The Artistry of VFX

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.

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.