Is This a Lie?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Display Modes
  03 March 2013
Was anyone else expecting to see a picture of a cake?
Posted by Proxy
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by grrinc: Was anyone else expecting to see a picture of a cake?

Heh heh, well anyone who played to the end of Portal already knows that the cake was in fact a lie

  03 March 2013
In the interest of balance - I will say that we do seem to see a lot of posts from people who want their hand held through the entire learning process. I've just read a post on one of the subforums here that is pretty much along these lines (I'm paraphrasing, but really not much!)

"I want to make an animation that looks like this animation - (link to animation)
Please point me to a step by step tutorial explaining exactly how I do this.
Please don't point me to this tutorial though (link to tutorial) as I read it and didn't understand it."

So, I guess when we see so many posts like this (and we do seem to!) it does come across as surprising when someone goes out and figures this stuff out for themselves and produces something decent without having to have had it spoon fed to them.

I'm a big fan of animation as I guess regulars will be well aware, and I'm always interested in the life-story of famous animators and people like that. One common thing shared with people like Nick Parks, Ray Harryhausen, and even Peter Jackon is that as kids they all started making their own movies without any formal training. Yes their early attempts were crude of course, but the point is that they didn't let a lack of someone else to show them exactly what to do prevent them from getting stuck in, experimenting and figuring out things on their own. I don't think it's any coincidence that those are the kinds of people who are successful in their medium. Quite likely the guy who made this short we are discussing has a similar mind set. More power to him I reckon.

  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by grrinc: Was anyone else expecting to see a picture of a cake?

I was, actually.

And what The Jaco said in his first response was dead-on. Personally, I wish the movie-maker had gone the extra mile and avoided borrowing so heavily from other movies, especially the 2001 station. I am even more emphatic that the editing is very poor and the suspense is poorly built. I too, commend the artist for creating and following through on his project, but the weak sound design and listless editing reduces it to a mere collection of well-executed shots.

  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by leigh: You really seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder.

yeah, it's hit an miss. Usually misguided and misdirected as well. Everyone deserves the opportunity to chase whatever dreams they want to chase. Hopefully most people can get what they want. College has great benefits. Without due diligence, it can be a big waste of money. However, that would be on the student, not the college. At the same time, people can make big things happen with or without school, again it falls on the individual.

so, yeah I have a bit of chip I need to let go. All the recent stuff about the VFX artists possibly being sued for their pay is actually motivating me want to get a law degree to go toe to toe with these bullying tactics from lawyers.

Blah blah blah.

My roller coaster should be on the high tomorrow instead of low hopefully
  03 March 2013
I think the OP is a bit miffed with what is true attribution and what is just hype.

You can praise something like Rosa or Space Oddity.... the hype goes they did it themselves. People can stay quiet about such hype or perpetuate it.

To some it starts to sound like reality and mis-attribution. And that's probably what George is concerned about: Mis-attribution. The false illusion that others get when the only thing they can see is the finished result.

Kind of like how if you read only one guy did it. And you see the finished result, you can walk away with this feeling like: "Well it must be very easy to do these then... so why do I need to go to school?"

There's some mis-attribution that could have come from word-of-mouth hype even about my film, REVERSION. Among a few that I found out are:

1) We used DAZ models (every model is from scratch).
2) We used motion capture (all our motions are done with video reference, but keyframed directly).
3) We used After Effects.
4) I'm actually an ITALIAN Film Director.

I think George is partially curious/bothered by that situation because he experienced some aspect of it with The Retrospect. And it affects him maybe.. that there's this illusion or misconception that films of certain quality readily create in the general public.

And that is a valid concern. It isn't a big one for me... but I can see why it would bother others.

As for me, I answer these once.. and then I don't bother. Because in reality, it doesn't affect me what others think we did.

I'm more concerned about how to sustain this activity and increase the scale of the next one. I don't care if we got a badge for this work or not.

We do want the right parties to value this work.. but that's a different story.
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Georgie: Hi Brian,
Please direct me to that specific martial-art-combat mocap data(s) supposedly used in Rosa. Otherwise, I would advised that you withhold your support for it. I'm experienced enough to be offered a TD position for mocap. I know what I'm talking about. And I've done quite a search for such mocap data to no avail. If Rosa is an exploitation of genuine artists' misfortune, I wouldn't like to tolerate it.

I don't know about specific, that would take a while, but there is a bunch out there:
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by mantragora: Wait till UDK4 premiere. It will mark beginning of the end of animated movies made by big players. Next Shreck/Happy Feet/Cars/Whatever will be made in the basement by 14 year old kids that have nothing better to do in spare time.

Been waiting for this for 20 years. I hope you are right.
  03 March 2013
Quote: Then the institutions have to find a way to actually have people figure things out and truly develop an intelligence and open minded approach to problem solving.

That's what I try to do but believe me, it's harder than it sounds. The irony is, sadly, most students want someone to hold their hand and tell them exactly what to do. You try to encourage them to solve things on their own and you catch grief for not being a good teacher (which is what they'll say in their evaluation forms at the end of the term).

The ones who truly shine are just the opposite. You can see they're already thinking of projects as you introduce new material and only come to you for feedback on their work and if they hit the occasional roadblock. They want to be challenged and left alone. Those students are few and far between.

I didn't go to school for CG (I did, however, for fine art). CG has been a long, arduous course of study for me, gathering info wherever I could and experimenting a lot. With that said, MUCH of how I learned was from first having a project and then figuring out what I needed in order to get it done. (Many a time I took on projects without knowing exactly how to do them). The artist who is the subject of debate here sounds like he followed the same course of action I did. He had something in mind, then investigated how to get it done. That should be doable ASSUMING someone has a strong vision for what the end project will be, has talent, has a strong drive and is clever and resourceful. Any one of those attributes, of course, are rare. Having them all makes one rather exceptional.

Now as this person admitted, they have gaps in their knowledge and abilities but cleverly hid those as best they could in the final work. This course of action where you study just what you need to complete a project rather than learning the tools the "proper" way leads to this. You go very deep in a few directions but remain noobish most everywhere else. Still, over time (and depending on what projects you get/choose to do) you can shore up those gaps and become more well rounded with less gaps but again, this is hard to do, especially on your own, and so only a select few can do this. Such people are the exception, not the rule, therefore it's ridiculous to make sweeping judgments on educational institutions, the vfx industry or anything else based on what an exceptional person can do.

As for them lying, rather than looking at someone like this as a liar to make yourself feel better, why not look to them as inspiration to light a fire under your ass?
  03 March 2013
I see no reason why someone couldn't produce something like this after 2 years studying CG and compositing.

As others have pointed out, nothing is particularly difficult, but it was all nicely put together with a good eye. Nothing spectacular but very competent.
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Zarathustra: Now as this person admitted, they have gaps in their knowledge and abilities but cleverly hid those as best they could in the final work. This course of action where you study just what you need to complete a project rather than learning the tools the "proper" way leads to this.

You make a great point. When I first started my own projects, I had all the tools and many options but I chose to go with an anime style project because, though I , of course, love anime, all the"cheats" associated with anime made it possible for one person to do a project (back in 2000) whereas attempting to do Final Fantasy would have been absurd.

I also didn't go to school for CG as I started in the Amiga days. It was always a desire to make something, likely influenced by Robotech, that led me to learn in the direction I learned. I also used to make Super 8 films in the backyard as a kid. It was always about making something. Knowing a lot of the short cuts available to the determined, I guess, makes it easy for me to believe a story of one person producing something of quality.

On the subject of those who seem to be against the idea of someone doing a film in a UDK or CryEngine in the future. I actually do believe it will happen. I know those with film experience are thinking about all the assets that go into a film and that those posters championing game engines don't realize the importance of this, but I believe one day someone, without modeling a thing, will mix and match cool armor suits, and cool building and city models and mocap libraries, all available out there, and make a cool film that will surprise people.
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
  03 March 2013
Even if there is going to be star trek holodeck capabilities : "Make a room, make the walls blue, create table 2m long, mahogany."

What of it? Will it be a disrupting technology?
  03 March 2013
Honestly, this is not mind blowing, why wouldn't he have been able to do this in almost 3 years? I really don't understand the argument or even the post. Great for him! Whats the issue here? If you dedicated enough time , say 6 months, going through a learning course and being very specific about what you need to learn, then start working on it with resources from stock for the extras, keeping the render times down, no mind blowing cg renders there, and not having anything else to do, then yes. This is totally 100% doable. This is the level a hobbyist should be at. Profesional studios have gotten to the level that reality is flat out blurred and they do it within a year.

-however, I do agree with some of what CGIPadawan said in his post.

Last edited by pipdixel : 03 March 2013 at 05:01 PM.
  03 March 2013
When a default cg program reaches the point where you can make something sophisticated and cool by pressing a few buttons then those cool items will be so common as to make people indifferent to them.

At one time a simple chrome sphere rolling around a checkered floor in 3d space was incredibly innovative and cool--now no one blinks an eye about it.

In the end the only thing that would make a default program animation interesting is if the story--direction-editing etc is compelling enough.

Right now the focus isnt on what is being made-the story etc---but how it is being made and how quickly so even now we are having trouble staying interested.
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: It's a bunch of suspenseful sequences "inspired" by various movies and games with carefully chosen camera work to need almost no assets or deformations, put together in a textbook manner (as in safely played cinematography and direction fundamentals), with nothing technically or narratively challenging in it.

Yes, I fully believe he made it on his own, and that he got there in a couple years as a hobbyist in his own time. His strength clearly lies in not overdoing it, and having good taste in borrowing.
He took on a bite sized project and did it well. Kudos to him, he's smarter than most newcomers.

Why would people doubt it is beyond me.
Without wanting to take away from his accomplishments, an experienced generalist given a storyboard and a full set of paid for production tools could get it done within a month of working days very, very easily, and to a higher technical standard.

Schools focusing on CG, for the most part, aren't gonna be robbed of any students, they are already largely preying on the naive or uninformed, and anybody saving their money on one and going instead for more affirmed and traditional courses, or the self-thaught route and investing that money and time in professional workshops and cheap training material, would only be doing a smart thing.

VFX/CG shops are unlikely to get robbed of work because there's one person out there who managed to stitch together a bunch of cliches as a learning experiment and retain some good taste in the process.

I commend the guy for his dedication, drive, simple plan, abundance of smarts in choosing what to do and how, "borrowing" tastefully, and a number of other skills that define him more as a potential director and producer than as a CG craftsman IMO.

I don't feel the jobs of millions and the poor CG schools are at any risk. If common sense and good taste, the two main qualities of the creator, were so easy to come by and so abundant, the former wouldn't even exist anyway

My thoughts too. Its cool a guy had so much drive to put this together, but this is definitely not an example of anything close to studio quality. On top of that I doubt very much if he had a director and producer asking for changes it would have taken him many multiples the time it took. He made a lot of easy shots that have good cinematography and hobbyist modeling and texturing.

If it interests you I would look into cinematography rather than CG if you want to accomplish this.
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.