Greig Fraser sums it up perfectly at the end 'just another tool in the tool box'. The more tools the better in my mind. The key is just to know when and how to properly use the tools you have.
Exactly. Just like how a fight sequence on the Mandalorian might require green screens to prevent damage to the LED Virtual screens. All the other scenes only require virtual screens.
People can argue live vs. CG, digital vs. film, gas vs. electric until you are blue in the face. Nothing is more powerful than an artist who is humble enough to know they can still learn, and in turn, adapt to different workflows and new technology and use it to their advantage. These two DPs are next level and I want to see them continue to set the bar.
Actually not really. Although it works well to replace green screen and blue screen to have less spill and make the scene look more natural, the technology isn’t enough for certain environments. Greig Fraser attempted to use these screens for Dune but found they weren’t bright enough to properly light the stark environments of Dune. So instead they shot in location. And even if that wasn’t the case Filmmakers can still shot on location if they chose to.
imo nope it isint depressing, it's amazing thing as not anyone in the world has the money to bring all of the crew to New Zealand or some european country to shot a Attack on Titan film adaptation. it's more pain a** to do location hunting and shooting at it because of a lot of law involving between countries... you remember Fast and Furious that Japan couldn't even a allow the crew to shot in Shibuya Tokyo? so they have to do green screen... It's a must have toy if you are in to fantasy and sci-fi genre.
@@bennyhoward1391 Unfortunately your argument doesn’t hold water when looking at the economic history of film making. A decade ago many directors decried that film was superior to digital and they would never shoot digital. Yet here we are today where 100% of streaming and 99% of features are shot digital. Volumes are currently being installed at many studios and the tech will continue to improve. Producers will start to mandate that we don’t film on location more and more. If they can save a buck they will.
Roger raises a few good points about 100 m runs, tracking from behind etc. but let's be honest here: the volume solved all the issues with greenscreen. natural light, no green tint to scrub out, tracking camera, actors have something to act off etc. but at the same time it's not a complete replacement. it CAN however do a huge % of the heavy lifting, resulting a more productive shooting schedule.
Yes it's definitely a big step up from greenscreens, the VFX artists seem to love it and the fact that they are part of the production now instead of post, definitely increases the collaboration between production and post. Agreed, it's likely not going to be complete replacement, but as Fraser mentioned, in the future we'll be able to shoot a significant portions in the Volume with perfect light
To me, the real proof of the sense of this technology is the fact that I never once questioned the reality of the set. I didn't even notice the sets! So THIS is why everything seemed so real! Wicked cool.
May I recommend ' oh brother where art thou ' special features. Here you can hear the Coens and Deakins talk about colour. The current film culture with digital cameras. Colouring certain elements is more sophisticated than it was with film techniques.
5:27 - I think what Roger was alluding to was that with the LED light volume there's no way to get the sort of hard light you would from bright lights farther away - you will only get soft light and soft edges. It's definitely an aesthetic. Thank you for posting this, I never knew how Mando achieved such creamy lighting - amazing technology! ❤️
My opinion is that until you’ve shot on enough locations, you’ll be useless as a cinematographer on these LED sets. You have to understand the way light fundamentally works at interacts with real life before venturing into simulated environments. It’s possible that playing around in a 3D software and recreating lighting scenarios could help speed along that learning process but your realism is only ever going to be as good as your reference. All that said, I don’t think people like me will have a choice about working on sets like this or not, they’re clearly the future of modern production.
This is the way. I started off with typesetting Linotype gear and taking galley type and hot waxing it to blue-line sheets with my exacto blade, hand crafting the type. I could say that gave me an appreciation of the art of layout and design before desktop publishing revolutionized everything thing but there is no going back.
As a stills photographer, having a volume of my own would be very helpful and inspiring when shooting models and portraits. Imagine shooting a bride and groom in there!
@@AlterCineYT I’ve seen people do it by projecting backgrounds onto a white wall and placing a person in front of it making it look fairly convincing but it’s vert crudely done in comparison to the Mandalorian of course. I see a future where a venue could rent out a ”volume” for movie makers and photographers and doing great business.
But then you miss out on those unplanned moments of magic. But that’s a personal opinion on how I like to shoot using natural light. I do agree though it would be cool to test it out and for certain types of shoots. But for someone like me who started it out as a location scout the real world will always be more enjoyable to shoot in than anything else
Well, it sure beat the cost of using outside environment to do the shooting. Not to mention you are at the mercy of the element (lack of sunny day, rain, etc).
Really inspiring the next ,James Camron , Walt Disney, ect.These tools with the right experience can create things that some of us thought we would never see.
Seeing an industry professional dp fumble with the term inverse square law was really eye opening. Ive had instructors say every working dp uses the ISL on a daily basis, which has always seemed like a load of malarkey considering how easy it is to expose off a monitor and with parade. Seems like i was right
I'm bored to tears with Christopher Nolan (I own the ones I still like and I'll go on watching those!) but I am grateful he really does everything he can to actually use old-school models, and real stunts, real car-chases and real aerial combat. And all shot on huge, heavy but GORGEOUS IMAX cameras. 2001 A Space Odyssey still looks as though it was made this year; it can be done, but Hollywood is and really always was all about the bottom line, and if you desperately want to milk franchises for every drop of $$ of which they're capable, it's safer to keep churning those sequels out with lower cost. The art, as always, lies elsewhere..
@@Kamandi1971 yeah him, some of the directors of Mission Impossible films, Denis Villeneueve for instance are those old-school directors who see filming in a certain way (also Scorcese but he might stop soon). I don't think bottom line can get rid of artists that easily.
@@Kamandi1971 Cinema is over. The quality of the content is terrible. People are simply not willing to pay $100 to take their family to a film that preaches to them and subjects their family to nonsense.
I'm wondering what scaling the thing up would do for the sharpness of the lighting. Like imagine if they actually made the ceiling twice or trice as high, then a sun-point light would become more convincing when displayed on a screen. I'm foreseeing a huge virtual set coming in the future.
It was almost a full decade ago when i proposed this concept of film production to our heads. There were a few trying to make it work, but the problem back then was lag. It wasnt just an issue of clever programming, but more so, the speed or lack their off with motion trackers at the time. Unlike today where so much investment in reducing sensory lag has come about thru the improvement of smartphones and primarily VR technology. (the best stuff in the past was simply way too expensive and sitll wsa too laggy) Today the components are our there off the shelf so to speak. so getting ones physical camera's to sync up sqarely with the cg camera and of course the rendering all in realtime rock solid sync makes all this doable. also one has to note the use of the Unreal game engine and its vast improvements. This form of film production is bailically a paradigm shift. The StarWars productions is proving what can be done, and thus far. with all that we've seen, A TON can be done on these virtual sets. No it wont eliminate shooting on sight, nor completely remove the traditional soundstage, BUT i would say the Traditional sound stage will now remove the uses of green screens in favor for LED walls. that can be turned green or blue if need be.. ILM is getting all this praise but their are those who did this stuff long before them.. vimeo.com/264282403
I swear the music track in the beginning is used in every single production now.... I've seen like 4 other videos with the same song. Does everybody use artlist?
I don't think the volume will ever replace on location filming for big movies. But for TV/streaming programs this is perfect. Independent films maybe as well. And as blue screen replacement this is amazing... Would I want a while movie made in the volume, idk maybe if it was a movie set in dusk the whole time
the only thing i can think of is with this panaromic set up that they have now limits the amount of camera angles / shots, most of them are gonna be straight on with the horizon in the middle of the frame most of the time. but for sure with time there is gonna be a led "ball" instead of a ring shape , with a glass disk in the middle on which you stand on , and you can rotate and shoot in any angle ideally
I have a question : On camera, is the corner between the volume's wall and the ceiling seamless, or it needs to be re-worked in post to erase certain stuff?
The fact that some audiences prefer on-location films now and get annoyed with some of the green screen dependent films (except Marvel of course, but that is superhero films). E.g. Christopher Nolan, the Mission Impossible films or directors like Denis VIlleneuve also help strive for that realism in the aim that ppl can differentiate and don't always want cgi. Sure, there r quite a lot ppl like Fast and the Furious, but there's also a lot of ppl who don;t like it, and who see the action as boring as its just unrealistic cgi nonsense that gets stale quickly. CGI might get better but there will always be people wanting real life, thats what film was born as and u can't remove it entirely from that
Regardless of the truthful physics of how light operates, firstly it looks amazing, secondly the crew can tailor the lighting to the exact look of the film, thirdly, scheduling becomes slightly easier no loosing the light during the day so it can be controlled a great time saver and lastly, I would not have known this was filmed in this manner, I didn't know before seeing documentaries like this and initially watching the Mandalorian, thinking it was simply filmed in the desert. All lighting is faked to some extent in film, al this is just a much more focused controlled environment producing the exact characteristics requested for the image.
IMO, Mandalorian appears to have a weird depth of field problem to it. Hearing Roger explain, in theory, how the depth of field would be off just validated my complaint with the way the show looks, which I felt like no one else felt.
Yes, after having used the technology I can say that the problem right now is that you can't necessary have the background in focus. It has to be shallow some what in order to retain the realism and also problems with moire. Although I will say it definitely can look very realistic and is a technology that's improving very quickly
The fact you can’t get the infinite light source look (think long hard shadows on the foreground subject from the sunset) because the screen is only a few feet away is a valid point. Greig said other things make up for it (e.g. quality of bounce light), but this is something that I think would definitely detract more from the realism than he admits. I’m not sure there’s any way to fix that, short of some LED tech which doesn’t exist, to make light rays more parallel.
I think it's interesting how some people will claim that it's harder for an actor to do a bunch of blue/green screen stuff, and yet stage plays with minimal set dressings are still a thing. I'm not saying actors in a play are better or worse, but I notice a lot of people in the "film world" often suggesting that an actor can't really do stuff without being able to see it. Obviously it's a lot better if they can see and interact with stuff, but, I still think it's quite interesting.
now...just to get my hands on ILM's assets folder so I can sit in the razor crest in my VR headset 😂 Shoot on location...when you can change 8 different biomes in seconds. Enough of a point to shift the industry for saving production costs right there. Huzzah. job security.
I think this should be seen as the future of blue/green screen. It is time to get beyond those cumbersome systems, especially for us as cinematographers. Having said that, I have to point out the elephant in the room, comparing the Volume to IRL shooting. And nobody mentioned that in the video. It is going to cost LESS money. Now make you own conclusions.
Yeah it's likely going to be mostly used to replace blue/green screens at the moment. As for Volume VS IRL shooting costs, it really depends. Like Deakins mentioned, if you need to shoot a full scene in twilight, you'd need 7-8 days to shoot a scene that can be all done in a day on the Volume. In this case the Volume would save lots of money. Also in the future as demand rises for the Volume, likely the supply will follow, meaning the cost of shooting on Volume might be as affordable as a regular studio in the future (likely pre-constructed sets with minimal customization), and highly/fully customized Volume will probably be for the higher end productions
People are comparing this and getting happy in the illusion of comparing it to anime and animation but that is one of the art virtual reality in video games is fun but not entirely. Watching artificial faces all the time is not cinema or art
Yes it's the future and will be more and more used, but at the moment it isn't so easy as everybody say. I work at a company (Kropac Media) which has one of these big LED panels and it's so often a pain in the as to work with this technology. Yes you can say "oh I want the stone there" or "put the sun to the other side", but until you can do that it's as much work as with green screen AND it's (at the moment) extremly expensive and complicated.
Whatever he is saying if it will happen there will be no cinema left it's very depressing sad for cinema and films if this is the future that means the prediction that cinema film movie will be dead their soul excitement their feel would be dead is 100% true
@@AlterCineYT As it is now, it is a phenomenal tool, because it opens new doors and avenues for human imagination to be translated into visual stories at lower and lower costs. However, there is something about the rate of innovation that we are seeing that gives me a feeling of sadness and nostalgia I can't seem to shake, as I feel like somewhere 20 to 30 years from now, live action will no longer be a thing. And this is coming from a software engineer who has loved technology all his life. There is just something about a very near future essentially being a combo between Ready Player One and WALL-E that makes me sad. I could just be pessimistic. Anyway great and informative video!
@@CountSorinsRealm Totally understand how you feel. Even Roger Deakins mentioned that most live action will be computer generated in the future. It's likely going to be some kind of combination where actors are made into 3D characters, hopefully at least there will be humans actors and not completely AI!
I'm not sure at all about this inverse square law / light quality discussion here. Because all solid angles (surfacique portions of a sphere) are conserved here, provided you activate all the panels 360° around and the ceiling. There is the question of the ground reflectivity, but as for the subject of light coming from far away or not, it's not relevant here. You already made up for the ISL by spreading the image of the virtual set with the actualy resulting light intensity that the camera would "see" in a real environnement. ISL, diffusion, and the rest, are already taken into account in the light that will be created by the panels of this set and hit the talents/props. Put more simply and roughly, a virtual sky on a hypothetical semi-spherical LED panel of 5m radius around a talent already shines the same light intensity/nature as the real sky taken as a r=50km sphere (let's model the sky as a concentrated 1mm thickness sphere halfway to the Karman line) around the talent. Now if some specific and ponctual proprs are suppose to shine some hard light from somewhere in the virtual image, there it might be difficult to render this light brushes only with the power and nature of the panels..
Exactly. I found the conversation of inverse square law a bit non sequitur also. As a C.G. artist familiar with image based lighting a CG concepts one would be more equipped to understand that. (Not sure what your background is but it seems like you have more informed by C.G. concepts) But he's a cinematographer who is more familiar with movie lighting instruments which to date haven't really worked at that scale. The biggest instruments they would ever have used before this (in terms of active lighting surface) would be big soft boxes and area lights. Maybe "Sky Panel" type LEDs. Perhaps really large silks or rags as diffusion or bounce. The LED walls are orders of magnitude larger still. You pretty much have to start thinking of the light source in terms of solid angles. They likely know the general concept of angular exposure from using large "negative" lighting with flags etc. on location but just haven't fully internalized the concept as relates to LED walls.
So "comforting": no matter what will be future content, who is talking, what they say, how loud - there will ALWAYS be a numbnut around underlaying the whole thing in the editing with distracting, competing background music, all the way! It is never, ever interesting enough without the music, so they "think".
"what we're talking about is high volume filming" - if we've learned anything since disney has acquired the ability to use this technology, it's that they need to go back to *lower volume filming* because the scripts & content they're producing aren't worth sacrificing real light for the opportunity film dusk and dawn for 12 hours at a pop. go outside, DP's.
In 20-30 years maybe we will not need cameras and actors anymore. We will have virtual actors and environments and be able to create scenes through simple commands
Probably will still need actors and virtual cameras at least. What's most likely is that the actors will be linked to their digital characters and act digitally. Complete virtual AI is unlikely unless we some how create human like AI's
@@AlterCineYT Everything will be computer generated from voices, images and music. This is where everything is going. Right now the technology is not there but we can already see the patterns developing. We are humans so may still want to see humans perform but what happens if we cannot tell the difference?
@@bighands69 Yeah, it might happen or it might not. If you're talking AI and that we can eventually create worlds that are indistinguishable from reality, we'll be getting into serious simulation theory, and at that point if we create beings indistinguishable from reality, we have a truck load of other problems other than film haha
The future of filmmaking is a Rockstar Games Video Editor. Maybe an Unreal Engine Video Editor. (I'm so dissapointed Red Dead Redemption 2 hasn't got any.)
Well I think most jobs will still be intact although likely reduced G&E for days inside the Volume, it's still unlikely to film a whole film in the Volume as Greig mentioned
Nowadays people make too many tech promises with no decent movies.....back in the 80s and 90s the movies were made before the announcement of the kind of tech used for them. So the movies were far better with good story combined with excellent tech. I hate to say it but i prefer the classic blue screen and green screen.
I must respectfully disagree with Deakins. Small filmmakers can harness the power of Unreal now, for free--and are. As time goes on more small films will be made that way because it's more accessible to the ordinary person who's willing to invest the time. It will only be big Productions that use live actors and IRL sets.
GREAT DP’s having to endure CHEAP producers.. .wanting MORE in a faster time schedule. Nothing changes. It’s such a stupid concept. Deakins is right. Here we go down this road with no return. What a horrid way to make films. All because it’s some accountant telling producers - NO DO IT CHEAP & DO IT NOW. No one wants ADT. They just want popcorn. A disgraceful way to treat talented DP’s & artists.
