로딩 중...
영어학습소
영어학습소
홈
테디잉글리시
수능
Shadowing
재생 속도
0.5x
0.75x
1x
1.25x
1.5x
시작 지점을 클릭하세요
0:00
Careful consideration when filming the live-action pieces is absolutely critical.
0:03
Where does the live-action end and the computer graphics begin?
0:03
Disguising that transition is to me one of the biggest challenges.
0:03
Hi, I'm Todd Vaziri, a visual effects artist, and this is VFX support.
0:03
Rahat asks, "Texas switch alert: Do music videos with Christopher Walken dancing count?"
0:03
And this is the music video from Fatboy Slim, "Weapon of Choice," directed by Spike Jonze.
0:34
What is a Texas switch?
0:39
A Texas switch is a gag, an on-set gag, where a stunt person or stunt performer gets switched out in the middle of one seamless shot with the actor.
0:45
Typically, this is done with a stunt performer doing an elaborate stunt in front of the camera, falling or hiding behind a set piece, and emerging from that set piece is the actor in the exact same clothing and everything, pretending like they just did this amazing stunt.
1:02
Christopher Walken, who was a trained dancer, does a lot of his own dancing, but there are certain acrobatic moves that he couldn't actually pull off, so there's a switch there between, let's call them, a stunt dancer and Christopher Walken.
1:14
And when the stunt dancer falls and tumbles out of frame, Christopher Walken was sitting there and waiting for just the right moment to pounce up and you see his face.
1:26
The effect is that it's one fluid movement, and the illusion is created.
1:29
But that isn't just the only Texas switch in that video.
1:33
A third to last shot when the character is flying around in the hotel lobby, this very elaborate shot of the character swooping down toward camera, leaves frame, the character falls through frame, and then Christopher Walken emerges.
1:50
And I think that's actually a double Texas switch.
1:51
I think it's one stunt performer on wires, there's another performer waiting to drop and go through frame, and Christopher Walken is waiting to emerge at the very end.
2:02
So there's a lot of gems in that video.
2:04
Go watch it.
2:05
20 Something More asks, "Anyone have any suggestions for movies very of their time but with solid effects?"
2:12
"Could be VFX or practical, just looking for some cool stuff to watch."
2:16
Some of the films that really inspired me and still the work holds up really well is 1933's King Kong, combining live-action with animation, and 1941's Citizen Kane.
2:27
Nobody was doing miniature work on that level with that kind of flexibility and fidelity, moving the camera through bits of miniature to have scene transitions, using deep focus.
2:27
Those movies are a gold mine of the techniques that were available at that time, and also were revolutionary for that time.
2:27
One little gem that is not on a lot of people's radars is Darby O'Gill and the Little People.
2:27
It's a Disney movie from 1959 that has some of the most astounding forced perspective work that has ever been put on film, even to this day.
2:27
Alfred Hitchcock loved using camera tricks and visual effects.
2:27
One of my favorite movies of his is North by Northwest, particularly because of all of the invisible visual effects that he uses in the film.
2:27
There are some establishing shots that they keep cutting back to of the villain's lair at the end of the movie is a complete matte painting.
3:21
There are tons of matte paintings in this movie.
3:26
He wanted a flair to certain shots of buildings of Mount Rushmore that you literally could not capture with the camera.
3:33
There was a particularly great run in 1982 for three films that are very, very different but had amazing creature and practical effects.
3:43
One I want to point out is The Dark Crystal, directed by Jim Henson and Frank Oz.
3:50
Absolutely stunning puppet work, environment work, and opticals, and miniatures, and matte paintings, everything that was available at that time is thrown into that movie, and it is an absolutely beautiful movie and worth studying.
4:01
The same year, Poltergeist, which was the first ILM production that was not a Lucasfilm production.
4:08
The work in Poltergeist, serving a very different purpose than say the work in The Dark Crystal, is remarkable.
4:21
Also in 1982 is John Carpenter's The Thing, which has some amazing creature effects by Rob Bottin, and combined with the location photography and the stage photography where you don't really even know where you are, and how seamlessly that all works.
4:21
The creatures in The Thing are still terrifying and still are just absolutely exceptional and add so much to that movie.
4:21
Even though it won the Oscar for best visual effects in 1989, I have to say The Abyss.
4:21
The Abyss took every single technique that was available to the filmmakers and put that on the screen with amazing fidelity, and had the fully computer-generated pseudo-pod that enters the oil rig, which was designed by Cameron to be a sequence that if the effect did not work, he could lift it from the movie and the movie would still work.
5:19
Another movie from the 90s that I think people may overlook is Death Becomes Her.
5:28
Yes, another Oscar winner for visual effects, but the way Zemeckis used computer graphics in that film was not necessarily for creatures or environments, it was for body horror.
5:37
And the work in that movie, advancing upon what he had learned on Forrest Gump and what ILM and Ken Ralston developed for that film, they took it to an extreme on Death Becomes Her.
5:55
Also has a great Texas switch in it.
5:55
Finally, another movie that's worth studying is Bram Stoker's Dracula, which came at a time when digital was just taking off as a technique to add computer graphics or digital compositing, but Francis Ford Coppola specifically wanted to make a film that used techniques that could have been used 40 or 50 years previous to that.
5:55
Forced perspective, double exposures, experimentations with frame rates, filming in reverse, filming things on their side so that your perspective is different and gravity changes in a way that you don't expect, building sets on their sides.
5:55
Bram Stoker's Dracula, highly, highly recommended.
5:55
Wonderful movie.
5:55
Bacon Hot Dogs asks, "Watching The Queen's Gambit and I'm always in awe of these time period series, not only the clothes and hair, but the cars and buildings are all on point.
5:55
Did they build an entire Las Vegas from 1966, or is CGI just that good nowadays?"
5:55
Yeah, computer graphics and visual effects, they're really good.
5:55
In fact, the opening shot, the establishing shot where the big graphic comes up, it says Las Vegas 1966, is entirely computer graphics.
7:01
I believe that helicopter shot going over the Las Vegas strip that cuts to a tracking shot of the lead character walking in the courtyard of the hotel, we follow the character going in through the lobby, and it's actually this beautiful uninterrupted over two-minute long shot which has a lot of invisible visual effects scattered throughout.
7:22
But at the beginning of the shot, you look over the main character, and you see the strip, you see signage, you see cars, you see people in period-appropriate costumes.
7:22
The area directly surrounding the actress and the front lobby, that's all a set piece, that's all a location that has been set dressed with period-appropriate cars and extras in appropriate costumes and garb.
7:22
But everything beyond that is a set extension.
7:22
All of the major signs, the lampposts, the cars, and the buildings, and the sky itself is all computer graphics.
7:22
And one thing in particular about Queen's Gambit and some of these other prestige TV shows that are period pieces or set in fantastical worlds, the line between the literal quality of the visual effects of TV and film, that's just gone now.
7:22
They can actually create these synthetic environments of whatever period piece it is to their exact art-directed specifications rather than relying on a single shot of stock footage.
7:22
It's super exciting.
7:22
Patrick Willems asks, "I've always wondered, how do they match the film stock and grain for CG elements composited into footage shot on 35 millimeter?"
7:22
What Patrick is really asking about is the idea of film grain.
7:22
When elements are shot on film and on digital cameras, you get a similar type of thing.
7:22
It's not exactly film grain, but you get digital noise.
7:22
When you add synthetic elements on top of anything that's photographed, how do you match that exact pattern of film grain or digital noise to the background?
9:06
We get the actual cameras that were used during the film's production and we film a bunch of test patterns in front of various colored blank pieces of cardboard under different lighting conditions, using all of the film stocks that were used on the particular show or all the digital cameras that were used on the show in the different lighting conditions.
9:28
Then we take all of that pristine footage of nothing but film grain, and we use it to generate our noise pattern that will be matching what has actually been photographed.
9:37
We can then use that to create grain profiles and add it to just the dinosaur or just the robot so that it all blends in seamlessly with the rest of the shot.
9:49
Jacob Earl asks, "The Mandalorian looked so good because it was rear projection?"
9:53
Some of the shots were achieved with rear projection, but it's not your grandpa's projection.
10:00
It's an evolution of projection techniques that is really remarkable and to me is one of the most exciting things that's going on in cinema and visual effects today.
10:13
Since the beginning of cinema, there have been projection techniques used to simulate worlds and situations that can't really exist in front of the camera.
10:24
Front projection, rear projection, which usually involves a projector projecting imagery onto a screen or onto the actors or onto special screens and capturing all of that imagery at once to make it seem like these two disparate things are happening at the exact same time.
10:43
And The Mandalorian takes it to the next level.
10:45
ILM Stagecraft technique, which utilizes LED screens to completely surround the actors, is a leap forward in projection technology.
10:57
And it's not just the LED screens, which are super bright and super crisp and super accurate, that is making this look so authentic.
11:07
It's the real-time computer graphics that are being projected behind there.
11:10
When you use rear projection in the classic sense, you have a static screen and you have a static projector that may have footage with a camera moving in it, but all of that is fixed, and therefore it limits the amount of motion and flexibility you have when you're filming your actors in front of that screen.
11:31
What The Mandalorian and Stagecraft does that's different is it's a live computer graphics world, and it's tied into the motion picture camera.
11:38
So when the motion picture camera moves around, the imagery behind the actors is moving appropriately, so you're getting proper parallax, you're getting proper perspective, and it opens up possibilities with camera movement and experimentation that you just couldn't have before.
11:57
Kevin asks, "How is it that Jurassic Park was made in 1993 and still looks better than every film that uses CG in 2019?"
12:06
Well, that's an arguable statement, but I think I understand the sentiment of what Kevin is going for right here.
12:14
When Jurassic Park was in production, at the start of production, they thought the large-scale dinosaurs were going to be handled with stop-motion animation supervised by Phil Tippett, and in the middle of production, the computer graphics team at ILM said, "We're going to try to make a fully digital T-Rex for all of the full-body shots," and that is what made it in the movie.
12:33
At the dawn of basically modern computer graphics, there were only, I think, 60 or 65 fully digital shots in Jurassic Park, each of which had to be designed to the letter.
12:33
Every single moment, every single beat had to be completely planned out ahead of time because of how much work and effort would have to go into it.
12:33
We can't just throw out a dozen shots in this sequence.
12:33
We cannot just create all this volume in the time allotted with technology that is being built as the train is going.
12:33
It's a little bit different now where there's literally 1500 to 2000 visual effects shots in major modern blockbusters.
12:33
I'd recently watched Jurassic Park with my kids, and it still holds up.
12:33
It totally does the job.
12:33
The shot design is absolutely amazing.
12:33
If you look very carefully at those shots in Jurassic Park, each of them have a beginning, middle, and end.
12:33
Each of them have a reason for being there of connective tissue from one bit of sequence to the next bit of sequence.
12:33
Your original point, Kevin, is arguable, but I think you're reacting to the amazing shot design of Jurassic Park.
12:33
Eric Alba asks, "What do you think was the single best VFX shot or sequence in a film, TV, or a spot this year?"
12:33
I'm going to revert to 2019.
12:33
1917 by Sam Mendes was absolutely extraordinary to have the audacity to basically make an almost an entire movie an uninterrupted shot.
12:33
You're following these characters with these Steadicam-esque shots right over their shoulders, you are right there with them.
12:33
There's nowhere to hide, there's nowhere to duck.
12:33
As part of cinematic vocabulary, we are constantly expecting a cut, and when those cuts don't come, it builds tension.
12:33
The work that was done to get those to look like they were all one take was extraordinary, crazy huge set extensions and the stitching of different takes seamlessly right in front of your eyes.
14:37
Most audiences just watched that and just believe what was happening in front of them when there were these dramatic synthetic transitions to make it seem like one interrupted shot.
14:47
Lisa McRae asks, "I have a dumb question for VFX peeps, do studios ever have people that do Photoshop edits frame by frame?"
14:55
"Is that a thing?"
14:55
The answer is yes.
14:59
These amazing digital artists do paint frame by frame.
15:03
Some may look at that and go, you know, I've dabbled in Photoshop, I've used the clone tool, I can make a still frame look really amazing.
15:12
I can paint out a prop that I don't like in the set.
15:15
That's great.
15:15
You did a great job.
15:15
Now, understand that motion pictures are 24 frames per second.
15:21
That paintwork that you did has to be completely consistent from one frame to the next, 24 frames in a second, and most shots are three, four, five seconds long.
15:30
You've got a giant challenge.
15:33
So every single paint stroke that you did for the frame that you really like, you now have to mimic for the next frame and for the next frame.
15:41
And sometimes the camera move makes that a little bit easier with motion blur and parallax and things like that, and sometimes it makes it a lot harder.
15:52
So all around the world there are talented paint artists whose job it is to remove props, to remove wires, to remove entire actors, to remove set pieces, to remove the reflections of the camera crew in a mirror that accidentally got into shot.
16:09
Sometimes we can use procedural methods to get rid of those things, like painting certain still frames and tracking them in, but other times it requires frame by frame painting, and these paint artists are absolutely amazing, and my hats are off to them because it is very hard.
16:27
Jessica Chandler asks, "Question for VFX folks: If I have a handgun firing in rapid succession, should the muzzle flash be the same each time, or should each shot produce a slightly different flash?"
16:37
Muzzle flashes, I've done many over my career, and there is an art and science to muzzle flashes.
16:47
Some of the movies that I look at for visual reference are the movies where the filmmakers really wanted to make a statement with their muzzle flashes, movies like Brian De Palma's Scarface or John McTiernan's Predator or Die Hard, where the muzzle flashes are almost a character in the movie.
17:05
So for reference, go look at pre-digital motion pictures like Scarface, like Predator, like Die Hard, which have muscle flashes in various environments, and all of those are really captured in camera, and it gives you a really good sense as to the visual cues as to what muzzle flashes should look like in real life.
17:05
One of the typical stumbling blocks is forgetting about exposure.
17:05
When you're shooting out in daylight, your aperture is really closed, so those muzzle flashes, which may have been photographed in a dark stage against black, they may be completely overexposed, super hot white.
17:05
In real life, in the daylight, they wouldn't be that hot, super bright, so you have to treat them more like fireballs, like you might actually see little tendrils of fire.
17:05
There are a lot of trip-ups that can happen with compositors adding muzzle flashes, and one of the questions is, do you use the same texture?
17:05
No, you don't, because each muzzle flash is a snowflake, each one is slightly different because these are organic fireballs that are happening in front of the prop gun.
17:05
My tip is, you know, please be aware of your exposure values for your shot, go easy on the glow, and take cues from the rest of the film and see what kind of diffusion and filtration is happening in the rest of the movie, because if that isn't happening in the rest of the movie, you don't want to have all this diffusion in your muzzle flashes.
18:39
And three, take it easy on the interactive light, especially on dark scenes, because you have to nail the interactive light, which is painting pretend light onto the frame or onto the actor on the edge of the gun or various set pieces that is being illuminated by the muzzle flash, because that can get out of hand really fast and it could look really fakey.
18:58
I Saw It Five Times asks, "So here's a question for animators and animation studios, when working on theatrical long sequenced visual effects projects, are you given a certain amount of pages or minutes to work through, and then another studio gets a certain amount and so on?"
19:18
In the best-case scenario, one visual effects house would be working on the entire film.
19:20
That way, the director and the visual effects supervisor can work directly with the teams.
19:25
That's how a lot of the movies right up until about the year 2000s were accomplished, but movies became much more complicated, no one facility could take on that much work in that particular timeframe, so the work started to get broken up.
19:40
With superhero movies, for example, we can split up the work in terms of characters.
19:40
Let's say there's five superheroes in the movie, they each have five very distinct powers, we can safely, in most cases, split up the work of each individual character to a different facility.
19:40
What that allows is that facility can focus on the atmospheric effects of somebody who controls weather, another person is handling the flying effects of another character, another one is handling the creature effects where this character is an entire creature.
19:40
Another way is locations and environments.
19:40
If you're having a big sprawling science fiction movie where you're visiting a desert planet and you're visiting a jungle planet in the middle of the same movie, one facility can handle all the shots in the jungle, and then separately the desert battle sequence, another facility can handle that.
19:40
But it's a tricky thing and it requires a great deal of scrutiny from the film's visual effects supervisor to make sure that stylistically all of these shots which are done by many different studios from around the world all feel like the same movie, stylistically from the same vision serving the director's needs.
19:40
Brit asks, "I'm watching Civil War," I'm assuming they mean Captain America: Civil War, "for the first time, and how did they de-age Robert Downey Jr.?
21:10
"What is this devil magic?"
21:10
One of the techniques is what I call the grafting technique.
21:15
The actor in present day, their current age, performs the scene just as they would any other scene with the other actors under the regular studio lights with the movie camera, and they perform as the younger version of themselves.
21:29
Then a very carefully cast body double comes in and is photographed sometimes saying the same lines and going through the scene to see how shadows and light work on them, how bounce light is affecting their faces.
21:42
When you come back to post-production, artists go in and find frames and sequences that are appropriate to graft and remove and graft and put onto the recipient.
21:58
It is a laborious frame by frame artist-driven technique.
22:06
Other techniques that you could use are a partial computer graphics version of it, where instead of using the grafting technique of warping real photography onto the actors, you go completely computer graphics for parts of the head or parts of the face.
22:21
Then the next step would be full computer graphics from head to neck or head to toe in some cases, including the costumes, because at that point you may want to change the performance or you may have to change the performance.
22:35
So there's a lot of different routes, there's a lot of different ways to get there.
22:38
Most importantly, it's what is driving the performance and how to maintain the integrity of the director and the actor and what they're trying to get across.
22:49
Finally, deep fakes.
22:49
The tech and the techniques and the workflow is still in its infancy.
22:56
It's going to be used in feature films, and there are other techniques that are on the horizon that are showing incredible promise, machine learning, AI-driven deep fakes.
23:06
And it's just a matter of time till this becomes a tool in our chest that we can use them, use all of these tools, or interchangeably even right now, to get the shot across.
23:06
But it is still very time-consuming.
23:06
It still has to be filmed with a level of planning and detail that is really, really extensive.
23:06
And even in the near future, these things require an army of artists and technologists, a great deal of planning.
23:06
There's also performance level considerations that have to come in mind.
23:06
Do you want the older actor performing as the younger actor?
23:06
Does the older actor in the present day know how the younger actor moved physically?
23:06
Is it going to be driven by the literal performance on the day or is it going to be driven by a performance in a studio in a more controlled environment?
24:01
There are still so many questions.
24:04
It is hard for me to envision a time where it's as easy as casting a younger actor and filming your movie and framing your movie in such a way to have another actor play the younger version of your main character.
24:20
One thing that will always be coming up against and battling is the human being's ability to recognize human beings.
24:30
Our emotional essence of how our eyes work, how our brains work, how we relate to one another is built upon this vast memory bank of understanding how real humans look, emote, and act.
24:46
Why we praise the best actors in the world usually isn't because of all of their gesticulation or some, you know, sometimes that is the case where a big, brash performance gets a lot of acclaim, but in other times it's because of the soft, subtle movements and facial tics and gestures that to untrained eyes like, that's not acting, that's just being human.
25:08
Aha, yes, that is being human.
25:10
Doing this stuff, simulating this kind of stuff, is very hard, and that's why some call it the Holy Grail of computer graphics or visual effects.
25:21
It is very hard to convince humans that the synthetic human is a human because of the massive amounts of complexity that is required to convince you that this is real.
25:35
Will McCrabb asks, "VFX artists who are parents, when you watch movies with your kids, at what point do you let them see behind the curtain and tell them how it was done?"
25:44
I have two kids, we show them a lot of movies.
25:48
It's similar to if you go to a really great magic show and you're just wowed by the magician, and you know, of course, human nature is how did they do that?
25:59
If someone came up right next to you and told you immediately how they did that, it would ruin a little bit of the fun.
26:03
In cases where the kids like the movie more, the more likely I am to wait to tell them anything about the making of the movie.
26:14
But the older they got, the more interested they would get as to how these things were done.
26:18
I would slowly introduce them to the techniques that are used, but in the cases where they do ask, like literally, "Hey, Dad, how'd they do that?"
26:28
I will walk them through it.
26:29
Sometimes it's really eye-opening and they really love it and they think that's, well, that's really, really interesting, or sometimes they, I will lose them entirely and they'll just walk off and want to play Minecraft.
26:39
These were really great questions.
26:39
Thank you for letting me answer them for you.
26:43
This has been VFX support.