CGI verse models

[David Mullen ASC]

I was at the Museum of the Moving Image today, in Astoria, and they have the Tyrell Corporation model from "Blade Runner" -- I was amazed at how small it was. I put my hand near it as a frame of reference:

 

 

It's incredible how close the camera got to those windows.

 

The landing pad area on top is tiny, maybe just four inches across:

[Chris Millar]

Cinefex tells me that is was intended to be 16' but a half size mock up in foam core turned out to give enough DOF...

 

(article showing its age by describing what foam core was as if it were a new product at the time ?)

 

 

Looks like a dark room you're in - but taking that into account from your hand and the second shot you can see the DOF would be a concern at least some level/aspect of the process.

 

The windows were back lit by a 2k source to simulate the internal practicals - toasty

[Brian Drysdale]

Of course, there's nothing like watching and knowing there actaully is a cast of thousands, rather than a computer program. Helped by having the RED army available.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWmUJWHjDc&feature=related

[George Ebersole]

Cinefex tells me that is was intended to be 16' but a half size mock up in foam core turned out to give enough DOF...

 

(article showing its age by describing what foam core was as if it were a new product at the time ?)

 

 

Looks like a dark room you're in - but taking that into account from your hand and the second shot you can see the DOF would be a concern at least some level/aspect of the process.

 

The windows were back lit by a 2k source to simulate the internal practicals - toasty

I spoke with Glenn Campbell about that miniature. I think he said the 2K they were using for the practicals actually set the thing on fire for a brief moment. It started smoldering according to him, and they somehow managed to save the model just in time.

[George Ebersole]

Of course, there's nothing like watching and knowing there actaully is a cast of thousands, rather than a computer program. Helped by having the RED army available.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWmUJWHjDc&feature=related

Brian, it just shows you that you don't need CGI for every SFX shot. Thanks for sharing this. I've never seen it before.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:12 PM

 

K Borowski, on 15 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

 

I'd say, since the only movie that got space almost 100% right was "2001"

 

Apollo 13 ?

 

In the documentary 'For All Mankind', one of the Apollo astronauts says traveling in space is just like '2001'.

 

there's also a shot wherein an Apollo astronaut spins a small dark rectangular cassette player which is playing the intrduction to 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' toward the camera.

 

yinz should go to yuuTube and watch the rest of 'Waterloo' & try to find, at least the battle scenes to <<voina i Mir>>/'War and Peace'.

 

 

 

 

 

WAR AND PEACE

[George Ebersole]

I was at the Museum of the Moving Image today, in Astoria, and they have the Tyrell Corporation model from "Blade Runner" -- I was amazed at how small it was. I put my hand near it as a frame of reference:

 

 

It's incredible how close the camera got to those windows.

 

The landing pad area on top is tiny, maybe just four inches across:

David, what kind of lens do you think they used in the film? Just looking at the pic you took I'm amazed that there's a macro/deep-focus lens somewhere that could make that miniature look massive on the screen.

 

*EDIT*

Asked the wrong person, oops! :)

[Chris Millar]

David took that pic ...

 

Not sure what focal length they used - I'll have a look in the cinefex later today, but they usually dont go too far into the camera spec.

I think in knowing the size of the model you could reverse engineer the focal length from the footage - or ring up your friend who worked on it and ask him :blink: :lol:

 

Whatever they used I imagine there was a heap of light pumped onto it

[George Ebersole]

Oops, I meant Dave. My bad. :)

[Darrell Ayer]

IMO the arguement against CG versus practical models is a moot one. If you don't put the time in either can look like poop. I'm sure there is the arguement that since models include physical camera work and training, there is an emotional attachment. In terms of the look, there isn't really a difference at this point and time. The level of artistry that goes into CG effects is simiar to that of models. As is has been said, the right tool for the job works the best, either model or CG or a mixture. Look at Stan Winston's school, they teach a course in intigrated creature design, a hybrid of CG and Suit-monster.

I think that as we get into a more fuild interfact with CG sets there will be the ability to have the cinematographer present, look at what cameron has done with Avatar, with his practical camera rig to dictate it's movement in the computer. I think that this will slowly be the way it works in the future, with a traditional (real world) interface dictating the movement, much like a racing controler for a videogame. I'm also sure that lens simulation will advance since effects companies realise how important it is to intigrate shots, and "warm them up a bit."

There is already the inclusion of cinematographers to light animated features, because there is an artistry to this job.

[George Ebersole]

IMO the arguement against CG versus practical models is a moot one. If you don't put the time in either can look like poop. I'm sure there is the arguement that since models include physical camera work and training, there is an emotional attachment. In terms of the look, there isn't really a difference at this point and time. The level of artistry that goes into CG effects is simiar to that of models. As is has been said, the right tool for the job works the best, either model or CG or a mixture. Look at Stan Winston's school, they teach a course in intigrated creature design, a hybrid of CG and Suit-monster.

I think that as we get into a more fuild interfact with CG sets there will be the ability to have the cinematographer present, look at what cameron has done with Avatar, with his practical camera rig to dictate it's movement in the computer. I think that this will slowly be the way it works in the future, with a traditional (real world) interface dictating the movement, much like a racing controler for a videogame. I'm also sure that lens simulation will advance since effects companies realise how important it is to intigrate shots, and "warm them up a bit."

There is already the inclusion of cinematographers to light animated features, because there is an artistry to this job.

I saw TIN TIN a few weeks back, and the thing that struck me was that during some of the action sequences, particularly when there were a lot of objects being rendered, the frame rates dropped, just like in an FPS game. I think rendering models will only get better, but the motion still gives it away.

[Martin Hong]

For me, it's always smarter when you try to figure to achieve some visual effects without using CGI.

 

That opening scene is awesome, very well done, in a genius way. It'd be very different if it was done by CGI, and definitely would look faker.

I am the guy who supports the use of model and optical illusions, etc., to achieve a visual effects.. Rather than going to CGI without using your brain to figure what you can do in the physical world to created some visual effect. CGI should be saved for the last when you can't achieve something in real world..

 

Batmobile in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't look real if it was created in CGI and not real scale model.

 

You should continue the world with models!

[Darrell Ayer]

Batmobile in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't look real if it was created in CGI and not real scale model.

 

I would agree with you except the CG close up model in the "batpod ejection" shot is a full CG Tumbler, batpod, and batman. The shot matches perfectly with the model shots, and the practical shots, in IMAX no less.

 

As far as motion rendering, this can be changed if they look into the soft edge of the shutter blade, much like Tessive Time Filter is doing for video cameras to clean up the motion artifacting...

[Chris Millar]

As far as motion rendering, this can be changed if they look into the soft edge of the shutter blade.

 

 

It's interesting how the artefacts of film acquisition now have a bearing on how real anything other than film acquisition appears to the viewer...

 

I remember getting a friend who was learning Maya years ago to show me the camera settings panel - it was woefully blunt and even contradictory in its nature.

 

By now you'd think someone with a bit of time and cash could have come up with a good simulator for film shutters, CMOS rolling shutters, latitude/soft & hard clipping effects, lens effects like flare, iris patterns etc...

 

Cinemascope lens breathing effects anyone ?

 

I know many of these effects happen in post with grading and compositing - but why not try for a 'in CG camera' solution - modelled on the real world.

 

Does such a product exist ?

 

 

 

 

[Darrell Ayer]

I personally think that someone should come up with a range of SIM-Primes. A range of glass simulation that has specific characteristics much like real glass... as well as defects, not so much a bunch of variables but hard simulated rules with Plug and Play capibilites in redering programs. Make a set of anamorphics or spherical. Make them flare if not properly flagged from 3d lights. A bunch of small issues that can create happy accidents, even in a CG world. In the way hipstamatic makes these things happen on an iPhone (though mind you not the same effect).

 

I wonder if that would have any use in computer work as I'm sure people are fairly anal when building worlds.

[Chris Millar]

I personally think that someone should come up with a range of SIM-Primes. A range of glass simulation that has specific characteristics much like real glass... as well as defects, not so much a bunch of variables but hard simulated rules with Plug and Play capibilites in redering programs. Make a set of anamorphics or spherical. Make them flare if not properly flagged from 3d lights. A bunch of small issues that can create happy accidents, even in a CG world. In the way hipstamatic makes these things happen on an iPhone (though mind you not the same effect).

 

I wonder if that would have any use in computer work as I'm sure people are fairly anal when building worlds.

 

It would find use in pre-vis and moco pipelines as well ...

 

(Please excuse all the jargon in that sentence - I'm trying to sound like I actually do this stuff for a living :blink:)

[George Ebersole]

How long does it take to master Maya?

[Chris Millar]

As it's always a work in progress the answer is maybe longer than it's been around ...

 

It's pretty big (huge) - and has a C++ API so you can extend it for your own purposes.

 

You can't really answer your question without further qualifying 'master'

Edited January 13, 2012 by Chris Millar

[NickMarshall]

Yeah, it depends how seriously you want to learn and how familiar you are with the basic principles going in.

If you treat learning it as a full time job for 3 months, you can learn enough to do most things to a reasonable level. If you just put an hour or two in per week, it could take years to produce decent work. I've been using Maya on and off for 5 years, but havent committed a proper decent chunk of time to learning it so i feel like I am still just a beginner.

[George Ebersole]

The truth is I don't want to be a CGI artiste. I thought maybe learning Maya might be a way to get back in and shed the shackles of retail. But, I'm thinking I better just stick with my original plan; rebuild a reel, earn some income on the side by doing whatever, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

As a former SFX dude, I don't see my former skills coming much into play (that, and I'm way rusty). What this means in terms of CGI verse models is that models shouldn't be lost to history nor computers, but I don't think there's anyway to prevent losing models as an art and skill for feature films.

 

I sure do miss working on media, but I don't want to sit in front of a computer screen for the rest of my life.

 

Just me.

[Chris Millar]

That's why I'm working in live effects (whenever I can) ...

 

Technology is getting so that a lot of effects from 'back in the day' are now being realised live, 1:1 scale and in real time. Not just hammy theme park rides, but quite curious, eerie and exciting animatronic creatures. Realised both in form and in terms of the money being invested in it by some of the usual suspects... (Disney/Dreamworks)

 

It's a new frontier in terms of output but for the most part it's the same jack of all (those) trades (you seem to love), master of some types that will flourish.

 

Get involved !

[George Ebersole]

That's why I'm working in live effects (whenever I can) ...

 

Technology is getting so that a lot of effects from 'back in the day' are now being realised live, 1:1 scale and in real time. Not just hammy theme park rides, but quite curious, eerie and exciting animatronic creatures. Realised both in form and in terms of the money being invested in it by some of the usual suspects... (Disney/Dreamworks)

 

It's a new frontier in terms of output but for the most part it's the same jack of all (those) trades (you seem to love), master of some types that will flourish.

 

Get involved !

Well, I fired off a letter of inquiry to a new SFX shop established on the site of the old ILM buildings. We'll see what happens with that. I name dropped, but something tells me these guys don't know who I'm talking about.

 

Truth is I just need to get caught up on bills and buy a camera so I Can rebuild a reel. It's uphill work. I wish I had access to all of the crap I shot from the 80s through the 90s, but it's all in storage in some media vault... and they're mostly industrials and commercials anyway, so...

 

This year I make my bid to get back in. I don't want to be an SFX assistant for the rest of my life, but it was fun work.

 

And me learning Maya seems more like a sideline pursuit than a real career goal to open up other career opportunities.

 

It'd be nice to get back to shooting tanks firing real rounds on a range, or fighters doing low speed passes, or a gang or pimp firing full automatic blanks in a warehouse. The good old days :)

 

Resume is about to be sent...

[dan kessler]

Don't want to be a spoil-sport, but starting at zero with Maya

is not likely to pay off as fast as you hope.

 

No need to tell experienced people here that the real heyday of

CG in this town is behind us. Many studios are gone and many jobs

have fled these shores, like so many other industries.

 

The few biggies that remain all have satellite studios in other

parts of the world and are investing heavily in the (less expensive)

talent in those locales.

 

If you want to work for them, you need to be capable of working

at a level that sets you apart.

[Chris Millar]

Personally I have been leanring the scripting side of Maya and over the next couple of months am going to try to get under the hood with the API (learn C++ as opposed to the little C I know in the process)... To keep things rolling is an idea for a video effect that needs a good 3D interface (to hijack).

 

If you were to ask me to do anything like um, yeh, almost anything in the GUI I'd have no idea :lol:

[George Ebersole]

Don't want to be a spoil-sport, but starting at zero with Maya

is not likely to pay off as fast as you hope.

 

No need to tell experienced people here that the real heyday of

CG in this town is behind us. Many studios are gone and many jobs

have fled these shores, like so many other industries.

 

The few biggies that remain all have satellite studios in other

parts of the world and are investing heavily in the (less expensive)

talent in those locales.

 

If you want to work for them, you need to be capable of working

at a level that sets you apart.

I did say it would be a sideline, if I pursued it at all, which I doubt I will. I prefer to shoot live SFX, but I don't think anyone does much of those anymore. It's been years for me since I saw a weapon fire at full auto (blanks of course), or a squib go off under shirt. Does anybody do those anymore?

 

To be honest, I don't know what the hell I'm going to do. Shoot my own stuff, then move on from there.