Use of CGI in Spectre

joshdeese93joshdeese93 Grand Hotel Europe Sauna
in SPECTRE Posts: 352
What are your thoughts of CGI in Spectre? Do you feel that it's realistic, or did it feel off?
«1

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Honestly no one knows because no one has seen the movie yet.

    But trust me someone will complain... many CGI Nazis are blindingly convinced most CGI is just horrible.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 5,627
    I'll let you know on the 26th. So far, no complaints.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    From the last trailer, the bit where DC does that jump off the building is lousy. I can't comment on the rest of it (the helicopter part seems real).

    I can only really say after I see the film though but that building jump is not positive.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The CGI on Brosnan's face is unbearable! He looks like Lara Croft's boyfriend. Again!! Damn! Why?
    :-h
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 582
    bondjames wrote: »
    From the last trailer, the bit where DC does that jump off the building is lousy. I can't comment on the rest of it (the helicopter part seems real).

    I can only really say after I see the film though but that building jump is not positive.

    I agree that CGI looked quite off, it's pretty obvious it's CGI. In my opinion good use of CGI should never draw attention to itself.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 9,892
    Geez, where do I begin? The building collapsing, the plane crashing through the trees... then there's the obvious green screen behind Bond and Waltz talking in the hallway... This film is all CGI with only a SPECTRE of real footage. Seriously though, we'll see come screen time- but for now, to me, these three shots look off.
  • Posts: 95
    QBranch wrote: »
    Geez, where do I begin? The building collapsing, the plane crashing through the trees... then there's the obvious green screen behind Bond and Waltz talking in the hallway... This film is all CGI with only a SPECTRE of real footage. Seriously though, we'll see come screen time- but for now, to me, these three shots look off.

    From reading and looking thru the production photos and notes, I believe the building was actually real, as was the explosion seen in the main trailer. Some assumed it was CG. The rest looks to be some compositing of Craig running away. Not sure if they collapsed the wall onto a real floor as well. The plane going thru the forest is real as are the wings. Perhaps the blades are CG. Can't say for sure. The hallway scene looks they were actually standing inside that set. Not sure why they would use green screen for such a massive and real set.

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Brimar wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Geez, where do I begin? The building collapsing, the plane crashing through the trees... then there's the obvious green screen behind Bond and Waltz talking in the hallway... This film is all CGI with only a SPECTRE of real footage. Seriously though, we'll see come screen time- but for now, to me, these three shots look off.

    From reading and looking thru the production photos and notes, I believe the building was actually real, as was the explosion seen in the main trailer. Some assumed it was CG. The rest looks to be some compositing of Craig running away. Not sure if they collapsed the wall onto a real floor as well. The plane going thru the forest is real as are the wings. Perhaps the blades are CG. Can't say for sure. The hallway scene looks they were actually standing inside that set. Not sure why they would use green screen for such a massive and real set.

    yes, is that not the scenes shot inside the Blenheim Palace doubling up as Rome?

    The wall collapsing in Mexico is part CGI, the building was recreated at Pinewood. The ruins of the building destroyed in Mexico in the scenes that follow are real. CGI Rubble has been added as the building falls as well as CGI of the floor giving way. I think you should judge this in Cinemas. The film has been shot in ARI's new 6K cameras 6 X a Full HD tv resolution. If there is any bad CGI it will stick out like a sore thumb in the cinema.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 9,892
    Brimar wrote: »
    The hallway scene looks they were actually standing inside that set. Not sure why they would use green screen for such a massive and real set.
    Just to clarify, I am talking about <a href="http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6563521.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/James-Bond-Spectre-trailer.jpg">this</a>; hallway scene- not saying it is green screen for sure- and I, too, don't see why they'd use it, but it looks off. Perhaps it's a lighting issue?
  • Posts: 498
    I agree with Q branch , The CGI of that collapsing building looks terrible whether it will be as bad as the Komodo dragons, Helicopter and the Turkey rooftops remains to be seen.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I think this topic shouldn't exist at all! At this stage....

    If only I could moderate this topic and....close it :-). I would kindly refer the topic starter to the "SPECTRE Production"-topic.
    The CGI on Brosnan's face is unbearable! He looks like Lara Croft's boyfriend. Again!! Damn! Why?
    :-h

    Apparently the topic starter never say THIS:
    Goldeneye-0117.jpg

    I remember back in 1995, when I was14 years old, that I looked astonished at my dad thinking "This is...not good. I never saw this before. It's....weird! :| ". A feeling I NEVER had when I saw "SF" for the first time.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 95
    QBranch wrote: »
    Brimar wrote: »
    The hallway scene looks they were actually standing inside that set. Not sure why they would use green screen for such a massive and real set.
    Just to clarify, I am talking about <a href="http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6563521.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/James-Bond-Spectre-trailer.jpg">this</a>; hallway scene- not saying it is green screen for sure- and I, too, don't see why they'd use it, but it looks off. Perhaps it's a lighting issue?

    Yeah, that one in Morocco is the one I thought you meant. To me it looks fine, but there were a couple tv spots that made the lighting look a bit flat compared to the last trailer. But I do believe it was all shot inside the set.

    Either way, it just makes me more excited to see the film in IMAX. I was actually pretty impressed with SF's VX. Can't imagine something even remotely believable like Silva's face just ten years ago. I have faith.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    Skyfail wrote: »
    I agree with Q branch , The CGI of that collapsing building looks terrible whether it will be as bad as the Komodo dragons, Helicopter and the Turkey rooftops remains to be seen.
    Got a feeling that towards the ends of the film based on what Waltz is wearing likely the interior of the site in Tangier. I know they blew this up so the complex actually existed, I am also guessing the interior shots were a set at Pinewood, because Waltz did not travel to Tangier as far as I have been led to believe.
  • Posts: 232
    The film has been shot in ARI's new 6K cameras 6 X a Full HD tv resolution. If there is any bad CGI it will stick out like a sore thumb in the cinema.

    I said I was through here many weeks back, but when I got a message just now about this post, I had to at least respond a bit, to keep you guys on track.

    The movie is primarily shot on film, so much so that I was told Hoyte declined my interview request because one of the topics I proposed discussing was the integration of various digital acquisition mediums with the mostly-film-shot stuff. The PR dept indicated that Hoyte considers this project to be a 'film' project, so much so that these other aspects do not merit discussion. So your 6K stuff is probably just for VFX or the odd 2nd unit bit, NOT some sort of new gold-standard.

    From one very hardworking production source I contacted before the article imploded (Sony subsequently declined a VFX-only variation article without explanation, and that was a month after I first contacted them), I also found that this has the biggest vfx shotload of any Bond, which means it must be a four-figure count, given that QUANTUM had nearly a thousand vfx shots.

    Resume now, and sin no more.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 95
    Brimar wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    Geez, where do I begin? The building collapsing, the plane crashing through the trees... then there's the obvious green screen behind Bond and Waltz talking in the hallway... This film is all CGI with only a SPECTRE of real footage. Seriously though, we'll see come screen time- but for now, to me, these three shots look off.

    From reading and looking thru the production photos and notes, I believe the building was actually real, as was the explosion seen in the main trailer. Some assumed it was CG. The rest looks to be some compositing of Craig running away. Not sure if they collapsed the wall onto a real floor as well. The plane going thru the forest is real as are the wings. Perhaps the blades are CG. Can't say for sure. The hallway scene looks they were actually standing inside that set. Not sure why they would use green screen for such a massive and real set.

    yes, is that not the scenes shot inside the Blenheim Palace doubling up as Rome?

    The wall collapsing in Mexico is part CGI, the building was recreated at Pinewood. The ruins of the building destroyed in Mexico in the scenes that follow are real. CGI Rubble has been added as the building falls as well as CGI of the floor giving way. I think you should judge this in Cinemas. The film has been shot in ARI's new 6K cameras 6 X a Full HD tv resolution. If there is any bad CGI it will stick out like a sore thumb in the cinema.

    Regarding the 6k, I heard it is just for Mexico. But obviously that's where the building scene is, so I would assume that the filmmakers know the results have to withstand such a massive resolution and the final, big screen version will hopefully be as polished as possible to utilize this. In fact there may be details in the collapse that bring the scene a bit more realism, that we can't see specifically because of the much lower tea trailer we see on the Internet or on TV. Add some booming sound and it still looks like a great scene regardless.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 9,892
    This is perhaps my only issue with the collapsing building- that there seems to be a lack of sharpness and detail on the wall face, and the edges are too soft. Once again, opinions may change once we see it as we're meant to.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    QBranch wrote: »
    This is perhaps my only issue with the collapsing building- that there seems to be a lack of sharpness and detail on the wall face, and the edges are too soft. Once again, opinions may change once we see it as we're meant to.

    Precisely.

    I'm no expert, and don't work in the industry, but to my untrained eyes, that is how I can tell CGI from the real stuff. It was all over the place in Avengers-Ultron (on the blu ray) and looked really cheap, but interestingly, not so apparent in the first Avengers film.

    The sharpness always gives it away.....to my novice eyes at least.
  • Posts: 95
    QBranch wrote: »
    This is perhaps my only issue with the collapsing building- that there seems to be a lack of sharpness and detail on the wall face, and the edges are too soft. Once again, opinions may change once we see it as we're meant to.

    I do agree there. I think it might be the smoke in the air that takes away a bit from the sharpness. Hopefully that is a relatively straightforward fix.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2015 Posts: 2,138
    trevanian wrote: »
    The film has been shot in ARI's new 6K cameras 6 X a Full HD tv resolution. If there is any bad CGI it will stick out like a sore thumb in the cinema.

    I said I was through here many weeks back, but when I got a message just now about this post, I had to at least respond a bit, to keep you guys on track.

    The movie is primarily shot on film, so much so that I was told Hoyte declined my interview request because one of the topics I proposed discussing was the integration of various digital acquisition mediums with the mostly-film-shot stuff. The PR dept indicated that Hoyte considers this project to be a 'film' project, so much so that these other aspects do not merit discussion. So your 6K stuff is probably just for VFX or the odd 2nd unit bit, NOT some sort of new gold-standard.

    From one very hardworking production source I contacted before the article imploded (Sony subsequently declined a VFX-only variation article without explanation, and that was a month after I first contacted them), I also found that this has the biggest vfx shotload of any Bond, which means it must be a four-figure count, given that QUANTUM had nearly a thousand vfx shots.

    Resume now, and sin no more.

    Thanks. David Fincher Shots Gone Girl Entirely in 6K it was visually stunning. However in Spectre they used ARRI Alexa 65 6K and I believe Spectre will be the first cinema release to use this type of camera. it has a very distinct look and Its visible mounted on production shots in Austria and Mexico.

    The same camera has been used to film the new Star Wars.

    This Article also appears to confirm what you say so many thanks.

    After the rich visual look of Skyfall, shot digitally by Roger Deakins on the ARRI Alexa, it was slightly surprising to learn that SPECTRE would be returning to 35 mm film under cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema.


    http://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/news/new-digital-camera-used-in-some-scenes-on-spectre.htm



    However, according to the Hollywood Reporter, some portions of SPECTRE were shot using the Alexa 65, a larger format version of the Alexa with a resolution of 6K. Presumably the scenes in which it has been used heavily rely on digital effects and so won’t suffer the quality degradation that comes from transferring the film.
  • Posts: 498
    Skyfail wrote: »
    I agree with Q branch , The CGI of that collapsing building looks terrible whether it will be as bad as the Komodo dragons, Helicopter and the Turkey rooftops remains to be seen.
    Got a feeling that towards the ends of the film based on what Waltz is wearing likely the interior of the site in Tangier. I know they blew this up so the complex actually existed, I am also guessing the interior shots were a set at Pinewood, because Waltz did not travel to Tangier as far as I have been led to believe.
    That looked somewhat fine , the only problem is the collapsing building, That looked so fake , even if it was real
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    ...this forum b#tches more than my ex wife.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,056
    I don't see any so called "bitching" as you put it in this thread other than an interesting discussion about a contentious issue. Seems there is one or two members who wish to quash this discussion.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I don't see any so called "bitching" as you put it in this thread other than an interesting discussion about a contentious issue. Seems there is one or two members who wish to quash this discussion.

    To be fair, the post heavily criticising the CGI is from a user called Skyfail, what chance has Spectre got.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 1,985
    trevanian wrote: »
    From one very hardworking production source I contacted before the article imploded (Sony subsequently declined a VFX-only variation article without explanation, and that was a month after I first contacted them), I also found that this has the biggest vfx shotload of any Bond, which means it must be a four-figure count, given that QUANTUM had nearly a thousand vfx shots.

    Someone reported here that while near the set in London, Chris Corbould told him SPECTRE would be the Bond movie with the biggest VFX workload ever.

    I don't see why some people just don't want to discuss CG here. Don't tell me that at any point when you discuss with someone about Skyfall you talk about great Silva's CG face was ? Don't tell me you remember the QoS CG avatars parachute scene as fondly as BJ Worth's stunts ? Well, you can copy this and paste it later to me if I'm wrong : I'm sure you will talk more about the real scene in SPECTRE's PTS than the CG one.

    About the jump away from the building, to me it seems the body language of the person doing the run towards the camera is not Craig's body language. Craig is somehow a panther running straight, this stuntman is a bull that sprints fast even with a few meters only to gain momentum. And IMO it means they used face replacement (hence why you don't see the face at the end).

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    I don't see any so called "bitching" as you put it in this thread other than an interesting discussion about a contentious issue. Seems there is one or two members who wish to quash this discussion.

    To be fair, the post heavily criticising the CGI is from a user called Skyfail, what chance has Spectre got.

    Well, what's in a name.

    But then yours is great, well chosen!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    Bond should be avoiding using intrusive CGI wherever possible. It's even more important to avoid it if it's to stand up a set-piece.
  • Posts: 498
    I don't see any so called "bitching" as you put it in this thread other than an interesting discussion about a contentious issue. Seems there is one or two members who wish to quash this discussion.

    To be fair, the post heavily criticising the CGI is from a user called Skyfail, what chance has Spectre got.

    I am not the only one criticizing it in here , but that isn't the point
    it was very stand out
    I don't look at Skyfall as some over here do , where they can't bear to read any criticism on the movie and immediately fight back totally ignoring all short comings ..
  • Posts: 498
    trevanian wrote: »
    From one very hardworking production source I contacted before the article imploded (Sony subsequently declined a VFX-only variation article without explanation, and that was a month after I first contacted them), I also found that this has the biggest vfx shotload of any Bond, which means it must be a four-figure count, given that QUANTUM had nearly a thousand vfx shots.

    I don't see why some people just don't want to discuss CG here. Don't tell me that at any point when you discuss with someone about Skyfall you talk about great Silva's CG face was ? Don't tell me you remember the QoS CG avatars parachute scene as fondly as BJ Worth's stunts ? Well, you can copy this and paste it later to me if I'm wrong : I'm sure you will talk more about the real scene in SPECTRE's PTS than the CG one.

    Exactly
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 4,216
    The technical aspects are interesting but for me, the litmus test is whether the letters CGI come into your head whilst watching. It could either be poor from a technical perspective or just inappropriate as it takes the level of action up to a fantasy level as it's so obvious it did not happen in the real world. IMHO, the best use of CGI is the removal of support devices which are there in case the physical stunt goes wrong but a physical person still performs the stunt. So running up the crane in CR was, to me, the perfect example of how CGI can be used to enable great physical stunts to be performed and at no point are you "taken out" of the movie.
    As for the trailer, the first time I saw it, I thought "CGI" and that's a shame because once you have thought that, it will never go away. And, of course, this thread is evidence that many have spotted in straight away
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    patb wrote: »
    The technical aspects are interesting but for me, the litmus test is whether the letters CGI come into your head whilst watching. It could either be poor from a technical perspective or just inappropriate as it takes the level of action up to a fantasy level as it's so obvious it did not happen in the real world. IMHO, the best use of CGI is the removal of support devices which are there in case the physical stunt goes wrong but a physical person still performs the stunt. So running up the crane in CR was, to me, the perfect example of how CGI can be used to enable great physical stunts to be performed and at no point are you "taken out" of the movie.
    As for the trailer, the first time I saw it, I thought "CGI" and that's a shame because once you have thought that, it will never go away. And, of course, this thread is evidence that many have spotted in straight away

    Fair comments I would still take CGI over those old tricks the did in film like the guy sitting in a motionless car against a video wall turning the steering wheel left and right lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.