Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Also looking forward to the new season of Game of Thrones -- starts on the 7th of Sedecimer (7/16)
How about a set of stories about special effects? Assuming that stunts count as special effects.
.
A friend of mine (yes I do have some actual friends!) discourses on scientifically accurate superheroes. Worth a watch.
Very good!
Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!! Your friend was great. Of course, I had to google the Vasor 136.
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/day-trained-sniffing-bees-here
Shape of things to come
Day of trained sniffing bees is here
Published 29 March 2010
The bee’s discreet sense of smell, equivalent to a dog’s, is being exploited as a much cheaper way to detect various odors in the environment; a U.K. company is now training bees to sniff out explosives and land mines — but also to identify diseases and cancers in people and animals, detect rapidly spreading bacteria in food, and identify dry rot in buildings
Bees are extremely important to our ecology, but they are becoming important to our defense against biological and other weapons as well. The reason: the bee’s discreet sense of smell, equivalent to a dog’s, is being exploited as a much cheaper way to detect various odors in the environment (we have been following the intriguing potential of bees for a while now; see, for example, “Los Alamos Perfects Bee Explosives Detection Teams,” 30 November 2006 HSNW; and “Bee Alert Technology Offers New Explosives Detection System,” 9 March 2007 HSNW).
As far back as 1999, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Controlled Biological Systems Program funded a bee-training program to detect buried landmines, so that many thousands of acres of the world’s land could be productively farmed without encountering landmines.
A bee’s natural instinct is to extend its proboscis when it encounters a desirable odor, anticipating the taste of a flower. The bees used in the 1999 DARPA experiment, however, were trained, via classical Pavlovian conditioning, to respond to the odor of TNT instead. Their reward when they responded with a Proboscis Extension Reflex (PER), was a taste of sweet syrup. Then, trainers attached small diodes onto the backs of TNT-trained bees and used handheld radar tracking devices to chart where the bees went.
Stunts ARE special effects ;) Or is it the other way around? ...yes. It goes both ways. Then, when we further alter the footage: previously in chemical ways, now done digitally, this is what's now known as Visual Efects. So that's the (new?) separation of the two terms: Special Effects are done 'in real life' during the filming process, while Visual Effects are 'added' after filming - in other words: Post work.
So in Carrara, I consider any effects that I create which are rendered in the same pass as my initial 'beauty pass' as Special effects.
I'm very bummed about my current absence from this forum. Like I said before... this is not 'the way of things', just a temporary thing.
However, my Beautiful, Wonderful Wife just bought for me the new BluRay (+ DVD + Digital) of the new Rogue One, which comes with the few behind the scenes clips that I love so much, and I had to find a way to fight y way onto the forum to report something from it in regards to the Uncanny Valley, which I thought was being heavily debated in this thread, but maybe it was the Promo Reel thread instead?
Anyway, there was no way that the team from Rogue One wanted to include any of the older characters from Episode 4, A New Hope, unless it could be done in a very believable way. John Knoll, now head of ILM, whom also created the story for the film, knew it could be done by his team, so he guaranteed it so they could include these ever-so-important tie-in moments into the film's story.
To do so, they picked actors to play the parts, speak the lines and fill the roles to later become replaced by digital doubles.
If any of you have seen the film, you'll agree that they've really succeeded to beat that Uncanny Valley!
Yes... those of us whom might watch these older movies several times a year will notice that something is a little different about these people... but damn... do they ever Look Alike! Turns out that they don't looka alike at all. They used facial motion capture as we've seen done before. But ILM being ILM, they've gone the extra many miles to make those seconds of performance look absolutely magnificent!
Full of emotion and all of the quirks, these digital actors are the real thing! Further, ILM has even developed their own real-life HDRI projection for lighting actors and scene elements instead of the previously used green screen technique, which provides far suprior lighting. And since it was all connected to a gigantic gimbal that threw the actors around as if they were really experiencing the movements of the shot, their emotions are often very real - they really were tense or even scared!
ILM and Lucas Arts have been blending art and story as one since their beginning. It's actually why they were created in the first place.
I commend them and thank them immensely for so generously passing all of their knowledge down the chain to the rest of us. I can hardly wait to see what they do with VR and AR with their ILM X-Lab division! Immersive Storytelling, they call it! ;)
L8r
(contains Rogue One Spoilers - do not read if you haven't seen the film). I thought that Grand Moff Tarkin was very well done in Rogue One, although I thought that Princess Leia was not completely convincing - which in a way is comforting in that even the great ILM sometimes struggle to pull something off totally convincingly. I am sure it is only a matter of time though before it will be completely seamless.
I thought Leia was disappointing. Tarkin worked well until he spoke, then I wasn't convinced. Although I think it would take someone unfamiliar with either actor watching it to know if it really passes the Uncanny Valley test. Because I know neither actor is real, I can never be totally convinced.
Like I said though.. this is because 'we know the people being portrayed'. I wasn't convinced either - and I agree with Tarkin's voice, but even his mouth... but if we didn't know these beloved actors, would we even know they were CG? I doubt it.
To me, it was much better than doing like other franchises do and just swap actors to represent the same person - like Agent Starling in sequels to Silence of the Lambs. If it's not Jody Foster, just make it a different character altogether. The Mummy three... now that was disappointing.
Sure, we 'know' that Carrie was no longer 17. But it still looked like her. Not exactly, but darned close enough.
Wow. I never knew there was so much controversey around this. Why this surprises me, I don't know. I guess it's great that people are so critical because it makes us endeavor to become better artists. I just wonder if many of these people, pointing fingers, take the time to also look at themselves and their own work, under such scrutiny. After some looks around, I don't believe they do.
Anyway, here is what we're talking about, for those whom might not know, and don't mind a fairly major spoiler to the movie. In my opinion, I don't think that seeing any of this would wreck the viewing of the movie if one has never seen it. I know it wouldn't wreck it for me. But they are major reveals that were rightfully kept hidden prior to the release of the film.
Here is a special news cast on the subject of the movie's uncanny valley work:
This one (at the end) shows the final shot of Princess Leia after an interview regarding the controversey with Director Gareth Edwards:
(EDIT: Even if you don't watch the clip, this image is the CGI version of Leia)
...and, just for kicks, an interview with the lovely actress whom played the role of Princess Leia for the CG character:
Personally, I was wishing they'd have used the voice actor who played Tarkin in the Clone Wars. He spent a LOT of time getting the character of Cushing's awesome performance down to a Tee. The rolls of the Rs, the proper pronounciation of the 'wh' sound: You may Fire When Ready, as opposed to You may Fire Wen Ready. But I still loved how they pulled it all off. It was an amazing job and played an incredible honor to the actors whom played the original roles.
But that's my opinion. Again, I'm often very easy to please - especially when it comes to art-driven features like this. I was also incredibly pleased to see the immense nods to our beloved Ralph McQuarrie through the entire film!
Okay, back to Star Wars Celebration 2017 Orlando! L8R all!
LOL!!! At Star Wars Celebration today, George Lucas says something like:
(and I'm only paraphrasing here) "You know, I'm not really supposed to say this - I wasn't supposed to say it then and I'm still not supposed to - but I really made the movie (original Star Wars movie) for twelve-year-olds. I wanted to make an adventure with high morals and most of all fun. But also... you're twelve, you'll be growing up soon and leaving your home, the security of your parents, making new friends, making new discoveries, making decisions. It would be great if you stick closer to the Light Side of the Force, and try and keep away from the Dark Side. Temptation can be high and even hidden."
"Then, many many years later I was filming Queen Amidala in Spain at a National Monument, all fenced in, and kids of all ages, even really Really young ones who couldn't even know who I am, were reaching their little hands through the fence in the hope that they could touch me - they loved Star Wars so much."
"Of course there are the critics and, even many of them are also fans, are quite blunt and often not very kind or even respectful of another's work. But seeing the reaction of those kids... it forgives all else. That makes the whole thing worth while!"
He looks out and pans his hands out toward the thousands gathered to attend the celebration:
"This forgives all... This (which was, of course, entirely unexpected at the initial creation of the first film) makes it all worth while!"
==========================================================
Then, throughout my entire time as a Star Wars fan, I hear the question: Why the phenomenon? How did it grow to be so huge?
There have been many answers over the past four decades. The timing for something so light-hearted and colorful was beyond perfect, in a world of disaster films and movies about dark heroes on the cusp of being actual villains, themselves. The musical score, which was another huge risk at a time when the US was entirely dominated with Disco, forced emotion, excitement and heroism beyond anything else in that time. The effects were state-of-the-art at that time.
It's true. Star Wars was a huge risk. It was something very fresh at a time perfectly executed. But the main overall answer of them all comes back to the story. If the story wasn't as powerful and successful as it is, it could never have held up through all of this.
So here we have a true scale with weights on both ends: Story vs Effects
George Lucas: An Effect without a good story isn't much of anything - just an effect.
George is not known as being a great writer. He was still changing his script while they were filming in the desert. Few of those working with him had any faith in the project at all except, perhaps, his new effects company, ILM, whom were all most excited to be doing what they were doing - designing and building their own, custom micro-processors since there were no commercial personal computers in 1975. They got to build crazy models and the rigs to film them. Create immense mat paintings on glass. Resurrect trashed multiple film printers... they were living a dream!
In the news video above, John Knoll says that it's very fitting (again, just paraphrasing a point, not a literal quote) that it be Star Wars which takes these steps into the new ways of doing things - that's where it all started to begin with. And I agree with him, but more... I think they've truly achieved a believability in their work, no matter what the discerning critic might think. As I've said, I knew there was some form of trickery involved, but I had no clue that those characters were entirely CGI! Kudos to them for getting it so right!
Working with my own digital characters since 2010, and still working on them to this day - even though realism and exactness was never my goal - I know how, after a while, we have to stop and consider something complete 'enough', before working on it further makes it worse. I can completely understand their difficulty and I entirely commend them for pulling it off so well. Huge screen, I saw it in the theater - and loved it!
I feel like I'm beating this thing with a stick... but I am a huge fan of the work of these incredible artists at ILM (and many others) and am immensely grateful that such a company was formed and was kept alive to flourish so greatly over these past four decades plus some.
I think I was 11 or so when Star Wars came out. Maybe that is why I loved it. However, I have retained the ability to enjoy movies aimed at 12 year olds my whole life, and I am eternally grateful. Long live Rocketeer!
Hmmm... I was 11 too! :) I'm eternally grateful as well, and I'm also incredibly grateful that you are too!!! ROCK(eteer) ON!!!
Agreed. I think I mentioned I had to drag my wife to see it, "A SciFi rocket movie?" But when that big honkin' ship came down from the top of the screen ... Okay, we're not in Kansas anymore ... and she was a big fan immediately. It's sorta like the time a friend played me his album by a new band, and I asked "Where did you get this?" It was the first US Beatles' album.
Perhaps the secret is that there's still a twelve year old child lurking within us all.
That's exactly how the roaring audience felt after he said that!
Kind of going back to that uncanny valley thing. I thought Tarkin was more convincing as a real looking person. Not a perfect Cushing, but close enough to the point that I considered a combination of prosthetics and some CG enhancement had been done, and not a full-blown 3D character. Leia on the other hand screamed CG at me, and I think it is because the area around the mouth, and the eyes/brow/forehead area reminded me alot- ALOT of the modeling and animation done on the characters in Polar Express and Beowulf. Maybe they had a team work on Leia that also worked on those movies?
If it comes on anywhere near you, I heartily recommend "Their Finest". Stars Gemma Arterton, Sam Claflin and Bill Nighy, none of whom have made a duff movie.
(also features some of that talking while not seeing the actors, being discussed in another thread...)
I got free tickets to a preview screening of Their Finest - and thoroughly enjoyed it, one of the best films I have seen a quite a while, so I agree with TA's recommendation.
I was 16 when Star Wars came out and had to see it with different friends about 6 more times before I graduated high school when the Star Trek the Movie debuted. I just couldn't imagine what Star Wars had that Star Trek didn't - the plot line and dialog in Star Wars was like not 12 years old, more like a fairy tale for 5 year olds. But the visuals in Star Wars were far superior, or so most people thought at the time and that's what I beleived sold, nothing to do with the dialog, Lucas aside. All the little kids wanted the toys - a good investment - the toys made more than the movie in the first year - go look on eBay to see what I mean.
Like it or not, tastes are going back a century or more; Charlie Chaplain, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd didn't have great dialog, they didn't have bad dialog - they didn't have ANY dialog and yet they are considered some of the greatest storytellers in cinema, including talkies. If you want dialog, write a novel; otherwise tell your story with great visuals - a picture that's not worth 1,000 words isn't really worth looking at, right?
Here's a link to a great story on storytelling from Getty Images - The concept of Visual Storytelling, which I think Carrara 8.5 is well suited for. The Getty article tries to elicidate what people are looking for and influenced by in visual media.
http://curve.gettyimages.com/article/the-power-of-visual-storytelling
Love the reference to the great silent comedians. Huge influences on me. Most comedy (and drama) depends upon context. For example, the audience may be set up to expect one outcome, but another is provided instead, or the audience is told something the character is unaware of. The needed context can be provided with another visual, or with a spoken line, or read from a written placard in a silent movie. The classic silent movie Metropolis, with all of its stunning visuals, has plenty of dialogue, but it is written on placards. In my view, the concept of story includes the relationship of the setup to the punchline. To paraphrase Idiocracy again, "you have to know whose as$ it is and why it is farting."
Here is an example of comedians placing otherwise boring visuals in verbal context.
Whose Line is it Anyway
Couple of minor additional points
Star Wars was the top grossing movie in 1977. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=boxoffice_gross_us&title_type=feature&year=1977,1977
This does not contradict that Star Wars also sold a lot of toys. Just making sure that people don't think that the reason the original Star Wars was commercially successful was because of the toy sales.
There are some (Joseph Campbell) who believe that the story told by Star Wars conveyed unversal themes.
Well if you think about it, much of the plot of Star Wars is similar to Lord of the Rings -- innocent youngster gets caught up in a giant adventure, a mentor who is in some ways more powerful dead, to destroy the super-powerful evil weapon you have to charge into the heart of evil territory and drop something in a hole...
Agreed, I avoid dialogue as much as possible in short animations, although admittedly its partly to save time in the 48 Hour film contests. No voice actor recording, no lip syncing, etc. But I do think a lot of filmmakers agree that dialogue can be eliminated in many instances. To repeat one of my favorite quotes: "At some point about halfway through 2001: A Space Odyssey here's what everyone should be thinking: 'WTF Stanley Kubrick? There's no more dialogue in this movie? I hate you.' No one thinks that because the film is a complete transfixing masterpiece. Kubrick has about 10 movies that good, and each is completely different from the rest."
http://gizmodo.com/5864704/film-nerds-are-drooling-over-stanley-kubricks-incredible-early-photography/
farm boy wants to get out of his boring town, turns out he has special powers, and when he gets to the big city the damsel in distress is actually a courageous alpha-woman seeking truth and justice, Luke and Leia? No, how about Clark Kent and Lois Lane. plenty of differences, also.
.
Yes, Star Wars follows a classic architype story - and with great visuals!
IMO, the story is BOSS. If you don't subordinate the special effects, the actors, the set, etc, to the story, you're like a guy in a canoe paddling upstream in a forceful current. You're not gonna get anywhere. Alll special effects must be justified. Do they advance the story? If they don't, you're just sinking yourself, no matter how "cool" you think they are. You're dead in the water.