— ROGERS

Archive
Author Archive

We were the main VFX vendor for a reasonably budgeted VFX film. One of the major sequences we did was the creation of a digital creature, a deformed (er, secret thing) which was based on marquettes made by a well known (er, secret) prosthetics workshop. Although initially, we were only contracted to do clean-up on a prosthetic suit we were asked to do a 3D version after the producers viewed some of our 3D “skin” tests.

These tests involved creating a digital version of the creature, giving him a fully “working” muscle system, and cladding him in a realistic digital skin. While the muscles and the skeleton of the creature had their own challenges, it was the creation of believable skin which proved the biggest challenge. We used a rendering/lighting technique called sub-surface scattering, which reflects light much like human skin (or any translucent thing). We also embedded a circulatory system into the skin (which provided a hint of veins, and changed the creature’s pallor as he became… er… aroused).

Feathering acceptably organic creatures, people, or whatever in amongst the real is an interesting challenge. The big studios have been doing it for a little while, with varying degrees of success, but suddenly the smaller “boutiques” can do it too. I guess the technology to user curve is shortening every day.

The applications are also very interesting.

Taken to a more zoological context, the same system can be used to create believable animal skin, wrinkling, musculature, and skeletons. The advantage of course, in being digital, is that colour, temper, action and speed can all be controlled in a very direct way.

Additionally, using the artificial intelligence (AI) engine in software such as Massive Prime (better known for making crowds of humans hack each other to bits), one is able to randomise/customise the behaviour of a many creatures. In this situation, it will be the subtle addition of chaos which makes it more believable. Using the AI engine from something like Massive will give that edge.

It seems the more chaotic or unpredictable the actions, the more invisible the work becomes…

Read More

lens.jpgThere is quite an interesting (old) post on Indie 4k about Birger Engineering’s 35mm stills-lens mount adapter for the RED One. The interesting bit is not the lens mount itself, but that you will be able to control aperture and focus from the camera, as well as getting “metadata” (much like the Cooke /i Technology), so your focus, aperture and lens type are recorded at the same time as the footage. The lens and the body, like, talk!

It is a screw-in/dust free job (similar to the already offered Canon FD and Nikon N adapters), so not a super-neat-o-pop-on-and-off solution. Not that you’d probably want that anyway.

Of course, pulling focus might be a bit of a problem with a stills lens—but that can be solved by using the related Birger follow focus disc. Or if you are cheap or otherwise inclined, with a third party addition such as the RedRock microLensGears which just clamp around the lens.

From reduser.net:

The Canon EOS EF Mount, designed by Birger Engineering, will enable the use of Canon EOS EF lenses on the RED ONE. Focus and iris will be controlled via the RED SuperGrip or by Birger’s own wired or wireless interface. Focus control is in 4,096 steps from CF to infinity. The Lens mount also requires a $75 LEMO cable. The follow focus disc is $300 and the required LEMO cable to connect it is also $75. There will be a wireless controller with an LCD and two control surfaces [a slider for iris and knob for focus] available for $600.

Available (or soon to be available) mounts are:

Canon EF-S (control iris & focus w/ “EFâ€� & “EF-Sâ€� lenses; available 15 December)
Sigma SA (control iris & focus; available 15 January)
FourThirds (control iris and focus; available 15 February)
Nikon F (control iris with “Dâ€� & “Gâ€� lenses, focus with “AF-Sâ€� lenses; available15 March)

Whichever way, it would seem like a pretty cheap way of expanding the lenses at hand, especially if you don’t have a case of Cookes sitting next to you. Considering RED branded lenses are rumoured to be re-stamped (and re-housed) Sigmas, perhaps there is not too much optical consideration required?

However, there is a question of what crop-ratio this lens adapter gives you. Of course, it will be the same as a 35mm motion camera will give you, and not be what a stills camera will give you. This is because the RED sensor (24.4×13.7mm) is much the same as a lot of digital SLRs (for example, Canon’s 40D is 22.2×14.8 mm). Which is also much the same size as a Super 35 frame (funny that). A 35mm stills image is larger (36mmx24).

36mm ÷ 24.4 = 1.475

The disparity between the digital sensor size, and 35mm negative size means you get ~1.475x “sensor crop“. Or in other words, if you have a 50mm Canon EOS lens, it will need to be multiplied by 1.475x to get the equivalent “35mm stills” field of view (in this case, 74mm).

As I mentioned, this won’t make a lot of difference, or be particularly enlightening if you are used to shooting (super) 35mm motion—because the result is the same.

Rather, it is just something to bear in mind if you are going to go the stills lens route. What you see through the lens in the RED or a 35mm motion camera, won’t be the same as what you see through a standard-sized stills camera. So your wacky 10mm lens is going to turn into a rather sensible 15mm (okay, okay, a 14.75mm [10mm x 1.475])…

Maybe it was time to trade in that Hawaiian shirt for something neat and black anyway…

Read More

Slim Pickens going down...

Is it just me, or does the news of the US shooting down a giant, degrading, flying fuel grenade, evoke an image of Major “King” Kong riding that A-bomb out of a B52? But now that China and the US are one-for-one, what’s next?

Read More

So iPhones are manufactured in China, exported to the US and Europe, only to be returned (smuggled?) to China and sold on the grey market…

“This is definitely one of the great inventions of this century.â€�

From the NYT
Read More

FRAMES AND TIMECODE

With everyone getting into a lather over DI, it is worth bearing in mind that when you have material on tape (or Quicktime) and edit it offline using timecode… then your data (DI material) needs to be matched back to that same timecode when you do the online conform.

You would think that this is obvious, but after hearing a recent horror story about an established post company failing to do that, I think it is worth spelling out a couple of techniques which will save a lot of eye-matching pain.

First, the easy way. The DPX file format has a place to save the timecode information inside it. The downside is that a lot of programs ignore this. Stop here if you are lucky enough to have one that does.

Second, the brute force method. First a bit of hoary theory, from me:

Think of timecode as just a frame counter, which uses the format of time, like a digital clock, to count. The lowest increment is a frame; then seconds; minutes; and hours.

Just like you can calculate the number of seconds in an hour (60 secs x 60 minutes); you can calculate the number of frames in an hour (e.g. 24 frames* x 60 secs x 60 minutes). Therefore, you can express a timecode as a number of frames.

For example 02:10:10:04 (24 fps) = 187444 frames.

So then, if you were to put that into a typical DPX sequence:

myfilm.00187444.dpx = myfilm (frame 02:10:10:04)

*The only important thing to remember is what frame rate you are dealing with (30 or 25 or 24 etc).

A lot of compositing and DI packages are able to translate frame numbers into timecode (RED Cine does this, Flame, Shake, After Effects, Film Master all do it too). It makes the transition between tape or Quicktime and sequences of images very easy. It also means you are not ripping your hair out when it comes to doing a conform.

Of course, this isn’t a new way of working, nor is it rocket science. If you are acquiring on film and scanning, or using one of those new-fangled digital cameras, it is all the same.

Don’t panic.

And if that seems like incomprehensible rubbish, it probably is. If you are still with me, then try this.

Read More