INDUSTRY. VFX ROUND TABLE
are using a tool someone invented, that means you’re not participating in making the industry move forward. Technology doesn’t advance simply by magic, it does so because people like Méliès, Lucas and Cameron make no concessions on their artistic and technical visions. HS: We already have the technology of USD, which aims to provide a standardised framework for VFX. But there isn’t a Universal Workflow Template. As a result, VFX studios tend to customise their workflows individually, implementing USD in many different ways. My personal feeling is that it will be very difficult to standardise the workflow, due to the fact there are always different tools, artist preferences and requirements on projects, not to mention different pricing points. But I am hoping we can reach a point where we might have a small number of key standardised workflow templates, which would include slightly tailored toolsets and working practices. I would see these as being based on the size of the team and studio as well as the type and complexity of projects. PW: I believe it is possible that VFX studios will eventually adopt standardised tools, but the constant advancement of technology and the preference of many VFX artists to use a variety of tools make it a difficult task to fully standardise. Additionally, some studios have their own proprietary tools and pipeline that they have invested a lot of time and resources into, and they may be hesitant to switch to a standardised toolset. USD and MaterialX are steps
towards standardisation, but it will take time for the industry to fully adopt it. Do you think real-time in-camera VFX pose a threat to blue, green and LED screens, as well other technologies? LG: Filmmakers are a diverse group of creative individuals, and they each approach the technical and creative process differently. Real-time, in-camera VFX can have many benefits, these can be attractive tools. It’s important for the film industry to effectively educate filmmakers about these benefits to increase their adoption and visibility. By raising awareness and helping filmmakers understand all the pros and cons, more filmmakers may be motivated to explore and utilise these tools in their work. But
what works for one might not work for another. Once they have the opportunity to see what real-time, in-camera VFX can offer, they might decide that they don’t fit their needs. The technology is still a new frontier though, and it has a long way to go, so I don’t believe blue, green and LED screens will be fully replaced by in- camera paradigms. QJ: I don’t understand this concept of tech vs tech. Green screens, celluloid, LED lights, these are just tools! I’m more concerned about what social media is doing to tomorrow’s creative minds than about what tools they will or won’t be using to tell their stories. Our industry is one of tells and myths. Was the Lumiere Cinematograph a threat to the magic lantern? Yes and no, magic lanterns have now become projectors that show movies that are shot not on Lumiere Cinematograph any more using celluloid film – but on Arri Alexa using electrosensitive photosites! We still gather with the people we love to listen and watch a story where someone else is putting a lot of effort into making it appealing. Technology is like chemistry: ‘Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed!’ HS: ICVFX has a lot of limitations, particularly camera angles and the complexity of the environment. It is an additional tool in your VFX toolbox, but it is not the solution for everything. Traditional blue and green screens are still playing bigger roles.
78. DEFINITIONMAGAZINE.COM
Powered by FlippingBook