3d Animation CGI

matt h April 22nd, 2011 at 11:12 am

Or they might have gone completely the other way and tracked a CG body to Evans from the jaw down. The face is absolutely the hardest thing to do and the body is definitely easier (still a lot of work of course). But yeah, tracking and wrapping Evans head Social Network style could be it too… OR, Evans head down to the jaw, digital neck (to ease the transition), skinny double body.

I think many of the shots could be even simpler and MUCH cheaper than that though. There are still camera shots where you could just have a take with Evans and one with the skinny actor and simply position Evans properly and comp his head over the other actor. Also the ones in the machine – both the machine he’s in and the camera itself can be motion control. I’m sure that as many of these shots would be done as possible because of cost and a bit of cleanup in composting but using a real body and real head is going to be more convincing without anywhere near the work. Study those shots again and see what you think.

Notice also how many of those early shots are still and how many shots don’t show the actor’s feet – it’s entirely possible that he’s made to look that short by everyone else being on apple boxes!

Are you in movies or just cg? Because in movies it’s always about getting the shot the best/most effective, simplest or cheapest way possible. But like they say, pick two.

matt h April 25th, 2011 at 11:24 am

Yup sure, I was just offering another alternative – one less prone to intense scrutiny than a cg head – even the quasi-real/cg Social Network approach was generally employed for the less featured twin in the shot. No sense in drawing more attention than you need when the performance is the thing. Even with the locked off stuff you’d probably go multiple passes for a clean plate so you could do the minimal tracking as they’re not gonna line up perfectly even if fairly still. At least with the machine you can control both it and the camera – and save your dollars for the great shot where he lies down. I wonder if they had to do a re-tining pass on that one to get both people to line up perfectly?

I understand about the time thing and getting on a roll. It can be hard to maintain the concentration required for the human stuff especially. But I don’t think location is such a big thing anymore – unless you wouldn’t be willing to move or travel if you did get the job. Generally they ask you about that in an interview. I live Down Under, a few hours away from Sydney. If I’m working at an VFX shop or on a feature, all they want to know is that I’ll be there on time in the morning, not how I get there. And because I’m only 2-3 hours away (depending on traffic) no accommodation supplied. Keep bashing away though at night and on weekends and I’m sure you’ll get in there, even if it’s not on top-of-the-line stuff initially. The foot in the door is very important, as is flexibility. And an understanding of film language/context. I’m not a 3d cg guy, but I’m teaching myself to sculpt both traditionally and digitally at the same time to supplement my regular skillset. And both ways at the same time so I never fall into the trap of thinking inside the capabilities of a program. I see that all the time – your eye is the best thing you can develop. And on that note eyes are the most important thing for me with cg characters. It’s sort of horrifying how with 60 seconds and Photoshop you can even grade a better looking eye than in Tron2… as long as you’re concentrating more on how real eyes behave than the sss shader or the renderer (so much is tweaked in 2d comping anyway – look at Tippett’s daytime work on Starship troopers years before the average cg model would generally look that good in broad daylight) – a lot of that stuff was finished off with a lot more 2d work than people realise. Knowing all that stuff is great if you know why and when to use ‘em first. I’ve had to do range of motion and so on for TDs because they don’t understand anatomy and limitations in the first place. It’s scary and how the tech guys get saddled with the stereotypes.

Anyway I’m sounding like a big prat here but just wanted to say rather than thinking of the fx technique first, come from the other end. What sort of a shot is it and therefore what’s the simplest and most effective way to achieve it, hence the talk of apple boxes and locked-off shots. I’m really excited for this flick!

Looking forward to seeing your stuff! Cheers mate!

matt h April 26th, 2011 at 7:06 am

Hell yeah – I’m a monster (sorry) Rick Baker fan and have been since I was a kid. It was no surprise that with his sense of design and anatomical and sculpting knowledge he rocketed past most cg sculptors in literally a few weeks. The same when he jumped onto photoshop. And I love that he’s not driven by the tools – he has a goal in mind first and figures out how to achieve it with the tools. So many people are restricted because they can only think of what the tools capabilities are not what they want to achieve in the first place and therefore the tail wags the dog.

I was lucky to be trained the old way but when I got into the workforce wasn’t jaded enough to reject new tools – I couldn’t learn about Photoshop form anyone because it was version 1 and there was no-one to teach it! Therefore I could only think what I wanted to do and find an analogous digital solution, which was like a kind of self-discipline.

I must admit that something that always turned me off with learning 3d was that the jargon and naming conventions are all engineering, NOT artistic. I tried Zbrush a few years back and it was all Greek to me. But after seeing what Rick Baker had done I thought well if he talks like he’s such a technodork I really should give it another go, because his stuff is SO much better than most of what I see out there. So last year I bought it properly and even though I haven’t had much time with it yet (haven’t got to re-topologizing/rezzing, sublayers for eyeballs etc), It was a lot more intuitive. I like Apple for instance not including manuals with some of their programs because they take the view the interface should be intuitive enough that you don’t NEED one. And it’s hard to argue with that. So I was happy that zbrush seemed to have come a way on making it more analogous to what a traditional artist does, but with glorious improvements like symmetry and the holy undo. Conversely I liked back in the early days of Photoshop when they had alpha channels (I’m horrified how many people don’t know what they are) but NOT layers, so you had to be a bit more disciplined and plan for the result in your mind’s eye, rather than not have to commit to anything because it’s all live/alterable and the whole piece loses focus and strength.

So anyway yeah Zbrush was much more like regular sculpting this time. I also forced myself to start from a sphere every time and not cheat by just pushing and pulling someone’s existing geometry. I mean in the real world you have to start from scratch and have the discipline of building the forms, so in terms of actually learning properly I thought I should do that here. And have a bash at traditional sculpting at the same time, so I’m not beholden to one mindset or the other and focus on my goal instead. And learning to sculpt in the first place for me is to overcome an inherent myopia/prejudice I have because I come from illustration and design and therefore think in line and composition but not in terms of mass, so even there sculpting is a means to an end for me. I should learn 2d animation to become a good draughtsman too, as cg animation won’t teach me to have an eye like that.

I love stuff like Baker’s work on The Frighteners where he used digital prosthetics way before pretty much anybody with the digital guts and stuff, but at exactly the same time did the traditional fake hanging jawbone which is one of the oldest tricks in the makeup fx book! And he acknowledged back with American Werewolf one of the giant limitations with makeup is that it’s additive which is why he went for a puppet for subtractive stuff like the partially skeletonised Frank in the cinema and so on – and that stuff like his Benjamin Button designs lent themselves to cg for exactly the same reason, no matter how amazing his overcoming the additive problem on past projects. He sees the goal clearly rather than being seduced by a technique.

Have you seen the silicon maquette he and Katsu Tsuji did for Button? It’s awe-inspiring. The cg guys used it as a template.

One thing I haven’t seen is the one they apparently did for Clu/Young Flynn. I’d kill to see that. I couldn’t believe that neither the Tron nor Button Cinefex articles showed that stuff…

And it’s a crime they obstructed Baker from overseeing the cg stuff on Wolf Man. Who on earth knows more and has a better eye than Rick Baker???!!!

josh October 30th, 2011 at 2:49 am

It is a body double,his name leander deeny,just go to full cast veiw and it will have caption America 2/ double