The backgrounds are “real” and can be captured in-camera, so there is no need for special effects to blend hair. Similarly, reflective surfaces aren’t a problem either.
This was used to good effect for the Mandalorian series where the protagonist wears shiny metal armour.
Most of VFX's problem isn't technology. If you read the post, its not really mentioned.
No the main problem is indecision.
As other people have pointed out, virtual sets require a solid and stable vision of what the story and look of the movie is going to be, before filming starts.
Some film makers work like this. For example medium to high budget TV shows between 2010-2018 (before marvel basically.) Notably also chris noland.
There are numerous examples of poor planning/indecision: the two poorer modern james bonds (quantum and spectre) both started shooting before the script was fixed. So loads had to be made up in editing.
Another example is this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfVu52tZxd0 "the sand room" from prince of persia. This was designed, scripted and executed by one of the VFX houses, because the producers realised that they had no way to link the two halves of the film.
In Clash of the titans (2010) they spent loads of money making mount olympus with a real set. Hired all the old masters. after filming, the producers were like "Nah, I don't like that, lets make it like google maps". So the set was removed (I'm not sure if it was digitally done or a reshoot).
Then Hades's cloak was a pain because the producers first wanted smoke. Then ink, then smokey ink.
As alluded to in the post, the producers can get away with this because the contract is to do as many revisions until its done. There is little to no cost hit to the producers of the film to fiddle, be indecisive or back track.
It’s nowhere near a solved problem, there’s a large number of camera moves you can’t do with that tech, and it doesn’t help you if you have any sort of virtual or CG augmented character or prop in the shot (because you’d still have to do the compositing).
If you want to talk about The Mandalorian, IMDB credits over 380 compositors on that series. In-camera effects are fantastic, but they’re not reducing the visual effects burden.
If you really want to, that should be doable, you just have to sync the shutters of the cameras with the screen and switch the virtual scene along with it, much the same way as 3D TV used to work. At least for two cameras, that should work well enough, as the 180° shutter common with 24fps movies leaves enough room for a second camera.
tbh this might be one reason to prefer 60fps+, swapping scenes at 120fps would generally just look like two superimposed images, which would likely be fine. Though the whole scene might have to be much brighter to compensate for the shorter shutter, as that's already a problem for 60fps.
As long as the same background isn’t in both cameras I think it’s doable (facing different directions for dialog) or one with a cropped closeup. Though not sure the software currently support 2 cameras.. kind of an interesting problem.
My understanding it the rendering is done at higher quality when the background is the cameras field of view to save resources.. the rest is there just for ambient light.
Of course this takes a lot of pre planning, but those virtual set ups kinda always do.
You are wrong, but explaining this to you would involve you knowing things you don’t.
No virtual production does not solve VFX. Many reasons including the ability of the screens in resolution and max lumens, and the fact that a VP stage doesn’t allow you to shoot anything, because of size and other limitations. It also won’t add a CG character in front of your characters.
The thing about virtual sets is, like real sets, they force you to have commotted to every decision about a shot at the point you shoot the actors. And half the reason Hollywood uses VFX so much is to NOT do that. So don't expect virtual sets to be universally adopted any time soon.
> This is a “solved problem” now with technologies like this: https://youtu.be/bErPsq5kPzE
The backgrounds are “real” and can be captured in-camera, so there is no need for special effects to blend hair. Similarly, reflective surfaces aren’t a problem either.
While at the same time, when seeing that initial shot I could immediately tell the background was fake. Like in any fake-ass marvel-movie.
And I’m not into VFX tech, I’m not into the industry as whole. I’m just a casual movie-watcher (going from being a hard-core movie-watcher), and my involvement in these movies is getting lower and lower as the movies increasingly gets less and less real.
The last truly great movie I saw was Mad Max Fury Road. It has you engaged all the way through, because everything which matters there actually is real, something your mind can tell.
I recently saw Bullet Train. It was OKish because it was mostly about characters, and it had a semi-decent story to tie it all together. All the excessive VFX bits at the end was pretty “meh“ though. It would have been a better movie without it.
I saw something recently where the producers of Andor were saying they used The Volume a lot less than on the Mandalorian because of the number of fast shots that simply couldn't fit in it. The Volume is great for some things but it's not a magic wand.
What happens when a person is in front of or interacting with a CG character? You think the character is going to be animated and rendered before shooting? That has never happened on any movie in the last 25 years of digital effects.
The backgrounds are “real” and can be captured in-camera, so there is no need for special effects to blend hair. Similarly, reflective surfaces aren’t a problem either.
This was used to good effect for the Mandalorian series where the protagonist wears shiny metal armour.