“No CGI” Is Really Just Invisible CGI
Mission Impossible. Oppenheimer. F1. The Odyssey. Top Gun: Maverick. Mad Max: Fury Road. Inception. Dune. Filmmakers and studios who make movies like these love to emphasize their heavy use of practical effects, i.e. real cars jumping real bridges or real people hanging off of real airplanes. “No CGI”, they say, despite the hundreds of names in the visual effects section of the films’ credits.
In his six-part series, Jonas Ussing, who co-owns a visual effects studio in Denmark, takes a look at these “No CGI” films and shows us just how much digital graphical effects goes into them. For instance, did you know that every single flying jet in Top Gun: Maverick, a movie we were assured was all practical effects, was built with CGI? Take a look:
His latest video is all about Christopher Nolan:
I’ve only watched bits and pieces of these videos so far (the Nolan one is 71 minutes long), but when ILM’s Todd Vaziri says something film-related is good, it’s good.
Comments 3
I remember seeing how many CGI/FX shots Ted Lasso used and being... shocked? But also not very upset. I think there's a difference between smart use of CGI and lazy/cheap use.
Like, I was watching the trailer for the new Alan Ritchson/Owen Wilson movie ("Runner" I think? Doesn't matter) and the low-quality of the CGI was just... jarring. Totally removed my (willing) suspended disbelief, you know?
I worked on the Mexican series "Cada Minuto Cuenta" ("Every Minute Counts" in English - it's on Amazon Prime). It's about the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City, so there's obviously a lot of VFX. Pretty much all of the post-earthquake rubble scenes were shot on a couple of sound stages, where all of the backgrounds of collapsed buildings were on a very large LED wall (with full camera tracking to maintain proper perspective, rendered in real time with Unreal Engine). The incredibly talented production designer (Daniela Schneider) actually created miniatures of all of the buildings which were scanned using photogrammetry to create the 3D environments for Unreal. For the foregrounds full-scale sections were constructed which matched the background. This is all to say that having something "real" as a basis for effects goes a long way to having the ultimate result "feel" real even if there are a lot of VFX involved.
Edit: Some BTS photos of the miniatures and sets: https://danielaproductiondesigner.com/portfolio/all,tv/cada-minuto-cuenta/
That's very interesting! I am mostly familiar with Unreal's use in video game design. I didn't know it was used in cinema, but it makes sense that software that constructs 3D-like environments would be relevant. Making a note to watch this series.
If you feel like this comment goes against the grain of the community guidelines or is otherwise inappropriate, please let me know and I will take a look at it.
In order to comment or fave, you need to be a kottke.org member. Check out your membership options.
Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions. Or try logging out and then back in. Still having trouble? Email me!