Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:28 am
Warbirdnerd wrote:
Planes of Fame's A6M5 made it's first flight with the Sakae engine on 6.28.78 and started a 6 month tour of Japan in July of 79...
Well I learn something every day. But that leads to another mistake I have seen: the multiple exposure.
Now, again, there wasn't any other way to do this up until CGI but if you look at:
Battle of Britain
633 Squadron
and even The Hunters...
They used multiple exposures of the same set of airplanes to make 3 look like 30.
The Hunters wasn't as bad as the others because in some aerial scenes they used a LOT of F-84's (painted as Migs...and some not painted) in real aerial footage. But occasionally you can see multiple exposures. One example is a merge in, I think, the first battle scene where the "Migs" are definitely from another exposure.
Back then, they did the best they could.
But if I saw that today I'd be turned off. And those were cases of using the real thing.
In my opinion, CGI is better so long as it's used correctly.
Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:22 pm
I think Saville has hit the target.
The physical properties of the models have gotten to the point that except when under extremely close scrutiny, they can pass for the real thing. The problem is implementation.
Movement, turn rates, roll rates and such tend to destroy the effect as Hollywood has different criteria they need to fulfill. If you've ever played a flight sim you know that the majority of air combat maneuvering is not what you'd call "cinematic". Hollywood needs to make it visually appealing to tell a story.
Real vs. CGI
I'm torn by this. I agree that real is better, and for the most part always will be. However, a few years ago a PBY was destroyed accidentally while filming a movie. I don't know whether it was stupidity, neglect, incompetence or some other reason. The end result is a pile of scrap metal. While I know we all want to see more great aviation films, I'm 100% positive none of you want more piles of scrap.
Real aircraft are great for the hero shots but I would prefer not to have them risked for other types of scenes.
The Future
In my opinion, Hollywood aviation needs to take a concept from the other side of Hollywood. Motion capture. I think if you motion captured a T-6 Texan in a dogfight in with another Texan, then replaced them digitally with CGI aircraft then you might be able to have the best of both worlds. It would also be cheaper and might allow some other stories to be told that aren't the famous ones that can get the funding.
The solution
Hollywood directors need to educate themselves on aircraft and how they move. What they are capable of and what they cannot do. This is not a new problem, it's existed as long as Hollywood has. However, the technology exists to allow greater realism if only they knew how to use it correctly.
The physical properties of the models have gotten to the point that except when under extremely close scrutiny, they can pass for the real thing. The problem is implementation.
Movement, turn rates, roll rates and such tend to destroy the effect as Hollywood has different criteria they need to fulfill. If you've ever played a flight sim you know that the majority of air combat maneuvering is not what you'd call "cinematic". Hollywood needs to make it visually appealing to tell a story.
Real vs. CGI
I'm torn by this. I agree that real is better, and for the most part always will be. However, a few years ago a PBY was destroyed accidentally while filming a movie. I don't know whether it was stupidity, neglect, incompetence or some other reason. The end result is a pile of scrap metal. While I know we all want to see more great aviation films, I'm 100% positive none of you want more piles of scrap.
Real aircraft are great for the hero shots but I would prefer not to have them risked for other types of scenes.
The Future
In my opinion, Hollywood aviation needs to take a concept from the other side of Hollywood. Motion capture. I think if you motion captured a T-6 Texan in a dogfight in with another Texan, then replaced them digitally with CGI aircraft then you might be able to have the best of both worlds. It would also be cheaper and might allow some other stories to be told that aren't the famous ones that can get the funding.
The solution
Hollywood directors need to educate themselves on aircraft and how they move. What they are capable of and what they cannot do. This is not a new problem, it's existed as long as Hollywood has. However, the technology exists to allow greater realism if only they knew how to use it correctly.
Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:58 pm
Scott WRG Editor wrote:I
Real vs. CGI
I'm torn by this. I agree that real is better, and for the most part always will be. However, a few years ago a PBY was destroyed accidentally while filming a movie. I don't know whether it was stupidity, neglect, incompetence or some other reason. The end result is a pile of scrap metal. While I know we all want to see more great aviation films, I'm 100% positive none of you want more piles of scrap.
Yesterday I watched a video of the filming of Battle of Britain and they said there were one or two Buchon losses during the filming. Not to mention that Robert Shaw tipped a Spitfire up on its nose.
Must have been fun in those days when the Spitfire owners would let an actor taxi a Spitfire. I suspect those days are over unless the actor is a very accomplished tail dragger pilot.
Another movie contribution to the discussion is "The Blue Max". There they used real planes in substantial numbers but not all of them were accurate with regard to type. IIRC they used a few Gypsy Moths painted as German planes.
Would be interesting to go back and watch Howard Hughes' "Heck's Angels" to see how he handled things. Lots of airplanes in that picture but they had to be squeezed into a certain chunk of sky.
Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Scott WRG Editor wrote:
The Future
In my opinion, Hollywood aviation needs to take a concept from the other side of Hollywood. Motion capture. I think if you motion captured a T-6 Texan in a dogfight in with another Texan, then replaced them digitally with CGI aircraft then you might be able to have the best of both worlds. It would also be cheaper and might allow some other stories to be told that aren't the famous ones that can get the funding.
They do really well with this with regard to ships. There is a scene from Russell Crowe's "Robin Hood" where you see a medieval ship sailing towards you riding the waves. It looks absolutely realistic. But if you watch a "Making of" video you see they did just what you suggest....ran a modern ship towards the camera that had registration markings on it and then CGI's a medieval ship in it's place.
Then there are cases where Real is VERY BAD (tm):
Watch "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" (also Russell Crowe) and watch carefully when you are seeing the actual HMS Rose (I crewed on that ship) moving in the water.....problem is that if you look closely the sails are a-back meaning that there was no wind that day and they had to use the engine to generate movement and therefore a wake.
Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:32 pm
Saville wrote:
Yesterday I watched a video of the filming of Battle of Britain and they said there were one or two Buchon losses during the filming. Not to mention that Robert Shaw tipped a Spitfire up on its nose.
Must have been fun in those days when the Spitfire owners would let an actor taxi a Spitfire. I suspect those days are over unless the actor is a very accomplished tail dragger pilot.
Another movie contribution to the discussion is "The Blue Max". There they used real planes in substantial numbers but not all of them were accurate with regard to type. IIRC they used a few Gypsy Moths painted as German planes.
Would be interesting to go back and watch Howard Hughes' "Heck's Angels" to see how he handled things. Lots of airplanes in that picture but they had to be squeezed into a certain chunk of sky.
Much of the planes used for films in the 60s were still being pulled from surplus stocks. older photographs still show Mustangs, Hellcats, thunderbolts & more sitting in parks as playground equipment into the late 60s.... A good amount of the planes used in Battle of Britain wound up in Connie Edwards hangar because no one wanted them after filming was over. They were recently (within the last five years) sold off. There were a few sequences in "Black Sheep Squadron"(late 70s) where Robert Conrad was taxiing a corsair...however I do believe he held a private pilot cert at the time... Different times back then...
Re: Everyone ^$#@## about CGI... But...
Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:28 pm
I'm pretty picky when it comes to aircraft and CGI. It works okay for space/Fantasy adventure because it is usually a world in which none of us have been or are familiar with.
When it comes to things we know, I have a bit more problem with it.
The recent Catch-22 series on HULU has some fine CGI aircraft in it, I would say that they either used multiple layers with the two actual B-25's they had for the production or it was CGI aircraft. That said, the T-6 scenes with McWatt are not up to par with the B-25 formations used throughout the series.
Sometimes, the issue is the physics of movement and motion. The CGI artists and directors just don't get it right or they speed up the flying and it looks ridiculous.
Case in point: In Peter Jackson's "King Kong", they threw the laws of physics out of the window. Weight and mass. Kong jumps around like gymnast Curt Thomas on the parallel bars! Earth's gravity doesn't drop to zero when Kong moves. There should be momentum. It's suppose to take place in the world we know, but large animals like elephants still have to work within the laws of physics. They can't stop on a dime or move super fast. Kong was not believable.
Equate this to aircraft. Mass and motion.
They have to fly right and react to air movement and control inputs. 2006's "Flyboys", wired up director Tony Bill's Pitts Special to record all the control surfaces movements so they could be plugged into the CGI aircraft's movements. Nice idea, but it failed due to the fact that a WWII aircraft could never move like a Pitts Special could. Roll rate and turning radius far out strip what a Fokker Triplane could do. Ever see a real WWI Fighter fly with a rotary engine? It's like watching a slow motion ballet, even when they dogfight!
A Pitts Special in WWI would be like an F-14 in WWII!
There were some scenes in "Pearl Harbor" that I thought were good, but the majority lacked many things.
"Red Tails", eh.
Again, a few CGI shots were decent, but most were way under par.
I didn't think "Unbroken's" CGI was very good either. Lighting was too soft, even in the cockpit scenes with the actors. They have to do that to match the CGI color palette. Notice there's never any harsh shadows. Real life has light and dark areas. They spend a lot of money on the details of the aircraft so they don't want to then cover it up under dark, harsh shadows that typically come with actual, bright sunlight.
There are glimmers of hope here and there, but having been a video producer for 23 years, and a pilot since 1978, I get real picky when it comes to CGI aircraft.
My two cents.
Jerry
When it comes to things we know, I have a bit more problem with it.
The recent Catch-22 series on HULU has some fine CGI aircraft in it, I would say that they either used multiple layers with the two actual B-25's they had for the production or it was CGI aircraft. That said, the T-6 scenes with McWatt are not up to par with the B-25 formations used throughout the series.
Sometimes, the issue is the physics of movement and motion. The CGI artists and directors just don't get it right or they speed up the flying and it looks ridiculous.
Case in point: In Peter Jackson's "King Kong", they threw the laws of physics out of the window. Weight and mass. Kong jumps around like gymnast Curt Thomas on the parallel bars! Earth's gravity doesn't drop to zero when Kong moves. There should be momentum. It's suppose to take place in the world we know, but large animals like elephants still have to work within the laws of physics. They can't stop on a dime or move super fast. Kong was not believable.
Equate this to aircraft. Mass and motion.
They have to fly right and react to air movement and control inputs. 2006's "Flyboys", wired up director Tony Bill's Pitts Special to record all the control surfaces movements so they could be plugged into the CGI aircraft's movements. Nice idea, but it failed due to the fact that a WWII aircraft could never move like a Pitts Special could. Roll rate and turning radius far out strip what a Fokker Triplane could do. Ever see a real WWI Fighter fly with a rotary engine? It's like watching a slow motion ballet, even when they dogfight!
A Pitts Special in WWI would be like an F-14 in WWII!
There were some scenes in "Pearl Harbor" that I thought were good, but the majority lacked many things.
"Red Tails", eh.
Again, a few CGI shots were decent, but most were way under par.
I didn't think "Unbroken's" CGI was very good either. Lighting was too soft, even in the cockpit scenes with the actors. They have to do that to match the CGI color palette. Notice there's never any harsh shadows. Real life has light and dark areas. They spend a lot of money on the details of the aircraft so they don't want to then cover it up under dark, harsh shadows that typically come with actual, bright sunlight.
There are glimmers of hope here and there, but having been a video producer for 23 years, and a pilot since 1978, I get real picky when it comes to CGI aircraft.
My two cents.
Jerry