|
|
|
|
|
|
by shadowgovt
936 days ago
|
|
|
I mean that a VFX artist working on a thin slice of the world (even with camera tracking, one isn't usually doing full VFX on a 360 or even 180-degree view) doesn't really have to worry too much about whether their scene makes volumetric sense beyond what the camera can see, nor do they have to model a physical space with its own physics going on everywhere in the background. ... but task them with creating a whole virtual set that links to the practical set and the actors are acting within, and now questions like the realism of the whole space, light sources that impact the real world, etc. come into play. Game engines have been modeling whole spaces that can be inhabited at any point in the space for ages longer than VFX tooling pipelined for post-production has. |
|
|
This is absolutely not true. Typically there is lidar for an entire set and the camera and the set lidar need to fit together and make sense.
but task them with creating a whole virtual set that links to the practical set and the actors are acting within, and now questions like the realism of the whole space, light sources that impact the real world, etc. come into play.
This is what camera trackers do. Lights are done by the lighting department.
Game engines have been modeling whole spaces that can be inhabited at any point in the space for ages longer than VFX tooling pipelined for post-production has.
Photogrametry is 25-30 years old and virtual sets have been used for a very long time on green screens.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make at this point, but the things you're saying aren't true.
Don't mistake the attention that the virtual stage stuff gets as being the same as the use it gets. The enabling technology is the large high resolution screens more than anything and the point of using them is more about reflections, refraction and to a lesser extent hair and backlighting that are difficult to make work on green screens.