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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment