cg man of steel

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 07 July 2013   #1
cg man of steel

Of the $225 million spent on production, what percent do you think was spent on the cg super man footage?

I know it's such a general question but just wondering.

Thanks
 
Old 07 July 2013   #2
A lot. I realize that's a general answer, but I was just pulling it out of my arse.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 07 July 2013   #3
Originally Posted by Artbot: A lot. I realize that's a general answer, but I was just pulling it out of my arse.


And out of that "A lot" how much did those who actually did the work got payed... A little?
 
Old 07 July 2013   #4
I doubt there's any way to measure what that cost since the shots involve more than just him.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 07 July 2013   #5
Yes it's really hard to separate a single element out like this yeah?
 
Old 07 July 2013   #6
Also MPC and Dneg will both have had digi doubles, large portions of which will have been done independently of each other, so there's doubling up of work there.

I'd say pretty impossible to do anything other than pluck a number from the air on this one (Artbot said it more succinctly, and probably more eloquently than I...), but having worked on the Superman digi double for a while at Dneg, I can tell you that a LOT of time was spent on getting it to a really high level, and no doubt MPC pulled out all the stops their end too.
__________________
Bloggy wog
 
Old 07 July 2013   #7
I'd say about $57.

Seriously, though, considering how close they dare to get to it, it has to be up there with the best of digital doubles done in film. The technology in general, though, is still not quite there. I don't think it will be too long, though, before we are finally fooled.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 07 July 2013   #8
Originally Posted by teruchan: ....The technology in general, though, is still not quite there. I don't think it will be too long, though, before we are finally fooled.


The tech is already there. There's just a line that has to be drawn between making a release date within a reasonable (or unreasonable) budget and chasing after super-detailed hyper-realism that most people don't really notice. There's a point of diminishing returns in filmmaking. You can spend (hypothetically speaking) $10 million on a sequence and you might get 70% of what you wanted the sequence to be. But for each additional $5 million, you get only a few percent closer to your ideal vision. Spend $20 million (or more) and you might get into the 90% area, but at some point you have to cut bait and go with what you've got since few will notice the subtle improvements, and no studio wants to indulge your whims of striving for perfection.

More often than not it comes down to "how real can it look within the time and budget?" You already know in the back of your mind that it's fake (no matter how real it appears), so you can never really cross the "100% realistic" threshold.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
Old 07 July 2013   #9
No digital double can ever be convincing if it's performing impossible things.

I'm sure everyone's been fooled by a lot of this work when it wasn't noticeable.
Like, Robert Downey broke his leg while filming the final fight in Iron Man 3 and his real-life double took over for many of the scenes, with a CG head replacement. I wonder if anyone ever noticed that, as a lot of the enhanced scenes were just walking and such everyday stuff.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
Old 07 July 2013   #10
I guess swimmy cameras hide a lot to general moviegoers. I thought the later scenes were laughable in direction and premise.
 
Old 07 July 2013   #11
Horrible movie, excellent fx and sigi doubles.
 
Old 07 July 2013   #12
It's hard to remove the CG cost from the On-Set costs however if I was making a bet I'd guess that they spent around $80m on VFX. I didn't work on the show but I'm thinking there's three major vendors who'd each be in for a min of 20m each, plus a number of smaller players, plus extras and previs etc.

Base cost of the film is around $1.5m per minute. If you assume non-shooting costs (mainly cast) of 30% then it's a round million per minute for VFX+OnSet, which would mean they could afford 80mins of VFX shots with my estimate, so a little over half the film which seems about right.

So yeah I'd guess something in the region of $80mill, +/- 25% accuracy ($60-$100m).
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."
 
Old 07 July 2013   #13
Originally Posted by Artbot: The tech is already there. There's just a line that has to be drawn between making a release date within a reasonable (or unreasonable) budget and chasing after super-detailed hyper-realism that most people don't really notice. There's a point of diminishing returns in filmmaking. You can spend (hypothetically speaking) $10 million on a sequence and you might get 70% of what you wanted the sequence to be. But for each additional $5 million, you get only a few percent closer to your ideal vision. Spend $20 million (or more) and you might get into the 90% area, but at some point you have to cut bait and go with what you've got since few will notice the subtle improvements, and no studio wants to indulge your whims of striving for perfection.

More often than not it comes down to "how real can it look within the time and budget?" You already know in the back of your mind that it's fake (no matter how real it appears), so you can never really cross the "100% realistic" threshold.


I disagree with that largely because if you spent the same $10 million ten years ago you wouldn't even get close to the same 70% you would get today. That doesn't just apply to digital doubles, but even, say, city destruction. A lot of the awesome software we have for destroying things didn't exist back then. As a result, it is easier and cheaper to do the city destruction we see in 2012 or Man of Steel today than ten years ago.

The same will surely happen, and is happening, for skin shaders, hair and other aspects of creating digital humans. I don't mean to say it will be at the touch of a button, but look at what software like Vue has done for creating nature scenes and environments. Even random folks at home are creating astonishing scenes. You won't need $10 million or even $1 million to do it in the near future.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 07 July 2013   #14
I agree with both of you to a degree. The technology is more enabling than ever and effects of 10 years ago can now be done for much less cost, but never the less the cost of VFX in films has increased because there's a demand for more. Not just more realism but more design, more shots, more originality etc. All of which adds up to more revisions and more work.

Software might get better but humans eventually make all of this and while some of the tasks we previously did are made redundant there is more and more we're asked to do that computers are still a long way from doing for us. I don't see the days of 20 people completing a summer blockbuster any time in the near future.

Not to mention that better technology leverages it's own costs. Specialist tools cost money because they require more developers and that cost is a portion of the vfx cost etc. As long as new technology is continually required to be developed the cost of vfx will also continue to rise. Perhaps there's some sort of economical plateau coming but it's hard to see it.
__________________
Critcal feedback example #62: "Well instead of the Stalinist purges and the divorce and the investigation ... it could be about losing a balloon."
 
Old 07 July 2013   #15
Originally Posted by teruchan: I'd say about $57.

You forgot the sales tax
__________________
The terminal velocity of individual particles is directly related to pink rabbits on a bank holiday.
Characters, Games, Toys
 
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 03:49 AM.


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