PDA

View Full Version : INVICTUS :: Production Focus


PaulHellard
01-28-2010, 08:09 AM
Hey there,

The renowned team of Owens and Hancock at CIS Vancouver get together with Clint Eastwood. Their film, Invictus called for a recreation of the nation-building days after Mandela took over in South Africa.

Click the image to read about the VFX rugby fights.

http://features.cgsociety.org//images/plugs/feature/invictus_plug.jpg (http://features.cgsociety.org/story.php?story_id=5461)

Cyberone
01-28-2010, 09:39 AM
very nice Paul as always :)

Ive always been fascinated by CG work put in after a shoot that really could have been done with make-up at the time...I wonder at the economics of this but I know that its useful (if not to keep us employed if others cant think ahead...)

The crowd shots are great and the roto looks intensive but great :)

thanks :)

ediris
01-28-2010, 02:02 PM
A good FX is the one you dont noticed.
These one remains me of it.
Congrats to the many people involved in the project.
Edgard

jakeh14
01-28-2010, 04:55 PM
I understand the crowd expansion in post. I thought it was kind of cool to see what they did to the movie, as I wouldn't have expected any VFX in this movie.

One question though: there was a video in there of an actor having blood and dirt added to him as a VFX trick. Wouldn't it make more sense to do that with makeup during production, then touch it up as needed in post? I'm no film maker, but it seems to me it would make more sense to do it that way.

HellBoy
01-28-2010, 10:31 PM
One question though: there was a video in there of an actor having blood and dirt added to him as a VFX trick. Wouldn't it make more sense to do that with makeup during production, then touch it up as needed in post? I'm no film maker, but it seems to me it would make more sense to do it that way.

Yea, I was wondering the same thing too, it would be much cheaper too I'd assume

kael00
01-28-2010, 11:58 PM
Yea, I was wondering the same thing too, it would be much cheaper too I'd assume

This is just pure speculation but maybe it had something to do with the rugby.

If they had to do the scrum/tackle shots over and over again perhaps it just got too much/too long to have to fix up the fake cuts and bruises as they got smeared around after each take.

PaulHellard
01-29-2010, 12:00 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to do that with makeup during production, then touch it up as needed in post? I'm no film maker, but it seems to me it would make more sense to do it that way.

One word: Control.

[QUOTE=kael00]If they had to do the scrum/tackle shots over and over again perhaps it just got too much/too long to have to fix up the fake cuts and bruises as they got smeared around after each take.[/QUOTE=kael00] ...Exactly.

jakeh14
01-29-2010, 04:35 AM
I still don't see the pertinence. No disrespect meant, of course, but they've been making football movies and slasher flicks since the 60's. People have been sweating under makeup for at least that long (and certainly longer).

I think you could assert a good amount of control using makeup. And again, if there's a smudge or an imperfection, touch it up in post. Don't get me wrong, it looks great! Just seems unnecessary.

ninject
01-29-2010, 09:28 PM
Sorry, I think it's just absolutely ridiculous that they'd digitally add dirt/grime/scuff marks, etc.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that CG dirt elements had more perceivable "character" than "antiquated" REAL grime and dirt?

erilaz
01-29-2010, 10:02 PM
Sorry, I think it's just absolutely ridiculous that they'd digitally add dirt/grime/scuff marks, etc.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that CG dirt elements had more perceivable "character" than "antiquated" REAL grime and dirt?

Have you seen the film?

cavekid
01-30-2010, 01:54 AM
On first thought it is crazy not doing it for real in camera, but once you've had to do a few of these jobs yourself you realize why they do it.
Digital makeup is becoming more and more common, from removing acne from the kids in the earlier Harry Potter films (DNeg), to the cuts and abrasions in Invictus (CIS), to generally evening out bad skin to make a leading lady look better (digital foundation makeup effectively). I had a friend who worked on the scars and wounds at CIS, and I have been working on a large TV series the past year where I have added a number of wounds in post or made them look more septic, etc, when the producers haven't been happy with how the makeup came out. Yup, it can be like pulling teeth sometimes (lots of tracking in patches either with planar trackers or doing full matchmoves to drop painted up cards in to add these details, not to mention the roto), but it gives the directors/producers maximum control after the fact and time in post is a lot cheaper than delaying a shoot in order for makeup to maintain a prosthetic cut or add them on a busy shoot day where they might be bouncing from scenes with wounds to scenes without.
There is something satisfying about doing a wound effect and it looking so real nobody spots it as fake, ...the downside is if you have to see that character in multiple shots after that, it soon becomes a big pain in the butt as you repeat the process over and over again, and with something like Invictus where they had people getting scuffed up right through the game, it became an exercise in continuity as well, cause if you put a cut on someones leg near the start, every other shot after that with that character had to have it in as well. Ouch!!

jakeh14
01-30-2010, 06:01 AM
I'm quite surprised at the professional responses my comment got. I suspected I would get a "You're stupid, you don't know what you're talking about" kind of response (again, no disrespect to anyone, the OP in particular...but you know how we artists can be :-P ). Thank you for the amazing response.

I can see the use for VFX makeup. I think cavekid put it best when he said they commonly make wounds and scars and whatnot look MORE gross. But I also think he nailed it on the head when he said it can be tedious (my words, not his) to do the same scar over and over again. I still think the most amount of control could be executed by using both techniques in conjunction with one another. Makeup can make a good medium for marks and what not, but there's always the ability to add AFTER shooting what wasn't there before.

Anyhow, I suppose in the end it doesn't really matter what the VFX artist thinks. It's all on the producers, directors and writers to figure all that out.

TyroneMaddams
01-31-2010, 03:10 PM
Very nice work!

Will have to check this movie out :thumbsup:

- Ty

unxetas
02-01-2010, 09:00 PM
I can see the use for VFX makeup. I think cavekid put it best when he said they commonly make wounds and scars and whatnot look MORE gross. But I also think he nailed it on the head when he said it can be tedious (my words, not his) to do the same scar over and over again.

It would get just as tedious to do the same wound/scar day after day to a number of players at the set.. I see your point though. In reality, I expect it to be far cheaper to do these in post. I honestly believe that 2 days worth of work of ANY vfx artist is far cheaper than half an hour of set time..

There's also the small chance that these scrapes and bruises were a bit of an after thought.. Maybe not on Invictus, but certainly on other projects :)

foxco
02-09-2010, 08:01 PM
Congrats for a job well done, CIS!

CGTalk Moderation
02-09-2010, 08:01 PM
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.