Handling The Visual Effects

[batman44]

As the title suggest, who would you like to handle the effects for the film? Personally, I'll like to see Weta Digital.

Edit: Show can you change the title to Who should handle Visual/ CGI effects.

[dark_b]

weta or ILM. both are on the top.
R & H showed that a small company can not handle a big blockbuster.R & H did a good job but not good enough.

[FilmNerdJamie]

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...I agree. When it comes to flying the next director should try their hardest not to over use CGI stunt doubles. I totally perfer extensive greenscreen/wire work.

Answer to the question:

I'll go with ILM.

[Deaths Head II]

I think ILM would be the best choice out of the ones I'm familiar with. Though I wouldn't mind Weta. I agree that R&H should not come back. I just didn't like the style of their CGI. If we could get work like the one on the Transformers film, that would be excellent. I know ILM was behind 3/4ths of that.

[batman44]

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...

I agree. That was a small problem I had with SR, alittle too much CGI.

ILM is also a great choice.

[FilmNerdJamie]

As the title suggest, who would you like to handle the effects for the film?

Having worn both hats myself...

As a director, I'd say whoever sees eye-to-eye visually with what I want for the film.

As a producer, I'd say whoever is the cheapest.

[SuperDaniel]

Not the company who did the effects of SR. That CG was one the worst i've ever seen.It's a shame that some flying shots from 30 years ago looks better than 2006.

[Ishmayl]

Pixar ;)

[superadam87]

If I'm the director of the Superman revival film, I want my Superman to fly on-set as much as possible (i.e. wire, harness, etc.) I realize there are limitations and times when CGI must be used.

But...I have to be able to see him fly using practical effects as long as I can...
Completely 100% agree! That's what made the Donner film so believable. Chris Reeve did practical flying.

In "Superman Returns," we got way too much CGI.

It's only believable if the person really does it.
Push the wire work, harness, etc as far as humanly possible. IF you have to rely on CGI, then go for it. But keep it to a minimum.

And I choose INDUSTRIAL LIGHT & MAGIC.

[Michael Corleone]

Weta is my number one choice, but there has to be a working relationship. Weta seems to have a good reputation for that kind of relationship though.

[Crook]

I'll be baffled if ILM or WETA don't get the job this time around. I'll be even more baffled if Sony gets it again.

[Michael Corleone]

I'll be baffled if ILM or WETA don't get the job this time around. I'll be even more baffled if Sony gets it again.

I don't think Sony did a bad job. The problem is the director has to be hands on with some of the work. I don't feel that Singer had the vision to see what could be done and asked for it to be used in unnecessary ways.

[Dark_Lord]

I agree. When it comes to flying the next director should try their hardest not to over use CGI stunt doubles. I totally perfer extensive greenscreen/wire work.

Answer to the question:

I'll go with ILM.

I agree as well. Whenever it's possible greenscreen/wire work would be better. I'd go with ILM too.

[bunk]

I'd like to actually see Superman take off from the ground and fly up into the sky. The taking off and landing in SR was kind of lame.

[Crook]

I don't think Sony did a bad job. The problem is the director has to be hands on with some of the work. I don't feel that Singer had the vision to see what could be done and asked for it to be used in unnecessary ways.
Sure, it's Singer's fault as well. But Sony still did subpar work compared to what it's main competitors would have done.

I'd like to actually see Superman take off from the ground and fly up into the sky. The taking off and landing in SR was kind of lame.
Yes, it's about time we get one continuous shot of that. No lame edits to cover it up.

[Michael Corleone]

Sure, it's Singer's fault as well. But Sony still did subpar work compared to what it's main competitors would have done.

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.

[BMM]

weta or ILM. both are on the top.
R & H showed that a small company can not handle a big blockbuster.R & H did a good job but not good enough.

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.

[Crook]

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.
I was referring to the very plastic-looking Superman cgi double.

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.
He was referring to R&H's work on TIH. That is why he's making the comparison of a small company doing a big budget film.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.
I'm pretty sure most cgi films use more than one studio to do the effects. The thing is though most of the third party companies are working on the small things like wire removals and subtle touch-ups.

Ideally, only one studio should work on the very big effects for a film. You mix up studios and you (likely) run the risk of varying cgi inconsistencies.

[Deaths Head II]

Completely 100% agree! That's what made the Donner film so believable. Chris Reeve did practical flying.

In "Superman Returns," we got way too much CGI.

One quality I think the old Donnor films still have over most Superhero films is that it the film felt more grounded in reality since the characters don't morph into CGI people every five minutes. That's how that film convinced me a man could fly. Every film spams CGI so I won't cry if they won't do it, but it would make the film feel a lot more distinct.

I have to disagree. Sony's work was far from subpar. It was the sequence and design of the shots that were uninspired. The plane sequence alone was top notch.

Out of curiousity, was the S on the back of the cape unallowed simply because no modern CGI could keep it from becoming a blob or simply because the CGI crew on Superman Returns couldn't do it?

[BMM]

He was referring to R&H's work on TIH. That is why he's making the comparison of a small company doing a big budget film.

That makes more sense. Still, I wouldn't exclude their contribution based on The Incredible Hulk. Every effects company puts forth questionable work at some point. If Rhythm and Hues, or similar studios, are to be involved, I would prefer they put forth the same number and kinds of shots as Rhythm and Hues did in Superman Returns rather than The Incredible Hulk.

[Michael Corleone]

I was referring to the very plastic-looking Superman cgi double.



I understand. I'm saying that while it looked rubbery and had flaws compared to a real person, the work was not sub par. That's probably some of the best double work I've seen considering it had to stand up to a close up shot. Digital doubles didn't really get any better than that at the time. Right now, things are improving at an exponential rate, so anything now will look better. As it stands right now, that type of digital recreation is about as difficult as it gets the in the effects world. There is new software being written and new techniques being thought up monthly.

Sony isn't my favorite effects house, but I doubt anyone could have done that shot any better given the way it was blocked out in the script and storyboards. In the end, it was probably a bad idea to do a double. Green screen combined with some computer controlled camera work would have been more convincing as well as possibly more economical, of course that would depend on what facilities were available. In the end that was a result of decisions made by people other than the animators and artists. They delivered great work for what they were asked to do.

[solidsnake86]

With far away shots they can get away with a digital double. SR had some great scenes and some very poor scenes. I remember reading that they convinced singer to use the digital double in some sequences so I would say that we need a director who is stubborn into not giving in to putting more CGI shots. Some of the best shots in SR were done with routh like that clip of him flying to the plane. We need more of those shots.

[dark_b]

??? Rythym and Hues only contributed 114 shots out of the 1,000+ partioned to other studios. Moreover, R&H contributed some of the nicest--Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El hologram, Luthor's yacht, crystal growth, and the sea rescue. I have yet to see a complaint about any of those.

If anything, Sony Pictures Imageworks contributed the most complained about shots of the movie (CG Superman)... then again, it also contributed the most praised (777 shuttle sequence).

I would like to see a combination of talented studios, including Cinesite, Digital Domain, ILM, Rhythm and Hues, or Weta among others.i was talking about TIH.

[CGHulk]

I want ILM on the reboot. The landings and takeoffs to be the actor not a fake looking CG double, like Sony Imagework did. I truely believe ILM would deliver a photorealistic CG double if they are on the reboot! I want less CG double if it can be shot practically. Like in Superman Returns the digital double was used when they could have and should have just shot Brandon landing and panning and taking off in the rig.

[dark_b]

did ILM do a CGI human? i only remember for star wars. but the style that Lucas used made the effects look very fake. he likes theblur effect when someoen jumps.
but did ILM do a close up of CGI human?

Camerons pushed weta to the limit for the realistic CGI. so weta is also an option.

[CGHulk]

ILM's work on the prequels could have been better. When Peter Jackson was making The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, he wasn't spending his own money, he was spending Newline's, but George was spending his own money to make the Prequels, he got a little cheap. That how I justify with the hit and miss effects work in the Prequels. But one year later after Episode 3 ILM won the Academy Award for Visual Effects for Pirates 2, which was financed by Disney. On Fantastic Four 2 Weta did the Silver Surfer, and people were complaining how poor the surfer looked (except for one shot, which you can see on the Weta Digital website, which that one shot they are proud of), a CG artist came forward to say why their work wasn't that great, due to Fox's lack of financing. Did anyone see the Water Horse? Weta's work on that film didn't look to good. The Bridge to Terabithia didn't look that good too, I read due to lack of financing too. But King Kong looked geat, and got the Academy Award, boy did Universal shell out the dough for that one!

James Cameron is actually promising photoreal CG characters for his film Avatar, with his new breakthrough motion capture technology. He has said Weta has developed phototreal skin and cloth simulations. Spielberg and Jackson are going to be using all of this new technology for their Tintin movie. Cameron is also promising photoreal CG environments.

[dark_b]

James Cameron is actually promising photoreal CG characters for his film Avatar, with his new breakthrough motion capture technology. He has said Weta has developed phototreal skin and cloth simulations. Spielberg and Jackson are going to be using all of this new technology for their Tintin movie. Cameron is also promising photoreal CG environments.there are 3 directors IMO that pushed CG companys to the limit. jackson,spielberg and the king of all new CGI technology james cameron.
like i said ILM or weta. but weta is interesting. the things that weta did on avatar they will use on otehr projects.
like ILM working on transformers. it helped them to make IM faster and easier..
ILM is now the best when it comes to brushed metal. but the photorealistic cloth simulation and skin from weta could be very handy for superman.

[CGHulk]

I recall in 2006 everyone was fooled with Davey Jones, sure we knew the tentacles were CG, due to the implausibility of them being real, but the whole guy was CG, it just blew everyone away. I truly believe if ILM got the Superman reboot, it would be a challenge they'd want to take up to make the first photorealistic CG double. We shouldn't rule out ILM with cloth sims and skin renders, since 2005 George has been employing mathematicians from major universities, here's one of them http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/ he's developed fire, water, hair and cloth simulations. She's hot http://graphics.stanford.edu/~rachellw/ and she worked on Transformers!

[BMM]

i was talking about TIH.

That's what Crook pointed out. In that regard, I agree with you.

[dark_b]

R&H did an amazing job on marlon brando. but they can not make a whole movie plus smaller jobs.

[CGHulk]

R&H did an amazing job on marlon brando. but they can not make a whole movie plus smaller jobs.
I thought the mouth looked fake. Alot of people think the close up shot of Brando at the end of the sequence was a CG Brando, it wasn't. It was live action footage of Brando saying, "Kal-EL."

[batlovescatDC]

get the team from the dark knight or underworld.

[dark_b]

get the team from the dark knight or underworld.thatsh teh problem. since TDK is making 500 milions that means that everything is perfect from them.
how can we even compare the CGI shots from TDK to a superman movie?
its completely different.

[dark_b]

I thought the mouth looked fake. Alot of people think the close up shot of Brando at the end of the sequence was a CG Brando, it wasn't. It was action footage of Brando saying, "Kal-EL."it didnt look fake to me because it was so short.

[batlovescatDC]

thatsh teh problem. since TDK is making 500 milions that means that everything is perfect from them.
how can we even compare the CGI shots from TDK to a superman movie?
its completely different.

yes, they are completely different.... but I think they could pull it off just as well.

[dark_b]

so you would rather use the CGI company from TDK because the movie made 500 milions rather then a CGI company that is specialized with CGI creatures and heavy CGI action scenes(weta ,ILM)?

[Alien Anal]

i forget who it was now
but the car company that had the flying man
:P

[CGHulk]

get the team from the dark knight or underworld.

Double Negative
http://www.dneg.com/projects/the_dark_knight_129.html

Framestore CFC
http://www.framestore-cfc.com/#/Film%20VFX/TheDarkKnight,

http://www.framestore-cfc.com/#/Film%20VFX/Underworld,

it didnt look fake to me because it was so short.

I re-editted my post I meant to say it was live action footage, not action footage.

i forget who it was now

but the car company that had the flying man

:P

Fin Design

http://www.findesign.com.au/

[matrix_ghost]

get the team from the dark knight or underworld.

thatsh teh problem. since TDK is making 500 milions that means that everything is perfect from them.
how can we even compare the CGI shots from TDK to a superman movie?
its completely different.

yes, they are completely different.... but I think they could pull it off just as well.

so you would rather use the CGI company from TDK because the movie made 500 milions rather then a CGI company that is specialized with CGI creatures and heavy CGI action scenes(weta ,ILM)?


This is exactly the same logic that was used when Sony Imageworks got SR. SPider-man 2 featured the first big superhero battle done right and everybody was raving about it.
Fastforward a couple of years later and everybody is hating Sony Imageworks because of their work in Superman Returns.

The companies like FrameStore CFC and Double Negative are nowhere near the level of ILM or WETA or Sony.
Those companies are specialised in creating near photoreal CG creatures and have experience with CG humans.
R&H is in the same league of Framestore CFC and look at their work in The Incredible Hulk. It was good but it's still looks like a CG creation.

And Superman is guy who you want to look like obvious CGI. You have to go for 100 % photorealism

[matrix_ghost]

I agree. When it comes to flying the next director should try their hardest not to over use CGI stunt doubles. I totally perfer extensive greenscreen/wire work.

Answer to the question:

I'll go with ILM.

While ILM has made huge improvements with their CG technology , i still have my doubts. Davey Jones looked photorealistic but he is still not a human.

Also i find care to explain a little more why you'd go for ILM when you're wanting the director to shoot the actor in flying harnesses. Iron Man is a bit similar with Supes because it features a guy flying. And the VFX are done by ILM. All the shots of Iron Man flying are CG shots. No wire-work

[Crook]

There's obviously gonna be some form of huge cgi-work all throughout the movie. Minds as well go with the best.

[matrix_ghost]

I was referring to the very plastic-looking Superman cgi double.


He was referring to R&H's work on TIH. That is why he's making the comparison of a small company doing a big budget film.


I'm pretty sure most cgi films use more than one studio to do the effects. The thing is though most of the third party companies are working on the small things like wire removals and subtle touch-ups.

Ideally, only one studio should work on the very big effects for a film. You mix up studios and you (likely) run the risk of varying cgi inconsistencies.

Bingo.
I can understand why studios hire different VFX companies to work on various shots. One studio could deliver the all the VFX shots ( like ILM did on SW prequels) but it usually takes longer then a year. The more shots , the longer it takes. That is why the work is spread with amongst different companies.
While this obsiously lessens the workload the problem you get is inconsistencies.

I remember reading the Cinefex issue which featured TF. ILM and Digital Doman were the two companies that delivered VFX shots and you could clearly see a difference between the CG work delivered by ILM ( robots such as Optimus) and the stuff created by Digital Doman ( the mountain dew robot).
It really looked different.

[Captain Planet!]

ILM should do it. That is not an opinion or preference, that is a fact.

[dark_b]

a fake moving CGI superman head is not anymore an option.
here you have perfect facial motion tracking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwAV2fXoy6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0R-N6ZQO4

this should be and WILL be used for the new movie. i just hope that ILM will start using this. WETA is already using this for AVATAR(james cameron)


the last flying scene where we got a close up of CGI brandon was first filmed on greenscreen. later on they replaced him.this means that they didnt track brandons head. which of course means that the animators were animating the face by hand. this is not PIXAR for christsake.

[SuperDaniel]

Why cant they past the actor's head in a CGI body instead of wasting time and money in trying to make a CG face that WILL NEVER look real?

[CGHulk]

a fake moving CGI superman head is not anymore an option.
here you have perfect facial motion tracking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwAV2fXoy6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0R-N6ZQO4

this should be and WILL be used for the new movie. i just hope that ILM will start using this. WETA is already using this for AVATAR(james cameron)


the last flying scene where we got a close up of CGI brandon was first filmed on greenscreen. later on they replaced him.this means that they didnt track brandons head. which of course means that the animators were animating the face by hand. this is not PIXAR for christsake.
James Cameron is not using Image Metricks for "Avatar", he's developed a new technology for facial motion capture called “Facial Performance Replacement” (FPR). IMO the Image Metricks technique doesn't work well, at least not convincing ina photoreal way, it works well for videogames. This is a heck of alot better company, http://www.mova.com/ you just wait and see what they'll be doing in the near future! There's a new film called "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette where he's a little boy that looks old and as he grows up he gets younger, using the MOVA technique. The little old man is Brad Pitt, put your head around that. A CG face on a little boys body, or how about that mirror shot, a full CG character? Whatever technique they used it looks amazing! Here's a trailer to the film. http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/06/17/must-watch-david-finchers-the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button-trailer/

Why cant they past the actor's head in a CGI body instead of wasting time and money in trying to make a CG face that WILL NEVER look real?
Well for "Blades of Glory" Rainmaker Visual Effects put Will Farrell's facial live action performance on a real ice skaters body. For other shots they put a CG Will Farrell's face over a real ice skaters face. After watching the video breakdown on this site http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/technique/how/7926.html I think the techniques worked quite well. I think it would work well in a Superman movie!

[Crook]

IM is being used for Avatar. There was a direct quote from someone on the film stating such.

[CGHulk]

IM is being used for Avatar. There was a direct quote from someone on the film stating such.
Oh crap you are right, my bad!
http://filmonic.com/coolness-image-metrics-cg-facial-animation

"This technology will mainly be used on Zoe Saldana, Laz Alonso, CCH Pounder and the rest of the actors playing the Na’vi alien race." - Avatar producer Jon Landau

Well the CG baby Ogre in the 5th Harry Potter looked bad, and the demos online look bad! Well lets hope it works out well.

[dark_b]

Oh crap you are right, my bad!
http://filmonic.com/coolness-image-metrics-cg-facial-animation

"This technology will mainly be used on Zoe Saldana, Laz Alonso, CCH Pounder and the rest of the actors playing the Na’vi alien race." - Avatar producer Jon Landau

Well the CG baby Ogre in the 5th Harry Potter looked bad, and the demos online look bad! Well lets hope it works out well.you mean image metrics?
emilly had IMO 99% realistic movement. lets forget about how the surface looked. those guys are not experts in lighting and shaders. but they made some pretty good eye ball movements.

[dark_b]

Well for "Blades of Glory" Rainmaker Visual Effects put Will Farrell's facial live action performance on a real ice skaters body. For other shots they put a CG Will Farrell's face over a real ice skaters face. After watching the video breakdown on this site http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/technique/how/7926.html I think the techniques worked quite well. I think it would work well in a Superman movie!IMO it looked very fake. you could tell when the face was just pasted on the body.
i dont know. for quick action shots a 100% CGIsuperman can be used. for close ups you can use the real body. the whole body.

[CGHulk]

you mean image metrics?
emilly had IMO 99% realistic movement. lets forget about how the surface looked. those guys are not experts in lighting and shaders. but they made some pretty good eye ball movements.

EDIT: Emily isn't motion catured, she's key frame animation.

Yes I meant Image Metricks. Well the result of Image Metricks doesn't look photoreal. In that Brad Pitt movie, I posted the trailer to, it looks like MOVA is very close to realism. Even MOVA's demos look darn impressive. Well maybe James Cameron has beefed up the Image Metricks software. Don't get me wrong I want Cameron to hit it out of the park.

IMO it looked very fake. you could tell when the face was just pasted on the body.
i dont know. for quick action shots a 100% CGIsuperman can be used. for close ups you can use the real body. the whole body.
Well I haven't seen "Blades of Glory", except for that demonstration online. With the right studio I think those techniques can be useful. But IMO you can either make a photoreal CG model or put the actors face right on the CG body. I completely agree, it's best if you can do it all with the real actor! I'm also thinking if there was a very complicated stunt and they wanted to use a real person instead of a CG double they could just paste the actors face over the stuntman's. It was done before in Jurassic Park, and also in Titanic. There were a few shots in Superman Returns where there was a CG double of Routh, I was like why couldn't they have just shot that with him on wires?!!! Or paste Routh's face onto the model instead of the fake, dead eye looking CG face.

[dark_b]

http://www.mova.com/
are they using here make up?


what i like with image metrics is that their software also tracks the eyes,teeth and tounge. i odnt know how they do this but they do. plus with IM its cheaper and faster. they dont use special cameras or not even more then 1 camera. IM can do their work in a living room with a normal HD camera.

i really dont think that Countour reality capture is tracing the face better. i think that both are doing in a way the same amount of tracking. but with IM you get eyes which is very complicated.
but i think we all agree that dots on the face are not enough. i still dont get why beouwulf had to have 100 of markers on the face. why not wait for Countour and IM.

[CGHulk]

http://www.mova.com/
are they using here make up?


what i like with image metrics is that their software also tracks the eyes,teeth and tounge. i odnt know how they do this but they do. plus with IM its cheaper and faster. they dont use special cameras or not even more then 1 camera. IM can do their work in a living room with a normal HD camera.

i really dont think that Countour reality capture is tracing the face better. i think that both are doing in a way the same amount of tracking. but with IM you get eyes which is very complicated.
but i think we all agree that dots on the face are not enough. i still dont get why beouwulf had to have 100 of markers on the face. why not wait for Countour and IM.
Beowulf was made before IM and Contour was available.

With Contour you get an accurate copy of your facial expressions, with Image Matrics you don't, look at how the girls face in the comparison video on the officiqal IM site doesn't have the broad expressions, just like in Beowulf, the angry expression isn't as angry as with the real person. With Contour you get an exact copy of the performers face.
Contour has 100,000 polygons captured, 10,00 point tracked. Standard capture is 100 polygons captured, 100 points tracked. (Beowulf)
The Green Paint
"By applying phosphorescent makeup to a performer's face or to special glow-in-the-dark dyes to costumes and rapidly strobing blacklights just beyond the threshold of human perception, multiple cameras record facial movements during the tiny interval when the lights are off."

"Contour is almost to the point where we can show the faces live as they're being captured," says founder Steve Perlman. But the system does have its limits: "We need a situation in a room where we can control the lighting."
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=features&id=3152&articleid=vr1117986669


“Instead of grabbing points on a face, you will be able to capture the entire skin,” Mr. Fincher said. “You’re going to get all of the enormous detail and the quirks of human expression that you can’t plan for.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/technology/31motion.html?ex=1311998400&en=b06bb3982d98f187&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


MOVA is actually financed and research is funded by Robert Zemeckis who directed Beowulf, he invented a software to track eyes, and in his new film, A Christmas Carol, you'll see Contour at work, where it wasn't there for Beowulf.




“The subtlety and detail of Contour is way beyond anything I've ever seen. Contour is the most advanced technology I know of for creating photorealistic human facial animation.”

—Stephen Regelous, founder, Massive Software and creator of the Academy Award®-winning crowd animation software used in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Image Metrics’ revolutionary technologies for performance-driven character animation require neither complex motion-capture hardware, nor specialist technical knowledge. Their animation solutions put the performer at the heart of the process, dramatically enhancing the creativity and reducing post-production time. "It is this type of innovation that will again allow us to present to the consumer, stories that could not otherwise be told."
John Landau, Academy Award Winning Producer (James Cameron’s Lightstorm Entertainment)

[SatEL]

weta or ILM. both are on the top.
R & H showed that a small company can not handle a big blockbuster.R & H did a good job but not good enough.

I agree Weta are number1 just look at what they did with King kong.

[BULLITT]

PRESS RELEASE: MEDIA CONVERGENCE: UBISOFT® ACQUIRES HYBRIDE TECHNOLOGIES, CREATOR OF VISUAL EFFECTS FOR THE FILMS 300 AND SIN CITY

Fusion between creator of best-selling video game brands and renowned special effects studio a groundbreaking event for digital entertainment

London, UK - July 8, 2008 – Today Ubisoft announced the acquisition of Hybride Technologies, a Montreal-based studio renowned for its expertise in the creation of visual effects for cinema, television and advertising.

Created over 15 years ago, Hybride employs 80 team members. The studio’s many projects include such innovative films as 300, Frank Miller’s Sin City and the Spy Kids series.

Ubisoft will work closely with Hybride to share technology and to develop tools in order to optimize the creation of both video games and visual effects and to offer gamers visual experiences that rival those of the cinema. At the same time, Hybride will continue to work with its film partners while also bringing its expertise to leverage Ubisoft’s intellectual properties for the movie industry.

"The future of our industry depends on our ability to create brands that captivate audiences and to extend those brands to other forms of entertainment," said Yves Guillemot, chief executive officer at Ubisoft. “The acquisition of Hybride falls directly into the strategy that has already led us to open a digital creation studio in Montreal and to acquire the Tom Clancy brand for video games and ancillary products. The exceptional quality of the team at Hybride and the expertise of our Ubisoft teams will allow us to create one of the best 3D animation studios in the entertainment industry.”

"This alliance is a true first for the industry,” continued Yannis Mallat, chief executive officer of Ubisoft Montreal. “Ubisoft and Hybride share the same vision of entertainment convergence and a common passion for innovation and creativity.”

“It is the quality and innovation of our artists that made Hybride into one of the most successful studios in cinema and the most important visual effects producer on the North American East Coast,” stated Pierre Raymond, founder and chief executive officer at Hybride Technologies. “The sharing of technological and creative expertise between Ubisoft and Hybride will position the two companies at the head of the pack in an entertainment industry in rapid evolution.”

[I SEE SPIDEY]

While ILM has made huge improvements with their CG technology , i still have my doubts. Davey Jones looked photorealistic but he is still not a human.

Also i find care to explain a little more why you'd go for ILM when you're wanting the director to shoot the actor in flying harnesses. Iron Man is a bit similar with Supes because it features a guy flying. And the VFX are done by ILM. All the shots of Iron Man flying are CG shots. No wire-workThere is going to be tons of CGI in the movie no matter how much wirework in used, so I want the best IMHO handling that CGI. That doesn't just mean CGI stunt doubles, which would undoubtedly have to be used on occassion.

[solidsnake86]

I still prefer that they CG the backgrounds as opposed to the actor. That probably costs a lot more money but i would imagine if they show him going fast they dont have to be done in that great of detail. Having the actor perform just looks so much better. I hate to bring up smallville because than the Welling fans come in, but that shot of him flying at the beginning of the fourth season when he opens the door to lex's plan looks really good. That was on a tv show budget, I expect movies to be better.

I think it comes down to these effects companies convincing the directors that the shot will look better with a digital double and the director giving in. That is why a stuborn director is required for this film.

[Crook]

That specific shot you're referring to HAD to have a cg background. It was only logical to have Welling on a green-screen, if you're gonna do a fly-by shot of him in the sky/space.

The better direction would be to just use as little cgi creation as possible. Nothing beats real, and the technology has a long way to go before it can replicate it flawlessly.

[solidsnake86]

Oh I know the background was CGI and thats why it looked amazing. The CGI for stationary objects is just leaps and bounds above humans and thats why they should do that instead, but I'm sure its a lot harder and more costly.

[Figs]

a fake moving CGI superman head is not anymore an option.
here you have perfect facial motion tracking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwAV2fXoy6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0R-N6ZQO4

this should be and WILL be used for the new movie. i just hope that ILM will start using this. WETA is already using this for AVATAR(james cameron)


the last flying scene where we got a close up of CGI brandon was first filmed on greenscreen. later on they replaced him.this means that they didnt track brandons head. which of course means that the animators were animating the face by hand. this is not PIXAR for christsake.


Personally I don't mind which of the big three or four CGI studios they get. ILM would rock of course!

I just hope that this next film will have some immense action/damage for the company to work on...as opposed to a crashing plane. It was still a cool scene but I want some serious damage being done by a villain that only Superman can stop.


LOL @ the argument going on in the chat area below the second Youtube vid.

[matrix_ghost]

There is going to be tons of CGI in the movie no matter how much wirework in used, so I want the best IMHO handling that CGI. That doesn't just mean CGI stunt doubles, which would undoubtedly have to be used on occassion.

Fair enough.
I understand your point about directors overusing CGI.
There are limitation when shooting stuff on wires and green screen and CGI overcomes that. The problem is because it's so easy , the directors often just go straight to CGI which of course poses the problem of getting stuff to look realistic. Especially in the case of Superman where you really are talking about photorealistic humans.


One thing that we were discussing some time back was the whole budget issue. I should've replied earlier , but alas :cwink:
Anyway there this debate going on where some people were saying that the suquel can be done for less then 200 million and others ( like me) were saying that it couldn't.
I always said that the reason why the budgets of these movies are so high ( apart from paying the salaries) is the increased VFX workload.
However i was reading an prince of persia article and they had a very interesting thing on why the POTC sequels cost so much :
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2008/08/11/monday-mouse-watch-why-did-disney-push-back-prince-of-persia.aspx

Still others have suggested that it was Mouse House managers' concerns about the Screen Actors Guild (More importantly, the possibility that SAG may strike later this year) that caused Disney to push back "Prince of Persia" 's release date by nearly a year. So that -- should any labor-related problems disrupt production -- "The Sands of Time" won't then be creatively compromised. This tentpole picture (which many within the company are hoping will help launch a brand-new "Pirates of the Caribbean" -like franchise) will show up in 2010 looking just as Newell & Bruckheimer intended. Which is a lavish action-adventure set in 9th century Persia that will feature eye-popping special effects.

And speaking of special effects ... Perhaps the most interesting explanation as to why Disney opted to push back "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Times" to May of 2010 came from the folks who handle FX for the Mouse. As one industry vet I spoke with late last week explained:

"Disney & Bruckheimer still remember all of the dough that they had throw at FX houses back in 2006 & 2007 in order to make sure that 'Dead Man's Chest' and 'At World's End' actually met their previously locked-in releases dates. We're talking about tens of millions of dollars being spent on overtime, bonuses and incentive payments -- just to make sure that all of those effects shots were in place once these 'Pirates' sequels were released to theaters.



And all of that extra money that Disney & Bruckheimer had to spend in order to get 'Dead Man's Chest' and 'At World's End' 's visual effects done ... That really cut into the profit margins on those 'Pirates' sequels. Which is why -- just as production was getting underway on 'Prince of Persia' -- Disney & Bruckheimer decided that they couldn't afford to make the same mistake again. This time around, they were going to allow themselves sufficient time to get all of this film's visual effects done at a reasonable price. Not pay through the nose for any more rushed-at-the-last-minute shots.

Of course, Disney & Bruckheimer had to push back "Prince of Persia" 's release date by almost a year in order to accommodate this new business plan. But in the long run, the money that these two will save on FX this time around will seriously be worth it. Particularly given the huge number of visual effects shots that are featured in "The Sands of Times," we're talking about a truly enormous cost savings here.

So this isn't about Disney or Bruckheimer getting cold feet on 'Prince of Persia' or anything like that. This is more about these production partners finally getting smart about how they spend their visual effects budget.



I kinda suspected that this was something that was happening quite often in Hollywood because there are some movies that feature complex CGI shots and cost much cheaper then other movies that have been released afterwards.
Minority Report and War Of The Worlds have both been directed by Spielberg and VFX have been delivered by ILM.
Both movies have complex VFX shots but the budget of Minority Report is 102 million and WOTW is 135 million. You'd think minority report would cost more because it's set in the future whereas WOTW is set in the real world.
ONly wih Minority Report Spielberg gave ILM a pos.prod. time of a year ( or longer) as opposed to the 9 months of WOTW.
They really had to rush with WOTW to deliver the VFX shots.

If you look at the recent blockbusters that feature extensive use of CG human(oinds) you'll see that they all were rushed productions.
When Spider-man 2 was announced just days after Spider-man 1 record breaking opening weekend. It was set to open 2 years after SPider-man 1. Everybody had to rush to deliver the movie. The fact that they began filming without a finished script says alot. In the end the budget of Spiderman 2 rose to 200 million. Spider-man 3 was exactly the same.
George Lucas made his 3 prequels with huge amounts of VFX shots. Still he paid less then 150 million for his movie. And while he does own ILM , he did give the guys at ILM almost 2 years to deliver all the VFX shots.

Now it is of course up to WB to see how they'll make the movie. But if they don't rush the movie , i could see them making the movie for less then 200 million and still deliver a kick-ass superman movie :yay:

[SuperDaniel]

I still think they should paste the actor's head over a CG body. Technology isn't there yet to make a real life human face and SR was a proof of that with that horrible close up of Routh in the end.

They should use CG for very fast and distant flying shots but most of the flying should be done on wires.

[dark_b]

I still think they should paste the actor's head over a CG body. Technology isn't there yet to make a real life human face and SR was a proof of that with that horrible close up of Routh in the end.

They should use CG for very fast and distant flying shots but most of the flying should be done on wires.i really dont understand this. if the face is not having complex emotions or talking i dont know why it can nto be a CGI face. for flying and punching it would be OK.
why not?

[SuperDaniel]

It doesnt look good, IMO.

[dark_b]

its a 100% exact face. the modeling process is nto a problem. nwo you have the light stage 5 that gives you 100% the same and realistic texture. with a normal diffuse map.
then you have lighting that is also the same.
only the movement is the problem.

i think you are just saying this. you are forcing yourself that it looks fake.

[matrix_ghost]

I still think they should paste the actor's head over a CG body. Technology isn't there yet to make a real life human face and SR was a proof of that with that horrible close up of Routh in the end.

They should use CG for very fast and distant flying shots but most of the flying should be done on wires.


Weird as it sounds , but they did do that for some of the shots. Sony Imageworks did the same thing for VFX in Spider-man 2 and 3.
Yes in some cases they just had to go for a full CG shots but there were other shots where they used the face for the CG body.

[SuperDaniel]

Weird as it sounds , but they did do that for some of the shots. Sony Imageworks did the same thing for VFX in Spider-man 2 and 3.
Yes in some cases they just had to go for a full CG shots but there were other shots where they used the face for the CG body.
I know. There's a shot in Spider-man 1 that looks amazing when Spidey is in top of a building and then looks down and leaps. The first web slinging, chasing the criminal.

[Alien Anal]

Fin Design

http://www.findesign.com.au/

looking through their gallery of videos
i say why the **** not
these guys look like they are doing some great stuff with what i imagine isnt an amazing budget

[dark_b]

It doesnt look good, IMO.http://www.sonypictures.com/imageworks/video/spiderman3_7.html

please dont even try to tell me that this looks fake. movement is a different thing.

[terry78]

They're getting closer and closer.

Pyhf3JmODHE

[SuperDaniel]

http://www.sonypictures.com/imageworks/video/spiderman3_7.html

please dont even try to tell me that this looks fake. movement is a different thing.

That's what i meant. The movement is never realistic enough. Didn't sony did that horrible Superman close-up for SR?

[SuperDaniel]

They're getting closer and closer.

Pyhf3JmODHE

Looks good but is still too shiny and plastic looking, IMO.

[dark_b]

That's what i meant. The movement is never realistic enough. Didn't sony did that horrible Superman close-up for SR?but it was hand animated. it was not motion tracked from a real person.
sony only had real footage of brandon. and they had to copy it on the CGI model.

[SuperDaniel]

Im pretty sure it was motion tracked. They show they doing this in the Making of...Anyway, CG only works when it's something fast. NEVER for close-ups.

[dark_b]

Im pretty sure it was motion tracked. They show they doing this in the Making of...Anyway, CG only works when it's something fast. NEVER for close-ups.i think they motion tracked for shots where they kneew that it is going to be CGI.
or did they motion track for every shot of superman?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

They're getting closer and closer.

Pyhf3JmODHEThat looks amazing.

[terry78]

Now when we can get video game models that look that good.

[Figs]

They're getting closer and closer.

Pyhf3JmODHE


Wow!!

The eyes are probably the best CGI eyes I've ever seen.

The eyes in most films always give it away with that weird glossy look. That looks pretty damn close to the real thing.

[SuperZer0]

Industrial Light & Magic or WETA Digital should handle the VFX.

[8wid]

They're getting closer and closer.

Pyhf3JmODHE

That's absolutely incredible.