Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Use of CGI in Spectre
What are your thoughts of CGI in Spectre? Do you feel that it's realistic, or did it feel off?
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
But trust me someone will complain... many CGI Nazis are blindingly convinced most CGI is just horrible.
I can only really say after I see the film though but that building jump is not positive.
:-h
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.
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.
If only I could moderate this topic and....close it :-). I would kindly refer the topic starter to the "SPECTRE Production"-topic.
Apparently the topic starter never say THIS:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, the post heavily criticising the CGI is from a user called Skyfail, what chance has Spectre got.
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).
Well, what's in a name.
But then yours is great, well chosen!
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 ..
Exactly
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.