GanzChroma 0295
Visual Effects (VFX), by definition, are the processes used to create or manipulate imagery that can't be captured during live-action filming. In simpler terms, VFX is about enhancing what’s real - using CGI to make the impossible look believable.
Yet, when I scroll through student VFX competitions, I keep noticing something: a lot of what’s being labeled “VFX” is actually just full CG renders.
Don’t get me wrong - many of these renders are incredible. The quality is undeniable. But there’s something that stands out: they feel like they belong in an animated movie or a video game. They look beautiful, but they don’t have that photorealism that defines what we typically see in high-end VFX work for film.
This raises an important question : Can an FXTD (FX Technical Director) win with an FX render in these categories anymore?
Over the last decade, I’ve mostly seen VFX awards go to environment and character work - rarely to the brilliant artists creating fluid simulations, smoke, destruction, or particles. Are we limiting our definition of VFX to just environments and characters? Is the industry inadvertently narrowing the field of recognition?
Let’s talk about the difference between high-quality CG renders for animation and what we see in VFX-heavy films. They both involve computer-generated imagery, but they serve different purposes.
In animation, the world is fully digital, and that’s the point. There’s no need for photorealism because the audience knows it’s not meant to be real. The rules are different; stylization is embraced.
In VFX, the goal is different. It’s not about creating a whole new world - it’s about merging digital elements into the real world so convincingly that the viewer believes they’re watching something real.
The textures, lighting, and integration must feel seamless. That’s the magic of VFX - it’s not just about looking good. It’s about making the audience forget that what they’re seeing is impossible.
But here’s the challenge: Should we expect students to be able to produce this level of photorealism fresh out of school?
It’s a big ask. Photorealism requires understanding how light behaves, how textures react to different environments, and how to blend digital and live-action elements seamlessly. It takes time, practice, and a lot of real-world observation.
I see immense talent in these student competitions. I see dedication and skill. But I also see that many are leaning toward CG animation over true VFX. And the industry itself isn’t always making it clear where the line is drawn.
Photorealism might be a high bar, but that’s the craft. And maybe we should be asking ourselves, are we setting up students for success by rewarding work that looks more like animation than VFX?
What do you think? Is it time to shift the conversation?