Tenet - Crew Discussion/Speculation

An original action espionage film releasing in IMAX on July 17, 2020.
Posts: 19417
Joined: June 2012
Location: 1860s, New England
Looks quite convincing to me.

Posts: 851
Joined: May 2017
Location: San Bruno, CA
Nomis wrote:
May 25th, 2019, 6:13 pm
Looks quite convincing to me.
Well, it doesn't to me. So, nobody wins?

I'm just stating that was my biggest VFX qualm, which all told was intended to be a testament for how good the majority of the film looked.

Posts: 164
Joined: May 2014
Location: Recife, PE - Brazil
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
May 25th, 2019, 6:21 pm
Nomis wrote:
May 25th, 2019, 6:13 pm
Looks quite convincing to me.
Well, it doesn't to me. So, nobody wins?

I'm just stating that was my biggest VFX qualm, which all told was intended to be a testament for how good the majority of the film looked.
Looks quite convincing to me. (2)

Posts: 138
Joined: November 2018
im going to sound a bit ignorant here, but the aren't the planes never cgi ? always real or RC ?, from what i remember this film didn't have mayor cgi in it, because it didn't have a digital intermediate, hence the cardboard soldiers instead of cgi ones, rc planes, even the smoke was real i reckon, but im probably wrong about that one.

Posts: 72
Joined: October 2017
Location: oran
hello everyone so concerning the smoke that was used in Dunkirk is real smoke machines in the background run by the SFX UNIT and for added smoke in some distance shots and wide vistas it's composits of course but with real IMAX SMOKE means filmed for real by the IMAX VFX UNIT run by MARK WEINGARTNER the VFX DP witch consisted of filming real smoke and others things to augment vfx shots when it is required you can read that in CINEFEX 155 i can send to anybody who gonna want to read about the VFX of DUNKIRK

Posts: 72
Joined: August 2017
Location: Zembla
This smoke issue...

There are sometimes even real things on the screen which looks a little bit off
(off the top of my head - when Bruce is coming back from his journey towards the plane and Alfred in BB it always looks to me like he has a pasted face on the head - weird combination of lighting and dirt on him).

And because you know that smoke was added you just reaffirm yourself :P

In this >>still<< image I don't see anything wrong.
3:1 :)

Posts: 138
Joined: November 2018
CASE wrote:
May 25th, 2019, 11:06 pm
This smoke issue...

There are sometimes even real things on the screen which looks a little bit off
(off the top of my head - when Bruce is coming back from his journey towards the plane and Alfred in BB it always looks to me like he has a pasted face on the head - weird combination of lighting and dirt on him).

And because you know that smoke was added you just reaffirm yourself :P

In this >>still<< image I don't see anything wrong.
3:1 :)
i still remember someone complaining about Interstellar`s practical effects, he said they looked "uncanny", fair if you are used to the CGI patina, but still, what the heck.

Posts: 138
Joined: November 2018

Posts: 510
Joined: July 2017
That specific shot of the downed ship doesn't look bad. But the aerial view from Hardy's character's perspective, that shows the whole ship go down with soldiers running atop of it, looks bad. Also, when the mole initially gets attacked, you can see the CGI used for shrapnel and explosions. Another use of CGI that irks me, is at the 19:00 mark where Hardy's character downs an enemy fighter. They use a real RC unit it appears, but the smoke and explosion of embers as it falls down are very obviously fake.

Posts: 737
Joined: January 2013
I don't know, some of you are being real picky. The visual effects that are in Dunkirk are pretty seamless.

Post Reply