Thanks for the great description of how to break into the industry. And thanks to you too Seansea, you’re a mind-reader – just what I wanted to know too!
Regarding the list of jobs for breaking into the industry (roto, tracking, layout, previz) it seems that layout and previz would require a lot of interaction with the director, concept artists, storyboard artists and production designers. This, it seems to me, would take a strong and particular talent for grasping the nuances of a director’s vision, unlike rotoscoping or tracking. I saw that George Lucas gave a lot of freedom to you and the other previz artists for creating the Clone War battles (stunning stuff!). Is this getting to be the norm in the industry? I mean, it used to be that directors would film their own scenes, then they started hiring DOPs and colorists. It seems that film-making is getting to be more and more collaborative but the lines across disciplines are getting blurred. Is this so? I understand that during a couple previz shots on Episode II, Lucas had to ask whether the animatic was a finished shot from ILM. Is that right?
My main questions (finally) are: Are the models and animations for previz getting more and more sophisticated, and what level of modeling skills and animation skills are previz studios looking for these days?
. . . and . . .
How do you, as an employer, judge whether or not an applicant would be skilled at deciphering a director’s idea?
Or right DOWN there. I recall reading that wire removal is the worst job to have.
I would think with the Digital Video Cams available the Dust Busting work would be becoming obsolete?
If you remember in my previous post, I mentioned that previs and layout are somewhat of hybrid careers. They require technical skills and cinematography skills in order to be sucessful. The process of previs and layout are however, different. Previs is usually implimented in a conceptual basis to help figure out specific storytelling beats. It can be technical as well to help VFX supervisors and directors know exactly the limitations of their sets on stage and what lens to pick, where to place green screens and lighting for the best effective coverage and so on. Layout on the other hand is the centralized hub of distribution within an animation technical pipeline. Layout is normally divided in rough and final layout, which is nearly equivalent to conceptual and technical previs. Layout however has specific pipeline limitations that usually can not be ignored, where as previs is more about doing what’s necessary to either communicate the story concept or answer a very specific technical question.
All the other departments in an animation studio funnel their work through the layout department. It is grand central station. Rough layout artists work directly with the animation supervisors and directors to set up entire scenes using models published by the modeling department, block character positions, animate camera positions, select lenses, and so on. Layout artists must use models, and various tools that have been approved throughout the entire show and once a sequence is complete, it is published for distribution to the animation department, which inturn replaces the layout artists’ blocking for final animation. Once animation is complete, its sent back to layout where the final layout artist tweaks and modifies last minute adjustments and camera fixes. Once that is completed, it is published again and this time it heads off to lighting and rendering. The process of previs doesn’t have these kinds of requirements.
The reason why I listed previs and layout as methods of breaking into the business isn’t because they are necessarily “easier”, but rather, they expose you to every aspect of the cg process in some form or another. As disciplines, they are rather difficult. Constructing a shot and following the rules of cinematography isn’t for everyone.
I also mentioned they are hybrid careers because these people interface with the director and supervisors so closely that its a logical progression to use their cinematography based skills to start making their own movies. In previs and layout, its all about story. However, since previs and layout artists need to be uber generalists as well, they can easily side step into a modeling or animation career if they exhibit those skills.
As for Mr. Lucas asking if it was previs or a final shot from ILM, well…it happened once or twice, though ulimately, he knew it was previs because it was coming from us. He made comments like that because we as an independant department were recreating a mini ILM pipeline ourselves. On Episode II we actually rendered our previs which gave us more control over lighting, environmental effects, shadows and so forth, giving it a more polished look. Typically overkill for the average previs, but it is George Lucas, and he gets what he wants.
I do believe there will come a time when previs and finals will merge to a certain degree. The show I’m currently working on is being set up specifically to transfer our previs files over to the VFX house for further advanced manipulation. This doesn’t necessarily mean that disciplines are disappearing, it just means technology is catching up with the creative mind. We will eventually have a time where hardware rendering will match software rendering and when that happens, there will be another shift in the movie making process. With today’s technology, there’s no reason why a small 20 man team can’t produce a high quality animated film. I’ve done it several times already.
Large studios of course will balk at this idea stating you need their expertise. And generally this is true if you’re still making movies the traditional way. The summer blockbusters with the super effects will always require the ILMs, DDs, and Sonys out there to do it. But we all know that even though viewer sophistication demands fancy visuals, mega blockbusters are being snubbed by films with more heart. Independant films are the way of the future.
Now onto models and animation requirements of previs. Generally yes, models are getting more advanced in relationship to workstation power. This allows previs artists to start introducing facial animation and character articulation on even higher levels. Sounds like overkill and in many ways, and it can be. However, its almost always called for by directors. They want to see their movie constructed before its shot. It gives them a method to predict the movie’s general reception by an audience way in advance. I saw Episode II in previs form 3 times before I saw the movie itself. As an employer, I’d want to see a previs artist be capable of a fairly high level of modeling and animation proficiency, but I’d want my artist to work quickly. Low rez models are still the norm.
As for interpreting a director’s vision… that’s more difficult to judge. Junior previs artists normally can’t do this…no matter how good they are in modeling and animation. Finding the director’s vision is a talent that only happens with experience. Every senior previs artist must start thinking like a director themselves. We wear lots of different hats. We must think like DPs and understand cinematography. We must be directors and understand story telling. We must be technical directors to solve potential technical issues. We must be modelers and animators as well. Any junior I hire, I look for strong generalist skills and a love for film. I will mold them from there.
Thanks! This is just what I was looking for – and more! I got what you said about previz and layout artists as hybrid careers – CG artists sort of acting as unit directors. I’ve been looking for demo reels in the Animation Gallery that are geared toward previz, showing as you mentioned, a blending of TD, animation and modeling ability but haven’t found one yet. I have seen plenty of good generalist reels but they don’t focus on low poly models, strong yet basic shading with integrated staging and blocking.
Seeing that previz animation is growing like wildfire in Hollywood I was hoping to find some inspiring reels (asside from POV’s great demo reel, of course). Any idea where I might find some?
I know large VFX firms have recruiting agents and head hunters but are there reputable agents who find homes for cg artists in growing start-up studios? (Kind of like a Rita Sue Segal for modelers and animators.)
Also, and forgive me if this is taboo, but it would be helpful to gauge what the going rate is for entry-level modelers and animators. I found some information on the “Animation Guild Local 839”. It covers LA pretty well but are you aware of a more general directory?
Can you recommend any nationwide or global guilds or unions for CG artists? The only one I could find is the Graphic Artists’ Guild but this is really for graphic designers. (A lot of studios don’t seem to offer health plans and benefits but guilds do.)
Will joining these organizations help independent artists break into the industry?
As for unions, well let’s see. I’m not apart of one, but I used to be up at ILM. That was IATSE LOCAL 16 if I remember correctly. Mainly Lucasfilm employees. I’d have to do some research on any others. I know there are a couple of traditional guilds for cel animators…
Will it help you get a job? Depends on who you ask. There’s pluses and minuses to being in a union. I’d rather not get into political banter there. As for salaries, I’m not too familiar for modelers, specifically. I could only help you with previs rates… and I’d rather not post those here.
viz ok i maybe stupid (IQ of 150 apparently though my major dislexic mind blur’s the boundaries) but movies are as good as the team that worked on them. think that their making a dark cyristel 2 but this time cgi is being introduced as background work, yet there keeping the pupet look. this with their skills could beomce the a fx film even though their mixing techonolgeis. (cgi is i think now over used in film)
i like threads about how can an user do this with out a plug-in, i don’t think that it is taking profit away form 3rd parties but more making the TV generation think for them selfs. ok my rant is over btw i’m a messed up tv gen kid/man
I agree that CGI tends to take too much precidence in movies nowadays. I think we’re seeing an increase in films that are embracing other looks and styles and this is a good thing. Its also why I think 2D is not dead… it will just take a little time before someone “rediscovers” it again and it becomes popular in a retro kind of way.
What I would like to explore is methods to make CGI look like other mediums. Wallace and Grommit is a good example of this. In the Curse of the Were Rabbit, the BVS6000 vacuum system with all the floating bunnies was CGI but it was pretty convincing as a replacement for plasticine.
It’s like Dale Chihuly making a chandelier out of Lexan! Part of the beauty of Wallace and Grommit, IMO, is Nick Park’s painstaking but beautiful attention to the art of claymation.
It’s just one more step removed from the purity of a vision – “We’ll make our vision with claymation. . . No wait! We’ll make a CG version of claymation based on our original idea!”
It’s just the “let something be what it is” factor. Having CG fake another type of traditional animation is right up there with fake convertible rag tops on Cadillacs, or linoleum that tries to look like Italian marble.
Now, don’t get me wrong, using CG VFX to get complicated shots or create stunts that would otherwise be impossible or extremely dangerous is one thing – I’m all for that – but when you start disguising one medium with another you lose the honesty in your creation. Imagine if, after receiving the Academy Award for best animated short, Chris Landreth confessed that he used mocap and rotoscoped live footage for 80% of “Ryan” along with slightly modified real footage of St. Laurent in Montreal. Would you still think it was worthy of that award?
My point is that when we start separating the medium from the message, we start pulling away from the intensity and purity of the original idea. It would be a simulation of itself – a watered-down, distilled fraction of the intended experience. I’m sure Marshall McLuhan would agree.
Frankly, when I started to work in an animation studio, I was struck by the “if it works, it works”-attitude. In art-school, there was always this drive to keep things “pure”. The reality is that Nick Park was making a film, not a bunch of individual animations. If it suits the film, then it’s good. Purity of every single element on its own doesn’t mean anything, it’s the whole that counts.
I can see your point of view. For VFX, I’m right with you. For 95% of live action films that need CG VFX I say lie, cheat, steal, do whatever you have to to get the shot done on time, on budget and with the best possible quality. But that’s what people expect in a live action feature.
But I’m talking about animation as an art form and with art, the ends do not justify the means. When you, as a movie-goer, see a Nick Park film, you have a certain expectation that you’re going to witness some great claymation. The story, I’m sure, will be good but people also see his films in order to appreciate his mastery over the medium – the “how the #*!@ did he do THAT with clay” factor. Once you start disguising the traditional, painstaking art of claymation with CG animation, you betray the public’s trust in that art form.
It’s the same reason we’re not alowed to post photographs, claiming them to be CG art, in the gallery. Sure, a lot of times it would be easier to just go outside and take a photograph, but what blows people away is the tremendous effort it takes to make a CG model look real. We can appreciate the artist’s mastery of the medium.
That’s the problem I have with this – it’s dishonest. Imagine watching a Jackie Chan film and then later finding out that all his stunts were performed by digital stunt doubles. Wouldn’t you feel betrayed? People don’t go to see Jackie Chan films for the story. They go to witness his expert choreography and comedic timing, mastery of martial arts and his tremendous courage in performing his own death-defying stunts.
That’s what I mean when I say, “The ends don’t justify the means.”
As you know, I’m looking to find work as a modeler and texture artist in an animation studio. And I’ve been looking through the job boards and looking at some fantastic demo reels here in the Animation Gallery, trying to get a feel for how to go about structuring my new modeling reel.
I noticed that the end card of most of the reels include a list of the programs the artist used (usually Maya, 3DSMax and Zbrush). It seems that the most of the openings on the job boards require proficiency in particular programs (again, usually Maya, 3DSMax or Zbrush).
Should I be concerned about this? I’m learning Maya with the PLE and I’m coming up to speed quickly. I can’t imagine it would take long to come up to speed on a different package. All 3D packages these days have dope sheets, curve editors, shading palettes, morph editors, etc. Is this a big deal or am I too concerned with this?
Good question. The answer, I believe, goes a little like this:
The larger and more corporate an animation studio is, the more specialized their toolset becomes. However, the general rule of thumb is most studios have a core package that they centralize around. At ILM, it’s Softimage for animation and Maya for modeling and particle work. At Digital Domain, its Maya and Houdini for film work and Lightwave for broadcast. At Sony its mostly Maya. Modelers, fortunately, have a little more leeway in this area because they are providing a product. Data transfer tools makes providing the product even easier. At my company, we don’t care what you model in, as long as it can get into our animation packages easily. However, larger studios are going to be a bit more difficult in this area mainly due to pipeline and support issues. If you’re modeling in an obsecure pacakge, IT won’t come to your rescue when you can’t get something accomplished. Therefore, larger studios tend to put the kabosh on using software other than what’s authorized.
As a freelancer, I’d say you should feel free to model in whatever package suites your fancy. Again, its mainly because you’re prodiving a product…a model. Animators and effects artists aren’t so lucky. FBX can help the situation, but its not a complete solution.
If you’re learning Maya, you’ll be in good shape. Its modeling tools are robust and sophisticated. Transferring those skills over to another package shouldn’t be difficult, however, once you get into the groove of working in a certain package, you can expect a couple of weeks of downtime during your relearning phase to the other package. This may be something the hiring company does not want to hear.
First off, thank you for creating this thread!
I recently graduated from school and have secured a job at a small video game studio as both an animator and concept artist. Im currently performing both duties, but mainly as a concept artist.
I kind of hit a crossroads and would like an outside opinion on my portfolio.
[www.dmjstudios.com](http://www.dmjstudios.com/)
My main question is, am I stronger as a concept artist or animator?
Ok… I rarely say this, but I’d say you have potential in both fields. Your concept work looks a little more refined than your animation capabilities, however, you’re green. Its too soon to judge which path/road you should take. In your particular case, I’d say you’re gonna have to do a little soul searching to determine which makes you more happy. Perhaps I can shed a little light from a different direction.
Conceptual Artists:
More difficult to break into.
Greater pay, but generally less work (at least in the film industry).
Works in the preproduction phase which means more fluidity.
Has a greater influence on the design elements of the film.
Works for shorter periods of time on a project. Mutiple projects per year.
Is less technical.
Personality of artist is less dependant on others.
Can become limited due to your style. (Meaning your style can dictate your jobs).
Generally a broader field.
Must be willing to surrender ideas easily. Can not cling too tightly to a single idea.
Animator:
More jobs. If you’re good, you’ll have work for life.
Only has regional control over one thing. Animation.
Generally more technical.
Personality of artist is typically more forward, people oriented but somewhat obsessive.
Is more technical.
Generally a more narrow field.
Requires considerable patience and the ability to be constantly jockied. (Supervisor over your shoulder and your work is heavily critiqued.)
Has the advantage of seeing work directly on screen.
Works for longer periods of time on a single project. Fewer projects per year.
Thanks for the kind words! I really appreciate you taking the time to look over my portfolio. I think your right about doing a little soul searching and finding out which position would better suit me in the long run.
