Effective Use Of FX

simonpwood wrote: 2 films from the top of my head.

Bram Stokers Dracula. All of the effects were done 'in-camera' in way or the other. There were some very basic practical effects such as getting people to do actions one way, and then playing it in reverse. A good example is when Van Helsing (played by Anthony Hopkins) forces the recently dead female vampire Lucy backwards into her crypt. This was actually filmed with her coming out of the crypt forwards while Anthony Hopkins walked in reverse. When they played it backwards Van Helsing advanced while the vampire retreated, and she managed to climb backwards into her crypt. When you watch it the action looks very animalistic and weird, but you don't know you are watching something in reverse, you only know something is a bit 'off' which is the tone they were aiming for. There were lots of similar basic effects like that in the movie.

BRILLIANT!

I'm wrestling with collaborators who think we can do CG intensive "pro-level" music videos with nothing but my amatuer gear and his... erm, magic CG skills. Starting to actually try to tell stories in a visual medium, I really appreciate just taking good shots, and having REAL LIFE effects.

Sorry I haven't figured out how to embed a video here, but please check this animated preview.

I'm in love with their TItle Logo Sequence at 33 seconds.
Hoping Ben or someone will know how to do this in FCPX & Motion



thanks

=== edit

wow, just learned that merely pasting a youtube url here automatically embeds the video, very cool

Could be done in Motion. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to build it with my current deadlines. But I'll like up what hints I can soon. I'm sure some of the other Motion gurus here could figure this one out easily. Lights, blend modes, etc.

TrixTrax9000 wrote: Sorry I haven't figured out how to embed a video here, but please check this animated preview.

I'm in love with their TItle Logo Sequence at 33 seconds.
Hoping Ben or someone will know how to do this in FCPX & Motion


thanks

=== edit

wow, just learned that merely pasting a youtube url here automatically embeds the video, very cool

It is easy to create something similar in Motion, but if you want to have the 3D feel with it you would need to use a 3D application.

For something like this logo, Motion's 2-1/2D is good enough. The only difficulty I see (for me) is the metallic surface. I have never gotten that right yet.

The secret of metallic surfaces is in proper use of gradients with glows. No need for a full 3D modeling app for that effect, way too easy to do it with blend modes and animated gradients.

TrixTrax9000 wrote: Sorry I haven't figured out how to embed a video here, but please check this animated preview.

I'm in love with their TItle Logo Sequence at 33 seconds.
Hoping Ben or someone will know how to do this in FCPX & Motion...

Is this what you are looking for?
Not sure if there is a good way to produce the boolean effect from a 3D object in Motion that will look as good.
Put together in Cinema 4D with couple mouse clicks with a Boolean and MoGraph with non distractible objects so alternating is no problem.
The textures are basic out of the box as with the sky and no tweaking this is why it looks a bit flat and not as realistic as you would want.

Remember put togeather in few seconds (Render to longer then the project itself :lol: ) but I can give you the project file and you can tweak it for liking.

Wow, in a few seconds no less... very impressive. Thank you, Scrubelicious.

Normally I would jump at the chance to take you up on your offer for sharing the files, unfortunately I don't have Cinema 4D yet. Was thinking of getting it, but am daunted by more learning curves.

A great logo presentation seems vital to building a brand in film.

This one reminds me of another I liked, it was a FOX TV log with giant 3D letters in the sky above the clouds. The feeling is one of massive size.

Or go with Blender. It's very powerful and free. Pretty easy to learn, too. If you plan to do a lot of 3D modeling, Blender is the way to get started. I'm learning it now, and just amazed at how much power it has. Especially with the new 2.63a release.

But if you already have Motion, why not just do it there. VERY do-able in Motion. Off the top of my head, the shapes are simple shapes with Grayscale gradient applied and Soft Light blend modes. The text can be done with animated multiple tag gradients pretty easily. Very fast render.

A dozen ways to skin a cat. How much time and money do you want to spend?

TrixTrax9000 wrote: Was thinking of getting it, but am daunted by more learning curves.

No worries about the learning curve Cinema 4D is one of the easiest 3D Apps out there and I had my time with many 3D apps from 3D Studio, PowerAnimator, Maya, Blender, LightWave and Vertigo.
Cinema 4D is a great tool to have a motion designer or editor.

Thanks fellas... you guys are such valuable sources of information.

Since we're talking about effective use of FX, I thought … why not mention the perhaps ineffective or overuse of certain FX.

Not sure if you've seen the newest version of Total Recall (was the first one actually good enough to warrant a remake?). Anyway, whether it was the colorist or some effects guy, but I'd say a full 80% of the shots have a particular type of lens flare, where you get a bright bisecting beam shooting right across the entire screen from side to side. Looks almost like a laser or bright shaft, sometimes they color it too.. The other 20% of the shots are preposterous parkour chase scenes, but not with the real highflying athletic jumpers like in those French movies. Just a kind of low rent CGI version. So much for storyline, or even creative effort, I mean, why can you still shoot out the tires on flying cars? Then we're back for more lens flares. Sheesh. Occasionally, just for some variety, they'll have a lens flare in the middle of a chase scene. For a film that's set in a dark dingy dystopian world, they sure are overusing this light effect.

Anyone else see it & think so?

Lens flares, light leaks, and flashes all make me want to puke. I've yet to see one used "realistically" and not just cause "it's cool". Ugh...

Saw an interview with the filmmaker from the last Star Trek movie, who BRAGGED about how realistic and how often they used lens flares! That was actually one of the more HORRIBLE parts of that movie, too!

Geez, tell a story, don't just "be cool" and then complain they don't make movies like they used to.

Gross...

Fritz Murnau's Faust. Beautiful use of FX. ...and pretty progressive for 1926.

TrixTrax9000 wrote: Not sure if you've seen the newest version of Total Recall (was the first one actually good enough to warrant a remake?). Anyway, whether it was the colorist or some effects guy, but I'd say a full 80% of the shots have a particular type of lens flare, where you get a bright bisecting beam shooting right across the entire screen from side to side

I don't agree on the remake, I would rather consider bad movies to have remake for a better result.
No reason in my book to remake a good flick.

Lens Flare is becoming a style now thanks to JJ Abrams signature.

Here is a quote from FirstShowing.net / Hey J.J. Abrams, What's With the Lens Flares in Star Trek?

"I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer that's a quality of it. They [lens flares] were all done live, they weren't added later. There are something about those flares, especially in a movie that can potentially be very sterile and CG and overly controlled. There is something incredibly unpredictable and gorgeous about them. It is a really fun thing. Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors.

By the way he uses real lens flare not the fake looking CGI version.
For some reason when I see a lens flare painted movie I think of Blade Runner. :lol:

That's hilarious, making the real flares in every shot with a flashlight. I would think, if you're going to use them you'd have better control in post.

You guys have got to see this Total Recall, just for the over use of lens flares, I think I might up my assessed percentage to 90% of the shots.
It's to the point where it becomes comically distracting. For instance, even in an interior dark dingy room during for what passes for a romantic scene, in the middle of a kiss, you'll have a laser blast lens flare!

It might well spawn college drinking games, take a sip every time you see a flare. By the end of the first hour, you'll be a raging alcoholic.

"I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer that's a quality of it."

Seriously? Does he honestly believe that? Ugh...

Indeed, wouldn't it be better to create the sense that something spectacular was happening in FRONT of the camera?

Then at least you wouldn't have to use pretentious pseudo intellectual terms like "cool organic layer."

BenB wrote: "I want [to create] the sense that, just off camera, something spectacular is happening. There was always a sense of something, and also there is a really cool organic layer that's a quality of it."

Seriously? Does he honestly believe that? Ugh...

I would imagine yes plus all the viewers that invested $385494555 at the box office.
Yes he is right it does give you sense something is happening off frame.

It was a fun movie, but the lens flares were not necessary and did absolutely nothing to tell the story. Box office figures have nothing to do with that simple fact.

Since I'd mentioned the great use of FX in opening title sequences (Mad Men for me is genius, I also loved the title sequence for Safe Room), I thought I'd share this site with you guys.

www.watchthetitles.com/

Plenty of creative ideas for using FX to start the show, movie, mood...

Contrast those featured works of art with Michael Biehn's latest, called Victim. It has the most obnoxious, annoying, irritating & off-putting title sequence in the history of film.

(though slightly less simple...yes that is a fact)