Jump to content


Photo

Cloverfield


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Benjamin_Lussier

Benjamin_Lussier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Canada

Posted 26 March 2008 - 08:23 AM

Hi,

I have a few questions regarding Cloverfield. Most specifically the R&D that was done to integrate CGI with video as opposed to film.

Can anyone help ?

Thx

Benjamin
  • 0

#2 Hugh Macdonald

Hugh Macdonald
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2008 - 11:28 AM

Didn't work on it myself....

I did read an article about it, though, that said that they shot the VFX shots on a much higher-end camera than the one that they wanted it to look like it was shot on - something like a Viper or Genesis.... And then degraded the VFX shots in post to match the rest of the footage.
  • 0

#3 Chris Pritzlaff

Chris Pritzlaff
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 March 2008 - 04:59 PM

I did read an article about it, though, that said that they shot the VFX shots on a much higher-end camera than the one that they wanted it to look like it was shot on - something like a Viper or Genesis.... And then degraded the VFX shots in post to match the rest of the footage.



The VFX plates were shot on the CineAlta F23 and then degraded to match the rest of the footage.

I hear that the rest of the movie was shot on an HVX but I can't find anywhere that confirms that
  • 0

#4 Jamie Metzger

Jamie Metzger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco

Posted 26 March 2008 - 05:09 PM

Check the American Cinematographer Article on it.
  • 0

#5 Hugh Macdonald

Hugh Macdonald
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2008 - 07:15 PM

The VFX plates were shot on the CineAlta F23 and then degraded to match the rest of the footage.


Ah - okay - thanks - I knew it was on something somewhat better than how it was meant to look...!

I hear that the rest of the movie was shot on an HVX but I can't find anywhere that confirms that


That's what I'd heard too...
  • 0

#6 Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin

Posted 26 March 2008 - 11:05 PM

From what I understand, for the scenes without any effects, it was HVX and alot of times just given to the actor. Heavy effects were the f23 and low light was the genesis.
  • 0

#7 Benjamin_Lussier

Benjamin_Lussier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Canada

Posted 31 March 2008 - 01:59 PM

Hey Guys... thanks for replying to the post...

But my original question was more about the R&D they did to comp the CGI with video.

Im mostly interested in the Motion Blur. The way I see it the renders HAD to be HDR (open EXR or smtg) because of the way the bright sources of light leave a streak as the camera shakes... HOWEVER... its not just that... These streaks have a very video edge to them... very unlike the thing's ud get from a str8 3D render with motion blur.

I should prolly post on a VFX forum.

Edited by Benjamin_Lussier, 31 March 2008 - 01:59 PM.

  • 0

#8 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 31 March 2008 - 02:49 PM

Most VFX studios use EXR for their renders these days, that's pretty much a given. I expect that they had several different shake nodes (or scripts) designed to emulate certain image characteristics of the HVX-200 such as noise, pixel-shifting, 4:2:2 compression, edge-enhancement, etc on the rendered CG elements.

The way to add those aspects to the image is to figure out how they work in real-life first, like for example 4:2:2 compression is easy to fake by converting an RGB image into an YCrCb image and then apply a 2 pixel mosaic to the Cr and Cb channels and then convert the YCrCb back into a RGB image. Noise or gain may be something you either sample or overlay from reference footage - ie. by shooting 30 seconds of black using different amounts of gain should cover you.

If you looked at the CG elements by themselves you'd see an image that looks fairly clean (even the motion blur), it's much easier in cases like this to downgrade the image in the composite.
  • 0

#9 Hugh Macdonald

Hugh Macdonald
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 March 2008 - 05:32 PM

Will I get shot for saying this? I hope not....

Do check out (and ask this) on vfxtalk.com (it's mainly about the 2D side of things over there) - there are a number of people from both DNeg and Tippett who will, I'm sure, be able to help you out on this.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Visual Products

The Slider

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

The Slider

Visual Products

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Glidecam

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc