Research Project: Artifact 2

Why am I doing it? 
Knowledge of the industry and it alteration over time, How visual fx pipeline works. Skillset of the worker, future of special effects and how they they're going to intersect.  Identify key issues which may result in lessened quality...

How am I doing it?
Conducting interviews and gathering professional idustry opinions

Results:
The hand-on, 'getting dirty' aspect of physical effects is missing entirely, the direct formative activity of touch and feel is gone, yet as far as what their trying to accomplish it's not that different. Every project still starts with drawing classically and VFX practitioners with traditional art skills in anatomy, lighting and experience in creating shapes and surfaces are still core to creating quality work... it's still the best medium for beginning work. 

CGI used to be deemed quicker, easier or cheaper than actually building props, yet has retracted. With recent software enhancements CGI can now be considered more complex and be much more expensive than physically producing an effect. Realism is paramount to the success of FX's, every effort is taken to avoid audiences realising flaws, the more physical reference material to intersect and time spent on set connecting with lighting the better the outcome for photorealism. 

The main culprit for breaking suspension of disbelief is still currently CGI humans with their uncanny qualities, everything can be lost within facial expressions and the eyes in particular. Workers are still in control of their tool and believe very little of their work to be automated or restrictive, work which is automated is usually reserved for background visuals which don't require much attention. Incredible amounts of skill and attention to detail still goes into foreground work and is the individual creation of the worker. 

For the future, many artists do believe that models have a greater impact and add a nice aesthetic and character to a film, yet they do view it as a dying art. Once the final frontier of human expression are cracked, with the trend and pace of current technology, there is no reason that within 5 years CGI will not have not totally eclipsed physical effects. However cgi could become too costly and retract.

 Key points - 

• Direct involvement of touch and feel is missing but traditional art skills are just as relevant if not more than the digital software knowledge 

• Cgi was once seen as a 'quick fix', easier option, but now it is in-fact much more complex and expensive. 

• Photorealism is the focus of many animators, physical reference is helpful in this regards and shouldn't be replaced 

• CGI humans are the main culprit of failed suspension of disbelief. 

• Animators are 'working on the tool' not 'through the tool', it is a direct formative activity and the final product is a result of the individuals creativity and skill, not mechanical operation.

• CGI will encapsulate physical effects