YouTube recommended this video to me and it really fascinated to me. I have yet to try and implement this myself but it seems really cool and I hope this technique really does turn out to be good enough to be used in production
Early 80s computer-animated short from the New York Institute of Technology's Computer Graphics Lab (1975-1992), much of it made from scraps of their attempt to make a fully computer-animated feature film in the early 80s, titled The Works. A teaser for The Works is included in this short as well
The first intro the series ever had that was almost entirely (except for the photos of Sylvester McCoy) computer-generated. Unfortunately the series would be cancelled in 1989, and this would be the final intro of the original 20th century run of the series, having launched in 1963 and lasted 26 seasons.
Computer animation created by Cal Videographics. Music by Keff McCulloch, arranging a theme by Ron Grainer
Second ever Doctor Who intro (after the one used from 1987 to the first cancellation back in 1989) to be mostly computer-generated, and evidently the first one ever rendered in an HD resolution
Tell me if this is a question for a different sub, but do movie mastering facilities aiming for like theatres use any published algorithms to measure the loudness of their audio? I've been getting the impression that they tend to use BS.1770, but somehow that seems too broadcast-oriented for that sort of thing. Anyone have any knowledge of that?
Anyone know that vocal fattening trick from like the 80s or the late 70s, where you send a vocal into two Eventide H910s (specifically H910s or some other pitch shifter that gets a bit glitchy and inconsistent; I have a plugin of that already), set one to shift one cent up, the other one cent down, and then in the downmix the two resulting channels are panned hard to each side? I tried it, but one major issue that I'm running into is that it's not very mono compatible! You introduce any kind of correlation between what your left ear gets and what your right ear gets, you're in phase city. How do you tackle that in our modern DAWs? Do you go in a mid side processor and completely mute that in the mid, and then mix that with the dry vocal that's already centre panned? or what do you do?
I would really like to recommend some resources for filmmakers who want to have VFX in their work and want to learn more about how this kind of thing works.
First of all, the book The Filmmaker's Guide to Visual Effects by Eran Dinur (preferably the second edition, currently the latest one). You can find it on Amazon here. It's relatively recent (3 years old as of me posting this) and very informative without being overly stuffed with technical details.
Second, while considerably more dated in some respects (over a decade old), the paid video series (originally a series of DVDs) Visual Effects for Directors from Hollywood Camera Work. It hasn't been updated since its release in the early 2010s, and technology has advanced a fair bit since then, but generally best practices on-set have stayed the same. The main page for it is here.
Finally, if you're really interested in how this all works, I recommend you read the articles available over on fxguide and Befores and Afters. Even the posts on their socials I find fascinating. Cave Academy also has a plethora of information on VFX, focusing on on-set information gathering. They have a wiki and socials where you can find a lot of info for free. And of course don't be afraid to ask anything you want in r/vfx.
The best idea though, even if you do any of those things, is to hire a VFX supervisor in pre-production, and keep them throught the entirety of production and post-production. So you can budget for the VFX, change plans if the original is too expensive, plan out the shoot, gather data and reference, get the best live action plate you can, and keep updating the budget so you can make the best decisions you can.
Not a tutorial per se, but I couldn't find a flair that seemed more appropriate
I would really like to recommend some resources for filmmakers who want to have VFX in their work and want to learn more about how this kind of thing works.
First of all, the book The Filmmaker's Guide to Visual Effects by Eran Dinur (preferably the second edition, currently the latest one). You can find it on Amazon here. It's relatively recent (3 years old as of me posting this) and very informative without being overly stuffed with technical details.
Second, while considerably more dated in some respects (over a decade old), the paid video series (originally a series of DVDs) Visual Effects for Directors from Hollywood Camera Work. It hasn't been updated since its release in the early 2010s, and technology has advanced a fair bit since then, but generally best practices on-set have stayed the same. The main page for it is here.
Finally, if you're really interested in how this all works, I recommend you read the articles available over on fxguide and Befores and Afters. Even the posts on their socials I find fascinating. Cave Academy also has a plethora of information on VFX, focusing on on-set information gathering. They have a wiki and socials where you can find a lot of info for free. And of course don't be afraid to ask anything you want in r/vfx.
The best idea though, even if you do any of those things, is to hire a VFX supervisor in pre-production, and keep them throught the entirety of production and post-production. So you can budget for the VFX, change plans if the original is too expensive, plan out the shoot, gather data and reference, get the best live action plate you can, and keep updating the budget so you can make the best decisions you can.
This is about my thesis titled a Framework for Imaging System Simulation and its open source repo. The platform seems to hate links in the post body so I'll attach them in the comment.
So far most of the applications in optical effect replication is directly operating in the camera space of the 3D software, which brings two problems:
But recall that in the classic Hopkins imaging equation, an image is but the integral of countless spots. If we can accurately separate the spots and the process of calculating them, it would then be possible to recreate the imaging process and its result. It just so happens that in media production, the information needed for calculating these spots are either directly accessible of exists in some latent form. So, if we treat a clean render as an ideal scene, sample from this scene to calculate the spots, then taking integral over all the spots, this would yield an accurate imaging result.
In this way, there is no need to re-render the scene, and we have much higher control of the imaging process. Additionally, such 2.5 D treatment also means that the framework can be placed at arbitrary positions in the pipeline, it can be integrated directly into the renderer ray tracing, implemented as a shader effect, or a node pass in post composite. This flexibility allows it to be included in the production while have little to no impact to existing studio workflow.
The core ideas of the framework are as follows:
Since the imaging process covers from optical physics [3], computer science, and signal processing, there are a lot of traps that I have fallen into during the development. Hopefully, me crawling through the pits will help others not falling in them and save some time.
In a selfish way, getting more people interested in this field also helps justifying my research direction. So please feel free to use it in whatever way you like.
At the risk of repeating myself, there's this actor and acting coach named Michael Keogh who coaches other actors and provides acting lessons under the label of "Inspire Actors UK". He makes some very bold claims there about drama school and more conventional approaches to learning acting. You can see for yourself here:
https://www.instagram.com/instakeogh
This is his acting coach account: https://www.instagram.com/inspireactorsuk
Is he trustworthy or just talking out of his arse? Does he have any existing reputation here and if so what is it?
Imagine if Rick Wakeman used his Yes money in like 1972 or something to buy a Moog modular, so that became his studio rig instead of the Mini (while the mini stayed in his touring rig for compactness). Imagine how cool that could've sounded
I keep seeing ads on Instagram for a thing called InspireActorsUK, whose posts are all "acting schools are too intellectual, we're gonna teach you how to REALLY act" and that sort of stuff.
Have you heard of them? Are they legit or just some charlatans?
When you receive a timelime with dissolves, if the client wants or if you think it's a good idea you can run your dissolves through Fusion and linearise them there. It's non-destructive, meaning you can still grade around it as before, and it'll look more like an in-camera change in exposure or like an old fashioned optical dissolve done with an optical printer. I hope you like this version of a dissolve and come to adopt it for your own work