The Artistry of VFX
It’s sometimes difficult to get directors and studios to look at vfx as an artistic process and those involved as creative. To some we’re looked at as technical nerds (with the full stereotypes) to simply fill in the blanks of the scene - place 2 spaceships there, a creature in the foreground and a castle in the background, just like it is in the storyboards or previs. Stat!
And at times we’re our own worst enemies. We frequently do get caught up in all the technical issues and the pixel level details of the shot rather than stepping back and seeing it as the whole. We’re so busy scrambling to play catch-up with all the changes being thrown at us to try to finish the shots in the compressed timeframe that we sometimes fail to see how it may not be working. Obviously we want to make the director happy but what if we could do that and make great shots?
Successful vfx start with the initial shot and sequence designs. That’s why it’s important that the vfx supervisor and their team are involved early, before the storyboards and previs are done. They should be working with the director and other key creatives to help design the most effective visual effects. Concept art should be fleshed out before production starts to make the most of the shoot and to ensure the budget and time estimates are correct. It takes just as much time and effort to work on a badly designed vfx shot as it does to work on a well designed shot so you might as well do it right. Perfect execution will not save a badly designed shot.
One of the things the vfx artist can bring to the design table is a great ability to visualize the shots, and all the pieces, that may be difficult for others to see. The vfx artists also knows what’s possible and what the potential is. Sometimes those not involved in vfx tend to limit themselves to what they could physically do on the set. Or what they’ve seen before rather than creating something new and original. On one project I worked on, a new sequence had to be designed and the director asked for ideas. I provided over 3 pages full of ideas, many which were incorporated and many of which they might not have considered. You never know when opportunities for input may come.
Many of us in vfx have grown so used to being told exactly what to do, sometimes down to the pixel, that we’ve shut down our creative side. Some in vfx want to be told exactly what to do and are bewildered when presented with some creative freedom. I’m suggested to everyone in vfx to keep your creative side alive so as you’re provided opportunities you can take advantage of them. Those who’ve come into vfx from the technical side should spend time developing both their eye and their imagination.
We’ve also become slaves to reality. We think that our goal is always to make every shot real, regardless if it’s the most cinematic or even proper for the film. Sometimes we look down our noses at vfx that are stylized or gauge success based purely on the technical achievement rather than what it provided the film. Just because a shot is rendered by an accurate dynamic simulation doesn’t necessarily make it right for a film. This is all dependent on the project and direction.
If we used that same reality approach to lighting a set:
For a room in a house we’d be likely to shoot it as is with the sunlight coming in the window and the lamp at the table. If this were a set on the stage we’d place a 100 watt light off frame just where it was for the wide shot and we’d figure out the angle of the sunlight coming in for the date, time and orientation and filter it for daylight Kelvin. The end result, while real, would likely be less than inspired. Compare the lighting you see in movies versus your home movies. Quality of lighting is one of the obvious differences between really low budget and full budget films. Now there’s nothing wrong with actual natural lighting if that works for the type of film but that can be a very limited range. Just as you won’t necessarily want to shoot a full film on a ‘normal’ lens just because it mimics the view angle of humans.
A Director of Photography has to have a technical knowledge of photography, lights and color timing (dynamic range, t-stops, fps, etc). But that doesn’t preclude him or her from approaching lighting a set in an artistic manner. Most DPs like to provide the feel of reality but aren’t locked into reality. If there’s a tall building with an alleyway with no lights, the DP has no issues splashing some light on the side of the building to make it stand out or to provide a slight back light on an actor even if technically such lighting doesn’t exist on the set.
Here’s a good article where Shane Hurlbut, ASC, a DP discusses how he lit a scene.
My advice to many in vfx is to watch a DP light a scene. The VES has had lectures in the past. There are also some events like CineGear where cinematographers discuss their craft and show what they do. The internet certainly has more info and creative webcasts. Last weekend Gale Tattersall, the DP on House, showed his lighting and shooting approach for HDSLR cameras in a webcast.
Note that when doing blue or greenscreen work it is always better if you have a background plate first so the DP can actually light to it as a guide. With no background the DP may well light the actor so they look good but have no bearing on the scene the image will be added to.
A DP works with the director and production designer to set the tone and look of the film. On larger films there is a second unit DP that uses what the 1st DP did as a guide to shoot additional footage that will be cut in the movie. The 2nd DP doesn’t match by numbers, he/she matches by the look.
Typically a director interviews a few DPs and determines with the producer which one to work with based on aesthetics, experience and speed. The director and DP then review some films together and discuss the overall look with the production designer. Once production starts the director focuses on the actors and the DP focuses on the lighting and works with the director on framing. The director talks about the feeling and mood he wants to convey in the sequences with the DP, the director doesn’t talk about the fact the fill light should be ½ stop brighter. The director doesn’t have time to micromanage the DP and doesn’t want to.
Obviously we in vfx don’t always have this flexibility and freedom. We frequently have to add multiple images into one final shot where any mismatch will be more obvious than in a simple cut. We almost always have multiple constraints to deal with. But we can start thinking more creatively and can be more open to taking advantage of freedoms where we can and at times making more freedom for ourselves.
Even things like roto and rig removal take a developed eye to efficiently create a high quality image. Roto has to match but exactly how it’s built and where the key frames are do provide some individual freedom. MatchMoving doesn’t tend to lend itself to much flexibility but many positions in vfx do. And in those positions when there is creative room to move, vfx workers should try to make the most of it.
Here’s an example related to animation:
On one project I worked on the director spoke to the animators as he would actors. What was the motivation, what was the feeling, etc. I thought the animators would be happy to be given the freedom to create the character in that moment. But a number were unhappy because they weren’t given specifics such as how to move the head or the timing of the action. There was also the concern of trying to accomplish it in as few takes as possible. Any artistic attempt may require multiple attempts to get right.
On a live action shoot there are normally several takes with the actors doing different variations of performance. The actor may volunteer to do a couple of alternate takes to make sure they’ve nailed it. The director is able to see them relatively quickly and make adjustments and select the one that works the best. With vfx each take can take days, especially if the director is unable to view a rough version and requires it to be fully rendered with fur or other time consuming render processes. The limited time provided by the studios can mean there isn’t enough time to do many takes for creative reasons. And at times a director may become fixated on some other aspect of the scene and want to spend time on that rather than what may be most important in context.
On another project the director had come from an animation background and so insisted on micromanaging the performance to the point of telling the animators where to place a foot and at what frame. And of course the animators weren’t happy with this approach either.
I recommend to all animators to take acting and improv classes. Have a mirror next to your monitor to check facial expressions, just like Disney animators did in the old days. Take advantage of video cameras to explore character movement and emotion.
This example has been regarding animation but I see similar types of things come up in composting, technical directing, texture painting and even in supervision.
We in vfx want to see a little more recognition and respect for what we bring to projects. My suggestion is that starts with all of us respecting our own craft and making sure we bring our full game to the creative aspects. All supervisors (of all types) and all leads should try to avoid micromanaging their team and allow their team members the chance to bring at least nuances to the shots. (More when possible). Vfx artists need to be ready to take the shot to the next level.
We should avoid a workflow that requires each aspect of each shot to go through 5 levels of approval. We should try to streamline the approval of the shot to the director. We should explore options to help communicate with the director faster and more efficiently before we spend weeks going through a full render with fine tuning. When I work on a project I’m typically doing a lot of mockups, even while shooting, so the director and editor along with the DP can start to see what’s working.
Rather than being technical cogs in the machine that relies on the director to fixate on every detail we should make sure we’re in full creative collaboration with the director. And that requires trust. The supervisor and their team have to get up to speed as quickly as possible to understand what the director is going for. Any works in progress have to be shown to the director with a clear communication for what is being addressed. Constantly showing shots for final that aren’t is a quick way to lose that trust.
The director should be able to talk to the vfx team as they do their DP. They should be able to talk about the mood they’re going for in a sequence. They should be able to talk about the CG character or creature as if it were an actor. It’s up to us to be able to deal with much of the technical aspects behind the scenes and avoid getting the director caught up in it.
This has been done on some films but it’s not always possible. Much depends on the project, director and the time available. But we should strive for this when possible to make a better product and to allow all of us to enjoy the process more.
Related links:
Designing VFX
What makes a good vfx artist
Photo real and realism in vfx
[Update: There was a video posted that analyzes the sets in The Shining and how things were changed or kept changing. John August does a reality check on it. Directors and the filmmaking process aren't locked to reality and many times the changes may be for practical reasons or simply because it looks better.]
Blog note:
Please don't copy and paste my postings to another site or forum. It's better to include a snippet and a link since I update posts from time to time. If you need to copy it for some reason please contact me first. Note that all posting are copyrighted.
Also if you don't find what you're looking for check the links on the right. You can also search the blog and you can click on keywords. I see a lot of people coming to the site based on a search engine who end up missing what they were searching for originally.
Thanks.
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label design. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Getting the most out of your VFX budget
Getting the most out of your VFX budget
If you were to ask most directors, producers and studios how to get the most out of their VFX budget the knee jerk reaction would be to hire the cheapest VFX company they could find. If you planned to build an elaborate house and invest a lot of time and money into it would you really want to choose the cheapest contractor who hired the cheapest workers and used the cheapest supplies?
Well no, they'd say they wanted something good enough.
This is all false economy. In an effort to save money it's not unusual for the final results to not only cost more but to look poorer.
Work smarter, not 'cheaper'.
It's not unusual in a major vfx movie to see enough money wasted to make up the difference of cheap to good vfx and those involved in the decisions rarely realize that.
Newsflash: Each vfx company, each VFX artist, and each VFX supervisor is different and will make a thousand different creative and technical decisions than one another. The concept that any place will do the same work and achieve the exact same final results is misguided at best. VFX does not produce a standard product. There is no commodity to be sold by the lowest priced distributor.
Rather than approach the issue as if it were simply a matter of where to buy the cheapest product the real question is how to get the most of whatever money and time is available.
In order to do this one of the key factors is to look at VFX as another department in the film making process. Treating it as a 3rd party process separate from the rest of the project only hurts the process.
If VFX were approached like live action there can be a number of advantages in terms of making decisions.
1. Figure out the shots needed to tell the story. Decide on the priority of the shots.
Look at each vfx shot as the equivalent of a whole new setup on a live action shoot. There's time and money involved for each shot. In some cases the shot may be the same as moving the entire film company to another location. Make sure the shot will be worth it.
If you're working on a graphic novel you only have so many pages and panels available so you make the most of each one. Approaching VFX this same way will trim some of the potential excess shots.
Example: 2 people talking while crossing the street will likely require 4 shots- wide, establishing - a 2 shot and a shot of each actor. Replacing one of the actors with a CG character or replacing the background should not require a dozen shots of zipping cranes, ant view shots, shots from the 42nd floor window, etc.
There will be times when it may be worth turning a scene into a visual feast and times when it's not necessary. Money and time will always be limited so choose when it's worth it.
2. Design the shots so they work with the rest of the film and make sure they tell the necessary story for that shot
If there is a gag or some action that needs to be shown to the audience then make sure the correct camera angle and timing are used. This would seem to be obvious but there are times where other angles and camera motions are selected that completely lose the reason for the shot. That's a wasted VFX shot. A shot that should have had a lot of power visually and narratively was turned into filler material and whistles right by the audience.
Example: If you wanted a shot of a literally flat character you wouldn't shoot the character straight on where the effect would be lost. A 3/4 view where the motion and twisting of the character makes their flatness obvious would be a much better choice.
If you had a skilled action choreographer such as Jackie Chan you'd want to avoid the shaky cam, quick cut, random angle editing that make up some action sequences. You'd need the audience to see the setup and the action clearly to make the most of it.
A good visual effects supervisor will work with you to design the shots for the most impact.
Some directors leave the design of big vfx sequences to their 2nd unit director. This only works if the director is part of the design process since the 2nd unit director will not be part of the post-production (unless they're also the vfx supervisor).
3. Use storyboards for your main VFX shots
For standard live action it's possible to shoot a film without storyboards but if there's any complex shots that require pre-planning then storyboards are a must. Storyboards are used to communicate visually. The director is able to make it clear what they want by a simple storyboard. Stunts, special effects, visual effects and the rest of the team now have an understanding of what's desired. Miscommunication is a very costly mistake. VFX also uses the storyboards as a method to budget. Without them the shot may be budgeted higher than it should be or lower than it should be. Any errors in the budget need to be avoided, especially if the budget is tight.
Concept design of what new creatures, worlds or other new imagery will have to be done to allow the team to know what the final target is to look like.
More complex scenes can be prevised to capture the timing and action in more detail than a storyboard can convey. Just know the level required for the previs to avoid tweaking them beyond what's necessary.
4. Hire a good vfx supervisor early in pre-production.
To save money it's not uncommon for independent films to bring on the supervisor at the start of shooting or not hire a supervisor and turn all the footage over in post to a vfx company. This usually turns out to be a costly mistake.
This loses any possibility of taken advantage of the experience of the supervisor to help design the shots. It loses the ability of the supervisor to flag potential ways to save on location shooting or set building. There's no prep available at that stage and no planning so the likelihood of getting the best footage for vfx is lower.
Bringing footage to a vfx company with no supervision is like bringing a cassette recording someone happened to record during filming to a sound mixing company. It may have seemed like a money saving approach not to hire a professional sound recorder to be on the set but the result is a likely to be a very expensive and time consuming ADR process that would have more than paid to have the correct person there to begin with.
The DP may have done a VFX project a few years before or the director may have watched the making of segment of a DVD but neither of these can make up for the expertise and experience a good vfx supervisor brings to make sure the film is shot correct for the vfx required.
End result: you've just spent far more than a supervisor would have cost to begin with. And you will have lost much bang for your buck.
5. Hire the right supervisor for the project
That means meeting with 3 or 4 supervisors. The supervisor will likely be involved longer than either the DP or the Production Designer since the VFX work starts in pre-production and goes all the way to the release print. On a vfx heavy project do you really want to select someone that will be that involved based only on a resume? The studio may want to make this decision but the director and producer should certainly both be involved as is likely in the other key roles.
You want someone that can speak to as a creative lead and won't need a technical translator. You'll want someone you can trust with your vision and getting it done.
Some directors have a fear the vfx supervisor is going to be doing their own thing. The vfx supervisors are there to serve the director and the story - same as the other creative keys. The other fear at times for a new director is to work with 'old timers' who have real world experience. This can also apply to their view of DPs and Production Designers as well. As a result they hire someone relatively new like themselves who like the same band or football team. Tip: Hire the best people you can.
When reviewing the resume it's worth noting the supervisor credits more than simply the number of films. Are there a variety of projects? Don't get caught up in the notion that the supervisor hasn't done exactly this specific picture before. Realistic versus non-realistic effects plays less of a role here than imagined simply because the same techniques and approaches are used. The only difference is the reference the vfx team is trying to match to. A good supervisor is flexible. On the flip side I wouldn't suggest a commercials supervisor for a 1500 shot feature film or visa versa. In these cases it's a much different beast with different creative workflow, schedules, budgets and approaches.
A vfx supervisor assigned by a vfx company may be based more on contracts or budgets than who is right for the project. One other issue with company supervisors is they find themselves trying to please the director on the one hand and on the other being pushed by the company to sell the shots as finaled. It's not an easy position.
6. Minimize ‘fix-it’ shots
Most films these days require some amount of vfx or post work to fix a shot or two. A boom mic in the shot or blurring out a sign that didn't get cleared by the lawyers. However the effort should be made to keep these down. If the supervisor or vfx producer suggested adding $2 million dollars for fix it shots the executives would think they were crazy. And yet that has happened and continues to happen. Make sure to occasionally check the dailies at high resolution (film or HD) on a big screen. The use of Avids means that that wig netting, makeup issue or other small problems are missed until late in post-production. The extra 5 or 10 minutes to finish the makeup or other fixes o nset can save enormously in post.
7. Shoot efficiently - no more, no less
During filming of vfx scenes the supervisor will likely need to get measurements and references. The vfx crew will be prepped to do this as quickly as possible. The supervisor knows how much it costs to shoot on the set but the loss of information on the set would mean a large increase in the time and money to the shot later and more importantly could jeopardize the quality. These will be the balance the supervisor will have to determine during shooting. And just as a stunt coordinator will flag a dangerous stunt or a DP will flag an expensive setup, the supervisor may do the same. You've hired them for their expertise so you should take advantage of it.
8. Budget time and money - production versus effects
Productions frequently deal with the live action budget differently than the vfx budget. This disparity in views and accounting can cause problems. If a big set doesn't need to be built because it's determined vfx will be doing it as a post effect, it can be difficult to move the allocated budget to vfx. This can also be a issue going the other way.
The other problem here is that to save live action time and money entire shots or sequences may be pushed onto vfx during shooting. That's fine if the time and budget can expand to accommodate it but frequently the budget doesn't move to vfx and the post-production time is likely to already be too short.
9. Techniques
It's easy to get caught up in discussions of physical models versus computer models or other issues but most vfx shots can be done using multiple techniques. Which one is very dependent on the particular film and what its requirements are. Rather than force a specific technique to work on a project it's usually best to select the most appropriate one and modify as needed.
10. Avoid having too many vfx companies
A frequent approach to saving money is to parcel the work out to multiple companies. Likely also due to time schedules. This can all make sense when selecting specialized companies but at a certain point it provides diminishing returns and can even cost more.
Just as it's useful at times to visit a couple of food markets to get the best deals and products, if you were to visit a dozen it's likely the extra gas and time would exceed any savings. The extra communication issues, mistakes and entanglement of shots can be problematic if the distribution of shots and the number of companies involved exceed a natural threshold.
11. Schedule the time accordingly
If a production really wishes to save money they may want to work with the vfx companies to determine a realistic time schedule. There is a tendency to try to squeeze this time shorter and shorter but the increased overtime pay (with no improvement to quality) means that you end up paying more for less, even from a lower priced vfx company.
12. Decisions
As with other departments, vfx requires a number of decisions. It's likely vfx will require even more decisions due to the flexibility and scope. However it's a myth to think that all vfx decisions can and will be done in post-production. Decisions on designs (such as creatures or virtual environments) have to be locked into in pre-production to insure that the work will be done. Delaying these types of major decisions until post means compromising all the original photography since there is no locked plan. Any design work will then be necessary to squeeze in the limited post-production schedule at full and overtime rates.
13. Changes
Changes are natural in the creative world of filmmaking. Frequently small changes in vfx can be accommodated very easily. However be aware that large changes are no different than changes in live action. If you’re on location and choose to shoot in a direction where no set has been built then that will likely be a costly new set. The fact that it may be done on the computer doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a lot faster and cheaper to change. If you’ve shot an entire sequence and have made a major change in the edit this may need a large reshoot (or in the case of vfx, may need tossing out a lot of work and starting all over again) The cost could well exceed the cost of a reshoot of a sequence.
(Posting written with Notes To Store for the iPad)
Update: I can't believe there are still student films that put up postings for vfx artists to work for free on something they already shot. (Just check craigslist.org any day of the week) I guess ignorance starts early. Hello. Pre-planning is even more critical when there's little or no budget. You could have made a great effect efficiently but instead chose to see if someone could take the bits you shot and make something with it.
If you were to ask most directors, producers and studios how to get the most out of their VFX budget the knee jerk reaction would be to hire the cheapest VFX company they could find. If you planned to build an elaborate house and invest a lot of time and money into it would you really want to choose the cheapest contractor who hired the cheapest workers and used the cheapest supplies?
Well no, they'd say they wanted something good enough.
This is all false economy. In an effort to save money it's not unusual for the final results to not only cost more but to look poorer.
Work smarter, not 'cheaper'.
It's not unusual in a major vfx movie to see enough money wasted to make up the difference of cheap to good vfx and those involved in the decisions rarely realize that.
Newsflash: Each vfx company, each VFX artist, and each VFX supervisor is different and will make a thousand different creative and technical decisions than one another. The concept that any place will do the same work and achieve the exact same final results is misguided at best. VFX does not produce a standard product. There is no commodity to be sold by the lowest priced distributor.
Rather than approach the issue as if it were simply a matter of where to buy the cheapest product the real question is how to get the most of whatever money and time is available.
In order to do this one of the key factors is to look at VFX as another department in the film making process. Treating it as a 3rd party process separate from the rest of the project only hurts the process.
If VFX were approached like live action there can be a number of advantages in terms of making decisions.
1. Figure out the shots needed to tell the story. Decide on the priority of the shots.
Look at each vfx shot as the equivalent of a whole new setup on a live action shoot. There's time and money involved for each shot. In some cases the shot may be the same as moving the entire film company to another location. Make sure the shot will be worth it.
If you're working on a graphic novel you only have so many pages and panels available so you make the most of each one. Approaching VFX this same way will trim some of the potential excess shots.
Example: 2 people talking while crossing the street will likely require 4 shots- wide, establishing - a 2 shot and a shot of each actor. Replacing one of the actors with a CG character or replacing the background should not require a dozen shots of zipping cranes, ant view shots, shots from the 42nd floor window, etc.
There will be times when it may be worth turning a scene into a visual feast and times when it's not necessary. Money and time will always be limited so choose when it's worth it.
2. Design the shots so they work with the rest of the film and make sure they tell the necessary story for that shot
If there is a gag or some action that needs to be shown to the audience then make sure the correct camera angle and timing are used. This would seem to be obvious but there are times where other angles and camera motions are selected that completely lose the reason for the shot. That's a wasted VFX shot. A shot that should have had a lot of power visually and narratively was turned into filler material and whistles right by the audience.
Example: If you wanted a shot of a literally flat character you wouldn't shoot the character straight on where the effect would be lost. A 3/4 view where the motion and twisting of the character makes their flatness obvious would be a much better choice.
If you had a skilled action choreographer such as Jackie Chan you'd want to avoid the shaky cam, quick cut, random angle editing that make up some action sequences. You'd need the audience to see the setup and the action clearly to make the most of it.
A good visual effects supervisor will work with you to design the shots for the most impact.
Some directors leave the design of big vfx sequences to their 2nd unit director. This only works if the director is part of the design process since the 2nd unit director will not be part of the post-production (unless they're also the vfx supervisor).
3. Use storyboards for your main VFX shots
For standard live action it's possible to shoot a film without storyboards but if there's any complex shots that require pre-planning then storyboards are a must. Storyboards are used to communicate visually. The director is able to make it clear what they want by a simple storyboard. Stunts, special effects, visual effects and the rest of the team now have an understanding of what's desired. Miscommunication is a very costly mistake. VFX also uses the storyboards as a method to budget. Without them the shot may be budgeted higher than it should be or lower than it should be. Any errors in the budget need to be avoided, especially if the budget is tight.
Concept design of what new creatures, worlds or other new imagery will have to be done to allow the team to know what the final target is to look like.
More complex scenes can be prevised to capture the timing and action in more detail than a storyboard can convey. Just know the level required for the previs to avoid tweaking them beyond what's necessary.
4. Hire a good vfx supervisor early in pre-production.
To save money it's not uncommon for independent films to bring on the supervisor at the start of shooting or not hire a supervisor and turn all the footage over in post to a vfx company. This usually turns out to be a costly mistake.
This loses any possibility of taken advantage of the experience of the supervisor to help design the shots. It loses the ability of the supervisor to flag potential ways to save on location shooting or set building. There's no prep available at that stage and no planning so the likelihood of getting the best footage for vfx is lower.
Bringing footage to a vfx company with no supervision is like bringing a cassette recording someone happened to record during filming to a sound mixing company. It may have seemed like a money saving approach not to hire a professional sound recorder to be on the set but the result is a likely to be a very expensive and time consuming ADR process that would have more than paid to have the correct person there to begin with.
The DP may have done a VFX project a few years before or the director may have watched the making of segment of a DVD but neither of these can make up for the expertise and experience a good vfx supervisor brings to make sure the film is shot correct for the vfx required.
End result: you've just spent far more than a supervisor would have cost to begin with. And you will have lost much bang for your buck.
5. Hire the right supervisor for the project
That means meeting with 3 or 4 supervisors. The supervisor will likely be involved longer than either the DP or the Production Designer since the VFX work starts in pre-production and goes all the way to the release print. On a vfx heavy project do you really want to select someone that will be that involved based only on a resume? The studio may want to make this decision but the director and producer should certainly both be involved as is likely in the other key roles.
You want someone that can speak to as a creative lead and won't need a technical translator. You'll want someone you can trust with your vision and getting it done.
Some directors have a fear the vfx supervisor is going to be doing their own thing. The vfx supervisors are there to serve the director and the story - same as the other creative keys. The other fear at times for a new director is to work with 'old timers' who have real world experience. This can also apply to their view of DPs and Production Designers as well. As a result they hire someone relatively new like themselves who like the same band or football team. Tip: Hire the best people you can.
When reviewing the resume it's worth noting the supervisor credits more than simply the number of films. Are there a variety of projects? Don't get caught up in the notion that the supervisor hasn't done exactly this specific picture before. Realistic versus non-realistic effects plays less of a role here than imagined simply because the same techniques and approaches are used. The only difference is the reference the vfx team is trying to match to. A good supervisor is flexible. On the flip side I wouldn't suggest a commercials supervisor for a 1500 shot feature film or visa versa. In these cases it's a much different beast with different creative workflow, schedules, budgets and approaches.
A vfx supervisor assigned by a vfx company may be based more on contracts or budgets than who is right for the project. One other issue with company supervisors is they find themselves trying to please the director on the one hand and on the other being pushed by the company to sell the shots as finaled. It's not an easy position.
6. Minimize ‘fix-it’ shots
Most films these days require some amount of vfx or post work to fix a shot or two. A boom mic in the shot or blurring out a sign that didn't get cleared by the lawyers. However the effort should be made to keep these down. If the supervisor or vfx producer suggested adding $2 million dollars for fix it shots the executives would think they were crazy. And yet that has happened and continues to happen. Make sure to occasionally check the dailies at high resolution (film or HD) on a big screen. The use of Avids means that that wig netting, makeup issue or other small problems are missed until late in post-production. The extra 5 or 10 minutes to finish the makeup or other fixes o nset can save enormously in post.
7. Shoot efficiently - no more, no less
During filming of vfx scenes the supervisor will likely need to get measurements and references. The vfx crew will be prepped to do this as quickly as possible. The supervisor knows how much it costs to shoot on the set but the loss of information on the set would mean a large increase in the time and money to the shot later and more importantly could jeopardize the quality. These will be the balance the supervisor will have to determine during shooting. And just as a stunt coordinator will flag a dangerous stunt or a DP will flag an expensive setup, the supervisor may do the same. You've hired them for their expertise so you should take advantage of it.
8. Budget time and money - production versus effects
Productions frequently deal with the live action budget differently than the vfx budget. This disparity in views and accounting can cause problems. If a big set doesn't need to be built because it's determined vfx will be doing it as a post effect, it can be difficult to move the allocated budget to vfx. This can also be a issue going the other way.
The other problem here is that to save live action time and money entire shots or sequences may be pushed onto vfx during shooting. That's fine if the time and budget can expand to accommodate it but frequently the budget doesn't move to vfx and the post-production time is likely to already be too short.
9. Techniques
It's easy to get caught up in discussions of physical models versus computer models or other issues but most vfx shots can be done using multiple techniques. Which one is very dependent on the particular film and what its requirements are. Rather than force a specific technique to work on a project it's usually best to select the most appropriate one and modify as needed.
10. Avoid having too many vfx companies
A frequent approach to saving money is to parcel the work out to multiple companies. Likely also due to time schedules. This can all make sense when selecting specialized companies but at a certain point it provides diminishing returns and can even cost more.
Just as it's useful at times to visit a couple of food markets to get the best deals and products, if you were to visit a dozen it's likely the extra gas and time would exceed any savings. The extra communication issues, mistakes and entanglement of shots can be problematic if the distribution of shots and the number of companies involved exceed a natural threshold.
11. Schedule the time accordingly
If a production really wishes to save money they may want to work with the vfx companies to determine a realistic time schedule. There is a tendency to try to squeeze this time shorter and shorter but the increased overtime pay (with no improvement to quality) means that you end up paying more for less, even from a lower priced vfx company.
12. Decisions
As with other departments, vfx requires a number of decisions. It's likely vfx will require even more decisions due to the flexibility and scope. However it's a myth to think that all vfx decisions can and will be done in post-production. Decisions on designs (such as creatures or virtual environments) have to be locked into in pre-production to insure that the work will be done. Delaying these types of major decisions until post means compromising all the original photography since there is no locked plan. Any design work will then be necessary to squeeze in the limited post-production schedule at full and overtime rates.
13. Changes
Changes are natural in the creative world of filmmaking. Frequently small changes in vfx can be accommodated very easily. However be aware that large changes are no different than changes in live action. If you’re on location and choose to shoot in a direction where no set has been built then that will likely be a costly new set. The fact that it may be done on the computer doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a lot faster and cheaper to change. If you’ve shot an entire sequence and have made a major change in the edit this may need a large reshoot (or in the case of vfx, may need tossing out a lot of work and starting all over again) The cost could well exceed the cost of a reshoot of a sequence.
(Posting written with Notes To Store for the iPad)
Update: I can't believe there are still student films that put up postings for vfx artists to work for free on something they already shot. (Just check craigslist.org any day of the week) I guess ignorance starts early. Hello. Pre-planning is even more critical when there's little or no budget. You could have made a great effect efficiently but instead chose to see if someone could take the bits you shot and make something with it.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Science of Magic and Illusion
Wired magazine takes a look at the science of magic. (thanks to Eric Alba http://twitter.com/alba for mentioning it)
Click the title or use the link below:
Magic and Illusion
Many people think realistic vfx are much more difficult to pull off but in fact they can be easier because as pointed out, people don't tend to focus on anything except what's in the spotlight. The audience will easily accept something as being real if it's not fixated on and if it's a common thing. You can do a matte painting of a house along a street and you can do the same thing of a very abstract haunted house centered in frame. The quality of painting, lighting and compositing could be exactly the same but the audience will readily accept and even ignore the house matte painting. It's not calling attention to itself and since they've seen plenty of house they don't bother looking it over. The haunted house, especially if it's centered in frame and the full focus of the shot, will tend to be deemed as a VFX even if it were really built on the location. It's much harder to sell the audience on this since they have to suspend disbelief.
Even harder are things like dragons and other vfx that the audience knows are not real. Their subconscious knows it's not real but they readily accept all the other non-real things in a movie (dialog, actors, sets, etc) because those 'could' all be real.
Of course there are other things that can make realistic effects easier - you have a real reference(s) to the real item. By comparing photos or video there's no discussion needed about what it should look like and how each person imagines it. You have a direct reference to copy. It may take some work technically but you know once you've duplicated the elements that make up that image the audience will likely accept it.
Click the title or use the link below:
Magic and Illusion
Many people think realistic vfx are much more difficult to pull off but in fact they can be easier because as pointed out, people don't tend to focus on anything except what's in the spotlight. The audience will easily accept something as being real if it's not fixated on and if it's a common thing. You can do a matte painting of a house along a street and you can do the same thing of a very abstract haunted house centered in frame. The quality of painting, lighting and compositing could be exactly the same but the audience will readily accept and even ignore the house matte painting. It's not calling attention to itself and since they've seen plenty of house they don't bother looking it over. The haunted house, especially if it's centered in frame and the full focus of the shot, will tend to be deemed as a VFX even if it were really built on the location. It's much harder to sell the audience on this since they have to suspend disbelief.
Even harder are things like dragons and other vfx that the audience knows are not real. Their subconscious knows it's not real but they readily accept all the other non-real things in a movie (dialog, actors, sets, etc) because those 'could' all be real.
Of course there are other things that can make realistic effects easier - you have a real reference(s) to the real item. By comparing photos or video there's no discussion needed about what it should look like and how each person imagines it. You have a direct reference to copy. It may take some work technically but you know once you've duplicated the elements that make up that image the audience will likely accept it.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Designing Visual Effect Shots
Designing Visual Effect Shots, Part 1
(This posting started getting very long and cover a lot so I’m breaking it into smaller postings. I’ll get into more specific details in future postings.)
The success of a Visual Effects shot is not only dependent on the technical aspects of the shot but also the creative aspects. It all starts with the initial shot design.
A well designed visual effects shot will have impact and help to tell the story clearly. A poorly designed shot may confuse the audience and at the very least will squander an opportunity. A poorly designed shot can actually cost more if the studio or director decides in the edit stage that it’s just not working. At that point the shot could be re-shot with a better design (unlikely) or many attempts will be made to fix the shot in post without a clear understanding of the problem.
Note that the design criteria for visual effects versus normal live action shots are primarily the same. The differences with visual effects shots are:
1. Usually the entire visual effects shot is not visible or apparent at the time of shooting. Images will be added later or the existing image will be modified. This requires pre-planning. A live action shot is usually working or not working on the set. If a camera angle makes a stunt look boring then they’ll know that when reviewing the video on set.
2. On live action the Director of Photography and Camera Operator are focused on the look of the shot in addition the director. The director respects their opinion. With visual effects the director and a storyboard artist may have designed the initial shots before the visual effects people are even hired. How much influence the visual effects supervisor and his team have on shot design depends greatly on the director and how much respect they have for the visual effects process. The better directors understand this and take advantage of the visual effects team.
3. Visual effects sometimes deal with design issues that don’t come up directly in live action. How to show the scale of smooth object floating in space? How to transform this paperweight into a creature?
4. Visual effects can be much more limitless. With live action you have set and equipment restrictions which may prevent you from doing certain types of things. A visual effects shot can have more freedom of action, movement of camera and lighting effects.
5. Visual effects can require a deft hand of design and editing just as a comedy sequence requires some finesse of timing, angles and specific phrasing.
Spider
Below are some of the many issues to keep in mind when designing a visual effects shot. These aren’t rules, just a set of suggestions.
Does the shot help to tell the story?
This should be a fundamental of any shot or scene in a film, whether live action or visual effects. Sometimes visual effects are only used as eye candy. The director wants to wow the audience with a car crash, explosion or a visual effects shot. If that can be done and still work to tell the story then that’s great. If it’s only purpose is eye candy to wow the audience then it may be a lost cause.
Audiences these days have seen a lot visuals between films, tv, video games and the internet. They’ve come to expect something new and different. Visual Effects are not as special and magical as they once were to the audience. There was a wow factor in the early days of computer graphics when things were new. It becoming more difficult to find techniques that provide the wow factor. Shot design is a major factor to making the wow factor even using standard techniques. As a case in point, THE MATRIX used ‘bullet’ time and most people thought this was the first use of it. There had already been at least one movie with the same effect (LOST IN SPACE) and a few commercials but the combination of art direction and design combined with the story made an impact.
Even in the early 80’s people thought much of what they saw was computer graphics. A number of visual effects commercials were designed to look like computer graphics even though many of these were done by traditional animation techniques. Logos would fly through the air with metallic glints. These were all done with a number of pieces of artwork and passes on an animation stand. For ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK at Dream Quest we used physical models of building painted black with white lines.
What is the point the shot has to make?
Maybe it’s to establish a castle or to show a creature emerging from a box. Whatever the reason it’s important to keep that in mind throughout the process. Given the length of time from the initial design to the completed final, the shot can veer off course quite a bit.
At the time of shooting someone may have a ‘better’ idea. Why don’t we frame it like this? Why are we wasting all of that frame area there? This is when the visual effects supervisor has to remind them that the empty area on the side will hold a creature in the final shot. Another reason why storyboards are essential is to provide a clear visual of the final shot. More likely it will be a subtle change that will have a big impact later. (Let’s put this prop here, lets add a real explosion in the foreground.)
In post production the editor may want to reframe the shot or use a different element entirely. The compositor may put in more smoke in the foreground. Everyone involved in the shot (director, supervisor, animator, technical director, etc) are likely to be focused on the details and lose sight of the purpose of the shot. In an attempt to make the shot even ‘cooler’ you lose the focus of the shot. It’s only when it’s cut in will the real problem become obvious again. The reason for the shot may now be so obscured that the audience will be confused and lost. If that’s the case it throws them out of the movie. Try to always review the shot in context and take a step back to check the intent of the shot.
Does the shot fit in the movie? Does it fit into the sequence?
Unless it’s a specific dream sequence, most visual effects shots are supposed to blend into the rest of the film. This is true whether it’s a period piece or a science fiction future thriller. The design of the shots, the camera motion and the lighting should match the live action. If you have a hand held action sequence and cut to a locked off visual effects shot, then it will stand out.
My suggestion to directors is to design the shots as if everything is really there. How would you frame and shoot this in live action? There’s a tendency to treat the design of even simple visual effects as different than the rest of the film. “We’re paying for the shot and by gosh we’re going to show it off” is sometimes the approach taken. If it’s a real building they might frame it from a ¾ angle and not make a big deal of it. If it’s a matte painted building then it’s likely to be designed to be shot straight on with clouds added to the sky. All of those are clues to the audience that something about the shot isn’t right.
It’s possible for a disconnect to happen since the director usually sits down with a storyboard artist months before shooting. These shot designs may be a different aesthetic than how the director of photography approaches the live action. The director is involved with both teams but there are thousands of choices to be made that may place them out of sync. There may be times a second unit director is approaching the shots differently than the main director. Sometimes in post the director realizes he can change a lot, especially on a virtual shot Focusing on a hand full of shots may cause them to shift away from the rest of the film.
Adjust the design of the shots based on their context and what they’re supposed to accomplish. If they’re supposed to be realistic backgrounds then all the more reason to fit them into the rest of the movie and avoid drawing attention to them. Once again, how would you treat this if it really existed? If it’s a dramatic effect then design the shot to take advantage of that and push it within context of the film.
(more design posts to come)
(This posting started getting very long and cover a lot so I’m breaking it into smaller postings. I’ll get into more specific details in future postings.)
The success of a Visual Effects shot is not only dependent on the technical aspects of the shot but also the creative aspects. It all starts with the initial shot design.
A well designed visual effects shot will have impact and help to tell the story clearly. A poorly designed shot may confuse the audience and at the very least will squander an opportunity. A poorly designed shot can actually cost more if the studio or director decides in the edit stage that it’s just not working. At that point the shot could be re-shot with a better design (unlikely) or many attempts will be made to fix the shot in post without a clear understanding of the problem.
Note that the design criteria for visual effects versus normal live action shots are primarily the same. The differences with visual effects shots are:
1. Usually the entire visual effects shot is not visible or apparent at the time of shooting. Images will be added later or the existing image will be modified. This requires pre-planning. A live action shot is usually working or not working on the set. If a camera angle makes a stunt look boring then they’ll know that when reviewing the video on set.
2. On live action the Director of Photography and Camera Operator are focused on the look of the shot in addition the director. The director respects their opinion. With visual effects the director and a storyboard artist may have designed the initial shots before the visual effects people are even hired. How much influence the visual effects supervisor and his team have on shot design depends greatly on the director and how much respect they have for the visual effects process. The better directors understand this and take advantage of the visual effects team.
3. Visual effects sometimes deal with design issues that don’t come up directly in live action. How to show the scale of smooth object floating in space? How to transform this paperweight into a creature?
4. Visual effects can be much more limitless. With live action you have set and equipment restrictions which may prevent you from doing certain types of things. A visual effects shot can have more freedom of action, movement of camera and lighting effects.
5. Visual effects can require a deft hand of design and editing just as a comedy sequence requires some finesse of timing, angles and specific phrasing.
Spider
Below are some of the many issues to keep in mind when designing a visual effects shot. These aren’t rules, just a set of suggestions.
Does the shot help to tell the story?
This should be a fundamental of any shot or scene in a film, whether live action or visual effects. Sometimes visual effects are only used as eye candy. The director wants to wow the audience with a car crash, explosion or a visual effects shot. If that can be done and still work to tell the story then that’s great. If it’s only purpose is eye candy to wow the audience then it may be a lost cause.
Audiences these days have seen a lot visuals between films, tv, video games and the internet. They’ve come to expect something new and different. Visual Effects are not as special and magical as they once were to the audience. There was a wow factor in the early days of computer graphics when things were new. It becoming more difficult to find techniques that provide the wow factor. Shot design is a major factor to making the wow factor even using standard techniques. As a case in point, THE MATRIX used ‘bullet’ time and most people thought this was the first use of it. There had already been at least one movie with the same effect (LOST IN SPACE) and a few commercials but the combination of art direction and design combined with the story made an impact.
Even in the early 80’s people thought much of what they saw was computer graphics. A number of visual effects commercials were designed to look like computer graphics even though many of these were done by traditional animation techniques. Logos would fly through the air with metallic glints. These were all done with a number of pieces of artwork and passes on an animation stand. For ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK at Dream Quest we used physical models of building painted black with white lines.
What is the point the shot has to make?
Maybe it’s to establish a castle or to show a creature emerging from a box. Whatever the reason it’s important to keep that in mind throughout the process. Given the length of time from the initial design to the completed final, the shot can veer off course quite a bit.
At the time of shooting someone may have a ‘better’ idea. Why don’t we frame it like this? Why are we wasting all of that frame area there? This is when the visual effects supervisor has to remind them that the empty area on the side will hold a creature in the final shot. Another reason why storyboards are essential is to provide a clear visual of the final shot. More likely it will be a subtle change that will have a big impact later. (Let’s put this prop here, lets add a real explosion in the foreground.)
In post production the editor may want to reframe the shot or use a different element entirely. The compositor may put in more smoke in the foreground. Everyone involved in the shot (director, supervisor, animator, technical director, etc) are likely to be focused on the details and lose sight of the purpose of the shot. In an attempt to make the shot even ‘cooler’ you lose the focus of the shot. It’s only when it’s cut in will the real problem become obvious again. The reason for the shot may now be so obscured that the audience will be confused and lost. If that’s the case it throws them out of the movie. Try to always review the shot in context and take a step back to check the intent of the shot.
Does the shot fit in the movie? Does it fit into the sequence?
Unless it’s a specific dream sequence, most visual effects shots are supposed to blend into the rest of the film. This is true whether it’s a period piece or a science fiction future thriller. The design of the shots, the camera motion and the lighting should match the live action. If you have a hand held action sequence and cut to a locked off visual effects shot, then it will stand out.
My suggestion to directors is to design the shots as if everything is really there. How would you frame and shoot this in live action? There’s a tendency to treat the design of even simple visual effects as different than the rest of the film. “We’re paying for the shot and by gosh we’re going to show it off” is sometimes the approach taken. If it’s a real building they might frame it from a ¾ angle and not make a big deal of it. If it’s a matte painted building then it’s likely to be designed to be shot straight on with clouds added to the sky. All of those are clues to the audience that something about the shot isn’t right.
It’s possible for a disconnect to happen since the director usually sits down with a storyboard artist months before shooting. These shot designs may be a different aesthetic than how the director of photography approaches the live action. The director is involved with both teams but there are thousands of choices to be made that may place them out of sync. There may be times a second unit director is approaching the shots differently than the main director. Sometimes in post the director realizes he can change a lot, especially on a virtual shot Focusing on a hand full of shots may cause them to shift away from the rest of the film.
Adjust the design of the shots based on their context and what they’re supposed to accomplish. If they’re supposed to be realistic backgrounds then all the more reason to fit them into the rest of the movie and avoid drawing attention to them. Once again, how would you treat this if it really existed? If it’s a dramatic effect then design the shot to take advantage of that and push it within context of the film.
(more design posts to come)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Photo Real and Realism in Visual Effects
At the start of most projects every director requests their shots be photo real
What does Photo Real mean? Are realistic vfx shots a lot more difficult than fantasy shots?
Photo Real means to create a shot that looks as real or true to life as it possibly can. It can mean that the visual effect is so totally convincing that the audience doesn’t see it. Another term for this is Invisible effects.
The lighting, textures, detail and compositing try to mimic a scene that the audience will think is real. To do this the visual effects supervisor shoots as much reference as possible when shooting the plates (live action footage that will be augmented or modified with visual effects). This may mean filmining a physical prop in the same lighting and setup. The clock in The Mask and a piece of fur for Van Helsing were photographed for the TDs (Technical Directors) to use as a look and lighting reference.
As much information is recorded at the time of photography as possible. This includes lighting diagrams, measurements of the set, camera and lens information as well as filming of the chrome and gray spheres.
All the vfx artists that work on the shot will have access to that material and be able to use it directly as well as to use it as a comparison. From this they try to create and integrate the images as much as possible.
The visual effects animator may film or obtain reference footage of people or animals moving to use as a guide, even if it’s a fictional creature.
The trouble is you may not even be creating a shot that will ever be believed.
No matter how well the animator, TD and compositor do their job if the script calls for a pink feathered whale in the sky it still won’t be considered Photo Real by the audience. There’s nothing wrong with creating shots like this since that’s the requirements for the film. The vfx artists try to add as much of real life as they can into shots like this to give it a more solid foundation. This may mean moving the whale slowly and adding in a haze layer to set the scale.
This leads to our second question regarding the difficulty of creating realistic effects.
There’s the impression that realistic effects are very difficult and much harder than shots dealing with fantasy or science fiction. Yes, realistic effects are difficult when you’re trying to create something very complex such as a held close-up of a human, moving cloth or flowing hair. But the difficulties of a shot are usually more dependent on the specific shot and less on the context of the content.
Let’s consider an effects shot: a man on crutches coming toward camera and is missing one leg. The audience will easily accept the man missing part of his leg, especially if it’s an unknown actor. The audience knows this could be real and doesn’t require a suspension of disbelief. Now consider the same shot but instead of missing the leg this man is missing his head. The headless man however doesn’t exist in real life so the audience instantly knows it not real. It will be in the back of their minds no matter how well the vfx are done. A large part of the reality of a shot is based on the perception from the viewer. From a difficulty level these are similar and use the same techniques. The headless man is probably more difficult because you have to create and track the inside of the collar.
Suspension of disbelief plays a large role in film. To some degree everything is a bit unreal in film. The basic story is a fabrication and the dialogue is hand crafted. The director of photography doesn’t necessarily match real life. He lights it to go for a specific style and to make it cinematic. Note that this can be a real problem when you’re trying to match greenscreen people with real outdoor backgrounds). Stunt people rig ramps to make cars spiral in mid-air. Not necessarily real, but certainly visually exciting (cinematic). This is the same thing with the winged spaceships and hearing explosions in the Star Wars films. Not real but cinematic.
Hopefully the story will keep the audience engaged and there will be nothing to force the audience to fixate on the effect. Anytime you give the audience a reason to suspect something, they will find it. You could have a real shot and if the audience thinks something has been added they’ll happily point out several things that are wrong with the shot. A real shot can seem fake under the certain circumstances.
People think since something exists and they know what it looks like they could certainly judge the quality. The reality is most of these effects when correctly deigned pass by audience members unless they’re very poorly done or there’s something to arouse their suspicion.
If you have a matte painting of a stylized or haunted house and center it in frame as the only thing in the shot then it’s going to be suspect. If you add a matte painting of a normal house to fill in a vacant lot on a street and then have the actors in the foreground the audience is unlikely to think about the matte painted house, especially if it doesn’t play a promenant role. Most people think a matte painting has to be super detailed but the primary issue with matte paintings is to get the lighting and perspective right.
The advantage of creating something real is you have reference of the real object or creature to constantly compare to while working on the shot. It may take a lot work to get your CG model or other items to match the real thing but you always know how close your are and where it falls short.
With imaginary shots there are frequently doubts and changes to the design since you don’t have anything to compare to. Some people think the creature should move it’s arms in one way and another group thinks it should move them in a different way. The director may switch his/her thoughts as well. A real reference gives everyone something to lock into.
If you recreate one of the NASA rocket shots now you have reference to the original material and people will accept it. They may know that you created it but it won’t remove them from the movie. If you showed the same footage 50 years ago people wouldn’t accept it as real since they had nothing to relate to.
Old movies had shots done on stage sets that were supposed to be outside. People in cars were placed in front of a rear projection screens. By today’s standards those shots don’t hold up as well because we have a different level of realism in films. It’s not that people at that time thought they were real, it’s that they accepted it much as a theater audience accepts a stage play in front of single sheet sets.
This also applies to camera moves. If you move around a model like a helicopter then the audience will accept it more than if it’s totally static from 1000 feet up or if it moves a mile in 2 seconds. The director may have wanted a photo real effect but in the effort to spice it up by moving the camera faster and further than it could in real life, you destroy the illusion of reality you had created. If you zoom out to space and then back down thousands of miles away like on Google earth then that a style decision but not one that will help the feeling of realism.
The ‘though the engine’ shots in Fast and Furious or the slit-scan shots from 2001 are pure stylized shots. They may have had a high tolerance as to what they looked like but they would still require a fair bit of effort to make work.
Some directors want to try to convince the audience that something is real by focusing on the effect and doing what they can to show it off. In the headless man shot they want the camera to fly around the man and then down through the collar to prove that there’s nothing there. This is like the magician that moves the hoops over the levitated assistant floating over the floor. But the difference is most of the time the visual effects are used to tell the story. By trying to convince the audience the shot may actually come across as more fake.
In summary, the vfx artist tries to make every shot as real as possible. In some cases that may not be possible due to the subject matter itself and in other cases may just be a style choice. Creating invisible effects is usually more dependent on the subject matter and the design of the shot than the execution difficulty.
What does Photo Real mean? Are realistic vfx shots a lot more difficult than fantasy shots?
Photo Real means to create a shot that looks as real or true to life as it possibly can. It can mean that the visual effect is so totally convincing that the audience doesn’t see it. Another term for this is Invisible effects.
The lighting, textures, detail and compositing try to mimic a scene that the audience will think is real. To do this the visual effects supervisor shoots as much reference as possible when shooting the plates (live action footage that will be augmented or modified with visual effects). This may mean filmining a physical prop in the same lighting and setup. The clock in The Mask and a piece of fur for Van Helsing were photographed for the TDs (Technical Directors) to use as a look and lighting reference.
As much information is recorded at the time of photography as possible. This includes lighting diagrams, measurements of the set, camera and lens information as well as filming of the chrome and gray spheres.
All the vfx artists that work on the shot will have access to that material and be able to use it directly as well as to use it as a comparison. From this they try to create and integrate the images as much as possible.
The visual effects animator may film or obtain reference footage of people or animals moving to use as a guide, even if it’s a fictional creature.
The trouble is you may not even be creating a shot that will ever be believed.
No matter how well the animator, TD and compositor do their job if the script calls for a pink feathered whale in the sky it still won’t be considered Photo Real by the audience. There’s nothing wrong with creating shots like this since that’s the requirements for the film. The vfx artists try to add as much of real life as they can into shots like this to give it a more solid foundation. This may mean moving the whale slowly and adding in a haze layer to set the scale.
This leads to our second question regarding the difficulty of creating realistic effects.
There’s the impression that realistic effects are very difficult and much harder than shots dealing with fantasy or science fiction. Yes, realistic effects are difficult when you’re trying to create something very complex such as a held close-up of a human, moving cloth or flowing hair. But the difficulties of a shot are usually more dependent on the specific shot and less on the context of the content.
Let’s consider an effects shot: a man on crutches coming toward camera and is missing one leg. The audience will easily accept the man missing part of his leg, especially if it’s an unknown actor. The audience knows this could be real and doesn’t require a suspension of disbelief. Now consider the same shot but instead of missing the leg this man is missing his head. The headless man however doesn’t exist in real life so the audience instantly knows it not real. It will be in the back of their minds no matter how well the vfx are done. A large part of the reality of a shot is based on the perception from the viewer. From a difficulty level these are similar and use the same techniques. The headless man is probably more difficult because you have to create and track the inside of the collar.
Suspension of disbelief plays a large role in film. To some degree everything is a bit unreal in film. The basic story is a fabrication and the dialogue is hand crafted. The director of photography doesn’t necessarily match real life. He lights it to go for a specific style and to make it cinematic. Note that this can be a real problem when you’re trying to match greenscreen people with real outdoor backgrounds). Stunt people rig ramps to make cars spiral in mid-air. Not necessarily real, but certainly visually exciting (cinematic). This is the same thing with the winged spaceships and hearing explosions in the Star Wars films. Not real but cinematic.
Hopefully the story will keep the audience engaged and there will be nothing to force the audience to fixate on the effect. Anytime you give the audience a reason to suspect something, they will find it. You could have a real shot and if the audience thinks something has been added they’ll happily point out several things that are wrong with the shot. A real shot can seem fake under the certain circumstances.
People think since something exists and they know what it looks like they could certainly judge the quality. The reality is most of these effects when correctly deigned pass by audience members unless they’re very poorly done or there’s something to arouse their suspicion.
If you have a matte painting of a stylized or haunted house and center it in frame as the only thing in the shot then it’s going to be suspect. If you add a matte painting of a normal house to fill in a vacant lot on a street and then have the actors in the foreground the audience is unlikely to think about the matte painted house, especially if it doesn’t play a promenant role. Most people think a matte painting has to be super detailed but the primary issue with matte paintings is to get the lighting and perspective right.
The advantage of creating something real is you have reference of the real object or creature to constantly compare to while working on the shot. It may take a lot work to get your CG model or other items to match the real thing but you always know how close your are and where it falls short.
With imaginary shots there are frequently doubts and changes to the design since you don’t have anything to compare to. Some people think the creature should move it’s arms in one way and another group thinks it should move them in a different way. The director may switch his/her thoughts as well. A real reference gives everyone something to lock into.
If you recreate one of the NASA rocket shots now you have reference to the original material and people will accept it. They may know that you created it but it won’t remove them from the movie. If you showed the same footage 50 years ago people wouldn’t accept it as real since they had nothing to relate to.
Old movies had shots done on stage sets that were supposed to be outside. People in cars were placed in front of a rear projection screens. By today’s standards those shots don’t hold up as well because we have a different level of realism in films. It’s not that people at that time thought they were real, it’s that they accepted it much as a theater audience accepts a stage play in front of single sheet sets.
This also applies to camera moves. If you move around a model like a helicopter then the audience will accept it more than if it’s totally static from 1000 feet up or if it moves a mile in 2 seconds. The director may have wanted a photo real effect but in the effort to spice it up by moving the camera faster and further than it could in real life, you destroy the illusion of reality you had created. If you zoom out to space and then back down thousands of miles away like on Google earth then that a style decision but not one that will help the feeling of realism.
The ‘though the engine’ shots in Fast and Furious or the slit-scan shots from 2001 are pure stylized shots. They may have had a high tolerance as to what they looked like but they would still require a fair bit of effort to make work.
Some directors want to try to convince the audience that something is real by focusing on the effect and doing what they can to show it off. In the headless man shot they want the camera to fly around the man and then down through the collar to prove that there’s nothing there. This is like the magician that moves the hoops over the levitated assistant floating over the floor. But the difference is most of the time the visual effects are used to tell the story. By trying to convince the audience the shot may actually come across as more fake.
In summary, the vfx artist tries to make every shot as real as possible. In some cases that may not be possible due to the subject matter itself and in other cases may just be a style choice. Creating invisible effects is usually more dependent on the subject matter and the design of the shot than the execution difficulty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)