Research Project: Artifact 4: SFX Vs VFX Gun Shot Scene

Why am I doing it?
To compare and contrast the working pipelines and creative processes of a VFX and SFX under controlled circumstances. Discovering the advantages and disadvantage of either form, through time, budget and levels of skill/automation.


How am I doing it?

Through the replication of effects in two identical scenes, specifically a gun shot scene concerning  digital wound/blood action vs a physical counterpart. Each process through pre-production to final product will be recorded with a corresponding time and resources taken to complete the task in question. Qualitative data will also be collected from myself personally along the way about how the philosophy and styles of the work differs, drawing upon concepts from my research document when relevant and applicable.

Results:

 It is to be noted that their was an abundance of 'fast tracks' options for both the SFX and VFX shoots (stock footage, air compressors) however to get as accurate and genuine experience of both pipelines as possible I wanted as many assets to be custom-made as could be.

SFX - PREPRODUCTION

3 Processes
£0.00
2:30 Hours
VFX - PREPRODUCTION

3 Processes
£0.00
4:30 Hours 

Learning curves for VFX seemed much higher than practical, Mocha and 3D modelling require deeper understanding of the tools to produce a result, practical more trial and error on the day.

SFX - PRODUCTION

4 Processes
£23.00
2 1/2 Days 

VFX - PRODUCTION

4 Processes
£0.00
375Mins
£10.99/M Adobe Suite

 
VFX - PRODUCTION

 FINAL

Was limited by health and safety and what I could actually physically achieve in the Special effects shoot but felt that was acceptable as it forced a certain degree of creativity. For example the scene with the backlash of blood the actors face, spliced in between the shooting and when the bullet hole appears wouldn't had existed if it hadn't been for the limitations of the physical effects, In a way I believe not having the ability to show a bullet hole appear live forced a more creative approach with camera trickery 'style over substance', there was a visible workaround to the problem without resorting to digital effects.

I also believe audience don't necessarily need to be shown everything to suspend their disbelief in a action shot, If anything I am concerned that the ability to display everything, placing digital effects center stage, replacing rather than enhancing may have drawn attention upon itself and caused a detachment between viewers, I will later test this theory out with my 'go viral' artifact 5, hopefully concluding that you shouldn't use VFX for minor details, only the impossible to create (Gollum, LOTR, Davy Jones)

During filming of the SFX blood scenes I noted how a seemingly simple effects to recreate inside of a piece of digital software were taking so long to recreate in reality, as my figures suggest it could be deemed cheaper and less time consuming to produce these kinds of minor effects/enhancement via a digital software. The automated features of rotobrush and the use of time-saving stock footage could be seen as a highly tempting alternative for production companies.

 In terms of working with either form I definitely experiences a more 'custom' feel when working with SFX, the product felt like an authentic invention where as the tools I used to replicate the effect via Aftereffects have been noticeable used thousands of time with similar looking results.
I did feel a certain degree of automation involving VFX, including the automatic rotobrush, but believed the final product was largely still a result of my knowledge and skill base, a large portion of the craft came from a traditional knowledge of light and ability to color correct.

I firsthand experienced the notion explored in my research essay of items appearing to perfect for a scene and breaking suspension of disbelief, all VFX assets appeared ultra crisp and too hyper real to be believable, a similar result to my artifact 3 test involving A.I humans. The largest portion of time was spent color correcting and blending assets to adequately fool the audience that what they were seeing  in front of the camera was real. In this regards being able to relate when I was creating (bullets, blood elements) back to the original scene was extremely useful. If i hadn't had been on set monitoring the light sources at the time and was having to 'act' with the digital tools days after, completely disconnected from reality results would have been much worse. This concludes that havig at least some psychical reference, regardless of whether it appear on screen is extremely useful for improving suspension of disbelief.

- Is cheaper and less time consuming for minor effects
- Quite possibly reverse for more complex effects
- Limitations can increase creativity
- Overuse and replacing rather than enhancing draws attention upon itself.
- Objects appear to perfect, shouldn't be used unless necessary, especially for small assets easily produced
- Both forms require incredible skill/knowledge, SFX however possibly gives more unique look nowadays.
- Traditional art skills still important for both
-Actual Inspiration on physical shoot, not acting, responding to stimulus.
- Really quite hard to measure, inconclusive and as always is relative to the scene.

Research Project: Artifact 3: Uncanny Valley

Why Am I doing it?
Gage audiences reactions and receptions of differing forms of animation and character appearances. The more stylized the more acceptable? Does hyper-realism and inconsistencies cause dislike and detachment.  

How am I doing it?
Controlled focused groups with a large variety of participants. Completion of video-clip experiment to gather and plot statistics

Results

 

When Uncanny valley is applied to special effects in movies, the implications are clear: if a filmmaker strives for high levels of realism in CGI characters, they risk taking the humanlike resemblance too far, causing viewers to notice mismatches in characters appearance and movement.

Our emotional response to photo-realistic characters is that of unease and repulsion, not pleasure or likeness. This can be seen in the plummet of the purple likeness curve to rise in the green realism curve on the graph, This concerns the near photo-realistic characters of Beowulf, polar express and Imagemetric's Emily

However If a filmmaker decides to create characters in a more stylized manner, clearly signaling that they are not supposed to appear “almost human,” (The Incredibles and Avatar) we are more likely to view these characters as likeable than the characters designed to look photo-realistic. We see evidence of this with Avatar and it's 8.5 peak of likeness just before the plummet into the Uncanny Valley

"The alien Na'vi were humanoid and extremely lifelike, but they were blue-skinned with other clearly non-human features, so they didn't trigger the uncanny valley effect"

My results seem to largely support the theories of Uncanny Valley. Adding more and more human features to artificially created characters (Hal - Avatar) seems to increase there likeness and familiarity, but only to a certain point (Emily), before becoming too perfect and plummeting into repulsion and the valley.

Interesting enough it appears that "The Adventures of Tintin" breaks the rules and climbs out of the uncanny valley, with an incredible high level of realism to likeness ratio. This could represent a huge advance in motion-capture capture technology where the Uncanny valley theory is no longer applicable. where audiences are no longer effected by the in perfections and trickery which has triggered the uncanny feelings of dislike in the past.

Research Project: Artifact 2

Why am I doing it? 
Knowledge of the industry and it alteration over time, How visual fx pipeline works. Skillset of the worker, future of special effects and how they they're going to intersect.  Identify key issues which may result in lessened quality...

How am I doing it?
Conducting interviews and gathering professional idustry opinions

Results:
The hand-on, 'getting dirty' aspect of physical effects is missing entirely, the direct formative activity of touch and feel is gone, yet as far as what their trying to accomplish it's not that different. Every project still starts with drawing classically and VFX practitioners with traditional art skills in anatomy, lighting and experience in creating shapes and surfaces are still core to creating quality work... it's still the best medium for beginning work. 

CGI used to be deemed quicker, easier or cheaper than actually building props, yet has retracted. With recent software enhancements CGI can now be considered more complex and be much more expensive than physically producing an effect. Realism is paramount to the success of FX's, every effort is taken to avoid audiences realising flaws, the more physical reference material to intersect and time spent on set connecting with lighting the better the outcome for photorealism. 

The main culprit for breaking suspension of disbelief is still currently CGI humans with their uncanny qualities, everything can be lost within facial expressions and the eyes in particular. Workers are still in control of their tool and believe very little of their work to be automated or restrictive, work which is automated is usually reserved for background visuals which don't require much attention. Incredible amounts of skill and attention to detail still goes into foreground work and is the individual creation of the worker. 

For the future, many artists do believe that models have a greater impact and add a nice aesthetic and character to a film, yet they do view it as a dying art. Once the final frontier of human expression are cracked, with the trend and pace of current technology, there is no reason that within 5 years CGI will not have not totally eclipsed physical effects. However cgi could become too costly and retract.

 Key points - 

• Direct involvement of touch and feel is missing but traditional art skills are just as relevant if not more than the digital software knowledge 

• Cgi was once seen as a 'quick fix', easier option, but now it is in-fact much more complex and expensive. 

• Photorealism is the focus of many animators, physical reference is helpful in this regards and shouldn't be replaced 

• CGI humans are the main culprit of failed suspension of disbelief. 

• Animators are 'working on the tool' not 'through the tool', it is a direct formative activity and the final product is a result of the individuals creativity and skill, not mechanical operation.

• CGI will encapsulate physical effects

Research Project: Artifact 1

The broad area of my research project can be defined as follows: a look at retro material (physical) special effects in comparison to CGI (computer generated imagery) in the film industry. After reading through my research document again I discovered the main essence of the paper and noted any major concepts it discussed and analyzed. This is what I concluded.

1.) Had CGI replaced physical effects as an industry standard.
2.) How important is realism and believability to either form. Purpose of an effect.
3.) Had artistry and craft been lost. The process in how FX are made.
4) How do audiences react to either form: opinions, suspension of disbelief, immersion and overall experience between effects.
5) Finally are physical effects still required and can they intersect with CGI today.

My first artifact is going to take these issues to the public, gathering opinions and statistics to confirm or go against discussion raised in my document, It may also raise new talking points I was previously unaware of. Hopefully this will help synthesize the key issues and debates surrounding my research question, allowing me to record any recurring opinions and arguments voiced by the general public. I can then take this data to relevant practitioners to comment on, contrasting and comparing the results to further my research.

Why am I doing It?
- To discover how audiences react to either form of SFX. What they believe, expect and prefer in the effects world.
- Gather valuable date to help form later artifacts, interview questions, key films for focus groups, stats.
- Ultimately support or contrast my Research conclusion.   

How am i doing it?
- Online questionnaires on various forums, blogs and chain mails
- To the streets, Interviews with the general public of Nottingham. Cinemas, Library's, Bars.

Results
Online Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JHTL8B6
Online Video (password sam): http://vimeo.com/57764225

Conclusion

Practical effects main advantage are their realism and believability. As suspension of disbelief is extremely important to the immersion of viewers, visual effects are not appropriate for every scene. They become identified when overused, appearing to perfect and especially when trying to imitate humans. This can be caused by studios rushing production as visual effects are easier and less- time consuming than practical effects to produce.  Ultimately audience crave a certain level of 'real' in films.