[PhunkyPhil]

This is a common survivorship bias fallacy since you only notice the bad CGI.

I'm certain you'd be shocked to see the amount of CG that's in some of your favorite movies made in the last ~10-20 years that you didn't notice because it's undetectable

[xsmasher]

This is an amazing demo reel of effects shots used in "mundane" TV shows - comedies and produce procedurals. - for faking locations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

[vundercind]

Luckily, for those of us who prefer when film photography meant at least mostly actually filming things, there’s plenty of very good film and TV (and even more of lesser quality) to keep a person occupied for a couple lifetimes.

[bee_rider]

That is really something even as somebody who expects lots of CGI touch-up in sets.

[ars]

And keep in mind - that video is 14 years old!

[coderedart]

I hate this. I did not notice the vast majority of them. So many backgrounds/sets are just green screens :(

[bee_rider]

I won’t be, I’m aware that lots of movies are mostly CGI.

But, yeah, I do think it is some kind of bias. Maybe not survivorship, though… maybe it is a generalized sort of Malmquist bias? Like the measurement is not skewed by the tendency of movies with good CGI to go away. It is skewed by the fact that bad CGI sticks out.

[bee_rider]

Actually wait I take it back, I mean, I was aware that lots of Digital Touch-up happens in movie sets, more than lots of people might expect, and more often that one might expect even in mundane movies, but even still, this comment’s video was pretty shocking anyway.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41584276