@eimb1999 it's amazing that these guys who invented the craft, are still working today. It's not often that in history you can still work alongside with the creators of an industry.
@eimb1999 : Also going back to the happy accident, which I absolutely agree, most films still use real and miniatures for pyro, which I think is great for sheer randomness of the elements in special effects, the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films are a good example of highly detailed modelwork, also CG simulations in the past for a crash has looked 'hokey' in the past ('Air Force One' sea crash sequence is one that sticks out for me)
@eimb1999 : Yes, I have heard special effects people speak about 'happy accidents' and I know Chris Nolan tends to stay away for excessive CG, Batman Begins had a great use of miniatures (train crash and car park at the end touched up with CGI) and The Dark Knight (Tumbler crashing into garbage truck underground). This maybe controversial but what if Lucas/Spielberg went back and retouched some of the opticals in the 'Indie films' rear projection, matte paintings what this would look like.
wow this is how they made mattes and roto'd things?? amazing, god i feel like an idiot now for using AE and Fusion... but it's amazing how the process is still the same.
Personally, I prefer these old fashioened film techniques because they feel more hand made. I want to make movies that use but traditional and computer effects because I don't want to forget about the old school techniques.
@eimb1999 : I wholeheartedly apologise, and I agree with you that CG can/has been overused blatantly (Star Wars prequels are the obvious example) but directors such as Stephen Sommers are the ultimate CGI abusers with the Mummy Returns (Scorpion creature at the end didn't work for me , a mixture of Dwayne Johnson with CGI lower body perhaps) at Van Helsing (even worse!!!) there are SO many more benefits than negatives and I still agree that audiences are spoilt becuase it's so commonplace now.
I agree. Without computers especially modern TV science-fiction and science-fantasy series wouldn't be possible because this old technique is by far too expensive for TV series.
@eimb1999 Its overused because its cheaper and brings you the impossible. Plus you're probably only noticing a very very small amount that has had a vfx department touch it (such as bad 3D and stuff). These days almost every shot has had some VFX work done on it, from simple colour corrections and rotopaint work to set extensions. However I do agree with you that the more real stuff the better. Finally I bet films you do like have VFX all over them. The best VFX are the ones you dont notice
@eimb1999 It's not true that anyone can make a movie. I do visual effects and 3d stuff myself, and to master the effects programs like maya and after effects, it can take literally years of learning and practicing. Yet it's true that everyone have acess to the pro tool, very few people fully know how tu use them. And take ILM for example. even if they use know computers and digital technology, they still continue to push the limits of what's possible.
It's just another tool to get the job done. A good portion of the VFX artists from back then made the transition to digital. Most model makers/compositors later careers did profit greatly from their experience with physical/optical work.
+Bob Sewvello I'd hardly call 'antiquated' a put-down, lol. I'm pretty sure in years to come technology and methods used right now will be regarded in a similar fashion, it's just the nature of things.
Indeed. But it was really THEM who paved the way for the computer software. Thomas Knoll (and later John Knoll) who pioneered Photoshop which subsequently spawned After Effects. :-)
@eimb1999 :NO, THAT'S CRAP!!, I still appreciate SPECIAL EFFECTS (stopmotion, GOmotion, models, opticial effects) but am a fan of VISUAL EFFECTS, I think since Jurassic Park a viewing audience his been spoilt by visual effects, taking for granted the amazing achievements such as T2, Hollow Man, Transformers, Benjamin Button and my fav Davy Jones, most of these are n't possible with special effects, I agree film's main objective is story and narrative but hatin' on CG is just plain ridicious.
This actually seems like it might be easier to do it this way than CGI nowadays that there's overlays and stuff and you don't have to use actual film for everything
To all the digital CGI nuts, I was am still into graphics 2&3D but working in REALITY and understanding REAL PROCESSES is needed to translate into FAKE generated images and environments. People who sculpt draw and photograph and the manipulate REAL LIFE or take basic earth science physics and biology are miles higher in understanding and recreating REALITY in films than a videogame creating kid whiz taking classes to just get a job straight into movie production.
I was part of the traditional roto/animation crew. Our hand drawn/painting skills were amazingling acute. We were always put down as "tracing" B.S. if you ever had to do that work you would know how high your hand/eye skills would have to be. Now 40 years later I am stunned and amazed at the work I did so easily without thinking. My hands could never be able to do that now after 30 years on a key board and with a stylist.
![How Lord of the Rings used forced perspective shots with a moving camera VIDEO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWMFpxkGO_s/mqdefault.jpg)
Today I was doing rotoscoping for a video. I thought it was a long and tedious process, bit it's nothing compared to what they were doing back then!
7:54 "All of that for about 2 seconds on your screen." And the funny part is that this video's format is in 4/3 and we miss the whole thing lol.
@eimb1999 it's amazing that these guys who invented the craft, are still working today. It's not often that in history you can still work alongside with the creators of an industry.
Thank you so much for this video so we can appreciate all the work these guys have done
@eimb1999 : Also going back to the happy accident, which I absolutely agree, most films still use real and miniatures for pyro, which I think is great for sheer randomness of the elements in special effects, the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films are a good example of highly detailed modelwork, also CG simulations in the past for a crash has looked 'hokey' in the past ('Air Force One' sea crash sequence is one that sticks out for me)
1:43 I like how the machine is super loud and he doesn't even care
He's used to it.
All that work for only 2 seconds :) amazing!
the real art in movie making
Thanks for uploading this! Helped me a ton since my dissertation for university is on ILM.
So fantastic
@eimb1999 Yeah I love miniatures too, reason I'm such a huge fan of some of the work Weta did on Lord Of The Rings.
@eimb1999 : Yes, I have heard special effects people speak about 'happy accidents' and I know Chris Nolan tends to stay away for excessive CG, Batman Begins had a great use of miniatures (train crash and car park at the end touched up with CGI) and The Dark Knight (Tumbler crashing into garbage truck underground). This maybe controversial but what if Lucas/Spielberg went back and retouched some of the opticals in the 'Indie films' rear projection, matte paintings what this would look like.
wow this is how they made mattes and roto'd things?? amazing, god i feel like an idiot now for using AE and Fusion... but it's amazing how the process is still the same.
At 7:00 it looks like they are producing an opening scene of Gravity
@bouchandre now in After effects, using the Rotobrush, the computer does it for you...
4:00 Machine Animation Stand???
Personally, I prefer these old fashioened film techniques because they feel more hand made. I want to make movies that use but traditional and computer effects because I don't want to forget about the old school techniques.
So Glad I have after effects now.
@boohooimsad but the rotobrush doesn't work all the time, and you still have to check each frame
Hi Daniel, Thanks! I can't download the full show, maybe the link doesn't work. Can you help me? Nice work! See ya.
@eimb1999 : I wholeheartedly apologise, and I agree with you that CG can/has been overused blatantly (Star Wars prequels are the obvious example) but directors such as Stephen Sommers are the ultimate CGI abusers with the Mummy Returns (Scorpion creature at the end didn't work for me , a mixture of Dwayne Johnson with CGI lower body perhaps) at Van Helsing (even worse!!!) there are SO many more benefits than negatives and I still agree that audiences are spoilt becuase it's so commonplace now.
can someone plz explain me the diffrnce btwn VFX paint and ROTOSCOPING..............and also which has higher scope.
+Ak Aravind Rotoscoping is the absolute worst job in VFX.
thank you..
So many steps and equipment for something so simple to do today. And we still complain!!
thank god we have a computer and a software to do that these days...
I agree.
Without computers especially modern TV science-fiction and science-fantasy series wouldn't be possible because this old technique is by far too expensive for TV series.
Thanks. You're missing part 2?
th-cam.com/video/mw3EvuRkQVw/w-d-xo.html
You link doesn't work.
I guess rapishare doesn't exist anymore. It was 14 years ago🤷♂
@eimb1999 Its overused because its cheaper and brings you the impossible. Plus you're probably only noticing a very very small amount that has had a vfx department touch it (such as bad 3D and stuff). These days almost every shot has had some VFX work done on it, from simple colour corrections and rotopaint work to set extensions. However I do agree with you that the more real stuff the better. Finally I bet films you do like have VFX all over them. The best VFX are the ones you dont notice
@eimb1999 It's not true that anyone can make a movie. I do visual effects and 3d stuff myself, and to master the effects programs like maya and after effects, it can take literally years of learning and practicing. Yet it's true that everyone have acess to the pro tool, very few people fully know how tu use them. And take ILM for example. even if they use know computers and digital technology, they still continue to push the limits of what's possible.
Wow, how antiquated! Imagine showing them how computer software does it all 30 years later!
It's just another tool to get the job done. A good portion of the VFX artists from back then made the transition to digital. Most model makers/compositors later careers did profit greatly from their experience with physical/optical work.
You should be super impressed by how things were done back than rather than putting it down.
+Bob Sewvello I'd hardly call 'antiquated' a put-down, lol. I'm pretty sure in years to come technology and methods used right now will be regarded in a similar fashion, it's just the nature of things.
Indeed. But it was really THEM who paved the way for the computer software. Thomas Knoll (and later John Knoll) who pioneered Photoshop which subsequently spawned After Effects. :-)
Aw, thought this was going to talk about lightsabers and not a scene from Indy. Still a cool look behind the scenes and into this process.
I don't understand why the film elements featured here are mucky. Surely they would have cleaned them before they got to the theatre?
+Henry Jones Jnr.
They are not mucky. You are watching a workprint trough the preview monitor of a Flatbed editor station.
in genius
@eimb1999 :NO, THAT'S CRAP!!, I still appreciate SPECIAL EFFECTS (stopmotion, GOmotion, models, opticial effects) but am a fan of VISUAL EFFECTS, I think since Jurassic Park a viewing audience his been spoilt by visual effects, taking for granted the amazing achievements such as T2, Hollow Man, Transformers, Benjamin Button and my fav Davy Jones, most of these are n't possible with special effects, I agree film's main objective is story and narrative but hatin' on CG is just plain ridicious.
This actually seems like it might be easier to do it this way than CGI nowadays that there's overlays and stuff and you don't have to use actual film for everything
To all the digital CGI nuts, I was am still into graphics 2&3D but working in REALITY and understanding REAL PROCESSES is needed to translate into FAKE generated images and environments. People who sculpt draw and photograph and the manipulate REAL LIFE or take basic earth science physics and biology are miles higher in understanding and recreating REALITY in films than a videogame creating kid whiz taking classes to just get a job straight into movie production.
+klyana130
Couldn't agree more. A visual arts education and photography / filmmaking as hobbies helped me immensely in this industry.
I was part of the traditional roto/animation crew. Our hand drawn/painting skills were amazingling acute. We were always put down as "tracing" B.S. if you ever had to do that work you would know how high your hand/eye skills would have to be. Now 40 years later I am stunned and amazed at the work I did so easily without thinking. My hands could never be able to do that now after 30 years on a key board and with a stylist.