• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
I'm still reading through it, but this is a pretty in-depth and fascinating conversation.

https://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1902-Spring-2019/Cameron-Favreau-Innovators.aspx

An excerpt:

F: I try to keep as much energy focused on the task at hand. So I find I get a lot of energy and recharge from being in my environment, being around my family, living at home, having reasonable hours—because these movies take so many years. The Lion King now has taken me three years. And that one starts off as an animated movie with storyboards and every way you break that out. Then, in sort of an extension of what I learned in looking at your work in Avatar, I understood through making The Jungle Book, we're working with those technologies.
In [The Lion King's] case, VR as opposed to motion capture. But essentially the same thing, virtual camera…


C: So you're standing all the creatures up with key frame?


F: Yes.


C: And then are you going in and doing all your cameras using the VR interface?


F: Yes. Because I kind of see each movie as a puzzle, and I try to apply whatever technology's relevant at the time to that puzzle. In Jungle Book, we had a real kid and parts of real sets, and so it was grounded through that. The characters that were CG and the set extended upon something organic. [On Lion King], there was nothing organic at all. There were no sets, there were no characters, there's no motion capture. There's no photography at all. So we eliminated lights and cameras and sets, and we created a volume, which was not unlike when I visited you as you were doing capture for Avatar.
So in Lion King, we set up the animation using the game engine Unity. We built all the sets first, and then we would go in VR to the environment. So we could actually walk around and would do scouts together, all in VR, in the real environment.


C: Using headsets?


F: Yeah. HMDs [head-mounted displays].


C: And how are you creating shots?


F: First we would go in there with (DP) Caleb Deschanel and (VFX supervisor) Rob Legato and (production designer) James Chinlund and just scout. It's like six people, in headsets, together, and we created basically a multi-player filmmaking game. And instead of just using a handheld on splines, with a screen, we used the hand controllers so we could scout within it. And then when it actually came time to film, we had a full crew in the volume.
So we had a dolly grip, a camera with wheels and cranes. And so the human touch and the analog feeling of the camera movements gave the key frame animation more of an organic look. And so by creating a really robust interface that mimicked the set, even with an AD [and] a full crew. So if you walked on our set, it would look like a movie set except you were in the middle of a black box.


C: There's no lights.


F: Right. And then when you popped on the headset, you would see the lights. Or the skydome. And we would move that. And so Caleb would prelight for a long time, and he's never been involved with any technology…


C: But lighting's lighting. I think it's healthy to have somebody who understands real-world lighting coming into a virtual world and approaching it as they would photographically.

C: It actually creates a new culture. The thing is we're in a merged state between the cinematic paradigm of cameras and cranes and Steadicams and all that sort of thing, and the VR paradigm, which is just the CG camera, which can go through the eye of a needle and rocket up to the top of the Empire State Building.
And what I find is that the Steadicam and the dolly and the crane that you are physically using on set—see, I rejected all that 12 years ago—and said, "I'm going to keep it in my mind." Because I've worked with all those tools and I know them. But where I think that can be super-important is if somebody's coming into it that never worked with all those tools, and if they just start flying the camera around, it becomes weightless and massless, and you get these impossible angles.
What I have is a top A-camera operator—a camera operator who's also a Steadicam operator, and he works with me. So I do the gestural camera. He says, "What was that?" And I say, "Well, that was a technocrane, and I was pushing out with the stick and then I rose up and I came over here." And then he'll refine the movement I did—smooth out the base-move but free up the rotation, so it can still have a little bit of a wheels feel.
 
OP
OP
Scullibundo

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
With his budget and how long it takes him, it better be. No excuse.
His budget isn't bigger than that of The Lion King. It's $250m per film.


Cameron describing what they've got going on while shooting the Avatar sequels sounds wild.

C: We did a lot of capture. We've got another problem too, which is we've got characters in different scales that are played by humans that are the same size. So I've got humans and now the Avatars. So we've got two adjacent sets in the same volume. On one I'll have a kid who's supposed to be a human kid, but he's acting to his Na'vi friend, a Na'vi teenager.


F: Simultaneously?


C: Simultaneously. So we've got a puppeteer who's got the Na'vi form, and he does the arms and the hand touches and all that, and so we're capping him against the other guy over there. They've gotten so good that we actually were able to have it sync perfectly. And we used little people.


F: For the other set.


C: For the human scale relative to the other performers. And it worked beautifully. And we have a stock troupe of actors that worked with us for about 16 months.
I think the eyelines and giving something to the actors is still the most important thing. You know, the tech can solve any problem, but it can't solve an emotional problem for the actor.
 

Kinthey

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
22,465
So in Lion King, we set up the animation using the game engine Unity. We built all the sets first, and then we would go in VR to the environment. So we could actually walk around and would do scouts together, all in VR, in the real environment.
A virtual set. That's actually pretty neat.
 
OP
OP
Scullibundo

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
A virtual set. That's actually pretty neat.
Avatar created the Volume - or the Virtual set, but what's interesting about Favreau's approach is that they're still using physical dollies and cranes to capture the virtual set. That they literally have grips donning VR headmounts is crazy lol.
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,687
I like how they both geek out about Fury Road.

Really great piece.
 

Loxley

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,652
At this point I'm almost looking forward to watching the making-of/behind the scenes features for The Lion King and Avatar sequels more than the movies themselves, this all sounds awesome.
 
OP
OP
Scullibundo

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
I like how they both geek out about Fury Road.

Really great piece.


lol right?

C: I never noticed that, but in Fury Road or Mad Max


F: …He keeps it in the cross hairs. That's why he can get away with all the things, all the manipulation that I couldn't get away with. He'll throw so much information at you and the effect is like you're strapped in the backseat of a car going 150 miles an hour. And you're getting overloaded, but to an effect that he wants you to have. It's not arbitrary and it's not the whole movie.


C: And he'll slow down, and he'll do static set pieces and then use the wide screen, the scope frame, which he loves—very Sergio Leone kind of compositions.
The act out for the end of the first act in Fury Road is probably one of the best peak dropoffs, stop-dead-cold moments I've ever seen in a movie. It's just like, "Can this get any crazier?" Then everything stops.
 

HStallion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
62,356
I'm far more interested in the making of features on the Blu Rays than I am either of the actual films they're making.
 
OP
OP
Scullibundo

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
This fucking guy...

People who come from photo chemistry and come from the physical world of cameras and lighting need to teach people who've never done that, and what the constraints are. Because those constraints, those kind of real-world artifacts [need to be created artificially]—because there's no lens and no lens flare unless you want to put one there; there's no camera vibration unless you decide to put it there; there's no raindrops on the lens; there's no air-water interface that you get from a splash housing if there's no splash housing.
If you've never been out in the world physically shooting and you're coming up in a CG environment as an animator or a shot developer or virtual lighter, I think we need to not just teach directors the effects. You need to teach the effects people real-world photography and those motifs so they can do their job better.
 

BUNTING1243

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,712
Ahhh I'm excited to dig into this. The part quoted in the OP about the virtual set for Lion King sounds FUCKING WILD
 
OP
OP
Scullibundo

Scullibundo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
The fact that Favreau makes it clear that all the performances are keyframed is interesting in terms of whether Disney could pitch it in the animation category for awards.

I mean, they'll almost certainly chase visual effects instead, but it really is an animated movie.
 

Zackat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,021
Well that was a great read. I could read/listen to them talking to each other about the craft all day.

The cross over of video game engines, VR, etc, into their work was so fascinating to read.

I am so ready for James Cameron to blow me away with Avatar.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
Best director for digital is Michael Mann.

The first thing you notice about Collateral is that it doesn't look like any other movie. Indeed, it doesn't look like film: unlike virtually every other digital production of the era, it embraces the peculiarities of the technology rather than scrupulously effacing them. It's clear in the way Foxx and Cruise are set in relief in their cab against the L.A. skyline behind them, or in the way that the city seems, in a way both natural and surreal, to faintly glow. "Michael wanted this sort of wraparound, non-directional lighting," Beebe later said of the shoot. "He wanted it to feel like there was no real source, to make it appear that everything was lit from the street by the street's own ambiance." It would have been inconceivable with 35mm. What Mann apprehends is that digital is not merely a replacement for analog film, but an altogether different palette, a different set of tools. And why work in watercolor if you want your painting to look like oil? You need to own the aesthetic you choose.

Some of the shots in his films, like the interior scene of the darkened office tower at night in Collateral, lit by the city outside, are just impossible with film. Mann embraces the differences of digital and seeks to create images that are unique to the medium and showcases its strengths. I feel like too many filmmakers try to make digital look like film.

9_collateralshk19.jpg


edit: I seem to have slightly misunderstood the premise of the article, lol. Uh... I'll leave this up anyway.
 

Timbuktu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,264
Best director for digital is Michael Mann.



Some of the shots in his films, like the interior scene of the darkened office tower at night in Collateral, lit by the city outside, are just impossible with film. Mann embraces the differences of digital and seeks to create images that are unique to the medium and showcases its strengths. I feel like too many filmmakers try to make digital look like film.

9_collateralshk19.jpg


edit: I seem to have slightly misunderstood the premise of the article, lol. Uh... I'll leave this up anyway.

I would agree, except he followed up Collateral with movies like Public Enemies. Seems like he hasn't done much in a long time actually. Has he retired?
 

Dan Thunder

Member
Nov 2, 2017
14,140
I would agree, except he followed up Collateral with movies like Public Enemies. Seems like he hasn't done much in a long time actually. Has he retired?
Isn't he still working on that Ferrari film he's been trying to get going for years? Last I heard was that Hugh Jackman was signed up for the role.
 

THEVOID

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 27, 2017
22,911
Well that was a great read. I could read/listen to them talking to each other about the craft all day.

The cross over of video game engines, VR, etc, into their work was so fascinating to read.

I am so ready for James Cameron to blow me away with Avatar.

Right? I wish there was a video of this. Cameron is never not interesting to listen to.