www.interport.net/~fletcher/visualfx.html
This document may be distributed, reproduced, transmitted and/or referenced in whole or in part as long as (1) this notice, the name of this document, and the author and specified contributor(s) remains with any portion of this FAQ that is referenced; (2) no profit is gained for use of this FAQ; and (3) the contents are not modified in any way. This FAQ may not be included on commercial collections or compilations or mirrored in any form without the express permission from the author.
Every effort has been made to maintain the accuracy of the information provided herein. However, the author and contributors cannot accept any moral or legal liability for inaccurate or outdated information contained within. Furthermore, certain infor mation presented in this FAQ is based on the opinions and experiences of the author and contributors, and cannot be taken to be legally binding. All trademarks referred to in this document are the property of their respective owners.
Section 5: F/X Industry Yellow Pages
| Section 1: INTRODUCTION |
|---|
Alt.movies.visual-effects is a forum for the discussion of movie and television effects. This group is read by people in the effects industry and non-industry people with an interest in effects. Current posts include technical questions about specifi c effects shots, industry related news, requests for advice on how to shoot a sequence, and notices of upcoming live events and television specials and magazine articles relating to effects.
As with any other newsgroup, there are several questions that come up repeatedly. This FAQ summarizes answers posted by readers to commonly asked questions that have appeared in alt.movies.visual-effects. In addition, this FAQ will also act as a reso urce to effects related sources and information. A second FAQ file, called the a.m.vfx Companion FAQ lists upcoming media events relating to effects, i.e. cable specials and seminars.
While the newsgroup name uses the term "visual effects," this does not mean that the group focuses solely on visual effects (such as optical or CGI) to the exclusion of other forms of "special effects." Discussion of all forms of effects (and stunts) are welcome.
Please note that although there is a distinction between "special effects" and "visual effects," I have not made such a distinction in this FAQ. However, answers by contributors may make this distinction. I believe that the generic, all encompassing term used by the movie-going public is "special effects." No flames please.
This FAQ is posted on a monthly basis to alt.movies.visual-effects and is cross-posted to rec.arts.movies.production and rec.arts.movies.tech. You can also view or download a copy of the FAQ by going to my home page at http://www.interport.net/~fletcher/visualfx.html. You can always request the latest edition by sending me e-mail at the addresses listed on the first page.
In the future, this FAQ will be cross-posted to news.answers and alt.answers and archived on rtfm. If there are other groups I should cross-post to (i.e. comp.graphics.animation, rec.arts.animation, the Star Wars (rec.arts.sf.starwars) and Star Trek (rec .arts.startrek.____) groups), let me know.
This section will define any terms that have been used in this FAQ and on a.m.vfx. Please send me any additional terms and definitions that you think should be added.
| a.m.vfx | The alt.movies.visual-effects USENET newsgroup this FAQ is based on. |
| BATF | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You need a BATF license to purchase some explosives, and to set off or stage some explosives and pyrotechnics. |
| CGI | Computer Generated Imagery |
| FX (F/X) | shortened form of the word "effects." |
| r.a.m.p. | the rec.arts.movies.production USENET group. |
| r.a.m.* | the rec.arts.movies.____ hierarchy of USENET newsgroups. |
| SPFX | Special Effects. |
| URL | Uniform resource locator. Use a web browser (Netscape, Mosaic, or lynx from a UNIX shell) to go to the listed sites. Web sites start with "http://" |
| VFX | Visual effects. |
Many people have contributed to this FAQ by asking and answering questions in the newsgroup and by sending me information and corrections. I would like to thank all of them and acknowledge their contributions. All names were taken from the USENET header
unless it was not included in the message posted. Please send me your full name if it is not listed below.
Donald L. Ayrton, Alan Boucek, Randy Butcher, cooney@ibm.net, Jonathan Chang, Colin "Spaz" Cunningham, Benjamin Craig (Internet Filmmaker's FAQ), Russell Darling, Michel Hafner (Internet Movie Database), Paul Griswold, Michael Hall, Tim Haupt, Hal Hicke
l, Jim Janecek, Alan Latteri, J. Hall Manzanita, Matt Merkovich, Clarence Morse, Christine Ng (R.A.M.* FAQ), Scott Mankey, politico@wil.net, reylyn, Murr Rhame (show-fire mailing list), John Samson, William Teegarden, tikirex@aol.com, Susan, jfuture@netz
one.com, Chris Quinn, tikirex@aol.com, tmacdona@aol.com (sorry, I don't have your full name), Chris Trimble, Harry Walton, Mark Whitney, murphy4@eworld.com.
I would also like to thank the following people for submitting and updating their company profiles:
Mark Harris (Base 2), Tim Montijo (Blur Studios), Paddy Eason (The Computer Film Company), Oleg Schwarzew (Computer Group Ltd.), Stephan Osterburg (Das Werk), Rory Hinnen (Dream Quest Images), Hank Driskill (Digital Domain), Bill Spitzak (Digital Domai
n), Perry Harovas (Digital Drama), Jim Finn (FINNesse Productions), Arvind Rajkumar (The Fix), Marc D'Antonio (FX Models), Paul (Fusion Films), Rich Torpey (Image Design),
Jordan Gardner (Intentional Effects),
David Reaume (Laird FX), Jason Greer (Laughing Yak Effects Group), Nicolas Trout (Mac Guff Ligne), Geoffrey Scott Miller, (Mad Cow Studios), Harold Mann (Mann Consulting), Deirdre Antes (MASS.ILLUSION), Tommi Kinnunen (Miracle Works Ltd), Jamison Goei (
Neo Motion Pictures), Mark Hamilton (Rhythm & Hues Studios), Raul G. Bulaong (RoadRunner Network), Robert Jan Leerink (Roberts Effects bv), Mark Benard (Solstice Digital Imaging),Robert Herman (Stone Studios), Jim Tuck (United Stuntperformers Association)
, Dieter Sturm (Sturm's Special Effects), Markus Manninen (VOF), Jan-Eric Nystrom (Ani-mato), Zigmont (Illusions By Zigmont)
The following changes have been made since the last revision:
| Section 2: Frequently Asked Questions |
|---|
| How do I get into the industry? |
There are no hard and fast rules about breaking into the film industry. It's extremely hard and very competitive. Many many many people dream of working in the movies, but fall by the wayside in their attempts because it's impossible to break in. The film industry lives off the concept of "who you know" and quite frankly, that is the only way you're really going to get anywhere. If you don't know anyone in the industry, go out and meet them. Spielberg spent day after day down on the Universal lot, bug ging them until they gave him a job. One of the beautiful things about the film industry is that once you're inside, it's a lot easier to meet the people that can make your dream happen.
Also don't aim for the top (straight away). So you want to work for ILM in special effects (reality check time) you and about a billion other people. The thing that is over-looked these days is that there are a multitude of other companies that do the same work as ILM, but just don't have the profile. Try them first, particularly the small, budding ones, as they are probably more likely to give you a job. And once you're in the field that you want, it's up to you to prove that you've got so much talen t that ILM will come running to YOU.
Going to film school is another great way to learn the basics of the trade (and find out whether you have the armored skin and stickwithitness to make it in this, at times, demoralising occupation). However, don't expect to get a job straight out of co llege like your buddy who did commerce. Most film school graduates end up being very overqualified (on paper) for their entry level jobs as PAs, coffee makers, assistants to assistants etc. One of the biggest problems facing most film school grads is th at they often have little or no experience in using current industry standard equipment. This is due to the fact that all but the most prestigious film schools are poor faculties which cannot afford to keep up with the rapidly changing technology of the industry (in my course a few years ago we used cameras and editing equipment that was almost 30 years old - they still get the job done but they are a far cry from the precision machines that today's industry is using). There is not many ways of getting a round this problem, so expect to encounter new and fascinating equipment when you get your first job. Nevertheless, film school can be a valuable and worthwhile experience for giving you a grounding in the industry, as well as the ability to think about what you are putting on screen. I found a book recently published by the American Film Institute which deals with the subject of film careers. It has information for beginners (such as "what does a producer do?") and interviews with many industry profess ionals regarding their areas of expertise. Interviewees include George Lucas, Robert Greenberg, and many more.
Getting into Film
By The American Film Institute
If you are in the UK, you should grab a copy of A Career in Broadcast, Film and Video. This booklet is published by Skillset (124 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 2TX, UK. Tel: 0171 306 8585) and is available free of charge. It contains chapters on planning your entry strategy, training, industry overview and more. Although it deals specfically with the UK industry, the general principles should relate to any industry. I'm not sure whether they will send free copies to overseas addresses, but you can ask.
This response is bent towards live-action as opposed to computer graphics, as that is my background, hope it helps.
Since I do not reside in CA I can't really give you any practical advice about work in CA, however, I can tell you that the best way to jump-start a career in SFX is to work for a company doing SFX. However, they probably won't just hire you unless you come highly recommended or have useful skills such as sculpting or fabricating or electronics.
So what do you do?
You work for free. As a Production Assistant (or gopher).
You get a copy of the LA 411 guide (call LA phone info or check out the library) find all the SFX companies and tell them you want to work in FX, NOT THAT YOU WANT A JOB, just that you want to work. You'll work for free. It's hard to say no to a person who will work for nothing. This is the fastest way I know of to break into any field.
However, be aware that egos drive a lot of people in the business. Many people are very protective of their techniques and methods, so they may think you are a "spy" or something, you may run into that type of mentality.
BIG TIP: Do not pretend you know everything, play dumb and soak up as much info as you can. An FX company doesn't want a person who always thinks they have a better idea or knows a different way of doing something. (your idea may actually be better, bu t you really are not in a position politically to offer it.) They want an empty page to work for them that they can train or mold to do things "their" way.
After a while they may decide to pay you something, or maybe not, but in the meantime, you have established a "presence" in the "biz". You will meet other people in the biz and they will think you already work at so&so's FX company.
The rest is up to you. Once you are in as a Production Assistant, you can look around at various fields within the FX business and see if you have a place there.
The original question came from Alan Latteri, alatt@pobox.com on March 10, 1996:
When sending out demo reels, is it inappropriate to have something to the affect of "Please return when finished viewing" ? The reason I ask is because I saw this on a title house's demo reel, it also gets very expensive shipping all these things out.
Here are some responses:
From Tim Haupt, mindseye@eskimo.com. (March 10, 1996):
Sure it's appropriate if you want it back. Including a return envelope with address and postage will also improve your return rate. A follow up call to see if they had received and reviewed the material might be even better, as then you would be maki ng a real live contact, and might get some input.
It might be best if the "potential customer" kept it on hand. They might not use you for a current project, but your talents might be just what's needed for the project 6 months from now.
This may sound strange, but I dislike getting reels returned. When I send out a reel it often doesn't result in work for weeks, months or even years. Not to mention, the directors and visual effects producers you send reels to will probably show your reel to others (if it is good). This is what you want: more exposure. The cost of sending out reels is a promotional expense that I view no differently than the pizza parlor down the street paying for all of those promo flyers left on my apartment door or under the windshield of my car. They certainly don't want them back.
While I too have seen the "please return" label on demo reels, it is something I personally disagree with in terms of promotion philosophy. If you send out demo reels to land a full time position, having your reel in the recruiter's office if there is no position currently available increases your chances for future employment far more than if the tape is returned to you. If you are sending out reels for freelance work, the same thinking applies."
I don't think anyone at our shop has a problem with sending reels back. Lots of people applying are students and just can't afford dozens of 3/4" tapes. I think we send it back as default, actually (unless we ask to hold onto it).
About having reels left around at houses like pizza coupons... if you've been doing it for years and Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and the Abyss are on your reel, then that's probably a good idea. If you're just getting started, you're going to have a lot better stuff on your reel in 6 months anyway, so don't waste your money if you don't have to.
The original question was posted by Clarence Morse, iluvspd@execpc.com in rec.arts.movies.production on March 28, 1996:
I would like to get involved with stuntdriving or precision driving in films or commercials. I currently have experience racing autos and would love to move into films using these talents. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Here are some responses (all posted to r.a.m.p.):
From Randy Butcher, reelstunts@msn.com (Reel Stunts Productions)(Mar. 30, 1996):
It's rare these days to find stuntmen(women) specializing in any one field despite the fact it might have been this special field that got them into the business in the first place. Learn as much as you can about other aspects of the stunt business an d you'll be greatly respected for it.
Where do you live? Near a major film center like L.A., New York? If not, my advice to you is to go to where the work is.
Although your racing skills will definitely be an asset to your stunt driving career, there are many things you won't have learned. My suggestion is that you call the Screen Actors Guild in L.A. or one (or all) of the major stunt companies in L.A. (St unts Unlimited, The International Stunt Association, Stuntmen's Association) and ask their help. Perhaps someone there can suggest a school of some type (although doubtful). I train people now and again, but rarely. As well, I'm in Southern Ontario wor king out of Toronto mostly.
Best of luck and don't give up.
Buy a weedeater? Stuntguy told me, "There are a whole lot more stuntmen out there than there are jobs. That's why we're all lining up at (stunt coordinator's) door to mow his front lawn. We're all over there doing home repairs trying to get on his good side."
There was a stuntman doing a very brief fight scene with Charlie Sheen. He got punched, he fell backwards, he got dragged away. I went to dust him off between scenes and said something like, "oh, this must be getting a little old."
He said, "Every time Charlie drags me across the parking lot, it's another (big pile o' green). He can drag me around for the rest of the day, if he wants too."
I don't remember exactly how much he was getting per drag. It approached my weekly pa salary, though, so you can really see the attraction of mowing some guy's lawn.
The [previous] reply was correct in every sense. However, you probably need to know more about how to get in touch with these stunt people:
Your goal is to obtain a SAG card somehow. Get an 8X10 professional headshot taken and put together some kind of resume. Register with some "extra companies" - find anyway to get on that film set! You've got to put yourself in front of these guys. Its important to be persistent but not pushy or annoying. Practice your skill constantly and take up other sports as well. Plan on attending Show Biz Expo in LA this year. The stunt associations usually have a booth or two set up.
While your beating on those doors, plan on having lots of patience!
Send a resume to every stunt coordinator and stuntperson you can and cross your fingers to start with.
The original question came from Jonathan Chang, jac74@columbia.edu:
Thanks for the posting and letting people know that the industry is looking for good character animators. I, however, am a student and do not know what kind of things the industry is looking for. Is your company looking for computer character animators or traditional character animators? In any case, please post more information about what the industry is looking for in a future special effects artists/employees.
Here are some responses:
From Alan Boucek, aboucek@panix.com (Oct. 22, 1995):
A good character animator can always learn how to use a computer, but not necessarily the other way around. In general, artistic ability is far more important than technical fluency. Most good artists find it very important to know their tools inside a nd out though.
You got it! Although, for our upcoming project, we really need people with a strong computer character animation background. Nothing pleases us more, however, than someone who actually has a good background in the traditional arts.
The original question came from anus409@aol.com:
What about internships; how important are they before you get a paying job?
Here are some responses:
From Chris Trimble, trimble@panix.com (Sept. 27, 1995):
An internship is only important if it is meaningful to the employer you're aiming to get a job with. An internship as a video engineer at a post house can really mean jack-squat when you're trying to get a job as a character animator. Lots of internsh ips ARE meaningless, and that's part of the problem. The minute you start talking about how you filled staplers at your summer internship, the potential employer is just going to go onto the next thing on your resume. Sometimes, you do find an internship that has you doing real work. You'll usually see this at smaller houses. This is what you need to seek out. You should be as skeptical about taking the internship as they are about giving it to you. It might be a waste of your time.
Of course, if you get an internship at the same house you'd like to work for, that may mean a lot more... even if you did empty the garbage. ;-)
> Eventually my wish would be to work at ILM (wouldn't everyone, > laughs) or some other film FX studio.
Point I think worth noting. You should learn about LOTS of the effects houses before aiming towards one. All of them have an attitude and way of working... you need to find one that you'll be happy at. And, I don't mean just look at their work. Fin d some people who work there or have worked there or know people who work there and ask them how they liked it and what working there was like.
> My other question is just how good do you have to be to > get a job (or internship) with a large company (like ILM)?
Listen, there are 2 million people with Infini-D and a Mac AV that are sending their resumes and reels to ILM. In other words, you do have to make yourself stand out a bit. In my experience, unreadable resumes, provocative demo reels, ripoffs of bett er animations, and length of demo reel don't help for much. Here is the main thing to think about: work on getting an INTERVIEW FIRST ... not a JOB FIRST. Be confident that when they meet you, and you get a better chance to explain yourself, you'll con vince them about the job part. Everyone who's doing the interviews realizes the catch-22 about the experience, so don't think you have to make yourself bigger than you are.
hope it helps, -trimbo who works at a small house so take it with a grain of salt
Agrapha (agrapha@aol.com) wrote: : I'm an animator, and FX designer. >At companies like ILM, : you'll end up doing the grunt work. they interviewed : me for technical support (shuffling and converting files). [...]
True, you might end up doing what's in the job description ;-). Interesting dilemma though: big companies have more specialized jobs. I did an internship at ILM over the summer (but don't e-mail me asking for Jorge's cell phone #!). Intern jobs varied tremendously, from "filling staplers" to doing actual production work.
My internship advice (for what it's worth): be as specific as you can when saying what you'd like to do, in what department, and how you can contribute. Luckily, I ended up doing what I said I wanted to do (visual effects software development), learn
ed some very useful (though proprietary, damn)--stuff, and made some meaningful contributions for Jumanji TD's. Yet another saying comes to mind: "Be careful what you ask for; you might get it."
What schools have film programs or FX classes and programs?
Here are a list of schools and programs available that train you in effects and effects related areas (i.e. animation). Each effects house may run an internship program for students. Harry Walton, harry@spimageworks.com (March 14, 1996) wrote: "[I] d on't know of any schools that teach special effects but UCLA or USC would be great schools for film making in general. Special Effects or Visual Effects is something you would have to learn on the job. In general you can prepare yourself for an effects ca reer by studying such things as Art, Design, Sculpture, Chemistry, Physics, Mechanical Design and Engineering and Architecture to name a few."
Hey! promote the group. If a school asks you where you heard about them, say in the alt.movies.visual-effects group and/or the FAQ!!! :-)
Film Schools and Universities
The NY Film Academy is located at 100 East 17th St., New York, NY 10003. Tel: (212) 674-4300; Fax: (212) 477-1414. An intensive animation workshop is offered and covers classic Oxberry Animation, SGI 2D/3D, computer animation, story writing, directin g, cinematography and editing as they apply to animation. The program is 8 weeks and costs $5,500.00. Classical animation workshop includes cel animation, pixilation, rotoscoping, claymation and oxberry stand. Tuition is $2,000.00. Call for ot her courses.
Tisch School of the Arts at NYU can be reached at the Office of Admissions, 721 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10003-6807. Telephone: (212) 998-1918 and Fax: (22) 995-4060. You can also send them e-mail to T ISCHADM@uccvm.nyu.edu. I will add a description of their courses in a future release of the FAQ.
(This section is blank.)
UCLA's Film, Television, Video, New Media, and Theatre division has extensive programs related to effects, including, inter alia, sequences titled Digital Creation for Film and Television, Computer Modeling, Animation and CAD, The Collision of Games an d Movies, Special Visual Effects Cinematography, Digital Visual Technology, and Introduction to Creating Digital Effects: An Intense Silicon Graphics Workshop.
Contact UCLA to request a course catalog from UCLA Extension, Entertainment Studies Room 437, PO BOX 24901, Los Angeles, California 90099-2137.
Call (310) 825-9064. The phone number to enroll is (310) 825-9971 (Fax: (310) 206-3223)). In person registration in Westwood is at UCLA Extensions Building, 10995 La Conte Ave, (310) 825-9971 and in Universal City at UCLA Extension Center, Universal Cit
yWalk, 1000 Universal Center Drive, (818) 752-7398
Special Effects Schools and Workshops
Someone posted a question about the Bridges animation program offered by AnimAction in Santa Monica. If anyone has any information and/or comments about this program, please send me e-mail.
American Center for Computer Imaging & Animation
The School of Communication Arts has classes in 3D computer animation in Softimage SGI studios and other classes. Call (800) 800-2835 in Minneapolis, MN or (800) 288-7442 in Raleigh, NC or e-mail to sca3d@aol.com fo r more information.
Joe Blasco Makeup Centers are located in Hollywood, CA ((800) 634-0008) and Orlando, Florida ((800) 252-7261)) and provide 4 and 10 week programs in makeup effects, prosthetics, etc.
Complections International, LTD
Complections' school of makeup is located at 482 Wellington St. W., Toronto Canada, M5V 1E3 Canada. Tel: (416) 340-2661; Fax: (416) 340-0504; Email: complexionsmake-up.com; http://complectio nsmake-up.com/ You can specialize in film, theatre, S/FX, prosthetics, fashion and wig making.
Silicon Graphics has opened the Silicon Studio Training Centers in Los Angeles, California and London, England. Courses cover modeling and animation, technology, studio technology, editing and compositing and 2D imaging and painting. For more informa tion and a course catalog, call (800) S-Studio or check out their web page at http://www.studio.sgi.com/. tmacdona@aol.com wrote that courses include Alias power animator, Studio/AutoStudio, design er, wavefront dynamation, kinemation, explorer/visualizer. Electrogig 3dgo, and side effects PRISMS and of course the "Silicon Studio Solutions" software and says that the classes are expensive, but that "you can get exposure to the software/hardware that a lot of industry uses. The best part is after you finish one of the classes (can't remember which one) you will write it to tape, thus you have a reel. After you take a class they will rent the equipment to you for $25 per hour (of course you can' t use it for production). I don't know of any other place that does this."
Special Effects Workshops offers 10 week special make-up effects courses and a five-day seminar in special make-up effects. These courses cover beauty make-up, character make-up, special make-up (including an advanced course), advanced prosthetic make -up, special effects puppetry, stop-motion model animation, classical cartoon animation, and advanced visual effects.
The school is located in New York City at 410 West 47th St., New York, NY 10036. They can be reached at (212) 245-3624 or via e-mail at sfxstudios@aol.com. They are also present in Mass. at 148 West Street, Gra nby, MA 01033. They can be reached at (413) 467-2761 or by fax at (413) 467-7062.
Visual FX/Filmmaking Instructional Package Web Page
Lee Stranahan sells an instructional video/CD-ROM training package for film makers, visual effects artists, videographers and 3D animators called "Access Denied : The Art Of Visual Effects Film Making." Stranahan's ad states that "the package includes
both an entertaining and instructional videotape, and an information packed CD-ROM." The cost is $69.96. E-mail: Kstranahan@aol.com; http:
//users.aol.com/stranahan/access.htm
Internship Programs
Both Lucasfilm and ILM run and internship program three times a year for several months. Only the summer program is available to those who reside outside the United States. For more information contact Lucasfilm at (415) 662-1800 or (415) 721-3550 (f ax) or check our the Lucas Digital Ltd. web site (covering Lucas Digital, Skywalker Sound and ILM) at http://www.ldlhr.com/. If you are eligible and are interested in applying, you can fax or mail your request for an i ntern information packet to: Lucas Digital, Ltd., Attn: Internships, P.O. Box 2459, San Rafael, CA 94912.
The Lucas Digital website describes the intership program as follows:
Our internship program is designed to expose students to various aspects of the entertainment industry. We offer a variety of positions in such areas as software & information systems, public relations, computer graphics, human resources, web/interacti ve, editorial, legal, sound, art, feature post production and commercials.
Depending on current production projects, we usually hire 10-20 interns each session.
All prospective interns must be a junior, senior or graduate level student currently enrolled at an accredited college, university or graduate school and must be returning to classes full-time when the internship is over. For eligibility, students must have a 3.5 GPA in their major and be eligible to work in the United States. Students with a GPA of less than 3.0 will not be considered for the summer program.
For the Fall and Spring terms you must be enrolled in classes at a local college/university within commute distance of the internship and the internship is part-time and unpaid. The Summer program is full-time and paid minimum wage. The application dea dline for the Summer 1997 program is March 28, 1997. Applicants who are selected for the program will be notified approximately 2 weeks before the start of the session.
We do not offer apprenticeship programs or any other training programs for non-college students.
| Section 3: How'd They Do That? |
|---|
This section includes frequently asked questions from a.m.vfx on specific effects sequences and how they were done (or how to do them). I will add any questions that raise a decent discussion with a continuing thread. If the question is simply answer ed in a sentence (or by saying, "See Cinefex #xx), it probably won't make it here. :-)
Someone posted a question regarding the feather sequences in Forrest Gump. Basically, the poster wanted to know if the scenes used a real feather or if it was entirely computer generated. This response was based on the "making of" segment on the Lase rdisc. This question raises a lot of debate, as can be seen from the end of Nick's answer. Aside from the original question, another issue that arose is the distinction between the term "CG" and the manipulation of digitized images on a computer. The r emaining posts touch on this issue.
From Nick Passino, passino@garply.com (Date: Mar 11 1996):
Okay- I JUST finished watching the "making of" from my LD- here's exactly how it was done:
A feather was tied to a wire and shot bluescreen, twisting twirling etc.
The opening sequence was choreographed and shot w/o the feather, except for one on hanks' foot.
The bluescreened feather sequence was digitized. Then this was SEVERELY manipulated on a SG to match the opening (real shot) camera shot. The feather was perceptively changed to float forwards and backwards (depth not in the bluescreen), twirled sidewa ys and upside down, looping, hovering, being pushed by the wind of the car (CG on the reflection on car glass and car paint), resting on a guy's shoulder (not in the bluescreen), then finally morphed onto the one on tom's foot.
They had to take all of the bluescreened footage, and select very specific feather angles for some of the stops, and paste together their own twirling sequence for the whole shot. In short, the way it twirled and danced was -not- what you see in the mo vie. They pasted very specific frames together for this, then changed the virtual distance from the camera, 3d spatial(depth), angle (up down sideways, etc.), stops and just about everything else to come up w/ the final sequence.
So- IMHO it's CGI, because even the dinos in Jurassic started from real, scanned images of skeletons, real animal movements, etc. They started from real stuff, and made what they needed for the film. This is exactly what the did to the feather too. The fact that they twirled a feather in front of a bluescreen -doesn't- make it not a CGI sequence.
CG or CGI? I think we are splitting hairs over definitions.
When I started working on *Computers* doing *Graphics* it was known as CG (that would have been in 1984 - on the Genigraphics Workstation). So, based on that - I see CG as Computer Graphics. Now, as the years have gone by, the overall conception and definition of the word might have changed.
Now, CGI - means Computer Generate Image. This would be the Dino's and ole Buzz Lightyear, and tons of other things that most people do not even realize.
As for the "Feather" that got this whole debate started. It was shot as a blue screen element. But, it was animated in a match move application by a animator (working on a computer). There were several takes and sequences that were merged together t o create the final feather sequence - which was then digitally composited into the bg plate. So, it was not a *Computer Generated* element - but more a Digitally Manipulated element.
Let the debate continue . . .
> It was a real feather digitally manipulated and composited. I > guess that makes it non CG but where do you draw the line. > If they had scanned a real feather and mapped it onto a CG object > would it be CG of still just a fancy composite.
Well, you'd say the feather was a real element just manipulated digitally. It wouldn't be right to say that the feather is CG 'cause that would imply the element itself is computer GENERATED (which it isn't). If you scanned in a photo of a feather and mapped it onto 3d geometry, then it would indeed be a CG element. People scan in photos all the time for texturing purposes, so if I scan in elephant skin and apply that to a 3d object of an elephant, the final rendered element wouldn't be considered "pra ctical". IMHO, it's pretty obvious where to draw the line.
Items shot on blue/greenscreen and digitally composited are not CG. CG, at least where I work and I'd guess throughout the other major houses, stands for COMPUTER GENERATED. That means that it's modeled, animated, lit, and rendered using a computer. Digital enhancement and keying are not CG and we call those "Flame Jobs" or "Paintboxing". I did a spot where I had to _raytrace through_ a live object, and I still don't call that CG.
Donald L. Ayrton, DAYRTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu wrote:
I recently saw the trailer for BROKEN ARROW and one effect really caught my eye: The overhead shot of the shockwave passing (and lifting) a Humvee. How'd they do that? I'm guessing lines of det cord buried in the sand and set off with a nail board, a nd perhaps some sort of pneumatic gimmick under the Humvee to lift-n-tilt it.
Det cord would only make the sand fly apart.
I haven't seen the trailer yet, so I can only surmise that it was done traditionally:
The normal way vehicles are popped up or rolled is to weld a steel mortar to the frame that can hold a piece of telephone pole (cut down to about 2 feet long). The wood chunk is crammed into the mortar with an explosive charge at the end. When the ch arge goes off, it propels the telephone pole into the ground. The mortar is long enough so that its only a few inches off the ground so once the pole has nowhere else to go, the vehicle will rise up away from the ground. The rapidly expanding gases in-be tween the pole and the end of the mortar are pushing the vehicle up and eventually over.
You can see this effect in LAST ACTION HERO, I think the first scene is Arnold running away from a house as it blows up and the concussion is supposed to flip a squad car over.
They shot it so you can see the pole come flying out of the bottom of the car when it goes off. It didn't matter because they were filming a movie in the film.
J. Hall Manzanita, manzana@dorsai.org writes:
In response to fake blood, get a bottle of Kayro Syrup (or any other light corn-syrup), add in red food coloring, a little blue, and just a touch of green. Obviously, most of the food coloring you use should be red. By experimenting with the amount o f blue and green, you should be able to come up with some very realistic looking blood. However, this will not "run freely from a wound", but it will do well for bloodstains, zombies, gunshot victims, etc. I can't off the top of my head remember how to do flowing blood. Anyone else remember how? Oh, and if you're doing a horror movies, the above recipe is safe for the talent to eat."
MB2 BLOOD FORMULA
Flour Base:
7.5cc to 10cc plain all purpose flour per cup (250cc) of water. (7.5cc = 1/2 level tablespoon , 10cc = 2 level teaspoons) Mix flour into water completely (no lumps) before heating. Bring to boil then simmer for 1/2 hour. Stir frequently.
Let cool before adding food color. Stir in any surface scum. Makes a good base for stage blood. Slightly slimy. Fairly low surface tension. Soaks and spreads well.
One cup batch of MB2:
1 oz (29cc) Red food coloring (Durkee (R) brand or equivalent) 1/8 teaspoon (.6cc) green food coloring (Durkee (R) brand or equivalent) Add flour base described above to a total of one cup (250cc).
This is both much more realistic and simpler than the old Karo (R) corn syrup, Hershey's (R) chocolate syrup and food coloring based formula. There is no sugar and very little food in the MB2 formula so it's probably less attractive to insects. Shelf life is fairly short (days) at room temp. Does not go rank but ferments a bit and looses viscosity. I have not tested refrigerated or frozen storage. This formula will temporarily stain skin. Seems to wash out of cotton cloths OK.
The Penn & Teller book "How to Play With Your Food" has a very good fake blood recipe. It's included in the bleeding heart jello but it works very well as stand alone and flows very naturally. Go to your local book store and copy it out !
murphy4@eworld.com writes (27 Feb 1996)
2 cups water
1 cup white corn syrup
3 1/2 cups sugar
1/4 teaspoon cream of tarter
Mix all ingredients together. Then let it come to a boil. It will boil at 220 degrees. Let go to 300 degrees and pour. The molds work best if made of silicone.
Several threads appeared on a.m.vfx regarding blue screening techniques.
The original question was:
If most optical compositing was done with color difference, I always wanted to know why some scenes in the Star Wars movies, particularly the first one had blue lines around pilot's helmets, and ships occasionally getting a blue tinge when they flew fa st past the camera?
Here are some responses:
From John Samson, pugi@usa.pipeline.edu (March 5, 1996):
It is possible to determine which system was used. If you see blue edges on the Star Wars models, then bluescreen was used. This is one of two things: blue spill, where blue light from the blue backing used to separate the foreground models reflects, or "spills" onto the foreground object surfaces. Or it is the edge on the film itself where the foreground model and blue backing mix. In this area the blue backing could be significantly darker, or lighter, than the backing itself, making it different from the blue of the backing enough to not disappear in the final composite, yet close enough in hue that it still appears as blue.
With modern digital compositing, colors can be selectively desaturated, so that all blue tones in an image can be drained of color, or changed to another color to blend it into the foreground.
In the star wars movies, that blue edging seems mostly to occur with live action scenes, less so with models. I read once where with certain foreground objects, you can sometimes just make RGB separations, and then just copy the green separation twice to get a "cheap" color difference effect. Since most of the Star Wars ships are just gray with some red paint, I bet that's what they usually did with the model shots.
But with the live action some of it looks like regular bluescreen or something was done wrong, or both regular and color difference opticals was used. A good example is in Return of the Jedi. These fighters knock out a tower on the super star destroy er, and when it blows, the smoke is blue colored around the edges. Two officers spot a fighter on a collision course, and when they turn to duck the edges of their uniforms turn a bright blue!
Nick Passino, passino@garply.com wrote: >>> (Original post deleted) >> >> I don't know that it is possible to tell which system was used >> by looking. And even color difference is not perfect. You'd >> need to ask someone who worked on the film. Likely some of >> these imperfections are what they are cleaning up for the re-release. > > It's because Star Wars was pretty much the first film to do it, and > as it was a new technology, didn't have the edging precision that > we do now.
Actually the "Color Difference" Blue Screen process was developed by Petro Vlahos for the Motion Picture Research Council. Subsequent development of the process for production applications was conducted by Walter Beyer of Universal Studios and W.E. Poh l of Technicolor.
See Walter Beyer, "Traveling Matte Photography and the Blue Screen System", American Cinematographer, May, 1964, pg. 226.
This question was posted by Scott Mankey, mankey@shell.portal.com:
What's the advantage of using a green screen over a blue screen? Isn't it the same technique, just different colors? Perhaps a green screen gives less of a green fringe around the subject than the sometimes noticeable blue fringe.
A similar question was also posted by Mark Whitney: I wonder though why blue was used exclusively in the old optical days, even when the foreground was blue colored. In the superman movies, some shots were traveling matte and they used bluescreen even though the costume was blue, that must have been toug h to matte.
Here are some responses:
From William Teegarden, gregtee@ix.netcom.com (13 Jan. 1996) (in response to Scott Mankey's question.):
It's because green screens have minimal amounts of red in them. When shooting actors against a green screen, it's often easier to key out the green than to key out blue, as skin tones contain obvious red. Since green has almost no red in it per say, getting a clean matte is easier.
Also, suppose your actor was wearing a blue shirt.
The truth must be told! Blue resolves much higher then almost any color. Just as red is a long wave length blue is quite short, this is why you can pull a matte from blue with finer detail then with green or other colors.
Now that most matte work is done in real time on a computer if you give the computer an easier (sic) job it does it faster and blue my friends is easy and fast.
Blue may be a shorter wavelength, but I thought grain was the important factor in better matting work. At least in digital, I have read that Rob Legato who did stuff for Star Trek and Apollo 13 used red or green background apparently because the emuls ion layers are less grainy and get a crisper matte.
As for superman, true front projection was used a lot, but the screen had a limited size, so for shots of superman flying into the distance or vice versa, he had to be optically shrunk. Plus I read that they couldn't get the zoptic license for Superma n IV so they did all the flying shots on that one entirely bluescreen.