Talk to a Movie Digital SFX Expert

Thad Beier has been working with computer graphics and film since the late 70s. In 1995 he and three partners founded Hammerhead Productions, a company that specializes in computer-generated special effects. Thad received a Technical Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the Oscar people, not the MPAA) in 1998 for one of his many technical innovations. He's worked on Terminator 2, Angels in the Outfield, The Fast and The Furious, and the upcoming Blue Crush, among other films. He wrote this 1992 Siggraph paper, and now writes all of Hammerhead's software tools and manages the company's mixed bag of SGI and Linux equipment. So ask Thad anything you want about computer-generated special effects. We'll send him 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and post his answers when we get them back.

Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[FortKnox]

Do you think movies like Final Fantasy become increasingly popular, and eventually SFX characters will overtake human actors??

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[YanceyAI]

Another interesting question might be will actors of old get new roles. Think of a sequel to Gone With the Wind, for instance, using the 'original' actors.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[dvdeug]

I'm still waiting for the next Shirley Temple movie...

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[taernim]

There was a classic episode of The Critic (of Jon Lovitz fame) that explored this very topic.

One of the "revised" edits was Casablanca [imdb.com] where Isla does not get on the plane.It's definitely a topic to think about, especially with directors' fetish for going back and "fixing" their movies, 20+ years later.

To check out the Critic episodes, go here [nohomers.net]

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors? (Yes!)

[bigjocker]

Actually, in an episode of Twilight Zone Humprey Bogart (don't know if it's spelled correcty) played the main part, completely SFX.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[Skyshadow]

Of course it will. Eventually the technology will get so good you wont be able to tell the difference (both visually and interpretation)

That's so absurd that its probably blatent flamebait, but I'll answer it because I'm gullible:

There's a big, *big* difference between perfectly modeling the appearance of a human being and generating a believable and interesting range of acting from the model.

Many great performances start out on page with very little direction from the script. Consider the scene in Unforgiven [imdb.com] where Gene Hackman's character beats a gunslinger played by Richard Harris: On paper, it was a severe beating which occurs because Harris's character (English Bob) is seen as a challenge by Hackman's Little Bill, who makes an example out of him.

Now watch the scene. Watch Little Bill's face and body language while he's beating English Bob -- you can see, *taste* his sadism and brutality. Watch Little Bill's face when he's done -- he visably reigns himself in, then looks dazed and almost post-orgasmic.

What made that a great scene was absolutely not the writing, but Hackman's exploration of the sadistic nature of his character. It takes a gifted, experienced actor with a lifetime of experience to generate that sort of performance, not some geek at a computer using a modeling tool.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[rnd()]

There will be creative geeks using high powered modeling tools. Look, acting is art, but so is CGI. It may take a while for CGI to evolve into something that rivals what actors can do, but that certainly doesn't mean it's impossible.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[flewp]

One thing to consider is when using computer modelled people, they most likely are also using motion capture of real people. That's just for the basic movements though, but I'd imagine in the future (if not already in testing/application) they'll be able to really use motion capture for such things as facial expressions. But that leads to a question, if you need actors do all this motion capture, why bother with the CG renders at all? For games it works well, since they can then select the appropriate motion cap sequence, but for a movie, something that's static, just using a real actor would probably be best. Movies that are supposed to have a CG look (Shrek, Final Fantasy, etc) are obviously exceptions. I just don't see CG actors replacing actors for quite a long time, if ever. Although who knows, when AI becomes almost indistinguishable(sp) from real intelligence, the CG will be just as real.

Now, for my question to Thad Beier: Want to hire me?

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[phriedom]

" But that leads to a question, if you need actors do all this motion capture, why bother with the CG renders at all?"

Well I know it was a rhetorical question, but I think that the possibility of such a thing makes movie producers salivate. No more paying a "big name" 10 million dollars for a movie. Somebody "owns" the right to the face and image, so the actors are totally replaceable. They could have done a spectacular Tomb Raider with a photorealistic Lara with a perfect figure, perfect skin, etc. used a gymnast and/or a dancer at $100/hour or something for the action motion capture, then used a really talented but ugly no-name actress with a good voice for the voice acting and the face motion capture. It could all be done on a sound stage with CG backrounds. Or say for some other movie we want to use Cathleen Turner, but we want her to look like she did back in Romancing the Stone.

I'm not saying this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Photo-realistic computer generated graphics are just a tool, but a revolutionary one.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[flewp]

It was somewhat rhetorical, but you bring up some excellent points. One thing I started thinking about after posting was if the public would be willing to accept a new breed of CG actors/actresses. Afterall, it's often a big name actor/actress that draws people to the box office. Sure, you could use the same CG character for multiple movies, but are people going to relate to them? They won't be involved in any scandals (unless one of the artists uses them in an unauthorized porn or some such). There won't be any personal lives to follow. I personally will see a movie sometimes based on if I like the actor or not in real life. If he's known to be a total jackass, I may not be inclined to support his/her work. Usually though, it's just based on if the actor/actress is good at their job, or from people whose opinions usually reflect my own. I think people just love the juicy gossip of celebrities, and won't be that willing to give it up.

Re:Will SFX Overtake Actors?

[phriedom]

Yes, what would People magazine and Entertainment Tonight do if there were no movie stars. I think they could make do. After all, look at the Hilton sisters, who have accomplished nothing other than inheriting a whole lotta money.

I think most of the audience won't reject a good character just because it is CG. Pierce Brosnan is retiring from the James Bond movies. Big fans of James Bond movies will still go no matter if the next JB is CG or a real person to be named later. Heck, with the proper CG, Jason Alexander could be an action star.

Are 'FX programming' days numbered?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?

Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?

Re:Are 'FX programming' days numbered?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. However my question was more along the lines of "how long before the artist can do the programmer's job via scripting, etc."

Re:Are 'FX programming' days numbered?

[Jobe_br]

More apt might be "will the artist ever WANT to do the programmer's job via scripting" - I know quite a few artists that don't mind using the computer, but its more of a chore than a joy. This doesn't seem to be something that changes over time ... it just seems to be a philosophy many creative talents share.

Re:Are 'FX programming' days numbered?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I know quite a few artists that don't mind using the computer, but its more of a chore than a joy. This doesn't seem to be something that changes over time ..."

True, but there are also those (who often work in the SFX field) that do whatever it takes to get the shot completed. I'll give you an example:

Once I had a rather short deadline to animate a character for a title sequence for a show that was about to be filmed. Unfortunately, the director had a terrible time expressing to me what it was exactly she wanted me to do. (half of this was the mentality that I'm rotten and evil because I'm male, the other was that we had no time to develop character tests and so on.) We had to have a final render the following evening.

What I did to solve this problem was I dragged her into the studio, set up a camera, and had her 'direct' me so that I'd act out what she wanted the character to do. After a couple of takes, we got one she liked. I took that footage, captured it, and used it in the background while manipulating the character.

I went frame by frame pushing bones around until the end of the sequence. I had a nicely animated character that almost looked mo-capped. The result? The final render was a success.

I don't think many people would have chosen to attack that problem I did. I don't think they'd want to learn how to act or to direct a director. (heh) Heck, I probably could have told her "no, I can't do it in time." and moved on. Instead, I took the tools I had available and created a not-so-ordinary solution. I had no idea if it'd work, but I saw it to the end.

There are people out there who have a similar attitude towards getting shots like these done. It doesn't surprise me at all that they end up in FX. Heck, I'm working myself that way within the next year.

Answer honestly.

[tcd004]

What is one movie that uses CGI that you wish had never been made because it gives your craft a bad name?

Thanks!

READ THIS! [lostbrain.com]

tcd004

Re:Answer honestly.

[tux-sucks]

What is one movie that uses CGI that you wish had never been made because it gives your craft a bad name?

On the flip side, what is one film that you would consider as the paradigm for computer generated effects?

Re:Answer honestly.

[JabberWokky]

I believe you mean "paragon", not "paradigm".

--
Evan

I would like to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Since special effects are so expensive, why not go back to having plots?

Back to having plots

[Animats]

There's an anti-effects movement, Dogme [tvropa.com]. But that seems to be an idea whose time has passed.

How long?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

How long do you think it'll take for the types of animation you see in movies today be render-able in realtime? I can't wait till some seriously realistic video games... or porn flicks appear. :)

Re:How long?

[King Of Chat]

Realistic porn flicks? You mean where a fit looking woman tells a fat hairy bloke [ronjeremy.com] to fuck off?

I don't think it's realism you're after.

So...

[Wakko Warner]

...do you ever get sick of hearing the sounds you created being used over and over again in lame techno/trance songs?

Case in point: The concussion bomb in Episode 2, which has been showing up in a bunch of crappy songs lately...

- A.P.

How much of the SFX are CG?

[program21]

About what percentange of effects and the like in the average movie is there? And how do you think this will be 5 or 10 years from now?

Realistic Water

[4of12]

How much progress are you and others making on realistic depictions of water (waves, splashing) at different scales?

(I still remember the clumsy ship in a bathtub effects from the 1970s!)

Even in recent productions like The Perfect Storm, I haven't been "convinced" sufficiently that it's a real wave.

Re:Realistic Water

[nEoN nOoDlE]

I think if you haven't been convinced, then you'll never be convinced. Special effects are often used when it would be impossible/very difficult to actually film. You probably weren't convinced of the waves in Perfect Storm because you thought to yourself "Nah, that couldn't be shot in real life, it must be CG." I for one, was totally convinced of the CG water in Titanic because I didn't automatically have to disbelieve that they actually shot a regular ocean. I find this problem a lot when people are criticizing CG heavy films such as Star Wars. Everyone says the CG wasn't convincing enough and, true, some shots weren't, but when I was watching the segement where the clones come in and start fighting the battle droid army, I was completely convinced that most of the foreground clones were real, as well as the ground they were standing on and only the background and haze was digital (because it would be impossible for them to get that many clones and huge battle droid stations don't exist), but I found out that pretty much the whole shot was completely CG, and that amazed me. I think CG has gotten to the point where the only way someone can distinguish it from reality is because reality isn't accessible enough when you can just recreate it in the computer.

Re:Realistic Water

[Rakarra]

I think if you haven't been convinced, then you'll never be convinced. Special effects are often used when it would be impossible/very difficult to actually film. You probably weren't convinced of the waves in Perfect Storm because you thought to yourself "Nah, that couldn't be shot in real life, it must be CG."

But of course, not all CG is the same. Some movies have excellent CG (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, with the exception of a few shots in the cave troll scene), while others have terrible CG (like the Mummy Returns). Certain types of objects are easy to render (rock, metal, plastics), while others are still notoriously difficult (flesh, fluids).

Check out AI

[bill_mcgonigle]

The scenes where they're flying towards New York have absolutely stunning water. It's not all that close up, but it was the best thing in the movie.

Orange County

[Pseudonym]

The Perfect Storm was some time ago, in visual effects terms. You might want to check out the digital water in Orange County and see if you like that.

Shaders

[f00Dave]

How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?

BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker... ;-)

Re:Shaders

[tetuth]

BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work

Yes, with mathematics being extra important, which is why it totals to three halves. :P

There's a crucial difference

[Pseudonym]

Shaders as they will soon be commonly used in games are designed for making stuff look better than the Lambertian model. Shaders as they are used in visual effects and animation are designed for flexibility.

The biggest limitation on what you in the visual effects and animation businesses is smart and talented people. People cost more than hardware and more than software. Anything which can more effectively use "people time" is much better than anything which can more effectively use CPU cycles.

Therefore, in a perfect world (which doesn't always happen when you have tight deadlines and tight budgets), shaders are written in such a way that artists use their time the best. So, for example, you don't require that texture person to paint "colour" on that dinosaur, you let them paint "mud" or "wound". It's the same difference between logical markup and physical markup.

In the games world, I suspect that this level flexibility isn't quite so important as effective utilisation of the graphics hardware.

This, in conjunction with Blinn's Law, is one reason why games shaders and visual effects/animation shaders won't converge for a long time yet, though they will overlap.

Trickle down to the mainstream -

[jackDuhRipper]

Greetings -

How much of the code you've written and/or worked with over the years trickled down to mainstream users in meaningful ways, and in what timeframe should we/you expect this to occur?

i.e. How quickly does the software and hardware tools of your trade today become part of the arsenal of either home digital fx enthusiasts, hobbyists or "small film" makers tomorrow?

Re:Trickle down to the mainstream -

[Anonvmous Coward]

I find this question interesting as well. Lots of updates that we've seen to Lightwave, MAX, and Maya are a result of movie studios creating software to solve a particular problem.

As a matter of fact, a studio recently announced that they're productizing a compositing package they developed called 'Nuke'. I think 'Messiah' was the result of a similar effort.

I'm really curious what he has to say about this.

Ripe for re-creation?

[seldolivaw]

With modern FX, it's fair to say that anything that can be imagined can be produced on screen. However, that hasn't been the case until recently: if you had the option of re-making one movie of your choice (science fiction or otherwise) in which the imagination of the film-maker was clearly hampered by the technology available at the time, which would it be?

Role reversial

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently, movies are made overwhelmingly by being filmed by film crews. Computer-generated special effects are just used to add to what cannot be filmed. Do you ever see the day coming when movies are instead overwhelmingly made by computer SFX crews, with minor parts being done by film crews?

Cost

[Fembot]

When films are labled as "100$ Million on special effects" where does most of that money go? On rendering hardware or what?

My biggest question...

[JoshuaDFranklin]

Why did you work on Angels in the Outfield?

Seriously though, do you do any sort of screening or advice on use of effects, or just follow whatever the customer ordered? Surely you don't want your name plastered on effects that were an embarrasment.

Meesa Big Bad Ideeeea

[Lev13than]

How many years do you think the introduction of Jar Jar Binks has set back the quest to gain legitimacy for your industry?

How discretionary are you?

[Mr Guy]

In many movies, people walk away from them saying, "Man, they FORCED that CG."
How much discretion do you have in saying, "You guys should really do that with makeup effects."
In a corrollary, are you more in the CG-Should-Be-Impossible-To-Spot or the CG-Should-Be-The-End-All-Of-Effects camp?

Directors approach?

[FurryFeet]

I'm guessing you get to work pretty closely to directors. If so, can you tell us what is their approach to the new tools technology has given them? Are they still "thinking celluloid" made cheaper by rendering it digitally, or do they really seek to break the mold and make shots that were previously impossible?

best way to get into the industry?

[josepha48]

What is the best way to get into the computer generated special effects industry? Is it who you know or what you know? If it is what you know what should one know? (Programming, graphics tools, etc...).

Re:best way to get into the industry?

[davechen]

Pixar has a nice FAQ for people interested in jobs in CG animation.

http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/jobs/faq.html

Included is a list of schools with good graphics and animations programs:

http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/jobs/schools.ht ml

Texas A&M has a really good visualization that's kind of half way between the tech side and the art side. UNC (my alma mater) is really good for computer graphics, but they're more into interactive graphics as opposed to animation.

Re:best way to get into the industry?

[King of the World]

What is the best way to get into the computer generated special effects industry?

Blackmail. Definately blackmail.

Re:best way to get into the industry?

[josepha48]

"Its hard to get into the industry with a salary"

I already know people that do things like that. They are school teacher or web masters. They are not really "IN THE INDUSTRY" they are more like hobbists.

I also know people who went to art schools and that is the obivous part. School is important to get into just about any professional job, and in some cases what school you went to can help you get a job. The question is actually referring to after school. I have a friend who has a masters from an art school in NY (not sure which) and he has done some work that was exhibited in the National Museam of Art in DC (computer generated interactive world). So he already has the school and he already has some experience. The quesition is more of what programs / programming languages should they know to work at places like pixar, industrial light and magic, and hamermerhead productions? Or does it help more of who they know to get in? Once you have the background what can make you actually stand out and shine above someone else and get hired for money???

Let's talk jobs

[allagash]

What would you suggest to a C/C++ programmer who's insterested in the SFX industry? I assume you need to know OpenGL, linear algebra, Unix, maybe Renderman. What else is suggested -- demo programs, networking at SIGGRAPH, database work?

Also, what's the state of the SFX industry? I know it went through a shakeout a few years ago.

thanks.

What movies have impressed you?

[Anonvmous Coward]

When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.

For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.

I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.

I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"

Project you'd like to tackle?

[seldolivaw]

This might be construed as off-topic, since it's not about technical aspects of CG, it's about the artistic side of CG. But hear me out:

Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?

[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit! :-)]

Startide Rising and the Uplift Saga

[FreeUser]

David Brin's "Startide Rising", then the following bootks in the series, in order. (I'd skipped the one the preceeded Startide Rising).

Space Opera, Space Battles, deep characters (both human and non-), excellent storyline, great drama.

Re:Project you'd like to tackle?

[seldolivaw]

Who says it has to be 150 minutes? LotR hasn't done too bad a job (so far), by taking the enormous Rings books and turning them into 3 movies (although I tend to agree with many that it could easily have been six). The movie-going audience seems to have redeveloped a taste for the epic movie ever since the 3 hours of Titanic. The Foundation saga could be turned into one movie per book and be interesting without losing too much detail.

What's the effect that makes you cringe?

[Dj]

What's the effect or CGI animation that makes you cringe the most when you see it used, or overused?

Reduction in man-hours for CG?

[ceswiedler]

At one point, as a film student, I was interested in computer animation as a way for a single person or small group to produce a film, without the expense of locations, casting, cameras, etc. I thought that soon, as hardware and software improved, it would be possible for me to create a film on my own computer at home.

But my experience in animation in college taught me that increasing hardware capacity doesn't reduce the time it takes to produce a film or demo reel; it simply increases the quality of the final output. I imagine that the modelling, animation, and rendering of the scenes in Tron took as much human time as comparable scenes in Fellowship of the Ring. It's possible to render Tron-quality CG in realtime on a modern PC, but nobody wants to watch it.

My question is this: do you think it will ever be possible to produce a full-length CG film in about a man-year or less, with effects which are reasonbly "modern" for the time? Will the technology curve eventually flatten out, once we get to a certain point where the human eye can't really tell the difference? Or is it implausible to think that a single person or small group could provide all of the artistic input (scriptwriting, directing, modelling, animation, acting, etc) to produce a full film, even ignoring all technological constraints?

Re:Reduction in man-hours for CG?

[captaineo]

You hit the nail on the head... Current CG tools make very inefficient use of artist time. It's hard to put together an animated short (of decent quality) on any kind of constrained schedule.

I estimate that 70% of labor time on my recent NASA animations (maasdigital.com) was devoted to mindless tedium like queueing up renders, splitting scenes into different elements for compositing, shuttling video files through different editing systems, etc. The actual creative work got lost in the noise.

But solutions are coming. Maas Digital is working on much better tools; just watch us =).

[/shameless plug]...

What resolution are the effects in?

[NeMon'ess]

What is the approximate resolution of film per square inch or centimeter? What resolutions are effects rendered in and how has that changed since Willow or T2?

CG only vs. CG + LA

[Rui del-Negro]

As a complement to Mr Guy's question (above):

Do you prefer the freedom allowed by CG-only scenes or the challenge of mixing CG and live action in the same scene (regardless of whether it looks realistic or "in-your-face" CG)?

RMN
~~~

How far from "Real-Time" preview are we?

[wowbagger]

On the "Shrek" DVD, they have some honest-to-goodness bloopers (rather than the contrived bloopers on the Pixar films). Most of these stem from rendering goofs (such as the "ChiaPet Donkey" sequence, or the "Exploded face" renders).

Now, obviously the days of photo-realistic rendering at realtime speeds are long off (since the more CPU you have, the higher you define "photo-realistic"), but for the normal preview work, how close to real-time are we? For example, are we looking at 10 to one (ten seconds to render one second of preview), or what?

Where is the line in the sand?

[wfrp01]

Who makes the decision about where CGI ends, and reality begins? What factors come into play when making this decision? How do you expect to see this line in the sand evolve over the next ten years? I'm sure different movies approach these matters each in their own fashion. Are there any generalizations you would make? Care to share some fun industry anectodes?

Does the MPAA listen to you?

[mcfiddish]

Being someone who uses computer technology to benefit an industry that in many ways is actively working to stifle that same technology, do you feel you have some standing to show people with power in the movie industry that technology isn't something to be afraid of?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying someone like Jack Valenti probably has more respect for you than he has for your typical Slashdot geek. :)

What is in store for us?

[gosand]

How far ahead are you of what is out in theatres now? By the time they are released, movies are always behind the technology, simply because they take time to produce (and the technology moves so fast). Movies like Shrek and Monsters Inc, which really pushed the capabilities, were in production for years. I am sure T2 took a lot of time as well.

What is going to wow us when it comes out? How much further ahead are the things that you are working on now?

Killing the Classics

[Skyshadow]

Several directors have recently released "special editions" of their classic movies which subtly change the films by using computers effects to either clean up the old effects or (far worse) alter the original film.

The problem that I have with this is twofold: First, these "special editions" seem to be the ones that show up on TV and on video rental shelves, so that they and not the original become the pervasive copy.

Second, I can foresee a day when older movies are edited in this fashion so they can be remarketed to audiences with more "modern" attitudes (think similar to Speilburg taking the guns out of the hands of the pursuing authorities in the ET rerelease).

Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes? Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?

Re:Killing the Classics

[ByTor-2112]

Mod this one up. It is a VERY legitimate concern.

Lucas, I want the ORIGINAL star wars on DVD. Not your crappy "special edition" or a 3rd "ultra special edition" where everything is CG.

Re:Killing the Classics

[pete-classic]

God damnit. Why did you have to bring that up? I always manage to go blind and deaf for a moment during that scene.

I don't really mind the new release of the classic trillogy. I really liked EPII. EPI is looking better to me as more context surfaces.

But the Greedo thing really pisses me off. Comeon, a bounty hunter that shoots worse than Stormtroopers? Han just sits there and lets Greedo get the first shot? What a load.

-Peter

Re:Killing the Classics

[lfourrier]

See: colorization of BW classics.
Read: Remake, by Connie Willis.

Special effects to much these days?

[anewman]

Do you think that these days, with digital technology being more affordable for more people in the industry, that special effects are being used too much, and are being used as a substitute for other cinematic elements?

How do you feel about piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who makes his living off of movie sales, you must hate to see a movie you've spent months working is released online before it even hits the theatres. Every time someone downloads a movie rather than paying for it, that's money right out of your pocket.

On the other hand, you're also a programmer and linux user, and must surely be aware of the danger posed by over-broad intellectual property protection laws. It's possble that the same laws that ensure your livelyhood will end up making it harder and more expensive for you to do your job.

In your unique position, you must have a better insight into piracy than the average slashdot reader, or average policy maker. How do you handle this dilemma?

Movie sound

[z4ce]

I was wondering if you could give a brief overview of special effects in sound. What is the best for the movie experience? SDDS, DTS, DDSEX, Dolby Digital, Dolby Stereo? Does it really help to go to a theater that is THX certified?

Thanks,

Ian

question for thad

[Jucius Maximus]

Thad: When designing tools for making 3D scenes or characters, how much does real world physics play into what is generated? Do you use fluid mechanical models to generate the flow of water over a waterfall or the movement of a large tree affected by a mass of air? Do you use vibro aoustical and biomechanical models to determine they way a CG mechanised character will walk?

In essence, how much do you take real physics into account when designing something a CG item to emulate a 'real' item on screen? What is the balance between physical limits and creative freedoms?

Is the rate of CG innovation slowing down?

[tinrobot]

It seems as though artists can pretty much do just about anything with CGI these days. The technology is pretty ubiquitous, and it seems the only barrier now is simply artistic talent and ability. It almost seems as though CG is 'good enough' for most applications. I've also noticed over the past few years that Siggraph conferences are getting smaller - does this represent a slowdown in the rate of technological innovation?

Not Possible?

[Joel Ironstone]

Is there anything, an effect or otherwise that you don't see being possibly to recreate digitally. If so then what and why does this effect pose particular problems.

SPX vs. Story

[unicron]

One thing that always gets me is that it seems more and more people are more willing to tolerate bad acting and plot than they are bad special effects. People will often whine more about an awful looking space attack sequence, for example, than they do countless bad performances in the same movie.

Do you think that your section of movie-making has become more of a backbone than it should be, and furthermore, do you feel that you should be held to the same standards and levels of criticism that acting and story are held to? If you choose to recognize your craft as art, I would say you're in for a much harder ride than if you choose to look at it as a science.

Lining my pockets...

[zulux]

Given you're in the thick of things...

Should I buy SGI stock?

Education

[gonemad]

What is your perspective on college education in the area of SFX? I have been looking to do my MA/MFA in a program that would allow for film/video and 3d to be together in a major but so far all is segregated...or do you think that independent learning is best? Looking for good recommendations before investing $.

Dropped crusade against Pixar patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard a rumor that you dropped your "crusade"
against Pixar's software patent on deep-shadow
technology?

The rumor implied you were "bought-out"?
Care to comment/share your thoughts on software
patents in the VFX industry?

Where do you draw the line

[ByTor-2112]

How do you feel CG is effecting films? These days many films opt for fake sets and sequences while the stunt men who worked so very hard in the 80's go begging for work. I always find it very easy to spot the CG textures and colors (can't you guys pick a color palette that actually occurrs in the real world?), and find myself increasingly disappointed by CG even as it "advances" every year. Do directors and producers give you the opportunity to offer input about the overall quality of a CG scene -- whether or not it will be convincing?

I've got two...

[brogdon]

This is probably the most obvious question asked so far, but...

1) Is there a particular shot or effect in a film you've worked on of which you're the most proud? Does one in particular stand out to you as the best you can do (or could do with the equipment of the time)?

2) Have any of the techniques you personally created (and there must be at least a few after three decades in such an innovation-intensive field) been picked up by others and adopted as standard techniques by the other effect houses? Maybe you were the first person to use a shoe as an off-in-the-distance star-fighter, or you invented the blue screen, something of that nature?

CGI alternatives

[Strange Ranger]

Do you think CGI can too often be seen as a "suppressor" of other art forms? The specific example in my head right now is Old Puppet Yoda vs. New CGI Yoda, we haven't seen (AFAIK) any major puppeteering work in cinema in a long time. Other possibly "suppressed" art forms might be makeup art, the art of the stunt man, set construction, backdrop painting, cinematograghy, heck even acting could be listed here. Will CGI be escorting some or all of these art forms down the same path as Silent Films, blacksmithing, and totem-pole carving?

Do you ever want to say "Hey this would be a lot better if it were done with [not CGI] instead"?

Location of your industry importiant?

[Capt_Troy]

Hi-

I have always wanted to work in your field, yet, as ironic as this is about to sound, I turned down an offer from ILM because I could not afford to live in Silicon Valley being married with one child. Apartments (crappy ones by the way) are 3 times as much as the house payments I currently make and apparently you have to send your kid to private school there. It simply was not doable. Most of the ILMers I spoke to lived with 3 or 4 other ILMers in order to afford the living expense.

If I read your website correctly, you are located in Los Angeles. I am interested to know how you feel about this situation. All of these facilities seem to be in California, where the cost of living prohibits many excellent programmers from working there simply because they have to support a family (not a bad thing). Is it possible that such a facility as yours could exist in a less costly location, or is the vicinity to the film industry too importiant to overlook in this way?

Thanks, loved TFATF by the way!
Troy

LA -v- Silicon Valley

[gruntvald]

though still high, the rents & housing costs in LA are about 1/3 to 1/2 that of Silicon Valley. I believe the bulk of the digital effects companies are in or near Pasadena, and you can rent somewhat affordably in that whole corridor, or if you don't mind the commute, further north.

Intellectual Property

[SkyLeach]

As a person who has, in the past, written some small amount of graphics filters and post-rendering effects I know that I personally have leaned heavily on open source projects (i.e. Gimp, GtK) and more-or-less open standards (like OpenGL) to learn most of my graphics programming (monkey see monkey do style).

In a field such as yours the latest and greatest rendering techniques, fractal algorithms, filter effects and post-render effects appear to be the only thing setting you and your company ahead of others in the field.

In light of this, and the apparent probability that you learned many of your programming techniques from those who came before you, what is your view of Open Source? Do you show your techniques to others and allow them to learn from them or do you consider them closely guarded IP?

What do you see as the future for SGI?

[Fluid Donkey]

I ask this s a long time "fan" of SGI. Given their recent history. What do you see as their future. Can they stay competetive in the high end graphics stations with cheaper Linux solutions popping up? Or do you think they would be better off focusing on their x86 based server stuff? Or something all together different?

The dark side of CG

[Ashtangi]

Given the power of the media, and Television in particular, to, as Noam Chomsky puts it "manufacture consent", do you see any sinister side to the ultimate perfection of CG? Given that media conglomerates do not act in the interest of their audience, and that the CG field will be getting better and better while the technology gets cheaper and cheaper, can you envision a day when we the public will not be able to differentiate from animated fiction and filmed reality? Right now things are pretty easy to differentiate, but what will the situation be in 10 or 20 years? Is there concern in the industry over this potential?

Linux and video

[MrResistor]

A little background:

Being fortunate enough to live in Grass Valley, CA, I frequently stumble across neat video-related projects and companies. In that vein, one of my classes recently had a guest speaker from a company that specializes in video I/O (I don't remember the name of the company, but they've historically specialized in conversion boxes). He was specifically talking about a product which is just coming out of developement now; an add-on card for Mac which did rendering and handled I/O between a dual-channel SCSI storage unit and a professional VTR. The product was Mac only, and the reason he gave was Quicktime, which he described as being kind of like a low-level multimedia API which was quite simple to write hardware drivers for. This brings me to my question(s):

How would you describe the present and future of Linux with regards to video I/O? Is there anything in Linux which is analagous to the Quicktime framework (in any stage of developement) in the sense that it would encourage developement of such hardware for Linux? I'm assuming you use Linux for rendering, do you also use it for I/O, and why or why not?

Hardware rendering soon?

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

I'd be interested to your response to this comment by John Carmack [slashdot.org] to the effect that "production frames will be rendered on PC graphics cards before the end of next year. It will be for TV first, but it will show up in film eventually."

Do you agree with John that the next year or so will see hardware cards with the power and flexibility (and software tools) necessary to replace software rendering farms for many tasks? If so, do you know what companies/tools he's talking about when he says, "I had originally estimated that it would take a few years for the tools to mature to the point that they would actually be used in production work, but some companies have done some very smart things..."? If not, why not, and when (if ever) do you think hardware will be ready to take over?

Re:Hardware rendering soon?

[Pseudonym]

With all due respect to John Carmack, I have to wonder what basis he has to make these remarks.

To be fair, "rendering" encompasses a lot of jobs across the industry. For example, there's a whole subfield of the CGI industry colloquially known as "flying logos", which may be a good candidate for hardware rendering in the medium term. However, certainly anything which has to be combined with a live plate will not have its final render done in special-purpose graphics hardware any time soon.

First, even before the end of next year, PC graphics cards will not have the level of filtering required for even a simple CGI element.

Secondly, rendering isn't as big a cost of the production pipeline as most people think, compared with modelling, animation, physical simulation, lighting and compositing. This is especially true when you consider that renders don't require human interaction, so can happen at night.

Thirdly, consider Blinn's Law. For the uninitiated, it's the converse of Moore's Law. Hardware may double in power every N months, but audience expectation rises just as fast. You will have to upgrade, and it's cheaper and easier to upgrade software than hardware, both for the developers and users of the products.

The thing that annoyed me the most, though, is this comment:

There will always be some market for the finest possible rendering, using ray tracing, global illumination, etc in a software renderer.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of CGI effects elements today use neither ray tracing nor global illumination. Even in those rare circumstances when they do, it's often used in combination with traditional scanline renderers. One setup, for example, is to let the scanline renderer call out to a ray tracer to handle secondary rays. Another is to render the same geometry using a scanline renderer and using a ray tracer then composite the results.

Speaking of movie effects.

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

I was wondering if you have any special tools/ideas/techs that you will be using you your new film "Blue Crush". I know it is about surfing and women, two of my favorite things in the world. Have computer graphics finally come to the point where you can render say, Pipeline on a 20 foot day, and be tricked into thinking it was real. Rendering a pitching monster over a reef and not looking fake is going to be one serious effect.

Thanks,

Open Source Contributions

[Picass0]

Have you released any of your software under the GPL, and do you plan to do so?

Future of Non-Poly/Surface Rendering Systems

[Effugas]

Point-based rendering has shown some amazing results -- QSplat [stanford.edu], for example, provides results in realtime that are flat out unimaginable out of traditional engines. Even higher quality output is coming out of the Surface splatting [graphics.ethz.ch] hackers.

Image based systems also seem to be yielding results -- Gondry's Star Guitar video, which showed scenes from a window of a train synchronized to music, was undeniably compelling and could simply not have been done with traditional 3D approaches. Schodel and Essa's work with Video Sprites [gatech.edu] are also quite impressive.

I don't mean to provide a litany of unusual rendering techniques for you to ponder. I bring them up because polygonal approaches have clearly yielded some incredible results, and I'm interested to know whether you think point-based and/or image-based strategies will yield similarly disruptive fruit. Also, I'm curious whether you're aware of any other particularly obscure but powerful methods for scene generation.

So, in short: What's next for 3D?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

What are your GCI pet peeves?

[CompaniaHill]

I've been in the graphics field in one way or another for twenty-five years (Siggraph member since 1982), so you know I love GCI and am familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. I also have tremendous respect for traditional film FX, and am sometimes saddened by the present overemphasis on CGI for everything when many types of effects could still benefit from a more traditional approach. So my question -- what are your CGI pet peeves, and why? Unrealistic design choices of shapes/colors/textures? Poor/no use of physics-based motion? The difficulty in compositing a unnaturally-crisp CGI object into an inherently-grainy film background? The insistence of certain studio execs to use CGI for effects that would be better served by other FX technologies? The inevitable tradeoffs of time/money/ quality? Or something else entirely?

Too Real?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Every once in a while, I look upon a breathtaking sunset and say to myself, "if that was CG I wouldn't believe it was real."

Do you ever deliver results that are too real and have the directors reject them?

P.S. How do such disasters as the fight scenes in Blade II slip through the entire production process?

what is your opinion of "digital" film?

[jdbo]

While I have been personally disappointed by the quality of "digital" film techniques (seen most recently in Attack of the Clones, and previously in some pure-CG/animated features such as Fantasia 2000), finding it to be a debatable "improvement" at best, I was wondering what the professional consensus is in the field re: the long term future of celluloid film.

In particular, I'm interested in finding out what the sought-after advantages on the production end are for digital film, vs. making use of more advanced celluloid based film approaches such as Maxivision [maxivisioncinema.com], which I find interesting (but have never seen).

Thanks!

Hardware acceleration.

[Christopher Thomas]

Are there any parts of SFX development that would strongly benefit from dedicated hardware that aren't already being served (be it in the rendering backend or the user tools)?

Irix, Linux, OS X?

[marhar]

How do you decide what runs on Irix
and what runs on Linux?

Are you doing anything with OS X?

Re:Fast and the Furious...

[Anonvmous Coward]

You'd be surprised. If you happen by a book store with an issue of Cinefex with Harry Potter on the cover, take a gander at it. They show some of the detailed effects used in F&TF.

Here's a short list:

- There's a CG scene where the camera follows the NO2 to the pistions of the engine.

- There were several shots with really sophisticated camera panning movements. This was done by using a cylindrical array of cameras and then composited in 3D. This created a computer controlled 'panning background' that could be re-animated as often as desired.

- There's a scene in the end where two cars jumped a train crossing, barely missing the train: The train and the cars were filmed at different times and composited. Whoever did the work did an awesome job of having the train reflect on the car to seal the illusion.

There were other effects too. I'm sure that the guys who worked on that movie would smile if they read the part where you said 'there wasnt any kind of effects...'. That means they did their job well. :)

Re:Fast and the Furious...

[Anonvmous Coward]

One of the effects I mentioned was in the trailer. Heh.

There was another movie not that long ago (forgot the name, it didn't last long in the theaters...) that used CG for car stunts. It was so obvious in the trailer I didn't even bother going. Ergh I have the image in my mind but no idea what the title was.

Re:Fast and the Furious...

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

This is one movie with a HIDEOUSLY done CG car stunt. I've seen better Playstation graphics before...

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0164334 [imdb.com]

Re:Fast and the Furious...

[Anonvmous Coward]

You win!

That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks. :)

Driven looked like a shitty movie, but they did have a scene in it I'd like to see. They used a combination of motion control photography and CG in order to have a car fly through the air in slow motion while the background was moving at normal speed. The idea was to deliver the impression of 'time slowing down when tragedy occurs'.

Filling a movie full of effects is not preferred, but using digital effects in order to convey a mood or enhance the story telling like Driven did is welcome and encouraged.

Re:Fast and the Furious...

[_aa_]

Most people don't know this, but Vin Deisel doesn't really exist. He's a 100% computer generated actor conceived by AOL/Time-Warner to replace an aging sylvester stalone.

Fincher

[Skyshadow]

I've always found some of Fincher's use of panning effects somewhat distracting. There are some points where it's really effective (think Fight Club), but others where you just realize "hey, that was an effect" (several times in Panic Room).

I am much more of a fan of Robert Zemeckis's use in movies such as Contact (the non-obvious effects bits), where you fly in through a window or where it's used to drive home something important, like the whole run-to-the-medicine-cabinet-suddenly-in-the-mirror bit.

Re:What it takes...

[tfelts]

Along a similar vein, if you had a young teenager who was interested in graphics, what skills should they start learning? What software packages (open source or otherwise) would they benefit the most from learning about? Should they
get going on Linux?

Re:Education and Background

[Das Kamikaze]

Is a plethora of CS and CG knowledge enough when creating SFX for movies, or do you find advanced knowledge of the movie-making art a requirement as well? For instance, are there times when someone is making an effect that looks good by itself, but breaks some of the "basic rules" of filming or the scene setup. Or instead, do you find yourself unencumbered by the those rules, and able to create more innovative effects without thinking about them?