Get some cool drag & drop VFX here! ► www.famefocus.com/go/getvfx/ ◄
Don't forget to visit OUR SHOP here! ► fame-focus-vfx.creator-spring... ◄
A lot of Hollywood directors boast that their films have "No CGI" as if CGI is some sort of cancer and not using it is a selling point to their film's Authenticity.Christopher Nolan is one director that has a habit of doing this.
Like the music in this video? I made it!
Support me by getting it on any of these sites :P
Get it on iTunes: ► apple.co/2ENGfu9 ◄
Listen on Spotify: ► spoti.fi/3boTfCl ◄
Buy it on Amazon: ► amzn.to/2QVJZfk ◄
But since the invention of the moving image, filmmaking has never really been about "Authenticity".It's always been about tricking the audience into believing that what they were seeing on the SCREEN was authentic.Even the "Moving Image" itself, is just a bunch of still images flicking just fast enough to trick your eye and make you believe there really is motion.So boasting about doing it for real isn't just laughable, but it's also a bit of an insult to all the people who worked so hard to create the ILLUSION that it was... And... it isn't really true.
Nolan's Batman trilogy is known for having done its stunts for real:The Truck Flip stunt in The Dark Knight was shot from multiple angles and as you can see, it was definitely done for real, but...The piston that actually made the truck flip had to be removed digitally in post a similar thing was true for the stunt where the SWAT team falls off the side of a building.Once again, the stunt was done for real, but the safety mats all had to be digitally removed in post. Other digital effects included CG bats, Green screen replacements and the stadium explosion, and Nolan's use of CGI and Visual effects isn't just apparent in his work on Batman, but throughout all his films including Inception, Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet, and yes, maybe even Oppenheimer.
Inception boasted about having done the rotating hallway scene for real, and yes they did really build a giant rotating hallway, but they still needed CG assets floating around and digital set extensions to really sell the shot.Inception also used CGI for environments like Limbo and the street bending sequence.Interstellar boasted about "not using any greenscreen" but VFX Artists still had to rotoscope the models to combine them later with the "digital" matte backgrounds.
Dunkirk used CGI to add smoke and pyrotechnics to the planes and ships, they also added CG planes to the background like this one here and all the soldiers in this shot are actually a full CG crowd simulation.Tenet had CG helicopters and CG explosions, in addition to CG dust and debris, and digitally removing wires and tow ropes needed for Tenet's multiple stunts.In fact, nowadays almost every film is edited, color graded, and composited inside a computer, and because CGI means COMPUTER GENERATED Imagery, any image that is processed inside a computer has to be digitized beforehand, and therefore, (Technically) is an image generated by a computer, even if it is later printed onto film.
But Oppenheimer wasn't...Oppenheimer wasn't shot with digital cameras and it wasn't edited or color graded on a computer either, Oppenheimer was shot with IMAX equipment, produced in a lab, and then printed as reels. These film reels were then edited as videos and locked.
Following that, the makers cut and spliced the original negatives together and color-coded by adjusting the timing of printing lights to balance out the color. At the end of this entirely analog process, they printed it without ever having passed through a computer.So was it really true that Oppenheimer had zero CGI shots?
Well not really, Dneg produced more than 100 VFX shots from more than 400 elements and while these element were shot practically they did have to be composited and digital compositing was used for them, meaning they had to be digitized, composited and then reverted back to their original format.(...)
They shouldn't be advertising that they use "minimal CGI" and "No greenscreens" but rather that they use it, but you won't be able to tell when.because (like practical and special effects), CGI is just another tool filmmakers can use to trick us into believing what they want us to believe.and just like BAD practical and BAD special effects, CGI is only BAD... when it fails to do so.
The above ActionVFX link contains a Special Fame Focus Discount. We also earn an affiliate percentage of each purchase.#oppenheimer
#nolan #vfx #makingof #behindthescenes #bts #movie #film #filmmaking #moviescene #visualeffects #practicaleffects #nolancgi #vfxartistsreact #vfxbreakdown #videooftheday #trending #didyouknow #moviescene #beforeandafter #inception #interstellar #tenet #batman #celebs #celebrities
Read more here: www.famefocus.com
Follow us on Twitter: / focusfame
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all. VFX artists are the only category of artists in film making that audiences actively boo, and it’s mainly because people don’t understand what it is we even do.
David Fincher uses CGI in almost everything he does but very rarely you'd be able to notice it
No, I think people are booing movies being entirely made from CGI, or throwing CGI where it doesn't belong. I've never heard somebody downplay a well made effect just because it was CGI, or booing a VFX person. Maybe I'm wrong? But making your entire movie entirely with CGI tends seems to shift the focus to that instead all the magical things about movie making. The different techniques that artists have used throughout the decades to create those illusions despite restrictions. As an example, I don't watch modern Disney movies. I'd much rather see a real life actor sing and dance on stage in a custom made "beast" outfit than see 2 actors standing in a giant green screen set with all the CGI in the entire uncanny valley. Not to say there's no place for it. I Love the Dredd remake even though I don't like comic book movies, because it had a good siege story mixed with exciting visuals with both practical and cgi effects.
Rather amazing that there are technicians who can still edit and manipulate analog film stock. I imagine that is a rapidly vanishing skill set.
Thanks. Appreciate that! After that awful article in the Guardian. I'm a mattepainter. "Invisible" VFX are my stock-in-trade.
NICE!!!!
In fact he does use cgi, but he does not overuse it.
90% of filmmakers overuse cameras, they’ve become so reliant on them it’s not funny. Don’t get me started on the technicians who use light stands to hold up lights. What a crutch. They should be holding the lights up with their arms, also the technicians should be framed in shot so we can be conscious at all times how the film is being made, because this is the most important thing. As Charlie Chaplin famously said “we go to movies so that we can know they’re not made by computers, or that no more than 10% of the movie was made using computers”.
🔥
My respects!
Thank you it was a great video.
Jai Shree Ramchandr 😊🙏🧡
He should of used the footage of the real explosion would of been way more dramatic. Plus people can visit ground zero twice a year
❤🎉
They shouldn’t fool us
Ehh Didn't know Openheimher Was That Good With out too much CGI
Something you should know @FameFocus. I love videos like this one (classic FameFocus), but i'm not a fan of the Mr-Green videos you are now making, and thus skip them when I see them in my feed. But because you use the green suit in all your thumbnails, I've assumed many of the full breakdown videos were Mr Green videos and unknowingly skipped them. I just realised today how many I'd missed because of this. I know you always used the green suit in a comical way in your thumbnails, but since you started making the shorts, there is little to differentiate the two types of content you are now making. You should add something to the thumbnails to clearly identify each type. No hate, just trying to help in case others were doing the same and affecting your analytics.
Hai
The only reason i didt watched this movie in cinema coz they market it has no vfx like why would i watch a movie without vfx how is this helping the movie
Marketing :)
First like bro❤
Practical effects and stunts always have more convincing physics than even the best CGI.
Like 100
3:04 that's why Openhammer is a piece of crap... I guess
Even tho its technically true, I dont like this "everything is cgi, because it was cut in a computer" mindset. I consider cgi something that was made entierly using a computer like a 3d model. And everything else like compositing or grading could be labeled as non cgi, just vfx imo. So saying there is no cgi used, when they just composite real life footage could be correct. It's just that people misunderstand it and think it stands for all vfx work
I think you have no clue what you actually can do in Compositing! the Power of compositing is insane, you can definitely create whole new images in Compositing and by the way compositing tools also use 3D techniques ;)
definetly less CGI movies are far more better than the plastic movies you are mentinoning
There is one more thing. Nolan's movies don't need spectacular effects for us to like them. The script, the plot, and the characters are so good (except for Tenet), that we invest in the story and don't care about the effects. As you said in the Guardians of the Galaxy video: when there is no exciting story and well-written characters, or the story is just badly written, we can only see the effects and tell if they're poor. That's why we say CGI is bad, in my opinion: not because of the effects (although that is a part of the problem), but because the movie itself is bad.
First
Jesus Christ is the name above all names & the only way to Heaven.