Mike Seymour @ fxguide has written up a great article on Rotoscoping.
It covers the history, the process and the list of the various roto tools available.
I'm glad he spoke to Tom Bertino and Jack Mongovan. Both of them worked in the ILM roto department and there have been countless unsung heros there that did and do fantastic work. Dragonheart is an example of an all roto show. Quite a bit of the successful work you see today has to credit the hard working roto and paint teams. And as pointed out in the article, good roto requires good artists. While roto is considered a starter position it requires real skill and experience to do it well. Many people at ILM continued to work for years in roto because they enjoyed it and did it very well. I can't say enough good things about what they brought to vfx production. Many starting in visual effects now take all of this for granted.
I'm interviewed about Commotion, a roto/paint and compositing tool I developed and that was used around the world until purchased by Pinnacle (and then by Avid)
Links here related to Rotoscoping:
Rotoscoping - Part 1 video
Rotoscoping - Part 2 video
Rotoscoping Hair article
In real production:
Walking pants breakdown - Part 1 video (approaching a vfx sequence)
Walking pants breakdown - Part 2 video (actually rotoing and compositing)
Commotion article (I'll try to expand this in more detail in the future)
I've gotten many emails and tweets about restarting Commotion since there's still a lack of some of the tools and techniques that Commotion had over 15 years ago. As flattering as it is I'd probably prefer to focus on new challenges. Thank you.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Working directly for the studios
Working directly for the studios
Joe Harkin, Dave Rand and David Stripinis have all expressed a potential solution to some of the problems in today’s vfx industry by having vfx artists working directly for the studios on projects. David Stripinis excellent article goes into more details.
I covered some of this in my VFX Business Models post.
The idealized version goes like this:
If vfx workers were employed directly by the studios that would eliminate some of the potential problems and disconnect going through a vfx company. The vfx workers currently can only interact with the vfx company for working issues but much of the power (including scheduling and changes) is out of the vfx company’s control. If vfx workers were directly employed by the studio then there would be a direct connection in terms of costs and schedules, especially for changes. There would be more incentive to make less changes and to stick to schedules.
Because the workers would be part of production the director would interact with them more and would be able to provide feedback sooner, eliminating waste. These would be creative and schedule wins for the workers. Since most post-production (besides vfx) is still here in California then that would mean that most vfx would remain here as well. This eliminates the need for U.S. vfx workers to travel to other countries to keep working and earning a living.
If only it were all true.
Yes, there can be some real advantages to having vfx artists work directly for the studios. And as with everything, there are some disadvantages. And in some cases it may be a case of “Be careful what you wish for”.
A little background
David covered some of the changes in his article. There were other projects besides Star Wars and Close Encounters (Doug Trumbull, vfx supervisor) which setup a team under production to do visual effects. 2001 and I believe Logan’s Run and many other projects done as the studios were closing up their own vfx departments. I worked on Close Encounters out of high school and was part of setting that up. All of us were paid directly by the studio. I was lucky enough to work in just about every department.
After Star Wars, George Lucas decided having a vfx team was a good thing he set in up ILM in Marin with the intent for himself and his friends to use (Spielberg, Coppola, etc) Others from the original Star Wars team (John Dykstra) setup a vfx company called Apogee at the same location and with some of the same equipment.
After Close Encounter wrapped Universal setup a vfx facility called Universal Hartland to do Buck Rogers (TV and film projects) and Battlestar Galactica (Apogee had done the original work). A number of us went to work there. The vfx for Star Trek: The Motion Picture was setup at Robert Abels, a commercial production company that did very graphical type of work (7UP, etc). Richard Yuricich, the vfx dp on Close Encounters, called myself and a number of others to come work on that project. When it became apparent a commercial production company may not be the most suited for the vfx, Paramount brought in Doug Trumbull. He re-opened the same industrial building used earlier on Close Encounters and added another building.
At the end of Star Trek, I and five others decided to setup our own company, Dream Quest. Seeing short term facilities being setup and dismantled for each project seemed like a waste. We were able to supply vfx for commercials (CBS, Dodge, Timex, etc) , television (V mini series, Space, Amazing Stories, etc) and features (Blue Thunder, Buckaroo Bonzai, etc.) Depending on the project we might bill based on a given rate for animation camera and motion control stage. This was time and material. Or we may bid on the whole project if we felt confident and there were a limited number of options.
There weren’t a lot of vfx projects at that time but we kept reasonably busy. We also did some work for other vfx companies (matte paintings in Caddy Shack for Apogee, floating balls in E.T. for ILM). You might be doing piece meal work but if you were a mid to large size company you would likely be the vfx company doing the whole movie. And there was usually just 1 full vfx supervisor on a film at that time.
In the pre-digital days if you wanted to start a vfx company you need to have some real equipment, hard work and expertise. Stage space, room to build models, motion control system, animation cameras and optical printers weren’t cheap so you had to make a real commitment. VFX companies weren’t the problem for vfx or vfx workers.
The development of digital was the opening of Pandora’s Box. That created an explosion of vfx companies and competition. It also allowed the work to be done anywhere. There had always been some Hollywood work going to the East coast or to London but those were certainly the exceptions. The need to interact and the needs to ship and view film make those options more awkward in pre-digital era. All of this ushered in at the same time as fixed bids were becoming the new normal. Previously the studios might put out the work to bid but this involved the producer and director. In the digital age each studio now has their own vfx producer which are very involved in where the work is likely to go.
And given the size of the projects the shows are frequently broken up and sent to multiple companies. It’s not unusual to have 12-13 companies. The break up is due to having a short time for post, trying to send to the least expensive company for a given task, sending to the best company for a specific task, and/or to not put all of the studios eggs in one basket. Now each company might have their own vfx supervisor, vfx producer, CG supervisor, animation supervisor, coordinators, etc. So this creates a certain amount of redundant overhead and waste. This has led to an explosion in the number of people in these positions since there are now multiple people holding these same positions on each project. The disadvantage is this dilutes the position of visual effects supervisor and some of the other positions. On a feature film there is only one 1st unit cinematographer and possibly a 2nd unit cinematographer who follows the lead of the 1st. When you have multiple vfx supes and others on a film then the studios start to look at all of these people as being interchangeable.
So now we may have come full circle to look at working directly for the production again, either in whole or part.
Previs
Notice the development of Previs follows a similar path. Some previs is done by the vfx companies themselves but there were also a number of freelance previs artists who were hired directly by the production. In the last few years there have been a number of previs companies setup so the production hires a previs company which in turn hires previs artists. The difference with previs is they normally bill for time and material since it’s clear the number of artists working directly for production. Will they end up going to more of a fixed bid route like vfx companies or can vfx companies work their way back to become more time and materials companies?
Working for the Studios
Below are some of the advantages and disadvantages for the different groups affected if more vfx work was done directly for the studios. I list a number of items as potential which means it’s possible. How likely these things happen depend on the studio, director, producer and situation.
Advantages
Studios/Director/Producer
· Less expensive
No paying for vfx company profit
Potentially less overhead (no need to pay for down time or for people/equipment not in use on project)
· More direct connection to vfx workers
· Can prioritize and schedule work directly
· Can setup near studio or other desired location
· All work focused specifically on their film. No people or equipment being pulled to help on another project.
· VFX supervisor doesn’t have to ‘sell’ work to director based on pressure from vfx company
Workers
· Part of production, not just person in a black box (vfx company)
· Potential to interact with director more
· Potential for working more efficiently (quicker feedback, less changes)
· Potential for union coverage (Studios are already union signatories so covering vfx not as big of jump as vfx companies)
· Employer is both paying the bills and making the profits so it’s a more balanced system. The people you work for have the most to gain from you.
· Potential for profit participation directly or indirectly (health care funding, etc)
· More individual branding. Vfx companies tend to push their brand, not their vfx supervisors or other key people.
vfx companies
· A vfx company could lease out a facility for $x per day/week with profit built in. Less risk. Studio would cover the most expensive and variable cost, labor. Direct connection makes the studios responsible for changes, not the vfx company.
· If the vfx company is simply a lease company then they have potentially less overhead costs during slow times.
Disadvantages
Studios/Director/Producer
· Time required to setup a facility. Pre-production already tight on most productions.
· Preplanning required
· Final vfx cost more of an unknown
· Would have to hire a vfx production manager or facility manager to actually setup and run the vfx facility. Most vfx supervisors and producers these days don’t have the experience of setting up and running a full facility. With the short schedule they’re unlikely to have the time even if they had the ability.
· No historical data on how well a particular team will work (time, money, quality) unless they use same team over multiple projects
· No long term R&D since this would only be for duration of the project. Longer R&D projects and related benefits would not come to fruition except as 3rd party developers.
· Who owns the R&D that is developed on a single project? How is that able to be used on other productions?
· Can’t point finger at vfx company for costs or schedule issues
· Can’t ignore issues of required overtime
Workers
· The director may not actually be any more involved. The director is usually busy with editing, sound mixing and other tasks at the same time as vfx are being done. This is the case even more so with tight post-production schedules. Most edit suites are setup at a studio or nice digs in a nice neighborhood. Typically trying to find large square footage to house vfx workers at a low rate means an industrial building elsewhere in town. This can mean 1 ½ hr drive across town in LA traffic. (Note that in London the main vfx companies and much of the editing is done in Soho so this is already convenient. Property costs must be very high and cause a related rise in overhead costs at such companies.)
· If you work for a company that is able to keep busy then you may not have to worry about looking for the next project and have little down time. Working for the studio directly would mean you were project to project and be forced to be a full freelancer looking for work after each project ends. And the studio isn’t looking to do another vfx project, they’re looking to do their next film project, which may or may not include vfx.
· Even though the studios are already union they are much larger companies than vfx companies and could push even harder back to avoid a vfx union. A number of vfx supervisors are in the camera union but the studios don’t recognize this because there is not an official title of VFX Supervisor in the union contract.
· Even though the studios are now more financially linked to the costs of making changes, the executives and director may feel freer to make changes since there’s no company between them and the people working on the vfx. The vfx company sometimes acts a buffer to some studio demands.
· Saving money on one aspect is not always the highest priority at a studio.
· Not all directors want to spend more time working on the details of the vfx and directors vary on the ability to review in progress takes.
· Nothing prevents the studio from setting up the vfx team anywhere in the world so doesn’t necessarily gain more work balance in LA. (unless an LA director wanted to truly spend more time working with the vfx team)
· Vfx are still very labor intensive. Incentives and lower costs elsewhere are still likely to cause the studio to choose to setup a team elsewhere, even if it might not be the most efficient. If the studio spent as much money on editing and sound mixing as they do vfx, those tasks would probably go to less expensive locations as well.
· If the studio is doing all of the vfx then there will be many vfx company personel that will be out of work including the company vfx supervisors, producers, cg supervisors, etc. since there aren’t enough films to keep all of those people busy.
· Any type of profit participation is extremely unlikely for vfx workers, except as a form of payment into health care insurance.
vfx companies
· Any form of additional competition makes it more difficult, especially competing against a team that works at cost.
· Studios may not be interested in leasing your company
· Switching to a lease type of setup may not be easy and there’s still the issue of making enough profit to cover the overhead during the time between projects.
Reality
In it’s current form the vfx business model works great for the studios. They can send a package of storyboards/previs out to multiple companies throughout the world and get back bids. Since the studios view the vfx as a commodity they can simply pick and choose from a menu. All the companies they’re bidding have been around for a while and most likely already worked for the studio at one point or another so the studios know what they’re getting. The studio can simply select based on the balance of quality, speed, size, dependability and costs among other factors. They’re selecting a known quantity in most cases and are able to validate it to anyone else in the studio.
It may cost a bit more to have it done by a third party but it’s also much less risk. That’s why studios prefer sequels and remakes. It’s also much easier to simply turn over footage to a vfx company and let them deal with the details of artists, hardware, software, and other issues, including the complexity of setting up a facility and pipeline originally. Just like when you need to change the oil in your car. You could do it yourself but you're usually happy to pay someone else to deal with the details and mess rather than hassling with it.
Studios could also setup a longer-term vfx facility to avoid potential waste of starting up another team/facility for each project. The problem then becomes the overhead and the need for long-term commitment. This has been the same for most studio facilities which usually closed after a small number of projects.
Unless there is a very large compelling reason for studios to do the vfx work employing vfx artists directly, it’s unlikely to change except for specific cases.
More things to think about.
-----
Just a note regarding David's mention of the VES. There are a range of different people on the VES board, including hands on people who don't manage others. I know most of us are keenly aware of the plight of the average worker since we're usually side by side with them.
Part of the problem is that:
1. People need to volunteer and sign up to be on the board.
2. Enough people have to be aware of the person to be voted on.
These two things make it difficult for random roto and TD's to get on the board. Hopefully members will vote to balance that out.
Note the same issue will likely happen if a vfx union were to form. Best if there were a requirement for a representative from each main category of workers.
The other thing is the VES is not looking at any group (studios/vfx companies) as the enemy. Each group is trying to do what it thinks is best. All the pieces have to be working together and the VES is trying to find solutions that help balance this out.
Joe Harkin, Dave Rand and David Stripinis have all expressed a potential solution to some of the problems in today’s vfx industry by having vfx artists working directly for the studios on projects. David Stripinis excellent article goes into more details.
I covered some of this in my VFX Business Models post.
The idealized version goes like this:
If vfx workers were employed directly by the studios that would eliminate some of the potential problems and disconnect going through a vfx company. The vfx workers currently can only interact with the vfx company for working issues but much of the power (including scheduling and changes) is out of the vfx company’s control. If vfx workers were directly employed by the studio then there would be a direct connection in terms of costs and schedules, especially for changes. There would be more incentive to make less changes and to stick to schedules.
Because the workers would be part of production the director would interact with them more and would be able to provide feedback sooner, eliminating waste. These would be creative and schedule wins for the workers. Since most post-production (besides vfx) is still here in California then that would mean that most vfx would remain here as well. This eliminates the need for U.S. vfx workers to travel to other countries to keep working and earning a living.
If only it were all true.
Yes, there can be some real advantages to having vfx artists work directly for the studios. And as with everything, there are some disadvantages. And in some cases it may be a case of “Be careful what you wish for”.
A little background
David covered some of the changes in his article. There were other projects besides Star Wars and Close Encounters (Doug Trumbull, vfx supervisor) which setup a team under production to do visual effects. 2001 and I believe Logan’s Run and many other projects done as the studios were closing up their own vfx departments. I worked on Close Encounters out of high school and was part of setting that up. All of us were paid directly by the studio. I was lucky enough to work in just about every department.
After Star Wars, George Lucas decided having a vfx team was a good thing he set in up ILM in Marin with the intent for himself and his friends to use (Spielberg, Coppola, etc) Others from the original Star Wars team (John Dykstra) setup a vfx company called Apogee at the same location and with some of the same equipment.
After Close Encounter wrapped Universal setup a vfx facility called Universal Hartland to do Buck Rogers (TV and film projects) and Battlestar Galactica (Apogee had done the original work). A number of us went to work there. The vfx for Star Trek: The Motion Picture was setup at Robert Abels, a commercial production company that did very graphical type of work (7UP, etc). Richard Yuricich, the vfx dp on Close Encounters, called myself and a number of others to come work on that project. When it became apparent a commercial production company may not be the most suited for the vfx, Paramount brought in Doug Trumbull. He re-opened the same industrial building used earlier on Close Encounters and added another building.
At the end of Star Trek, I and five others decided to setup our own company, Dream Quest. Seeing short term facilities being setup and dismantled for each project seemed like a waste. We were able to supply vfx for commercials (CBS, Dodge, Timex, etc) , television (V mini series, Space, Amazing Stories, etc) and features (Blue Thunder, Buckaroo Bonzai, etc.) Depending on the project we might bill based on a given rate for animation camera and motion control stage. This was time and material. Or we may bid on the whole project if we felt confident and there were a limited number of options.
There weren’t a lot of vfx projects at that time but we kept reasonably busy. We also did some work for other vfx companies (matte paintings in Caddy Shack for Apogee, floating balls in E.T. for ILM). You might be doing piece meal work but if you were a mid to large size company you would likely be the vfx company doing the whole movie. And there was usually just 1 full vfx supervisor on a film at that time.
In the pre-digital days if you wanted to start a vfx company you need to have some real equipment, hard work and expertise. Stage space, room to build models, motion control system, animation cameras and optical printers weren’t cheap so you had to make a real commitment. VFX companies weren’t the problem for vfx or vfx workers.
The development of digital was the opening of Pandora’s Box. That created an explosion of vfx companies and competition. It also allowed the work to be done anywhere. There had always been some Hollywood work going to the East coast or to London but those were certainly the exceptions. The need to interact and the needs to ship and view film make those options more awkward in pre-digital era. All of this ushered in at the same time as fixed bids were becoming the new normal. Previously the studios might put out the work to bid but this involved the producer and director. In the digital age each studio now has their own vfx producer which are very involved in where the work is likely to go.
And given the size of the projects the shows are frequently broken up and sent to multiple companies. It’s not unusual to have 12-13 companies. The break up is due to having a short time for post, trying to send to the least expensive company for a given task, sending to the best company for a specific task, and/or to not put all of the studios eggs in one basket. Now each company might have their own vfx supervisor, vfx producer, CG supervisor, animation supervisor, coordinators, etc. So this creates a certain amount of redundant overhead and waste. This has led to an explosion in the number of people in these positions since there are now multiple people holding these same positions on each project. The disadvantage is this dilutes the position of visual effects supervisor and some of the other positions. On a feature film there is only one 1st unit cinematographer and possibly a 2nd unit cinematographer who follows the lead of the 1st. When you have multiple vfx supes and others on a film then the studios start to look at all of these people as being interchangeable.
So now we may have come full circle to look at working directly for the production again, either in whole or part.
Previs
Notice the development of Previs follows a similar path. Some previs is done by the vfx companies themselves but there were also a number of freelance previs artists who were hired directly by the production. In the last few years there have been a number of previs companies setup so the production hires a previs company which in turn hires previs artists. The difference with previs is they normally bill for time and material since it’s clear the number of artists working directly for production. Will they end up going to more of a fixed bid route like vfx companies or can vfx companies work their way back to become more time and materials companies?
Working for the Studios
Below are some of the advantages and disadvantages for the different groups affected if more vfx work was done directly for the studios. I list a number of items as potential which means it’s possible. How likely these things happen depend on the studio, director, producer and situation.
Advantages
Studios/Director/Producer
· Less expensive
No paying for vfx company profit
Potentially less overhead (no need to pay for down time or for people/equipment not in use on project)
· More direct connection to vfx workers
· Can prioritize and schedule work directly
· Can setup near studio or other desired location
· All work focused specifically on their film. No people or equipment being pulled to help on another project.
· VFX supervisor doesn’t have to ‘sell’ work to director based on pressure from vfx company
Workers
· Part of production, not just person in a black box (vfx company)
· Potential to interact with director more
· Potential for working more efficiently (quicker feedback, less changes)
· Potential for union coverage (Studios are already union signatories so covering vfx not as big of jump as vfx companies)
· Employer is both paying the bills and making the profits so it’s a more balanced system. The people you work for have the most to gain from you.
· Potential for profit participation directly or indirectly (health care funding, etc)
· More individual branding. Vfx companies tend to push their brand, not their vfx supervisors or other key people.
vfx companies
· A vfx company could lease out a facility for $x per day/week with profit built in. Less risk. Studio would cover the most expensive and variable cost, labor. Direct connection makes the studios responsible for changes, not the vfx company.
· If the vfx company is simply a lease company then they have potentially less overhead costs during slow times.
Disadvantages
Studios/Director/Producer
· Time required to setup a facility. Pre-production already tight on most productions.
· Preplanning required
· Final vfx cost more of an unknown
· Would have to hire a vfx production manager or facility manager to actually setup and run the vfx facility. Most vfx supervisors and producers these days don’t have the experience of setting up and running a full facility. With the short schedule they’re unlikely to have the time even if they had the ability.
· No historical data on how well a particular team will work (time, money, quality) unless they use same team over multiple projects
· No long term R&D since this would only be for duration of the project. Longer R&D projects and related benefits would not come to fruition except as 3rd party developers.
· Who owns the R&D that is developed on a single project? How is that able to be used on other productions?
· Can’t point finger at vfx company for costs or schedule issues
· Can’t ignore issues of required overtime
Workers
· The director may not actually be any more involved. The director is usually busy with editing, sound mixing and other tasks at the same time as vfx are being done. This is the case even more so with tight post-production schedules. Most edit suites are setup at a studio or nice digs in a nice neighborhood. Typically trying to find large square footage to house vfx workers at a low rate means an industrial building elsewhere in town. This can mean 1 ½ hr drive across town in LA traffic. (Note that in London the main vfx companies and much of the editing is done in Soho so this is already convenient. Property costs must be very high and cause a related rise in overhead costs at such companies.)
· If you work for a company that is able to keep busy then you may not have to worry about looking for the next project and have little down time. Working for the studio directly would mean you were project to project and be forced to be a full freelancer looking for work after each project ends. And the studio isn’t looking to do another vfx project, they’re looking to do their next film project, which may or may not include vfx.
· Even though the studios are already union they are much larger companies than vfx companies and could push even harder back to avoid a vfx union. A number of vfx supervisors are in the camera union but the studios don’t recognize this because there is not an official title of VFX Supervisor in the union contract.
· Even though the studios are now more financially linked to the costs of making changes, the executives and director may feel freer to make changes since there’s no company between them and the people working on the vfx. The vfx company sometimes acts a buffer to some studio demands.
· Saving money on one aspect is not always the highest priority at a studio.
· Not all directors want to spend more time working on the details of the vfx and directors vary on the ability to review in progress takes.
· Nothing prevents the studio from setting up the vfx team anywhere in the world so doesn’t necessarily gain more work balance in LA. (unless an LA director wanted to truly spend more time working with the vfx team)
· Vfx are still very labor intensive. Incentives and lower costs elsewhere are still likely to cause the studio to choose to setup a team elsewhere, even if it might not be the most efficient. If the studio spent as much money on editing and sound mixing as they do vfx, those tasks would probably go to less expensive locations as well.
· If the studio is doing all of the vfx then there will be many vfx company personel that will be out of work including the company vfx supervisors, producers, cg supervisors, etc. since there aren’t enough films to keep all of those people busy.
· Any type of profit participation is extremely unlikely for vfx workers, except as a form of payment into health care insurance.
vfx companies
· Any form of additional competition makes it more difficult, especially competing against a team that works at cost.
· Studios may not be interested in leasing your company
· Switching to a lease type of setup may not be easy and there’s still the issue of making enough profit to cover the overhead during the time between projects.
Reality
In it’s current form the vfx business model works great for the studios. They can send a package of storyboards/previs out to multiple companies throughout the world and get back bids. Since the studios view the vfx as a commodity they can simply pick and choose from a menu. All the companies they’re bidding have been around for a while and most likely already worked for the studio at one point or another so the studios know what they’re getting. The studio can simply select based on the balance of quality, speed, size, dependability and costs among other factors. They’re selecting a known quantity in most cases and are able to validate it to anyone else in the studio.
It may cost a bit more to have it done by a third party but it’s also much less risk. That’s why studios prefer sequels and remakes. It’s also much easier to simply turn over footage to a vfx company and let them deal with the details of artists, hardware, software, and other issues, including the complexity of setting up a facility and pipeline originally. Just like when you need to change the oil in your car. You could do it yourself but you're usually happy to pay someone else to deal with the details and mess rather than hassling with it.
Studios could also setup a longer-term vfx facility to avoid potential waste of starting up another team/facility for each project. The problem then becomes the overhead and the need for long-term commitment. This has been the same for most studio facilities which usually closed after a small number of projects.
Unless there is a very large compelling reason for studios to do the vfx work employing vfx artists directly, it’s unlikely to change except for specific cases.
More things to think about.
-----
Just a note regarding David's mention of the VES. There are a range of different people on the VES board, including hands on people who don't manage others. I know most of us are keenly aware of the plight of the average worker since we're usually side by side with them.
Part of the problem is that:
1. People need to volunteer and sign up to be on the board.
2. Enough people have to be aware of the person to be voted on.
These two things make it difficult for random roto and TD's to get on the board. Hopefully members will vote to balance that out.
Note the same issue will likely happen if a vfx union were to form. Best if there were a requirement for a representative from each main category of workers.
The other thing is the VES is not looking at any group (studios/vfx companies) as the enemy. Each group is trying to do what it thinks is best. All the pieces have to be working together and the VES is trying to find solutions that help balance this out.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Ray Harryhausen and Chuck Jones exhibitions closing soon
Just a reminder for those in L.A. the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a special exhibit on Ray Harryhausen that opened in May and will be closing Aug 22. Free.
More info on the exhibit here.
If you don't know, Ray Harryhausen was the master of stop motion visual effects and worked on many films including Jason and the Argonauts and Seventh Voyage of Sinbad among others.
He inspired most of my generation of vfx artists to do what we do. (and Peter Jackson and other filmmakers) Sony Imageworks recently named a theater after him and many of his films are being released on Blu-ray. There was a large birthday party for Ray a few months ago.
The exhibition has quite a number of the stop motion models on display along with artwork, video from the films, interviews with and about Ray. If you want to see some beautiful models and fantastic artwork, check it out.
While you're there be sure to check out the Chuck Jones exhibition that is going on at the same time in the same building (2 different floors). Plenty of great artwork and sections from scripts. If you don't know Chuck Jones he was the mastermind of many of the Warner Bros. cartoons - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd, etc. More info here.
If you're in visual effects you really need to make sure you're up on film history and the artists that created it. Even with the newer tools we have today we can still learn a lot about the actual artistry from these artists and apply them to our own work.
Below are a few of the books and videos but there are plenty more.
More info on the exhibit here.
If you don't know, Ray Harryhausen was the master of stop motion visual effects and worked on many films including Jason and the Argonauts and Seventh Voyage of Sinbad among others.
He inspired most of my generation of vfx artists to do what we do. (and Peter Jackson and other filmmakers) Sony Imageworks recently named a theater after him and many of his films are being released on Blu-ray. There was a large birthday party for Ray a few months ago.
The exhibition has quite a number of the stop motion models on display along with artwork, video from the films, interviews with and about Ray. If you want to see some beautiful models and fantastic artwork, check it out.
While you're there be sure to check out the Chuck Jones exhibition that is going on at the same time in the same building (2 different floors). Plenty of great artwork and sections from scripts. If you don't know Chuck Jones he was the mastermind of many of the Warner Bros. cartoons - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Wile E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd, etc. More info here.
If you're in visual effects you really need to make sure you're up on film history and the artists that created it. Even with the newer tools we have today we can still learn a lot about the actual artistry from these artists and apply them to our own work.
Below are a few of the books and videos but there are plenty more.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Visual effects service - The Big Picture
(Note: I’m on the board of the VES but all posting to this blog are mine own and do not represent the VES) (As always, I could be wrong about anything)
If we’re re-examining the current VFX situation we need to take a step back and look at the whole process.
I think most of us think of visual effects as a service. But is it?
History
Years ago the studios had their own visual effects department with people on staff and basic optical and animation equipment. When the studios closed those departments, labs and small optical companies took their place. I can remember looking over lab and vfx company price lists in the mid-70’s. A dissolve was so much per foot. A matte was so much per foot with minimum cost of X dollars. Some of the places had small insert stages they would rent for so much per day. If you needed something special they could give you a quote but the majority of the work was on a time and materials basis.
For larger vfx projects the productions themselves would set up a full department somewhere. This was the case with 2001, Logan’s Run, Close Encounters, Star Wars and other films. The production would lease a building and set it up from scratch with the people needed to run and operate it. For Close Encounters we were in an industrial building in Marina del Rey. They had to custom make the matte painting stands and other equipment as need be. They purchased or leased optical printers and an animation camera. Everyone working there was paid by the production. This is in fact how productions usually run. They become their own company that has a group of people that round up or build whatever is required for the film. In live action this would be the construction of the sets, special rigs, etc. Once those shows were done the one off facility they setup would usually be closed down and the crew laid off. In the case of ILM, since George Lucas had such success with Star Wars and thought he might like to do more things for himself and his friends he re-created it in Northern California. Apogee was formed by John Dykstra and others using the original ILM building and some of the same gear(?) used on Star Wars. Many of the Close Encounters people went to Universal Hartland where Universal setup up a facility to handle Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica.
When we formed Dream Quest most of the initial projects we did on a time and materials basis, especially if it was large. If someone wanted us to shoot motion control we charged for the stages and the crew for so much per week. This saved us in a number of cases where the director or the vfx supervisor they had hired made changes or threw out work because of a change.
Today if you’re working on a commercial the cost of a telecine is so much per hour and so much for tape, etc. The work on the Flame system or equivalent is on a per hour basis. They may provide a rough estimate but it’s always up to the client how much time is used. If the agency wants to tweak something all day that’s fine. They get billed for it and the video house doesn’t have to worry about making a budget.
Fixed Bids
Somewhere along the way the studios wanted a fixed bid on vfx work for feature films. Estimates were no longer good enough and the vfx companies would now have to stick to the budget. This changes a number of dynamics. In the eyes of some studios and directors the vfx people were no longer working directly for the production, they were working for the vfx company. The vfx crew became another step further from the film crew. Outsiders. Now there’s always the ping-pong of trying to please the director but not going over budget. Filing change orders and having discussions with the studios regarding the costs now became standard process. At times the vfx company can be pushed into a corner. The vfx supervisor was now that guy from the vfx company. The name of the vfx company became the main selling point. The vfx supervisor, not so much. If the client doesn’t like the first proposed company supe then another one at the company will be swapped out on a whim. The crew having to work overtime was now the vfx company’s problem. We still had crazy hours at times in the ‘old days’. On Star Trek: The Motion Picture I worked several weeks straight, 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week. (and a few 24hr days) But the studio knew it and actually visited the facility. Today, they’re now removed from those details.
So are there any other areas of film production that are completely farmed out to a 3rd party company besides VFX? All the other main leads tend to be hired directly. DP, Production Designer, Wardrobe, etc. Even though most Special Effects people have companies I believe most are hired as a team of people or at least paid on a time basis. Sound mixing or the DI? I assume these are on a time and material basis as well. The previs team is frequently brought in to work in the same office down the hall from the director. They typically bill by the man days or hours. Most of the set construction I see is done by a team of people working for production with special projects (cars, etc) farmed out.
When I think of a service I think of a dentist, a car shop where they work on your car or a plumber that comes to your house. In these cases they do work but don’t tend to produce anything. The costs are based on time and materials.
Custom manufacturing?
Should vfx be considered as custom manufacturing? We actually create something when we finish our work, whether it’s from scratch or a montage of material provided. That’s what the studios want, not the actual service part.
Here is where things get crazier. Each shot is unique like a snowflake. It’s own little world of issues, handwork and tweaks. You try like anything to make shots as consistent as possible and to be able to run them through the exact same process but it’s never full automated. For all the talk about computers in our business it’s still a very labor-intensive process. The number of people and the time required to do a shot from start to finish would astound most outsiders.
If you go to most manufactures and request custom work you will be required to make specific requirements in writing. (I.e. you want cabinet style 32 but in this specific color of blue. You want a custom cake that says Happy Birthday. It will be yellow cake with vanilla ice cream and chocolate frosting.) And that is what you will get. They seldom show you the work in progress or have your input at every single stage. The other thing is a custom manufacture will tell you when it will be done. They dictate the schedule. In the film business it’s the opposite of all of this. The studio specifies when the delivery will be. It’s almost always less than the time that would have been arrived at by a normal scheduling process for the facility.
On a VFX project you start with the script, which provides a wide-open interpretation of what the final visuals will look like. In pre-production the director hopefully approves concept art, does storyboards and ideally previs. While most previs lays a good foundation the number of nuances and changes required for the final shots can be enormous. The director usually wants something never seen before that will require a lot of R&D. Not just custom but a totally unknown look or process that needs to be invented. Just how much time and money will that take? The vfx companies have to provide a bid for all of this before the film is even shot. During shooting things will change. During post-production things will continue to change.
This is a creative process so there will be changes but think of it this way: The vfx company is making a 1000 custom oil paintings that technically have to be delivered on a hard date for a fixed price (at least initially). This process could costs in the 10’s of millions of dollars, make up half of the film budget and fill up half of the screen time. There are some rough thumbnails but not enough information to simply deliver the finished paintings. The director is involved at every step of the process for every single painting. In some cases, for every brush stroke. Some directors only want to see the final pieces. In these cases you can end up with ‘no, now that I see it I don’t’ want apples in the painting, I want pears’. So much for the time and effort to create the initial painting. If a director changes one painting that may change two dozen that are almost finished. Remember, the due date will not move, regardless of the changes. And of course shots are not paintings but moving images so time and motion presents another infinite number of possibilities.
How many other areas does the director really work in this much minutia? Normally when they’re working with Directors of Photography, Production Designers, etc they discuss and try to get in sync regarding the general look and style they want. The director may be asked about the color of the pillows on a set but at some point they pass on the taking care of the details to their key creatives. The director is unlikely to ask to change the 3rd brick from the right on the set or ask the DP to reduce a specific light by ½ stop. And yet at times it can be that way when working with visual effects.
With visual effects the director has unlimited control. Every pixel of every frame can be changed. If production has an on set stunt or action the director shoots what takes they feel are appropriate and will select one. The fact that the stuntman’s hand is raised a little doesn’t cause problems. The best take will be selected and production moves on. With the advent of digital visual effects that’s not the end of the story. What would have been fine previously in any movie is now something to be scrutinized and analyzed by the director, editor and studio. Now it may be an added shot for the vfx crew to fix that hand position. And while they’re working on the shot can they change that thing back there and that other thing over there? A shot with a jet may get a request to roll the jet another 3 degrees. Will the audience notice 3 degrees? Will it make it a better shot? Obviously if production paid and shot a real jet they would be unlikely to schedule another shoot day simply to get the jet to roll 3 degrees more.
On the set the director knows it will take a certain amount of time to make a change so they always have to balance that because time is their gold standard. They have so many days to shoot the show and have only 2 days scheduled for this set and need to shoot 20 setups a day. With vfx that time balance is thrown out the window. Most of the work is done after filming. The amount of time and effort to make the change is all hidden. It’s happening elsewhere by unseen people. It’s no longer the director or producers responsibility to complete this phase of production on time; it’s up to the vfx company. To add to this difficulty is the fact that the live action shoot can and does go over schedule. Problems during shooting may now require additional, unplanned work to be done by the vfx company. But the vfx company cannot go over schedule. They are the end of the road so every delay during shooting, every added fix, shot or change needs to happen by the deadline. That’s the finals date that was set before the vfx company even started bidding on the show. Not only does the vfx company have to do all the work they initially agreed to do in that time, they have to absorb most production issues that have accumulated and rippled down the pipeline since the pre-production began. Add into that mix the requirement by the studio to make last minute changes, possibly based on test screenings, possibly based on an idea of an executive.
Are there other non-film businesses setup like vfx companies in terms of the requirements and client involvement? That would be useful to look at and learn from. Unfortunately I can’t really think of anything on the scale or dealing with the same types of issues. Many construction projects are of course custom and involve a lot of money and people. However they have blueprints that have been signed off on. They have colors that were selected to paint the walls and the client has approved the carpet and the tiles. Sure there will be some changes but the majority of the work is usually very well specified. Any major changes will involve a change of completion date or will require client to pay a large fees to have it accelerated.
Summary
Visual effects is a very labor-intensive business. The labor is made up of dedicated and highly skilled and trained people. There’s the requirement to complete hundreds of works of unique, never before seen, art (shots), based on rudimentary starting points, that are constantly being scrutinized and changed. And this all has to be done for as much adherence to a fixed bid as possible and above all has to be finished on the deadline, - no ifs, ands or buts.
I do want to go on record that I support all the directors I work for and that I’m all for anything that can make a film better. All vfx artists want the best possible film. What I hope this posting will illustrate is just how complex this issue is. We have art, technology and commerce all colliding. The vfx companies are put in a tough situation and the vfx artists are put in a tough situation to try to balance this all out. The end result is any process or structure that will help balance this issue to create the best creative and to make it reasonable for the vfx artists will be a welcome relief.
Related posts:
Pass me a nail
Risk and subsidies
Oh, the mess we're in!
If we’re re-examining the current VFX situation we need to take a step back and look at the whole process.
I think most of us think of visual effects as a service. But is it?
History
Years ago the studios had their own visual effects department with people on staff and basic optical and animation equipment. When the studios closed those departments, labs and small optical companies took their place. I can remember looking over lab and vfx company price lists in the mid-70’s. A dissolve was so much per foot. A matte was so much per foot with minimum cost of X dollars. Some of the places had small insert stages they would rent for so much per day. If you needed something special they could give you a quote but the majority of the work was on a time and materials basis.
For larger vfx projects the productions themselves would set up a full department somewhere. This was the case with 2001, Logan’s Run, Close Encounters, Star Wars and other films. The production would lease a building and set it up from scratch with the people needed to run and operate it. For Close Encounters we were in an industrial building in Marina del Rey. They had to custom make the matte painting stands and other equipment as need be. They purchased or leased optical printers and an animation camera. Everyone working there was paid by the production. This is in fact how productions usually run. They become their own company that has a group of people that round up or build whatever is required for the film. In live action this would be the construction of the sets, special rigs, etc. Once those shows were done the one off facility they setup would usually be closed down and the crew laid off. In the case of ILM, since George Lucas had such success with Star Wars and thought he might like to do more things for himself and his friends he re-created it in Northern California. Apogee was formed by John Dykstra and others using the original ILM building and some of the same gear(?) used on Star Wars. Many of the Close Encounters people went to Universal Hartland where Universal setup up a facility to handle Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica.
When we formed Dream Quest most of the initial projects we did on a time and materials basis, especially if it was large. If someone wanted us to shoot motion control we charged for the stages and the crew for so much per week. This saved us in a number of cases where the director or the vfx supervisor they had hired made changes or threw out work because of a change.
Today if you’re working on a commercial the cost of a telecine is so much per hour and so much for tape, etc. The work on the Flame system or equivalent is on a per hour basis. They may provide a rough estimate but it’s always up to the client how much time is used. If the agency wants to tweak something all day that’s fine. They get billed for it and the video house doesn’t have to worry about making a budget.
Fixed Bids
Somewhere along the way the studios wanted a fixed bid on vfx work for feature films. Estimates were no longer good enough and the vfx companies would now have to stick to the budget. This changes a number of dynamics. In the eyes of some studios and directors the vfx people were no longer working directly for the production, they were working for the vfx company. The vfx crew became another step further from the film crew. Outsiders. Now there’s always the ping-pong of trying to please the director but not going over budget. Filing change orders and having discussions with the studios regarding the costs now became standard process. At times the vfx company can be pushed into a corner. The vfx supervisor was now that guy from the vfx company. The name of the vfx company became the main selling point. The vfx supervisor, not so much. If the client doesn’t like the first proposed company supe then another one at the company will be swapped out on a whim. The crew having to work overtime was now the vfx company’s problem. We still had crazy hours at times in the ‘old days’. On Star Trek: The Motion Picture I worked several weeks straight, 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week. (and a few 24hr days) But the studio knew it and actually visited the facility. Today, they’re now removed from those details.
So are there any other areas of film production that are completely farmed out to a 3rd party company besides VFX? All the other main leads tend to be hired directly. DP, Production Designer, Wardrobe, etc. Even though most Special Effects people have companies I believe most are hired as a team of people or at least paid on a time basis. Sound mixing or the DI? I assume these are on a time and material basis as well. The previs team is frequently brought in to work in the same office down the hall from the director. They typically bill by the man days or hours. Most of the set construction I see is done by a team of people working for production with special projects (cars, etc) farmed out.
When I think of a service I think of a dentist, a car shop where they work on your car or a plumber that comes to your house. In these cases they do work but don’t tend to produce anything. The costs are based on time and materials.
Custom manufacturing?
Should vfx be considered as custom manufacturing? We actually create something when we finish our work, whether it’s from scratch or a montage of material provided. That’s what the studios want, not the actual service part.
Here is where things get crazier. Each shot is unique like a snowflake. It’s own little world of issues, handwork and tweaks. You try like anything to make shots as consistent as possible and to be able to run them through the exact same process but it’s never full automated. For all the talk about computers in our business it’s still a very labor-intensive process. The number of people and the time required to do a shot from start to finish would astound most outsiders.
If you go to most manufactures and request custom work you will be required to make specific requirements in writing. (I.e. you want cabinet style 32 but in this specific color of blue. You want a custom cake that says Happy Birthday. It will be yellow cake with vanilla ice cream and chocolate frosting.) And that is what you will get. They seldom show you the work in progress or have your input at every single stage. The other thing is a custom manufacture will tell you when it will be done. They dictate the schedule. In the film business it’s the opposite of all of this. The studio specifies when the delivery will be. It’s almost always less than the time that would have been arrived at by a normal scheduling process for the facility.
On a VFX project you start with the script, which provides a wide-open interpretation of what the final visuals will look like. In pre-production the director hopefully approves concept art, does storyboards and ideally previs. While most previs lays a good foundation the number of nuances and changes required for the final shots can be enormous. The director usually wants something never seen before that will require a lot of R&D. Not just custom but a totally unknown look or process that needs to be invented. Just how much time and money will that take? The vfx companies have to provide a bid for all of this before the film is even shot. During shooting things will change. During post-production things will continue to change.
This is a creative process so there will be changes but think of it this way: The vfx company is making a 1000 custom oil paintings that technically have to be delivered on a hard date for a fixed price (at least initially). This process could costs in the 10’s of millions of dollars, make up half of the film budget and fill up half of the screen time. There are some rough thumbnails but not enough information to simply deliver the finished paintings. The director is involved at every step of the process for every single painting. In some cases, for every brush stroke. Some directors only want to see the final pieces. In these cases you can end up with ‘no, now that I see it I don’t’ want apples in the painting, I want pears’. So much for the time and effort to create the initial painting. If a director changes one painting that may change two dozen that are almost finished. Remember, the due date will not move, regardless of the changes. And of course shots are not paintings but moving images so time and motion presents another infinite number of possibilities.
How many other areas does the director really work in this much minutia? Normally when they’re working with Directors of Photography, Production Designers, etc they discuss and try to get in sync regarding the general look and style they want. The director may be asked about the color of the pillows on a set but at some point they pass on the taking care of the details to their key creatives. The director is unlikely to ask to change the 3rd brick from the right on the set or ask the DP to reduce a specific light by ½ stop. And yet at times it can be that way when working with visual effects.
With visual effects the director has unlimited control. Every pixel of every frame can be changed. If production has an on set stunt or action the director shoots what takes they feel are appropriate and will select one. The fact that the stuntman’s hand is raised a little doesn’t cause problems. The best take will be selected and production moves on. With the advent of digital visual effects that’s not the end of the story. What would have been fine previously in any movie is now something to be scrutinized and analyzed by the director, editor and studio. Now it may be an added shot for the vfx crew to fix that hand position. And while they’re working on the shot can they change that thing back there and that other thing over there? A shot with a jet may get a request to roll the jet another 3 degrees. Will the audience notice 3 degrees? Will it make it a better shot? Obviously if production paid and shot a real jet they would be unlikely to schedule another shoot day simply to get the jet to roll 3 degrees more.
On the set the director knows it will take a certain amount of time to make a change so they always have to balance that because time is their gold standard. They have so many days to shoot the show and have only 2 days scheduled for this set and need to shoot 20 setups a day. With vfx that time balance is thrown out the window. Most of the work is done after filming. The amount of time and effort to make the change is all hidden. It’s happening elsewhere by unseen people. It’s no longer the director or producers responsibility to complete this phase of production on time; it’s up to the vfx company. To add to this difficulty is the fact that the live action shoot can and does go over schedule. Problems during shooting may now require additional, unplanned work to be done by the vfx company. But the vfx company cannot go over schedule. They are the end of the road so every delay during shooting, every added fix, shot or change needs to happen by the deadline. That’s the finals date that was set before the vfx company even started bidding on the show. Not only does the vfx company have to do all the work they initially agreed to do in that time, they have to absorb most production issues that have accumulated and rippled down the pipeline since the pre-production began. Add into that mix the requirement by the studio to make last minute changes, possibly based on test screenings, possibly based on an idea of an executive.
Are there other non-film businesses setup like vfx companies in terms of the requirements and client involvement? That would be useful to look at and learn from. Unfortunately I can’t really think of anything on the scale or dealing with the same types of issues. Many construction projects are of course custom and involve a lot of money and people. However they have blueprints that have been signed off on. They have colors that were selected to paint the walls and the client has approved the carpet and the tiles. Sure there will be some changes but the majority of the work is usually very well specified. Any major changes will involve a change of completion date or will require client to pay a large fees to have it accelerated.
Summary
Visual effects is a very labor-intensive business. The labor is made up of dedicated and highly skilled and trained people. There’s the requirement to complete hundreds of works of unique, never before seen, art (shots), based on rudimentary starting points, that are constantly being scrutinized and changed. And this all has to be done for as much adherence to a fixed bid as possible and above all has to be finished on the deadline, - no ifs, ands or buts.
I do want to go on record that I support all the directors I work for and that I’m all for anything that can make a film better. All vfx artists want the best possible film. What I hope this posting will illustrate is just how complex this issue is. We have art, technology and commerce all colliding. The vfx companies are put in a tough situation and the vfx artists are put in a tough situation to try to balance this all out. The end result is any process or structure that will help balance this issue to create the best creative and to make it reasonable for the vfx artists will be a welcome relief.
Related posts:
Pass me a nail
Risk and subsidies
Oh, the mess we're in!
Thursday, April 01, 2010
VFX TownHall Meeting thoughts
Here are some random thoughts and ideas regarding some of the issues brought up in the vfx townhall meetings. I heard the original townhall broadcast live and caught the tail end of the next one. I missed the one last night on unions and haven’t kept up on all the twitter/forums so what I’m posting may be redundant or may be 180 from any of those. These are just ideas so don’t hold me to them 5 years from now. (This is turning into a much longer document so I’ll be breaking it up for the postings)
Scott Ross discussed the fact that VFX companies don’t make much profit. I ran Dream Quest for 5 years and can vouch for that. It seems to many outsiders (producers, some studio executives) and some employees that it must be a cash cow because look at the costs being charged. Think of the number working on the project at a company. The number of people there may exceed the number of crewmembers on the live action shoot. And they’re not just working for 45-100 shooting days. So delete all the costs of the employees, including any health care and 401k expenses. Delete the costs of the lease (very expensive in LA, London, etc) Delete the costs of the utilities (special internet, phones, power). Delete all the costs of the workstations and all the software licenses. Once you’ve whittled it away there’s not a lot left. Now the VFX company will build in a profit when possible but at most it would be 35% (much less than 100% markup for many products or other services). And it never stays this way no matter what the company puts in since it’s always squeezed down. End result is more likely 10-20%.
This assumes that you’re making a profit. This business tends to be feast or famine. Look at the last couple of years between the writer’s strike and the actor’s pseudo strike. Some large projects were made but many mid to small projects were stopped. Many times as was discussed by Scott companies will try to get work even if it doesn’t make a profit; even if it doesn’t cover the expenses. When you have a large overhead it’s better to have most of it covered than none of it covered. And that’s just it. Any profit you make at a company has to cover the times when you don’t have any projects. It’s difficult to maintain a consistent volume of work through a company. Even with layoffs there are a number of base expenses that still need to be covered. At Dream Quest it wasn’t unusual for the co-owners to skip salary ourselves so we could continue to pay for the basic staff. Training people and getting them up to speed on a particular company approach takes time and money. When a company lets someone go they will re-incur that cost when they rehire someone when there is work.
That’s why I recommend freelancers or those starting VFX companies have at least enough money to cover 6 months with no income (same advice for most business startups) and to not underestimate the cost of overhead, healthcare, etc when on their own.
Competition for work is high. VFX companies have been sprouting up all over. In addition the cost of doing business and trying to bid completely, Chris deFaria points out if some location (such as England) has a 20% discount there’s little likelihood the companies can compete on price alone.
It was suggest that 30 years ago was the same thing but there were a number of differences. 30 years ago there was ILM, Boss Films, Apogee and Dream Quest as the likely competitors for feature film work. The number of VFX films and the number of shots on a film was much smaller. 200 shots was considered huge. These days many films start at 600 shots and go to over 2000. To enter into the VFX work required you either purchase or build specialty equipment (optical printer, motion control, animation stand, etc) these could run from $10,000 to 80,000 each. The upside is once purchased, that was it. No upgrades or replacement. You also needed a place to put that equipment. Dream Quest started in a 2-car garage. These days a company can start with one guy and a computer at a desk in his/her apartment. Depending on software you might be able to start for as low as $5000. But the other critical factor was there were no subsidies, or at least ones that affected the VFX market. If a studio needed VFX work done at that time it was almost always done here in California. That meant at least there was a level playing field.
As I recall Lee and Jeff suggested people not work at places that didn’t provide very good working environments or that didn’t treat their employees well. That sounds great but the reality is people are likely working at places like that precisely because they don’t have a choice. If there are jobs available at a place down the street you can change jobs. If there are no openings elsewhere or they’re half a world away then it may not be possible to quit or to not take a job, especially if you have a family and house. As individuals I would urge you to discuss the issue with the head of the company. Unfortunately this could get you labeled a troublemaker and increase the likely hood you’ll be laid off sooner and not rehired in the future. You could discuss with fellow employees but unless most of the employees opt to threaten to quit, your quitting a company will not change that companies practices. This is where a union would come in and I would urge those truly interested to take a real part in discussions and whatever is necessary to try to make it better for yourself and other artists. (I.e. sitting on the side complaining is the easiest thing but it’s also the least productive)
Chris suggested that some of the people could work for the art department. Designers, modelers, CG supervisors, etc. One question is are these positions that are available in the art directors guild? And of course this only covers a small number of people in the whole scheme of things. Even if the thought is to make it call it Digital Production does not mean the camera crew will be hiring CG lighters.
Scott Ross discussed the fact that VFX companies don’t make much profit. I ran Dream Quest for 5 years and can vouch for that. It seems to many outsiders (producers, some studio executives) and some employees that it must be a cash cow because look at the costs being charged. Think of the number working on the project at a company. The number of people there may exceed the number of crewmembers on the live action shoot. And they’re not just working for 45-100 shooting days. So delete all the costs of the employees, including any health care and 401k expenses. Delete the costs of the lease (very expensive in LA, London, etc) Delete the costs of the utilities (special internet, phones, power). Delete all the costs of the workstations and all the software licenses. Once you’ve whittled it away there’s not a lot left. Now the VFX company will build in a profit when possible but at most it would be 35% (much less than 100% markup for many products or other services). And it never stays this way no matter what the company puts in since it’s always squeezed down. End result is more likely 10-20%.
This assumes that you’re making a profit. This business tends to be feast or famine. Look at the last couple of years between the writer’s strike and the actor’s pseudo strike. Some large projects were made but many mid to small projects were stopped. Many times as was discussed by Scott companies will try to get work even if it doesn’t make a profit; even if it doesn’t cover the expenses. When you have a large overhead it’s better to have most of it covered than none of it covered. And that’s just it. Any profit you make at a company has to cover the times when you don’t have any projects. It’s difficult to maintain a consistent volume of work through a company. Even with layoffs there are a number of base expenses that still need to be covered. At Dream Quest it wasn’t unusual for the co-owners to skip salary ourselves so we could continue to pay for the basic staff. Training people and getting them up to speed on a particular company approach takes time and money. When a company lets someone go they will re-incur that cost when they rehire someone when there is work.
That’s why I recommend freelancers or those starting VFX companies have at least enough money to cover 6 months with no income (same advice for most business startups) and to not underestimate the cost of overhead, healthcare, etc when on their own.
Competition for work is high. VFX companies have been sprouting up all over. In addition the cost of doing business and trying to bid completely, Chris deFaria points out if some location (such as England) has a 20% discount there’s little likelihood the companies can compete on price alone.
It was suggest that 30 years ago was the same thing but there were a number of differences. 30 years ago there was ILM, Boss Films, Apogee and Dream Quest as the likely competitors for feature film work. The number of VFX films and the number of shots on a film was much smaller. 200 shots was considered huge. These days many films start at 600 shots and go to over 2000. To enter into the VFX work required you either purchase or build specialty equipment (optical printer, motion control, animation stand, etc) these could run from $10,000 to 80,000 each. The upside is once purchased, that was it. No upgrades or replacement. You also needed a place to put that equipment. Dream Quest started in a 2-car garage. These days a company can start with one guy and a computer at a desk in his/her apartment. Depending on software you might be able to start for as low as $5000. But the other critical factor was there were no subsidies, or at least ones that affected the VFX market. If a studio needed VFX work done at that time it was almost always done here in California. That meant at least there was a level playing field.
As I recall Lee and Jeff suggested people not work at places that didn’t provide very good working environments or that didn’t treat their employees well. That sounds great but the reality is people are likely working at places like that precisely because they don’t have a choice. If there are jobs available at a place down the street you can change jobs. If there are no openings elsewhere or they’re half a world away then it may not be possible to quit or to not take a job, especially if you have a family and house. As individuals I would urge you to discuss the issue with the head of the company. Unfortunately this could get you labeled a troublemaker and increase the likely hood you’ll be laid off sooner and not rehired in the future. You could discuss with fellow employees but unless most of the employees opt to threaten to quit, your quitting a company will not change that companies practices. This is where a union would come in and I would urge those truly interested to take a real part in discussions and whatever is necessary to try to make it better for yourself and other artists. (I.e. sitting on the side complaining is the easiest thing but it’s also the least productive)
Chris suggested that some of the people could work for the art department. Designers, modelers, CG supervisors, etc. One question is are these positions that are available in the art directors guild? And of course this only covers a small number of people in the whole scheme of things. Even if the thought is to make it call it Digital Production does not mean the camera crew will be hiring CG lighters.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Commotion
Matthew Ingram has written up a great posting about Commotion here. [Update: I think this site is gone so may re-post it here if I can]
Thanks Matthew!
Commotion was a software packages I wrote for myself while at ILM.
It started as 'Flipbook' and allowed realtime playback of images on a Mac II. (This would later be used as a design basis for other tools at ILM.) It also had a flowchart compositing system. You could actually setup multiple composites all types of other things.
(yes, before After Effects, Shake, Nuke, etc)
ILM had an SGI tool that did image processing but the command line interface made it less than useful for the artist. I created a Mac app that provided and interface and send the commands onto to the SGI. I had also written an app that would control Photoshop so it could be used on multiple frames. I was an VFX supervisor at ILM, not a software developer, so all this was to provide me tools so I could do my work without fighting the system and getting proper software written.
The originally released product was a bit different (roto, paint and playback) and certainly when the compositing was released it was aimed more at AE style than the original
[Update: fxGuide has an article entitled The Art of Roto: 2011that discusses the history of rotoscoping and some of the currently available tools. It also includes an interview with me talking about Commotion.]
Thanks Matthew!
Commotion was a software packages I wrote for myself while at ILM.
It started as 'Flipbook' and allowed realtime playback of images on a Mac II. (This would later be used as a design basis for other tools at ILM.) It also had a flowchart compositing system. You could actually setup multiple composites all types of other things.
(yes, before After Effects, Shake, Nuke, etc)
ILM had an SGI tool that did image processing but the command line interface made it less than useful for the artist. I created a Mac app that provided and interface and send the commands onto to the SGI. I had also written an app that would control Photoshop so it could be used on multiple frames. I was an VFX supervisor at ILM, not a software developer, so all this was to provide me tools so I could do my work without fighting the system and getting proper software written.
The originally released product was a bit different (roto, paint and playback) and certainly when the compositing was released it was aimed more at AE style than the original
[Update: fxGuide has an article entitled The Art of Roto: 2011that discusses the history of rotoscoping and some of the currently available tools. It also includes an interview with me talking about Commotion.]
Friday, November 23, 2007
LA Shows - Matte Painting, Illustrations
The Academy is having a couple of events in the next 2 or 3 weeks of interest.
Motion Picture Illustrators exhibit in their gallery until Dec 16.
Matte Painting show by Craig Barron Dec 10 at the Linwood Dunn Theater. $5 There will also be exhibits in that lobby.
Click on links for more details.
Motion Picture Illustrators exhibit in their gallery until Dec 16.
Matte Painting show by Craig Barron Dec 10 at the Linwood Dunn Theater. $5 There will also be exhibits in that lobby.
Click on links for more details.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Filming the Fantastic
I recieved this email the other day from Mark Sawicki along with a notice from the Visual Effects Society. Unfortunately I haven't seen the book yet (looks good on Amazon) and probably won't be able to attend the screening.
----
From Mark Sawicki:
Another reason I'm writing is to let you know of a new book I've written on visual effects called "Filming the Fantastic" published by Focal Press and available through Amazon. (His site is Filming the Fantastic
I thought you might be kind enough to mention it on your site for your viewers who might be interested. It is my attempt to bridge the traditional era and the digital era by way of my varied experiences in the business. I have also been invited to show my film "Twilight Cameraman" at a Visual Effects Society event on July 25th. I did a romantic look back on the craft of the optical cameraman that I hope people will enjoy.
--
Here's the VES notice:
The VES Education/Technology Committee will present a screening and panel discussion looking back at the optical era of visual effects production to bid it a fond (and perhaps thankful) farewell while exploring those traditions and techniques that can still inform and inspire today's digital artists.
The evening begins with a reception before a screening of Mark Sawicki's short film, Twilight Cameraman, Sawicki's ode to the optical effects era shot during his last day on the job at Custom Film Effects as a motion picture optical cameraman.
After the screening, a panel of industry veterans will compare and contrast optical and digital effects pipelines to illustrate how past techniques can illuminate and inform current digital practices.
DATE: Wednesday, July 25, 2007
TIME: Reception: 6:30pm
Presentation: 7:30-9:00pm
LOCATION: Sony Picture Imageworks, Ince Theater 10202 West Washington Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
This event if FREE for VES members and their guests. To RSVP, log onto www.visualeffectssociety.com, enter your username and password, then click "RSVP for Screening & Event." Although we will try to accommodate everyone who RSVPs to this event, this screening will be overbooked to ensure a full house, with admission determined on a first come, first served.
----
From Mark Sawicki:
Another reason I'm writing is to let you know of a new book I've written on visual effects called "Filming the Fantastic" published by Focal Press and available through Amazon. (His site is Filming the Fantastic
I thought you might be kind enough to mention it on your site for your viewers who might be interested. It is my attempt to bridge the traditional era and the digital era by way of my varied experiences in the business. I have also been invited to show my film "Twilight Cameraman" at a Visual Effects Society event on July 25th. I did a romantic look back on the craft of the optical cameraman that I hope people will enjoy.
--
Here's the VES notice:
The VES Education/Technology Committee will present a screening and panel discussion looking back at the optical era of visual effects production to bid it a fond (and perhaps thankful) farewell while exploring those traditions and techniques that can still inform and inspire today's digital artists.
The evening begins with a reception before a screening of Mark Sawicki's short film, Twilight Cameraman, Sawicki's ode to the optical effects era shot during his last day on the job at Custom Film Effects as a motion picture optical cameraman.
After the screening, a panel of industry veterans will compare and contrast optical and digital effects pipelines to illustrate how past techniques can illuminate and inform current digital practices.
DATE: Wednesday, July 25, 2007
TIME: Reception: 6:30pm
Presentation: 7:30-9:00pm
LOCATION: Sony Picture Imageworks, Ince Theater 10202 West Washington Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232
This event if FREE for VES members and their guests. To RSVP, log onto www.visualeffectssociety.com, enter your username and password, then click "RSVP for Screening & Event." Although we will try to accommodate everyone who RSVPs to this event, this screening will be overbooked to ensure a full house, with admission determined on a first come, first served.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)