Close
today i learned (til)

Real or CGI? How Technology is Used in Netflix’s Life on Our Planet

December 11, 2023

       

     

Life On Our Planet. Cr. Courtesy of Netflix © 2023

      The image above features two Cave Lions, beautifully captured looking out over the icy foothills of Madagascar. The lions look pristine, and the photo would fit right in inside the latest edition of National Geographic. Except for the fact that this picture isn’t real, and Cave Lions have been extinct for around 14,000 years. This photograph is screen captured from an episode of Netflix’s Life on Our Planet, and the Cave Lions are completely computer generated.

      Now, maybe you guessed that these animals were made with CGI. The fur looks a little but too soft and perfect, and their expressions look just a smidge too human. There are certain tells that can give away whether something is real or computer generated, and human eyes are great at spotting them, usually.

     The other day, I was watching an episode of Life on Our Planet, and I found myself completely unable to distinguish between real and computerized animals. Even prehistoric animals, which I knew were long extinct, looked and moved so realistically that I thought the producers could have filmed some real, unique and unknown creature, and edited the scale and colors to make it look like something new. The way the animals moved, the way they interacted with their environments- my brain could not comprehend the notion that these animals were simply rendered and animated computer models. This coupled with the fact that the real wildlife shots from Life on Our Planet are so beautiful, detailed, and crisp, that even the real animals appear fake at times, had me questioning the authenticity of every scene that I saw.

     Most of the animals depicted in this docuseries are completely real, and breathtaking videos are produced from the tireless work of on-site videographers, who can spend months on location just to get that perfect shot. It is only when depicting dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures, that the production team relies on CGI.

     It was shocking to me how realistic CGI models have become. One way to see how this technology has improved is to compare the CGI rendering of dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, created in 1993, and Life on our Planet, created in 2023.

      Watching these two clips makes the differences over 30 years even more clear. The contrast in texture, movement, and overall quality has gotten remarkably better since the days where CGI was still in its experimental stages. CGI was not truly integrated into movies until the early 70s. Jurassic Park was a trailblazer in CGI, and considering how early it was made, the computer-generated dinosaurs look pretty good. Jurassic Park utilized RenderMan technology, the same program that was adopted by Pixar and used to create Toy Story and Avatar. Since then, RenderMan has evolved with technology, maintaining its position as one of the most advanced rendering technologies by adopting features like raytracing, which could light animated scenes better than ever before by simulating the behavior of actual light. 

     Life on Our Planet works with a variety of technologies to create their hyper realistic, 3D animations. Their process is primarily done through Industrial Light and Magic, or ILM, a visual effects company founded by George Lucas in 1975 to create effects for the original Star Wars film. ILM utilizes the 3D modeling program, Autodesk Maya, and renders with RenderMan.

    The process for creating these hyper-realistic, CGI creatures for Life on Our Planet is quite extensive. As is documented in behind-the-scenes content for the series, it begins with filming the scenery. Taking beautiful shots of nature is no longer enough. The film crew has to plan every detail of the final scene before they even start filming. Where will the animal stand? What path will it move in? Every twig and leaf in its path must be removed or otherwise accounted for in order to produce a believable animation 

     But animals don’t simply glide over the ground; they affect their environment. How can film-makers create the illusion that an animal is interacting with its environment without it even being there? In cases where the animal is making drastic, visual changes to the environment, like a dinosaur eating a branch off a tree, filmmakers will greenscreen (or more accurately, “bluescreen”) themselves into the scene, modifying the environment with a visible hand that will be edited out later. Smaller and less noticeable environmental interactions can be completely done in post-production, but before we can understand that, it’s important to know how the environment is rendered with this type of CGI.

     In Life on Our Planet, the first step of post production takes place within the Layout Department, and it involves baking in images taken on site into a digital environment in which the animation will take place. With CGI this advanced, the entire environment must be rendered before a character can be placed in it. Simply editing an animation into raw footage would not be able to produce the environmental interactions that are needed to make a character truly seem part of a scene. The animal will need a physical terrain to move across. It will need to be placed behind objects in the foreground. The best method to achieving this is a complete environmental rendering, which, as can be seen in the docuseries, is completely indistinguishable from regular footage.

     Once the digital environment is formed, animators can create believable environmental interactions. Slightly adjusting the terrain can give the appearance of a footprint. An animal can scratch a tree, turn up some foliage, or unearth dirt.

     The process for creating CGI animations is complex, and it varies across studios, production companies, and type of work. Life on Our Planet provides us with a view into the potential of CGI so create true to life animations and visuals, and believable environmental interactions. By melding the real world with the computerized, this series has created some of the most realistic and beautiful animations we have seen yet. Considering the fact that CGI has only been meaningfully used in film for around 50 years, it is exciting to imagine the possibilities as technologies advance even further.

 

Works Cited

Life on Our Planet | Filming Dinosaurs in The Real World | Netflix. (2023, November 3). Www.youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKRP2Zc6udA

Nast, C. (2019, April 10). “Our Planet” filming locations: where was the Netflix series shot? CN Traveller. https://www.cntraveller.com/gallery/our-planet-filming-locations

Petychakis, M. (2020, June 29). How Technology Evolutions changed Animation. APILama. https://apilama.com/2020/06/29/how-technology-evolutions-changed-animation/

Schrodt, P. (2023, November 9). What Did Dinosaurs Really Look Like? “Life on Our Planet” Filmmakers Explain. Netflix Tudum. https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/life-on-our-planet-what-did-dinosaurs-look-like

Tyson, J. (2000, November 14). How Industrial Light and Magic Works. HowStuffWorks. https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/perfect-storm.htm

 

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Adventuring on Mi Teleférico
today i learned (til)
Illegal Substances vs. Neurological Disorders: The Showdown
today i learned (til)
Microscopic Masterpiece
today i learned (til)
Tech is in Bloom for Spring!

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.