Full vfx coverage of Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05 May 2014   #1
Full vfx coverage of Captain America: The Winter Soldier

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/cap...ng-new-heights/
 
Old 05 May 2014   #2
Thanks for this!
 
Old 05 May 2014   #3
Pretty cool, I didn't realize they used 3ds Max and Vray for that
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
Old 05 May 2014   #4
Nice to see even Blender got used on it in previs as well.
__________________
Gentleshaw Wildlife Centre
 
Old 05 May 2014   #5
I am always fascinated how they do a careful fracture and simulation of every single piece of window and armature, and then: PUF - a big smoke on top of everything, and you can see almost nothing of fragmented simulation.

Thanks for sharing.
__________________
Now it's the time to be extreme!
Demoreel
website
 
Old 05 May 2014   #6
#d4rk3lf

The reason for that is beause when a simulatur chap goes to a daily with his shot, the people reviewing it, will be looking at it without the smoke and comp haze, and they will treat it like there won't be added any smoke or haze onto it, so they will be on your ass if they find anything that does not look real. I can't blame them, because in many cases you never know what parts will be visible after the smoke and haze is added.
And no one wants to have to go back to fix a shot, so they strive to do it right the first time.
 
Old 05 May 2014   #7
Originally Posted by d4rk3lf: I am always fascinated how they do a careful fracture and simulation of every single piece of window and armature, and then: PUF - a big smoke on top of everything, and you can see almost nothing of fragmented simulation.


and PLUME on top...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FqzK6zJvwE
__________________
...
 
Old 05 May 2014   #8
I agree that in those "behind the scenes" videos it does look many times in big budget movies like a waste of time and efforts. The movie could be just as good with cheaper solutions. But it looks they just don't "dare" doing it simple for various reasons.

It's always : "we had to do it all over from scratch", "eventually we decided to replace every actor with digital doubles", " we simulated billions of individual objects and then covered it in smoke and then some motion blur, and eventually a guy obscuring it in the foreground"

Whether it's just a marketing ploy for the making-of video (probably) or a real habit of "because we can" mentality (or is it : because we "have to" to please the studio...?) is the question.

For instance, in the winter soldier : shooting a guy running inside a huge chroma sound stage, then putting it in a tiny window of a crumbling building, with tons of smoke and debris and a helicarrier falling on top... in a 3 seconds shot. It's like playing "where is charlie", except it's impossible to win.

In the Robocop reboot, you see the awsome work made by legacy effects, and the guys replacing it entirely (as it looks or as they say) even in close up shots to avoid the "guy in a suit" effect. Frankly, the original Robocop was a guy in a suit and it never bothered anyone if he was a tad large at the waist. it only made him look more tank-like and dangerous.

On the opposite end, I remember a interview with Gareth Edwards on his low budget Monsters movie and previous work on Attila the Hun docs etc.... Basically, he was saying : I always try to start with the crappiest effect I can get away with and see the stuff in context of the edit. And frankly, it worked...

I guess being "cheap" is a "luxury" they can't have on big budgets movies... Even though the audience wouldn't even see the difference.
 
Old 05 May 2014   #9
I see your point. If its a 2 second throw-away-shot that might be ok sure...
However the only 'cheap' way to do 'Helicarrier crashes into Skyscraper' is to make it an off screen event!

You could probably spend more man - hoursfudging cheaper software or stock footage solutions and making it tolerably believable to the eyes than it would take ILM staff and PLUME to do it.Low end solutions doesn't always mean easier and cheaper if you are needing to show a real 'money shot'.
 
reply 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 02:44 PM.


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