Going Green
August 6, 2015 12:45 PM Subscribe
GOING GREEN II: Green Screen Shots before (and after) Visual Effects
Kids these days! Back when we were making movies, we didn't have no high falootin' green whatchamacallit. We filmed our space movies in space, goldangit! If we fell into the sarlacc pit, we suffered our agony for 1000 years like men! And you know what? We liked it that way!
posted by jimmythefish at 1:21 PM on August 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jimmythefish at 1:21 PM on August 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
After seeing those pictures of Ian McKellan having such a hard time filing the Hobbit in what was essentially an empty neon-green room filled with tennis balls on sticks, I have more aprpeciation for the skill necessary to emote when you're not actually emoting to anything.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 1:23 PM on August 6, 2015
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 1:23 PM on August 6, 2015
Oh, Life of Pi. I will still never watch you, but that was hilarious.
posted by psoas at 1:26 PM on August 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by psoas at 1:26 PM on August 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
And let us remind that TRON (the original, not the massively disappointing sequel) was denied entry to the best FX award because it used computers. COMPUTERS.
As much as what matters is what the end product looks like and complaining that most of these movies should qualify for animation should be an automatic entry for the Asshole Of The Year Award (I get mine early for this reason), I've seen a lot of situations that could be solved with practical effects over greenscreening/VFXing everything. When it works well, fine, but occasionally you see crap like the horrible CGI in the third Matrix (if you believe such thing exists).
Still think Life of Pi should have been filmed with a live tiger. Of course, then they'd have to CGI the face of the original actor with it on the boat over the countless body doubles that were either mauled or decided to jump ship (and production) in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:36 PM on August 6, 2015
As much as what matters is what the end product looks like and complaining that most of these movies should qualify for animation should be an automatic entry for the Asshole Of The Year Award (I get mine early for this reason), I've seen a lot of situations that could be solved with practical effects over greenscreening/VFXing everything. When it works well, fine, but occasionally you see crap like the horrible CGI in the third Matrix (if you believe such thing exists).
Still think Life of Pi should have been filmed with a live tiger. Of course, then they'd have to CGI the face of the original actor with it on the boat over the countless body doubles that were either mauled or decided to jump ship (and production) in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:36 PM on August 6, 2015
emote when you're not actually emoting to anything.
The modern blockbuster set is more like half a dozen millionaire actors emoting to each other while entirely surrounded by green drapes and wearing bar-code pickup clothing. It's like Pinter. In the parking lot area of the studio there are maybe 50 marquee tents each containing young guys doing computers who seem to be having the most fun.
posted by colie at 1:38 PM on August 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
The modern blockbuster set is more like half a dozen millionaire actors emoting to each other while entirely surrounded by green drapes and wearing bar-code pickup clothing. It's like Pinter. In the parking lot area of the studio there are maybe 50 marquee tents each containing young guys doing computers who seem to be having the most fun.
posted by colie at 1:38 PM on August 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Digital effects have made this stuff easier but it's not like acting in front of a black/blue/green screen is new. Traveling mattes date back at least to 1918 with the Williams Process so actors have been emoting to stuff that isn't there yet for almost a hundred years. It's not like Fay Wray was screaming a real gorilla.
posted by octothorpe at 1:51 PM on August 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:51 PM on August 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Back when we were making movies, we... filmed our space movies in space, goldangit!
Actually, it was never possible to film IN SPACE until very recently, and now what prevents it isn't the cost, it's the time spent giving Astronaut Training to the millionaire actors that would keep them from doing two other movies or a Netflix series. Still, the publicity angle of "GRAVITY 2: SEE SANDRA BULLOCK REALLY FLOATING AROUND IN LOW-EARTH ORBIT" would guarantee an extra $50million in box office. And even more if it's Scarlett Johansson.
And without Green Screen, we'd never have moments during TV weather reports like this and this and this.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:25 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Actually, it was never possible to film IN SPACE until very recently, and now what prevents it isn't the cost, it's the time spent giving Astronaut Training to the millionaire actors that would keep them from doing two other movies or a Netflix series. Still, the publicity angle of "GRAVITY 2: SEE SANDRA BULLOCK REALLY FLOATING AROUND IN LOW-EARTH ORBIT" would guarantee an extra $50million in box office. And even more if it's Scarlett Johansson.
And without Green Screen, we'd never have moments during TV weather reports like this and this and this.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:25 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not like Fay Wray was screaming a real gorilla.
I mean, that would have been impressive.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:16 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, that would have been impressive.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:16 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've always wondered: when TV does this they use blue for chromakey. Why do they use green for movies?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:18 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:18 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Fast and Furious 6 one just looks like Jason Statham is in a parking garage painted the same colour as my old apartment.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:45 PM on August 6, 2015
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:45 PM on August 6, 2015
Blue is darker, so it works better with brighter/more direct/less-subtle lighting, which tends to be a difference between teevee and film (at least the evening news vs. a Scorsese film or whatever). Blue screens were also originally used because blue is the furthest color from red in the visible spectrum, and red is the main component of fleshtone, so there's the highest contrast between figure and background. More recently, though, everyone's started using green because of something something the way digital cameras work that I don't understand.
posted by shakespeherian at 3:46 PM on August 6, 2015
posted by shakespeherian at 3:46 PM on August 6, 2015
Winning an Oscar in bankruptcy: Rhythm and Hues and the visual effects biz one year later
Life After Pi
posted by brundlefly at 4:18 PM on August 6, 2015
Life After Pi
posted by brundlefly at 4:18 PM on August 6, 2015
Disney Studios used a yellow screen process but no one else did because there was only ever one camera built.
posted by octothorpe at 4:18 PM on August 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:18 PM on August 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because the human eye is more sensitive to green, digital cameras have more green sensors than they have red or blue sensors, so separating on the green channel gives you the best results.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 7:30 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 7:30 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Man, almost every one of those "afters" just looks fake, fake, fake to me. Distractingly, no-fun-to-watch fake. And with a lot of them, it seems like it couldn't have been easier or cheaper to screen in some big CGI video game background ike that. So, why bother? You can actually venture out beyond the studio walls sometimes, guys! There's a whole world out there! Why is it better to put Leonardo Dicaprio and Jonah Hill on a fake yacht in a fake ocean instead of just taking them out to the damn ocean on a yacht?
Yes, you can do things with computers that you can't do in real life. But all too often, it is readily apparent that is just what you're doing.
Ian McKellen was apparently reduced to weeping during the filming of the recent Hobbit movies, growing frustrated with all that time facing green walls and having to precisely time his reactions to stuff that wasn't there. "This," he is reported to have said, "is not acting." And increasingly movies don't even feel like movies to me. They're just showcases for these weird, fakey visuals. So many sweeping orange and teal vistas, where we can see every microscopic detail of the fake orange landscape, off into the far distance where it meets the fake teal sky.
(You kids get off my teal lawn.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:56 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, you can do things with computers that you can't do in real life. But all too often, it is readily apparent that is just what you're doing.
Ian McKellen was apparently reduced to weeping during the filming of the recent Hobbit movies, growing frustrated with all that time facing green walls and having to precisely time his reactions to stuff that wasn't there. "This," he is reported to have said, "is not acting." And increasingly movies don't even feel like movies to me. They're just showcases for these weird, fakey visuals. So many sweeping orange and teal vistas, where we can see every microscopic detail of the fake orange landscape, off into the far distance where it meets the fake teal sky.
(You kids get off my teal lawn.)
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:56 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why is it better to put Leonardo Dicaprio and Jonah Hill on a fake yacht in a fake ocean instead of just taking them out to the damn ocean on a yacht?
Because money. That's really all it comes down to. Shooting on real locations costs money. Shooting on water costs a lot of money. If you're just green-screening the background later, you don't have to worry about what the sky looks like, what's going to be visible in the background of the frame that isn't supposed to be there, etc. You have more control and fewer surprises. Surprises and spontaneity (I'd argue) make much better movies, but routine and control is the name of the game when it comes to budget these days. Scorsese knows this as well as anyone. There was a pretty famous story about George Lucas visiting the set of Gangs of New York (which was built up physically, of course) and being like, "You know, Marty, you could have saved a lot of money doing this in the computer ..."
I think younger audiences today embrace the fake because they grew up playing videogames with shitty polygon graphics, and compared to the let's-call-it-stylized look of even modern videogames most big-budget movies these days look absolutely photoreal.
This is why Mission: Impossible 5 is so refreshing. Sure, there's a ton of green-screen work in that picture but an awful lot of the action was actually captured in camera. Anyway, I've got a real disconnect with the One Perfect Shot guy in terms of what he apparently values in movies.
posted by Mothlight at 10:28 AM on August 7, 2015
Because money. That's really all it comes down to. Shooting on real locations costs money. Shooting on water costs a lot of money. If you're just green-screening the background later, you don't have to worry about what the sky looks like, what's going to be visible in the background of the frame that isn't supposed to be there, etc. You have more control and fewer surprises. Surprises and spontaneity (I'd argue) make much better movies, but routine and control is the name of the game when it comes to budget these days. Scorsese knows this as well as anyone. There was a pretty famous story about George Lucas visiting the set of Gangs of New York (which was built up physically, of course) and being like, "You know, Marty, you could have saved a lot of money doing this in the computer ..."
I think younger audiences today embrace the fake because they grew up playing videogames with shitty polygon graphics, and compared to the let's-call-it-stylized look of even modern videogames most big-budget movies these days look absolutely photoreal.
This is why Mission: Impossible 5 is so refreshing. Sure, there's a ton of green-screen work in that picture but an awful lot of the action was actually captured in camera. Anyway, I've got a real disconnect with the One Perfect Shot guy in terms of what he apparently values in movies.
posted by Mothlight at 10:28 AM on August 7, 2015
That tiger one is so sad.
posted by gottabefunky at 12:44 PM on August 7, 2015
posted by gottabefunky at 12:44 PM on August 7, 2015
One of the big problems with location shooting is weather. There are two stories I've heard about that:
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" had a lot of location shooting and it was scheduled for location work during a period when it would be expected to be clear-and-blue in Scotland. Unfortunately, for most of the period it wasn't. The only major scene they were able to film under blue sky was the one where the students meet the griffon. For everything else, it was overcast the entire time. Having little choice they went ahead and filmed all the scenes under grey skies.
As it turned out, that worked really well; it added to the mood. But it was bad luck that turned out to be good luck.
"House of Flying Daggers" did a lot of location shooting in Ukraine. But during the filming of the final major scene (which was outdoors), it started snowing. Having no choice, they just kept going, and it worked out OK. But it certainly wasn't planned that way.
Obviously if you do your "location" in a computer, you don't have this problem.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:29 PM on August 7, 2015
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" had a lot of location shooting and it was scheduled for location work during a period when it would be expected to be clear-and-blue in Scotland. Unfortunately, for most of the period it wasn't. The only major scene they were able to film under blue sky was the one where the students meet the griffon. For everything else, it was overcast the entire time. Having little choice they went ahead and filmed all the scenes under grey skies.
As it turned out, that worked really well; it added to the mood. But it was bad luck that turned out to be good luck.
"House of Flying Daggers" did a lot of location shooting in Ukraine. But during the filming of the final major scene (which was outdoors), it started snowing. Having no choice, they just kept going, and it worked out OK. But it certainly wasn't planned that way.
Obviously if you do your "location" in a computer, you don't have this problem.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:29 PM on August 7, 2015
Because money. That's really all it comes down to. Shooting on real locations costs money. Shooting on water costs a lot of money.
But is it really cheaper to CGI together some fake boat, ocean and skyline, than it would be to just go out there to the actual ocean with an actual boat? I'm no expert on movie budgets, but I'd think it's got to be cheaper to spend a few hours in the harbor than it would be to have some techies spend weeks moving pixels around.
Weird to think that if Scorsese made Goodfellas today, it'd probably be chock-full of this weird-looking CGI stuff.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 12:56 AM on August 8, 2015
But is it really cheaper to CGI together some fake boat, ocean and skyline, than it would be to just go out there to the actual ocean with an actual boat? I'm no expert on movie budgets, but I'd think it's got to be cheaper to spend a few hours in the harbor than it would be to have some techies spend weeks moving pixels around.
Weird to think that if Scorsese made Goodfellas today, it'd probably be chock-full of this weird-looking CGI stuff.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 12:56 AM on August 8, 2015
Think about the time spent resetting the positions of boats on a location shoot, the expense of weather delays, sound issues, waves bouncing the boat in the wrong way, continuity between cuts, etc. More control = less potential expense.
posted by shakespeherian at 5:36 AM on August 8, 2015
posted by shakespeherian at 5:36 AM on August 8, 2015
Wouldn't be surprised if insurance plays a part in it, too. Other than a Owen Hart styled harness malfunction, not that many really bad things might realistically happen in a soundstage. On a boat, it's a completely different matter.
posted by lmfsilva at 6:03 AM on August 8, 2015
posted by lmfsilva at 6:03 AM on August 8, 2015
They use green-screen around the boat for the same reasons that they used rear-projection fifty years ago, it's just easier and quicker:
* Retakes are faster without having to back the boat up
* The lighting and wind is more controlled and consistent
* Continuity is easier for different angled shots
* There's more room and support for camera cranes and lighting rigs
* No one can fall out and drown
* Permits aren't needed
posted by octothorpe at 10:05 AM on August 8, 2015
* Retakes are faster without having to back the boat up
* The lighting and wind is more controlled and consistent
* Continuity is easier for different angled shots
* There's more room and support for camera cranes and lighting rigs
* No one can fall out and drown
* Permits aren't needed
posted by octothorpe at 10:05 AM on August 8, 2015
Ursula, you drastically overestimate the expense of CGI. A lot of the stuff you see is produced algorithmically rather than being hand-drawn. There's been a lot of work on using fractals to produce realistic trees, realistic clouds, running water, rock faces, steam, fire, smoke, and just a lot of other stuff. I've seen work on algorithmically creating city scenes, too.
The algorithms don't just create single frames of those things; for clouds and fire and water and smoke the algorithms also animate them.
In one of the Lord of the Rings movies they used CGI for a major battle scene. Thousands of orcs on screen, and they were all computer generated. More interesting is that the computer not only animated them but it choreographed their movement. The programmers created a primitive Artificial Intelligence that made decisions for each individual orc about what it should do next.
They had to revise the algorithm at one point because their original one led to the orcs abandoning the attack and fleeing.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:06 AM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The algorithms don't just create single frames of those things; for clouds and fire and water and smoke the algorithms also animate them.
In one of the Lord of the Rings movies they used CGI for a major battle scene. Thousands of orcs on screen, and they were all computer generated. More interesting is that the computer not only animated them but it choreographed their movement. The programmers created a primitive Artificial Intelligence that made decisions for each individual orc about what it should do next.
They had to revise the algorithm at one point because their original one led to the orcs abandoning the attack and fleeing.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:06 AM on August 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older World’s largest natural sound archive now fully... | "...then I'll give them back ridiculousness in... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Mind=blown.
posted by adamrice at 1:06 PM on August 6, 2015 [3 favorites]