Miniatures, visual effects, special effects.......

[minieffects]

Great thread going here. If I ever become a bigshot VFX supervisor I'll be sure to get some minatures in there (if still viable by then ). Your work on Batman was stunning, as was Kerner Opticals work on the latest Terminator.

Thank you Gravy,
Im sure if thats your goal than you will be a VFX sup. some day. If you do keep your options open, dont be locked into one method simply because its what you know. As a supervisor its your job to pull together the team to accomplish the shot. You bring in compositors, matte painters, CG modelers, animators, and miniature specialists. Look at the shot, not the technique. Evaluate the best method based on your experience and the experience of the team you assemble.

And most importantly, have fun.

best,
scott

[georgeivan]

I love miniatures,inmho you can´t get more reality than from reality itself,to be honest i really discover that the batmovile crash sequence was a miniature here,its so well lighted.

So in my little mind until now i was thinking as a digital shot.

But again maybe some people recall bad miniatures and good ones are too good that past without notice in movies.

[Cobaltmax]

Scott, first of all, no need at all to apologize for the long reply. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say it's great to have professionals of you caliber posting here, specially from an area most people here do not know much about. Your input is very welcome and your "long" reply was not only a very interesting read by a fast one too and left me wanting more. In other words it didn't feel long at all.
I hope the art of miniatures never die. I really think they are the right approach for a lot of what has been done in CG lately. I wouldn't go as far as saying use miniatures for all as they did before CG because they did it for lack of other options and there are some things CG can be better. You said it best; use the best method to get the shot. But lately there are way too many corny CG shots which would have looked way more real if it was a miniature shot. Sometimes I really cringe when I see bad CG, like there was for example all over GI Joe.
I think when it comes to the efficiency of miniature shots one needs no better proof than your work in Shutter Island (haven't seen the movie yet though) and The Dark Knight. In the case of the batmobile you kind of question how it was done because you know doing that for real would be not only dangerous but almost impossible and you end up guessing either miniature or 3D, although it looked just too real to be 3D, specially when you compare it to 3D car chases like in some Michael Bay films where it can look like a video game. But in shots like those in Shutter Island I would have never been able to tell that staircase wasn't full size if I hadn't seen the behind the scenes breakdown for example.

Long live the art of miniature effects in film.

[minieffects]

Cobaltmax,
I hope that miniatures are around for a long time to come, but its people like you, members of the next generation of visual effects that will see to that. It would be nice to see miniatures survive as a viable technique as opposed to a quaint method they use to use in the early days of movies. But time will tell I suppose. I know that for me, Im quite proud and fortunate to have worked with some of the most talented people our industry has ever seen and to have been a part of some of the most memorable films of all time.
My only wish is that all of you have the chance to enjoy the same opportunities that I have.

-s

[minieffects]

This just posted, I thought you guys would enjoy it.

[Cobaltmax]

Another cool video.
I always wondered, do you guys build everything from scratch? Or do you use kit parts, toys and some other off the shelf stuff too?
Like the cars at 00:13. They look to be vacuum formed, maybe off the shelf radio control body shells?
Because some stuff like cars, specially for background etc, if they are already available it seems to me it would be a smart idea to use them and save time and money. I was once reading about the scale used for cars is normally between 1:8 and 1:5 with some special bigger 1:3 ones when needed. The batmobile and the truck look to be 1:3.
But 1:8, 1:6 and 1:5 are normally available RC scales.

[minieffects]

Another cool video.
I always wondered, do you guys build everything from scratch? Or do you use kit parts, toys and some other off the shelf stuff too?
Like the cars at 00:13. They look to be vacuum formed, maybe off the shelf radio control body shells?
Because some stuff like cars, specially for background etc, if they are already available it seems to me it would be a smart idea to use them and save time and money. I was once reading about the scale used for cars is normally between 1:8 and 1:5 with some special bigger 1:3 ones when needed. The batmobile and the truck look to be 1:3.
But 1:8, 1:6 and 1:5 are normally available RC scales.

These days we do for the simple reason that in most cases the items we are building simply dont exist as off the shelf items. If we are re-creating a city we will use off the shelf cars at 1:24th or 1:18th scale but for jobs like the Dark Knight we have to custom build at 1:3rd scale. The other reason is because we are matching something built by the production art dept. and it doesnt exist as an off the shelf item as in the case of The League of Extraordinary Men, we had to match the full size Nemo car in miniature. Of course when we can buy off the shelf we do but these days those kinds of jobs are few and far between.


s

[minieffects]

Behind the scenes video of Shutter Island on the New Deal Studios website.

[beaker]

I would love to see miniatures, practical effects and digital effects seen for what they truly are, tools in the toolbox. You use the right tool or combination of tools to make the shot work and support the story. That is what our jobs are supposed to be, to support the story, not show boat the latest particle animation software or how clever we can be with miniatures or pyro. I feel that visual effects companies have gotten to caught up in their own hype. A lot of them have lost sight of what our jobs are supposed be and now its about trying to out do the vfx done last year. In my humble opinion.

Aren't you blaming the wrong people? For the most part directors and producers are doing this, not the vfx companies. They like flexibility and the ability to wait till the last minute to make a decisions. Cg gives you a little too much of both of those which makes people lazy on committing to anything. Endlessly exploring to the point of being ludicrous. Miniatures on the other hand requires a plan that you pick and stick with. It takes how long it takes and there aren't huge shortcuts like cg has.

Personally I think vfx people don't sell themselves enough. All the high up non cg people think we are monkeys hitting buttons. Too many undersell what they do and tell everyone it is easy. Then your dead in the water because the producers don't think your so special anymore and hire someone else.

By they way, thank you. I worked on The Dark Knight miniatures of the tumbler hitting the garbage truck. You can also see a lot of our miniature work in Shutter Island as well. Every shot of the light house and ward C is a miniature. Perfect example of digital and practical/miniature effects used to support the story.

As for only doing vfx that supports the story, I'm sorry but that is just a cop out. Hunter Gratzner and now New Deal has done big over the top miniture shots for years before cg came along. Sour grapes I say. You guys would jump at doing it again if offered. A recent example was that floating house you guys did for Xmen. Was that really supporting the story and not showboating? Also there are the Armadillo shots you guys did in Armageddon, or the Total Recall reactor, etc...

I respect what you do. I worked in props and some miniatures for a small time before I went into cg. Many of the guys I went to school with still work in it at New Deal and other places around town. The smelling of MEK, polyurethane resin and bondo brings back memories of home. Though my lungs are probably happy that I don't have to deal with it every day anymore.

[minieffects]

Aren't you blaming the wrong people? For the most part directors and producers are doing this, not the vfx companies.

Beaker,
Im not blaming anyone, simply making an observation. I feel that the cg artist have gotten a bad wrap personally. They have become the workhorse of the industry because of people who dont understand the process whether they be Directors, Producers or otherwise.

Personally I think vfx people don't sell themselves enough. All the high up non cg people think we are monkeys hitting buttons. Too many undersell what they do and tell everyone it is easy. Then your dead in the water because the producers don't think your so special anymore and hire someone else.

Sadly this attitude isnt directed at just VFX people. Anyone below the line is treated this way.

As for only doing vfx that supports the story, I'm sorry but that is just a cop out. Hunter Gratzner and now New Deal has done big over the top miniture shots for years before cg came along. Sour grapes I say. You guys would jump at doing it again if offered. A recent example was that floating house you guys did for Xmen. Was that really supporting the story and not showboating? Also there are the Armadillo shots you guys did in Armageddon, or the Total Recall reactor, etc...

Its not a cop out, its a preference. And its not sour grapes. You misunderstood my point. VFX in general has become a gimmick not a tool and yes its the studios , directors and producers to blame because they are all trying to out do themselves simply to get people in the theaters. Look at the 3D trend happening now. If you had read carefully you would have noticed that I wrote "not show boat the latest particle animation software or how clever we can be with miniatures or pyro." I did not single out digital effects. Practical effects do the same thing because its whats asked for today. Again I was simply making an observation and expressing what I prefer to see vfx used for.

Beaker, I hope that you are not in anyway angered by what I have posted, it was not my intent. I was simply pointing out my preference and humble opinion. I think vfx people in general are looked down upon by production and its sad. We are all fighting to survive in an business that is in a constant state of change. I can only base my opinion on what I have personally seen and experienced for the last 21 years. I am more than willing to admit when Im wrong about something so please dont feel that I am trying to force my way of thinking upon anyone.
peace

scott

[beaker]

Of course I am not angry. I'm making conversation. I just thought you were beating on cg a little much but obviously I missed a few points.

I personally like the one-upping each other with big movies. I see it as being like Nasa and the government used to be with technology. The most extravagant movies pay for indy movies and drive research which trickles down and makes things easier for everyone else in the long run. You need variety with movies, not everything is meant to be art.

Also don't you think that the big extravagant movies have driven your craft? Discovered a new material, process, etc.. or a new way to do things because of that big project with the fat check came in and the entire house was full of artists bouncing ideas off each other?

[minieffects]

Also don't you think that the big extravagant movies have driven your craft? Discovered a new material, process, etc.. or a new way to do things because of that big project with the fat check came in and the entire house was full of artists bouncing ideas off each other?

Absolutely, and thats the beauty of what we do. So many ways, so many tools and so many talented artists. I was only expressing my personal preference of what I like to work on. I dont want to suggest in anyway that the larger more effects driven films are not important to the work we do, believe me I have worked on my share of them. But the ones Im most proud of are the ones that people really have no idea how it was done simply because it wasnt thrown in their faces. The work being done today is incredible and the abundance of artists out there is in abundance. Unfortunately as you said we are used then forgotten and replaced with something or someone cheaper. My greatest fear is the artistic craft of visual effects being lost in the advance of technology. I hope that doesnt happen and I think its people like us that have to make sure that it doesnt. We are artists first, technicians second. In my humble opinion.

best,
scott

[mikke]

Hello all. I just ran into this conversation while net surfing and wanted to make a few comments.


I’ve watched a few dozen real live (1:1 scale) vehicle stunts being done in person, and I can usually pick out miniature vehicle shots in a movie very easily. But the work with the 1:3 scale stuff in those recent Chris Nolan Batman movies has stumped me as effectively as anything ever has.

Lots of miniature shoots get photographic things like the depth of field & frame rate correct. Fewer of them get the models to break & bend & crumple correctly. But with the Batman work, the physics and mass of the vehicles actually looked almost as heavy as the real thing does. That made a HUGE difference. The stuff looked heavy on film, and the appearance of gravity was still fast enough to know it wasn’t just done with severely increased frame rates. The miniature props had to be pretty substantially built to move like that.

It also helped a lot that the camera actually moved during some of the shots. That is another thing that seems to be pretty rare in miniature shots, I guess because of the difficulties imposed by the smaller scales that are commonly used. Score another one for the large scale of the Batman movie work.

I find that these kinds of general physics problems are bigger giveaways with modern FX work than most other things being focused on. People often have big discussions about the details of surface textures or contrast matches in the compositing, but if a crashing airplane moves like it weighs 1500 pounds then no amount of photographic perfection will ever sell it. CGI, miniature, whatever.

[minieffects]

Hi Mike,

Well the truth is, they were really heavy and moving at an extreme rate. We calculated that their was about 400 lbs of impact force when the two vehicles collided. The Tumbler had a steel sub-shell and had to weigh more than the garbage truck. The garbage truck was fabricated out of various materials that in combination gave the effect of crushing metal. Both vehicles were pulled towards each other using very large servo motors as were the cameras. If you want a closer look go HERE and click on The Dark Knight poster. Dont forget to maximize the video window so you can get a better look.

enjoy

scott

[mikke]

Oh, I do realize that the cameras were recording at much more than 24fps for those miniature stunts. (I'm thinking it was somewhere in the ballpark of 42-44fps?)

I was just referring to the miniature FX world's practice of starting with the formula for frame rates in relation to scale, and then slowing the motion even farther to compensate for the insufficient mass of the miniatures. That practice works to some extent, but fixed speed of gravity tends to give it away when the miniature components are too far from realistic weights for their scales.

That's a very interesting video about the whole thing.

I'm amazed at the total size of the set that was built for that garbage truck scene. Did you originally plan for possibly doing more with that set than the garbage truck scene? Or was that whole thing built just to make sure the camera could move around within the set during the truck shooting? I'm not surprised about the length of the road lane itself for the truck crash (it was obviously necessary), but there seemed to be quite a bit of additional set constructed outwards laterally.

A stunt like that really bumps into the limitations of what can happen even with the 1:1 scale vehicles. I remember seeing it in the movie theater and immediately thinking, "Good lord, how in the heck did they get a grabage truck to do that?!? They must've REALLY hollowed out & pre-weakened the truck!" (I didn't realize it was a miniature shot on the first viewing.)

My first guess was that the truck & background were 1:1 real events, but that maybe some kind of big heavy ramp/wedge made of steel framework had been driven into the truck to force it into the ceiling. (And then the steel ramp/wedge thing would have been replaced with a CGI batmobile image in post.)

At any rate, it all looked extremely good. I'm also impressed that the ceiling of the lower Wacker drive miniature set didn't look flimsy during the impact shot at all. There must've been so much force with that impact. The fast frame rate would have totally revealed any flexing in the set's ceiling structure if it had been there.

- mikke