Absolutely, which is why it won't happen. You'd have to actually place lights, remove the fakes, and render check every scene. Basically the only part of the movie you wouldn't have to do is come up with dialog, sound, and geometry. (not to mention I have never met a movie person who, given a chance to reshoot a scene says "Yeah, it was perfect when I shot it, the only changes here are mechanical." :-)
> For example, did you notice that half of Titanic was shot in front of a green screen?
Okay, I guess it depends what you mean by "notice." I certainly was aware that much of Titanic was shot in front of a green screen. No matter how photorealistic special effects become, it's often fairly obvious what's real and what's not.
Movies never looked like real life, They had a butt tonne of artificial lighting. even up to the 80s outdoor scenes routinely had artificial lighting to get better exposure.
That's the one. It's an impossible looking shot that even if you know how to do VFX is hard to figure out. It's actually done with a combination of some pretty simple techniques, but like any good bit of magic, it only seems obvious after you've been told the trick.
Basing the choice on the result we now see in the cinema is a fairly tautological affair. I mean, when you’ve made the decision to go with a real one then you might as well include as many shots and angles as you can get and milk it for all it’s worth.
The real question is if the movie could have been done with fewer angles and interior shots.
It doesn't make them look worse, it makes them look too realistic: I think this one is an inversion of the trend, in that people expect movies to look like movies, not like reality.
> The bigger problem is the inpainting needed to generate hidden detail when the movie is viewed from angles that are different from the one it was actually filmed from.
Something of note though is that things are shot for the aspect ratio they're shooting for. I'm guessing The Shield was intentionally shot with both Widescreen and 4:3 in mind if that happened, because it's pretty common to look through your viewfinder as a cinematographer, see that there's a boom in the shot, but it's outside of the matte and proceed with filming.
If we were to trust AI to do this, we'd need to build models specifically for this, with a way to give context to the rest of the set for the scene in question. From a technical perspective, I find the concept interesting, but from a practical sense, the amount of energy and time required to do this is almost a non-starter, and in doing this, we'd be going beyond the director's intent for the work at hand, which makes a transformative interpretation a degree or two removed from the intent of the director and production team.
I'd say it's not so much that "films are not supposed to be realistic" as that films simply aren't realistic. Any additional change to make them more "realistic" is really an aesthetic choice, which may or may not work for people.
People liked some things, like talkies. And they rejected other things, like 3D. I could come up with an after-the-fact rationalization for why some things worked and some didn't, but it's pretty much impossible to tell beforehand.
What makes you think filmmakers are interested chiefly in visual "realness"? There's very little in the medium of cinematography that your mind accepts readily as "real" besides sound, depending.
You are being needlessly harsh.
The action was real action with a real person interacting with a real object.
The things that moved really moved. The static background that no one touches is less useful as a practical object, because it doesn't get uncanny valley.
Practical effect doesn't mean the film looks the same as if you were standing there live.
A practical effect is still full of weird equipment and often done using miniatures and foam replicas of the fictional object.
Unreal is not used for final shots in film.
reply