Sky Captain and the Films of Tomorrow 417
professorfalcon writes "Foxnews.com has an interview with the stars of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. They talk about their experience hugging a green screen for the entire film, and how the movie is 'unlike anything most audiences have seen before. It uses no sets, only computer generated imagery.' So most audiences didn't see Star Wars?"
Isn't that a "blue" screen? (Score:2, Informative)
SW Prequels - how about... (Score:4, Informative)
Hardly a first (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (Score:2, Informative)
Star Wars? (Score:2, Informative)
This decade's "Star Wars" (Score:5, Informative)
There may not have been any sets, per-se, but there were a fair amount of props used in close-ups (like where the characters were leaning against a railing), so not absolutely everything was painted green.
Chip H.
Another interesting article... (Score:5, Informative)
There's an article about this on Apple's website:
Apple - Pro/Video - Kerry Conran [apple.com]
Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Whoo Hoo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (Score:4, Informative)
The Daily Show had the host asking if it was a green screen, and the actress corrected with blue.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if that's why Gwynneth's child is named Apple.
Re:Isn't that a "blue" screen? (Score:5, Informative)
Chroma Key (Score:5, Informative)
The technology of blue/green/organge/whatever screens is called "chroma key". The computer knows that anything of the key color is "background" and should be replaced with other imagery. They use those bright, stand-out colors for that reason -- those colors are unlikely to conflict with real actors or props. The computer could replace another color, e.g., black, just as well, but black appears normally all over the place.
They use the same technology for the "magic weather maps" you see the meteorologist stand in front of during modern TV weather reports. The map isn't really there; the meteorologist stands in front of a color screen, and the map is composited in electronically. You can occasionally see a goof where some part of the meteorologist's wardrobe is too close to the screen's color, and the map "bleeds through" and the person appears "hollow".
Re:It is NOT the future. (Score:5, Informative)
Even given the technology, how many people/effects teams out there are going to have the talent and skill necessary to create and animate a convincing CG actor doing a good, convincing CG performance? Plus you'll still need good voice actors.
The geeks, voices actors, artists and digital puppeteers will be the new "movie stars" with huge paychecks, only without all the glamour. Though maybe this in some ways is better than an average actress with nice T&A getting paid millions, I sincerely doubt it's really going to shake the movie industry to its foundations or anything. I don't really care if celebrities act like babies, I don't have to deal with their day to day attitude... I just have to be able to watch and enjoy their performances.
Besides, I don't think human audiences will ever totally connect with an actor that isn't real. Many movies' success are greatly influenced by how recognizable the stars are. If you're a fan of a particular actor, you're probably more likely to go out and see their movies, right? Will people have this same sense of attachment and "loyalty" to CG characters, even if the same characters are used throughout different movies? I kind of doubt it.
Also, I think your 3 year estimate is a little optimistic. The most lauded, advanced CG character in a live action movie ever created, Smeagol, was still quite recognizably a CG character in many scenes, and Smeagol had many aspects of a "creature" to him, something unrecognizable that our minds can't as easily recognize as "fake" because we don't have anything to compare it to. Unobstructed, unmasked, convincing human CG characters are going to be many, many times more difficult to create than gollum was.
Plus, the Lord of the Rings trilogy were some of the most successful movies ever to heavily use CG, but just as much energy seems to have been put into finding good locations, creating elaborate and convincing physical sets, and finding the right flesh-and-blood actors.
CG is increasingly going to become a more important element of movie-making, and it may trim down costs here and there, but I think it's going to be a long time (decades, at least, probably) before we see another dramatic shift in the way CG changes movie-making. But then, I'm not in the business and I'm not really a great visionary. It would be cool to be proven wrong, but there's always the possibility that the heavy use of CG and digital effects will just create a whole new host of problems and flaws to deal with.
Re:Sky Caps does not look 'real' (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the reason for making it slightly blurry is probably to fit in the actors/actresses seamlessly into the background (no sharp edges etc.), but part of it could also be deliberate .. (gives you the feeling that you are watching a comic book in motion ).
After all you only need to blur the edge of the actors and not the whole scene. Per haps somebody knowledgable i graphics could comment.
As for being out of sync -> the worst case I saw was when Gyneth was running along side the robots in the streets of NY. Otherwise they were pretty much in sync (as far as I could detect). For example, people interacting with objects in a room.
Another strange thing was the movie never showed the people getting in and out of the vehicles, to save some graphics work.
Oh, yah, and to answer your question.... (Score:5, Informative)
Ooops, got so caught up in my explanation I forgot your question had two parts.
The critical element is that the key color not appear on the actors or props. Bright blue works well for many indoor scenes and bright lighting, but does poorer in "outdoor" and low-light conditions, where blues are more common. That green color can provide better contrast then. I've also seen them use an orange screen for spaceship models which contained blues and greens. Again, the computer can key on any color; the important part is that the color not be present on the "real" stuff. I imagine bright purple or yellow would also work well in some cases.
Another, another interesting article... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/pro/video/robertson/ [apple.com]
Re:Star Wars (Score:4, Informative)
To us old fogies, "Star Wars", without an explicit episode reference, implies the first one to hit theathers, i.e. "A New Hope".
Errrmm, they can use both, you know. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, yah, and to answer your question.... (Score:3, Informative)
But yes, he is correct, with todays computer keying software, you can key on anything. With some of the advanced keying plugins for After Effects, I've been able to key on several colors at once and extract subjects out of some fairly complicated backgrounds.
Originally, when the chroma key was first invented, and when everything was done with analog equipment, they were able to take the blue signal created by the blue orthicon tube and use it as a "switch" from one source to another, much like an alpha channel is used today. The blue signal was used because they were able to create the greatest contrast with the blue tube. The Red and Green tubes were not used for two reasons, one, they did not produce an image with enough contrast, and two, skin tone for all races contain a lot of red, some green and very little (if any) blue. By using blue, you don't run the risk of keying out an actors face.
None of the above (Score:3, Informative)