Cool Making of Superman throwing the Shuttle Bit! (Sony Imageworks)

[LabRat1]

Oops, maybe I should have posted this in the news section and not discussion...

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=381751

[j00st81]

this is how it should have been like they promised in the burly brawl, doesn't get much more realistic then that

[Jadetiger]

Wow, I can't believe that was all CG. I thought there was some live action in that. I just saw this tonight. I was very impressed with most of the CG. There were two things that didn't look right to me at all though. The opening credits were hyper realistic which didn't line up with the movie at all, and the part where he is running and jumping through the corn fields was a little too obvious it was CG. But overall, very impressed. That shuttle/plane scene was great though. Favorite part of the whole movie.

[masse3d]

Wow that is cool...

I remember a lot of people complaining about how crappy the CG was for this movie. I think they were great. The one thing to keep in mind is that the viewer always judges the effects based on the worse shots of the movie, the obvious CG, bad composited shots.
Overlooking the best shots cause they didn't even know it was CG.

If anything people here should stop the "ohh that looks so cg, that company sucks" kind of comments.
First if you are here, you are part of this community. Those companies are part of this communitiy and provide jobs for lots of ppl out there.
Second I highly doubt the ones that make those remarks can do any better.
And Third If a FX company had unlimited money and time, there wouldn't be no CG shots. It would all look flawless.


JADETIGER

You remember the opening credits for spiderman2? same thing. They were stylized.
Seems like a lot of ppl out there think they were going for photoreal...

And I though the kid running on the cornfields was mostly live action. Except for obvious ones. But I remember seen a picture of a kid dangling from this huge cable rig that they used for this sequence.

[thx1173]

They shot a stuntman on a crane in the cornfield. That was live action. Might have been some digital double at some points, but alot of it was on set.

[noisewar]

If anything people here should stop the "ohh that looks so cg, that company sucks" kind of comments.
First if you are here, you are part of this community. Those companies are part of this communitiy and provide jobs for lots of ppl out there.
Second I highly doubt the ones that make those remarks can do any better.
And Third If a FX company had unlimited money and time, there wouldn't be no CG shots. It would all look flawless.




Well I am in that camp, but my reasoning is different. I believe the last fight was originally mapped out to happen in Metropolis, but due to story changes they couldn't do that. The "fight" in the final area (I won't spoil it) was significantly less interesting than if it had happened in the dense city areas. On that count, I felt they took a weaker knee'd approach, and tried to artistically justify it.

[gundog]

http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/supermanreturns/clips/shuttle_500.mov

[havokzprodigy]

He looks like a mannequin to me in that shot. Maybe it's the lack of facial animation? (his face is rock solid)

Sorry if that falls under "He looks so CG" category but he does. Unless it looks much different in the movie which I have yet to see.

[jubba]

They shot a stuntman on a crane in the cornfield. That was live action. Might have been some digital double at some points, but alot of it was on set.

They did indeed start out that way, but they ended up doing a lot of digital double work in the cornfield sequence - check out the link and listen to the podcast with the guys from RSP in Sydney who did the work:

http://www.fxguide.com/article360.html


j

[JByron]

That was CG? First Davy Jones, now this. Man, I'm trippin' balls. I am no CG expert, but I USED to think I had a keen eye.

We are entering a new era of digital doubles and I am very excited!

[Charkins]

I couldn't catch the CG until I learned it was infact CG. For just a moment in a whole movie, they pulled it off really well.

But for just that moment, I wonder why they didn't just comp the actor in? Probobly one of those "Oh! By the way, we need this shot!" calls 5 months too late.

I appreciate the insight, Imageworks!

[jubba]

But for just that moment, I wonder why they didn't just comp the actor in?

You'd still have to either use a digi double at the head of the shot and then hand over to the actor or stage the entire camera move for real. Staging the camera move would be very difficult to get it that smooth at that speed - near impossible I'd say. Motion control wouldn't be an option as there's no rig with a track that long and it wouldn't be able to move quickly enough in any case. A cablecam type setup might be an option, but very expensive and tricky to get right. Even if you did get that all working you'd still have to work out how to rig the cape to blow correctly (and continually) in the wind and also give the actor something to push his hands up against and then push away at the end. Getting the lighting right would also be challenging. Finally, the actor would have to be on an ascender rig for the entire shoot, which is a/ very time consuming (ie expensive) and b/ bloody uncomfortable. Digi doubles are getting better and better all the time and are now used so frequently in film making that they hardly merit a mention - the cool thing about this shot is the last second or two where you see his face so close up. That's the really hard bit!

j

[Thelvin]

I wonder why are there artists out there asking why are shots like these done in 3d; and that it is a waste of money and whatnot...

Without these shots we couldn't continue moving foward in the constant effort to duplicate life with the computer.

If anything, it provides artists out there with opportunities to work on something cool and fun while receiving compensation for it. Couldn't ask for more.

Let me just say, there is always a GOOD reason to go full CG on something like these, whether a bluescreen doesn't work, the shot was change, the shot was created last minute... etc

cheers!

[EricLyman]

If anything people here should stop the "ohh that looks so cg, that company sucks" kind of comments.

Couldn't agree more. This shot looked awesome on the big screen yesterday and still looks awesome on my monitor now. Each to their own, but I have to look pretty hard, frame by frame, to see that this is a cg double.

[jbradley]

Couldn't agree more. This shot looked awesome on the big screen yesterday and still looks awesome on my monitor now. Each to their own, but I have to look pretty hard, frame by frame, to see that this is a cg double.

To each their own, of course. I tend to disagree.

To me it does look completely CG - from the skin shading to the hair to the odd looking release of the shuttle as it continues on its way. I think some of the very realistic character renderings I've seen here on CG Talk are better.

cheers.

[havokzprodigy]

I can't understand the complete lack of any facial movement what-so-ever. Or how someone can look at it and see it as a real face. Thats one of the things that makes Davy Jones so believable is the crazy facial movements everywhere. If he had a face as hard as a rock he wouldn't of looked so believable. Other humans face don't move at all either the only problem is they are DEAD.

Thats what immediately jumps out at me. And when things like that are really obvious that is what destroys the illusion of reality in the brain(of those that are aware of its surroundings).

He's the man of steel not the face of steel.

[kag122]

To each their own, of course. I tend to disagree.

To me it does look completely CG - from the skin shading to the hair to the odd looking release of the shuttle as it continues on its way. I think some of the very realistic character renderings I've seen here on CG Talk are better.

cheers.

Hi jbradley,

You really are shooting yourself in the foot here in terms of credibility... The shuttle release seems odd to you, yet how many times have you seen this happen in real life? what reference do you have to back this up? Can you also point me to these so called cgtalk renders that are better? Are they moving? are they rendered at HD? are they made to match a real life person in any situation? are they ready to be projected on a massive screen, fit into the cut and work with the rest of the shots around.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

[EricLyman]

Can you also point me to these so called cgtalk renders that are better? Are they moving? are they rendered at HD? are they made to match a real life person in any situation? are they ready to be projected on a massive screen, fit into the cut and work with the rest of the shots around.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

Glad you mentioned those points. Creating a 3D asset that has to meet all of the above requirements is NOT an easy thing. It takes a team of extremely talented artists and very careful planning. Oh, and did I forget mention that the double was used for about 300 shots in the movie? While there may be complaints about the shuttle release sequence, there were doubtlessly scores of shots where we were just fine with the digital double.

[jbradley]

You really are shooting yourself in the foot here in terms of credibility... The shuttle release seems odd to you, yet how many times have you seen this happen in real life? what reference do you have to back this up? Can you also point me to these so called cgtalk renders that are better? Are they moving? are they rendered at HD? are they made to match a real life person in any situation? are they ready to be projected on a massive screen, fit into the cut and work with the rest of the shots around.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

What's credibility have to do with anything? I think you need a definition of credibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

It's my personal opinion that it was obviously CG and there was no live action. I don't need to back that statement up. I need give no reference, obviously, since nothing like this will ever happen in real life.

I'm not going to waste my time going through the CGTalk galleries or going over to the XSI site and picking out the many realistic face renderings around. The shot looked fake, cool but fake. Straight up.

I'm not saying it was a bad job. I'm saying that in this situation I could easily notice the difference between a live action and a CG fx shot.

cheers,

[JeroenDStout]

It looks like a low-poly age high-poly video-game cinematic... which is not good for a movie. I'm with jbradley, it looks very fake, the whole thing.
Perhaps different people look at different things for realism, or some people have higher requirements. Since apparently there are people who buy this easily :)

[havokzprodigy]

Perhaps different people look at different things for realism, or some people have higher requirements. Since apparently there are people who buy this easily :)

This seems to be the case.
I also noticed on this and another thread(whos line is it anyway thread), that people who are easily fooled get defensive and almost angry at the people who are not easily fooled.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.