PDA

View Full Version : Robert Rodriguez: SharkBoy and LavaGirl in 3D TRAILER


RobertoOrtiz
05-03-2005, 05:04 PM
How does this guy get the time?
http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?tab=main&mid=19470
or
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/STUVWXYZ/Sharkboy-and-Lavagirl/trailer.php

-R

MarkusM
05-03-2005, 06:00 PM
Cool. Look wise, it's a bit much like SpyKids, but I like that it's going to be 3D. I wonder what technic he is using for achieveing 3D.

Hugh
05-03-2005, 06:22 PM
Here (http://www.digitalgypsy.com/vfxlog/archives/2005/04/a_treat.php) is a blog post from one of the compositors on the film...

SheepFactory
05-03-2005, 06:24 PM
Saw this in front of Hitchikers guide. Cant say its well recieved by the audience.

jake_$teed
05-03-2005, 06:59 PM
God bless R.R. for keeping every shop in town busy.

hypercube
05-03-2005, 07:28 PM
Seems a bit cheesy, but I don't see a problem with that..it's a goofy fantasy movie for very young kids. While I kind of wish Spy Kids had stayed just a hair smarter (I liked the first one but they've gotten progressively 'younger', for lack of a better term), someone's got to make this stuff. As long as he has fun doing it..he does all this stuff so fast it's not like it's keeping him from making other films..heh. :)

I figure it's kind of a yin and yang thing, he made a dark gritty super-adult FX movie, now a strictly-for-kids FX movie. Just like not all fully-animated movies should have to be for kids, not all VFX-heavy live action movies have to be PG13+ action flicks. :shrug:

MarkusM
05-03-2005, 07:29 PM
So does this mean that RR is using two of the Sony Cinealta cameras to shoot the film?
Or is there a post process to creating the stereo from one camera (like what Lucas will do with the Star Wars films over the coming years)?
Hm, that wouldn't make sense if they have to post two image sequences separately.
Does anyone know?

hypercube
05-03-2005, 07:33 PM
Just like on Spy Kids 3D, it is shot and done in full stereo all the way through, so 2x everything..if you read Hugh's link it shows the doubled up composite for one shot and talks a little about it. Having had to do some comping into 3D footage for a motion ride it's definitely tricky but there's something pretty awesome about it when it all comes together.

leigh
05-03-2005, 07:34 PM
Does anyone know?

Having just finished up 9 gruelling weeks on this show, I do. The film was shot on two HD Sony cameras mounted together with one on top looking down into a beam splitter. It will be presented in anaglyph stereo (with the red/blue glasses).

I tell you, after this, I don't want to work on stereo again. Dailies gave me headaches and waiting for ALL renders TWICE is a real pain in the butt :argh:

MarkusM
05-03-2005, 10:18 PM
I feel for you. I know working in 3D that way is a lot harder since you can't cheat as much for the camera either.

Are you able/allowed to elaborate on your workflow and dailies?
Did one side get finalized before it went to stereo?
Did you watch dailies in stereo (which it sounds like you did), how often, and what equipment did you use to be able to see it in stereo?
What problems were noticed with 3D post more than others?

I always though the polarized stereo technology would prevail since the viewing experience is much better. I guess not.

DangerAhead
05-04-2005, 01:57 AM
3D method:

This picture should explain it.
http://www.negative13.com/images/3Dcamera.gif

erilaz
05-04-2005, 02:15 AM
I'm sure kids will love it! :D

leigh
05-04-2005, 07:16 AM
I feel for you. I know working in 3D that way is a lot harder since you can't cheat as much for the camera either.

Are you able/allowed to elaborate on your workflow and dailies?
Did one side get finalized before it went to stereo?
Did you watch dailies in stereo (which it sounds like you did), how often, and what equipment did you use to be able to see it in stereo?
What problems were noticed with 3D post more than others?

I always though the polarized stereo technology would prevail since the viewing experience is much better. I guess not.

I am not sure how much I can talk about the details of our pipeline, but let me answer what I can...

There isn't much to tell... basically all the footage was matchmoved, and stereo camera data was exported from the MM software (a few were used, as far as I know) into the 3D packages we used (not sure yet if I can actually say what those were). Each scene was then rendered through each of the two cameras, although sometimes adjustments were made to exaggerate the 3D effect.

Left eye shots were set up and put through the pipeline first. No point in clogging up the farm with two sets of renders for each shot just so we can look at the lighting and whatnot

Dailies were shown in both left eye, and stereo. We have dailies regularly. I don't know much about the projector and stuff but we watched dailies with the red/cyan glasses.

I am not sure I understand your last question - are you asking whether we would pick up problems in 3D that were not noticeable in 2D? If so, yes, that kinda comes with the territory. 3D is a tricky beast and if the convergence settings are even the slightest bit off, it can cause tremendous eye strain.

I am hesitant to really speak much more about the subject now though, as I don't want to tread on any toes of any sups, heh. I hope you can understand!

I always though the polarized stereo technology would prevail since the viewing experience is much better. I guess not

Apparently due to the requirements for polarised projections (the big silver screen in particular), it just became unfeasible. Cyan/red is the worst quality, but it's the cheapest to show across the board.

Beamtracer
05-04-2005, 07:43 AM
Hey, I just watched the trailer. Cool!

Thanks for your insight, Leigh.

I'll have to watch this movie now!

MarkusM
05-04-2005, 04:47 PM
Thank you. That's great information.

The last question was if you found consistent problems with certain effects to work in stereo.
For instance particle effects or character to character interaction between 3D characters and live action characters.

I vaguely remember talking to someone way back when who'd worked on a ride film in stereo and they had a lot of problems with the subtle shake frequency captured in stereo and motion sickness from it. They also found that the particle effects were problematic since they often ended up "driving through it" and had to cheat that.

Since the film is not a ride film I was curious if there were problem that consistently you had to struggle with, that looking back you'd like to have found a better solution for potentially.

Oh, and I so know what you mean about stepping carefully. That "making of" article in CINEFEX is what needs to count! :thumbsup:
Thank you!

angel
05-04-2005, 04:50 PM
Leigh, report to the principal's office...

:D

-

wmendez
05-04-2005, 05:56 PM
Hey Markus!

Hope all is well on your end! I know the guys at Hybride worked on this movie as well as SpyKids 3D hopefully I can get one of them to post their experiences.

Cheers!

MarkusM
05-04-2005, 06:28 PM
Cool Will. I'd love to hear more. Thanks. And thanks for the other help as well. :)

BillB
05-05-2005, 02:39 AM
Apparently due to the requirements for polarised projections (the big silver screen in particular), it just became unfeasible. Cyan/red is the worst quality, but it's the cheapest to show across the board.

Meh. They should just show them side by side and we can cross our eyes...
:bounce:

Thanks for the insights Leigh. Don't envy you guys comping that stuff!

Aruna
05-05-2005, 05:08 PM
Ah... So this is the thread that's sending all the traffic. ;) We just delivered our shots, which is a great feeling! Now all that's left is archiving and a postmortem along the line. Maybe some fixes today, but we'll see.

Hugh
05-05-2005, 05:18 PM
Hope you don't mind ;)

leigh
05-05-2005, 06:20 PM
Thank you. That's great information.

The last question was if you found consistent problems with certain effects to work in stereo.
For instance particle effects or character to character interaction between 3D characters and live action characters.

I vaguely remember talking to someone way back when who'd worked on a ride film in stereo and they had a lot of problems with the subtle shake frequency captured in stereo and motion sickness from it. They also found that the particle effects were problematic since they often ended up "driving through it" and had to cheat that.

Since the film is not a ride film I was curious if there were problem that consistently you had to struggle with, that looking back you'd like to have found a better solution for potentially.

Oh, and I so know what you mean about stepping carefully. That "making of" article in CINEFEX is what needs to count! :thumbsup:
Thank you!

I think the main problem we had to deal with was with colour - when creating stuff for anaglyph 3D, it's best to avoid red... which is difficult when one of the main characters has lava on her suit, and there is a massive volcano in the film. Red kinda disappears completely out of your one eye when watching through red/cyan glasses, so it looks flickery and frankly pretty horrible.

SNoWs - haha! :argh:

beaker
05-05-2005, 09:16 PM
We had dailies twice a day because we were on such a short schedual. I started getting headaches from wearing 3d glasses so I just had to only put them on for my shots.

MarkusM
05-05-2005, 09:31 PM
Interesting problem. The only way is to chose a different character really! :)
Thanks Leigh.

Beaker, I can't even imagine dailies when most of the crew is avoiding to watch the screen. Oh, and say hi to Mark from me.

Can't wait to see the film.

beaker
05-05-2005, 09:34 PM
Can't wait to see the film.hehe, I can. Maybe Ill bring my nieces to it, but otherwise Ill save my money. :)

MarkusM
05-05-2005, 09:52 PM
I am really interested to see where stereoscopic (or "3D") film making will take us in a few years. I am actually excited. I had hoped that we would see faster (fps) film instead of more resolution (refering to the 2k/4k race in digital projections) as the next step, but stereo is an interesting new avenue in storytelling perhaps. Not that I think this film will take advantage of it in a way I'd like to see perhaps. Nor is the technology there to make us forget about the technology and allow us to enjoy the story completely. So I'll go to see it as a step in our medium evolving technically. And I don't have a seven year old to use as an "excuse".

chrisWhite
05-05-2005, 11:48 PM
The general response of my self and everyone else in my animation lab was something like 'are you kidding me?' Not to be negative, but it looks like an even cheesier Spy Kids spin off. It may be good, but I'm not impressed with what I see now. :shrug:

worker_bee
05-05-2005, 11:51 PM
hehe, I can. Maybe Ill bring my nieces to it, but otherwise Ill save my money. :)

For sure....got to see some of it...and damn...cheezy as hell!

leigh
05-06-2005, 06:38 AM
I am really interested to see where stereoscopic (or "3D") film making will take us in a few years. I am actually excited. I had hoped that we would see faster (fps) film instead of more resolution (refering to the 2k/4k race in digital projections) as the next step, but stereo is an interesting new avenue in storytelling perhaps. Not that I think this film will take advantage of it in a way I'd like to see perhaps. Nor is the technology there to make us forget about the technology and allow us to enjoy the story completely. So I'll go to see it as a step in our medium evolving technically. And I don't have a seven year old to use as an "excuse".

Interesting to see someone excited about. Personally I have never enjoyed 3D and probably never will. This is one film that I am not likely to go watch.

beaker
05-06-2005, 11:47 AM
3d is awesome in the Imax with the shutter glasses. We are actually deliving L and R eyes, so they technically could show it in this format. The trouble is the horrible blue/green glasses which guarantees that it will go into every theater.

Aruna
05-06-2005, 11:45 PM
Ya, beaker, that's totally true. The IMAX experience in 3D with polarized lenses is THE way to view 3D in the theatre. It's too bad regular theatres can't implement that since they would need two projectors.

Unfortunately because of the depth of field and depth focus of shot footage, you're only really focusing on a small area of the screen! It would be great if the depth of field changes depending on where in the scene you're focused on. That would enable you to focus naturally on something in 3D, while the rest of the pictures goes out of focus, instead of manually adding defocus.

Leigh, that lava suit, eh, I don't know how they're going to display that correctly in the theatres! I'm definitely looking forward to more 3D (not necessarily this show) and high-def (4k and beyond) imagery.. There's no other way to go. ;)

jake_$teed
05-07-2005, 01:15 AM
The general response of my self and everyone else in my animation lab was something like 'are you kidding me?'

Yeah, but I bet every single person in your animation lab would give a nut to have worked at one of the shops that was doing vfx for it.

surlymonkey
05-07-2005, 01:18 AM
Yeah, but I bet every single person in your animation lab would give a nut to have worked at one of the shops that was doing vfx for it.


nope, it's way better to work on some anime crap in the animation lab for nothin'.




c




....oh I'm just kidding.

CGTalk Moderation
05-07-2005, 01:18 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.