MCS Login



MCS Login

Blog Archive


Press
The future of movies
Thursday, 18 February 2010 23:34

Motion capture technology is here to stay, and will only get better

Video
'Avatar's' performance captures
A behind-the-scenes look at the process which allowed the actors' physical performances in "Avatar" to be digitally captured for the film.
By Michael Ventre

When asked when 3-D with motion capture technology will become the prevailing format for moviegoers, David Edelstein of New York magazine replied, “Not this year, not the following year, but maybe 2012, right before the world ends. Maybe the coming of 3-D is the Mayan prophecy.”

He was pulling our legs, of course. He doesn’t really think the world will end in 2012, because if that were the prevailing opinion among movie people, they’d be selling advanced reserve tickets for “Avatar III.” And 3-D has made cameos in the industry over the years before James Cameron dusted off the concept and recharged it with “Avatar.”

But motion capture has altered the landscape while providing some incredibly creative people with new toys to play with.



“What I hope it means is that filmmakers now will be able to tell stories that they weren’t previously able to tell,” said producer Jon Landau, who shared a Best Picture Oscar with Cameron on “Titanic” in 1998 and worked in the same capacity on “Avatar.”

“There have been great stories in the minds of filmmakers and in the pages of literature that technology before was not able to find a way to tell,” Landau said, “Hopefully this will be a step in the process.”

Those who have seen “Avatar” know the basics of motion capture technology. It’s a process by which cameras and computers are able to mirror a human actor’s every nuance and transform the captured images into a digital reproduction.

So where do we go from here, short of the Mayan doomsday prophecy?

Actors must adapt
“It was just used to great result for the most expensive motion picture ever made,” noted Paul Debevec, who heads the graphics laboratory at the University of Southern California’s Institute for Creative Technologies. “Where it’s going is that probably you’ll see more and more pictures shot less expensively. It will be less expensive to shoot a movie using the performance capture approach than to use real actors on real locations.”

But that doesn’t mean more actors on the unemployment line, he said. “Everybody’s profession in the movie industry is changing,” he explained. “Being adaptable is important for actors, just like cinematographers, set designers, and most importantly, directors. Actors are not threatened at all. Performance capture allows the actors to directly drive the digital character.”

Slideshow
The world of ‘Avatar’
Meet the characters and marvel at the majestic scenery of James Cameron’s stunning sci-fi epic.

 

Motion capture technology is wondrous, but the process is relatively cumbersome compared to what it will be someday when costs come down and the technology becomes more streamlined.

“Lighting, texture, shape, motion of whatever you’re filming will merge in the future,” said Demian Gordon, chairman of the board of directors of the Motion Capture Society and a pioneer in the field. “Ultimately one day it will all be done with a three-dimensionalized film camera.Right now, filmmakers do each process separately. Eventually, it will all be done with one pass.”

In order for 3-D to become a widespread phenomenon across the country, more theaters will have to have the proper equipment.

“Right now the industry is handicapped by the 24 frames-per-second frame rate,” Landau noted. “Someone came up with that arbitrary figure a hundred years ago. That’s not the frame rate that human vision sees. It would be great to have in-theater projection that has 48 frames or 60 frames per second. It’s feasible. We’re already putting in digital projectors that are capable of doing that.”

3-D is the future
“Avatar” is only the latest and highest-profile example of the capabilities of motion capture technology. Many of the shots of Brad Pitt’s title character in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” were done with motion capture. Director Robert Zemeckis has been a leader in the field with 3D motion capture experiences such as “Beowulf,” “A Christmas Carol” and the upcoming remake of the Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine.”

George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic digitally recreated shots done for Michael Bay’s “Transformers ,” and were able to manipulate the images in the computer so that the original footage was no longer needed, Gordon explained.

“All the big-ticket effects houses have similar bags of tricks now,” he said.

But how will motion capture and 3D alter the movie-going habits of average folks?

It’s a little too soon to tell.

“In the 1950s, when television first came out and audiences stayed home rather than go to the movies, Hollywood needed to show something on the big screen that audiences couldn’t get on the small screen,” Edelstein said. “Now our culture is more and more private, with DVD, instant downloads, even movies that are available on video that are simultaneously opening in theaters. Once again Hollywood is in a position to make the most money with event movies.

“With ‘Avatar,’ you get something you can’t get at home, you’re immersed in a huge new universe. What the technology is saying is that we’re one step closer to virtual reality.”

Then there’s the downside. “My fear is that it will become the only kind of movie that studios spend money on,” Edelstein said.

That is a completely different doomsday prophecy. For now, at least, when Hollywood looks to the future, it will probably be wearing 3-D glasses.

Michael Ventre is a frequent contributor to msnbc.com. He lives in Los Angeles.

 
Brave New World
Tuesday, 16 February 2010 21:24

James Cameron discusses the technology and the performances of 'Avatar.'

By Jenelle Riley

Back in 1995, James Cameron came up with the idea that would blossom into "Avatar," the genre-busting epic that uses motion-capture effects in ways never seen before. The film has revolutionized the industry, created a star out of Australian actor Sam Worthington, broken box-office records (including besting Cameron's own "Titanic" as the highest-grossing film of all time), and earned rapturous reviews. But the writer-director is also keenly aware that many actors are concerned about this new technology and what it means for the future of their careers.

Cameron and actor Zoe Saldana (who portrays fierce Na'vi princess Neytiri) spoke to an audience of actors in January after a SAG Foundation screening of the film. They revealed how nothing the actors did in front of the camera was exaggerated or changed by the motion capture and how the technology in "Avatar" was used in conjunction with the actors' performances, not to replace them. The experience was, in Saldana's words, like "playing in the world's most amazing sandbox."

On why it took so long to bring 'Avatar' to the screen:

James Cameron
: Basically, it wasn't possible [in 1995]. They had motion capture, but there wasn't really anything for facial performance. They were basically trying to capture facial performance the same way you capture body performance. It works very well for bodies because it only takes a marker in a couple places to define where the forearm is. But it takes hundreds of markers on the face. It's pretty close to true that there are as many muscles in the face as there are in the whole rest of the body. So to try to use the same system for face and body doesn't work.

What we did that was new on "Avatar" was we uncoupled that; we did it separately. We created a separate system with a facial camera that doesn't just read the face, it gets the eyes very accurately and even the kind of internal workings of the mouth. Which, you're kind of not aware of when you're watching the movie, but every time the actors open their mouth, you see into their mouth. It's kind of obvious when you think about it, but the interaction of the tongue and teeth and the lips, that's how we form speech. And if it's not done right, it just looks wrong. So we're essentially shooting a close up of the actor 100 percent of the time.

Also, we just felt the general state of the art of CG needed to come up to a level of photo reality a little farther before we started. So we waited until 2005.

On how it feels to not have your face shown onscreen:

Zoe Saldana
: I do believe that as human beings we are prone to vanity, especially actors. But I didn't want to become an actress because I wanted people to know my face. I wanted people to know my work. And I will say that when I see [Neytiri], it's me. I played her since 2006, and it was the hardest person to break up with. I never went to work so happy, wondering what I was going to do—I would be falling off a horse, on wires one day, practicing a new dialogue, hissing. I was doing cartwheels on my way to work. As actors, it's very hard to not feel like a puppet sometimes. I never felt like that here. And I understand how actors get addicted to working with amazing directors. It's not because they can make an amazing shot or tell an amazing story; it's the respect and acknowledgement they have for the presence of an actor.

Cameron: It's very easy, actually, to be an actor's director and work with performance capture because you're not distracted by lighting or how fast the dolly should be moving or what lens you need or how quickly you're losing sun. There are a hundred thousand details to distract you from the process of working with the actor. But in performance capture, it's all done later, so you have none of that.

I went into it with a little trepidation because I thought, "They're going to hate having this camera stuck on their head." It turns out it was distracting for the first couple hours, but soon they started loving it and having fun. We were doing the work that one would do in front of the lens in terms of creating a truthful moment as the narrative required it. I think you see Zoe's heart in this movie. Even if you never see her physically, you see everything she's feeling.

On using the technology to capture the performance:

Cameron: If you don't get it perfect on the day and you walk away without that performance, you're putting it in the hands of the animators to create something after the fact. And we never did that. The animators are the best animators in the world. And we needed the best to exactly translate the work. Their task was to neither embellish nor to allow any diminishing whatsoever. And I think that was a very rigorous discipline for them, and I think they succeeded.

The beauty of it was that the look of the character didn't change in the final CG. So we could actually do something quite slick; we could have a stunt double jump off a 20-foot tower and then do a motion stitch to Zoe standing up and spinning around toward the camera. It converted in mid-move from stunt performer to the actor and yet was seamless. In fact, we had to decondition the stunt performers to not hide from the camera because they're so used to doing that.

Saldana: I want to point out that this is a technology that can be extremely liberating and at the same time very nerve-racking. But it only works if you're working with an amazing director who will honor the integrity of the performance of the actors; and Jim, from the beginning, was very adamant with making us feel comfortable and always including us throughout all the different stages. We really got to understand we were going to be there. And it was going to be translated in such a way that even our pores and skin texture would be seen.

What he says to actors who see this technology as threatening to their profession:

Cameron: That's why we wanted to be here, to let the acting community more clearly understand what this technology can mean to them. I think there are concerns, but for me those are more like if somebody wants to create your likeness after you're dead—that shouldn't be happening. This is something an actor should have control of. I think you have to look at the upside of it, which is I think it's going to make a lot of jobs and it's going to give actors flexibility to do things they might not otherwise do. There are some makeup actors; they do a lot of stuff in makeup because they're good at it. There are some actors whose skin does not get affected by having rubber glued on their face, so it's known they can play aliens or witches or warlocks. But some actors have sensitive skin; they just can't do it. If you want to step outside your own physicality, you could have a 20-year-old actor play themselves at 12 and at 90 using this technique, without makeup. Think of all the great novels that take place over time that are historically done by casting three different people to play the same role. I think most actors would prefer the opportunity to play the character in as many ages as possible. Look, makeup is not going to go away. But I think we have a new form of makeup.

For example, if Clint Eastwood wanted to play Dirty Harry again, looking the way he did in 1970—well, first of all, I'd go see that movie. Second of all, he could do it this way. So I think we have to think outside the box in terms of just fantasy science-fiction films and those types of characters.
 
ThreePenny Opera
Tuesday, 16 February 2010 20:58

Motion-Capture Opera? Andy Serkis Says Why Not

Motion-Capture Opera? Andy Serkis Says Why Not Amid the premiere screenings and production deals going on at the Berlin Film Festival, some truly strange news. Screen Daily reports that the man famous for pioneering motion-capture performance as Gollum in Lord of the Rings, Andy Serkis, will be collaborating with Australian musician Nick Cave on a motion-capture movie of the The Threepenny Opera.

The Threepenny Opera is a musical by German dramatist Bertolt Brecht and composer Kurt Weill which offers a Marxist critique of the capitalist world. It opened in August of 1928 in Berlin, and as Serkis said about the new project, “It’s nice to announce it in its hometown.” The actor is at the festival to talk about his performance in sexdrugs&rock&roll, as the late rock star Ian Dury.

About a career criminal and set in Victorian London, The Threepenny Opera in mo-cap instantly makes me think of Robert Zemeckis’s recently released motion-capture feature A Christmas Carol, also set in Victorian London and exploring its own issues with greed. I enjoyed what I saw in A Christmas Carol, and the era lends itself to nice cinematic atmosphere, utilizing interesting wardrobe, candlelight, and London architecture. It will be cool to see what comes of this new idea.
 
Foundation Trilogy
Friday, 12 February 2010 23:38

Roland Emmerich plans to use Avatar’s motion-capture technology for Foundation trilogy

by Jack

IsaacAsimov

Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012…essentially anything where the world is destroyed by an enormous overload of CGI) is planning to develop a series of films based on Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy.

Asimov’s books revolve around two societies that are created at opposite ends of the galaxy, as sources of human knowledge, in an attempt to shorten a coming dark age. The dark age is predicted by a mathematician’s psychohistory, a science that allows him to predict large-scale events in the future.

Emmerich intends to shoot the films using the same methods as Avatar; filming everything using motion-capture, and then presenting it in 3D CGI. MTV Movies Blog, who have the original story, provide this quote from Emmerich:

“It’s not only the effect of 3-D, ['Avatar' has] just shown that if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that’s the trick.”

 
Iphone augmented reality app
Tuesday, 09 February 2010 19:23

cool augmented reality app for the iphone 3gs

Sky Siege Augmented Reality Warfare Game Turns iPhone Into Deadly Portal to the Heavens


Sky Siege ($3, available now) uses the iPhone 3GS' compass and accelerometers to turn the iPhone into a window rather than just a screen, resulting in startlingly immersive gameplay.

Don't know what that means? Just watch this remarkable clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsqKDhGVo0&feature=player_embedded

 

 
Actors Snubbed
Monday, 08 February 2010 17:55

Should there be a separate Oscar category for motion-capture performances? Or would that just open a Pandora’s box?

By JERE HESTER

 

20th Century Fox

Maybe the Academy Awards should start a new category: Best Avatar.

While “Avatar” notched nine Oscar nominations, not one of the film’s actors – whether playing a human, a Na’vi or both – earned a nod.

The snub of the actors who starred in what’s already the all-time box office champ begs the questions of whether motion capture is a form of animation or acting – and how should performances be judged.

The Academy has been somewhat inconsistent as it grapples with changing storytelling technology. Brad Pitt, whose fine work in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was aided by digital wizardry and the legs of three other actors, received a Best Actor nomination last year.

Andy Serkis, who gave precious life to the reviled Golem in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, got rave reviews – but no love from the Academy.

Golem was a digital creation, using the rubber-face-and-bodied Serkis’ voice, expressions and movements, while Pitt was seen throughout, even if his face at various ages was at times superimposed onto other bodies. But both men did a strong acting job, creating believable characters in fantastical stories.

The case of “Avatar” is, in some respects, even less clear cut. Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver go back-and-forth from human to avatar form throughout the film. But it’s Zoe Saldana’s avatar-only performance as Neytiri that takes the movie from popcorn spectacle to emotionally involving epic.

The actors performed with cameras strapped to their heads and pointing at their faces, picking up expressional nuance that’s often eluded some past motion-capture efforts.

As “Avatar” director James Cameron put it to The Hollywood Reporter last week: "People confuse what we have done with animation. It's nothing like animation. The creator here is the actor, not the unseen hand of an animator."

“Avatar,” with its stunning special effects and audience-enveloping 3-D, is a movie game changer. But the Academy hasn’t caught up to honoring actors who lend their considerable skills to this new breed of film.

Academy bosses might want to move fast. The success of “Avatar” already is influencing the industry: the first installment of Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg’s motion-capture version of “Tintin” is due out next year. The film is set to co-star Serkis, who has some strong opinions on what defines a performance, having played Golem and King Kong for Jackson.

"Actors' performances in films are enhanced in a million different ways," Serkis told NPR last year, "down to the choice of camera shot by the director – whether it's in slow motion or whether it's quick cut – or … the choice of music behind the close-up or the costume that you're wearing or the makeup. … You know, actors' performances do not stand alone in any film, live action or whatever."

Whether the Academy finds “Tintin” or other future motion-capture efforts prove Oscar-worthy on any level remains to be seen. But it’s clear that when it comes to the argument surrounding what constitutes acting – and how to reward strong motion-capture performances – “Avatar” has opened a Pandora’s box.

 
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next > End >>

Page 24 of 35