Corrie's use of CGI to flop?

JetsonJetson Posts: 13,274
Forum Member
✭✭
It occurred to me today that even with the Mill being such a refutable company with CGI work, the fact that Corrie is, and always has, broadcast interlaced is going to potentially make the effects look incredibly fake. :eek:

A quick bit of info for those unfamiliar with the technicalities (I only just understand it myself so anybody geekier than me can happily correct me!):

Corrie and EastEnders do not look like "films" like other dramas because they are shot and broadcast in interlaced format. Many shows shoot in this format, but most, in post production, deinterlace to give off the effect of film or glossy drama (think Holby City, Doctor Who, etc)

With regard to the tram crash, this is really difficult, because some people will hit the roof if Coronation Street starts looking visually like a film/Doctor Who, but without it, the CGI is probably going to be embarrassing. You saw how bad the CGI tram was for Natasha's exit - think that but for a massive CGI tram crash! :eek:

To reiterate, shows like Doctor Who are shot interlaced and then deinterlaced in post production, and that's why the CGI works well (most of the time).

I think I'd honestly prefer Corrie to switch to deinterlaced and have a visually pleasing experience. It could be temporary, for the week of episodes, or a permanent switch for the 50th.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Comments

  • Brendan TBrendan T Posts: 235
    Forum Member
    It was like train that nearly killed Janine, it wasn't even there.

    I prefere real stunts.
  • Pop_ArtPop_Art Posts: 5,116
    Forum Member
    Brendan T wrote: »
    It was like train that nearly killed Janine, it wasn't even there.

    I prefere real stunts.

    It looked very real though.

    I think EE have done well with their CGI.

    Watch the trains on video two

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eastenders/2010/02/get-your-anoraks-on-trains-are.shtml
  • PyramidbreadPyramidbread Posts: 10,440
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Natasha tram was just a bit of crap in-house CGI done by Corrie, The Mill are a highly experienced company, so I believe they an make it look convincing
  • JetsonJetson Posts: 13,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Natasha tram was just a bit of crap in-house CGI done by Corrie, The Mill are a highly experienced company, so I believe they an make it look convincing
    Yes but CGI is dodgy on interlaced footage irrespective of how good it is! Deinterlacing it dramatically improves the quality of CGI!
  • ::Adam::::Adam:: Posts: 7,223
    Forum Member
    Just wait till you see it before judging it'll be crap.
  • Ash_735Ash_735 Posts: 8,493
    Forum Member
    *reads thread*

    ...WHAT? I understand CGI, Broadcasting Formats, Ratio Standards, etc but reading the OP has even confused me because it's all very hatched together information that's wrong.

    Ok, where to even begin, Deinterlacing is not the Filmic effect, that's actually a different filter process. De-Interlacing is just that, De-Interlacing and making it Progressive. But that doesn't matter here, in Europe, ANY HD content we watch is broadcasted Interlaced (1080i) and your TV (Or receiver if you have that option set) is the thing doing the De-Interlacing.
  • Brendan TBrendan T Posts: 235
    Forum Member
    Pop_Art wrote: »
    It looked very real though.

    I think EE have done well with their CGI.

    Watch the trains on video two

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eastenders/2010/02/get-your-anoraks-on-trains-are.shtml

    i HAD TO ADMIT THAT WAS AMAZING, IT LOOK SOO REAL!
  • polkadottydresspolkadottydress Posts: 2,174
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i think they'll pull it off and if not we'll all have something to moan about on DS!
  • JetsonJetson Posts: 13,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ash_735 wrote: »
    *reads thread*

    ...WHAT? I understand CGI, Broadcasting Formats, Ratio Standards, etc but reading the OP has even confused me because it's all very hatched together information that's wrong.

    Ok, where to even begin, Deinterlacing is not the Filmic effect, that's actually a different filter process. De-Interlacing is just that, De-Interlacing and making it Progressive. But that doesn't matter here, in Europe, ANY HD content we watch is broadcasted Interlaced (1080i) and your TV (Or receiver if you have that option set) is the thing doing the De-Interlacing.
    Okay. I thought deinterlacing in post did make things look more "filmic" though, like the motion and stuff. I don't understand why people make such a deal of shows like DW/Holby being deinterlaced in post then, if it doesn't make a difference?

    Since I'm clearly so ignorant and misinformed, would you like to explain if Coronation Street's CGI will be hampered by its broadcast format please?
  • HelicaseHelicase Posts: 4,791
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James J wrote: »
    Okay. I thought deinterlacing in post did make things look more "filmic" though, like the motion and stuff. I don't understand why people make such a deal of shows like DW/Holby being deinterlaced in post then, if it doesn't make a difference?

    Since I'm clearly so ignorant and misinformed, would you like to explain if Coronation Street's CGI will be hampered by its broadcast format please?

    Deinterlacing has nothing to do with the filmic effect.

    The filmic effect is nothing more than a tacky post production add on
  • JetsonJetson Posts: 13,274
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Helicase wrote: »
    Deinterlacing has nothing to do with the filmic effect.

    The filmic effect is nothing more than a tacky post production add on
    So if the next episode of Corrie was deinterlaced, would anyone notice?
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    James J wrote: »
    So if the next episode of Corrie was deinterlaced, would anyone notice?
    All UK broadcasts are interlaced. So, in answer to your question, a lot of people would notice if the next episode went out deinterlaced (progressive) because hardly anyone has the equipment to view that type of transmission.
  • 12december198412december1984 Posts: 1,033
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Natasha tram was just a bit of crap in-house CGI done by Corrie, The Mill are a highly experienced company, so I believe they an make it look convincing

    The Mill (NYC) were responsible for Barclaycard's New York rollercoaster advert.

    That looked good, so I'll reserve my judgement for the episodes, when they air.
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My guess at how they will pull it off - they will mostly show the tram crash in slow-motion, thus saving us from having dodgy interlaced CGI shots.

    The Mill are an amazing company. Just check out pretty much any episode of Doctor Who 2005-10. They will have a solution. And I'm guessing they are doing this for ex-Who producer, Phil Collinson, as a favour, i.e. not at full cost, so as to keep within Corrie budget.
  • hardylanehardylane Posts: 3,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jeez...

    >clears throat<

    In the 90's, the de-interlaced "film look" was occasionally used and it looked awful. Witness the botched Casualty episodes back then.

    This has the effect of taking 50 interlaced images per second and effectively making them 25 fps. The phoney jerkiness is suddenly apparent

    Sometimes this de-interlacing effect is used to dreadful effect - such as when a band perform on T4, or the current Neighbours on Five.

    Proper film-look is achieved in camera by shooting in progressive mode, or applying it during grading in post-production (NEVER on transmission, which is what these other failures do)
    Witness the film-like quality of Shameless or the League of Gentlemen - both shot on video.

    Corrie is currently shot in 1080i 50 frames per second interlaced video.
    My guess would be that the actual crash, which is reality would take a matter of seconds, will be played in slow motion, which will blend the CGI tram and the background nicely. Once the tram is at rest, it's a live set.

    Shall we all just wait and see what they do? Then if they mess it up we can all come on and slag it off, as DS forums do so well.

    PS: It is my view that a show which is already running, and has an established style using interlaced video should NEVER be taken forward to progressive, because the visual style is SO different. Holby, Casualty, The Bill etc etc... many shows suffer from this.

    Soaps do not suit progressive..... interlaced video provides the immediacy required from such a medium.
  • ManOfEastManOfEast Posts: 559
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The main difference you see with CGI in soaps and lower-budget productions (apart from the lower-quality of the models etc.) is that they tend not to have too much compositing i.e. they keep characters and moving foreground objects away from the CG element as much as possible.

    My guess is at the moment of impact they'll probably only use the CG tram for a few quick distance shots, and use a combination of close-ups, stuntwork with perhaps CG-explosions and lighting for the rest of it. They might impose some CG debris to make it look more realistic.

    1 million pounds sounds just about right for the price of those shots, so I think Corrie fans will be in for a treat. :)

    Not sure what the video-format has to do with it. Crappy CGI will look crap regardless and likewise with good. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.