Sometimes, we receive projects for post that were shot without the involvement of a CG supervisor on set.
Why wasn’t one invited to the shoot?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are at least two reasons: budget savings or confidence in one's own abilities to shoot the project independently, relying on experience and knowledge. This can be the case, and sometimes producers, operators, or directors do have sufficient knowledge in the field of visual effects.
However, unfortunately, this isn't always the case, and it genuinely pains me to see it.
Attempting to save on a supervisor during the shoot can ultimately lead to a much larger budget during post-production, when VFX artists start grappling with shots, unsure of how to approach them. Consequently, the budget increases due to the complexity of the work arising from additional problems.
If the project isn't graphically complex, producers might not invite a CG supervisor to the shoot, but at the very least, they could consult with one on various issues before filming.
Advice costs nothing!
My point is that it would be genuinely great if the budget is used appropriately, rather than on correcting unnecessary mistakes. Neither the creators nor the project benefits from this!
What do you think?
1 person likes this
Uh, Skipping a CG supervisor on set to save costs is a false economy. The lack of proper planning often leads to unforeseen challenges in post-production, ultimately inflating the budget and extending timelines.
A good CG supervisor ensures that elements like lighting, camera tracking, green screen setup, and integration with VFX are properly handled on set, preventing costly fixes later. Even if the project isn’t VFX-heavy, a brief consultation before the shoot could prevent unnecessary post-production headaches.
Your argument is clear: spend wisely, not recklessly—investing in a CG supervisor early can actually save money and ensure a smoother workflow. Have you encountered a project where poor VFX planning caused major problems in post?