Slashdot Mirror
Talk to a Movie Digital SFX Expert
Thad Beier has been working with computer graphics and film since the late 70s. In 1995 he and three partners founded Hammerhead Productions, a company that specializes in computer-generated special effects. Thad received a Technical Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the Oscar people, not the MPAA) in 1998 for one of his many technical innovations. He's worked on Terminator 2, Angels in the Outfield, The Fast and The Furious,
and the upcoming Blue Crush, among other films. He wrote this 1992 Siggraph paper, and now writes all of Hammerhead's software tools and manages the company's mixed bag of SGI and Linux equipment. So ask Thad anything you want about computer-generated special effects. We'll send him 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and post his answers when we get them back.
Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?
Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?
What is one movie that uses CGI that you wish had never been made because it gives your craft a bad name?
Thanks!
READ THIS!
tcd004
How long do you think it'll take for the types of animation you see in movies today be render-able in realtime? I can't wait till some seriously realistic video games... or porn flicks appear. :)
eTrade SUCKS
About what percentange of effects and the like in the average movie is there? And how do you think this will be 5 or 10 years from now?
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
How much progress are you and others making on realistic depictions of water (waves, splashing) at different scales?
(I still remember the clumsy ship in a bathtub effects from the 1970s!)
Even in recent productions like The Perfect Storm, I haven't been "convinced" sufficiently that it's a real wave.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?
;-)
BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker...
.f00Dave
Greetings -
How much of the code you've written and/or worked with over the years trickled down to mainstream users in meaningful ways, and in what timeframe should we/you expect this to occur?
i.e. How quickly does the software and hardware tools of your trade today become part of the arsenal of either home digital fx enthusiasts, hobbyists or "small film" makers tomorrow?
With modern FX, it's fair to say that anything that can be imagined can be produced on screen. However, that hasn't been the case until recently: if you had the option of re-making one movie of your choice (science fiction or otherwise) in which the imagination of the film-maker was clearly hampered by the technology available at the time, which would it be?
We're rapidly approaching the point where we can use technology to duplicate reality and have the two be indistinguishable from each other. This provides an unprecendented potential for abuse. Do you see this as becoming a common problem; what are some of the pitfalls we should be wary of when using technology to create "reality"?
Currently, movies are made overwhelmingly by being filmed by film crews. Computer-generated special effects are just used to add to what cannot be filmed. Do you ever see the day coming when movies are instead overwhelmingly made by computer SFX crews, with minor parts being done by film crews?
When films are labled as "100$ Million on special effects" where does most of that money go? On rendering hardware or what?
Seriously though, do you do any sort of screening or advice on use of effects, or just follow whatever the customer ordered? Surely you don't want your name plastered on effects that were an embarrasment.
In many movies, people walk away from them saying, "Man, they FORCED that CG."
How much discretion do you have in saying, "You guys should really do that with makeup effects."
In a corrollary, are you more in the CG-Should-Be-Impossible-To-Spot or the CG-Should-Be-The-End-All-Of-Effects camp?
Never confuse volume with power.
I'm guessing you get to work pretty closely to directors. If so, can you tell us what is their approach to the new tools technology has given them? Are they still "thinking celluloid" made cheaper by rendering it digitally, or do they really seek to break the mold and make shots that were previously impossible?
What is the best way to get into the computer generated special effects industry? Is it who you know or what you know? If it is what you know what should one know? (Programming, graphics tools, etc...).
Only 'flamers' flame!
What would you suggest to a C/C++ programmer who's insterested in the SFX industry? I assume you need to know OpenGL, linear algebra, Unix, maybe Renderman. What else is suggested -- demo programs, networking at SIGGRAPH, database work?
Also, what's the state of the SFX industry? I know it went through a shakeout a few years ago.
thanks.
When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.
For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.
I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.
I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"
This might be construed as off-topic, since it's not about technical aspects of CG, it's about the artistic side of CG. But hear me out:
:-)]
Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?
[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit!
Along a similar vein, if you had a young teenager who was interested in graphics, what skills should they start learning? What software packages (open source or otherwise) would they benefit the most from learning about? Should they
get going on Linux?
What's the effect or CGI animation that makes you cringe the most when you see it used, or overused?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
What is the approximate resolution of film per square inch or centimeter? What resolutions are effects rendered in and how has that changed since Willow or T2?
As a complement to Mr Guy's question (above):
Do you prefer the freedom allowed by CG-only scenes or the challenge of mixing CG and live action in the same scene (regardless of whether it looks realistic or "in-your-face" CG)?
RMN
~~~
On the "Shrek" DVD, they have some honest-to-goodness bloopers (rather than the contrived bloopers on the Pixar films). Most of these stem from rendering goofs (such as the "ChiaPet Donkey" sequence, or the "Exploded face" renders).
Now, obviously the days of photo-realistic rendering at realtime speeds are long off (since the more CPU you have, the higher you define "photo-realistic"), but for the normal preview work, how close to real-time are we? For example, are we looking at 10 to one (ten seconds to render one second of preview), or what?
www.eFax.com are spammers
The problem that I have with this is twofold: First, these "special editions" seem to be the ones that show up on TV and on video rental shelves, so that they and not the original become the pervasive copy.
Second, I can foresee a day when older movies are edited in this fashion so they can be remarketed to audiences with more "modern" attitudes (think similar to Speilburg taking the guns out of the hands of the pursuing authorities in the ET rerelease).
Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes? Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Another interesting question might be will actors of old get new roles. Think of a sequel to Gone With the Wind, for instance, using the 'original' actors.
Can I bum a sig?
Do you think that these days, with digital technology being more affordable for more people in the industry, that special effects are being used too much, and are being used as a substitute for other cinematic elements?
On the other hand, you're also a programmer and linux user, and must surely be aware of the danger posed by over-broad intellectual property protection laws. It's possble that the same laws that ensure your livelyhood will end up making it harder and more expensive for you to do your job.
In your unique position, you must have a better insight into piracy than the average slashdot reader, or average policy maker. How do you handle this dilemma?
I was wondering if you could give a brief overview of special effects in sound. What is the best for the movie experience? SDDS, DTS, DDSEX, Dolby Digital, Dolby Stereo? Does it really help to go to a theater that is THX certified?
Thanks,
Ian
In essence, how much do you take real physics into account when designing something a CG item to emulate a 'real' item on screen? What is the balance between physical limits and creative freedoms?
It seems as though artists can pretty much do just about anything with CGI these days. The technology is pretty ubiquitous, and it seems the only barrier now is simply artistic talent and ability. It almost seems as though CG is 'good enough' for most applications. I've also noticed over the past few years that Siggraph conferences are getting smaller - does this represent a slowdown in the rate of technological innovation?
Is there anything, an effect or otherwise that you don't see being possibly to recreate digitally. If so then what and why does this effect pose particular problems.
One thing that always gets me is that it seems more and more people are more willing to tolerate bad acting and plot than they are bad special effects. People will often whine more about an awful looking space attack sequence, for example, than they do countless bad performances in the same movie.
Do you think that your section of movie-making has become more of a backbone than it should be, and furthermore, do you feel that you should be held to the same standards and levels of criticism that acting and story are held to? If you choose to recognize your craft as art, I would say you're in for a much harder ride than if you choose to look at it as a science.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
You've been in VFX for almost it's entire existence. Can you describe the evolution of the your industry in terms of team size, scope of projects, and what some of the most significant changes have been in the past 30 years BESIDES the advent of the computer as a VFX tool.
I work in the video game industry, which in many ways is still in its infancy. We are generally self contained teams of 10-100 and work on a single game at a time. Outsourcing of assets is rare and few shops exist solely to work on part of a game. Was the VFX world ever like this and do you think the video game industry could go through a similar change to specialized shops?
What is your perspective on college education in the area of SFX? I have been looking to do my MA/MFA in a program that would allow for film/video and 3d to be together in a major but so far all is segregated...or do you think that independent learning is best? Looking for good recommendations before investing $.
I heard a rumor that you dropped your "crusade"
against Pixar's software patent on deep-shadow
technology?
The rumor implied you were "bought-out"?
Care to comment/share your thoughts on software
patents in the VFX industry?
That's so absurd that its probably blatent flamebait, but I'll answer it because I'm gullible:
There's a big, *big* difference between perfectly modeling the appearance of a human being and generating a believable and interesting range of acting from the model.
Many great performances start out on page with very little direction from the script. Consider the scene in Unforgiven where Gene Hackman's character beats a gunslinger played by Richard Harris: On paper, it was a severe beating which occurs because Harris's character (English Bob) is seen as a challenge by Hackman's Little Bill, who makes an example out of him.
Now watch the scene. Watch Little Bill's face and body language while he's beating English Bob -- you can see, *taste* his sadism and brutality. Watch Little Bill's face when he's done -- he visably reigns himself in, then looks dazed and almost post-orgasmic.
What made that a great scene was absolutely not the writing, but Hackman's exploration of the sadistic nature of his character. It takes a gifted, experienced actor with a lifetime of experience to generate that sort of performance, not some geek at a computer using a modeling tool.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This is probably the most obvious question asked so far, but...
1) Is there a particular shot or effect in a film you've worked on of which you're the most proud? Does one in particular stand out to you as the best you can do (or could do with the equipment of the time)?
2) Have any of the techniques you personally created (and there must be at least a few after three decades in such an innovation-intensive field) been picked up by others and adopted as standard techniques by the other effect houses? Maybe you were the first person to use a shoe as an off-in-the-distance star-fighter, or you invented the blue screen, something of that nature?
This tagline is umop apisdn.
Do you think CGI can too often be seen as a "suppressor" of other art forms? The specific example in my head right now is Old Puppet Yoda vs. New CGI Yoda, we haven't seen (AFAIK) any major puppeteering work in cinema in a long time. Other possibly "suppressed" art forms might be makeup art, the art of the stunt man, set construction, backdrop painting, cinematograghy, heck even acting could be listed here. Will CGI be escorting some or all of these art forms down the same path as Silent Films, blacksmithing, and totem-pole carving?
Do you ever want to say "Hey this would be a lot better if it were done with [not CGI] instead"?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Hi-
I have always wanted to work in your field, yet, as ironic as this is about to sound, I turned down an offer from ILM because I could not afford to live in Silicon Valley being married with one child. Apartments (crappy ones by the way) are 3 times as much as the house payments I currently make and apparently you have to send your kid to private school there. It simply was not doable. Most of the ILMers I spoke to lived with 3 or 4 other ILMers in order to afford the living expense.
If I read your website correctly, you are located in Los Angeles. I am interested to know how you feel about this situation. All of these facilities seem to be in California, where the cost of living prohibits many excellent programmers from working there simply because they have to support a family (not a bad thing). Is it possible that such a facility as yours could exist in a less costly location, or is the vicinity to the film industry too importiant to overlook in this way?
Thanks, loved TFATF by the way!
Troy
As a person who has, in the past, written some small amount of graphics filters and post-rendering effects I know that I personally have leaned heavily on open source projects (i.e. Gimp, GtK) and more-or-less open standards (like OpenGL) to learn most of my graphics programming (monkey see monkey do style).
In a field such as yours the latest and greatest rendering techniques, fractal algorithms, filter effects and post-render effects appear to be the only thing setting you and your company ahead of others in the field.
In light of this, and the apparent probability that you learned many of your programming techniques from those who came before you, what is your view of Open Source? Do you show your techniques to others and allow them to learn from them or do you consider them closely guarded IP?
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Given the power of the media, and Television in particular, to, as Noam Chomsky puts it "manufacture consent", do you see any sinister side to the ultimate perfection of CG? Given that media conglomerates do not act in the interest of their audience, and that the CG field will be getting better and better while the technology gets cheaper and cheaper, can you envision a day when we the public will not be able to differentiate from animated fiction and filmed reality? Right now things are pretty easy to differentiate, but what will the situation be in 10 or 20 years? Is there concern in the industry over this potential?
There was a classic episode of The Critic (of Jon Lovitz fame) that explored this very topic.
One of the "revised" edits was Casablanca where Isla does not get on the plane.It's definitely a topic to think about, especially with directors' fetish for going back and "fixing" their movies, 20+ years later.
To check out the Critic episodes, go here
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Point-based rendering has shown some amazing results -- QSplat, for example, provides results in realtime that are flat out unimaginable out of traditional engines. Even higher quality output is coming out of the Surface splatting hackers.
Image based systems also seem to be yielding results -- Gondry's Star Guitar video, which showed scenes from a window of a train synchronized to music, was undeniably compelling and could simply not have been done with traditional 3D approaches. Schodel and Essa's work with Video Sprites are also quite impressive.
I don't mean to provide a litany of unusual rendering techniques for you to ponder. I bring them up because polygonal approaches have clearly yielded some incredible results, and I'm interested to know whether you think point-based and/or image-based strategies will yield similarly disruptive fruit. Also, I'm curious whether you're aware of any other particularly obscure but powerful methods for scene generation.
So, in short: What's next for 3D?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I've been in the graphics field in one way or another for twenty-five years (Siggraph member since 1982), so you know I love GCI and am familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. I also have tremendous respect for traditional film FX, and am sometimes saddened by the present overemphasis on CGI for everything when many types of effects could still benefit from a more traditional approach. So my question -- what are your CGI pet peeves, and why? Unrealistic design choices of shapes/colors/textures? Poor/no use of physics-based motion? The difficulty in compositing a unnaturally-crisp CGI object into an inherently-grainy film background? The insistence of certain studio execs to use CGI for effects that would be better served by other FX technologies? The inevitable tradeoffs of time/money/ quality? Or something else entirely?
While I have been personally disappointed by the quality of "digital" film techniques (seen most recently in Attack of the Clones, and previously in some pure-CG/animated features such as Fantasia 2000), finding it to be a debatable "improvement" at best, I was wondering what the professional consensus is in the field re: the long term future of celluloid film.
In particular, I'm interested in finding out what the sought-after advantages on the production end are for digital film, vs. making use of more advanced celluloid based film approaches such as Maxivision, which I find interesting (but have never seen).
Thanks!
How do you decide what runs on Irix
and what runs on Linux?
Are you doing anything with OS X?