Am I the only one that thinks the snakes chasing the iguanas was a blatant mix of real footage spliced with CGI? I found the bits with the iguana scaling the wall with the snake trying to bite it and the bit where the mass of snakes gets the iguana then it miraculously escaped especially unrealistic. Anyone else see similar? I also found some of the bits with the swarm of of locusts pretty unrealistic.
shareRidiculous, they would never do that.
shareThey were pulled up for faking scenes last year. I am just interested to know if they have decided to go one more this year and actually CGI certain scenes. Attenborough's response to the faked scenes last year was something along the lines of "we are making entertainment", so I wouldn't be wildly surprised if these scenes were touched up.
shareSource on the CGI last year?
shareNothing on CGI specifically but there was an issue with volcanic eruption scenes being spliced and overlaid to look more dramatic and the polar bear underground scene was staged in a zoo.
shareTo jump from that to CGI is huge though.
shareIt is but if you have no problem faking some scenes then why not add in CGI if you can get away with it?
shareBecause there's a difference between overlaying some volcano shots and filming scenes in a zoo and flat-out CGI-ing a snake.
shareOf course there is, but if you have a history of being deviant, then doing something else devious doesn't seem like as much of a surprise.
shareThe BBC have in the past occasionally used zoos and aquariums but Planet Earth II did not visit any zoos and there is no CGI. The producers have made this quite clear.
shareI don't classify that as deviant.
shareit totally looks CGI, there are a few other scenes, one with some waterborne creature floating up to the surface, i forget the others. but the snakes! yeah a couple of the scenes look ridiculously fake. seems like the graphics guys didn't even try! i just put it down to the high def being "so real it looks fake" but i still think it was CGI
shareUnrealistic how? In that you haven't seen those events occur next to your house?
shareNo, unrealistic in that the snakes didn't look real. Or the iguana. The focussing of the shot looked like it was CGI spliced over a real background. If you look carefully you can see that some of the shots were real and others looked very questionable, especially when things happened to get a bit dramatic.
shareYou saw the diaries at the end, right? Where they explicitly showed how they shot the locust scenes, not CGI!
Let's pray the human race never escapes Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. C.S Lewis
Yes, I seen that bit. It showed specifically how they were "herding" the locusts on the ground - those scenes in the main programme were undoubtedly real. The bits where the guys were walking through the plague in the making of looked questionable, not just because they were not even flinching in a swarm of insects but because the flying locusts didn't look 100% real - as did the flying ones in the main section, specifically the ones up close to the camera which seemed to move with eerie similarity to the tracking speed of the camera and the Ines supposedly further away seemed out of proportion. Maybe it is the new filming techniques but to me it didn't look right.
shareLet me guess - you believe the moon landing was a hoax.
shareOf course not. Thinking that the BBC has doctored footage (which they have in the past) is marginally different from some idiotic government conspiracy.
Let me guess, when you can't put forward a constructive comment you resort to sarcastic ones?
[deleted]
I bet it is easy as heck to know how fast locust fly and then set the camera to move as fast as they so you get cool shots.
shareDoctored?
or do you mean set up so it happened rather then wait for it and never get it?
Doctored in that it came out they set up scenes in captivity instead of the wild as they would have you believe.
It has also recently came out that they spliced images of a volcanic eruption on one of their programmes to make it more dramatic.
It is all these things that make it more likely that they wouldn't have any qualms in adding CGI if they throughly they could get away with it.
what's the big problem if it's CG anyway?
shareThere is no CGI. Some people think that if they keep repeating a lie it becomes truth. It doesn't.
shareWhy would I want to "lie" and repeat it. I have no agenda other than thinking that a programme that is supposed to be a documentary shouldn't be passing off fake fottage as real.
It appears that I'm not the only one who thinks it's CGI, there are other references with similar thoughts.
For the whole, I enjoyed the programme and thought it was a decent follow up to the first series.
Because it passes itself off as a documentary instead of fiction.
shareDocumentary still is a story telling, not the absolute truth. Where they place the camera, what they choose to show and not to show can change the way the real world is represented. They film several birds, edit them together and narrate as if it was they were the same bird. That's because they're trying to tell you a story. They used CGI close ups of the sun because it wasn't possible to film it like that. Did you have problem with that too? They used telephoto lenses that destroy the sense of perspective and animals look closer to each other than they actually are. Then you should have a problem with that too. I wouldn't mind if they used CGI to recreate something they weren't able to film decently in wild nature conditions. I'm pretty sure they erased shadow of the gliders in eagle dive scene.
But they didn't use CGI snakes and locusts! They even show you what they went through to film the locusts and you say it is fake just because it seems that way to you. Unusual lighting conditions may cause things seem 'fake'. Especially when the object isn't something we see in our daily lives. If you watched the documentary on iplayer that may have caused it to look weird too. Swarm of locusts has too much detail and it causes compression artefacts.
Final note: Don't get so upset if you think a documentary isn't telling you the whole truth. They never do.
I'm curious, what quality/resolution/compression codec you were watching this in? Also, do you wear glasses or contacts? TV/Monitor type? Distance from the device(s)?
The "CGI" was 100% in your mind's eye.
"This is What You Want... This is What You Get"
HD, watched the live broadcast. It appears that there are others who think it could have been faked so I'm not alone. It could be the way it was filmed but the scene didn't sit right, especially how the iguana miraculously escaped after being engulfed in snakes and the snake then proceeded to miss multiple times as it scrambled up the wall.
shareI'm interested in seeing this topic because some times i have been thinking if they ''assist'' animals running from prey to make it more friendly for kids to watch. But i do not think they have used CGI though,
shareMY view is that if you watch it closely you'll find that the scene was actually a mashup of various iguanas attempting to escape which were then spliced together to give the impression of it being one iguana.
It's particularly noticeable if you compare the shot immediately before the hero gets caught to the shot immediately after it escapes.
I'm absolutely certain they didn't CGI it, that would have been far more difficult. All they did was choose the most dramatic bits from the multiple encounters they no doubt filmed and then sewed them together to create a cool story-line.
Hats off to them too, it was absolutely terrific.
you are a clown they probably filmed a hundred gauntlet runs many ending the same so they cherry picked an indiana jones escape so what
shareBefore accusing anyone of being a "clown", please learn to convey your thoughts in a cohesive or vaguely acceptable grammatical fashion.
shareSome people "See", what they want to see. And their drive gains momentum with repeated viewings, discussing their theories, and skyrockets when they encounter another person who agrees, even if it is just one, like this example above.
This guy might not be a true card-carrying conspiracy nut, but I do see similarities.
With the really infected ones, the desire to believe their alternate explanation for any given event begins to greatly outweigh the facts. Then later, as it grows, it begins to outweigh logic as well. As it climbs, it sometimes grows to the point where they will literally begin to question the agenda of those who disagree. They become so convinced, that those who do not share their explanations are usually assumed to be either highly ignorant, or accessories to the supposed conspiracy.
As with the conspiracy lunatics, it just keeps picking up speed, and grows to a point where it circumvents all of the usual criteria otherwise normal people use to judge an event.
Honestly, I think these people are born, and not made. Some just seem to have a predisposition towards these sorts of behaviors.
As for this specific incident, I didn't have the chance to see it in 4k, but I did see a clean copy in 1080p on a good monitor. This is the industry in which I work, and I saw nothing to suggest (let alone prove) that any CGI was used in those scenes.
Can I say this with 100% accuracy? No. Perhaps it was indeed faked, and I'm wrong. But, it doesn't seem so. Additionally, who cares?
Far more interesting, is the condition described above. I've interacted with the stereotypical conspiracy nuts many times, and I found it fascinating. It is certainly not limited to really dumb people, which is what made it so interesting to me. Some of them, are actually fairly bright, which makes it even more strange and extreme that they could be caught up in such inefficient decision making. For some of them, the object of their conspiracy-theory obsessions seems to be less important than the act of supporting it. It's like they need it. They thrive on it. My own theory on this, is that the actual theory they support is meaningless, it's just a fix. If it wasn't one, it would be another. Either the moon landing, or lizard-men running the government. There's one hilarious nut on Youtube who uploads lengthy videos showing you how a dollar bill, folded in just the right way, clearly reveals the intentions of those in power, who wish to enslave the human race. LOL!!! And it's not just one video, that weirdo has scores of videos devoted to the topic. How brilliant that our evil overlords found time to leave clues to their sinister plan on the most common of currency. Don't they have their hands full enough already with planning and executing our demise? Such workaholics, our wonderful overlords.
Truly, I hope the conspiracy freaks never stop. We need them. If for nothing else, to both entertain, and also assure each of us that we are not really as insane as our mother-in-laws would like to think.
Also, the world is indeed flat. All the footage you've seen which suggests otherwise, has been altered with CGI.
Sorry mate, my original comment was a quick query. The only one that looks like a nut is yourself with the massive unnecessary diatribe.
sharewell i work as a 3d artist , and i can assure you that wasnt cgi , and though it looks kinda weird , its all cause of the camera technology and the way its filmed , and though there must be post production for the final product , its mainly for color corrections and stuff like that but nothing related to cgi
shareMost of who say its CGI are people who never seen nature by their eyes...
share