I sometimes get into discussions where people are choosing between real-life footage or animations. I always like to combine the two of them together, if given the chance!
But why choose animations over real life footage?
- ๐ฉ๐ถ๐๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: Itโs easier to move your virtual camera into a machine, than trying to force your real life camera down a chute. (And donโt get me started on safety in case itโs a running machine).
- ๐ฉ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐: you can make your animations as complex or simple as youโd like. Great for when you are working with different target groups!
- ๐๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐น: want to change your lighting, background, or the color of the subject? No problem!
And why choose real life footage over animations?
- ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐บ! Want to capture human emotions, or a direct representation of the real world? Real life footage is the way to go.
- ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐: real life footage is often perceived as more believable and trustworthy, especially when it shows people or locations.
These are some things computer graphics cannot capture as quickly, so thatโs why I choose to intertwine realistic video material with animations, to capture the best of both worlds. For example, moving a virtual camera through a building, highlighting each zone, and adding real life footage of what happens at that specific zone. Or showing a closeup of a machine, and using a slow motion simulation of what is happening inside the machine.
Note how I didnโt speak about costs, since both options can be as expensive/cheap as you want: complex 3D animations with intricate details and complex simulations, or a budget-friendly backyard film with a small crew vs a simple 2D animation done in After Effects, or a complete film crew of a hundred people (each with their own specialty).
Which one do you prefer, and why? (Both is also an option!)