In case you have never seen it before: everything in the same 'key' color (often green as it's relatively rare in non-nature scenes) is automatically masked by software and can be replaced with other footage.
But you have seen it before as your local weather presenter is often shown standing in front of a live screen thanks to the same technology. If he or she wears the wrong clothes with patches of the key color you will notice the fringing.
Thanks +https://plus.google.com/u/4/115507729860405305367 for the image #Tech
Strangely enough, I'd like to actually watch some movies like this. Or at least a few scenes.
I'd like to participate in some of those 🙂
Always wondered about theses scenes nice😄
The upper or lower version? +Cindy Brown
🙂
+Max Huijgen since they are both the same, simply pre/post production, it doesn't matter. I think it'd be great fun to work on this and then see the end result 🙂
Please explain why they really built the part of the bridge that doesn't collapse. Seems more expensive to me than extending the CGI-bridge a few meters. Maybe this is just an instructional vid to demonstrate the trusted Chromakey, originally shot on a totally green floor with some lines on it (the falling man turns out to be CGI-generated as well).
+Anton Theunissen because the human eye/brain is still able to spot the difference (even on a subconscious level, best example the uncanny valley ) between CGI and "real world". it cost exponentially much more money to make realistic CGI than to use day to day items (like the cars, plaster, guardrail, traffic pylons and so on in the scene). For the subconscious it's more 'believable/real', since we know how such items look & 'behave', since we encounter them very frequently. Human brain/subconscious is extremely well equipped when it comes to pattern recognition – if a well known "pattern" doesn't fit/match any longer (i.e. the way the car has been CGI rendered) our subconscious triggers a "something is wrong here/not as it should be – be alert" uneasiness response
We had a group of Girl Scouts tour our TV station. They came in wearing their usual green shirts. When it came time to see the weather stage, the monitors showed a lot of floating heads and arms. Quite the funny sight!
Super nice to see the differences between those 😀
Hi Max. Where do I purchase this software? Is it worth me having? I currently use Coral, but need something better for Chroma Key. Thanks!
Cool! No, I didn't know that, thanks +Max Huijgen 😉
Lol
Thank you, and may your day be filled with joy!
What video is this from?
Final Destination.
🙂 wowwwwww
+Anton Theunissen In addition to what +Otto Normalverbraucher said, the more green screen and the less real stuff there is, the harder it is for actors to interact convincingly with the environment. Look at the guy in the suit: In the final product, it looks like he presciently hops across weak areas that aren't collapsing until he's hopping over them. That's because he's hopping based on the green screen environment; he looks perfectly naturally in his choices when you can see where he really is.
One of the complaints about the Star Wars prequel is how stiff the actors are, compared to the original movies. It's been said (by the actors themselves, among others) that part of the problem is that they couldn't see what they were actually doing a good part of the time. There are scenes in those movies that are 80%, 90%, and even 100% CGI. Ahmed Best (Jar Jar Binks) had to wear an outfit that made him look silly in order to get the blocking right. Indeed, one of the keys that makes Avatar so much more realistic than other highly CGI films with human actors is that Cameron set up the technology so that actors could see what their environment looked like while they are actually filming.
I wanna be tht guy who failed to get himself ontop of the road. Rofl
+Paul Hartzer +Otto Normalverbraucher spot on in your explanations.
What amuses me is that viewer training is part of the believability of CGI. We accepted the original images of Star Wars when they were just released, where we now notice the errors.
For an even better example take all those old scenes in 'moving cars' where the driver is talking amiable with his girl friend never noticing the traffic.
The car was shaking in a studio with a projection on the windows. A predecessor to chroma-keying.
Nowadays our eyes detect the differences in lighting, the washed out effect by using a rear projection screen and the differences in motion between actors and filmed scene.
But – starting from the thirties – these scenes were completely accepted by the audience of their times.
Neat, I've never seen something like this. I love the capabilities here, amazing! Thanks for sharing +Max Huijgen
+Max Huijgen People used to be more exposed to live theater, radio, and story-telling. In live theater people will accept two plain chairs as representing an automobile. So, although I think yes it's partly a function of people being trained to expect better FX — also, it reflects some atrophy of imagination and the ability to suspend disbelief.
Awesome! Cannot wait to be part of a movie that uses great green screen technology! Requires strong acting skills!
atrophy of imagination is a good one +Greg Hendershott Otherwise know as the loss of childhood I guess 😉
cool
+Max Huijgen Interestingly the original source has derivative example of your description: https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115507729860405305367/albums/6011030603885594145/6011030608033969634
I can't follow that link +Chris Dillon What is the original source?
+Max Huijgen Try this https://plus.google.com/115507729860405305367/posts/S7D1D6rpgB8
That's the person I thanked for the image, but the explanation was mine.
Sorry it's a misunderstanding. I meant>> There's an interesting derivative of the "old scenes in 'moving cars' where the driver is talking amiable with his girl friend never noticing the traffic… car was shaking in a studio with a projection on the windows"
further down within the the original link: https://plus.google.com/115507729860405305367/posts/S7D1D6rpgB8
Ah, now I understand +Chris Dillon Yes, funny to see that scene. Illustrates my description 😉
The 'problem' is also that as things are getting more 'real' the inevitable errors caused by cgi are going to give a more awkward feeling to the viewer and it is going to feel more fake.
You see the same with talking robots. If they are obviously robots, they are cute. But if they are made lifelike, like that Japanese scientist who made a robot looking like himself, it starts feeling creepy.
Or that Final Fantasy animation movie. It's extremely real in its animation, yet it feels more fake than Nemo.
I remember when it was Blue Screen lol.