MovieChat Forums > Planet Ocean (2012) Discussion > CGI?

CGI?

posted 11 years ago by PortosDartagnan
7 replies | jump to latest

I saw very beautiful images in this documentary, but sometimes it seemed a bit unreal (i.e., the swordfish hunting mackerels, or some stunning scenes of the coral reefs), which lead me to believe that CGI's were used in the making of this.
I understand that CGIs are looking more and more realistic nowadays, and you can almost be fooled by them (Life of Pi), but isn't the purpose of a documentary to show what there is around us, and not to fool anyone?
CGIs are a mockup of the real world. Even if very accurately, you will never portrait the genuine movements of fishes. The actual intentions of each movement of a fish cannot be predicted by a human brain which, ultimately is the one controlling the CGI-fishes' movements.
I think nature is stunning enough to do an epic documentary, it doesn't need from external, human help.

PS: Maybe I'm wrong and the crew of this documentary were extremely lucky in some shots, can anyone correct me?

[–] sean_mcg 10 years ago

I've seen plenty of other (older) footage of swordfish/sailfish attacking schools of fish such as mackerel (from memory there is stuff like this in BBC's "The Blue Planet", I think), and nothing in this movie suggested it wasn't real. There's no real luck involved, you just hunt around for birds diving (you could use a spotter plane), they'll be diving on the baitfish which are being driven to the surface by the predators. Then the crew jump in and film it. Not too hard.

I've done plenty of diving on coral reefs and the stuff in this docu looked pretty normal to me (although it was well-lit with artificial lighting of course).

It's an unfortunate fact of nature documentaries these days that there's always going to be someone suggesting that CGI was involved. I can't guarantee that there was no CGI in this movie as I was not there, but I'd be extremely surprised if the likes of Yann Arthus-Bertrand would abandon professionalism by 'faking' any footage, he'd be philosophically opposed to it, and even if he wasn't he wouldn't be stupid enough to take that risk.

I'm guessing it was digitally shot (too lazy to look it up) and undoubtedly image processing (colour/contrast enhancement etc) was done in post-production, so that may make things look intense or 'unreal' (a bit like HDR photography, it can look unreal but isn't what you could call 'fake').

[–] PortosDartagnan 8 years ago

I don't know Yann Arthus-Bertrand or have done much diving at all, so thanks for your well-informed reply. Probably you are right about the reality of the film.

[–] masuka-fan 9 years ago

Nothing in it looked CG to me. What you see as luck is probably just the result of shooting hundreds of hours of footage and selecting the best of it.

[–] PortosDartagnan 8 years ago

Thanks for your reply. Yes, probably it is :)

[–] schrautem-1 8 years ago

This post is a perfect example of how the art of film making is lost on most of us.

Indeed, we live in an age of sometimes exaggerated use of CGI. That leads many people to a certain distrust when it comes to images they themselves have never seen in reality.

Could somebody who has never seen a cow in reality distinguish between a cgi-cow and a real one?

The real point here is that most of the cgi you have been confronted with over the course of your film-consuming career actually has gone by unnoticed by you, because THIS is the real art of CGI. The creating of film-elements that dont break our immersion and suspension of disbelief while watching film.

A good explanation of this can be found in this very informative bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

While I understand your distrust- a distrust coming from a certain generation of people who havent witnessed the beginning of film so much maybe, and I can very much relate to the feeling- this documentary is not significantly altered in a way that it would place Animals where there were none. Our ocean is vast and full of alien life that seems too odd to be true. But it is.

Enjoy

[–] PortosDartagnan 8 years ago

This post is a perfect example of how the art of film making is lost on most of us.

That's a big assumption to make from my original post, but good for you if "the art of film making" isn't "lost" on you :)

Could somebody who has never seen a cow in reality distinguish between a cgi-cow and a real one?

Yes, I believe they could, depending on how realistic the CGI is. I see your point though. While I have never directly witnessed a swordfish hunting mackerel, I have to say I have never seen a Transformer either, however, that doesn't mean I can't doubt how real it looks from the accuracy of its representation.

A good explanation of this can be found in this very informative bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

What I originally said is not how awfully obvious it was that CGI was used in this film, or that it was bad because of this -far from that-, but a doubt that it might have been used in it. In fact, I admire CGI makers for the amazing job they do (mostly) nowadays. I have been amazed actually of how much it is possible to do with this tool, viewers won't even notice they're watching a CGI'd scene unless they are told. So... yes, I see the point of your video, but I fail to see how it is related to the discussion.

Enjoy

Thanks, I did :)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]