Every time I watch a show, I'm going to be staring at the background, trying to figure if it's there or composited in. (And marveling at the lighting when it's good!)
Wow, I never realised just how much was greenscreened before! I think I'd always just assumed elaborate sets were involved and later tweaked by magical computer pixies, I hadn't realised greenscreen had progressed so far. Only on a couple of the examples could I see where green screen/ reality met and only after I knew where to look, not something I'd pick up whilst watching the show normally.
Wow...I'm amazed at how far greenscreening has come. If they hadn't been pointed out, I don't think I would have realized what was real and what was fake.
I remember when the series about young Indiana Jones was coming out, someone describing this to me as new technology, and I said I thought it made the film less authentic and that I felt cheated when someone was just showing me a lot of special effects. For example, in the linked video, does it lessen the effect of the settings and disasters to look at them thinking, stock footage, stock footage, stock footage?
The current work on modeling humans is still fairly crude but within 10 years I'm sure we'll have crowd scenes, at least, that have never contained a real human being. And I don't think that's so great either...
Hmm. You have a point, but I don't think it affects me in the same way for fictional stories. I'd be disappointed if it occurred in a documentary and wasn't clearly labeled as a re-enactment.
It concerns me very much. The prank video of David Attenborough with the penguins was very funny and I laughed a lot and later I thought, crap.
For many people, the TV or movie theatre is the closest they'll ever get to seeing wild animals and birds, and wild landscapes too. And putting the idea that it can all be greenscreen-faked, and so very fluidly and easily, out there, deeply alarms me, because the only way we have to reach those people and try to persuade them them to care about the planet and the non-human parts of it is film. I don't want them to be in a mindset, ever, of dismissing it as easily faked, not real, some back lot in LA. The distinction you make in your mind between fiction and documentary isn't there for a lot of viewers; I believe that to many, both, seen as entertainment, are equally real and unreal.
I was surprised by this too. I suppose it does explain how they are sometimes able to film in very well-known locations, which has always puzzled me. It must make acting more difficult - being in front of a flat screen must be completely different to being in front of, say, Trafalgar Square full of people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
:O
What a fascinating video.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The current work on modeling humans is still fairly crude but within 10 years I'm sure we'll have crowd scenes, at least, that have never contained a real human being. And I don't think that's so great either...
no subject
no subject
For many people, the TV or movie theatre is the closest they'll ever get to seeing wild animals and birds, and wild landscapes too. And putting the idea that it can all be greenscreen-faked, and so very fluidly and easily, out there, deeply alarms me, because the only way we have to reach those people and try to persuade them them to care about the planet and the non-human parts of it is film. I don't want them to be in a mindset, ever, of dismissing it as easily faked, not real, some back lot in LA. The distinction you make in your mind between fiction and documentary isn't there for a lot of viewers; I believe that to many, both, seen as entertainment, are equally real and unreal.
no subject
no subject
no subject