Anyone who sees this video understands why films hardly use practical effects, even though they would do good to them

Greenscreens are really powerful, as a clip proves. (Image: habibur614 - adobe.stock.com)

I don't want to bore you with an unnecessary introduction, so we come to the main attraction. She speaks for itself. Take a look at this two and a half minute clip:

Link toYouTube content

That can be seen:The video shows a split screen. An actress moves in front of an greenscreen in an almost empty room in half. The other shows the finished excerpt from a film - complete with CGI.

Isn't that amazing?The young woman moves in empty space without many props. In the finished film, I buy it from her that really interacts with the cyber industrial world.

Yes, the clip is already four years old.However, I am only recentlyRedditStumped about it - and he came across a rabbithole for CGI and handmade effects, the knowledge of which I would like to share with you.

Where does the clip come from?

He can be found, in addition to tutorials for creating computer effectsYouTube-Kanalby Ian Hubert. There is not much to find out about the person behind it, but loudIMDBhe was responsible for the visual effects on around 30 small projects.

Can you see the whole film somewhere from which the clip comes from?Yes, indeed, even if "film" is not the right term.

The neckline comes from Dynamo Dream, a kind of loose coherent series of individual follows that play in a dystopian future. OnYouTubeSo far there are four episodes that are more to be understood as anthology.

Why I find the clip so impressive

We all know Hollywood blockbusters with CGI bombastless, for example most Marvel films. We can probably all imagine how roughly works when effects are used by computer. Many of us have also seen the pictures of actors in front of Greenscreen.

But at least I have never been able to show so clearly how supposedly little it actually needs to bring a credible world onto the screen. The comparison of the actress on the set with the finished product impressed me deeply.

The short video has triggered something for me:I now have a vague understanding of why film studios are heavily putting on CGI. It works:

• Easier: After all, everything only has to be put on and used on the computer. You can see how simple this is (or not), for example, at Ian Hubert's tutorial videos on his channel.
• Safe: Many stunts are no longer rotated on the set, but are recreated on the computer. This protects actors, stuntmen and crew.
• Variables: Backgrounds can be exchanged quickly thanks to green screen, in post -production it is easier to experiment with visual effects (Raindance).
• Faster: Just put together a scene on the computer does not work. LoudAnimation IconicThe production of one minute takes high quality CGI between weeks and months. However, no sets or props have to be built, which may take longer and is more complex.

How long did the production studio sit on Disney Plus on the CGI trailer of the upcoming Alien series?

I bet you, like me, thought of the costs.In fact, the costs are higher than I initially accepted. The subsequent figures also come from the article by animation iconic.

• Low-Budget CGI:Between $ 1,000 and $ 5,000 per minute
• Mediocre CGI:Between $ 5,000 and $ 20,000 per minute
• High-End-CGI:Between 20,000 and over $ 100,000 per minute

So the use of CGI is not cheap, but huge sets, animatronics (matted, movable dolls) and elaborate props beat even more (The Daily Star).

However, there is also a crowd of filmmakers who do not want to rely exclusively on computer effects - and are not honest.

CGI is only when you see it

If you look at the latest Marvel strip, the CGI (usually) immediately catches the eye. The situation is different with films in which superheroes do not crank the Ömme - such as in Top Gun: Maverick.

Tom Cruise is known for turning his stunts himself.So he was also sitting in the nozzle jet for the sequel to Top Gun and, together with other aviators, shot breakneck stunts. But is that all real? Yes and no.

Tom Cruise has really flown, but:

• Not all jets are always rushed over the sky at the same time.
• Recordings, if jets came dangerously, are not real.
• The jets of the bad guys do not actually exist.

You can see that and more in this video; I have already hired the corresponding chapter brand:

Link toYouTube content

Also like to check out the other three parts of the YouTuber, in which he discovered even more "invisible CGI".

In this way, reality is mixed with CGI in many films, even if it is not always honestly communicated about how the video proves above. And it does not always make sense, such as in Terminator: Salvation, where even car doors come from the computer (YouTube).

At the latest here it will be hairy in my opinion. Does it really have to be CGI?

Please less CGI

I have now shown you a lot of examples that speak for CGI - and yet I want more handmade effects. Why?

CGI is used too inflationary

I understand completelyIf you prefer to generate dangerous maneuvers in the nozzle jet on the computer, even if the filmmakers should not hide this in my opinion.

However, I don't understandIf CGI is used, for example to replace a car door, as was the case with Terminator: Salvation. That seems fake on me.

An even more blatant example:That the Lord of the Rings trilogy compared to the hobbit trilogy. The former was released with computer effects, the second partly shot in front of Greenscreen, which is also displeased by Gandalf actors Ian McKellen (Indiewire).

And in this case, this picture speaks more than a thousand words.

I am just as tired as Ian McKellen.For me, the inflationary use of CGI has become an unarticiary that most films take more than it gives them. In the worst case, computer effect act like a background noise that I can do without.

Handmade effects have a physical effect

I wish I could explain to you why this is, but in fact it is more a feeling. For the first time, I really noticed the quasi-new film from the thing from another world.

While the horror film with Kurt Russell from the 1980s only focuses on masks and practical effects, the film adaptation of 2011 simply looks less creepy. For me this is because the monster comes from the computer. It just seems false on me because I know that it is only computer effect electrosa.

I suspect that this is related to the Uncanny Valley effect that makes the older strip for me, more physical-and thus more scary. I explained this in this column, in which I pursued an old fear from childhood.

I would like to decide the article with a positive example.The Fallout series did without greenscreen if it could. Instead, a dome with huge displays. And Walton Goggins, the actor of the Ghul, does not come from the canned.

The effort was worth it; The result is impressive.

Of course, a success like the Fallout series is more of a practical effect, but it also shows that it is possible without CGI if you want-even with a story that has as many fantastic elements as Fallout.

Do you find the topic as exciting as I do?Then I have a few articles for you:

The power of the Greenscreen is really strong, I mean both in the technical and personal sense. It is amazing what is possible with the computer. Nevertheless, I hope that we will see more content with practical effects in the future and at best, both go hand in hand.

What is your opinion on Greenscreen and CGI? Like to write it in the comments.