Vader182 wrote:

Jax_Teller wrote:It kind of blurs the line yeah, but Avatar also has live action, and the live action looks good (like the opening on the extended edition, Jake lying on the ground, looking up at the sky, looks beautiful, although it is enhanced by CG). But then, if you start asking this question, we can ask it for every movie.

Cinematographer or director, I'm guessing, is establishing a visual mood or style, and then as it's supposed to work, the VFX team has to match it, but in Gravity where 95 % of it is CG, where is the reference? They can't shoot any of it for real, and when I mean for real, I mean shoot in space real, obviously.

but why does it matter if the camera is real or cgi?


-Vader

Jax_Teller wrote:

Vader182 wrote:

Jax_Teller wrote:It kind of blurs the line yeah, but Avatar also has live action, and the live action looks good (like the opening on the extended edition, Jake lying on the ground, looking up at the sky, looks beautiful, although it is enhanced by CG). But then, if you start asking this question, we can ask it for every movie.

Cinematographer or director, I'm guessing, is establishing a visual mood or style, and then as it's supposed to work, the VFX team has to match it, but in Gravity where 95 % of it is CG, where is the reference? They can't shoot any of it for real, and when I mean for real, I mean shoot in space real, obviously.

but why does it matter if the camera is real or cgi?


-Vader

Well, I don't know, it seems obvious to me, the real camera is tangible, you are shooting what you see, CG, you're creating, it's just not the same at all, it's fake in a way.

Jax_Teller wrote:CG camera: what is around is not real, you create it, you do camera moves that you couldnt do otherwise. Real camera: it's right in front of you, it's real, tangible, I don't understand the confusion here.

FreakLikeMe wrote:I don't mind CG cinematography, but it just gives an unfair advantage over films shot normally. The only movie to win in the last five years that was shot on real film was Inception.
2008: Slumdog Millionaire
2009: Avatar
2010: Inception
2011: Hugo
2012: Life of Pi
It's a small sample size, but this will probably continue.

Vader182 wrote:

Jax_Teller wrote:CG camera: what is around is not real, you create it, you do camera moves that you couldnt do otherwise. Real camera: it's right in front of you, it's real, tangible, I don't understand the confusion here.

Don't you create whatever is in the movie though?


-Vader

RyanRises wrote:

FreakLikeMe wrote:I don't mind CG cinematography, but it just gives an unfair advantage over films shot normally. The only movie to win in the last five years that was shot on real film was Inception.
2008: Slumdog Millionaire
2009: Avatar
2010: Inception
2011: Hugo
2012: Life of Pi
It's a small sample size, but this will probably continue.

You do realize that digital cinematography and computer generated images are completely different things, right?

FreakLikeMe wrote:

RyanRises wrote:

FreakLikeMe wrote:I don't mind CG cinematography, but it just gives an unfair advantage over films shot normally. The only movie to win in the last five years that was shot on real film was Inception.
2008: Slumdog Millionaire
2009: Avatar
2010: Inception
2011: Hugo
2012: Life of Pi
It's a small sample size, but this will probably continue.

You do realize that digital cinematography and computer generated images are completely different things, right?

Yeah, I should've said digital cinematography, not CG, my bad.