Handling The Visual Effects

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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/t...82d98f187&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.

http://www.awntv.com/videos/image-metrics-emily-project


“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)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.”
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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_h...hy-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:
 
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 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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
They're getting closer and closer.

[YT]Pyhf3JmODHE[/YT]
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,435
Messages
22,105,460
Members
45,898
Latest member
NeonWaves64
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"