How Virtual Studio Sets Are Changing The Way Movies Are Made

[@jackmckee6386]

Great video! A small correction: for 2001, Kubrick used front projection. The screen was scotchlite and the projector was aligned with a beam splitter to occupy the space as the camera, so it actually projected directly onto the actors but the shadows they cast on the screen were hidden due to the perfect alignment of projector and camera. This method caused the odd reflection/glowing effect in the leopard‘s eyes. Years later, Ridley Scott would inquire of Kubrick how he achieved this and use the same method for the replicants’ glowing eyes in Blade Runner.

[@RyanAnthonyDigitalMedia]

You forgot to mention another reason why shooting on location is complicated: sound/audio quality. It’s the reason why most movies are ADR now a days & always created a huge problem when you have noises & sounds from the surrounding area of a location shoot. You don’t get those problems in a studio set production & would decrease post-production costs as well.

[@LeiDavidChen]

Yeah, but sound/audio quality admittedly is a bit of a problem in LED volumes that we're all still working to resolve.

[@CianHamilton]

One thing I've noticed about about the Volume Wall technology is it limits the use of wide angle shots. Instead, they often seem to use larger sensors to give the illusion of a wide shot but I don't think I've seen a shot wider than a 35mm. Also, complex oners, orbiting shots and real handheld motion is very limited. I'm sure the technology will evolve to accommodate all of this soon though. Great video as usual :)

[@LeiDavidChen]

Virtual production actually makes all of those even more achievable, as long as we keep in mind that VP is an entire workflow process, not just putting a camera in front of a big LED. Wide shots are also very muh achievable as long as your LED ceiling is connected to your wall so that it's an immersive enviroment rather than just a backdrop: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5CZZpedoJZ6hM0

[@julius-stark]

Although I fear the volume will be overused, I think it's a godsend for science fiction and bringing the cost down so that we might get more sci-fi entertainment.

[@LeiDavidChen]

Not just sci-fi and fantasy worlds. Think about this, how much time and money do you think is needed in just getting the permits necessary to shoot at Times Square in New York, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or the Bund in Shanghai? Then assuming you actually got the permits, how expensive, compressed and stressful would it be actually to shoot there? It's basically impossible to do on location, and you will never build a completely practical set that looks anywhere remotely close to those sites. But on an LED volume... 😁

[@robertobuatti7226]

They did this Virtual Volume LED Lighting on The Batman when Oz (Penguin) is chasing Batman and his car flips over which was very impressive, I love it when Filmmaking is innovative like this and gives the audience more realistic backgrounds on a set with a virtual background and blends them seamlessly, reminds me of a technology in the 80's called Introvision which isn't used anymore pass the 1980's which was innovative for it's time in which movies like Outland and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade which blended actors with kind of virtual environments that were previously filmed on another day in any scale like miniatures or bigatures for example.

[@user-hq6nq2on2z]

Its cool because the mandalorian and the batman both have Grieg Fraser as the cinematographer - the guy really is proving himself to do some cool ass shit

[@robertobuatti7226]

@@user-hq6nq2on2z Yes definitely, his work really speaks for itself and is really innovative and pushing the boundaries of cinematography and technology and blending them seamlessly, as I've tried to understand more about this Filmmaking process the more I really love it and appreciate all the hard work that goes into it.

[@Nkanyiso_K]

I'd love to make one here in South Africa 🇿🇦

[@olivermengershausen2686]

There are some of this “Volumes“ like ILM‘s StageCraft in development all around the world. E.g. in the UK, Germany (“Dark Bay”), Canada and Australia. Maybe in the future there will be one in South Africa!

[@inzaneartworks3109]

Love your channel. I do feel the Mandalorian gets a bit too much notoriety though. Joseph Kosinski and his crew should get some credit for Oblivion prior to the Mandalorian. I'm sure I'll open a can of worms saying this haha. Again, love the channel!

[@SinfulServant2004]

I agree

[@fr33dom_s4int]

Yes and no. They didn’t push the technology forward. They did basically the same thing Kubrick did on 2001, except they surrounded the set with screens and projectors. That said, they used it to great effect.

[@lorcan545]

Does Gravity warrant a mention in the evolution of this technology? I‘ve been curious about that ever since I saw videos about The Mandelorian‘s production.

[@REDDRAGONARCHIVE]

I've recently started 1899 on Netflix and I've wondered how they shot the open water scenes. Nice to know they didn't do it in post. Appreciate these detailed cinema videos. 💯🔥🐲

[@MeNoOther]

Don’t forget! The Volume also has tracking cameras for digital characters. Star Wars uses the Motion Tracking system for droids and aliens. Plus, all the new Star Trek live action shows use the Wall for they’re production

[@prime7412]

I think this a great tecnology and a step up from green screen but I find it to be very klunky and unconvincing at times. I hope people dont start relying on it. On location just looks better in most cases

[@josuepena269]

There are very valid arguments against this. Though its certainly a little better than green screen it still has that green screen feel to it, and perhaps always will. The characters don't feel tethered to the background, and the background just feels like something pretty to look at, not an actual world. There are limitations with camera movements and blocking too. Green screen and this volume have gotten so much mainstream use that even films shot on location mimic the camera blocking and their shots feel green screeny.

[@thefinalball]

I couldn't agree more. Nolan is the first that comes to mind as well. I really think this technology is going to become the new green-screen (in a bad way). It's not going to age well. It looks pretty decent right now but so did green-screen when it was first around.. but when you get used to it you start seeing through it. This technology is new and exciting I guess but give it several years I think it'll start to blow over. They claim it's better for the actors but I'd argue it's worse. The actors aren't seeing the same thing the audience is, and they are often looking passed the cameras which is all studio/warehouse stuff, can imagine it's hard to believe you're in the movie world in that setting. Nothing will ever beat on-location.

[@olivermengershausen2686]

One addition: if a three-dimensional background is necessary, this is often recorded on-location beforehand using photogrammetry and then converted into 3D data for the “Volume”.

[@televszn]

Great video, only thing you forgot to mention is that green screen doesn't work on ET subjects, so if you've cast one, have a backup plan.

[@Hyperdogproductions]

Amazing video! I knew Greg Fraser used new LED technology on the Mandalorian but didn't know that it was to this extent. That is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

[@DethronerX]

Very good Essay and these really do help actors be inside the environment and solves the reflection and location issues. Add holograms and you solve another problem, so actors can actually see and interact with CGI or 2D animated characters and props and effects. The more the actors can feel they are in the world, the better they can be in character and feel the movie as a real place. It changes everything.

[@Chaizin]

Imagine watching a scene where characters are talking while the sun behind them is rising or setting. After 20 you begin to notice the sun hasn’t moved at all and you think. How long has the sky been like that?!

[@cuckoonut1208]

My thoughts when watching "The Batman".

[@LeiDavidChen]

How many shows have a 20-minute long dialogue scene? 😆 I think the point is that you can shoot the same sunset lighting all day, instead only having about 20 minutes of perfect lighting to grab everything you need.

[@cuckoonut1208]

11:13 The never ending sunset scenes on the building in "The Batman" is an example of taking it too far.

[@jesseyules]

One overlooked aspect is the army of cgi artists that are needed create the environments, who are non-union workers, and who only need to be paid once for each digital set. The tech is good for the artistic freedom of the director, bad for the incomes of the crew.

[@hsynsrky]

Thanks for the brief history and current technology. This was fun to watch.

[@joshuarahimi221]

A Led wall is really nice and you can’t really tell the difference. I still find it sad to see where the industry goes. Christopher nolan is a big idol in mastering impossible shots in real life and locations and I’m always amazed by these shots

[@thefinalball]

I couldn't agree more. Nolan is the first that comes to mind as well. I really think this technology is going to become the new green-screen (in a bad way). It's not going to age well. It looks pretty decent right now but so did green-screen when it was first around.. but when you get used to it you start seeing through it. This technology is new and exciting I guess but give it several years I think it'll start to blow over. They claim it's better for the actors but I'd argue it's worse. The actors aren't seeing the same thing the audience is, and they are often looking passed the cameras which is all studio/warehouse stuff, can imagine it's hard to believe you're in the movie world in that setting. Nothing will ever beat on-location.

[@kmlgraph]

...and Nolan does location shooting with IMAX. Imagine how time consuming and difficult that must be!

[@derg6222]

i think one can cleary tell the difference in pretty much every dayligth exterior shot shown in the video above.

[@MorkyIlSupremo]

I'm Building One in Italy...

[@loreBONFI]

Figo

[@SinfulServant2004]

Cool

[@bluespongetv1095]

How long does it take to assemble ?

[@LanguascoAndrea]

Davvero ? Dove ?

[@613pics]

Where?

[@RightNowMan]

Excellent, informative video! Cheers.

[@liampugh]

Hello, I've been a viewer for along time and this is otherwise a great essay but you made a pretty huge mistake in your characterization of the content being displayed on the LED walls in the volume. What you describe in the video is actually an HDRI (the composite of photos into a sphere for lighting and background purposes) which is a flat projection and that alone provides no perspective and parallax to the camera which are crucial to the volume. In reality, virtual worlds are built in a game engine (like unreal) using Photorealistic textures and 3d models, and due to advances in realtime lighting technology, the lighting in engine is nearly photorealistic as well. These digital sets, complemented by real life additions to them like the ground and path on the ice planet, combined with advanced motion capture technology on the camera that communicates with the game engine in real time allows the projection to move in real time reacting to the camera's moves to create perfect parallax. From anywhere outside the lens, it does not look correct, but through the lens of the camera everything lines up perfectly to create the image. The HDRI's are basically just a skybox for the virtual set to live in, they definitely used them on the mandalorian but not near as often as you think and even then only in the background behind a 3D map of a virtual set (basically a super high poly video game map with photorealistic textures). Sorry to nitpick but I just got out of college last semester where I studied this, and was excited to see you do a video on it but you got the coolest part so wrong. To me its amazing how these digital world were built and how they interact with sets, camera, and lights. To call the amazing work of so many 3d artists and realtime technicians just a composite of pictures is just a little disappointing to hear. How you say it is not so much a simplification of a complicated subject as much as it is a factual error that is misinforming. The first part of this video brings up some great comparisons that show the early days of the technology but the part about the volume needs some work. sorry for the rant, your videos are usually great. Lookup unreal engine virtual production for a ton of examples of what I'm talking about.

[@kmlgraph]

LED screen technology must also help actors as they can see what their environment looks like, rather than trying to emote to a giant green empty nothingness.

[@LeiDavidChen]

Nothing but respect for the generation of actors from Phantom Menace to now who've had to perfect the craft of emoting to a giant green empty nothingness. 😂

[@RaikenXion]

I can see how it is becoming the future and Favreau uses it in a perfectly balanced way but there are examples where the Volume can be overused; like in the Kenobi series. Alot of scenes in that show used the volume way too much and you could clearly tell it was mostly shot in a studio. Favreau and Filloni used the volume outside so you had natural lighting, like the Jedi episode when Mando meets Ahsoka, the scene has atmosphere and the lighting looks very natural.

[@abdullahsaad3808]

Amazing. Thanks 👍🏼🇰🇼

[@mercurious6699]

thank you, very valuable to know

[@TheJadedFilmMaker]

I had to think for a while. What is an 'AllyDee' screen lol (led)

[@gregorybakker]

Very interesting!

[@MeNoOther]

In the future, this led wall technology, with occulis tracking sensors could make a real holodeck. If only for visuals As the price comes down

[@ShamellAntone]

Great vid...

[@allanvanuga9196]

Great video.

[@peterm.4355]

It's an amazing technology that can look great (The Mandalorian, The Batman) or absolutely horrible (Kenobi).

[@didyouknowamazingfacts2790]

Very Interesting

[@JR_Taylor]

It's brilliant tech but the light quailty isn't great for direct day lighy simulation. Work best with an overcast look

[@dscvrclout]

Is there a company that builds these? if so can someone direct me to them. interested for something on the east coast.

[@derg6222]

I believe the technology was founded by ILM. it seems to be only used for high budget projects so far.

[@sailingcanopus]

The screen is expensive. Heard it might go under.

[@Houswal]

Changing in the worst and artificial way possible, yeah. If this is the future, then the industry is fucked.

[@Red-Ox-Films]

Another reason why movies suck so bad these days. It is not just lazy acting and bad scripts, it is also the fact that no one wants to go to lengths to build sets and go to film on locations. Why even bother with using cameras if we have Ai and digital screens?

[@A_NorthKorean_CoOp]

Don’t get me wrong it’s cool and more efficient for shooting etr but using practical sets were possible should always been advocated

[@lukasmoodysson4701]

Woah

[@daniel_McNail]

To be honest I am not a fan, feels to me much more obvious than the greenscreen, considering there is no way to shoot the scene in real.

[@chitranshutapas]

Technologies are for our benifits, they shouldn't take over us. I appreciate the technology we all are experimenting and succeeding with, but I as a filmmaker feel that we have losing a lot of magic of shooting on locations. What do you guys think?

[@thefinalball]

I really think this technology is going to become the new green-screen (in a bad way). It's not going to age well. It looks pretty decent right now but so did green-screen when it was first around.. but when you get used to it you start seeing through it. This technology is new and exciting I guess but give it several years I think it'll start to blow over. They claim it's better for the actors but I'd argue it's worse. The actors aren't seeing the same thing the audience is, and they are often looking passed the cameras which is all studio/warehouse stuff, can imagine it's hard to believe you're in the movie world in that setting. Nothing will ever beat on-location.

[@LincolnEllwood]

I’m all for new technology, and im sure this will help those already fully invested in green screen work, but to me this is such a bland and mundane style of filmmaking. It would be good for reshoots and such, but man would I feel bored as an actor arriving to work in a circular volume ALL DAY for an entire season. If you have the option for real locations, and the money and time for it, I would definitely choose that. But again, this is another tool to add to the belt.

[@markobegus]

Technology has never been so good and available...yet storytelling is dying...IMO, Hollywood especially is killing itself with stories for which you have to "dumb down" to actually enjoy. Not all of them of course, but still...for one good movie you are fed too much garbage....seriously...I just know in one month's time I will see a trailer of another "remake" of a blockbuster, that was not good at all, to begin with, having a cast that probably grew in a "studio set up woke-gentle as a breeze, no harm to anyone world" and they will proudly lecture you how to change the world for better when they take their Oscars in their hands that never did any actual work....Now the actors you say? Yeah...there is a fine line between those who have been through real life and the ones that were incubated their whole lives if you can't tell the difference in acting you sure as hell can in their off-screen behavior.

[@r.c.c.10]

If well done, a blue/green screen is better than a virtual studio. Virtual studios easily look artificial due to the limited space and flat environment. Just look at The Mandalorian, Boba Fett and Ob-Wan. The stages are so flat it looks fake. Sure, virtual studios are phenomenal for decent budget constraints, such as TV series or mid-budget films, but they aren't the best.

[@INSTINCT777]

2001 dawn of men sequence was front projection not rear projection. Please check your facts before talking about the apes of stanley kubrick :)

[@palojusrinivascharypssppp1603]

🙏🌹🇮🇳 PSSPPP 🇮🇳 PALOJU JAI SRIRAM 🇮🇳🌹🙏

[@derg6222]

11:35 "one limitation" - are you serious? pretty much every daylight exterior shot in this video looks absolutely flat. there's a foreground, there's a background and nothing inbetween. the images are lacking any sort of depth. I really like and appreciate your content but you refuse to come up with the minimum amount of appropriate criticism that would be necessary to discuss the pros and cons of the volume.

[@karlkarlos3545]

And like every new tool, I'm sure it will be terrible overused in the years to come. Sigh.

[@davidmouser596]

This is all old news.

[@laurence2421]

Part of why movies these days really really suck.

[@vincentjenkinsjnr]

This actually is very disliked in the industry. Already being ignored