Two Incredible Videos – that are a sign of the times and the future
Here are two incredible videos that speak to how things are changing… just watch them first – and go to the jump to read more on why I’m highlighting both of these besides their general awesomeness…
[vimeo video_id=”15630517″ width=”700″ height=”400″ title=”Yes” byline=”Yes” portrait=”Yes” autoplay=”No” loop=”No” color=”00adef”]
And…
[vimeo video_id=”17631561″ width=”700″ height=”400″ title=”Yes” byline=”Yes” portrait=”Yes” autoplay=”No” loop=”No” color=”00adef”]
So what makes these two videos special? Well the first one is ENTIRELY CGI – or created with 3D software on a computer – not a SINGLE frame was shot in the real world. Astounding.
The second video was also almost entirely created in a computer – with the exception of the actors who were shot on green screen.
If this doesn’t blow your mind – it should. We’ve all seen CGI for years – I remember back in the day with the first liquid chrome CGI Terminator… my how we’ve come a long way. CGI has been around since I first picked up a camera – in fact I was doing CGI when I was 15 years old prior to ever picking up a camera on my Amiga 500… now it’s come to a point where it’s irrelevant if it was done in CGI or in camera (in many cases…) Definitely in these two cases in my opinion. And that’s when things start to really shift in the business…
Truth be told, I wasn’t stunned by Avatar by any means – but I am by these two videos. Not only are they close to perfect – but they are also produced by very small teams of people… not HUGE Industrial Light and Magic type houses… these are fascinating days!!!!
Here’s the behind the scenes for the second video. To both parties CONGRATS!
[vimeo video_id=”17761334″ width=”700″ height=”400″ title=”Yes” byline=”Yes” portrait=”Yes” autoplay=”No” loop=”No” color=”00adef”]
Oh and one more from Alex Roman (thanks to Dany Jones for pointing this out!)
[vimeo video_id=”7809605″ width=”725″ height=”400″ title=”Yes” byline=”Yes” portrait=”Yes” autoplay=”No” loop=”No” color=”00adef”]
and if that’s not enough… speaking of the future: a little news about RED’s Scarlett. Here’s the first one in the “wild”…
[vimeo video_id=”17819409″ width=”725″ height=”500″ title=”Yes” byline=”Yes” portrait=”Yes” autoplay=”No” loop=”No” color=”00adef”]
If you liked that first video…then I’m assuming you’ve seen THIS. http://www.vimeo.com/7809605 AMAZING!
Vincent Laforet Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 3:20 am
@Danny, Yes I had seen it! Can’t believe I forgot to mention it! Thanks for the reminder – equally as stunning.
Danny Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 1:57 am
@Vincent Laforet, Any time brotha…anytime. Keep up the great posts! These times..they are a chang’n!! Woohooooo! 🙂
The first one, entire CG?
Well, I don’t beliefe that and I’m doing CG since a long time.
Both movies anyhow take advantage of a vintage film lock that makes typical CG elements almost invisible, cool stuff!
Vincent Laforet Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 3:18 am
@robert, Check your facts out before accusing that author of lying please… if you have points you’d like to make to call his claim’s legitimacy – then call them out. Otherwise realize that those type of accusations are pretty inflammatory. I can’t speak to the legitimacy of the CGI myself – but I don’t see anyone questioning him on Vimeo… and his work speaks for itself.
Tim Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
@robert, it’s completely legit. check out the BTS video – he quickly shows the render passes of many of the frames. the guy simply knows his stuff. I had to watch it like 5 times to convince my eyes.
Do you know he rendered The Third & The Seventh by his personal computer with a core i7 920 and a QX6850 CPU! I was heard from my brother that he spent several months on this personal project.
He is very patient! 😀
Samuel Hurtado Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 9:28 am
@Farsad,
Not just patient, plain crazy about detail also: he spent two months documenting himself about the vegetation around one of the houses featured in 3rd&7th
I would be very curious to know how much time it takes to produce something of truly realistic quality in CGI like Alex Roman does vs. actually going out and filming it in real life. There’s undoubtedly an advantage in the level of control that that CGI affords (no unintentional focus pulls, framing issues, etc…), which presumably counts towards some use of CGI in ‘real’ situations. I’m just wondering where the cut off point lies?
Samuel Hurtado Reply:
December 16th, 2010 at 10:21 am
@Luke Avery,
once he has the craftmanship and the stock of tools, he’s actually pretty quick for some shots, look at this making of
http://vimeo.com/8217700
some other shots may actually be much more difficult than this one, but on the other hand there’s things you just cannot get in the real world
The CGI in both is massively impressive (was not expecting the first one at all, I figured fruit frozen in liquid hydrogen then smashed at hi-speed :o) I think the main issue with CGI in films not commercials is the “Star Wars” effect. Actors performances being stunted by their surreal environment or bright blue or green.
I have a CG background myself– the first video is simply amazing, if it is truly CG (I’ve no reason to say that it isn’t). The second one I instantly picked out as CG, although pretty good CG with nice lens effects which help sell it! Great stuff.
@Luke Avery,
I’m doing similar work as these guys (but in a feature-film, not advertising context) and right now, both projects should still be considered visual effects and the products of post-production. The cost is high (very high, in fact).
The tech in production now will allow most of the second video to be lit, shot, and executed *without* it being a visual effect. *That’s* when the cost becomes a reasonable replacement for building and lighting sets.
Visual effects are still done in the new process (e.g. the computer screens would be vfx, just like now), but the bulk of the difficulty in doing the sets can be done virtually automatically, with at most a technical cleanup no more difficult than color grading.
That’s the future; Avatar and the videos above are just tastes of what to come.
Thanks a lot for also pointing out Alex Roman’s film. It’s a true master piece ! One more advantage – or feature is the fact that you can create sets and environments that would be impossible or too expensive to built in real !
The first piece is all well and good but the second one is a really beautiful piece of work, no dialogue, beautifully directed… CG aside, if this was all in camera it’d still be good and that’s the best way to judge any piece of effects driven work. Good spot VL, as always Vimeo such a brilliant showcase for this kind of work. Time to step up.
that second video is amaaazing
and now when i post a comment i get the making of aswell
damn vincent , u the froggin man !!!
Very impressive from a technical perspective. I wonder if increased use of computer generated worlds will ever produce the kind of acting, connection and compelling narratives that astound audiences. Avatar et al are fun, but by no means moving.
Living in reality is so much… more.
Man, am I the only one excited about the Scarlet??
ian hylands Reply:
December 15th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@Garrett Gibbons, No, everyone else is too stunned to say anything, or they’re too busy watching videos and just haven’t scrolled far enough down yet 🙂
When the window first opens in the second video, that woman looks like she’s CG, but then it seems she’s real. Freaky!
Only one thing bugged me, and that was the CGI didn’t line up with the projectionist’s typing, but otherwise, the merging of CGI+actors is great.
Amazing that no fruit was harmed in the making of the Silestone video by Alex Roman
Well, it looks like we might not need all those expensive cameras, lenses, and external gadgets after all! Just give me a fast computer and some top-notch CGI software.
I’m so glad that the lunar landing happened when it did. Some people still don’t believe we ever made it to the moon. If it happened today, nobody would believe it.
I can’t wait to see a CGI recreation of that event.
I thought the 3rd & 7th had a very Gattaca feel about it when I saw the scenes of buildings from the outside, then realised that the score is in fact from Gattaca.
OOHH! baby RED! Where’s my check book!
Vincent, it’s stuff like the above that makes your blog a must read every week. So much info on gear, trends, cutting edge of what people are doing, including yourself. I’m amazed by what you have posted. Astounding!
There is no doubt that this kind of work is visually stunning and amazing technical feat, esp. since they are done with little budgets and a lot of time and dedication, often by one person.
However…….I find the effect rather cold and distant, that it has a machine feel and certainly the content doesn’t add any human warmth. I’m sorry, but I really hope this isn’t the future of filmmaking…give me a good human story any day. A really good film doesn’t rely on technical wizardry…from an unapologetic documentary filmmaker.
Well Vince, Modo 501 is now available!
There’s no time like the present to “get into it” 🙂
VFX & CG …. it’s a slippery slope.
What I find fascinating is that you can let your imagination
run wild and visually fulfil your ideas …. i guess that’s what made Avatar what is.
Great stuff.
When CG shots get as good as the real thing it does begin to make people second guess reality, especially when you find a shot in real life that is a little surreal. This shot I took last winter had a few people guessing: http://vimeo.com/8914138
hi vince,
you do a fantastic job!!!
@ “modern times”: check this one: http://vimeo.com/11647455
it doesn´t have to look “high-end-futuristic” all the time 😉
all the best from germany.
jan
I would be very curious to know how much time it takes to produce something of truly realistic quality in CGI like Alex Roman does vs. actually going out and filming it in real life. There’s undoubtedly an advantage in the level of control that that CGI affords (no unintentional focus pulls, framing issues, etc…), which presumably counts towards some use of CGI in ‘real’ situations. I’m just wondering where the cut off point lies?
here’s another great video showing what CGI can do
http://vimeo.com/17991495
@Vincent Laforet,
I don’t doubt that it’s all CG. I mean, it was VERY impressive for CG and a great sign of the times– But wouldn’t it have been cheeper and easier to do some of those shots in real life? I mean, you shoot things like this, what would you have done if you were given this material?
It’s awesome, but I just can’t imagine that it’s incredibly efficient. At least not quite yet…
@Brenton,
And by “things like this” I mean commercial spots, not CGI fruits.
I cannot believe this. Why is do so many people shot with digital and have the camera on auto? I would have thought that the first thing you learn, in how to use them professional, is to be able to focus and set the shutter speed (on the subject) manual. Not the case in this video, as there is often no detail of the red camera as the video camera shooting this is picking up it light levels from the background.
@ian hylands, thats what happened to me! wow
Hi Vince:
Watching the Silestone video, this article came to my mind:
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/12/19/videogame-uses-32-cameras-to-reproduce-lifelike-facial-expression/
I believe that CGI and this “Facial Expression” are heading to the same place! I believe that pretty soon, with these two technologies , we’ll start to watch new movies with Brad Pitt and Humphrey Bogart acting together! What is going to be with usage/image rights if we’ll probably be capable of “virtually recreate” some dead celebrities to participate in movies, ads… Can you hire an actor “post mortem” ? Will the relatives be able to be compensated?