7 Classic Movie Tricks That Led To Modern CGI | Movies Insider
Before the widespread use of CGI, filmmakers used surprising in-camera tricks and optical illusions to fool audiences. Early filmmakers like Georges Méliès could add a hidden cut to film a wide array of illusions. Creative composites allowed for an invisible character in 1933's “The Invisible Man” and for Moses to part the sea in “The Ten Commandments.” Artists literally painted on top of shots to extend sets in “Citizen Kane” and create fantasy worlds in “The Wizard of Oz.” While most of these methods are obsolete today, new technologies like the LED projection used in “The Mandalorian” and the motion-control cameras in 2020's “The Invisible Man” build off these past methods.
Check out more of Julie Turnock’s writing on cinematic effects:
www.amazon.com/Plastic-Realit...
cup.columbia.edu/book/plastic-...
Thank you to Karl Thiede for sharing “The Wizard of Oz” frames from his collection.
Read more about Fleischer Studios here: www.fleischerstudios.com/
MORE MOVIES INSIDER VIDEOS:
How Noiseless Props Are Made For Movies And TV Shows | Movies Insider
• How Noiseless Props Ar...
How Fake Crowds Are Made For Movies And TV | Movies Insider
• How Fake Crowds Are Ma...
How 8 Scenes Were Filmed To Look Like One Take | Movies Insider
• How 8 Scenes Were Film...
------------------------------------------------------
#CGI #MoviesInsider #Insider
Insider is great journalism about what passionate people actually want to know. That’s everything from news to food, celebrity to science, politics to sports and all the rest. It’s smart. It’s fearless. It’s fun. We push the boundaries of digital storytelling. Our mission is to inform and inspire.
Subscribe to our channel and visit us at: www.insider.com
Insider on Facebook: / insider
Insider on Instagram: / insider
Insider on Twitter: / thisisinsider
Insider on Snapchat: / 4020934530
Insider on Amazon Prime: www.amazon.com/v/thisisinsider
Insider on TikTok: / insider
Insider on Dailymotion: www.dailymotion.com/INSIDER
7 Classic Movie Tricks That Led To Modern CGI | Movies Insider
Knowing how difficult it was to create these effects back then is what makes them so much more entertaining.
5:13 they really used this shot as a "bad" example when this is one of the most convincing painting shots I've ever seen. They even cut holes in the painting and flashed lights through them to simulate movement
I wouldn’t say convincing but for a fantasy land it fits perfectly
It's kinda rude of them.
I would have had no clue the painting wasn’t onto the set
The Wizard of Oz holds up better than most movies. Doesn’t even make sense. Especially with how well it’s been remastered. It shouldn’t be so convincing. Makeup and fx
@@userunknown398 I think they're talking about Citizen Kane, not Wizard of Oz.
I actually really love driving scenes with the obvious projector behind them 😅
See ‘Airplane’!
@@AtheistOrphan I was thinking the same…
Pulp fiction in the cab
Personally I’ve always hated it
Same here! There’s a quaintness to it, and an overwhelming feeling of nostalgia whenever I see it.
the paintings in the wizard oz adds to the fantasy and children storybook feel which adds charm to it
Although not touched on here, one thing I will always admire is the practical effects of the 80's right before CGI took off, when the practical effects were at their peak. I'm not a fan of horror, but it always boggles my mind the sorts of practical effects seen in in movies like The Thing or The Fly. CGI is getting better all the time and I'm all for that, but it has yet to replace the sensation of something physically there.
Exactly I feel the same way. But shows like the mandalorian and the dark crystal mix both. Movies like Jurassic Park also do the same. To me that's the best way to do it.
Kamen Rider Shin has really terrifying practical effect. Stuff of nightmare.
The gelatin dead sea parting looked really convincing, especially when I watched it in our tiny old TV. Now I can't unsee the gelatin after watching this video.
A lot of old stuff gets overly criticized because we are watching it on 65 inch TVs in 4K as opposed to the busted little ghetto TVs they were originally meant for. If you watch it on one of those TVs, it still would look fantastic.
They showed a lot of creativity in these early days. I think modern filmmakers become too dependent on CGI and it gets overused. I remember the early 2000's there was a ton of movies that used early CGI that looked terrible and now it looks completely dated. I think the best is when you don't notice the effects are there, this way it won't date the movie.
It especially gets overused with animals.
Because burnouts are really common for the people who design them, generic monsters are the norm in films nowadays.
@@impcityangel3245 I used to love movies with animals in them, like Homeward Bound. I don't watch the new ones anymore because it's all CG animals and it's awful. The new Call of the Wild could have certainly used a real dog.
New technology and techniques always looks dated, simply by virtue of it still being immature and unrefined. This applies to both CGI and practical effects too. Early practical effects look comically fake compared to what would be done 60 or so years later.
It's cheaper to CGI everything. PDs, art directors, set decorators and set dressers have unions. Guess who doesn't? The studios don't even get enough time to finish most of the shots
Kong was never “Claymation”, he had a mechanical armature too, and had muscles and skin built up in layers of foam rubber and liquid latex. Ray Harryhausen’s puppets were typically all sculpted and then cast in foam rubber, with the mechanical armature inside.
I'm glad you made this observation; I also had a problem with 'claymation' with Kong's reference.
The rabbit fur F/X expert Willis O'Brien used on Kong did sometimes look a little odd when the figure was animated. But the scene of Kong fighting the T. Rex was not equaled until 60 years later in "Jurassic Park," in the CGI T. Rex scene at the end.
@@wildman2012 I know they couldn't take the time out to do the proper research on the special effects of the original King Kong, thus making it sound more crude than the actual process was. There is a special magic to the original King Kong and to all of Ray Harryhausen's films that truly inspire whenever I watch them.
Original matte paintings were not put in afterwards, as stated (although this did begin to happen with the introduction of digital effects); the original matte paintings were on glass, and the cameras filmed live performers on sets through the holes in the painting, meaning the complete shot was done in camera, matte and all. Sometimes, as possibly in the Citizen Kane clip, extra holes were left or cut in the painting, which could then allow for some movement to be made behind it, to disrupt what might otherwise look like a flat still picture. Absolute works of art, matte paintings!
Yes, that’s what I understood. It’s how they shot Tara in Gone With The Wind.
Matte paintings where not done in camera except maybe in rare cases. Because you'd end up having parts actors disappear behind the background as they moved through the set. They were overlayed afterwards using mirrors and projections and such. Honestly anyone complain about how CGI ruined movies has no idea what they were talking about, you effectively had analog versions of green screen back then and analog versions of post production where you would overlay a stop motion puppet onto a projection of the actor fighting thin air. Seriously go and watch old movies and you will find action scenes that are stop motion and matte painting heavy, with the same issues that CGI heavy movies have today. It's just that most of them are forgotten or niche now, and the few movies that pulled those techniques off make it seem like that was the norm. The amount of old films that successfully pulled off the old methods is probably similar to the amount of films that successfully pulled off heavy CGI use without it being too noticeable.
@@123mandalore777 I think the reason people criticize bad CGI today is because we have examples of "good CGI". Nobody complains about the special effects in Star Wars A New Hope, or Jurassic Park even though the work is objectively bad compared to what is possible these days, because they were done with the limitations of the technology in mind, same as the matt painting effect in Wizard of Oz, I mean that is an objectively bad effect by today's standards, but because the blocking was done with this technological constraint in mind, it doesn't take you out of the picture in the way that some of the very front and centre PS2 effects in a lot of 2000s movies do. In A New Hope, they took care to always have helmets on the actors when they used blue screen to limit the blue line around the hair, and in Jurassic Park, they kept the CGI to scenes where they had everything in their favour for their use (giving them cover, hiding them in shadows, intercutting with practical effects and never showing the subject for more than a second or so).
it was mostly done afterwards
@@123mandalore777 This person is correct. They 100% put in the matte paintings later using optical compositors. You can see this very well in some of the old ILM/Star Wars/Indiana Jones specials.
Some of those old effects are very convincing though
The Ten Commandments SFX still amazes me. And Buster Keating's stunts are still mind boggling to this day.
Small correction: the shot of Tippi Hedren driving from 'The Birds' is referred to as an example of "rear projection", but the shot was actually achieved as a Sodium Vapour Process Composite (a Travelling Matte technique that took advantage of the narrow spectrum of light produced by Sodium Vapour lamps, which could be filtered out using a specially created dichroic prism without affecting the overall colour of the live action elements, unfortunately the process fell into disuse because only a few of the prisms used were ever successfully manufactured and the process required a purpose-built two-strip camera to film with).
Woah, that's pretty neat!
@@brickman409 It gets even neater when you realize that this process allows you to use translucent objects like silky clothing.
@@HenryLoenwindI've sometimes wondered how hard it would be to make a four-CCD camera with red/green/blue/sodium sensors, and use that for shooting high-quality composite shots which, as you note, could include translucent objects which woudln't work with blue screen or green screen.
@@flatfingertuning727 It'd be quite some challenge. Not the sodium sensor; that one's trivial. But you now need a filter material that filters out the sodium frequencies very narrow-banded from the red and green sensors. The existing filters for red, green and blue are wide-band, even overlapping each other (mimicking the filters in the human eye), and, most importantly, are continuous. And you need that extra filtering if you want transparency; otherwise, transparent areas are brighter from an "invisible light source" (i.e. instead of a "blue/green/black fringe", you get a "yellow fringe"). I don't think making such a thing is impossible with enough money, but that ship has sailed---Post-processing for green screen is so good nowadays; we can get everything a sodium screen would get us out of the computer. I recently was quite shocked by how a green screen shot looked---a KZheadr had just unpacked a green screen, had someone holding it up all wrinkled and recht behind them, in a room with mixed lighting, and a huge shadow on the greenscreen, i.e. making every single mistake you can do when using a greenscreen. The result was flawless. No fringe (neither positive nor negative), no background flickering, no "cutout effect". The software they used even managed to tweak the light intensity to match the inserted background image well enough that it didn't stand out.
@@HenryLoenwind Didymium filters do a pretty good job of filtering out sodium light while passing through other wavelengths. Some colors look a little "off" when viewed through a didymium filter, but sodium light is pretty well negated. Trying to remove ordinary red and green while capturing sodium may be harder, but that could be dealt with by using retro-reflective film for things that should be transparent and putting a sodium light on the camera so that the image captured without a didymium filter would be dominated by sodium light that overall sensitivity wouldn't need to be very high. Incidentally, I wonder how the effectiveness of magenta screen would compare with that of green screen. I know green is chosen becuase many cameras have higher spacial resolution for green, but I would think that when shooting light objects, having the mask condition be "green is zero" could yield a sharper mask than "both red and blue are zero".
This early stuff is much more impressive than anything today. They were damn geniuses.
of course no, making croma keys work is reaaaally impressive, creating cg animals that are way too realistic to be relatable is impressive an genius, you think that’s easy but it takes as much time as creating it for a stop motion
That’s like saying the Wright Brothers work is much more impressive than anything today. Watch Insider’s video on the 12 minute fight scene in Extraction, or pretty much any video in their Movies Insider playlists. There are still creative geniuses today who come up with ways to leverage and extend the limits of moviemaking technology, same as with flight or pretty much any other field.
Idk man. Those LED screens rear projecting IN camera looks damn impressive to me. and so seemless.
Yes . Film makers these days do make a lot of technical advancements tho I feel like it's not noticeable . Since back in the olden days everything was so limited even just a slight advancement is consider impressive . And the modern day dark cgi and camera work makes the filmmakers advancements looks "the same as the last one" modern film looks similar to one another so that's why people aren't really blown away by the recent technical advancements we've made
@@radish6691 They made new tech for Mandalorian TV Series for example.
It's a shame the Pepper's Ghost trick wasn't touched on here, since that was a pretty effective special effect that started off in theatres for stage plays before being utilised by movies. How they even came up with it in the first place is pretty mindblowing.
A variant of the Pepper's Ghost technique was used in The Lord Of The Rings for Shadowfax to appear to be rearing up over the funeral pyre.
I think it’s so cool how inventive they were. We improve on what we know.
Sadly, the great special effects master, Douglas Trumbull, passed away early this month. He created the special effects and miniatures for 2001, A Space Odyssey (1968), and Blade Runner (1982). It's amazing how good they look even at this date. Foe Blade Runner, he used smoke to make his miniature city look realistic as the focus got hazier, the further you looked into his city. Practical miniature effects can be amazing when done well. The Blue Danube scene from 2001 is still awe-inspiring and I even still like the opening shot of The Poseidon Adventure (1972) with its massive ship ( a copy of the Queen Mary) sailing through rough waters.
Sometimes practical looks so damn convincing compared to cgi. John Carpenter's The Thing will always blow my mind.
I wondered how them 40s hand-drawn animations had different planes moving at different speeds, just lifelike. Whoa that were physical layers attached to the camera
To be honest I prefer the labor and love used to give the audience the belief of the movie magic. They missed out to mention the films that used a mixed use of traditional and CGI FX's. The T-rex from Jurassic Park is a perfect example of a mastery of combining two styles.
And a;ll of the work done on Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films.
Jurassic Park and Independence Day both had incredible effects that combined both and I love when modern filmmakers try to do that, or go entirely practical. While far from perfect and often over the top, the two Terrifier films had some great fx.
I watched the DVD extras for Roger Rabbit. it's pretty amazing how they did that. They actually had robots underneath the animation. So when Roger is pouring himself a dram of scotch, that's actually a robot arm under his animated arm picking up the glass and bottle.
If you enjoyed this you should check out captain disillusion, he goes in depth on many of these techniques in fun ways
Hey, there's nothing bad about old special effects.
Sometimes they can look primitive, but the creativity shines.
Nice video but have to correct something. The original King Kong was not "claymation." Kong was a miniature articulated metal armature figure covered in fur.
Yeah, I hate when people use "claymation" interchangeably for "stop motion".
"Claymation" is a trademark. And, so is "Animatronics."
5:14 - The crowds scene for Kane's speech was a poor selection for a static matte painting. Orson Wells poked small holes in the matte and shined light behind it to create the effect of movement in the crowd. Another example of Wells' brilliance.
There is a scene in Hitchcock's movie, " Family Plot, " showing Dern and Harris in an out-of-control car driving down a mountain road. Even though rear projection is used, Hitchcock edited it so well that the tension is palpable. Brilliant!
Citizens crowd in the foreground is also a matte painting. So in a sense Citizen Kane is a two stage approach to it. Foreground was „animated“ with light just enough to make it look lively enough to ignore the more static matte painting in the background on the first watch
I find special effects in older films to feel more natural and beautiful than nowadays (if done correctly)
I was born in the early 2000s and even I feel like older films that don't have believe-able effects has a at home natural feeling into them
Great stuff, but one small correction: King Kong was not claymation. Kong had a metal armature with sponge rubber used for the body's musculature, which was then covered with rabbit fur. It used the same three-dimensional animation technique, though.
Pan's labyrinth, Hellboy, Shape of water and Pacific Rim are amazing films which their special effects stand up to this days. Guillermo del Toro and his team combines the best of Cgi and the best of practical efects.
Arguably, I'd say that Jon Favreau is nearly on par with Del Toro, as far as successfully combining CGI and practical effects in creative ways.
So is George Miller. Mad Max: Fury Road mostly used practical effects and only CGI to mostly remove stunt wires and that one night scene in which it was really actually in the middle of the day.
Some of the things in Del Toro movies which looks like CGI is actually handmade motorized puppets. It looked too perfect to be puppets, so people thought it were CGI.
@@V3ntilator any examples? I'm totally curious and love Del Toro.
I didn't know about Pacific Rim, so thanks. Sounds like fun.
Not many of the modern examples mentioned in this clip were successes but I’ve heard of and seen almost all of the old ones. I wish more work was spent on scripts today, it is the most important part of a movie after all.
That skeleton fight looks more real than some things today!
It really doesn’t 💀
The only thing lacking is motion blur, which was hard to create with stop-motion puppet armatures.
I’m looking at you, Scorpion King!
@@pokkemuur6539 yea ur right 💀💀💀
Better than those UFO footage 💀
Ahhh yes, what a special effect, a well written script and great acting.
I watched most of these stuff with Corridor Crew:)
Every video Insider makes is top shelf! Good stuff... cool. Thank you...
I’m so glad you Mentioned Disney’s multiplane camera. I was thinking about a documentary I saw that included that technology and I was hoping you would go over it! Also Ray Harryhausen was great. Loved his skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts! Great video thank you so much.
If you want to get technical. Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo from 1958 was the first film to make use of CGI, in it’s opening sequence. But it was made using a mechanical computer, not a digital one, so you can go ether way with that claim.
Not, reaally, but technically maybr
I believe the shots on THE MANDALORIAN were first used on Tom Cruise’s underrated film OBLIVION. This is what gives OBLIVION its incredible lighting look also.
The most amazing part, is back in the early film making days, they did not have computers to do any of the work. Everything had to be done manually with physically splicing film. Far more tedious and difficult! So even though these effects may be crude compared to today's standards, they were still pretty amazing accomplishment's for the time, considering what they had to work with or lack of!
The Harryhausen effects still wow today. Amazing.
They really put a lot of effort into creating those old techniques
I think I invented the substitution splice when I was about 7 years old without realizing it already existed. I always wondered how effects like appearance were done, so I always presumed that was how.
Many thanks for all the work and the insights!
Absolutely fascinating. Thanks so much.
Fascinating! Thanks for making this video!
Informative and well narrated. Not 8 minutes if unrelated junk, just a smooth and entertaining voice-over job. Well done.
Those effects are so amazing during the times of Cinema
Very informative and interesting. Thank you!
When you watch corridor crew and know some things!
we have an intellectual among us
Yeah
Bandstand fam comeback with the fire samples vids
phenomenal artistry!!!
As a lifetime casual enthusiast for VFX that was born in the 60s I can tell you all that approx 20% of that was just plain wrong, or was sort of right but was graphically depicted wrong. Still, it was mostly right, just a bit confused here and there.
This really feels like something put together with as little research as possible and just for views.
So why not SAY what was wrong then instead of "yeah that's like 20% wrong but I'm not gonna say what parts"?
@@BJGvideos because a year later only one person cares.
I know I'm in the minority but I really like the look of matte painted set extensions.
Not me. It looks distracting and fake to me.
Matte paintings definitely can have a more fantastic look, depending on the quality of the art. The best approach is to change the illusion from shot to shot.
That was an excellent piece.
Harry Harryhausen. Never stops amazing
5:05 - glass matte shots are done "live", with the camera pointing through the pre-painted matte. They are not optically composited later.
Just an awesome video, thank you!
Wow, that’s encredibel, the amount of shear ingenuity
My gripe is hand drawn animation vs computer generated animation I miss old school hand drawn because it’s just classic
If I ever become a director I’ll do everything practical as much as I can. Too me the practical effects still look the best. When I saw 1983 The Thing and learned it was all practical effects I loved that movie even more because it all looked really good.
Yeah, the reality of the situation is that unless you have some clout in the industry, the producers will force you to use CGI.
With regard to the thumbnail, and The Wizard of Oz film, MGM were unique in having most of their matte work done with pastel crayons on heavy black paperboard, rather than painting on glass or painting on some other type of artboard.
fascinating, i love it thankyou for sharing this..
Black Narcissus had amazing effects. Watch the scene in which they ring the bell in the morning, or when one character falls over a cliff
Thank you FX ideas. ✨👍✨
The green suit performer is a cool concept I like that
Honestly this is what makes me want to be in the Movie business, Acting business or just outright make a amazing movie. Today Movie making and video production is more straight forward using either Blue or Green Screens, But Now Blue Screens are the biggest Movie production. I've worked with both Green Screen and Blue Screen and finding how they managed movies back before I was even born and how movies handled "CGI" Was more physical based and painted on or drawed... Something like Tim Burton films, Especially time Burton films using Stop animations is revolutionary and I fully admit that Stop Animation movies was or is still popular in my opinion. Again, Movie Production is one of the biggest things that go oversighted and the Visual effects teams are usually unappreciated because of the Marvels "Icon" Actors, But the real people who made that movie and made the Actors career is the people of the production. WIthout them, These movies would never be possible. Take a moment to thank people of the production and Art Designers, Video Development and Effects Teams.
That was crazy fascinating
I clicked it on time!!! Hey MovieInsider🤚
First time to learn such things. Mind blowing!
To this day Jason and the Argonauts stands for me as the last / best movie with "real" special effects, with Starwars A new hope very close behind.
The first Jurassic Park is that movie for me.
Matte Painting the backdrops was used to incredible effect for the OT Star Wars Movies!!!!!!!!
Great video!!
The first CG was actually in the opening credits of Vertigo - they used a WWII aircraft tracking computer fir those spirographs.
Regarding the 2020 version of 'The Invisible Man', I'm pretty sure that the folks wearing the green body suits were digitally edited out in Post Production and that no second version of the same scene was required. This process gives a more natural, organic reaction and is also helpful in establishing the eyeline. Unless anyone knows different of course. Great movie too - Elizabeth Moss conveys so much emotion without saying a single word.
The "second version" was a clean plate pass with a motion control camera. Got to have something to go under the erased green suit
@@thedarksiderebel ah - now that is a very good point you've made - I never thought of that, but it does of course make perfect sense. You're obviously well up on that kind of stuff, whilst I....well, not quite so much. Always good to learn something new 😊👍
I wonder how prevalent these LED Boxes like used in Mandalorian will become? I'm sure there must be some quite steep limitations somewhere, but they seem like an extremely useful tool which is a massive stepup from green screen (the fact that the actors are able to see more of their environment must surely be a boon, although I wonder if it will ruin spontaneity a little since all the camera movements need to be preprogramed
Why do you think the camera movements need to be pre-programmed? There have been several instances of a handheld virtual camera being used in real-time in virtual environments. The Volume works in the same way, where the the camera's movements are tracked in real-time and the background displayed on the screens changes to keep the camera's view consistent in terms of parallax and depth
@@aridragonbeard745 Post-production compositing may allow certain levels of flexibility that would be problematic both with physical sets and models, and with pre-created interactive virtual sets. A nice real-world example of a shot illustrating this issue occurred an outtake for the Doctor Who serial "The Two Doctors", where Peri, photographed through a wrought iron fence, runs sideways and stops before addressing the doctor. In the outtake, she stopped in such a way that her face was obscured by one of the bars of the fence. If the fence were going to be added in post, the actress could have stopped anywhere and the fence could have been placed so as to not obscure her face. Because the physical fence placement was set in concrete before the shot, however (I think it was a real-world practical fence), the actress' movement had to be choreographed to fit.
What always amazes me when I see actual matte paintings and actual miniatures that were used in movies is that matte paintings often lack detail. Brush strokes are left in but they don't show up on screen. Miniatures are the opposite-- they have amazing detail and the workmanship is extraordinary. Small details like rust or wear and tear are carefully painted on the model.
It's part of the illusion with matte paintings to lack detail... If it had sharper images we might focus on them... but by lacking detail our brain ignores the background and focus on the live action... that and it's cheaper to paint.
Fascinating!
@4:13 shout to that beautiful temple in Tamilnadu ❤
this .ack in the 1930s, RKO Studios was first to invent green screen technology. It was used on a lot of films such as The Thief of Bagdad and others and it was a really cool technology that allowed for primitive but very useful visual effects that extended the narrative possibilities of Hollywood films.
Some of those "low tech" effects are still better than the physics defying cgi effects we see today.
The old low tech effects were so expensive and time consuming that the movie makers actually couldn't afford to put so many effects in, so they still relied on good scripts, story and acting for the bulk of the film. Now lots of films just shove tons of cgi sequences in the whole movie at the expense of characters and story.
This is brilliant.
One critical note: the narrator referred to King Kong as a claymation creation. Willis O'Brian created Kong with a metal armature skeleton and covered with rabbit fur. No actual clay was used.
An 8th movie trick would be the hanging miniature, an effect used to great effect in the chariot race scene for "Ben-Hur." A full discussion of this effect is in episode 11, "Trick Of The Light," in the 1980 Thames TV series "Hollywood."
I think my favorite method of in-camera compositing is the holey or partial mirror, which turns one of the normal problems with such techniques into an advantage. If part of a scene is visible to the camera, and part is visible via mirror which sits in front of that main scene, the objects in the mirror can be placed at the same distance from the camera as those in the main scene, or at any distance past the parfocal distance for long shots, and thus be much better in focus than objects in the mirror's plane. Meanwhile, the mirror being out of focus can smooth the transition area between the two scenes.
Working 43 years in film making, 38 of that in computer graphics and image processing; never seen "convincing" CGI to this day. It's still all very cartoon-y to me. :)
i liked this, showing how all our fancy techniques now are just the evolution of past ones!
The first time I saw 2001 as a kid I thought the Dawn Of Man section was shot on location because it looked so convincing.
Until I saw this video, I thought that, too.
The 1933 King Kong wasn’t done in “claymation”. It used stop motion with an 18” model. Front projection, rear projection, matte painting & matte shots (Dunning Process) were all used.
This was interesting to learn
Thanks for the info
Now I need a video like this but talking about practical effects in horror movies. Cause those new one sometimes look... weird.
4:12 I'm surprised to see this background 😂🙏🏻
“The rocks stunt double”😮 that and him not coming off the top with promos is like finding out Santa isn’t real
The 'old' technology keeps on coming back. We can see on the utilization of that big curve lcd movie set
Congratz Insider, this is the first time I have seen anyone admit that both green and blue are used for chromakeying. Of course anything with modern computers can be keyed to, but green first then blue later on since the 1980s at least have been used primarily.
Cinema is an amazing art form.
Screen projectors are not just used in movies, but also in live action TV Series.
2:36 now I finally know where that creepy character is from that keeps popping up on those random Instagram posts
Some of these OG effects still beat the crap out of the new CGI. (Black Panther ending fight scene was hilarious).
Disneys early cartoon animations are impressive.
Walt Disney was the undisputed leader of classical animation. The company's management was foolish for abandoning the medium in feature films.
This was a cool video. Upvote for you!
5:21 Wasn’t the part of the audience closer to the camera was given movement by having holes in the painting with things moving under to make it look like the crowd was moving around
Wow really interesting video about a cool topic, really makes me think more about all the work that goes into movies!