Realistic 3D
starboard
Posts: 452
I tried posting this thread earlier but it did not take.
I came across this short demo on how they made the special effects for the movie Anomynous (2012). Some of the 3D of Elizibethan London (around 1580-90) I thought were outstanding. However, the best part is they show how the 3D assets were composited. I also found interesting how they used atmospherics and minimal color to enhance the realism of the scenes. I thought while watching it that all the 3D modeling could have been done in Carrara.
Starboardtack
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I came across this Demo Reel by "Uncharted Territory" and it has made me think about the use of atmospherics and the restricted use of color in my own modeling. Their modeling of Elizibethan London is in my estimation superb. I have checked some of the buildings, such as the old London Bridge and they seemed to have done their homework. However The demo Reel also shows how the compositing was done for this big screen production. In my opinion all of the 3D could have been done in Carrara. Again and again you can see how the clever use of atmospherics fools the eye.
Also
msteaka
Merged duplicate threads
I tried Posting the second one three hours earlier and it did not show on the forum and I concluded it had been deleted for some reason. Which was ok as somehow I had linked to the wrong u-tube footage. Of course I meant to draw attention to the making of the film and not a reel on its promotion. I tried going in and editing but perhaps its best left the way it is.
Starboardtack
Is excellent but I myself found the Sepia odd as everything was a riot of colour unlike the way we mistakingly portray the past
unless charcoal sketched, paintings and tapestries from those times very vivid the B&W / sepia notion only emerged with photography and later film.
this remarkable work shows us how cg may influence the outcome of movies nowadays: indoor shots using chromakey hardly ever want sunny daylight especially for unrealistic shadows; huge post production corrections (color correction, saturation, shaded surfaces..) to fit real footage to cg results. As for carrara the last release crashes a lot, don't think could manage gigantic data of meshes and maps
I know I have learned a lot from this demo. Especially with regards to the atmospherics. However I believe that JaguarElla has nailed the weakness of the footage in that it is too much into the sepia. Adding to that I believe it seems a little dull. Odd that when I saw this movie in a theater I did not notice that at the time - I was probably caught up in the story. However it does not take away from the excellent compositing of the 3D with llive footage. With respect to Carrara chocking..I wonder.. All of the 3D seems to have been brocken down into small segments and rendered separately, then compositied in a program such as Fusion or AE. Which I suspect that many of us are doing already on a smaller scale. The big difference is that "we" on the forum cannot afford live actors, large sets, etc. and are battling our own frontier of making digital models realistic. I think what I learned from this is the clever use of atmospherics, it is wonderfully effective. I have recently finished a digital aerial view of Whitby, Yorkshire in 1740's for use in a doc. I am working on about Captain Cook...If I had it to do again I would use a lot more atmospherics. I have used this effect in the past but somehow have gotten away from it. Also "Uncharted Territory" by using extreme atmospherics only had to build the immediate foreground in detail...the middle and background are in low res. and need to be little more than 2D cutouts. In otherwords there is only the impression of the city behind.... I know we all know these tricks....but I find it still amazing even when I know the trick is being played on me.
Starboardtack
Nice job on the Whitby model! Silene
Thanks Silene,
There was a lot of research using old period maps, etc.
When developing a production for an audience, colors are extremely important, and the folks working on those productions spend an incredible amount of time deciding on the fine details of colors and color schemes. They do this because they are not only telling a story, but transporting an audience to a different time and place. And the choice of colors is critical in making that all happen.
Colors are chosen to make the viewer FEEL something. Whether we personally like the choice is somewhat irrelevant, because the purpose is to make us FEEL something. They make us feel apocalyptic, desolate, or we're in an ancient time, we're cold, there's a sense of impending doom, or we're feeling nitty-gritty realism, and so on. With each of those feelings you and I associate colors, whether we realize it or not. And the talented artist figures that out and knows what colors will make us feel a certain way. Or at least hopes so....
Colors are an absolutely key component of most professional productions we see, and the time taken behind the scenes to decide on specific colors and color schemes, along with lighting and texturing and so on, is amazing. But it all has a purpose, and that is to tell the story and transport the viewer to where you want to take him.
Color certainly has its uses for setting moods. I think that might work for some scenes but I don't think that it is a good practice for a whole movie. In this case the story was a mixture of humor and tradgedy. The humorous side being that Shakespeare was a baffoon and the plays were really written by the talented Earl of Oxford, and this "plays" out against the backdrop of the tradgedy of the Essex rebellion. I don't know what the reasons were for the selection of the color cast for the whole movie, but I suspect that it may be that the lack of color and the atmospherics makes the intergration of the green screen and 3D elements more convincing to the eye. For example most of the scenes use diffused lighting and heavy atmospherics.. No shadows to worry about... and only the foreground needs sharp detail. Whatever the reason, I am impressed with the results and would like to learn and incorporate some of these methods in my work.
BTW, if anyone is interested, much of the compositing work on the film referenced above, "Anonymous" was done in Fusion, a (now) free compositing app.
Some examples:
Fusion has a VERY nice volumetric fog feature, which was originally developed for use in this film ("Anonymous"), and is now a standard feature in Fusion. In my thread on compositing I gave some visual examples of how easy and well done this feature is in Fusion.
And to give you an example of how VFX artists can improve on their productions by "thinking outside of the box", they needed to obtain some fluid simulations of water flowing through some large gates in the river. What they did was to take out their camera and go down to the Sepulveda Dam (in Los Angeles) and film some real water flowing in what I call LA's "cement river". And they took that footage and composited that into the scene, rather than spend countless hours trying to simulate a large scale water flow. And I believe they also used parts of this footage to develop particle system generation images, in a fairly complicated but pretty slick 2D fluid sim effect.
They also developed some nifty 2D techniques for water simulation for this film, as well as water flow around obstructions (eg, boat wakes, piers, etc.) using 2D particle systems combined with actual water footage.
I think there's probably a video floating around somewhere, but I recall a presentation at Siggraph a few years ago (or maybe 2 years ago...) describing some of the work that was done.
Hell, I seen it done for entire series
"Charlie Jade" is one good example where that works very good, series is happening in 3 parallel universes and each one have it's own color "tone", in this case it helps viewer to almost instinctively recognize to which universe current scene belongs
Joe,
I had found a video of the Sigrapph lecture you refered to in my search earlier. The problem is I know nothing about Fusion and the explanations of how they made the water quickly left me in a daze. From what I could gather, they can almost make the water and scene in real time. Very impressive...But I cannot handle anymore technology.. my head is starting to bubble underwater as it is. I'm afraid I am stuck with learning Carrara and using it in AE for some time to come. I don't know how you stay on top of so much information.
Anyway here is the link. http://wn.com/eyeon_software_nvidia_gpu_webinar
directors, directors of photography, lighting directors and cg industry technicals work in conjunction at the same level and often they share same multidisciplinary skills; I believe that the blue and orange color grading in movies (i.e. transformers) and abuse of contrast and fog in post production is meant to fit real footage to cg
Magarmoto,
I think we are saying the same thing..Restricting color and strong lighting makes green screen and the intergration of 3D assets far easier. Putting it differently...If you were making a Black and White movie you would not be worrying about matching color in the compositing. The closer you are to a B&W it follows, the easier to balance the color. If you also at the same time do not use bright direct lighting, but use diffuse lighting..the less critical the matting...Stray hairs for example will not stand out. All this is second hand guessing...It would be fun to talk directly with the 3D and compositing artists at Uncharted Territory and get their views.
that's correct
simplifying: color grading and gamma makes real footage and cg results homogeneous from the lighting point of view; diffuse light makes shadows soft, useful when using green screen - shadows coming from sun and atmosphere are very different from artificial light ones -; fog and dark environment can mask cg unwanted and unrealistic parts or simple backgrounds. When you have to make a movie like the one you mentioned, better move towards cg than on the contrary. Tools like Clarisse try to bridge the gap
Not sure exactly what points you guys are agreeing on, but maybe this will help a bit...
The VFX guys who do the final visual effects and compositing on a film are in what's called the "post production" phase of the project. That means it happens after the film has been produced in the production phase (ie, the cameras film the actors, as well as all of the "greenscreen" work you referred to, etc.). And the production phase occurs after what's called the "pre-production" phase, when the director and production designer and others get together and decide the specifics about how the film will be made, what it will look like, etc.
So by the time the compositors start their post work, most of the film's "look", and lighting, and colors, etc., have already been decided and filmed. And honestly, nobody really cares if the compositors have to add a few more color correction nodes in the comp to make stuff blend together well.
And in the post process, many of the compositing node groups get defined and standardized, so the compositor just has to drag 'n drop the nodes from the library to get the right "look". So blending CG and live action isn't really that much of a challenge for experienced compositors.
Joe,
If I understand correctlly, what you are saying is that the pre-production decides on the color range of the movie will be without consideration for the difficulty or expense of matching the various assets. In the case of Anomynous the pre-production team decided on a dull gloomy artsy look for the movie for what ever reasons - if any. I don't know enough about it, but if I was an investor in the movie business and I was aware of this management style..I would put my money elsewhere.
Perhaps we are both right...They made the movie the way you describe and the movie according to what I have read lost a lot of money. I just can't believe that if you were making a historical movie that relied on the intergration of so many scenes involving 3D, the beievability of which could make or break the movie, you would not have the heads of these departments, involved up to their necks in the planning and economic use of the assets - after all its about making money. At least that is how I would do it ...but fortunately I am not in the business... I would probablly lose my shirt anyway.
that' s no completely true Joe as we witness more and more to how cgi has influence on filmmakers both in the early phase and the phase of compositing; indeed very often what we can achieve with such tools let the director to get wanted results easily. Look at when movies are being changed after Gollum
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-weta-effect-how-cgi-and-special-effects-saturation-is-ruining-movies-20150703-gi4kws.html
I'd be pleased if anyone would explain what was done to reproduce the cathedral interior at 2:23 onwards in the first video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzsQ5RpubBw
The starting point shows what must be a shot of a real cathedral because ropes and modern strip-lighting are present. After manipulation, the modern items are gone and textures/colour caste have been altered in various ways.
Then the image splits into planes corresponding to the ceiling, floor and various walls. Some of these planes are walls which were mostly out of sight to begin with and will return to being out of sight in the final shot.
This part is all 2D work I take it? Or is it? The separate walls look as though they are being moved apart in 3D space and are being viewed from the same angle from which the original image was shot.
I'm guessing that the out of sight walls were painted by repeating the arches and other features which did show? I can't think why that was done if they were going to be hidden again.
My question really is: was a 2D image just chopped into pieces and patched together again or was a 3D cathedral built from simple blocks?
msteaka... thanks for posting this. Anonymous is one of my favorite movies, and that making of vid, and the the followed, the Siggraph video, really made my eyes pop out. The real time water interactions with floating objects, oars, poles using (I think) particle systems in the compostor, is just amazing.
Not sure I completely understand it. I'll have to explore further.
Also, nice comment on the FEEL of the movie JoeM2000... which I thought it was superbly effective in this film (besides all the neat 3D stuff going on). Not once did I feel "ah.. that's not real".
Love it
- Don
Good point Marcus, as it looks to me, the cathedral is mostly 2d planes. The exception may be the lower columns and arches on the left - they seem to have 3D dimension. I don't think the upper part of the same wall does - but it is a tough call. If you go to 2:42 and look at the window on the extreme lower left, you can see that as the camera moves down, the image in the window remains the same. They should have put the image in the window on its own plane behind the opening. Also the people in the pews all seem to be made from the image of four or five people in a pew and then cloned..copied and pasted to fill the cathedral. I suppose we can nit-pic it to death.However, I am still very much impressed with the final footage. They used 2d when they could and saved all the expense of 3D modeling - that is good use of resources. Unlike what what Magarmoto is drawing attention to..the WETA effect...I think Anonymous has just the right balance between 3D effects and live actors and sets.
Marcus,
I believe the cathedral shot was what is called "camera projection". You take a real life photograph of something, and then map that into your scene, often by projecting that image on a 3D object in the scene, from the camera's perspective. When the camera moves in the render it appears you're moving thru a real 3D scene. However, this effect is limited since the original shot was taken from only one perspective view. If you move the camera too far away from the original perspective the effect breaks down.. But by using 2D cards/planes and projecting parts of the image on them, you can increase the apparent 3D effect.
This effect is extremely common, and in fact 2D cards are used absolutely EVERYWHERE in visual effects. Even places you might never expect would be 2D cards. And often when you see the camera moving slowly, in a small distance, for a grand overview of a gorgeous scene, it's camera projection being used.
Here's a video I grabbed off Youtube that describes all that visually. I'm sure there are tons more if you search for "camera projection".
Anyway, they took a photo from inside a real cathedral, did camera projection on some 2D cards, and then composited more stuff in the render to add some environmentals.
Thanks for replying, msteaka. Since the colour changes were mostly done at the beginning, I think you're right about 2D planes being mostly used. It was possibly for the Youtube 'making of' video that they showed these planes in what I'd call 3D space. Without the 3D grid in the background, the component parts of the image could just be seen as angular 'jigsaw pieces' on a 2D surface.
On the other hand, I seem to recall reading of a technique where a photograph is 'projected' onto a 3D model placed at the exact angle for the model to be textured by it. Or something like that!
In the end it's only a matter of curiosity for me but I'd now like to see the film because it does look great!
And BTW, while the video that magremoto posted is just one guy's opinion, I tend to agree with just about all he said. Even though much of my background is in compositing, I think that there has been FAR too much emphasis placed on the glossy, over-the-top look in films in recent years, and not enough focus on the story and storytelling.
Honestly, my favorite movies have generally been those with relatively few VFX. Movies nowadays are just so unbelievable, and over-the-top and perfect. It's just boring.
And I'm especially tired of the "perfect information and technology" nonsense, where everyone has access to all the information and technology they need to solve even the most impossible situtation in a matter of minutes. They need to locate someone so they tap into some super database that locates them via their cellphone and turns on their cellphone camera and tracks them via GPS while tapping into another super database that tells them everything about the person since they were 2 years old. Geez. I much prefer how Columbo solved crimes.
Most of the animation classics (pre CGI) were produced by moving 2d planes (with the animation cells) in relation to the camera. Looks like these are still sold, a 16mm film version is pictured here: http://www.oxberry.com/filmaker_page.html
Thanks JoeMamma2000 and Cdordoni for your replies.
Joe, I think you and I must have posted at the same time and I've only just seen your comments. You've explained Camera Projection perfectly for me, it sounds as though that is what I must have read about somewhere. I guess it takes a lot of planning in advance to decide which technique to use where. It's too much work to end up on the cutting room floor.
I agree also on the 'perfect information' thing. Other pet hates of mine (and I don't watch all that many films!) are: the obligatory ethnic dance or wedding; the obligatory nauseous moment (animal sneeze, etc.); and the obligatory running away from danger of a couple holding hands.
If I run ever run from danger, both hands will be free!
Joe,
Thanks for the link to camera projections..I watched a number of them. The one tutorial using the camera projection in After Effects was quite good. I recall that there was a application way back, called Canoma which turned a photo into 3D.. You more or less cut out the objects with a pen tool. If you did not move the camera too far it was ok. It was good with rectangles such as buildings but could not handle curved objects.. as you might guess.
One of my pet annoyances in movies, is when the bad guy tries to run somebody down with a car. The victim tries to out run the car instead of running to the left or right off of the road and possibly behind a big tree. Not even squirrels try to outrun a car..they head for a big tree. On this evidence one could argue the squirrels are smarter than many directors.
cdordoni,
I wonder how many of these devices they sell in this digital age...I know there is a comeback in vinyl 33 1/3's . Its amazing . I wish them luck.
Don't forget about outrunning an explosion, shooting flames, compression wave, etc. all while holding hands with the not-so-obvious-it's-obvious-to-everyone love interest, at the same time the hero is pulling a shard of something out of his thigh which miraculously missed major arteries, tendons, etc. just before they jump out a window or smash through plate glass, or some other equally dramatic, yet flimsy barrier, and fall thirty feet into a dumpster, snow bank, conveniently placed lake or interstellar trash compactor. All while yelling the witty catch phrase Du-Jour.
Wait! Did I just discuss the next Michael Bey movie?!? Where's my agent! I need to shop this around!