Transformers

[arumiat]

So today I was in a store that was showcasing the latest in ultraHD TVs. On it they were running segments from the various recent Transformer movies. Ignoring Megan Fox for a minute, I was glued to the spot for twice-over the same sequence. The clarity of the CG and the way that it melds so perfectly with the filmed environment is really something spectacular and ultimately it looks believable. My appreciation for the making of such a thing is huge given even my small CG knowledge.

 

I was wondering, - what is it that sets such productions in the stratosphere compared to most of the stuff that floats around in the CG world?

The render engine used?

The render times?

The VFX that is composited into the CG?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts,

T

[Grimm]

I feel that most of it has to do with the artists who created the segments.  All the tools are pretty much the same, the only difference is in how the tool makes the job easier or harder, but the end result can be just as good no matter which one you use.  

[L'Ancien Regime]

I feel that most of it has to do with the artists who created the segments.  All the tools are pretty much the same, the only difference is in how the tool makes the job easier or harder, but the end result can be just as good no matter which one you use.  

 

 

yeah the range of results the same tools produce with different artists is vast. It's like comparing Digital Tutors tutorials to CG Society tutorials.. CG Society has some incredible digital  artists who just seem to be able to dream up amazing new tricks to play with any given software; they're original creative thinkers.

[TimmyZDesign]

I think a big part of making VFX look realistic has to do with lighting. Putting a cg character in a live action environment will always look fake unless the lighting from the live action shot is the same as the lighting on the CG character.

There are a lot of special tricks that are used to make an accurate record of the lighting in a real life scene so that it can be reused later in a 3D environment on a computer.

For example if you take a video of a real life environment, then you can also take HDR photos of a large highly reflective chrome ball which you place on the set. The photos of the ball must be taken right after you shoot the video (before the daylight or other environment lighting changes). Then you can use those photos to recreate the same lighting in a 3D scene on a computer. The photos of the chrome ball can be mapped to a dome shaped object inside the software, and that HDR photo itself can be used to light the 3D scene. This lighting trick alone adds a great deal of realism to the CG character. This technique can also now be used to light scenes in the upcoming 3D-Coat 4.5!

Of course the big studios who worked on Transformers don't use the chrome ball trick anymore. That method is reserved for productions on a much more limited budget. Instead they have very expensive cameras that take spherical photos (much like the camera which Google uses to take its Streetview photos for Google Maps).

Also they use special camera rigs that record all the movements that the camera makes in 3D space while shooting live action on set. Then that 3D movement data is matched to a camera within 3D software like Maya. That way the fake CG characters appear to fit perfectly within the live action footage. There is also motion tracking software (like Boujou) which is used for that same purpose when 3D tracking data was not recorded on the live action set.

So basically what I am saying is that a big part of creating the realism in movies like Transformers has to do with high tech expensive tricks, which are executed carefully by a big team of people. Each person excels at performing one small part of the project, and when all those hours of work are put together, they end up with some amazing stuff. It is the teamwork combined with clever technology which makes those movies so good.

To be honest I have often been surprised to work for film directors who can't draw storyboard pictures any better than a child. I know professional character animators who can't model anything worthwhile in 3D. Some of the people working in the film industry aren't even artistic people at all. Some of them couldn't even really be described as creative! But they are all good at doing something, and if you put them all together on a project, with a lot of expensive hardware/software, then it will probably turn out pretty cool...most of the time.

[digman]

Lighting the scene is indeed a big part the quality of  CGI plus composting of all the render layers. In older films and TV shows, the models looked fine but the lighting was not convincing.

 

Making of Chappie. A good article with some videos.

 http://www.fxguide.com/featured/the-practical-and-digital-tech-behind-chappie/

Edited April 24, 2015 by digman