Slashdot Mirror
Report From The Land of SFX
prostoalex writes "MIT's Technology Review takes a look at the world of digital special effects, the industry worth half a billion dollars per year, according to the authors. It talks about the role of SFX in movie production nowadays and comes to the connclusion that while might not 100% computer-created in the future, we'll see more of realistic-looking special effects in future titles."
Will Michael Jackson's nose ever look right again?
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
It talks about the role of SFX in movie production nowadays and comes to the connclusion that while might not 100% computer-created in the future, we'll see more of realistic-looking special effects in future titles.
More realistic effects in the future, huh? Boy, they're really going out on a limb this time.
GMD
watch this
So we can spend more and more on special effects, and less and less on those useless "plots" and "storylines"...
Common sense is what tells you the world is flat.
screw the dinosaurs, give me s1m0ne!
The director can sit down with a microscope and carve exactly the movie he wants directly on DVD.
I am sorry, but computer graphics do not make realistic images... Most of the graphics in AOTC were not realistic... The thing is, when a story is good and the images do not get in the way, you can suspend disbelief and not notice, regardless of how the effects were created. The problem is, that now you make good computer generated graphics, but they still stink, because the story is terrible.... Personally, that is why I liked LOTR, but hated AOTC. Graphics should not replace a quality story.
--- I would prefer a prehensile tail....
I have actually thought about this. It seems to me that in some movies, the plot and dialogue are actually a drag on the movie, which the action and effects are good. Thus, I think a "pure" action movie, containing little or no dialogue and only implicit plot could be great. It could be a legitimate artform of its own, untainted by cliched plots and tired one-liners. Cinematography, production design, and effects could be managed brilliantly by some directors who can't do anything with their hack actors and who themselves have no taste in scripting. Who's to say this is not legimate art or entertainment?
It's pretty close to a video game I don't have to actually play (who me, lazy?), but think about the way Half-Life worked in terms of making movies, or if you want to go back further, the old game "Another World" (aka "Out of this World". Now there's brilliance...
..."Report from the Land of SEX"?
From the article:
But in part because digital projection does not create as unmistakable an improvement in the viewing experience as, say, the talkies did over silent films, theater chains are unwilling to foot the bill for the new projectors, which cost at least $100,000 per screen and might have to be upgraded every few years. Conventional film projectors, which last 20 years on average, cost $30,000.
I have to agree with this statement. I managed to see Attack of the Clones, projected in all digital in Phoenix, AZ. When the screen switched from analog (during the previews) to digital I noticed a difference, but not huge. After watching for a few minutes, I forgot that I was even watching it in digital. It's nothing like the difference between VCR and DVD.
Have other people who have seen movies projected in all digital had the same experience?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Here's how I would have interpreted the post, though I'd prefer to just rewrite the whole thing and thank the original poster for providing the link:
(too bad strikeout is not a slashdot-approved HTML tag)
Thus, I think a "pure" action movie, containing little or no dialogue and only implicit plot could be great.
Hmmm. Interesting viewpoint. I don't agree with it but it's interesting. Let's draw an analogy to sex. Sex with someone you love is awesome. Sex with a complete stranger you couldn't care less about is an empty experience. But, as Dave Barry says, as far as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.
GMD
watch this
"We call them 'invisible effects,'"
And that is exactly where they should stay (barring of course the Pixar style total 3d animation stuff).
Why is this? Look at Star Wars EP2 for the obvious answer. Even with Lucas Arts churning out some of the best 3d in the movie business, there are still some amazingly obvious 3d effects (Anakin getting on and riding the creature... where Anakin becomes a 3d model getting tossed like a rag doll). And this obviousness seriously hinders the overall movie experience. Anything that pushes the viewer from the imaginary world back to realising he/she is in the theater is a bad thing, and in this case, I found myself thinking, "That doesn't look real," and bang i'm back in the theater.
So what am I say? Well, 3d should stay in the background. Until they can make it look exactly like the actor and have it move exactly like the actor, they shouldn't put it in the center of the action in a film made with real people. It is far too obvious. Though sometimes this is done pretty well.. such as Spiderman, the costumed one. The part with him in his hooded sweatshirt is also pretty obviously 3d.
But all these amazing secondary effects are just incredible, such as the backgrounds in Cast Away. Sometimes you have no idea, and that is the point of the game. Not that you can look and say, damn Lucas Arts has just made some cool 3d stuff, but to do a double take 2 months down the road when someone tells you it actually was 3d in the first place.
So basically, in the world of realistic 3d... the less recognition they get, the better they did their job.
...that this article appears with a banner ad for S1M0NE. You /. boyz wouldn't stoop to pay-for-play now, would you?
MayBE wE coULD get better ACtoRS for sTAr wARs. U'm I dzzYY.
Wow... how are you still posting at Score:1?
Watching the Behind The Scenes featurettes isn't just the same anymore. I remember watching the making of Star Wars, how they'd string up the space ship models and rig them with firecrackers. Now its like "this is the computer where we do everything... it starts out in a wireframe like this and then we map on the textures." Whoopdeedoo. Its just not the same.
When film gets scanned into an AVID system, what resolution is that? I'm assuming its as high as possible since after its transferred to film again much will be lost.
Every time an announcement is made about movie SFX, the arthouse clique shows up with alot of high and mighty talk about how the important elements are plot and quality acting, etc etc. I guess this makes them feel like they have more culture than the average man, i dunno.. IANAP (psychologist)
/.ers are fans of the original Star Wars.. But take a moment to step back and ask yourself what made that movie a phenomenon..
The same thing happens in video games. There are those who constantly say 'i dont care how good Doom 3 looks, its still the same crap, i want better gameplay, thats what counts'..
Though these points are valid, you cant ignore the reality that eye candy and the Wow factor sell entertainment. People always want to see the next level.
Now, its safe to bet most
Was it the story? Hardly.. Simple, archetypal boy-rescues-girl plot thats been repeated since the dawn of time.. Was it the acting? That great moment when Luke lands back at base after destroying the death star, Leia goes 'Luke!', he turns to her and exclaims 'Carrie!'. Or the whining 'But Uncle Owen, I wanted to look at power converters'
Naw, what made that movie was the effects. Noone had seen anything like it before. Dont discount the audio ground lucas broke with THX, either..
Jurassic Park was another.. Dinosaurs are loose, we gotta escape. No plot, nothing to think about here. But those cool looking dinosaurs brought me in.
Most people just want to sit back, turn their minds off, and be impressed.. Always have, always will. Snooty intellectual affairs will always be the exception, never the rule.
If this wasn't true we'd still be happy with black and white film and our Commodore 64s
Now get out there and blow sum stuff up for me
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
screw the dinosaurs, give me s1m0ne!
Err, wouldn't you rather screw s1m0ne? I don't wanna hear about any dino-porn on slashdot. Those goatse.cx links are already too much to stomach.
GMD
watch this
Hollywood has said YES to Linux.
While Episode II was pretty much considered a bad movie, it did accomplish some stuff that is seriously cool. There was a LOT of footage in that movie where the background was a miniature standing about 18" tall. That surprised the hell out of me when I picked up the latest issue of Cinefex! They actually built this tiny miniature of a room, placed a robotically controlled camera in it, and composited blue-screened actors over it. We're not talking static background either, the camera moved through the set quite casually.
This technique isn't new, it dates back to the early 80s. (Greatest American Hero, for example..) AOTC did a wonderful job of pulling that off convincingly.
I really can't wait to see this type of advance winding it's way down to independent moviemakers. I'm really curious what happens when somebody uninhibited by mass-market considerations is able to get their imagination on screen.
"Derp de derp."
Digital effects are like markup tags. When you first find out how to use them they're really neat but over use can detract from the real content.
Like has been said.... special effects are going to get better... big whooping deal. There's going to be a limit, though (once you've reached real-life, what's next?) And we all read the Carmack keynote. What is interesting is this threshold we're quickly approaching where we can create these movie-studio quality graphics on a single workstation in real time, using hardware that's no different than what is found in a consumer lever machine. That's bad for the SFX studios; how can they charge outrageous amounts for something that every kid has in their basement? It reminds me of the start of 3D in games; it has the potential to be the birth of an entire new garage industry.
On the other hand, Rosen doubts that artists or audiences will soon want to give up the unique sensory qualities of film. "If we look decades ahead, people will come to realize that digital [photography] is another way of doing things, but film will give you a different organic look," he says. "It's like oil paint and acrylic. Digital has a different texture."
I disagree with this argument. If digital videocameras and especially the projectors continue to improve it is only a matter of time before audiences prefer digital to film. The current bottleneck is the Texas Instuments projectors which are limited to 1024 or 1280 lines. Lucas filmed Episode 2 at a higher res than that but is limited by the projectors.
While film could 'fight back' by going to 70mm or using the excellent Maxivision 48 system, I think it is a loosing battle because projectors will still have jitter, and prints will continue to wear and fade.
Larger film requires more storage space as does digital. Luckily for digital, storage capabilities continue to improve as hard drives cram ever more data into their platters.
In the long view costs will come down for digital, which is another current drawback. This is assuming digital becomes popular enough for economies of scale and competition to kick in. A complicated chicken and the egg situation indeed.
I feel so much better. The scene in Cast Away where he first climbs to the top and looks down on the coastline and sees steep waves in every direction was really eye-popping. But I just couldn't shake the feeling that it didn't look right. The clarity was so high that I convinced myself it must be real film, but it turns out I should trust my feelings.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Look ath Final Fantisy: The Spirits Within. It was a total CGI film. The animators over at square studios (R.I.P. square studios) did an amazing job of creating lifelike characters in a convincing 3D world. The production did take years, but it was done. Just imagine, FF:TSW was made aboout two years ago. In a very fiew years, we will begin to see more of these completely CGI movies.
On the note of keeping CGI effects in the background, I agree 100%. No studio is up to the realism level that the camera can capture on the set of a film. Some effects are better than others (like Yoda in episode II), but the majority are not convincing enough to blend in seamlisly with the live action. Untill CGI is integrated without the audience noticing, teep the CGI in the effects department, not with critical characters.
"...and comes to the connclusion that while might not 100% computer-created in the future..."
no
You mean Julia Roberts is a real person? Boy hollywood special effects is good.
i'm sure i'm not the only one who thinks that using soemthing physical for special effects shots(actual explosives, miniatures etc.) look way better than completely cgi shots i remember seeing the special edition of star wars and just noticing the difference in the new scenes and the old ones, the old miniatures shots that were touched up a little with cgi looked loads better than the completely cgi shots, even the original miniature shots looked better than the new cgi shots, the original death star explosion was an actual explosion and a buncha saw dust that they filmed in the ILM parking lot, this looked so much better than any cgi explosion i've seen, also the scene in ANH w/ jabba looked terrible, the big puppet in RotJ looked much more *realistic*, same with yoda, the muppet looked a lot better than the all CGI yoda in tPM, i think it woulda been awsum if yoda was still a muppet for his big fight scene in AotC
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
There is an interesting back and forth between Roger Ebert and Peter Donen (a Visual Effects Supervisor) on the effects of The Bourne Identity.
It seems that during "Ebert & Roeper at the Movies", Roeper said that "no computer effects are as good as a well-shot movie in Paris" to which Ebert responded "this movie is a convincing argument for really photographing real things happening on real locations."
Then Doren responded (as he had worked on The Bourne Identity) saying that there were actually over 150 special effect shots "includ[ing] miniatures, blue screen, wire removal, time manipulation, 3D character animation and background replacement for starters."
His take on his job: "I come from the school that says if I do my job well, my work will not be noticed by the audience."
What is music when you despise all sound?
When I first read the title I was scrolling down and didn't see the bottom of the 'F' causing my mind to decide it was an 'E'. I think you can extrapolate what I thought it said from there;) I remember thinking "sure it's a geek site but can't they at least give us the benifit of the doubt?!?"
I stole this Sig
Maya represents a major, and underreported business achievement. SGI did something that companies always talk about doing and never bring off - got synergy from a merger. They bought Alias and Wavefront, and two years later, out came a product that combined the best of both. That deserves a business school study.
Meanwhile, Softimage got bought by Microsoft, then sold off to Avid, Softimage|XSI was years late, Avid bought Motion Factory and trashed it, and in the end, Softimage moved from #1 to about #4. (As a Softimage user and plug-in developer, I found this annoying. But that's another story.)
"...we'll see more of realistic-looking special effects in future titles."
Do we really need an MIT student to tell us that?
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
This was the most relevant quote for me:
:). It's going to be a great looking video, with a compelling story that takes advantage of the unique qualities of the medium.
"There are certain skills necessary to accomplish the shooting, making and coming out on the other end with a motion picture," Poster says. "One is cinematography. We say, if you know how to light it doesn't matter what medium you're shooting on. Likewise, if you don't know how to light it doesn't matter which medium you're shooting in."
I just graduated from college with a stack of short films behind me, and I'm gearing up for my first feature. From a technical standpoint, yes, film is still much better than digital -- I'm sure people on this thread will mention the absurdly low resolution of today's HD video. But to go to film means tripling the budget, raising tens of thousands of more dollars. And that's for 16mm, not even the 35 that we know and love in the theater.
One of my friends says, "Don't bother with video, it looks like crap. Spend the money instead to make a 35mm short that will look really professional and then people will invest in a 35mm movie." And another one of my friends actually went and did it, getting into some pretty big film fests.
But I agree with the quote -- it's not how good the format is, it's how you use it. Take two recent digital movies, Tadpole and The Fast Runner. The first is lit like the filmmakers know it's a cheap format, and treat it like a cheap format -- everything is hastily lit and handheld. Certain passages look like a home movie my dad could have shot. In the latter, the format was treated with respect and carefully lit, getting as much out of the format as possible. And it looks fantastic -- I would have no complaints is my film looked like that.
And even beyond that, what good is a great-looking format if the story isn't worth the film stock it's shot on? (I won't name any titles here.) So no, I'm going to do a feature-length movie on video before I do a short in 35 (unless, of course, I can raise the money to do a feature on 35
When it comes to SFX, "digital" does not necessarily mean "better." The models of Star Trek: TNG, with light passing over the textured, solid models in unsimulatable ways, are much more realistic to me than a Voyager frame filled with two dozen wire meshes. (I'm using TV shows for examples because the budget constraints are tighter.) My eyes have started glazing over all fake looking FX, especially digital stuntmen in features. They pull me out of the story immediately. I stop seeing them as people, and I didn't pay $10 to care about someone's digital models. I want to be like Zemeckis -- do FX that you can do well, and make sure they they serve the STORY instead of being their own attractions.
as far as I know ... there has never been a great porno movie that had all the qualities of the best Hollywood-made film.
Not even Eyes Wide Shut ?
Will I retire or break 10K?
[in Return of the Jedi,] Leia goes 'Luke!', [Luke] turns to her and exclaims 'Carrie!'
Urban legend. Luke actually exclaims 'Hey!'
Will I retire or break 10K?
I really do like CGI effects. Some of my favorite shows have really good CGI, Futurama, Lexx, other Sci-Fi. The problem is all the suspense is gone. I know that the person is in front of a green screen, I know they aren't in any harms way, except Jackie Chan.
There will always be a place for real stunt men, those are the scenes that still get me excited in movies. Seeing XXX snowboard down the side of a mountain in front of an avalanche may be cool, and loud, but it's anything but suspensful.
Hopefully we'll always have Jackie Chan and others to make that kind of entertainment to amaze us.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
"we'll see more of realistic-looking special effects in future titles." - wow, that's a bold prediction.
I know this is not on-topic, but what does [sic] mean? I've seen it everywhere, but still don't understand what it means. ("possible spelling error" or something??)
Cinefex magazine covers all this stuff in tremendous detail.
The Lord of the Rings issue is pretty impressive.
no.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Animation, traditionally, is very preplanned. The animation director draws a storyboard, which, in traditional animation, is a series of pencil sketches pinned to a wall. All the shots, and all the timing, is worked out at the storyboard level. Production then consists of filling in the gaps; frames between the storyboard frames are drawn (this is "in-betweening") details and colors go in, backgrounds are drawn, and all the pieces are assembled. All the creative decisions were made up-front, and are seldom changed during production.
Live-action film work isn't traditionally that structured. Some directors preplan everything; some just wing it. Directors have been successful with both approaches. Alfred Hitchcock and Roger Corman represent the extremes of that spectrum.
Then came films with mixed CGI and live action. Both parts have to match. This requires more preplanning. A lot more preplanning. The newer Star Wars movies were described as "years of preproduction, a few months of principal photography, years of postproduction".
It's not as much fun for the director as it used to be. But unstructured directing runs the budget through the roof. ("Space Jam" ran into this problem. I went to a talk by the lead effects guy, who was trying really hard not to describe the director as an asshole. That project went into postproduction hell, where, every morning, the director, his cronies, and studio execs viewed the dailes from the last night's rendering and ordered changes. First shift animated, second shift rendered, third shift transferred to film and developed. This went on for months.)
One way out of this is to put the animation director in charge. Now everything synchs right, and there's less rework, but the acting may be wooden.
There's a trend towards doing the entire movie twice, first as a low-quality computer animation, and then for real. This allows studios to see what the film will look like before green-lighting the production. It's basically big-budget storyboarding.
The industry is still struggling with this.