[nimbleal]

You’re right the VFX is often rushed and under budgeted. However realistic fire IS really hard and frankly I’m sceptical you can do it yourself on your desktop. On its own on a plain background, maybe. The moment you comp it in to a live plate our uncanny valley spidey senses kick in — to take it beyond “looks good” to “oh, I didn’t notice that was a VFX element” is still REALLY tough in many situations.

[CyberDildonics]

sceptical

(skeptical)

Fire is a fluid simulation and this has been in consumer tools like houdini for a long time now. Even in avatar from 14 years ago there were plenty of CG explosions that people didn't think about.

The moment you comp it in to a live plate our uncanny valley spidey senses kick in

I haven't seen this be the case if the scale is right and the resolution is good. After that it is a matter of compositing. There is actually a decent amount of cg fire out there now. I found this after 10 seconds of searching on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ec3hrkwh8Q

Doing live action integration is tough in general, but fire is additive and that helps quite a bit. LEDs that can be add lighting to the photography helps too.

[nimbleal]

Sceptical (I’m English).

And, I realise. I first learned Houdini c. 2004 so I’m aware of the technology.

Your YouTube link is a perfect example. It looks good but certainly doesn’t pass the bar for mistake-it-for-the-real-thing realism.

[CyberDildonics]

It's easy to say when it's a full resolution demo on a black background and you know it's fake, but sprinkled into a live action shot and I don't think people notice. This is already something that is being done all the time.

Also houdini in 2004 didn't have anything like the fluid simulations it has now.