink-yellow look. It's a somewhat wider spectrum. Low pressure sodium has the narrow band you described. You do see them occasionally as outdoor lighting...sometimes underneath some underpasses, but they are not too common anymore. You will know them if you see them because they emit a very deep yellow like a traffic light, not the pinky yellow of high pressure bulbs.
+filmteknik Okay, I get my misunderstanding. It was a retired 3 strip camera they used, but the extra gate was for the Sodium Vapor film.
www.theiwerkscollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SodiumVaporInside-e1390768442174.png
They must have put that out after the video else I would have found it and used it :)
Regarding the low pressure lamps - you're right about the modern sodium lights. But our modern high pressure lamps were invented in 1964. When researching this I remember an anecdote about the folks at Disney raiding the Department of Water and Power for lamps. The lamps they used were most likely streetlamps - from their day, not modern ones. :)
@@FilmmakerIQ Yes, 3 strip Technicolor actually shot on 3 strips of b/w film only lasted for just over a decade or so. Many films after that described as 3 strip actually had a single reel of colour stock in the camera and the separations came later. The single reel cameras were the same as those used for b/w films so were far more available and far less bulky. The process was also cheaper.
Excellent video. To learn how far back the matte and stuff goes was really enlightening.
Wow, fantastic video. I think what people mean by "too reliant on CGI" is that it still looks phony in many applications. The whole point of special effects is to make it look real, or possible. CGI used to compliment a movie... like the first 3 Lord of the Rings, or even the Matrix have mind boggling realism. More current movies with insane car wrecks, or crazy car stunts, planes, even the new Hobbit when they slide down the gold are just too fantastical to believe.
grahamhg Not sure if some of these things they're trying to do could even be achieved practically.
Well in a perfect world - it shouldn't be an either or thing but both.
You got to have both - I'm sure some shots were mostly CG batwing - some were practical parts... it's getting increasing hard to tell. Look at the VFX before and afters of things like "Wolf of Wall Street" or "Gone Girl" and see how much set extensions have come to creating new fabricated realities. We're already at the point of photorealism - give it another 10 years and there will be hardly any difference.
Did you see Wolf of Wall Street or just the the breakdown? Saw it on the big screen and can honestly say that all those shots were totally believable.
Well it looked great on the big screen and in context - judging an effect from a breakdown its like watching a magic trick from behind. :)
What a remarkable video it was. I'm impressed not only how informative and interesting the video is, but also by Mr. Hess. You are a great story teller. Thumbs up, and thank you.
THANKS FOR THE VIDEO... I HAVE ALWAYS LOVED SPECIAL EFFECTS
This was actually a great video! Not only is it very informative but with the last bit it's also educational in its best sense.
John, you are a GOD! That was brilliant and inspirational. Required watching.
That was a great Thesis you closed with. I agree one-hundred percent with your statement. I believe those who go against more complicated shots, may not be very practical with effects. I believe that when Star Wars was released in 1977 that many of those workers in the filming field stated that Star Wars had ruined film making forever. A blight with special effects occurred on Star Wars Return Of The Jedi where the director had very little experience with special effects causing delay's and warnings during filming. Your video is very professional and informative. Thank you!!!
The best one yet.
I love POPS!!!!
3ē
That was REALLY good. My creativity has just been given a kick in the ass.
I agree 100% with you on 16:23 .
I really appreciate the effort you're putting in these videos, thanks for putting this into such great quality
I've come back to re-watch many of your videos, John, and I just have to say, you're a master. Why you aren't hosting a multi million dollar docu series, is beyond me.
really informative video! Thanks for this
"If you want to make a beautiful movie its really simple, put something beautiful in front of the lens"! Sir Ridley Scott. I Know its only the 7th of January but it would be rude of me to go without saying, this is the best UA-cam video I have seen this year! 😂 Keep up the great work, and Happy new Year ... Consider me subscribed. 🏆
holy shit, the traveling matte is impressive
Great video John, That bit at the end about film makers making windows to other worlds was great. film making is awesome!
when i was in school i did a fair bit of film making and i always wondered why it was called matte. cause knew what matte (ie matte black cars) but i didn't know the reason why it was called matte. tsk damn i wish i pursued film making instead of engineering :/
Wow man. I'm a high school student getting ready to graduate and I'd love to make films but I'm about to pursue an engineering degree. Your comment captured my exact thoughts, that I'd regret it.
It depend what you really want or like. a lot of my mate in my art subject were quite surprised that I took engineering instead of something a long the lines of art. I had ambitions to go into the automotive industry particularly for auto racing design and engineering. But when reality hit, it hit hard. just know what you love.
Chris Watkins Hey Chris... It's really hard right now in the film industry. Jobs are scarce and they are leaving the US. Be prepared to work extremely hard to get a entry level job at a film studio.
If you want to do this job:
* previs - learn how to draw and paint extremely well
* storyboard artist - learn to draw extremely well and how to tell a story with the camera.
* 2D animation - learn flash
* Visual Effects - learn Houdini and minor in Computer Science
* 3D animaiton - learn Maya
* 3D modeling - learn Maya, Zbrush, Mudbox... learn to UV map.
* 3D rigging - learn Maya and minor in Computer Science
* 3D texturing and shading - learn Mari, Zbrush, Mudbox... learn to make shaders procedurally in these common render engines: Mental Ray, RenderMan, Vray, Arnold, Mantra... Learn about Linear workflow and UV mapping.
* 3D lighting - Learn how to light in Mental Ray, RenderMan, Vray, Arnold, Mantra... learn about render passes and linear workflow.
* Compositing (what this video is talking about) - learn Nuke, After Effects, maybe Flame... learn about linear workflow
* Director of Photography - nobody ever walks in as a DP at established studios so try and get a job in story or become a runner on a film crew.
* Actor - can't help you there
* Director - Spend years in the industry.
These jobs tend to go together but may vary between studios:
* Visual Effects and Compositing
* Modeling and Rigging
* Lighting and Compositing
* Modeling, Texturing, Lighting, Compositing
Studios only care about what your stuff looks like, can you take direction, can you work with others, can you learn quickly and hit your deadlines. Start to become acquainted with people at film studios because they will be your ticket into the industry.
Look into digitaltutors.com, cmivfx.com, linda.com, gnomonschool.com before going to school. Schools in this industry are mainly beneficial for connections... how much are you willing to pay for your connections? There are plenty of independent artists offering professional classes that will help you develop your artistic eye and will cost thousands less. Seriously consider school but be smart about it so you can save yourself money.
A lot of studios are only hiring for the duration of the project (which may be only for a couple of months) so be willing to jump from one job to the next.
Let your passion drive you to become better. Learn to take criticism and always be willing to improve. Constantly draw so you can keep developing your artist eye. I highly recommend minoring in something (consider Computer Science) so you have something to fall back on when times get rough. This industry isn't for the weak of heart.
Best of luck to you.
Quay Mims thanks for your suggestion
Lovely video. Refreshingly-subtle. A 'must see' for any video-maker and movie buff out there.
who would give such a neutral video a thumb down... i´ll never understand those people
That was amazing and insightful. Thank you John.
cool!
So very well said! "The ends justifies the means", is an extreme oversimplification of this kind of progress, yet one which encompasses your argument. Traditionally progress, for progress' sake, leads to naught but ruin. Here, it is a unique entity, as it only influences our story telling, and by extension ability to educate, and inspire. To that end, it can never be the responsibility of the medium, of what heights it's capability becomes, but it remains in the entity that controls it. Much the same as developing a sword, into a pistol, itself is harmless. The children who've found the new toys, however, could yield some terrifying results. I like what I see on the screens that some of the most talented of us, chose to paint their masterpieces.
I'm not so optimistic about what the vast average populace could be "shown" by unpredictable sovereigns, that would be able to control, (at their whim) what ever is "happening" in the world. I love movies. I simply hope we are mature enough, and independent enough, to enjoy art, and not simply believe something because it was on TV...yet, this behaviour is all too common, and if I were a powerful entity, I would show my subjects, what ever I felt I had to, to keep them subjugated.
I'm coming across as anti-government, and this is not the case. Trust and order is a good thing. Asking questions, and critical thinking is becoming lost to this generation. Instant gratification.
Questioning, has been matched with instant information, BUT, the critical thinking part has all but disappeared.
Ok, loved the video. The last minute was kind of weird for me though. I don't think anyone in this day and age is implying that we shouldn't use special effects, just that computer generated graphics may not be the best option ALL the time. We've all seen those moments where poor CGI takes us out of a moment, or even completely out of a movie, because of how bad it looked. Low budget movies that try CGI fire are the most common occurrence. What, they couldn't possible film a big fire explosion in a secure location instead of trying to recreate it poorly?
Now, that being said (and I mostly agree with this statement) what you said is true. We can't go back. Not because those days neer existed because that's false. There was a time before CGI. It even gave us an Hulk TV show. But let's be honest, we don't ever again want our Hulk to be a bodybuilder spray painted green. This show would simply not work in a day where we have seen a CGI Hulk. So we are in an age where we do have most tools, but it also means some options that were possible simply aren't anymore. In the same way Godzilla just cannot be stop motion picture or actors in costume in a miniature replica of a city anymore. Not since Jurassic Park. I mean they could do it. We still have the technology. But you would never get the audience to see it because we now expect to believe in a T-Rex chasing the car we are in.
Sorry, that was a lot to say about the last comment made on a video but simply put, I have nothing to say about the video. It was awesome and brilliant and great! Keep up the good work.
I'm not saying that CGI always existed - but that Hollywood Trickery has always existed. From the very beginning filmmakers have been crafting false realities (all with varying degrees of success). CGI shouldn't be thought of as something that suddenly "breaks" the tradition, but is the most recent CHAPTER of the tradition of faking it.
I'm sorry but what you said is "There are cynics today that believe modern film is too reliant on CGI [...] but as I hope you learned this era never existed." That's the "last minute" that was bugging me. CGI stands for computer generated imagery. CGI is not blue screen. It's not green screen. Even a green screen scene can be transposed on a painting (as you shown) or another filmed exterior, interior...
Again, my point is not to "piss" on this video. It was awesome. But the last few lines felt really weird, probably mainly because you strated talking about CGI despite the fact that little, if anything, was about CGI in your video. I think a real history video on CGI would be great, if only to see that it started earlier than most people understand it (we all kind of think it started with Jurassic Park, some of us remember the Abyss but few even know it started in the 60's)
Anyway, sorry to bother you like that. great video. Keep them coming.
Jean-Francois Charbonneau You took the quote out of context. I said "There are cynics out there that believe modern film is too reliant on CGI - that we should return to a simpler form of 'real' filmmaking"
The point is there has never been a time of 'real' filmmaking - Matte Paintings and split screen effects of Edwin S. Porter's days have become CGI (as in the Avengers example at the end which totally recreates New York City as a backdrop). The spirit and tradition of trickery is alive and well only with new tools. The inclusion of this bit in the end draw the connection to a larger point and deflate some of the anti-computer effects attitudes I've seen around in pop culture with historical context.
Filmmaker IQ - People's gripe (including mine) is that many films have become overly reliant on CGI as their main feature and selling point -- at the glaring expense of such things as story and character. And they are often accepted and applauded by fans quite uncritically.
This *is* a problem, but it's not really a new problem. It might seem like it because there is so much lionisation of technology these days, but there have always been crappy films whose main selling point was their "great special effects." The problem isn't with the technology itself: it's with the mass market mentality of much commercial film. But that, too, is nothing new.
Exactly - that is one of our many goals with these historical overviews - to get a perspective on where modern film sits today.
Holy crap. I learned and took away more from this video than all the years at film school. You are perfect in the way you present topics and the pacing was great. Thanks!!
344 thumbs down... Cocky people with a lot to learn but they think they know it all...
Thanks because I didn't know their names... Even tho I'm in the cinema business.. what a shame..
Well, it's up to 386 thumbs down now, two months later. Some people never pass up an opportunity to avoid learning something new.
Another Awesome presentation from Mr. Hess and Filmmaker IQ !
BRAVO!
SBF
Awesome!
Loved the ending. So true about using what's at our fingertips to create something, instead of restricting our filmmaking. That's why I have huge respect for the digital effects teams that work on MCU films.
My IQ just raise a little bit after watch this video
Thank you. I've been armchair-interested in special effects for years and I found your history, well, illuminating!
wow, i learned a lot from this.
A film is what it is, and special effects are tools of the trade. Having a good set of tools is always very helpful if you know how to use them, but many projects can be accomplished with very little, if you have the imagination and creativity. Awesome video, nice job!
What's on that screen is not the only thing that matters, not anymore. Viewers have grown weary of cgi characters and sets, which are little more glorified cartoons. If the day comes that we can perfectly copy an actor, voice and all, in the computer so that one could not tell the difference, knowing that that "actor" possess no soul destroys the believe-ability of the film.
The same is true for any object in a movie. If it can be tangible but is not, a piece of the movie's soul is lost. Why do you think fans are so excited about J.J. Abrams use of practical effects, sets and characters for Episode VII? Because what's on the screen is not the only thing that matters.
+Shannon Peacock The anti-cgi movement in popular culture based on oversimplification of the process and a fair amount of nostalgia stained glasses. Sure JJ Abrams is trying to incorporate more real sets - the whole virtual set where EVERYTHING was CGI that started with Sky Captain and then used soulessly and vapishly for the Star Wars prequels has proven to be a pretty ineffective tool... but...
If you think JJ is only using practical effects for Episode VII you're way mistaken. That crashed star destroyer - the Millennial Falcon dogfights - those are all completely CGI. CGI set extensions are probably in every shot. Look at Abram's last film: Star Trek Into Darkness: - he knows what he's doing with CGI: ua-cam.com/video/mKiZfmL_g2I/v-deo.html
The use of CGI didn't stop movie goers from enjoying Avengers - Ironman and Hulk were never on set the way they appeared in the film. One of the greatest films of the summer that the anti-CGI crowd touted, "Mad Max: Fury Road" had 2/3rds of the shots touched in some way with CGI (no, they didn't cut off Charlize's arm)
What's on the screen IS THE ONLY THING that matters. CGI got a bad rap because it was used by ineffective filmmakers using it as a crutch - hoping the cheap spectacle would make up for forgettable characters and weak stories. But every effect suffers at first in ineffectual hands, it's only that film has lost so much of it's novelty that early stumbles are more "unforgivable"
You made some good points, but I never claimed to be anti-CGI. In fact I'm the opposite. I embrace the evolution of film making, including technological advancements. We can now see amazing things that before weren't possible. And I certainly know about Abram's use of digital set extensions and so forth. It's a necessity. But what I said was "If it can be tangible, but is not..."
There may be an element of nostalgia with practical effects, but knowing that this set, character, set piece, etc actually exists/existed and was seen by, made eye contact with the cast gives it a life and connection to the viewer that cannot be manufactured in a computer.
And what about the future possibility (probability in fact) of virtual actors that are in every way identical to the real thing? People like actors for one reason and cartoon/cgi characters for another. Knowing that it's a virtual actor (including a non-human digital voice) in a film will never garnish the same connection as an actual human.
Since nearly the dawn of film even behind-the-scene articles/stories (not on screen) have influenced the movie-going experience.
And my original point concerning what really matters is categorically proven by millions of film viewers who say, "It matters to us."
+Filmmaker IQ Btw, I should say that I love your channel and I'm subscribed. Really great insights for an amateur like me. Don't want to just throw the negative at you 👍
First of all thanks for being a subscriber - I'm glad a discussion on this can occur without devolving into personal attacks :)
The fact is, it is categorically proven by millions and millions of ticket sales that it isn't CGI but connection to the story that really matters.
Of those that think real props matters - it's a fairy tale. The anti-CGI thing is mainly touted by (for lack of a better term) hipsters who think they know cinema but really haven't any first hand experience with how it's made or thought more deeply about the artform.
Of course Abrams (and Miller when Mad Max came out) pay them lip service - saying they're using practicals - they are - but it's all a bit of marketing. They're magicians - they want you to believe the magic.
The ironic thing about it is as the rail against CGI they're getting exciting and consuming CGI when they don't even know it.
I think everyone knows Gollum isn't real... but that doesn't stop us from loving the character on screen. Everything in the Marvel Universe is CGI reliant, hasn't stopped them from raking in the tickets... There are no physical props from "Up" but that doesn't keep the opening montage from striking every human heart deeply.
The problem too much fakery isn't that the audience doesn't buy into the reality of the scene - it's that the ACTORS don't buy into the reality of the scene. Human beings have evolved into lie detecting machines when it comes to faces - an actor can try to emote but if there's nothing to go on, it won't gel, nothing to build upon with imagination. That comes across in the final product. Compound it with the notion that if you greenscreen it you can decide in post production what you want to put in there... and then we loose all connection and it's a recipe for disaster.
Again - it comes down to what's on the screen - and only what's on the screen. Can you buy into what's happening on the screen? That goes for CGI backgrounds and characters AND cheap plywood facades and rubber suits.
Does the magic trick work or not? That's the only thing that matters.
+Filmmaker IQ More good points, but my main issue is that when cgi is used but doesn't have to be it affects the experience knowing that it's such, even when the performance is great.
I also think that tickets sales aren't always a measure of how much viewers like a film. At least one of the Transformers movies was generally viewed as absolutely awful, but still was a huge summer blockbuster (just one example).
I do, however, agree that real sets and characters often do affect an actor's performance, which of course influences the moviegoing experience.
Thank you for this awesome video and history lesson. I look forward to watching your other episodes :) I will share this with my like minded friends as I'm sure they will enjoy it as much as I did. When I was a kid I impressed my friends by making myself disappear as I had 2 vcrs. I did a similar thing recently digitally yet I kept the effect simple for old times sake. :)
Wait a minute, Georges Méliès was not even in Hollywood!
John. Well done. Great presentation. Your final summation is perfect.
the fakt that i see you read the text of something that is on the side of the cam bothers me more then it should.
There is nothing on the side of the camera.
that's what's happening? I was wondering if it was a lazy eye or something, hah
He has to explain everything in a certain short amount of time. The film industry is well over a 100 years, explanations may tend to be too long or to go overboard and off topic with the main point he's trying to explain.He has to stick to the point, so it's better to summarize everything. Reading makes it simple, easier to understand and shorter to watch.
mudokin - Chris Newman lives!
Wow man, great vid. Your final statements apply to other artforms too. Nothing "traditional" is being destroyed by using new techniques and tools, because "traditional" artworks also employed some manner of manipulation. We in the digital age are simply extending and going beyond what people before us could ever imagine.
Can I just say that I discovered your channel just over 24 hours ago and in that short space of time, I've learned so much. By far the best UA-cam channel imho.
What an incredibly done history lesson. Thank you!
So Hulk uses Blue Screen.
Excellent, great presentation and you do know film. Very inlighting. thanks for the class.
The only thing that really matters is story. Of course we all strive for the best we can squeeze out of the current technology and the actors in which to tell the story through a performance with a great director to push the performance, but in the end it really comes down to story. The real talent behind any motion picture, be it film or video or even stage are the writers that can produce the story.
existem formas de fazer a história e existem formas de contar a história.. uma boa história só existe quando bem contada.. logo a história não é tudo.. apenas o caminho fio condutor de quem as conta
Very well compiled , in short explained the history of vfx in a clear and precise manner , awesome !
Why would ANYONE give this a thumbs down?? Such a great and informative video!
The video is super great, but I just can't stop looking at the guys eyes reading the script.... Bummer
this video is awesome. I couldn't stop watching it. so interesting! Thanks John!
You should collab with Vsauce :)
+Musikality ikr
vsauce sucks
vsauce micheal here
John! I absolutely LOVED this episode (as I do with so many of yours)! I adore "how it's done/how we did/do it" expositions like this! Even with all this good info, I also adore how tools like Hit Film allow me (a lovely amateur) to create images that only the pros could at one time; an awesome era we exist in, eh?
And then came digital - the end of the story.
This even more interesting and well put together than I had hoped! It could easily have been an hour or more longer and I would have been riveted still!
Nope, I still hate Green Screens.
You make learning about all aspects of film and the history it comes from entertaining, I have learned a lot from you and I can’t wait to learn more. Thank you for what you do!