Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity"

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2013   #31
I wonder if that's all part of the opening shot, they said the it's supposed to be a pretty long continuous shot like he does in his other movies.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 05 May 2013   #32
looks great
__________________


Last edited by CB_3D : 05 May 2013 at 02:37 AM.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #33
That looks brilliant! October is too far away i.e. if they release it worldwide simultaneously.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #34
Originally Posted by darthviper107: I wonder if that's all part of the opening shot, they said the it's supposed to be a pretty long continuous shot like he does in his other movies.


I could imagine that being the case, or most of it..start slow, minor establishing of the handful of characters and the situation, which are very simple, then bang, uninterrupted disaster and tension for the rest, and then just roll from there.

What percentage of a movie can be live action for it to still be in the animated category? Do their composited heads count?
 
Old 05 May 2013   #35
Originally Posted by leigh:
The amount of VFX in this film is pretty crazy. Even their spacesuits are CG.


Is there any reason for this? Apart from digi doubles, Im assuming you mean they are CG in just the general 'floating around doing stuff' parts.

I understand why Iron Man went all CG with that suit (comic book proportions, lack of motion in the practical suit, etc), but I cant understand why they would CG something that really could have been practical?

The only reason I can think of is that its easier to light the scenes with CG suits, and 'real' actors heads in the suits, with all of the CG Hard Surface stuff (the actual station, and awesome NASA tech), than it would be to try and match on set lighting of a green screen shoot. But maybe I'm missing something obvious?

Anywho-this looks freaking amazing. Space scares me...seriously, its a scary scary place...
 
Old 05 May 2013   #36
I think matching everything is the obvious thing, like you said, and it makes a lot of sense, you're doing SO much CG for everything else in the shot, why limit yourself at that point? The amount of extra work to build a realistic looking closeup CG suit nowadays vs. the limitations of dealing with plate photography, props, camera limits, etc.

Also it makes the zero-g space movement much more practical, regardless of flying rigs and whatever else, people on wires tend to look like people on wires. It's insanely difficult to get a full production team into the "vomit comet" for something like this, it was amazing for Apollo 13, but it took a toll on the production and it was only a few key moments. The rest they had to do the old fashioned way, and they were inside a capsule with less freedom of movement.

I will be curious to see how they worked the head stuff in the end, how much ended up being reprojected or retargeted onto full CG versions of the actors, etc.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #37
Looks like fun I will definitely watch it, but whoever was responsible for that trailer just made it cheese with that line "At 372 miles above the earth the view is breathtaking"
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #38
Originally Posted by hypercube: I could imagine that being the case, or most of it..start slow, minor establishing of the handful of characters and the situation, which are very simple, then bang, uninterrupted disaster and tension for the rest, and then just roll from there.

What percentage of a movie can be live action for it to still be in the animated category? Do their composited heads count?


The article says the opening shot is 17 minutes long, so the trailer probably is made up from that
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 05 May 2013   #39
That looks utterly fantastic!

Cool as I was only just watching some of those ISS docos on youtube the other day.... truly the stuff of dreams. And now nightmares. : )
__________________

 
Old 05 May 2013   #40
Glad to see all the hard work done! I think gravity film will leave no one indifferent
__________________
www.josemlazaro.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #41
Originally Posted by Pyke: Is there any reason for this? Apart from digi doubles, Im assuming you mean they are CG in just the general 'floating around doing stuff' parts.

I understand why Iron Man went all CG with that suit (comic book proportions, lack of motion in the practical suit, etc), but I cant understand why they would CG something that really could have been practical?

The only reason I can think of is that its easier to light the scenes with CG suits, and 'real' actors heads in the suits, with all of the CG Hard Surface stuff (the actual station, and awesome NASA tech), than it would be to try and match on set lighting of a green screen shoot. But maybe I'm missing something obvious?

Anywho-this looks freaking amazing. Space scares me...seriously, its a scary scary place...


Yeah, as Hypercube said, it just makes things simpler from a matching perspective, as well as making the zero G stuff a bit easier. Well, I'm assuming that's why. I don't really ask questions, I just paint textures :-P
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 05 May 2013   #42
Originally Posted by Pyke: Is there any reason for this? Apart from digi doubles, Im assuming you mean they are CG in just the general 'floating around doing stuff' parts.

I understand why Iron Man went all CG with that suit (comic book proportions, lack of motion in the practical suit, etc), but I cant understand why they would CG something that really could have been practical?

The only reason I can think of is that its easier to light the scenes with CG suits, and 'real' actors heads in the suits, with all of the CG Hard Surface stuff (the actual station, and awesome NASA tech), than it would be to try and match on set lighting of a green screen shoot. But maybe I'm missing something obvious?

Anywho-this looks freaking amazing. Space scares me...seriously, its a scary scary place...

The mission computer and it's rogue side-kick 'Canadarm' will be behind some dangerous situations for 'space colleagues' Clooney and Bullock.
The 'flipping-the-bird' scene in particular had to go beyond (only slightly) what the technology had been capable of and hence the need for CG. Oh yeah
and its in space too.
 
Old 05 May 2013   #43
the trailer is excellent, looks like a must see movie.
__________________
stee+cats

http://www.cresshead.com
youtube channel:-
http://www.youtube.com/user/cresshead

"zero stones - zero crates"
 
Old 05 May 2013   #44
Originally Posted by darthviper107: I wonder if that's all part of the opening shot, they said the it's supposed to be a pretty long continuous shot like he does in his other movies.

It starts with 17 minute shot and there should be plenty of long shots in the movie, it has 156 shots in total..
Source
 
Old 05 May 2013   #45
I heard from a mailing list that the final cut of the film is 23 cuts.

I wonder if it was a typo, or the "edit" changed alot since that article was written.
__________________
Jean-Sébastien Guillemette
3d Generalist
www.shedmtl.com
 
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
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.