Talk:Special effect

message: I have a few problems with this sentence. First of all, while an image might look realistic by itself it may still stand out when placed next to a real object due to the potential differences in light and resolution. Second, this mostly applies to static images as moving object is a lot hardly to pull of convincingly.
Thirdly, there is no mention of the fact that the resulting image would have to be created digitally as it is hardly possible to create any image by other means.
My last problem is with the words completely and any. These days most people are still able to tell CGI from real thing in most movies. There is a difference between an image being convincing enough (for suspension of disbelief) and completely realisitic. I would argue that we are not at a point yet when an CGI animated film could fool anyone into believing they are watching a live action film. As for the word "any", it makes it seem like the entire process is relatively easy and isn't bound by budgetary and other constraints. I think using the words "virtually any" would be better.
At the same time I understand what the person who wrote this is trying to say and, perhaps, in theory perhaps, it is possible to do something like that.
Any feedback and suggestions on how to improve/rewrite this sentence would be really appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is now possible to create any image and have it look completely realistic to an audience.

message: Sept. 2: Girolamo Casanova undid the redirect, so the entry is now under "Special effects" again. I'm OK with this so long as the "visual effects" entry is redirected here.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Siano (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: A Brief History of Special effects was merged with this page. Judgesurreal777 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Complete

message: In my free time I can add to this article.  I have spent years studying special effects.  I was the one who wrote the developmental history, (or BRIEF history, as I titled it) and many additions.  I can expand it when given time.  -Mountnbiker310
To clarify the Star Wars effects, Spaceship shots were done using a motion control gimble, not stop motion. Stop motion was used in most of the creature and land-based model effects, but motion control and blue/green screen was used for 99% of the 'in space' shots.  The two techniques are completely different. Bigpinkthing 15:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Here is the removed section. I found it to be confusing, poorly written and not particularly relevant. Audiodude 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed HDV section 

message: Can a search on "vfx" be redirected to the Visual effects page, instead of the Special effects page?
Thanks,
--JT 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search term 

message: The oldest "landmark" movie listed is The Birds, from 1963.  Special effects have been around for a long time, though.  The list focuses mainly on advances in animatronics and CG, and ignores movies like The Invisible Man (1933 film), The Ten Commandments (1956 film), the original King Kong, and The Lost World (for the matte process and for stop motion animation developments).  In fact, I'm not even sure why they bothered listing the new King Kong for "Motion Capture".  Hadn't that already been done in Lord of the Rings with the Gollum character?
Also, how come no one here mentions Fritz Lang's Metropolis?! His use of extremely detailed drawings and models and camera manipulation was extraordinary for the time. I wish I knew enough to really do it justice in this article--anyone else know more than me? --Torie
I removed several films from the list because they really didn't qualify as "landmark effects" films. Many are fine films, but the "landmarks" are either trivial or inflated. I clarified what a 'landmark' film might be, and here are the cuts:
*Amadeus (Old age stipple, era effects)
*Independence Day (Digital effects combined with small-scale models)
*The Day After Tomorrow (Prolonged digital shots, playing with "weather effects")
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Motion capture from a 2D image)
*Star Wars series (Creation of original, practical effects, "destruction" effects, pioneer in spaceships models, motion control photography) 
(I reduced this to "Motion control photography": the Dykstraflex was the film's main innovation.)
*Superman (Human flight)
*The Terminator (Digital effects)
*Buddy (Audio-Animatronics)  (Brian Siano)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.194.213 (talk) 02:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
I propose adding another film at the end of "Introduction of Computer Generated Imagery (CGI)": Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Since it's the first film in history with fully-animated photorealistic CGI, it deserves its place alongside Toy Story. The fact that it was also the biggest box office bomb in history at the time doesn't make it sound good, but isn't relevant :) Binba 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There really shouldn't be any list, because whatever is included ultimately comes down to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations. If someone is serious about cleaning the article up, then relevant and notable films should be discussed within the context of the article - in other words, within the body text. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Landmark" movies

message: I recently clarified the definitions on the two types of SFX: optical and mechanical. I added "(also called visual or photographic effects)" after optical effects and "(also called physical or practical effects)" after mechanical effects. (See Special Effects: Titanic and Beyonds online glossary) I've been working on a school research project over SFX and, judging from my research, these terms do indeed seem to be synonymous.
Also, I pretty much entirely reversed the "CGI versus SFX" section (now called "CGI and SFX"). Before, the article stated that CGI effects were NOT special effects because they are not produced on-set during filming. This was inconsistent with the definition of SFX both within and outside of the article. It did establish that CGI effects are not mechanical effects, but they are indeed SFX because they fit into the category of optical effects - which involves altering a photographic image.
Oh, and lastly, sorry about not filling in the Edit Summary field on some of my changes. I'm kind of a Wikipedia editing newbie. Jedimatt 05:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of SFX & CGI 

message: Does Wikipedia have any kind of list of the major special effects houses?  If so, can it be linked to from this article? Robert K S 05:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a list of visual effects houses in the visual effects article. Jedimatt 21:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Robert K S 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of special effects houses

message: :I'm a Visual Effects Supervisor, and Editor, in Hollywood. The simplest answer to this is:
::Special Effects happen on set, in camera, as a function of production. Visual Effects happen in post production.
'''
:The distinction in the industry is important.
:Special Effects include the things you can not shoot with just a camera, lights, and basic props, and particularly when you need a special team and equipment. It's fog, smoke, fire, explosions, practical devices like animatronic dinosaurs, radio controlled action props, muzzle flashes — there can be some crossover here with the stunt department. 
:Special effect makeup is properly with makeup not "special effects" though crossover here could happen with a monster suit perhaps. Regardless, special effects makeup is a unique discipline.
:Opticals, as in "titles and opticals" typically refer to only the most basic things like fades and dissolves, wipes, step printing, etc.
:"Optical Effects" referred to the more complicated optical printer effects that typically involved some level of animation like aerial image, traveling matte and other compositing (aka optical compositing), hand drawn laser animations that blow up planets... as technology developed and computers were increasingly used, and we moved from chemical imaging to digital, the term "optical effects" became "visual effects" (Get it? optics became vision).
:The visual effects team is often involved with fixing or augmenting shots that started as special effects - adding smoke to a special effect fire, painting out the wire rigging used in a stunt shot, replacing images in TVs or monitors. Frequently there will be an on-set visual effects supervisor coordinating with the special effects supervisor, cinematographer, etc to ensure that shots or "plates" that will need augmentation or VFX are captured properly. But otherwise the lines of responsibility are fairly separate. 
:Miniatures, motion control, matte paintings (traditional or digital) fall under visual effects...
"But what about Schufftan, front screen, blue screen, forced perspective..." 
:I haven't heard of anyone doing front screen in decades and technically it's more visual effect not special effect. If I recall, front screen was invented by Stanley Kubrick for 2001: A Space Odyssey, and in that film (1968) the VFX were called "special photographic effects"
:Shooting blue screen is not a special effect per se, it is capturing a plate for later compositing as a visual effect. 
:Forced perspective of a set is set design/production design, not "special effects". Forced perspective for a miniature, and miniature and motion control photography is visual effect.
:As for Schufftan — yea, neat, but I'm not aware of anyone that uses it in practical filmmaking today — it is very constricting, though the results can be surprising. When it IS used, it's usually in concert with the visual effects team as it involves a miniature or matte painting.  Nevertheless, I have seen some cool YouTube videos that people did using some variant of the technique.
:ONE LAST THING: in the industry there is an acknowledged "two kinds" of visual effect: invisible, and spectacle. So many visual effects you will never guess are actually a visual effect. It's VFX work done to fix or augment without drawing any attention to itself (computer monitors, set extensions, rig removal). The other kind of course are things like giant transformers or talking foxes.
I hope this clarifies and adds to the dialog Myndex (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual vs Special 

message: I undid the last two revisions, back to Girolamo's last version; the ones I deleted seemed to have added irrelevant names to the list of effects arists. 
I'm wondering about the notice that's just appeared, about needing to upgrade this article's content. I think the aricle is in decent shape up to and including the passage on CGI. The sections titled "Planning and use" and "Live special effects" really seem like afterthoughts in the rest of the article. 
But maybe the term "special effects" really does require addressing the term in the theater as well as for cinema (which buttresses Girolamo's point re the distinctions of visual versus 'special' effects). Is there a Wikipedia article on theatrical special effects? I couldn't write it, but it may be worth reorganizing this article to address the theater.
On a side note, I looked over some other articles on specific effects techniques, and they're a wild mix of excellent material. I wish I could reorganize the entire subject, but that'd step on a lot of toes of people writing the other articles.
Brian Siano 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if you are willing to wrangle the articles on this subfield, then you should be bold! Girolamo Savonarola 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be very wary about the lists - the problem is that there's an ever-looming threat of name-creep. It would be better to discuss notable names in the context of the article, with citable sources. Girolamo Savonarola 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name-creep thing is definitely true; we have it already. but it might be difficult to get most notable names into the actual article without seeming like we're shoehorning them in. I figure, if we include single-sentence statements as to why these names are important or notable, it might put people on notice to not include everyone effects supervisor in the business. Either way, the name-creep isn't flooding the entry, so it's no rush to resolve this. Brian Siano 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: By all means step in when you like - I don't have enough expertise or resources to do much notable editing myself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2007 revisions, and upgrading the content

message: Shouldn't this article be plural, not singular? Within the body of the article, the plural form is used. Cf. "visual effects". --Jeremy Butler 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Special effect" vs. "Special effects" 

message: Am I wrong thinking a) this is the term used for (safe) stage firearm loads & b) it deserves a mention here?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 5-in-1s

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Special Effects (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —[
[User:RMCD bot|RMCD bot]] 11:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress