Special effects section.

[Matthew Buick]

I too would like a Visual Effects section, I've been experimenting with VFX in a Brickfilm, and it's quite impressive, it amazing what you can do on a home PC these days.

[Guest]

Ok well I'll get on the Hindenberg movie right after I finish the 12 hour mini series epic:

 

"The Richard Boddington Story."

 

It will have every thing, action, intrigue, drama, humour. And in the scenes involving 20,000 extras, real people.

 

Don't worry I plan to go easy on the nudity :)

 

R,

[Leo Anthony Vale]

As I work my way up the budget food chain, I do look forward to hiring 20,000 extras for a scene. Like I said, they did it in Ghandi :) Those where not CGI people in the march to the sea scene.

 

Let's not forget the batles in the Soviet 'War and Peace'

[Robert Hughes]

I support a VFX section covering all these topics (except perhaps for the tricks used in felling the WTC, which already has ample coverage in the conspiracy boards). Richard, 20,000 nude extras would definately make a statement!

[Matthew Buick]

Richard, for a scene with 20,000 people there are a few slightly err...cheaper options :

 

OPTION 1 : Film about 10 extras and CG the rest.

 

OPTION 2 : Just use Lego men.

 

OPTION 3 : Use Chimps, they look a lot like people on Film.

 

OPTION 4 : Round up 20,000 starving people, put a Banquet on the back of a truck, drive, and film.

 

 

So, I hope my raw professionalism will prove helpful, :D

-Matthew Buick ASC not ASC (yet) MWAH HA.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Matthew Buick

[Mark Allen]

continuing my list:

 

5) Most of the most expensive things to achieve in visual effects are the ones which proper planning could have avoided.

 

6) Producers and dierctors are very aware now that they have options "can we just remove that sign later - it's blowing the shot?" So are studios "Remove that sign, it's a subsidiary of a competitor of ours." Lots of these calls are being made on non-visfx days which means there won't be a visfx person on set which means the DP should have a solid understanding of the basics of what makes things easier and harder. For example - on set once it was decided that a building would be replaced. The DP decided to blow out the building so that it would help us remove it. Well, what he ended up doing was blowing our 3D track options from the face of the building and not helping. He didn't know, not his fault - nice he was thinking about my team's effort. After that we had a discussion and he was able to make the calls on the set much more wisely.

 

7) Roto takes more time than you think.

[Max Jacoby]

As I work my way up the budget food chain, I do look forward to hiring 20,000 extras for a scene. Like I said, they did it in Ghandi :) Those where not CGI people in the march to the sea scene.

I once worked with the focus-puller of 'Ghandi' and he said he still has the call sheet for the funeral scene where it says 'Extras: 1 Million'

[Guest Tim Partridge]

I'd also like to add that there was a notable amount of optical and matte work in Gandhi.

 

Here is Charles Stoneham painting a matte of the Calcutta sky and some buildings:

 

 

So Richard, did Billy Williams or Ronnie Taylor drop the ball on this one? :rolleyes:

[David Mullen ASC]

Here's that simple crowd replication shot in "D.E.B.S." -- we had one third of that number so shot it in three passes and then did a simple stitching together in post (probably requiring some slight roto work to go around the heads where the sections were joined.) We did it digitally but this trick was also done the same way in the old optical printer days. It's easy when it's a lock-off.

 

 

It's interesting to compare this to a crowd shot in "Akeelah and the Bee":

 

 

Now in this case, there is no post effect (it's a moving POV shot made on a Steadicam), but one-third of the people in this crowd are inflatable dummies! So you have one post effect shot where all the people in the frame are real... versus one live-action shot where one-third of the people are fake. So what's "real" when it comes to making movies?

 

All I can say is that when you start shooting crowd scenes on a budget, you'll be grateful for all or any tricks at your disposal to pull it off, because ultimately the story point you are trying to make is what's most important, and if the story demands a full audience and you can't get that many people together, you better start exploring the options for sleight-of-hand filmmaking tricks.

[James Steven Beverly]

This is why we need a VFX section. Blow up people! I had heard a lot about FX in the past and the use of dummies for certain scenes, but I never even thought about using blow up dolls in a crowd scene. Incredible B)

[James Steven Beverly]

I once worked with the focus-puller of 'Ghandi' and he said he still has the call sheet for the funeral scene where it says 'Extras: 1 Million'

 

and if Gandhi had been made today it whould have said VFX of 1 million extras. It was made in 1982 for Christ's sake. NO ONE used CG extras in 1982. Get a little perspective, dude! Had Attenbourgh had ANY way to achieve the effect other than hiring 1 million extras at the time, he would have done it.

[Guest]

I once worked with the focus-puller of 'Ghandi' and he said he still has the call sheet for the funeral scene where it says 'Extras: 1 Million'

 

Geez, that was filmmaking.

 

R,

[Max Jacoby]

and if Gandhi had been made today it whould have said VFX of 1 million extras. It was made in 1982 for Christ's sake. NO ONE used CG extras in 1982. Get a little perspective, dude! Had Attenbourgh had ANY way to achieve the effect other than hiring 1 million extras at the time, he would have done it.

As far as I know they didn't pay these extras, they just told them that it was Ghandi's funeral scene and everyone showed up. That was certainly cheaper than doing it CGI, even today.

[Stephen Williams]

As far as I know they didn't pay these extras, they just told them that it was Ghandi's funeral scene and everyone showed up. That was certainly cheaper than doing it CGI, even today.

 

Hi,

 

I filled a cinema with extras by getting a mention on a local radio station, again no fees just a cup of coffee.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

and if Gandhi had been made today it whould have said VFX of 1 million extras. It was made in 1982 for Christ's sake. NO ONE used CG extras in 1982. Get a little perspective, dude! Had Attenbourgh had ANY way to achieve the effect other than hiring 1 million extras at the time, he would have done it.

 

Sorry, I have to completely disagree with you. I've never met Attenborough, but from what I've read I highly doubt he'd be the type of guy to CG in a million extras, when they where in fact available.

 

You seem to imply that any one making a film in the old days prior to the Holy Grail of CG descending from Heaven, would have used it.

 

I think there is a real possibility of some filmmakers moving away from CG now, simply because audiences have become so cynical about CG. People sit in theatres thinking, "fake....fake.....fake...."

 

Have a look at the 1977 Star Wars, vs the new and improved 1977 version, the models simply look better than the obvious video game appearance of the ships they added in.

 

R,

[David Cox]

I think it is important to remember that we all have a duty to deliver the best film we can under the constraints of the budget. That means looking at the script and deciding on the best approach. It seems some people here start with their own private principles and then look at the script. Whether a DP or a VFX person, such people will always end up making an inferior film because their driving influence is not the story of the film.

 

FWIW, I think there should be a carefully targeted VFX section here, meaning that it should be restricted to Q & A?s for DPs about shooting for VFX or what VFX can or can?t do to rescue something. This section should not become a ?how do I do that on AfterEffects? forum because there are plenty of those elsewhere.

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production

www.baraka.co.uk

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry, I have to completely disagree with you. I've never met Attenborough, but from what I've read I highly doubt he'd be the type of guy to CG in a million extras, when they where in fact available.

 

You can't possibly know that one way or the other. What if the production manager told him that if he cut a half million from the million extras and could do it more cheaply with CGI to fill in the rest (honestly, most of those million extras in the wide shot ARE A BLUR ANYWAY) and could apply the savings to getting some other epic scene in the script done, probably Attenborough would have done it that way because he's not a dumb person afterall.

 

I saw "Gandhi" in the theater, in the front of the theater, I can tell you that the 35mm film couldn't resolve a million people in one shot -- it's a somewhat hazy, blurry wide-shot and it's only because you read it in a magazine article that you know that a million extras showed up.

 

But this was a million people most of whom showed up as is -- what if the script called for a million ancient Trojan warriers or Persian warriors? Are you just going to put out an add for a million people to show up in ancient costumes??? Or just re-write your epic script to have only the one thousand extras in costumes and on horseback that you can actually afford, and thus make the film less epic?

 

"Gandhi" is a unique situation where he was filming in India and could possibly get a million people to show up for a scene. It wouldn't have worked if the script was set further in the past or he was filming in a less populated country.

 

This is getting to be a pretty silly argument. Sure, there are times when shooting it for real is both the best and most practical way of doing something, and there are times when you can't tell when you've got two real Japanese Zeros flying amoung 200 CGI Japanese Zeros, versus a dozen real Zeros mixed into the group. And when you're told that there are only two working Japanese Zeros in existence, plus even if you could dress up 300 planes to recreate the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you'd never afford that many trained pilots or be able to handle the safety restrictions of 300 real planes dive-bomhing at the same time, then the only sane thing to do is to look towards visual effects to handle it.

[Guest]

"what if the script called for a million ancient Trojan warriers or Persian warriors? Are you just going to put out an add for a million people to show up in ancient costumes???"

 

I highly doubt there ever where that many Trojan or Persian warriors in any battle from a historical perspective. Hollywood has trained us to think there where. Like the hilarious shot in "Troy" where the Greek navy is seen landing with hundreds of ships, CG of course. Critics pointed out that the Greek navy never had any where close to that many ships. But in CG land people do it, well simply because they can. Copy>Paste, Copy>Paste, Copy>Paste.

 

Look, all I'm saying is that in the "old" days of filmmaking people did make grand scenes, I've mentioned several examples and there are many more. But today the automatic technique for the "big" shots is CG, often to the detrement of filmmaking as a craft.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

You have to understand that it wasn't necessarily out of some sort of artistic integrity that they used so many extras, but partially because there were few decent alternatives to faking shots of people if they were moving in the frame. It's only in retrospect that it seems cool that they did it for real rather than faking it.

 

All that ultimately matters with an effect is if: (1) it is convincing and (2) it tells the story. Otherwise, whether part or all was real or not, or what trick was employed, is just interesting to people like us, or fodder for the marketing machine. Truth is that sometimes it is more impressive when you read that something was faked but looks completely real, as opposed to simply filming it for real.

 

You could look at Attenborough's other period epid, "A Bridge Too Far", and compare it to "Flags of Our Fathers" -- despite staging a very large parachute drop for the cameras, ultimately some effects were still needed to recreate the largest aerial invasion in history, just as effects were needed to recreate one of the largest amphibious assaults in history at Iwo Jima. There simply is no way to bring back that many period bombers and naval ships anyway.

 

I hate the overuse of CGI as much as anybody, and I hate sloppy, lazy CGI work, but I don't hate CGI on principle, not when it has been used so effectively in some films. As much as I love stop motion, Speilberg made the right decision to switch to CGI for those shots of the T-Rex running around in "Jurassic Park", once he saw tests that showed it could be more convincing than the alternatives.

 

And the other truth is that CGI soldiers in battle scenes allow the battle, in some ways, to be more realistic since you can put the soldiers in harm's way without risking any real people. Anyone who has spent some time dealing with explosions, squibs, blanks, etc. on a film set knows the sort of restrictions you face and how it can compromise the shot sometimes.

[James Steven Beverly]

But the point IS that we NOW HAVE a VFX section WOO HOO!!! B)

[Guest]

As a side note, did any one catch tonight's "Simpsons" episode?

 

Comic Book Guy has a line about the first Star Wars (1977), some thing like, "It was the best Star Wars movie until it was ruined with CGI, thank you George Lucas!"

 

I thought well....this is an issue large enough that it's made it into pop culture.

 

R,

[James Erd]

But the point IS that we NOW HAVE a VFX section WOO HOO!!! B)

 

 

We do? :huh: Wow that's cool because I love trying to figure out how to do the impossible.

[David Mullen ASC]

As a side note, did any one catch tonight's "Simpsons" episode?

 

Comic Book Guy has a line about the first Star Wars (1977), some thing like, "It was the best Star Wars movie until it was ruined with CGI, thank you George Lucas!"

 

I thought well....this is an issue large enough that it's made it into pop culture.

 

R,

 

There was also a funny "South Park" episode about the kids trying to stop George Lucas from altering "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (I think it was that film.)

 

But again, CGI is just a tool -- the problem is how it gets used and abused, not the tool itself.

 

And personally, the main problems with the alteration of "Star Wars" was not some cleaned-up matte lines and some more fluid camera moves during the dogfight scenes, it was stupid things like having Greedo fire first.

 

I just spent a little time comparing the old and new versions of the final battle over the Death Star on the new DVD release, and ignoring the basic problem I have with altering something from its original form, I have to say that the new effects are an improvement; the only problem is just that they go beyond what was really possible in the 1970's. But otherwise, the fighters move more fluidly, more dynamically, there are some interesting uses of near to far movement and compositions, etc. And the other thing is that they aren't altered THAT much -- the cuts still match the music cues, there is still the famous jump cut during the plunge into the trenches between the two different scale models of the Death Star, etc. It all goes back to the notion of what is "real" -- a model is "real" because it is actually in front of a movie camera, but does that mean it is more realistic in matching a full-scale version compared to a CGI version that may look less solid like a model but move more realistically or have elements that scale more realistically like smoke, fire, water, ice, etc.?

 

I just have a bigger problem with the notion of "improving" old movies -- they are artifacts of their time and should reflect that, mistakes and all. "Star Wars" was just fine as it was and it seems silly to put time & money into recreating visual efx for it. I can only justify it in that the film is part of a series that Lucas is attempting to give more uniformity after-the-fact. But it's the differences between the sequels and prequels that adds interest, just like I like how the "Star Trek" features are all mismatched in style and technique.

[James Steven Beverly]

We do? :huh: Wow that's cool because I love trying to figure out how to do the impossible.

 

Yes indeed we do. you know the old saying "the improbably, we do right away, the impossible we do with VFX!"

[David Sweetman]

"Star Wars" was just fine as it was and it seems silly to put time & money into recreating visual efx for it.

Not so silly financially...time & money into recreating visual efx = re-release to make more money, new dvd's to make more money, and double-new dvd's to make more money. Yeah, they're laughing, but not because it's silly! They basically released three films with only the costs of post. It's the same reason they're going back to rocky, die hard, bond, batman, and indiana jones; established franchises make big money.