Is it me or does the world seem to be spinning faster? I find my self casually hiring a Visual Effects TD in Rome like he was my next door neighbor (More on that later). I can be sitting around one minute... and shooting some misc event that becomes part of an effects shot for TV the next. You start your day with an agenda which quickly collapses into a frantic eavesdropping/scavenger hunt on Twitter to understand what new cool shoot or project someone else is doing from their desktop computer at home. Information and especially , collaboration, is getting to be a very fluid exercise- A death trap for for someone who may or may not have Adult ADD and a compulsion to create something cool.
Something Cool? What is that? I think what I mean is something to watch that is very short in length, available to anyone, VERY compelling, and sparks further collaboration. And guess what? Something cool is being created every day. Accidents and morbid, anonymous curiosities found on the _____tubes' of the world these are NOT. There are at least 57 VERY creative people turning nothing into something nearly every day and posting it on the web for tens of thousands to admire.
Being creative and productive are not epiphanies. But as technology quietly doubled over a few times in the last 3 years or so, and the world's economy sunk into the shadows, I believe we started to become more connected. In the creative world, we share more similarities than differences, and everyone seemed to be in the same boat... waiting to see what would happen next. Billionaires can talk candidly with a teenager about a common interest in cameras. The little guy has been empowered by people that have been there and done that and who now want them to try and do the same. Software tools have grown up and been beta tested by millions. If you need to ask someone a question, only now does it feel incredibly easy to ask - and there are many qualified people available to answer.
In my morning online stumblings (now a ritual), I came across some cool samples of visual effects work, just the sort of effects work we needed to be handled at the time. We knew that all that was needed was a fast internet connection and a workstation, the location of the individual doing the work did not matter whatsoever. It was only a few weeks later that I realized how cool it was to hire someone I never met (and yet to even speak to) half way around the world. You see, I Google Earthed his house.... and walked down his street (photobubble Streetview) while IM'ing him. I looked thru the window of a cafe across the street from his house, asked him if the pastries were good there. He said, " Oh yes! They are good... you should visit sometime?" I said "I am".
That's cool.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Barriers are falling
When you look back at what sparked major changes in an industry, more often than not the actual shift was barely perceived as it was happening. But this time around, as I write this, events are unfolding so quickly that it is hard to miss that a major shift in the way we receive and create media is happening right now. Slightly buried in all the NAB 2009 impromptu video blogs was an on camera realization/confirmation by a Da Vinci rep that RED Camera is the new standard for filmmaking. Savvy DSLR camera manufacturer reps are getting prototypes into the hands of talented DP's and letting them blog their cameras into fame (or failure). Millions of viewers now prefer watching their favorite content via an internet connected device in the now standard (4) 15 sec commercial per hour format. Barriers to entry are getting low enough that a very large amount of new content providers may enter the market very soon.
There are a few key reasons this is happening:
1. Innovation (RED camera) has sparked competition, which has added filmmaking features to their competitors low cost cameras.
2. Web based video and delivery mechanisms have started to mature and flourish.
3. The once young kids that cut their teeth using and creating all of the software tools needed to make a digital film are now older, wiser, and ready to do something different - Mark my words, these people may well be the most creatively talented workforce for the next 30 years.
4. We are probably near or at the bottom of a global economic downturn, which, as history has proven, leads to an explosion of innovation and creativity.
Get ready. Here we come.
There are a few key reasons this is happening:
1. Innovation (RED camera) has sparked competition, which has added filmmaking features to their competitors low cost cameras.
2. Web based video and delivery mechanisms have started to mature and flourish.
3. The once young kids that cut their teeth using and creating all of the software tools needed to make a digital film are now older, wiser, and ready to do something different - Mark my words, these people may well be the most creatively talented workforce for the next 30 years.
4. We are probably near or at the bottom of a global economic downturn, which, as history has proven, leads to an explosion of innovation and creativity.
Get ready. Here we come.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Light vs. Dark
Dark wins. Our brains fill in the dark areas with "details". I encourage visual effects lighters out there to consider this every time they approach their shots. Turn off all the lights in the scene. In every scene, there is something that our eye will tend to "catch". Humans have VERY narrow focusing apparatus builtin, meaning that we only really zero in on a tiny portion of what is in front of us. I have been noticing lately that important things in a shot are rarely discussed, AND are rarely what you would consider obvious.
For example, in a previous project there were a few scenes that were put in the edit to merely get us from one scene to the next.... and I added a couple little nuances - A splash in a puddle.. or a glint off the character. And that was a huge difference! Those connector shots were actually what the viewer remembered the most.. they were the keyframes that stuck in their head. And they were total afterthoughts. The point is that I could have turned off almost all the effects and the lights... added those two things.. and the scene would have worked.
The idea here is that we should not be able to "see" everything in the shot. Somethings do not matter at all... so do NOT spend time on them. Slowly add the most important light source, and keep things modestly lit.
For example, in a previous project there were a few scenes that were put in the edit to merely get us from one scene to the next.... and I added a couple little nuances - A splash in a puddle.. or a glint off the character. And that was a huge difference! Those connector shots were actually what the viewer remembered the most.. they were the keyframes that stuck in their head. And they were total afterthoughts. The point is that I could have turned off almost all the effects and the lights... added those two things.. and the scene would have worked.
The idea here is that we should not be able to "see" everything in the shot. Somethings do not matter at all... so do NOT spend time on them. Slowly add the most important light source, and keep things modestly lit.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Don't Emulate the System - Make A New One
Let's not confuse wanting to tell a story in a motion picture format with what Hollywood does. The motion picture industry is a closed system. Any innovations in equipment, software, systems are developed on the outside, then they are squeezed into the Hollywood filmmaking "system"... a kind of retrofitting to force these new technologies to work with a system defined nearly a hundred years ago.
But now, tools and technologies are enabling people with ideas and talent to actually create content that rivals the product put out by the Hollywood systems. However, the biggest obstacle in our way seems to be an impulse to try and emulate the Hollywood system.... to try and mimic their workflow and go into debt trying to purchase all the equipment and tools that a real production needs.
I feel that there should be an alternate system..... one that is suited to this spinoff industry.... one with new paradigms, new standards, and a new delivery system to our potential audiences. A system where actors do not get paid, they are partners. Where all the money spent is devoted to the minimum amount necessary to acquire the desired image. A system where we can share assets and materials simply to help each other get better. And most importantly, a system that has a no-cost, no-barrier-to-entry delivery system so that large numbers of people can view the end result of our endeavors.
This system needs to be built - but it needs to be built outside of Hollywood, outside their system... an open system.
But now, tools and technologies are enabling people with ideas and talent to actually create content that rivals the product put out by the Hollywood systems. However, the biggest obstacle in our way seems to be an impulse to try and emulate the Hollywood system.... to try and mimic their workflow and go into debt trying to purchase all the equipment and tools that a real production needs.
I feel that there should be an alternate system..... one that is suited to this spinoff industry.... one with new paradigms, new standards, and a new delivery system to our potential audiences. A system where actors do not get paid, they are partners. Where all the money spent is devoted to the minimum amount necessary to acquire the desired image. A system where we can share assets and materials simply to help each other get better. And most importantly, a system that has a no-cost, no-barrier-to-entry delivery system so that large numbers of people can view the end result of our endeavors.
This system needs to be built - but it needs to be built outside of Hollywood, outside their system... an open system.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Give It Up!
It's a simple and bold proposal - All filmmakers(rebels) using CG/effects who are operating outside the "system" should share their assets -period.
If you are not under studio control - Rebel filmmaker - you should post your models, textures, CG scripts, effects setup, even tutorials (time permitted) online for FREE. Why would anyone need to waste time modeling birds, WWII soldiers, and airplanes when someone has made a photoreal, multi-resolution one in their spare time? Post it! Even if you are making your film that you have spent the last 5 years writing and planning, post your assets! Give them to the community at large.... and we will all be better off for it.
You have to remember, even if you gave the public all of your footage and assets.... it most likely would not hurt your film. It takes your unique talent and skills to make your film.... and even if someone else had your tools, they could not make your film.
If everyone in the rebel filmmaking community would share high quality assets... then everybody's films could benefit. These kinds of shifts in thinking need to start somewhere, and I am in a position to start the process. I am part of a small group planning a shoot early 2009, and we need many 3D setpieces and characters built. But when we have them built, we will also post them for download... for free. It is costing us a fair amount of money to build these, but the next guy will pay nothing! And maybe next time, we'll pay nothing for high quality assets.
We'll be posting WWII era characters in different resolutions, barns and farm equipment, and a creature or two, along with all the textures. Again.... remember.... it's not the assets... it's the talent that makes good use of them. You cannot post talent. Don't worry, giving it up will not hurt you!
If you are not under studio control - Rebel filmmaker - you should post your models, textures, CG scripts, effects setup, even tutorials (time permitted) online for FREE. Why would anyone need to waste time modeling birds, WWII soldiers, and airplanes when someone has made a photoreal, multi-resolution one in their spare time? Post it! Even if you are making your film that you have spent the last 5 years writing and planning, post your assets! Give them to the community at large.... and we will all be better off for it.
You have to remember, even if you gave the public all of your footage and assets.... it most likely would not hurt your film. It takes your unique talent and skills to make your film.... and even if someone else had your tools, they could not make your film.
If everyone in the rebel filmmaking community would share high quality assets... then everybody's films could benefit. These kinds of shifts in thinking need to start somewhere, and I am in a position to start the process. I am part of a small group planning a shoot early 2009, and we need many 3D setpieces and characters built. But when we have them built, we will also post them for download... for free. It is costing us a fair amount of money to build these, but the next guy will pay nothing! And maybe next time, we'll pay nothing for high quality assets.
We'll be posting WWII era characters in different resolutions, barns and farm equipment, and a creature or two, along with all the textures. Again.... remember.... it's not the assets... it's the talent that makes good use of them. You cannot post talent. Don't worry, giving it up will not hurt you!
Unlocking the Potential
I write this at a time when the paradigm of filmmaking is shifting. Sure, we have witnessed the steady progression of tools, equipment, lowering of barriers over the last 5 years, but now... suddenly...we are seeing the major players in digital filmmaking breaking down those barriers. I feel that there are many digital filmmaking rebels out there that have been waiting in the wings...waiting for the pieces to fall into place so they could take a stab at storytelling without committing themsleves to the endeavor and telling their family and friends they are "making a movie" - cue eyerolls.
There is a large crowd of hobbyists, enthusiasts, and professionals who want to create something to watch, something interesting to themselves and, hopefully, to others. These are what I call "potential filmmakers", people who are not sure they can make a movie, even a short film, but who want to try as long as it doesn't put them into debt or ridicule. Their measure of success is not a finished film, or profit, or festival acclaim, or Netflix rental... it is more that they OWN the possibility of doing all those things. Let's face it, almost no one in this community gets a movie deal, or makes any money off their films, but many thousands of "potential filmmakers" want to buy their ticket to try. They want the freedom to be able to turn a vacation or road trip into a location shoot, simply because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. To know that playing around with an edit could end up being the fuel that starts them on the big push to make a real film.
These possibilities have been around for years... technology has been in place to try and test ideas. But now its a little different. Last year, you had to dream about either taking out a mortgage to dive into RED or some other high end package, or you played around with the HV20 in your backyard. But next year, you will probably own one of three new DSLR's and, using the lenses you already own, be able to produce shots that... in their deliverable viewing format (.MPEG-2, .MOV, .WMV) are nearly indistinguishable from those 'dream' cameras.
The DLSR movie camera opens up some serious possibilities for the "potential filmmaker". It basically unlocks the potential. I have spent my professional media career in visual effects making nothing into something... and now that nothing can start out looking like something... which makes it far easier to impress people. Now... the last barrier... the one most cannot see until its too late (and they fail)....is talent.
There is a large crowd of hobbyists, enthusiasts, and professionals who want to create something to watch, something interesting to themselves and, hopefully, to others. These are what I call "potential filmmakers", people who are not sure they can make a movie, even a short film, but who want to try as long as it doesn't put them into debt or ridicule. Their measure of success is not a finished film, or profit, or festival acclaim, or Netflix rental... it is more that they OWN the possibility of doing all those things. Let's face it, almost no one in this community gets a movie deal, or makes any money off their films, but many thousands of "potential filmmakers" want to buy their ticket to try. They want the freedom to be able to turn a vacation or road trip into a location shoot, simply because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. To know that playing around with an edit could end up being the fuel that starts them on the big push to make a real film.
These possibilities have been around for years... technology has been in place to try and test ideas. But now its a little different. Last year, you had to dream about either taking out a mortgage to dive into RED or some other high end package, or you played around with the HV20 in your backyard. But next year, you will probably own one of three new DSLR's and, using the lenses you already own, be able to produce shots that... in their deliverable viewing format (.MPEG-2, .MOV, .WMV) are nearly indistinguishable from those 'dream' cameras.
The DLSR movie camera opens up some serious possibilities for the "potential filmmaker". It basically unlocks the potential. I have spent my professional media career in visual effects making nothing into something... and now that nothing can start out looking like something... which makes it far easier to impress people. Now... the last barrier... the one most cannot see until its too late (and they fail)....is talent.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Lighting Vs. Renderer
After I just finished around 100 shots for two video game promos, I became truly aware of what made those shots pretty to look at versus how technically realistic a lot of vfx shots look these days. Granted, the shows were supposed to look cartoony, and I had only myself to fall back on, and I had about 1/24th the time allowed a Pixar film, but the images looked decent and satisfied the client nonetheless. And this time around, I found myself finally going back to artistic decisions and fundamentals instead of technology to get my final images.
This brings up my point. It is not really necessary, and often unappreciated, to bring a crazy amount of technical realism to the final images. What is really important, however, is that you imply realism where needed and focus it where it counts. For example, I found myself needing to produce a jungle type forest at night, with character lighting and set that would have a feel similar to Pixar's The Incredibles. So off I went, looking into all types of forest and vegetation simulators, terrain generators, and rendering technology. After about ten days of R & D, I realized that the animatic suggested lots of shallow depth of field shots. I realized that I was trying to mimic reality, so I could then blur it beyond recognition in post. In any given shot, I would only see maybe 15 trees and bushes in all their high quality glory, the rest could be lower resolution textures and geo, even cards.
Ever since I perused the matte painters' web sites - (http://www.goodbrush.com/ ... http://www.mattepainting.org ...etc) , I started to try and incorprate more art into my technical shots. Color hue/ value are so important to understand how we perceive sharpness, foreground/background, and what is the focus of a scene. Then there are the limitations and strengths of the human vision and perceptual systems that play a big role in getting a good shot. For example, lighting reds, oranges, yellows up front, and having greens, blues, purples in the background automatically creates a sense of depth to the viewer due to the speed at which our brains process different wavelengths of light.
What surprised me was that I was able to achieve the result I wanted with very little overhead (ie. rendering time) just by going back to art fundamentals of light, hue, values, and composition. In fact, I used 3dsmax's scanline renderer for everything. As long as I let my textures and surface properties do most the work, I could get great looking elements very quickly - about 30 sec to 1 minute per frame. If something was in the shadows or was getting blurred, all I cared about was its value/hue, not its detail. And if it was off camera, it did not exist. It was very liberating not having to worry about details in the renderer that were going to get lost in comp. In the end, lighting was what made the images, not the renderer.
Some stills are here: http://mmoses00.cgsociety.org/gallery/
This brings up my point. It is not really necessary, and often unappreciated, to bring a crazy amount of technical realism to the final images. What is really important, however, is that you imply realism where needed and focus it where it counts. For example, I found myself needing to produce a jungle type forest at night, with character lighting and set that would have a feel similar to Pixar's The Incredibles. So off I went, looking into all types of forest and vegetation simulators, terrain generators, and rendering technology. After about ten days of R & D, I realized that the animatic suggested lots of shallow depth of field shots. I realized that I was trying to mimic reality, so I could then blur it beyond recognition in post. In any given shot, I would only see maybe 15 trees and bushes in all their high quality glory, the rest could be lower resolution textures and geo, even cards.
Ever since I perused the matte painters' web sites - (http://www.goodbrush.com/ ... http://www.mattepainting.org ...etc) , I started to try and incorprate more art into my technical shots. Color hue/ value are so important to understand how we perceive sharpness, foreground/background, and what is the focus of a scene. Then there are the limitations and strengths of the human vision and perceptual systems that play a big role in getting a good shot. For example, lighting reds, oranges, yellows up front, and having greens, blues, purples in the background automatically creates a sense of depth to the viewer due to the speed at which our brains process different wavelengths of light.
What surprised me was that I was able to achieve the result I wanted with very little overhead (ie. rendering time) just by going back to art fundamentals of light, hue, values, and composition. In fact, I used 3dsmax's scanline renderer for everything. As long as I let my textures and surface properties do most the work, I could get great looking elements very quickly - about 30 sec to 1 minute per frame. If something was in the shadows or was getting blurred, all I cared about was its value/hue, not its detail. And if it was off camera, it did not exist. It was very liberating not having to worry about details in the renderer that were going to get lost in comp. In the end, lighting was what made the images, not the renderer.
Some stills are here: http://mmoses00.cgsociety.org/gallery/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
