What happened?

What happened?

A week or two ago the LA Time ran an article on some of the problems of the visual effects industry. It covered someone who had been in visual effects for awhile and wanted things as bold as health care insurance (you know, that thing that comes with most full time jobs). The amount of overtime, it’s difficulty on workers physically and the need to keep finding work to help pay for things (like health care) were also among the topics.

And anytime someone who has been working in this industry for awhile speaks out there are always detractors. In forums where this issue was discussed young people who are in this industry always asked “what happened to all the money this experienced person had been paid?”  "Why don't they just quit?" And I’ve talked to a few of these people. They think, ‘wow, visual effects pay is nice. Anybody who works a long time has got to be rolling in money. Rich, rich, rich. As in taking a personal helicopter to their yacht to go to their private island where their pet pandas eat caviar out of golden bowl, rich’. Well maybe not that rich but certainly the feeling is these people should have been able to stash away millions and be able to retire with no cares.

Young people myths
1. You will create, discover or invent the next Facebook and be a multi-billionaire by the time you’re 30. It was a million when I started but hey, inflation.
2. You will be a rock legend playing to millions of fans.
3. You will always be in high demand for your visual effects skills and always be offered work. Certainly aways able to work as much as you like.
4. Companies will have bidding wars just to have you join their projects.
5. You will have your choice of projects and will be able to pick the coolest ones.
6. You will always be paid more on each project.
7. The expenses you have at 23 will be the same expenses throughout your life.
8. You will have perfect health for your entire life.
9. You’ll never make any bad decisions.
10. It’s easy to save and hey, you’ll start saving more as soon as you buy the latest xbox game and your new car and that other thing you just have to have.

Expenses
When you start out you’re single and have little needs and certainly minimal commitments. I was surveyed when working on Close Encounters about how much I spent on groceries per week. I answered less than $10. 1 gallon of milk and a box of cereal and I was set for breakfast and dinner. Fast food for lunch. I took a bus to work for little transportation costs. (2 hrs bus to travel what would have taken 20 minute by car) Later I bought a bike and then later a car. Unfurnished apartments saw a bed, chair, basic desk and tv. These days you’d probably add in a computer and video game box. You can always have roommates. So to a young person with very modest real expenses, the pay of visual effects is fantastic. They can buy and indulge in whatever they want. After all, they’ll be doing this for years.

It’s easy to get in the mindset that the work will always continue and to spend it as if you’re a full time staff employee. You’ve worked hard for your money and see no problem with splurging at times on the things you want. You can’t even wrap your head around the idea of retirement plans since that seems so distant. At 23 you’re fine making work the highest priority.

But then you grow up. Maybe get married. The desire to get a little nicer place and actually buy furniture and framed pictures along with real dishes and silverware. All this stuff starts to add up quickly, especially if you’ve never priced it. Maybe move up from a few pairs of jeans and show t-shirts to real clothing.

You may have children and before you know it you have a couple of cars to pay for along with a house mortgage and other expenses. You now have a lot of bills to pay per month. Don’t forget that costs (housing, food, clothing, etc) tend to rise faster than your wages actually do so it will cost you more. And there’s always added unexpected expenses. Your car breaks down and needs repairs, your house needs some work done, your child needs braces.  If you have children you’ll probably want them to attend college. It currently costs around $100,000 or so to send one child to college. How much will it cost 20 years from now? What if you have three children? But of course you’ll be so rich by then  money will be no object.

Jobs
Right now you may be easily going from project to project. You’re moving up through the ranks. You’re the hot shot guy or gal. But that winning streak will not last forever. That 9 month project you’ve signed on for just got yanked by the client. You turned down a job last week because you had this project lined up. Now that job you had turned down is gone as well. You find yourself without a project for 6 months. Do you take a lavish vacation during this downtime? How’s your high wages looking now that they’ve been cut in half?

You have a buddy at another company but that company has gone out of business so now there are even more people like you looking for work. The studios have cut back on making films. The tax incentives in your area are cut back. The tax incentives have increased elsewhere. The studios and companies have discovered yet a new location with lower labor costs. The works drying up at least for the time being.

A company tells you they can’t pay your going rate.They underbid a project and can’t afford to make the project they have agreed to do for the price they agreed on. Company management decision. Sorry. Take it or leave it. You have years of experience and can make it worth their while but they’re offering you 1/2 of what you’ve been paid. Oh and they require 80 hours weeks, no overtime. Can you wait it out and find other work nearby? Are you willing to leave your family and move around the world to work?

You interview at another company. They’re looking for someone who has experience in this new thing that was just announced yesterday and they require people who’ve already done 5 projects in it. Impossible but they persist. You’re experienced in a lot of things but they think this is so new how could you possibly grasp this new concept. They say they can get 2 young people for your cost and simply have the department head guide them. And these hip new people will obviously have lots of great ideas. The idea that they will be making a lot of mistakes and lack the experience never dawns on the company since many of them have been moved into management positions without experience or knowledge.

Your career, like your job, will likely be feast or famine. You will have lows and you will have highs. One thing you likely won’t have is consistency. I know people who worked at ILM over 20 years that are laid off for 6 months or more at a time with no definitive date to restart. All because the sales people and management there couldn’t get projects in. And that happens at every visual effects company.

And that money you’ve been saving? Now you have to start spending it to cover all of your expenses since they don’t stop.

Life happens
You make a lot of plans and have set a course for your future but something always comes up. Many things are out of your control. Many times due to random issues or small minded management. If you saw the movie UP (spoiler alert) you saw how their plans for a family changed. You saw how their plans for the ultimate trip were always thwarted by one thing after another. The time flies by.  Real life is like that. To quote John Lennon “Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.”

What seems to be crystal clear black and white issues to the young turn into shades of gray with multiple view points for those experienced in living life.

Your time
You like to boast of the number of hours you worked the week before. Shows just how tough and how committed you are. You and your friends compare number of hours worked like bikers compare scars. That’s what makes you great. The number of hours you worked. And certainly the company will respect you and rehire you since you worked so many extra hours for them. Oops. Turns out the company doesn’t care. They now require everyone to work extra hours. Well those older workers complaining are just whiners. You’re much tougher than that. Besides in a few years you’ll be so rich by then money will be no object.

As time marches on you actually want to spend some time now at home. And you realize that your children only grow up once and most of that happens while you’re at work. That 4 or more extra hours you spend working per day more than your neighbor and those weekends may not be so wonderful then. Maybe you get overtime pay but that doesn’t begin to pay for the loss of seeing your spouse or children at a certain point. Your priorities change and you want to balance work and life.

Do you think your company will be willing to employ you for normal (non-vfx) hours? What leverage would you have to work less hours? After all, the rest of the crew is being forced to put in 60-80+ hr weeks so you feel compelled to do the same. Well it was a good idea while it lasted. And your spouse can always take photos at your daughters birthday party you missed (again).

Health care
Most young people don’t understand the big deal about health care. The astronomical costs of the care and insurance have little bearing on them because at that point they’re in perfect health. Believe me, that can change in a moment. You slip off your skateboard or have some strange pain in the middle of the night. An overnight stay in the hospital can set you back over $20,000. An appendicitis could cost you $135,000. Do you have enough money saved to cover those types of emergencies? Even if you have insurance you have to cover at least 20% and have deductibles. The insurance companies know the odds and they always win. You could be diagnosed with a chronic illness (even in your 20's) and forever be labeled as an existing condition. Your health insurance costs will skyrocket at that point, if you can find coverage. What if you hurt your hand and can’t work for 6 months? Many insurance plans don’t cover disabilities or job loss.

And if you have a family any of these things could happen to someone you love. Most of the foreclosures in this country happen due to medical expenses. And most of those are by people who were covered by insurance or thought they were covered more than they were. The insurance companies have plenty of outs to minimize their payouts.

But hey, it’s you. You’ll never have these problems.

What about your parents and siblings? Are they going to remain in perfect health and do they have enough saved to cover themselves? What about retirement homes at some point for your parents or someone you love? Currently they run $3,000 to $6,000 a month in LA. They can be over $10,000 a month for skilled nursing. How much will it be when that happens? But of course you’ll be so rich by then money will be no object.

Pensions
Many jobs have pension funds. Visual effects do not. How much money will you have saved for retirement? Will your social security cover you in your retirement? The average person doesn’t save much for retirement since other things were always a priority and used up the money. Can you live the manner you are now for the next 30 years without working or being paid?

Joe Harkin had an issue with joining the union originally since he didn’t think he should contribute into a pension pool that others would be using. That process is similar to any type of insurance. You pay money in every month for health insurance, car insurance, house insurance, etc. Rates are based on the number of people paying in. The insurance companies have done the math and it’s simply a matter of the odds that something will happen to any of these people. If you’re fortunate never having to need it you may think why should I bother. The day you’re hospitalized is the day you will be thankful that so many have contributed as well that it will help cover those who drew the short straw through no fault of their own. If you pay into the pension the idea is you will be able to access the funds set aside for you if the fund has been properly managed and the corporations don’t force it to be closed so they can make even more profits.

But you’re tough and smart. You’re going to go it alone. Skip that insurance and pension stuff. That’s for suckers. It's a dog eat dog world and you're not about to contribute to something that may benefit someone else and you certainly wouldn't want people to contribute to help you. People should not be banding together to help each other. You should grow all your own food, build your own roads and learn medicine so you don't need any health care.

You’ll be loaded with so much money from all your savings that it will cover anything that could possibly happen.

Decisions and savings
It’s certainly easy enough to make bad decisions in life. Some seem like good decisions at the time. Things change. Many things out of your control. That house you bought and still owe money on is now worth less than half because of the housing bust but you still have to pay the entire amount to the bank.

For those who made solid investments in stocks, bonds and other instruments that have long been reliable investments - the tech bubble happened in 2000 and wiped out a number of retirement funds and other savings. In 2008 the Wall Street bankers directly caused the destruction of the world economy. That wasn’t your fault but you’re the one that will be paying for it the rest of your life. So 75% of this careful scrimping and saving is gone in an instant. Was that part of your plan? What will happen when the next one happens and how much will you lose? But of course you’ll be so rich by then money will be no object.  For more info on the current economy and why this happened click here.

Unions
Unions are made up of communists and caused the downfall of the American auto industry, which has to be true because you read that somewhere on the internet. Hey, you’re an artist, not a mechanic. You can look after yourself and don’t need a union. Unions are for slackers, whiners and old-timers who can’t make the grade.  If they don’t like it they can quit. Switching to a different career is easy. After all there must be a large call for Maya animators or Nuke compositors in other industries. Those people working next to you who have been doing this for years? Their problems aren’t your problems. (not yet) You’ll be immune to all of those problems. All those others union members working in the film industry (directors, writers, actors, cinematographers, etc) are all suckers. You’ll show them by working unpaid overtime, going without continuous health insurance, no pension plan, and no profit participation. Yeah, you’ll show them how it should be done. You’re obviously a lot smarter than all of those people combined.

If you don’t like what a company offers or what they’re doing you’ll tell them and they will simply bow to your suggestion. If that doesn’t work, and why wouldn’t it, then you can always quit. There’s plenty of work always out there. What’s the big deal? And of course you’ll be so rich by then money will be no object.

Starting in visual effects
Anyone considering going into visual effects should understand what it involves and what the trade-offs you’re making. You will have to go from project to project, company to company. This is a world of freelance. There are no guarantees. There will be times where you will be unemployed. You will have to work hard. You will be asked to work ridiculous hours at times. You may or may not have health insurance where you work. You may or may not be paid overtime. You’re the only one looking out for yourself. The company will not be looking out for you.

Many young people graduate from some schools with the entire notion that they now deserve a job, no matter how good they actually are. They expect their professors to set up their interviews and help them get their job. They feel a sense of entitlement. They did the school and now it should simply rain money and fun projects. Some students focus on the notion that they will graduate and fill a visual effects supervisor role without the mess of having to do that hands on stuff. They’re busy looking up wages of visual effects supervisors on the internet without considering what the job actually entails. They think whatever they’ve learned and where ever they learned it will be more than sufficient to jump in the deep end on a show in full speed mode. They consider many job categories as being beneath them. These people will be very disappointed. School cannot teach you experience. You will learn an enormous amount on each project you work on and that experience is what helps you become a better visual effects artist.

If you’re doing this for the money you’ll be disappointed. If you don’t love doing visual effects and being interested in absorbing the experience and knowledge of working on different projects you should consider going into some other industry.

But hey, it’s you. The world will recognize your genius and none of any of this will affect you.

Summary
Life happens. Sh*t happens. It happens to one and all. The world is not a video game. You control what you can and you do the best you can with life as it comes. Don’t judge others based on your ignorance. You don’t know their story or what they’ve had to deal with. Show some compassion.

Really think about your future. Pensions, 401k, health care, family time, etc are not things that should be considered 10 years from now. Do you plan to work at just one company for your entire life? Will they be able to keep you busy and not have to lay you off for 6 months or more at a time? Will they even be in business for the next 40 years? Will all companies you are going to work for going to be well organized and only make smart decisions? Are all companies you work for going to  consider your needs? How are you going to have health care coverage as you go from company to company? How are you going to have a pension plan as you move from company to company? How are you going to make sure you’re paid overtime when you are working?

At some point you’re going to have to seriously look at a union and what it offers. Oh that’s right, you’ll be so rich by then money will be no object.

[Update: Just to be clear some of the this was meant as obvious tongue and cheek. Humorous exaggeration to make a point. It seems it may not have been obvious to a few people and they're taking some of this as a personal attack on them personally or think that others may take offense(?!) A sense of humor is very useful in visual effects.]

Related
Forbes article 20 things for 20 year olds

Melies quote of artists and businessmen

This is a story from Georges Méliès, early film director and visual effects artist. The film HUGO covered part of his life and the VES (Visual Effects Society) uses his image of a Rocket in the face of the moon as it's icon.

Big cinema producer said to Melies one day "Your mistake is to see everything from an artist point of view. That's why you'll always just be an artist and not a businessman."

I replied quite calmly "Sir, this is the highest praise. If you businessmen didn't have us artists to create and perform I wonder what you could sell?"



For those interested be sure to check out the DVD - Melies the Magician. It's on Netflix and likely other sources as well.  Amazing amount of work and accomplishment in film.

Beyond 24fps

Peter Jackson has been shooting The Hobbit in 3D at 48fps*. Jim Cameron is looking at doing Avatar sequels at 60fps. The preview of some of The Hobbit footage this last  week caused some concern and confusion. I didn't see the footage but will describe some of the reasoning and history of why frame rates are being explored.

Doug Trumbull developed the Showscan process (60fps) years ago and I worked on some projects in it as well as projected the demos for awhile. It was actually 72fps when I started but we conducted tests with people wired up and there was a definite response to the higher frame rates. Most dramatic was 24 to 48 and then it started tapering down by 60 fps. Dogs and most animals see at a higher frame rate than people. Dogs would go crazy in the showscan theater in a way they don't in a regular theater.

Keep in mind when you're seeing something projected at 24fps the projector is showing the same image 2 or 3 times (48 or 72fps) to avoid you seeing flicker because the human eye can easily see 24fps changes. On film projectors they had multi-blade shutters to accomplish this. Also note that before sound fps was 16-18 and 24fps was determined as the slowest frame rate they could use with sound. It wasn't based on research for the best quality but the least expensive to make do. Just like the layout of the qwerty keyboard (standard keyboard used around the world) was simply base on the limits of the mechanics of the day (avoiding jammed keys) and not on best usage.


Doug showed a Showscan demo that had a roller coaster ride (like the This is Cinemarama demo decades before) and a log ride. The demo would start in 35mm 24fps and then would switch to 70mm 72fps. At that point the entire audience would feel the movement of the coaster and the sloshing of the log. It was in fact a very real and visceral experience. You were there. In the log ride there was a shot of a waterfall and of a duck flying up with water drops flipping off it's wings. At 24fps that scene has a blurred waterfall and very blurred wings which we expect for film because we're used to it.  A similar scene at 72fps you could see the full waterfall effect as if it were live and could see the wings of the bird just like you can in real life.


This is NOT the Saving Private Ryan look. This doesn't strobe and this isn't artificial. 


One of the demos he later showed was a projectionist behind the screen leaning on the screen and talking to the audience. Most people thought it was real.


This works great for simulator rides where you have action going on. I directed the Space Race simulator ride at ILM. We shot it on VistaVision but it was created for 60fps Showscan. If you saw the results converted to 24fps compared to true 60fps there was no comparison. In one you're watching a movie and in the other you're experiencing the movie. This is why most special venue films and simulator rides run at higher frame rates since they're not locked into a standard and since they want to provide a real experience.


For film it produced a grain free experience and with 70mm it showed everything so makeup and closeups could be problematic. Just as 4k resolution, higher frame rates give more of a sense of details for flaws on set are more readily apparent. As with 3D stereo, some of the old filmmaking cheats are less tolerated.


With 3D stereo you're relying on eye disparity. And with 24fps you actually get a lot of strobing for any image that moves sideways or during a pan. And that's one of the problems Cameron and Jackson are trying to solve by going to a higher frame rate.


So with 48 or 60fps you have a much more real and visceral experience. You tend to move or jump in your seat more during action sequences or POV shots because you're mind is no longer looking at an illusion projected up on the screen. Your subconscious mind is responding because it now believes much of what it's seeing is real. The difference of going 2k to 4k is much less than going from 24fps to 48 or 60fps. You can see the difference on any device, any size. Those with newer TV sets can get a pseudo feeling for this by switching on the 120fps or 240fps cinema mode. But realize this is a simulation, not real original images, and realize it's on a small screen compared to being 40 feet or more across.


Part of the problem is video was developed to run at higher frame rates. For years of course it was inferior in terms of quality and live events have a certain look. This includes soap operas. One of the main reasons for that look was the 60 fields per second. And that's why 24fps video, when it finally came, was overwhelming chosen by filmmakers because it had a look like 'film'. It wasn't because of lack of depth of field or film grain that caused the obvious difference of video to film. It was primarily the frame rate.


Had video been at 24fps it's much more likely audiences would be more welcoming to higher frame rates. As it is anything starting to resemble live video has a stigma attached. 


Because 24fps has a bit of an illusion to it and because we've been so ingrained by seeing so much of it all our lives, it provides a slightly dream like quality to this form of story telling. At higher frame rates action sequences will seem more real but likewise so will the people, acting and sets.  Will this make them appear more as soap operas for standard dialog scenes?  I suspect young people use to video games will have no difficulty adjusting but for most of the audience it may be a bigger jump.  


24fps may be like the qwerty keyboard that continues years beyond it was required simply because it formed a standard that everyone learned and is comfortable with, despite not being the most efficient.


Doug Trumbull is doing on going tests including up to 120 fps and hopes to show comparisons likely in the fall of 2012. The VES and other groups are working with Doug when he is ready for presentations. His new method also includes a much more effective means to convert down to other frame rates. His website provides more details on the history and reasoning of frame rates and the other issues he's been pushing (brighter projection, etc)

Here's a recent video interview with Doug,



As far as visual effects is concerned all of these newer processes (4k resolution, 3D stereo, higher frame rate) add more work and require more time. That's why the compression of post-production schedules combined with the desire from  the studios for more advanced effects work and the additional workload of these new technologies results in massive overtime and frustration of the visual effects crews.


3D stereo requires twice as much rendering and requires some tasks to be done twice. Some things that visual effects relied on, such as standard 2D matte paintings, can no longer be done in the same way.
Moving from 2k to 4k resolution results in 4 times the size of image data. That takes more time to render, composite, move files, etc and takes 4 times the amount of disk space.
Higher frame rates increase many of these tasks in proportion to the increase in frames. Many frame by frame hand work (and yes, believe or not people work by hand on individual movie frames) such as rotoscoping will obviously require more care. Hopefully splining and other other systems will minimize the additional frame specific work but there will always be some.

*FPS stands for Frames Per Second. These are the number of still images displayed in sequence in a second of time to create the illusion of motion.

[Update 12/2/2012  Just saw THE HOBBIT at 48fps. It  definitely reduced the stereo horizontal strobing that's common in stereo films and smoothed some of the fast action. There were a few odd shots in regard to motion. Some seemed to have been sped up in post.  A little sense of video in some of the earlier scenes but once the movie gets going it doesn't draw attention to itself but certainly added a bit more realism with the 3D and higher frame rate. I hope to see it again soon to review more fully at a close position to the screen. ]


[Update 12/13/2012  I do recommend people try to see it at 48fps with an open mind so you can decide yourself. This could be one of the only times you get the opportunity to see a full feature film at 48fps (if the results don't sit well with the studio they will not do it again)  
As I've covered elsewhere this of course is the first attempt to do a full film at this rate so there are bound to be issues that will have to be sorted out.  

Also in the future we may see variable fps films.  24fps for 'normal' scenes and then a shift to higher fps for action scenes,POV scenes or as a creative choice to different viewpoints or sequences just as directors choose at times with color grading or other manipulation.  Doug's film BRAINSTORM was supposed to show the brainstorm experiences at 60fps so they were different. Wizard of Oz has black and white until the Oz sequence. ]

Visual Effects Union, take 2

(Update 4/23/2012 fixed missing BECTU link)

Yesterday there was an IA Union meeting with a number of visual effects artists. Most were from Sony Imageworks but there were others attending to get information firsthand regarding a possible visual effects union. The visual effects community received a fair bit of press regarding this including the Los Angeles Times articles here and here (retweeted by Roger Ebert), Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, Cartoon Brew and VFXSoldier here and here.  The Animation Guild has posts related to this here, here and here.

Well now that the Visual Effects union is ramping up again, what’s next?

It looks like the IA is taking this more seriously now. (And don’t count IBEW out).  Evidently the IA has a website in progress but they will likely setup a temp site/blog regarding the visual effects union in the meantime.  [ IATSE Visual Effect Union website is now up ] They seem to realize the need to get with the new millennium and provide information on a website. They’ll even have a twitter account [ @vfxunion ] and likely do a visual effects podcast interview. [ podcast is here ]  They’ve asked the Animation Guild to help out in this process since they’re the closest specific union to visual effects and understand some of the issues better. The Animation Guild already covers animators at Disney and Dreamworks along with compositors and other artists.

I’ll cover a few things here but none of this is official, which is why a union website straight from the organizers would be a good thing. I had listed suggestions for the union here which they have reviewed along with a number of other blogs and input from artists directly.

A few artists from Sony Imageworks got the ball rolling and created their own website, SpiUnion. They actually have a number of questions and answers there which everyone should read. Sony Imageworks is somewhat unique in they are owned by a studio so indirectly at least they are connected to the decision makers and profit makers. Sony Pictures and Sony Animation are both union based but Imageworks (visual effects) is not. The IA will continue to have meetings with those interested from Imageworks. The notion is to be able to provide information and to help educate visual effects workers regarding what a union is, how it works and what the potential benefits are. This would be Union 101 because most visual effects workers have no direct knowledge or experience with unions.

The IA will likely have meetings around Los Angeles for visual effects workers who want information and have questions. These would cover many of the same issues as above.

I’ve covered much of this already in other posts but suspect I should repeat a few things here. I’m not a union rep so take these with a grain of salt. I urge those in the US to talk to a union rep to get clear answers about these and other questions you might have.

Visual effects was in fact covered by unions once upon a time. 
This simple statement still draws puzzling looks from workers and management. Suffice to say that until digital there was a fair bit of union coverage. Close Encounters and others shows were union. Union camera for models, optical printers, motion control, etc. Matte painters, model builders, animators, etc were all union. ILM was union. The transition of digital effects and the proliferation of companies resulted in non-union as the new normal.

‘This will be the nail in the coffin’ of the US visual effects industry. 
This old chestnut still lingers and is often repeated without considering what’s actually going on. The union knows there’s no point in going through this and burdening the visual effects companies with huge union costs. If added costs were to cause a company to close then it would be of no benefit to the union or workers. The union expects to work with each company and negotiate an arrangement that makes sense. It’s like SAG (actor’s union) which has different actor minimums depending on the type of project. Small, low budget short films have different rates than large studio productions.

There are a number of factors that go into deciding where the work goes including quality, availability, price, artists, and communication among others.

What does a union mean to a US visual effects worker?
The union should be able to provide reasonable health care coverage that is continuous when you move from one union company to another as you work on projects.  You still have to put in so many hours to qualify for health care but you don’t have to start from scratch with each company. In addition you get a pension, vacation and a few other benefits.

The union would enforce some basics such as working conditions and minimum wages for given categories. Misclassifications, payroll scams that charge workers, unpaid interns, uncompensated overtime, missing payroll and other problems would be dealt with.

As a union member you would vote on who represents you just like other unions. This means visual effects people would be involved in overseeing the union.

As an individual you have very little power. If you don’t like something or aren’t paid (such as some in Montreal experienced) there’s not much you can do by yourself. You can talk to management or quit. As a union member you would have collective bargaining. If you’re part of a union there’s strength in numbers to ask for reasonable things. If a shop misses payments then the threat of the entire crew leaving gives the company an incentive to correct their problems.

Standardization of titles would also be likely to happen.  People would be less likely to be given fictional titles (higher or lower than their true involvement).

Visual effects workers would at least achieve some parity with the rest of those working in movies and television. Which may help to gain some respect.

How can the union deal with all the different jobs involved in visual effects?
The current notion is this would be a visual effects union which would cover the entire range of work and which would allow flexibility. Since the guidelines and contracts will be written up with visual effects people, these are areas that would be fleshed out.

How much does it cost to be in the union? 
The IA has stated that if you’re with a company that becomes union then they will wave the initiation fees. Most dues are a few hundred dollars a year. Check the SPiUnion site for some of the specifics. In any case the dues are a very tiny fraction of your pay and the benefit obtained by being in the union vastly outweigh the costs. Compare the cost of individual health care with the cost of union dues and that will become very clear.

What about profit sharing?
The IA already shares some of the profits from the studios. The studios have to put in a percentage of profits into the health and welfare fund. It’s the basis for much of the Hollywood unions health coverage.  And visual effects is one of the few groups working on films and television that get no profit sharing currently.

What about outsourcing?
The union can’t stop outsourcing. Most outsourcing is based on tax incentives of different countries and areas. One of the best things that could happen to the visual effects industry is for all tax incentives to go away so all companies are competing based on quality, efficiencies, cost and other factors they control, not a politician. The union can lobby the US or state government to provide tax incentives or they can lobby the WTO to stop tax incentives but those are difficult battles.  In the end as long as politicians can convince the right people and those being taxed don't complain, incentives will continue.

What about a small company with no benefits and no overtime compensation?
Well there would obviously be some costs involved for the company. Right now you as a worker at this type of company are absorbing all of those costs directly. Anytime you’re misclassified, working free overtime or having to pay all your own health insurance you’re absorbing more than many people are in other jobs. Why should you bear the brunt of poor management? Is there a reason you wish to fund the company by personally paying for what most jobs pay for? It may simply be a matter of balancing the company pay rates and what they contribute.

What does a visual effects union mean to those in other countries?
There’s been some suggestion for a worldwide union for visual effects workers but the complexities and differences in laws and regulation across multiple countries makes a true international union unworkable. The IA does have a presence in Canada and there is a visual effects union there as well. (IA891)  In this case there may be some type of mutual agreements for those who move between areas that some of the coverage might be able to continue. In the UK there is an entertainment union called BECTU. I don’t know anything about it but those interested could investigate.

One impact on even those in another country is a visual effects union here in the US would provide at least a frame of reference in terms of working conditions and other factors. You can always ask for some of these same types of things in your deal memos or at least know where you stand.

What does it mean for the companies?
If a company already has health care for employees this may prove to be less expensive since it’s funded in part by studio profits and the union has thousands of members so the insurance rates are likely less than a medium shop with 100 people. As noted previously the union will want to avoid being a financial burden on companies.

The union would also likely provide some reassurance regarding the ability of the people in the union. The International Cinematographers Guild has classes and certifications as new equipment and positions start up. A visual effects union could do something along the same lines.

Given a choice between working on similar projects at a union company (with continuous benefits and known working conditions) and a nonunion company, most workers would prefer to work at the union company. That’s an incentive to get and keep good people.

What does it mean for the studios?
The majority of people working on movies and television are already union based. From directors and writers to the grips and wardrobe department. So this shouldn’t be out of the ordinary for them. Again if the union adds an unreasonably cost of doing business to the companies or studios then it will be unlikely to be successful. But the studios are used to negotiating and certainly aware of all the various unions and what’s required.

What about a visual effects trade association?
A trade organization is meant for companies, not workers.
The union does nothing to prevent a trade association from forming. In some ways it may encourage the companies to form an association so they can negotiate as a group with the union. Rather than continuing to wait for a visual effects associate to form, visual effects workers can take control over their situation and proceed if they wish to support a union.

What about the VES?
The VES is an honorary society to help educate and honor visual effects. Part of what it’s been attempting to do the last year or so is to make up for the fact there is no union or trade association. If either of these existed then the VES would focus on it’s origin mandate and help as necessary in other areas.

[ More info: IATSE Visual Effect Union website ]


[Update 12/3/2012  There was a VES sponsored event regarding VFX Union with a panel of people both pro/con union, including a representitive from the union.  fxGuide has a write up of the meeting. Video should be available at some time in future at the VES website for members. And yes, the auto industry was mentioned.]

[Update: Film Unions info ]

Related post with more details:
Visual Effects Guilds

Digital Domain plans to have paying students make up 30% of workforce

[Update: 9/15/2012 DD has now closed their Florida facility. Some of the classes have been put on hold and certainly students won't be working at the DD facility as planned. But the post is still useful read since it clarifies some of the attempts to take advantage of workers, students and the visual effects industry]


In case you haven’t already been made aware of this Digital Domain (DD) is starting up a school in Florida which is funded by the Florida State government. I won't do a detailed recap here since that's already more than well covered on other sites. And thanks to VXFSoldier from bringing this up.

For more info and to see an extraordinary video: (I urge you to read the comments as well since most commentors make valid points. Check out Dave Rand’s comments as well.)

DD "Free labor is much better than cheap labor"  - VFXSoldier
"Paying to work for free" business model  - VFXSoldier
Questions and Reactions  - VFXSoldier
LA Times on DD Institute  - VFXSoldier
Paying to work for free - Motionographer
CEO brags about exploiting animation students - CartoonBrew
Free labor! - TAG, Animation Guild
Working = money, right? - Canadian Animation Resources

DD will be making money off of the students ($105k tuition) in a for profit school (as other most for profits- turning out more visual effects graduates than there are openings). But the additional kicker is they setup a studio in Florida where 30% of the workforce will be made up of students.

For those who might think that would be good for the students and don’t see the harm:
1. it is against Federal law to have interns and others working for free doing work that is productive (i.e actually paying positions).

2. The reason this is a law because any business could simply staff up with non-paying positions (interns, students, experienced… doesn’t matter). There are enough people hungry for certain types of jobs that would be happy doing them for nothing. Businesses would be more than happy having free labor, even if it meant more poverty. That’s why there are also minimum wage laws. (unfortunately they’re still below the poverty line). In a perfect world businesses would be a balance of making great products or services, making money and treating people fairly. In the real world today the name is greed. In days past a mom and pop store tried to be responsible and to consider the consequences. Today most companies are owned by stock holders and investors who’s one and only focus is squeezing more of a return out of company. The CEOs and others in management fall in line so they can get their slice of the pie too. They take no responsibility for these types of actions and simply blame it on the shareholders.

3. These students are paying a lot of money to work there. So they’re not just working for free, they’re paying to work. Double bonus for Digital Domain to get paid by clients and workers.

4. Once it becomes possible for a visual effects company to staff up to 30% of their labor with students paying to do so, it’s possible for not only other visual effects companies to do so, but any other company to do so.

5. If 30% of the work force are students paying to work, why would companies hire people? Why should they hire you, an experienced visual effects worker, when they can get someone better than free?

6. This leads to the question of where all these graduates will be working. They’ve paid$105,000 to do this and likely taken out loans to do so. They expect to be hired since they’ve be taught specifically in visual effects. DD in Florida will already be staffed up. They have a steady stream of students paying every year so there will be little need for them to hire these graduates.

7. DD can now offer a 30% discount on any work done in Florida. Actually more than a 30% discount since they’re getting money from the students. How will other visual effects companies compete? Why starting their own students paying workforce of course!

In the end this means more imbalanced competion for both companies and workers.
This means lower of rates for all companies and all visual effects workers and actually creates less opportunities for new graduates. The only one to profit from this is DD and only in the short term. Florida will gain little and spent a great deal of tax money that could have been used productively.

To potential students:
There are much cheaper ways to become educated in visual effects if that’s what you want. There are online classes, books, DVD’s, etc. There’s no need to go 10’s of thousands of dollars in debt if all you want is visual effects education. If you want to get a college diploma that’s fine and serves it’s purpose but beware of those offering it.

Getting into visual effects is hard. The visual effects industry is going through some rough transitions currently. Be ready to move elsewhere. No school can guarantee employment.

All that stuff about getting credit on films, etc. - Forget it. These days politicians, CEOs and Hollywood produce far more BS than the world needs. Those of us who have been working for a while have seen far too many examples of unkept promises and sugar coating. Don’t be suckered for these.

The CEO is surprised that more visual effects workers aren’t jumping at the chance to pickup and move to Florida. They’re not jumping because most of us know the drill. The lure of working in another place with an unknown future. Sure, we’ll be more than happy to sell our homes, uproot our family, say goodbye to friends and move. And at the end of that project when they don’t have much work you’re laid off. And without many other visual effects companies in the area you’re forced to return to where you moved from. No thanks.
[Update: 9/10/2012 Unfortunately this came true. The DD studio in Florida has closed down and the workers there were laid off without warning and without severance pay. From what I gather most had moved there from other locations, many selling their homes. These unfortunate workers are now in a location without other similar jobs so they will likely have to move back to where they were or to another location. Moving is not cheap, especially if you have a house of furniture and possessions. And trying to find a new job in this industry is not easy. ]

The CEO actually talks about VFX being a dying industry and is expecting you to work on military or medical projects after graduating. This comes after they’ve sold you on the dream of working on Hollywood movies. Most of us got into visual effects because we wanted to create content and work on films and tv projects. While I applaud the use of visual effects technology to help with medical causes, you should be aware of the distinction. For an animator who wants to bring characters to life it’s a much different job if you’re animating a heart or military aircraft. The CEO makes the mistake that labor is simply a commodity. If you went to school to be a painter of fine art, would you be happy when the school says at the end: “Sorry, there’s not much call for fine artists but there is a large need for house painters. Enjoy it.”


Those who live in other countries may think this has nothing to do with them. As I’ve said before, we’re all connected at this stage. If there’s a major change in pay or working conditions somewhere in the world regarding visual effects, then it will likely affect you sooner than you think. That 30% discount that DD can now offer is on par with many tax incentives. That alone could shift the balance. 30% of labor that pays to work will cause a downward spiral in pay. And the company you work for and the studios will point that out and say that you will have to follow suit. “After all, we have to remain competitive”. And around it goes.

I urge all visual effects workers to step away from their workstations for a moment and check in with the rest of the world. There’s a lot going on. I know it’s great focusing on what you’re doing but there are large changes in progress throughout the world that will affect you and your future. You can’t simply ignore it all and hope it never affects you.

You should also educate yourself on unions and trade associations. Please don’t fall prey to the stereotypes or the paid for misinformation. There are pros and cons of each of these and you should be aware each has different goals.

Some of the things that are happening to the industry you work in, hopefully doing what you love, should make you angry. It should make you sit up and take notice. If that’s the case, make yourself heard. If you have thoughts, opinions, solutions, make yourself heard. If you know of problems let yourself be heard. The internet and social media has opened up and connected us in ways not possible before.

For those you would like to speak out about what DD is doing in Florida, contact and tell them what you think.

Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education: Commissioner@fldoe.org

Wage & Hour division of the Department Of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/whd/america...

Bonus: Should I work for free chart

Other sites of interest:
ImageWorks artists in support of a better VFX Industry - SPiUnion - info about unions and other things

Game of Aeron Chairs: A song of beer and pixels - tk1099 on vfx unions and movement

Supermodel sets up an Alliance with Bill of Rights and push for health care and better working conditions.
Initial story
Alliance site

In the last few months car washes, sandwich places and now supermodels are either unionizing or creating a group to at least represent them and help improve their situation.
What about us?

VES feedback

VES Visual Effects Handbook feedback
We are having meetings and starting to work on the revised VES handbook. Most of the feedback we have received has been very general. If you want to see additional information, improvements, changes, etc to the handbook please post here or email to the VES. Is it working for you? Is there anything lacking? How is the Kindle or other eBook version for you?  Get in your feedback in NOW.


Townhall meetings
Today there was a VES townhall on the web where members and others were able to ask questions and hear Jeff Okun and Eric Roth discuss VES 2.0

There will be additional townhall meetings.

VES 2.0 feedback
As requested if anyone has something to say regarding VES 2.0, especially solutions and suggestions contact Jeff Okun at: jeffokun at aol.com
You can also contact: leadership at visualeffectssociety.com

VES Forums
The VES has expanded their online site with a beta version of VES Forums. Check your VES emails to get the info on it and some upcoming VES events.

Acting and Animation

Acting and Animation

There has been debate and discussion lately regarding if motion capture is pure acting.
Here are a couple of latest links to check out:

James Franco requests recognition for Andy Serkis work on RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
Here's the URL if it doesn't work: http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/oscar-exclusive-james-franco-on-why-andy-serkis-deserves-credit-from-actors/

Then, what the Weta effects team did was to essentially “paint” the look of Caesar over Andy’s performance.  This is not animation as much as it’s digital  “make-up.” 

And here’s one of the responses. Be sure to check out the links to the videos by Andy Serkis and Jeffrey Engle


I’ll try to clarify a few things if I may.

Both acting and animation are very difficult to do well and require talent and artistry. Some people try to define the specifics of each one but at the end of the day they are both used to bring life to a narrative character. Whether it’s a live action person or an animated person/animal/object on screen, the audience should be able to relate to the character in some way and be provided some emotion connection.

Acting-
Acting is one of those jobs that looks very easy to those who don’t do it.
Having worked with actors, directed actors and taken both acting and improv classes, I can say with confidence it is very difficult to do well. An actor has to act and react as the character they are supposed to portray. They have to be able to become one with the character. When in that zone the actor is in the moment and the fictional world becomes their world. An actor has to put themselves out there for all to watch and that can make them feel very vulnerable. Actors are not allowed to analyze or observe their performance since that takes them out of the moment. They have to make it look effortless and to feel completely natural even though they are saying written dialog and may be doing the shot multiple times. Subtle facial expressions and body language convey more than the spoken dialog.  Casting of actors for a film is very important since different actors will bring a different take on a character.

Animation-
Animators are frequently given a bit of a brush off from the rest of the entertainment community. Much of what’s animated is aimed at children or young adults so can’t be serious according to some. But take a close look at many animation classics, even for children, and great animation does reverberate emotionally in the viewer. Look at Dumbo, Pinocchio and other Disney classics. Warner Brothers and other studios also brought engaging animated characters to life. These days Pixar and similar 3D animation studios are accomplishing the same thing.

Animators on visual effects projects must achieve a level of realism beyond what happens in most animated films. One’s not better than the other but there are differences. A visual effects animator may have to animate a horse or other animal and make them totally believable as the animal they are supposed to portray. In many cases the animation may be intercut with the footage of the real animal so the match in motion has to be spot on. Visual effects animators may also be called on to animate fantasy creatures or talking, breathing characters.

A true test for a character animator is to animate a simple flour sack drawing or model. Even without a body or face an animator can bring life to the flour sack in such a way to convey happiness, sadness, curiosity and other emotions.

Even though the term may be computer animation an actual artist is the one that does the animation. The computer is just the tool as a pencil was to pre-computer animators. Casting the right animator can be as important as casting the right actor.

Puppets
When I worked at ILM some of the modelers were also puppeteers. As puppeteers they were also in SAG since the actions of a puppet was acting. So when we did leaping laser printers or other things that required puppeting, that was under SAG agreements. I’m assuming the Muppets and any other key puppets would qualify.  In this case it’s still considered acting when moving an inanimate object with hands and rods. But there is a direct connection between the actor and the final performance.

Acting and editing
The act of editing the film of a performance can change it’s impact.
The director guides the actor’s performance on set and selects the most appropriate take of the action. Then in editing specific intercutting is used to both tell the story and to emphasis the character as desired. In the early days of film there was a classic test done where a shot of an actor with a neutral expression was intercut with various scenes. The audience response was the actor was doing a good job of  showing happiness, sadness and other emotions based solely on what it was intercut with.

Manipulation
The development of digital effects technology and artists proficient in its use allows actual manipulation of an acting performance. On STAR WARS: THE PHANTOM MENACE there were scenes that George Lucas requested be modified. An actor might have looked up in a take but the shot was run in reverse so the actor looked downward instead since that was deemed better for the cut. In some cases the scene was split and the sync of one side was slipped relative to the other. This was used to shift the timing of a reaction from one actor to another. In other cases eye blinks were added or removed as desired. Some directors have added tear drops or other modifications to a performance. The point here is that even a live action performance can be modified in post-production in an effort to create a better film experience. What was the actor’s truth on set may not be what appears in the final film. And in most cases the actors would probably not be aware of it. In the future we’ll likely see even more of this as directors and studios seek to take full advantage of the editing process. And don’t think that these types of details are beyond the scope or budget of post-production. Visual effects is already heavily used for things like removing wig netting, making adjustments to makeup (to the tune of over $1 million in some cases) and adding bruises or wounds. (That’s the real meaning of the term ‘digital makeup’.) A few actor adjustment shots will be a drop in the bucket compared to the other work already being done. It’s possible at a future time there will be debate about the implications of these types of modifications and what that means to actors.

The real process
Some actors talk or write about motion capture and 3D animation as ‘painting’ in the image. Painting? Really? That would make sense if you took a time machine back 100 years before computers and tried to explain it I suppose. But these days it makes as much sense as saying Michelangelo ‘doodled’ the David sculpture.

Short form: The performance of the actor is recorded and applied in some form to a Computer Graphic (CG) animated character.

Long form: Potentially dozens of people create a very detailed and fully articulated CG model. Imagine making a Madam Tussaunds wax figure but an order of magnitude more difficult. Character/creature designers, concept artists and animators work with the director to develop the look of the character. In some cases a physical model is sculpted out of clay for the director to review. Next it needs to be modeled head to toe, down to every key wrinkle in the computer. This is part modeling and part sculpting. A type of skeleton is built where every movable joint that is needed is included and each joint has a specific range of motion. The irises in the eyes can open and close, the eyes can move, the chest can expand when breathing, nostrils flare and the tongue is configured so that speech looks correct. In many cases muscles are built and configured to change shape. Texture artists paint every surface of the model, not with just one paint process but with multiple paint versions. One paint version shows how shiny different parts of the model are. Another is used to show dirt and still another may be used to show the subtle skin textures and tiny wrinkles.

Fur and hair may need to be added. The angle of the hair, the length of the hair and style of the hair have to be modeled. Another person may be responsible for defining where things are hard (finger nails, shells, etc) and where things are soft and pliable on the model. A shader writer writes specialized programming code to make the skin look real in different types of lighting and that it have specific translucency depending on where it is on the body. Every major facial and phonetic expression needs to be modeled to aid the animator in adjusting and expressing both emotion and voice. All this is done by a team of skilled artists and technicians who use the computer as a tool as a sculptor may use a chisel.

Every item of clothing and every prop the character handles has to be designed and built. The motion of the clothing is setup to be simulated. Does this clothing item behave like silk, cotton or canvas? Dangling earrings and the hair will be programmed so that they move in realistic manner when the character is moving.

All of that just to create the character model.

Animation Process
A good animator does act out the scene at their desk or within their mind visualizes the performance. Unlike a live action actor, the animator has to also observe and analyze every motion and expression change. And not only the position but also the timing of all of those motions need to be noted. The animator is able to visualize the changes in slow motion, forward and backwards. They have to translate that into key frame positions for the animated character model. If choice of the position of the arm or the eyebrow is wrong or if the time of those motions is wrong, the animation won’t work. Take after take is required to refine the animation. Any dialog is analyzed as well and the facial expression not only has to convey characters emotion at that 1/24 second granularity but the mouth shape, lips and tongue have to match the correct shape for the phonetic sound created in that moment.

Even actions like setting the feet down and walking take work on the computer. Activities in the real world that happen naturally take effort to do on the computer. The ground in the computer has to be built and matched to the ground of the real location and this is done by a person (match mover). If a foot goes too low then it will go into the ground and if it’s too high the foot won’t make contact with the ground.

And once the animation is done someone has to light it much like a Director of Photography does. Someone has to render the character and others have to composite (combine) the image with the original image from the set. There’s an entire team of craftsmen as big or bigger than the live action crew to make all of this happen.

Performance capture
The combination of powerful computers and digital video cameras made it possible to do computer vision. Images and motion could then be analyzed for scientific and medical purposes. The visual effects industry, as usual, looked to take advantage of these new technologies. Motion capture (MOCAP) became a way to reasonably capture 3D motion data, especially human motion, into the computer. This is useful for recording basic human motion for action shots. Facial capture has been developing which makes it possible to capture not only body motion but the entire performance. When the motion captured includes all aspects of a performance then the term ‘performance capture’ may be used instead of motion capture.

The typical system uses multiple markers that are strategically placed on the actor. A number of specialized cameras are placed around on a small to medium sized stage that is lit by subdued light. The multiple views are combined by special computer software to yield 3D information on each joint movement. In these cases only the motion was captured after the main photography had already been complete. Developments over the last few years (VAN HELSING, etc.) have allowed the capture of an actor on the stage or outside while being filmed at the same time. Additional simplified motion capture processes have also been developed (PIRATES 2, etc.) and it’s now also possible to motion capture a number of actors at the same time. These advancements have allowed motion capture actors more freedom and more interaction with fellow actors. (We still use tennis balls and other references at times. If the CG character is only 4 inches tall or is over 20 feet tall then it can be difficult for a real actor to stand in place and provide the correct interaction.)

For interactive performance capture actors are fitted with special suits and act with fellow actors who will remain in the final scenes. This interaction is of course beneficial for both the actors and the director. Another team of visual effects artists then go through and remove the performance actor by literally painting and restoring what would have been behind them. This is a very labor intensive and time consuming process since it involves hand painting frame by frame and creating imagery that isn’t in the original. The animated character or creature is then rendered and composited into the scene.

The problems
It might seem that once the motion data is captured it could simply be applied to the CG model and viola - a moving character that exactly matches the performance of the actor down to the smallest detail. But alas, such is not the case by a long shot. If it were then many of the animated films created today could be done using performance capture but they aren’t. Live action and animated movies are different art forms and what we’re seeing in some cases is a hybrid of the two. There’s still plenty of growing pains.

1. Even with improvement in the motion capture process there is quite a bit of cleanup required. A simple motion of an actor reaching out may have some frames where the arm leaps up or down a few inches. There might also be random frames where the arm goes behind the actors back or through his body. This takes a small team of people to go through and remove these glitches and clean up the data such that the performance is as pure as possible. In some cases large chunks of data may be missing which requires an animator to fill in with the appropriate motion.

2. CG characters seldom match the real actor unless it’s a digital double. Frequently the proportions are changed such that the arms or legs maybe longer or shorter. This means that the stride and interaction of what the actor was doing doesn’t match what it should. The further away this gets from the real actors body the more difficult it becomes to use the data as it is. A Satyr has totally different leg joints and needless to say a four-legged creature or caterpillar can render much of at least the body motion useless. Captured facial performance may not have much use when the facial structure is very different such as on an insect like creature. All this requires an animator skilled in the understanding of motion, performance and animation to try to retain at least a sense of what the original actors performance was providing. In some cases even performance capture data may become a basic reference or simply inspiration with the brunt of the performance created by the animator.

3. Eyes are the window to the soul and a key tool for the actor but actually capturing the eyes, eye blinks and iris changes has not happened in a meaningful way. That means it’s up to an animator to add these types of fine, but critical, details to complete the performance.

4. In the editing and visual effects process it may be determined that some adjustments may need to be made for technical reasons. Placement and timing of the character versus what the performance capture actor was doing. In some cases it may be the directors creative call to modify a performance once it has been reviewed with the rendered creature in place.

The end result is it’s likely a fair bit of performance capture undergoes some manipulation and work by animators and other artists.  In some cases it may be inappropriate to use performance capture simply because the amount of work required is large and the amount of the performance that can be retained is small. Each project has to be evaluated dependent on the creature/character and how cleanly the performance capture can be used.

So you have pure live action acting on one end of the spectrum and pure animation from scratch on the other end. And in-between you have a gray area. One step away from pure animation is to use references. For DRAGONHEART the animators used both stills and clips of Sean Connery to try to incorporate a bit of his personality into the animated performance they were creating. For a project like RANGO they filmed the actors going through the scenes and the animators used this as a reference to create their animation, trying to keep the spirit and emotion of the actors. In some cases they probably followed the actors performance very closely and in other cases they may have ended up deviating quite a bit from the recorded reference. In this film the types of characters (based on a range of animals) would make it impossible to do an exact match of an actor’s performance. It’s up to the animator to re-interpret and adapt the actors art form into an animated art form, much as a screenwriter may have adapt a novel into a screenplay. The core insight may remain the same but changes have to made to deliver it in a different form.

On some of the more extensive performance capture projects  lately only the animators who worked on the project know how much they did or didn’t do. It won’t be 100% nor will it be 0%. True judgement by those not involved directly in the animation would require a side by side comparison of the original footage next to the finished results.  (Not just a shot or two and not just a cut between the two at a specific frame.) How closely does the final performance match the nuances of the original? Did 90% of the shots just require simply cleanup? Did they end up creating or modifying the performance in the majority of the shots? Was the performance used mainly as a reference and inspiration with the animators creating the majority of the final performance? Or does the actor’s full performance shine through the majority of the shots?


Summary
1. Both acting and animation are difficult and require talent. Both bring life to narrative characters. Both are necessary for making projects of these types and both should get proper respect.

2. Animators and visual effects artists are collaborators with live action production, including acting. As such it would be nice to be acknowledged for the contribution these artists bring to a project and a realistic assessment of the amount of creativity they bring, not to mention the amount of work involved behind the scenes.

3. Performance capture is not a pure technology or art. It will likely have some mix of both an actor’s work and an animators work. What the blend is will depend on the specific project. Those reviewing the performance (critics, awards, etc) will have to determine what balance range they’re willing to consider and to provide credit where credit is due.

4. As visual effects continues to progress and as projects push into new territories there will be even more overlap and blurring of the contribution of all involved in making films. The thinking and mind sets will have to keep up with these developments.

5. Performance capture is not Digital "Make-up". As the word Performance indicates, it’s based on performance which at this point involves some balance of an actor and animator collaborating in a manner to bring the character to life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Update Mar. 4, 2012: I received some questions from a reader related to this that I answered. Thought I'd add it to this post]

What is your opinion on the mainstream, out-of-industry perception of performance capture?

Most people outside of visual effects think performance capture is simply hooking up an actor to a CG puppet of sorts. That there's some type of computer program that transforms the actor directly into a cartoon or CG character.

Andy Serkis believes that 'Performance Capture is a tool, it is simply a way of recording an actors performance, no different to a camera'. What are your thoughts on this statement?

Years from now that may be closer to the truth but currently it's not close to reality. The differences are a camera records the actor directly and presents it as it was acted. The resolution, color and other things may be different but that doesn't change the actual performance. The impact of the acting can be influenced by choice of lens, camera angles and later in the edit but what you see is almost always what you get.

In the case of performance capture the raw acting that is captured has to manipulated and in some cases shoe horned in to match a much different CG character. Each one of those involves a creative and technical choice. Performance capture currently also isn't a pure process. Animators and others will have to correct for glitches in the data and oversee sections where the acting performance was lost due to technology limits. This is especially true for facial capture where animators have to adjust and fill in much of the details to get it to match a much different character face. 

Imagine a camera that drops large number of frames during the shot and that produces very fuzzy images. Since the objective is to create a continuous shot that is sharp and uses a different costume, someone else now has to act the part, dressed in the correct costume, using the original as a rough guide. In the end it's not a direct reproduction of the original performance, it is an attempt to somewhat mimic the original performance. 

And of course with a camera alone the director can't change a performance once it's been completed. But with performance capture they can and do change the performance after the fact. If in the edit the director wants a slightly different body action, facial expression or timing change then it's requested and the animation team make the change without involvement of the original actor.

How successful the original performance capture comes through the final images is dependent on many factors. Some shots may be very accurate representation and in other cases it may be very different. That's why looking at the result by themselves or just one or two comparisons of the original performance to the finished results doesn't really confirm how much is the original performance. The only true way is to see all the shots before and after.

In the context of a traditional 'motion capture' shot featuring a digital character, approximately what percentage of the actors body performance would you say remains untouched or unaltered by animators after the fact? 

As mentioned above that varies enormously. What system was used, who was cleaning up the data, how closely does the CG character match the original actor, how much hand work is required and how many changes the director chose to make after the fact. If it's a specific leap and that is being mapped on to a digital double then 75% or more may may be unaltered. (Still cleaned data but more or less matching the actor's body motion) If it's a CG character with a much different body shape (longer legs, bulkier, etc) running and leaning against a lamp post it could be the inverse of those numbers.

In the case of facial capture, approximately what percentage of the actors facial performance would you say remains untouched or unaltered by animators after the fact? 

Same basic issues as the body but facial capture is even more problematic. I would guess that just about all facial capture requires some hand work beyond just a little data cleaning. With body capture there are a limited number of key joints that need to be captured. (i.e. the knee was bent at 35 degrees on this frame). Body language is important but if you capture a basic gait of a walk cycle most people would accept that was the actor even if it wasn't a totally accurate reproduction. Motion capturing the body has also been done for a number of years now so the technology and understanding is much greater. Facial capture is a much newer process and si still being fully explored.

With facial capture you have multiple muscles all acting at the same time to subtly manipulate mouth, eyebrows and basic facial expression.

Think of the range of people's faces and personalities. Each person is the world is someone unique and identifiable by their face. Yet if all you saw of a person is their body it would be almost impossible to pin down with much accuracy. 

Consider the difference of a smirk and a smile. Very different experience for the audience and actor but very difficult to quantify. Maybe one eyebrow is ached a faction of an inch higher. Maybe the corner of the mouth is raised a little more. Maybe the speed at which it happens is slightly different. And it's the type of thing where you may have to already know the person or character to some extent to even tell the difference. Where do you place points and what do you monitor when capturing? How accurate does the CG model muscle structure actually match the actor's facial muscles? And the more different the CG character is (cartoon style, animal, etc) the more difficult this translation is to make. 

For movies we usually try to treat creatures as forms of people (anthropomorphic) and yet most creatures don't match our body form and certainly don't match our facial form. The creature mouths may not even be able to do what we want so someone has to modify the creature CG model to do that and others have to monitor and adjust the performance required to accomplish that at the level required for the specific project. 

As an audience the face of the character is one of our key focal points so it's even more critical than basic body motion. And one of the places we look is the eyes in real life and the movies. It's been said eyes are the window of the soul. Yet trying to capture true eye motion and then to apply this to a CG character is extremely difficult. In most cases animators have to take over for this so one of the key performances tools from the actor is in the hands of someone else.

Where do you think the technology is heading?

I think the technology will continue to develop to make it easier to capture more accurately with less clean up work required.

Facial capture is the area where we will see even larger changes. But just as important as the technology, if not more important, is the requirement for animators to be able to work with this and know how to get the most out of it. The other important item is those in the industry, including directors and actors, need to understand what it can provide and what it can't provide. They have to understand when it should be used, how it should be used and how to evaluate it. And all of that requires an acceptance of it as a collaboration of actor and animators. Ignoring either groups contribution to the results is not only incorrect, it's wrong.

[Update: 7-20-12  Here's an article on motion capture, animation and video games ]

Update 5-13-14  Randall Cook, the Animation supervisor for the Lord of the Rings films, discusses motion capture and Andy Serkis 

VES and VFX trade organization

There's a LinkedIn discussion going on regarding Vfx trade organizations and the Vfx foundation.

LinkedIn discussion

This also includes some potshots at the VES. I wrote up a response but thought it best to post here as a reference.


I'm on the board of the VES but I don't speak for the Ves so these are simply my personal views. Bob and Colin have brought up some points but I'd like to clarify a few things.

I don't see what's to be gained by bashing the VES. The Ves was formed 15 years ago to be an honorary society, similar in many ways to the ASC and the Academy of Motion Pictures. To honor professionals, to provide education and to advance the art of visual effects where possible with standards and research. And to that end, it's accomplished that. Educational programs are frequently held around the world. A couple of weeks ago there was an event covering the latest on performance capture. Many of these event videos are online at the website (upgrades in progress) The Ves created the Ves handbook and is looking to do more in this area in the future.

I pay dues to the Ves because I do this for a living. I'm a professional and the Ves is the largest group of visual effects professionals. Just as I buy books and magazines and pay to attend events related to my professional. It's a business expense.

I don't begrudge paying dues to the Academy and wouldn't begrudge paying into the ASC if I was a member. If you don't want to join the Ves then don't. If you're a Ves member and wish to see improvements then join a committee. Most of the Ves is volunteer based and that's how the Ves handbook came to be.

There are those that want the Ves to be a trade organization or a union. But that ship sailed when the Ves was founded. It may sound like an easy thing to change the structure and intent of the Ves (or other existing non profit) but it is not. To totally switch to a different type of organization would likely require dissolving the Ves and creating a totally new and different organization. The current members wouldn't be members under a trade organization and the same might apply as a union. The US government treats unions differently than standard non-union groups regarding legal issues. The same likely applies to a trade organization. There are also tax issues that would change. If a cinematographer has an issue getting paid he/she doesn't go to the ASC and tell them to change their entire focus and structure to accommodate the cinematographers needs. If a studio has an issue they don't go to the Academy and demand they become something totally different because the studio has a new need.

The Ves has tried a few times to get companies together to discuss a trade organization but many visual effects companies are very competitive and fiercely independent and didn't want to even consider such a thing. The Ves has also been in talks with the union.
Since none of these things happened (as of yet) the Ves decided to do what it could do to fill some of these gaps and still be true to the type of organization it is. The Ves is proceeding with doing what it can. Is there still room for a trade group or union? Yes, but at this point those aren't formed. So once again, what's the point of bashing the Ves?

Scott Ross has his work cut out for him to try to come up with a plan and sell it to all the major companies. Just as the union has to create a plan and sell to workers.

Trade organizations are typically made up of similar companies with similar needs. They don't tend to be made up of individuals. A Vfx trade organization would likely be based to some extend on the AICP and be about trying to standardize the billing and client relationship part of business. That's a different need than most workers.

Outsourcing
Here in the US we've been hurting because of the amount of tax incentives and outsourcing going on elsewhere. Some of the thinking is that the trade org or the foundation would be able to solve this problem. However both the proposed trade org and vfxfoundation are international, same as the Ves. You'll notice most unions and trade groups are regional (state, country, etc) Part of the reason for that is so they are all on the same page and can advocate their government to do things that would benefit them. (It's also cleaner from a legal perspective as well.) Being international means you can't hurt one subgroup while aiding another. I don't think London Vfx companies would be thrilled about the trade group they pay money into using that money to lobby California for more tax incentives. And we're now to the point many companies have satellite companies in other areas of the world and what were once local companies are now owned by large companies elsewhere. All of which makes it difficult to try to reduce or balance outsourcing.

Expenses
The trade group is budgeted at $3 million a year. That's a lot of money. Certainly more than the Ves. The foundation is at the other end of the spectrum. It doesn't plan to ever charge any membership fees. I've never belonged to any medium to large membership organization (professional or hobby) that didn't charge for membership. Sure, you can get a bunch of people together on the web without charging but much beyond that will require some funds at some point. Real expenses start happening when you're trying to service a number of people. Office supplies, web registration, web updates, legal fees, etc. Not everyone can volunteer full time for any length of time. Will job postings cover these costs? If you want sponsors then someone is going to have to spend time contacting companies and trying to make arrangements. One of the benefits of some type of paid membership is you separate the serious from those who aren't serious. Those who simply join everything on a lark.

Trade organization
One of the potential benefits if there was a trade organization it might it simpler for a worker group (union or other group) to negotiate. One group to deal with instead of dozens of smaller companies.

The downside is a trade organization could use it's strength in numbers to avoid any worker groups. One of the member companies could simply state that they were planning on cutting down certain worker benefits or thought certain types of jobs in Vfx were paid too much and they weren't going to be raising their rates for the next few years. There are legal issues with collusion but it can also be a gray area.
There are those that think if a trade organization benefits companies with more profits, that those profits will trickle down to the workers in benefits and pay. That's unlikely to happen. If companies make more profit then they will likely award their management and return more to their investors. They might put more money into equipment but they will still layoff people at the end of the project.

The hope is that if there is a trade organization it will create a stronger industry and if that trade organization is setup correctly more companies will be profitable and stable. And likewise it's possible it may raise the bar on bidding work and doing the work. All,of these do indirectly benefit the worker but it's important to not confuse the purpose and aim of a trade organization with a worker organization.

Ultimately it would be good for all of visual effects if in addition to the Ves there was a true trade organization and a workers group.