Archive for the ‘techniques’ Category

Visual Effects Clichés – Without Them We’d Be Nothing

Friday, January 25th, 2008

cliche.jpg

Here’s a dirty little secret of CGI. VFX artists and supes depend on a limited bag of tricks to pull off even the most complex of shots. In fact these techniques are used so much you don’t have to look very to find them in nearly every TV show, feature film, commercial, youTube video or school fund-raiser slides show with eye-shot. If it makes you feel any better, you can call these war-horses an homage but thing about clichés is, that that they work. Heck even I am far from beyond the judicious use of these VFX canards. So at the risk of getting my membership at the Magic Castle of Visual Effects revoked for revealing secrets to all you muggles out there, I present to you some of most overused techniques in the biz.

Camera Shake

What is it?

If a civilization from a distant galaxy was analyzing our technology based solely on visual effects based media, they would have to conclude the computers that made CGI were built from parts formerly used to make tripods. It seems that these days a computer generated bunny bouncing on a field of clover will cause a shake comparable to 10.5 tremor. Shaking the camera makes sense when bomb blows up or 18 wheeler scrapes by the lens, but lately any vibration above a pin drop opens the door to a rumble-fest.

Why do we use it?

Camera shake is essentially a psychological tool to try and trick the viewer into thinking that a real camera photographed a CG element. Why else would the camera react unless something was physically affecting it? The other tid-bit of insider info about shake is that it increases as objects get closer to lens. Without camera shake streaking and obscuring the it, an object close to the camera lens would be very hard to render in enough detail to hold up without the help of our old buddy camera shake.

Lens Flare

What is it?

A lens flare occurs when a light source is pointed directly at the camera lens and light reflects on the glass elements inside of it. Optics engineers, DPs and Grips spend there entire careers trying to eliminate lens flares in order to get the cleanest image possible. VFX guys dole out lens flares like candy on Halloween. Every compositing package has the ability to generate lens flares and they all pretty much look the same. Some artists keep a reel of actual photography of lens flares to give their shots a more organic look. This can work fine, but a flare over a poorly rendered CG element isn’t going to fool anyone.

Why do we use it?

Well the obvious answer is, to cover up crappy CG. But there is a more artful application as well. A lot of recent VFX work revolves around the idea of creating one continuous, impossible-to-get-in-camera shot. This type of shot requires tons of preparation and a great degree of technical skill on set to pull off, and we all know what short supply those things are in. Lens flare to the rescue! A well placed camera pan into a flaring light source is a sure fire way to transition between two shots seamlessly.

C.F.I.L (Crap Flying Into Lens)

What is it?

It seems that CG cameras are imbued with a magical magnet-like property that causes materials of all types to be hopeless attracted to them. Everything from a school bus to used tissue seems get sucked into a vortex that inevitably obscures the frame. In the early days of “traditional” animation, action could only occur on a flat plane to camera. Making objects appear to travel closer during a shot meant scaling them up each frame, a laborious process to say the least. Now with 3d all bets are off we can show an object of any depth at any angle without any extra work. But just cuz’ ya can do it, doesn’t mean ya’ should do it. The impact intended by this shot with tons of crap comming into the lens has been greatly diminished by it’s over-use and with stereoscopic 3d flicks about to make a comeback, I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Why do we use it?

This one is really a case of artists and production folks alike collectively saying. “Hey we took the time and money to build this thing. Let’s see it for God’s sake!” On a VFX project people spend countless hours building junk in 3d, looking at turn-table after turn-table and obsessing over every detail. Then they see it in a shot and vanishes so quickly you hardly notice. Inevitably some genius cries out “Why don’t we have it fly into the lens!”. Cheers erupt, all that hard work has just earned a few more frames of precious screen time. It’s kinda the opposite of the Camera Shake scenario (see above).

God Rays

What is it?

God Rays are volumetric beams of light, like the kind that you get when you turn on a flashlight in a smoky room. There are a coupla’ ways to create them, the fastest being to shoot an element over black. But times being what they are, the more common method is to create them by either rendering a volumetric light pass in CG, which can look great but takes some time, or to use a filter in a compositing program which is wicked fast but can look, well… crappy. Over-use of the God Ray can result in not-so-glorious blast that seem to come out of nowhere. Case in point, this heavenly effect has a bad habit of appearing over screaming faces, especially at the end of a dream sequence or just before time travel.

Why do we use it?

When used properly, God Rays can create a nice sense of depth and atmosphere to a CG scene or matte painting. Unfortunately, they are more often employed in poorly designed, cheesy magic effects. Designing magic is tricky, a spell should always look connected to it’s caster in a unique way. All to often a supe will see the words “magic spell” written on a script page and they’ll automatically set to work lighting the shot up like a Frankie Goes To Hollywood video.

Bad Camera Work

What is it?

As the name implies, this is the technique of simulating a novice behind the lens in order to lend more credibility to a shot make it seem more “real”. This technique has it’s roots in documentary photography and cinema vérité, styles that burned the aesthetic of reality into our subconscious. The dark side of all this a plethora of CG DPs who aim a camera like a Storm Trooper aims a blaster. Lately, every camera pan misses it’s intended target and has to whip back to find it and nearly every other shot also has a snap zoom or focus pull that intentionally misses the mark. Maybe a side benefit of this will be a generation of filmgoers immune from motion sickness.

Why do we use it?

In an attempt to convince the viewer that the scene they are watching is real, VFX pros have created detectable presence behind the camera. The logic goes like this. If there is a real person shooting the CG stuff it too will appear real, right? The problem with line of reasoning is that the virtual cameraman that we’ve created to film our scenes is a chowderhead. In a lot of cases the effect of an overall shot is lost by an artificial life form screaming “Look, I suck at working a camera!” from behind the frame. Well, here’s hoping in the future good shot design and dazzling technical artistry will win out over gimmicky grandstanding. Until then, hang onto your barf bags folks!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

Newtek Posts a Boatload of Free Training Vids

Monday, January 21st, 2008

logolw.jpg

 Newtek has just posted over 16 hours worth of quicktime movies covering topics from modeling to rendering and everything in between, and the price is right too. They’re FREE! So if you want to learn a new 3d package or just brush up on your LW skills now is your chance.

LINK to the tutorials on the Newtek forum (via 3dm3.com)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

VFX Lingo – Getting Your Shots Straight

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

camera_moves.jpg

As I discussed in my previous post Working Below the Line – A Visual Effects Supervisors Guide to Surviving On Set I mentioned that every good supe should be well versed in how to communicate camera dierection. You don’t wanna be the guy saying “Pan up!” or “Hey, tilt the camera a little to the left.” So if your looking for a nice little cheat sheet to as reminder on how to keep you shot types and camera moves straight, check out this handout from Ohio State University of all places. It also has nifty descriptions of the 180 degree rule, camera angles and composition hints. Aside from being helpful on set, these terms should be committed to memory for use in CG animation as well. A shorthand description of what kind of shot you need could shave valueable seconds off of production time. Besides, you want to be able to understand what your supervisor is talking about and not look like a total VFX newb right? I thought so.

LINK to the OSU cinema cheat sheet

Note: There is a semi-glaring omittion from the shot sizes section of this handout. The Cowboy, a slightly wider medium shot framed from the mid-thigh up. So name for it’s use in early westerns so viewers could check out the hero’s guns.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

Hacks From Across the Pond- Awesome How-To Vid For “Bloody Omaha”

Friday, January 11th, 2008

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRS9cpOMYv0[/youtube]

This is the best how-to clip I’ve seen in a long time. It answers the question of how to recreate a multi-million dollar VFX scene from Saving Private Ryan with 3 vfx guys, a station wagon, minimal gear and a light-wieght video camera in just 4 days. The pure moxie of this crew is impressive enough, but the final shots look great. Maybe not perfect but it sure looks like they spent a bunch more money than they actually did. I know tons of guys who would have looked at a sequence like this and bid for weeks of digital double work. It takes guts to stand up and say, “Hey, how about we just get out there and run up and down the beach a coupla’ times?”. Nicely done gentlemen.

(via bbgadgets)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

VFXHack Reference Guide: Lightning

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

There are certain stock visual effects that I’m asked to create over and over again for multiple projects. Creating realistic lightning seems to be one of those things that never goes out of style. If you ever need a shove in the right direction here is some of the reference footage I use most often when starting a project like this

The Real Deal

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-AS13fl30&NR=1[/youtube]

To get lightning right, you have to look at the subtleties. A good charge has just the right amount of randomness and flow. My favorite reference of the real thing is this big-ass Tesla coil in Oklahoma. Yee-haw!

The Prestige

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOdtR_s9Yjw[/youtube]

Speaking of Tesla, this shot of Bowie walking under the coil is the best example of lightning I’ve come across in recent years. It looks organic and has a great sense of depth to it. That is hard to achieve since the bots themselves have no shading. Subtle differences in the thickness and amount of glow in the bolts realy help this shot out. Interactive lighting at the contact points is key.

Big Trouble In Little China

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2qyeZw9KaM[/youtube]

Now I’m a sucker for hand drawn lightning. In fact I’ve never seen a software solution that looks as good as an animator creating it the old fashioned way, painting it frame by frame. In this clip from the John Carpenter classic, check out the way the bolts contour around body. You just can’t do that with a plug-in. One major drawback to the hand drawn method is that if the client comes up with changes, the frames need to be painted all over again.

Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsl7bVmLnMw[/youtube]

In my opinion this is the granddaddy of all lighting VFX shots. The lightning looks hella-angry and the smaller discharges on Luke between burst really make you feel the charcge. The illuminated Vader skeleton is just icing on this delicious electric cake. One thing still bothers me though. Would it have killed Yoda to say “Oh, yeah and watch out the emperor shoots lightning out of his fingers so don’t put down your light saber or anything.” before he kicked the bucket?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

The Story Of A Visual Effect – Ideas Behind The Images

Wednesday, December 19th, 2007

readingtotimmy.jpg

A lot of times I’ll be watching a VFX sequence in a film or on TV and something will cause my toes to curl as if my nose was just held under bag of 6 week old sheep intestines. A bad visual effect has a certain bump that takes you out of the fantasy that it was created to fulfill. Sometimes a shot goes astray due to a lack of technical skill or a feeling that the people involved just didn’t have enough time or money. But most often my VFX gag reflex is triggered by a lack of story in a shot or sequence. By story I mean an internal logic to what is happening on screen. You may be saying to yourself “Logic? WTF this is a visual effects movie for God’s sakes. We don’t need no stinking logic!” But before you do, let me tell you what I mean by logic. When it comes to the fantastic, we VFX folk are trying to get the audience to buy off on a completely outlandish scenario that we all know could never really occur. Even in the case of so-called invisible effects, all you are really seeing is a combination of many techniques put together in just the right way so that they make a reasonable approximation of what a real event looks like. In a lot of cases, effects don’t look real at all (what does a talking pig look like anyways?) they look the way you think reality would look. Get it? Or did I just blow your mind? What I’m driving at here is that a successful visual effect has to have a well thought out and unique existence all it’s own. In other word,s each VFX shot has a story to tell. Say you are tasked with designing the magic effects for the latest swords and sorcerers epic. Where do you start? Well, I’d advise not placing a single pixel until you’ve asked yourself the following questions. How does this magic spell work? What is the magic made of? Who brought the spell into being? The story of VFX sequence gives you a framework to build your artistic and technical achievements around. Visual effects without a beginning, middle and end can look like just a bunch of dancing lights with no cool-factor or emotional connection at all.

Be an obsessive observer

This is particularly important when you are working on a CG shot that simulates natural phenomenon. Take a look at the world around you and break down what you see into discreet actions. Working on a commercial for a beer company that needs CG bubbles created? Head on down to your local tavern and ask the barkeep to set you up with whatever is on tap. Wait! Don’t drink it. Watch the bubbles and mean really watch them. Where are they generating from, the bottom of the glass or the sides? What is the character of their motion as they travel through the liquid? Do bigger bubbles move in a different way than smaller ones? What happens when a bubble reaches to surface? Write down the answers to all these questions and bring them back to your workstation (after you finish the beer of course) and assemble the steps into a story of how each bubble is born, live and expires. Now you can get down to the brass tacks of breaking your story down into packets and generating vfx elements that describe them.

Create a flexible reality

Any VFX artist that has ever done a make-up fix or a rain enhancement shot (and that should be most of us) knows that there is a difference between reality and movie reality. The story you create with your work has to be dynamic and interesting, it is being created for entertainment after all. There are VFX people in this world who take the concept of “what would really happen” way to seriously. Take it from me, you don’t want to be one of these people. Listening to an half hour long diatribe on the way a spaceship would really fly or how a raindrop would really fall can cause a creative vacum strong enough to liberate your eyeballs from your skull. Don’t forget, a big part of your VFX story should cover how to make your effect cool and interesting. Getting too caught up in the physical reality of an event can cause you to miss the big picture.

Chart it up, write it down

A lot of times when you are brainstorming about how the elements of your VFX shot should come together, orgainizing your thoughts can be a little bit daunting. Scribbling notes on paper can be just to random and hard to decipher if you need to reference them later (especially if you have my handwriting). Creating an outline in a word processor can be too rigid and throw a big wet blanket on the old creative flow. Enter a little thing called Mind Mapping. First you get a big piece of paper and a bunch of colored pens or pencils. Write down the kind of effect you are trying to create in the center of the page, then just start free associating and writing down the components of the effect radially around the center. Then break it down further into sub-steps also arranges radialy around the new components. At any time start drawing lines and images connecting your ideas together. Use different colors and line weights to make connections. What quickly emerges is a visual organization of the effect. Mind maps are a great way to brainstorm and let the story of a visual effects emerge organically.

View your shots in context

As anyone whose gone to film school or watched the DVD extras on their favorite film will tell you, cinematic storytelling is about editing. Odds are that your VFX story will not be contained in one shot but play out over multiple cuts. It can therefore be extremely dangerous to work on individual shots without constantly checking to see how they look in the edit. Once you have a clear idea of the theory behind the VFX you are going to create it’s time to look at the cut sequence to see which parts of the effect work best for each shot. For example close-ups are a better showcase for the more subtle details of an effect while wide shots are great for accentuating broad motions. You also want to make sure that you effect builds properly from cut to cut and matches up with all the non-VFX reacation shots and cut-aways. I also suggest taking matters into our own hands when it comes to updating the edit. Instead of waiting for an editorial department to cut your stuff in for you quickly put the shots together yourself. You can use something as complex as Final Cut Pro or as simple as cutting and pasted clips in Quicktime. In any case, it’s essential to see how your shots play over time.

Don’t rely on suspension of disbelief

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, suspension of disbelief refers to the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. This concept bodes well for the VFX artist (especially those of us who are often budgetarily challenged) but there’s a limit to everything. When a viewer enters a theater or fires up the Tivo they are entering into an implied contract with the makers of movie magic. It’s as if the viewer is saying “O.K. Mr. Visual Effects Man, go ahead and dazzle me. Just give me a little credit here. This isn’t a magic show for first graders.” Today’s audiences are more than willing to sit back and enjoy the ride as long as you have done your homework making sure that each shot makes sense on it’s own terms. If something is not working in the story of a visual effect it is not acceptable to just look at it and say “C’mon, suspension of disbelief dude!” There is only so far you can push a viewers imagination. And it’s easier than you think to tip the scales from awesome to suck. In other words, don’t be lazy and count on the gullibility of your audience to make your shot.

LINK to more info about how to make your own Mindmaps

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

Visual Effects War Stories From Back In The Day

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

0152.jpg

One of the greatest pleasures of being part of the VFX industry is getting the opportunity to hear the crew from some of your favorite (or not so favorite) films wax poetic about how it was done before all these new fangled computer thingies. Here’s a comment from Sam Longoria left on my previous post When Not To Use VFX – Step Away From Greenscreen Unitard that falls into the catagory of golden nuggets of wisdom from a bygone age.

On “Ghostbusters,” I remember a meeting, between the camera / machinist group, (We were building 65mm cameras, printers, animation stands, roto rigs from scratch) and the Artist / Animator group. (They were drawing animation that would – hopefully – be shot on equipment that didn’t exist yet). In hindsight, there nowhere near enough time and money to pull it all off. Any sensible persons would have had doubts, but…vfx people…you know. An earnest Animator (I think it was Terry Windell) said, to the camera designers, “We need an electronic device that will close the camera shutter, block all the light, and prevent the film from being exposed, while the computer backwinds the film.” It was quiet in the room a good while. The device they were describing would probably take a week to build and implement, and we had very little time. I was young then, and didn’t want to say anything, certainly not anything that would tick off my colleagues, or hurt the Animators’ feelings. We all looked back and forth at each other. Smiles began to waver. Then Jerry Jeffress, one of the truly brilliant human beings I’ve ever met, broke the silence. “What you are describing, is a lens cap.”

Got your own war story to tell? Leave a comment! Oh, and it doesn’t have to be old to be good.

LINK to Sam Longoria’s filmmaking blog

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

Hollywood Animation Archive Takes CGI Dudes To School

Friday, November 30th, 2007

hankey24-smal.jpg

Stephen Worth has posted an excellent piece on his Animation Archive blog that uses the exquisite illustration of W. Lee Hankey to make a point. CG artists and animators are just plain lazy! Worth rails against the use of “excessive detail”, colors that are “straight out of the tube” and “stock poses or actions” using specific paintings from the Golden Age of illustration to prove his point. The examples he picks alone are well worth a look but the author also brings up a great point. Today’s digital artists tend to be woefully under-educated in art and film history and spend way too much time replicating what they see on CG movies and Forums and not spending any time analyzing what makes a great work of art great. Thanks Stephen, this article should be required reading for the CG set.

 LINK to Theory: CGI Animators Should THINK Like Artists

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

Hey Kids! Wanna Roto? – A Visual Effects Kit For Future Compositors

Friday, November 30th, 2007

rip-roar.jpg

Rip Roar Media has created their entry in the One Greenscreen Per Child program with it’s Creation Station, an all-in-one VFX set-up for kids. Although it is a noble pursuit to try and get the youth of today creatively involved in projects other than trying to make it to the advanced level of Guitar Hero, this product is as silly as a circus clown. I’d bet every parent who has the $130 (retail) it would take to buy this thing would also have a consumer video camera laying around the house that hasn’t been used since the kids 1st birthday. The greenscreen that comes with the kit is also a rip-off considering Make magazine has a link to a great tutorial on it’s website on how to make an awesome Green/Blue screen out of fabric and PVC pipe for $16. That leaves $114 to spend on a tripod and some lights (work lights from Home Depot work great) with plenty of dough left over for chicken nuggets and a bouncey castle for the friends your kid will invite on their VFX playdate. Word out is that the software included with this product is also bunk especially when you consider the free open source alternatives out there like Jahshaka. Don’t be fooled by corporate America youngins, join the jrHack club today!

 

LINK to the DYI greenscreen article

LINK to Jahshaka homepage

Thanks to Nyarlathotep for the heads-up

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr

RetroHack : Behind the Scenes of 1983 HBO Intro

Friday, November 9th, 2007

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Et_LsxlX8Y[/youtube] I remember this Behind The Scenes from when I was one the first kids on the block with a cable box. It often appeared between my multiple viewings of Beastmaster and Emmanuelle (can you tell I was a latch-key kid?) and inspired me to find out more about the magical realm of visual effects. It’s got everything from a 30′ scale model to a giant chrome plated logo. As low-brow as it is, this is a prime-time example of the real vfx deal.LINK to the HBO page on the CLG Wiki 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • N4G
  • Tumblr