theBRB Banner

 Forum      Theater      Contests      Stockpile

Welcome Guest.

Login | Register

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Old School  (Read 3394 times)
Blank avatar

djr33

« on: May 20, 2005, 11:05:15 PM »

I've decided we need a thread on the subject. CG gets too much attention thse days. There are so many cool ways to do FX through simple, REAL means. Discuss, post, share, whatever.

The only thing I really have to say at the moment is....

Long live stop motion!
Logged
Blank avatar

Funk, E

« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2005, 11:36:07 AM »

I'm not sure about that.  Stop motion has some pretty serious drawbacks to it...
Logged
Blank avatar

Fig



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 520


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2005, 11:56:54 AM »

Like shittyness, and a few other things, like more shittyness, and lack of moti- no, mostly just shittyness.
Logged

http://www.myspace.com/figchrystie' target='_blank'>MySpace.

http://www.jonvandergriff.com/fig/demo-reel-wmv.wmv' target='_blank'>Demo Reel

http://youtube.com/profile?user=TeagueChrystie' target='_blank'>My movies on YouTube.

http://www.jonvandergriff.com/fig' target='_blank'>The rest of my Movies/Effects/Stuff.
Blank avatar

artofwot



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2005, 12:04:43 PM »

This sort of reminds me of the thread on TF.N that Ripley made that big argument saying that you shouldn't use CG.

Yeah, that was a weird thread.
Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2005, 12:15:07 PM »

Firstly, this is for people who LIKE old school stuff, not to critisize  those  who do.

And you are absolutely right.... there are serious drawbacks to stop motion and just as many to CG.

I'd take Wallace and Gromit over Toy Story any day.

Also, have you seen ESB? The walkers are awesome... all done frame by frame, stop-motion.

Anyway, back OT.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2005, 12:29:27 PM »

I agree. I LOVE cg, but to not try other methods is just good old fashioned blatant close-mindedness.

In my opinion, if an effect can be done in camera, or later in CG, you should do it in camera, you know? Sounds obvious , but people don't think of it. They're like,

"How do I get a shadow to move across this person's face in CG?"
"You don't. You move something across it while your STILL FILMING!!!"

Though that's not a really good example, really.

I remember one time I made a movie which involved a little flying robot. For many of the scenes in which the robot was flyin' around, I just took the actual model I made (like, in real life) of the robot and hung it on a string, and just swung it around on the end of a broom handle. After the movie some people were like, "Holy crap! That robot was AMAZING! The animation was so fluid and the lighting... perfect! That was some amazing CG!"

I don't know what that means, but I think it's relevant.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2005, 02:00:08 PM by Mrdodobird » Logged
Blank avatar

Funk, E

« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2005, 01:48:26 PM »

The walkers were technically go-motion, weren't they?
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2005, 02:00:38 PM »

Yeah, but some people use stop-motion and go-motion interchangably.  
Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2005, 10:04:57 PM »

Nope. The walkers were stop motion. ...Or at least part was stop motion. I know this for a fact as one of the documentaries I've seen has them animating.... moving a foot, ducking back under the set, closing the hidden trap door, taking a picture, popping back out from underneath.... awesome setup.

Go-motion is awesome too... but its incredibly complex and almost more limited. You need to have the control rods, even in a perfect situation. This means you willl have to remove them, unless by luck, you can somehow hide them in your set. (good luck). Bluescreen is the easiest way, but this still means you have to have them behind your character. Otherwise, masking is the other (but annoying) option.



For those who don't know.... go-motion is the practice of connecting a computer via control rods (sticks,  basically) so that it records the positions of the body parts/control rods. This is done through gears, motors and the like. The computer then, through said gears and motors (and control rods) moves the character/figure/thing/whatever and the camera records it. It works almost identically to keyframing on the computer, except it is real life.
Basically, you animate the model, then the computer plays back the movement in real time (giving all the motion blur, etc that make it look real) and the camera records it like it was really happening.

I think go-motion is awesome. The most famous case of it may be the dragon in Dragon Heart... all go motion.

Also, funk, I'm not sure if go-motion was even around during the SW movies... I mean.... motion controlled cameras are one thing.... but actually replaying the movements of walkers? Hmm... maybe.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2005, 10:32:43 PM »

coincidentially, I am one of the people who uses them interchangably.  Cheesy  
Logged
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2005, 12:15:28 AM »

I started my new project today... building an army of SW clay figures.... yep. We'll see how that goes.
Logged
Blank avatar

JustinZ

Forum Admin


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1198


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2005, 03:02:27 AM »

Quote
I think go-motion is awesome. The most famous case of it may be the dragon in Dragon Heart... all go motion.

Also, funk, I'm not sure if go-motion was even around during the SW movies... I mean.... motion controlled cameras are one thing.... but actually replaying the movements of walkers? Hmm... maybe.
The dragon in Dragonheart was all CG.  You're thinking of Dragonslayer.  Also, The Rancor in ROTJ was done with go-motion.  I think, though, that go-motion doesn't play back large movements, but only small movements.  This still causes motion blur and makes it look more natural.

Justin
 
Logged

They thought it was love, but it was only the caffeine.
Blank avatar

artofwot



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2005, 04:20:04 AM »

I thought the rancor was a puppet, not go-motion.  But hey, I could be wrong.

I could have sworn I saw a rancor puppet in an old ROTJ making of movie... :huh:  
Logged
Blank avatar

KIRADOR

« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2005, 04:53:07 AM »

The Rancor was a puppet... and they used that puppet in the process of go-motion.

Another good example of go-motion is the 'bikes in front of the moon' sequence in 'E.T'........ Beautifully done.
Logged
Blank avatar

artofwot



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2005, 08:37:14 AM »

Right, but I thought... Oh, never mind.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: