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."
Any one of half a dozen rezes.
/. nerd, figure those 2^something's out!
Most Avid work is cutting video, i.e. you're cutting a low-res video copy of the film. You then take that video and go back to rematch the original film work to the cuts made with the video. This process is called negative cutting.
I'm assuming what you're referering to is special effects work and whatnot. This is generally done at 2k res, or 4k if it's appropriate (read: the producers are loaded).
2k = 2048 * something, depending on the format.
4k = you're a
-asparagui
I would take with a grain of salt that assumption. Real time CG has really taken off and some of the stuff shown at places like SIGGRAPH. But CG for VFX have other requirements and difficulties. Don't you think that the smart people inside these houses are always looking for the edge for every bit of performance and power? Even now a days we can't create in computers real time graphics that match the complexity of the work in Jurasic Park or Toy Stiry. Just look for Tom Duff's comments about the hype machine from graphic card makers. We might one day get it but I won't hold my breath. If it ever gets to that point don't you think SFX studios won't be the first to jump in?
Besides even though VFX studios charge a lot they are operating on razor thin profit margins. Many barely survive and many have gone belly up vecause of that, like Boss Films or when Warner killed Warner Digital. Second lets make a comparision. I mean in some of these movies you pay a star up to 20 million U$ plus what the director and maybe other actors might get and half the movie nbudget is spent on just a few persons above the line. Compare these to say paying U$ 30 million for a big FX show (say like Pearl Harbor or Mummy 2) on which you have to pay for maybe a couple of hundred people's salaries between 6 to 12 months. If anything studios are getting their FX work dirt cheap. Most of the VFX studios expenditures is salaries not hardware or software. You need to pay for the best artistc and technical talent.
"Well how do you know they were rushed."
Because I'm an animator. I can tell the difference between a rushed animation and a completed animation. Watch the Dex alien in the diner and then watch C3PO's adventures in the battle droid factory. There's a huge difference in refinement. Heck, I don't think you even need to be an animator to spot that.
"They had about 18 months of production of VFX which is longer than the average."
They also had an absurd amount of FX to do for nearly every shot in the whole movie. They had more to do than Toy Story. If memory serves, Toy Story had somewhere between 2.5 to 3 years to complete. And they didn't even have to match it up to real people and places!
"An artists are not overloaded and forced to say, too bad tat's it."
Yes. They are. A badly completed effect is more valuable than no effect at all.
"But in general it's up to supervisors to make sure VFX shots are to a level where they aer OK."
That's really no different from what I said. The choice is the same. Whether it's the animator or the manager that makes the call doesn't affect my point one bit. If I thought anybody was going to be zealously literal about what I said, I would have said 'animation team' instead of 'animator'. The truth is that the manager/supervisor is not going to have any idea if the schedule's going to be blown unless the animator says "Sorry, I just don't have the time to finish this without eating into the time I need to do the next shot."
"There is a cliche in VFX where people say that VFX are never finished you just stop working on them."
That's not a cliche, it's a myth. The point of an effect is to describe an event. "phaser shot must make slug like creature burn up and vaporize." Once all the requirements are fulfilled "phaser shoots, slug like creature burns, vaporized", the effect it's finished. You can add more elements if you want, but you don't make the point any clearer. As a matter of fact, overworking an effect can ruin the elements that fulfilled the requirement. Anybody remember Return of the Jedi Special Edition? There was a huge party at the end of it on Coruscant. Lotsa people were cheering. After leaving the theaters, one of my friends said "Did you see the statue of the Emperor knocked down?" There was so much crap on the screen that I missed that detail. Whoever did the effect of the falling statue had their work ruined because somebody didn't finish when they should have.
"He's a mulatto at best! Isn't it ironic that he's the one pushing the "skin color means nothing" propoganda in his music. Guess he doesn't buy that bullshit either."
If memory serves, he suffers from a fairly common skin disorder called 'vitiligo'. Basically, it's a light splotchiness in the skin that gets bigger and bigger... He probably lightened his skin so you couldn't see the splotches.
Nose jobs and plastic surgery are all about vanity, but making fun of a guy for his skin disorder is not cool. Celebrity or not, he is a human being and can suffer from the same ailments that you or I could. He chose a unique way of dealing with his problem, but people still trivialize it. I'll tell you something: Whether he has the illness or not (there's debate about that), he certainly didn't have the technique done in order to contradict himself.
No need to apologize, I didn't find you rude or anything, except maybe passionate. As I said on re-reading my first post I think I didn't do a good job of expressing my ideas. It's not that I don't think Carmack will be right eventually (I just disagree on the timeline) or that many FX are rushed (I sure know several examples), I just couldn't find the right words :-).
As far as people from ILM I've met plenty at SIGGRAPH (attendee since 95), usually I've spoken with a few of them for a few min. I've got an acquaintance there but we only email evry so often since he is to busy. Heck I interviewed once there but I didn't get the job, oh well. Also I've inherited a page about ILM, The Unofficial ILM website:
The Unofficial ILM Website
Because of that I now have a relationship with ILM PR and they are sometimes very gracious in providing info and scoops. They even introduced me to a fwe people where I almost had a heart attack but that's beside the point.
My best suggestion is to get involved with SIGGRAPH (if you have a local chapter). If not, start saving and go to next year's SIGGRAPH, in San Diego. That's the most important event for VFX and the biggestrecruitment event for ILM and other houses. You can certainly makes losts of contacts ther and actually talk to all these people and they can give you great advice. First time I went my eyes opened, I really didn't know how much was FX all about. In case you haven't gone to one I have a primer on the conference:
SIGGRAPH 2003
SIGGRAPH Primer
If not you can contact me at the site forums.
Cinefex magazine covers all this stuff in tremendous detail.
The Lord of the Rings issue is pretty impressive.