Inceptions of a different kind.

Its been awhile since I posted something decent, its not that am very busy or anything as such. I've just been lazy. I keep finding so many things that I make a mental note of, thinking I should write a post on it, but it fades away before it can be summed up or I don't feel strongly about it by the time its time to write but then I saw Inception (twice) last week and it blew me out of the water. 

The last time I saw a film that made me want to watch it again immediately, was  The Matrix, mainly because of the thought provoking nature of the film and of course, the film-making process. Inception proves that a film doesn't have to be a sequel, it doesn't have to an adaptation and it doesn't have to a re-make to do well with the audience. I somehow get the feeling that production studios think that the general public are dumb and will not understand something that is complex, hence they pick the easy way out by making sequels to an already established franchise. Christopher Nolan proved that wrong by filling up movie halls for two weeks in a row (still counting) and keeping Inception at the pole in the box office. It demands you to watch it more than once to digest the film and pick up clues that you would have missed on the first time around. This film proves that the audience isn't dumb, you just have to make a good film with the right balance and it will be consumed well.

The film itself is fantastic, though the idea and basis of the film isn't entirely new, it does draw its influences from various sources, but its the presentation and the way the film is handled is what makes it impressive. Inception, like most of Nolan's film isn't linear, it takes you through the story from different perspectives and different routes but still grounds the viewer well with in the plot without losing focus, which is quite tough when you handle something as complex a storyline as this film, but Nolan seems to be a master at it, which he proved early on with his films 'Following' and 'Memento'. 

Some folks did find the film constant without any breathing space, to let you assimilate the information being thrown at you, but I felt the pace of the film was good and if there were any plateaus in the story graph it would have lost focus and left you wandering about and thinking of the possibilities of the outcome. Which I liked, because the film doesn't let you analyze, it makes you do the analysis after the credits roll, which in turn demands you to watch it again. That is a tough one for a director and an editor to pull off.

Another interesting comment I heard was that some of them felt the motivation or the cause of the film could have been stronger. As in, instead of dissolving a business empire, it could have been preventing nuclear warfare etc etc. I find this very interesting (mini spoilers ahead). I have noticed a lot of people never see the core of a film they seem to miss out the essence of story entirely. When you speak to a colleague after a film and ask them what they thought about it, its generally about how the Visual Effects looked good\bad or its about how the gadgets in the film looked cool or how car chase in ultra slow motion looked. Its never about the emotion of the film. Never. In the case of Inception it not about the heist, its not about the anti-gravity lobby fight (which looked awesome), its not about the music score (which was phenomenal) its about - Cobb's (DiCaprio) fight with reality, his guilt and longing for his once happy family. That is the essence of the film. The rest is the packaging and layers to support the story. To elaborate - think  about most of Steven Spielberg's films, under all the gimmicks there is a core to the film - Jaws is about a family staying together and kid looking up to his dad as a role model, the shark is a driving force and an important catalyst and if you look at JJ Abrams's Star Trek - Kirk's path to self discovery and leadership. Its all in the story. 

One cant really blame the audience for not looking at a story intricately, our senses have been bombarded and spoilt by the likes of a slew of bad "summer block busters" which were all pretty pictures but no soul.

Considering I work in the visual effects industry, I obviously would need to make side notes regarding that. Over all the effects worked well for me it never took me out of the experience nor did I feel that it was over done. Christopher Nolan is notorious for keeping things practical and using CGI to the minimum and it always works. The avalanche, most of the exploding material during Ariadne's (Ellen Page) training was all shot as practical plates and enhanced only when necessary. 

Two sequences really stood out for me - During her training ,Ariadne echos two mirror reflections, thus creating a bridge in the dream world. This is a really clever sequence, it is so subtle that you're not really sure if anything is really happening until  you realize that everything you've been watching has been an  optical illusion. The crew built a 8-foot x 16-foot mirror that could be swung shut on a hinge, forming a huge reflecting door, in post they got about removing the support rig and crew reflections, adding in the infinite secondary reflections as well as the surrounding environment. 

Another sequence that got me thinking was the anti gravity fight sequence in the lobby. To create the environment, the scene was shot using massive rotating sets that twisted and turned, which took a full three weeks to shoot. The crew built a series of different hallway settings: a horizontal one that rotated 360 degrees, a vertical one that allowed actors to wear wires and another on which the actors were strapped to steel trolleys, which were eventually erased in post.

We can now definitely trust Christopher Nolan to give us quality cinema and thought provoking material.

Football Frenzy

With the World Cup at play, we're bound to see some interesting football commercials. I came across this one; done for Optus, Australia. A really well done commercial showing a secret game between the Australia team and animals from the Serengeti.

A lot of CG replacements in the commercials, cos you know, you cant get animals to act. They are snobbish stars. BUF, handled the VFX on the commercial and they are known for their photo-real organic work. A nice balance between live elements and CGI.

For more info on the commercial head over to FXGuide they have a good article on it. In the meantime watch the spot and the making of.

'Australian Football team's Secret Training'

Making of

Shuttle Scenarios

I came across this video on YouTube, that shows the Space Shuttle in 12 horrifying scenarios. 

Knowing all the while that its a VFX piece, it really got me involved mainly because of the way its presented; the combination of good background music and good use of hand-held\shaky cameras. Nothing warms my cookies when I see the right use of VFX 'gimmicks'. A handle-held approach adds to the realism of this video. It great to see it done well and with the right amount in this video.

What also makes it really interesting that, in most of the shots the destruction doesn't happen in the center of the frame, which makes it look even real because it meant to be a witness camera just recording a routine exercise, where obviously it wouldn't know where something's going to go wrong. Another nice touch is the cool, calculative and creepy voice-over at the end.

Over all a great video by 'TheFakingHoaxer'

Watch on YouTube

An article on my VFX work on IronMan 2 with ILM

Click here to see the actual article

	AnimationXpress.com

Well considering the trend...

.....

The Last Airbender - Clash of the Titans - Alice in Wonderland

If you aint shooting stereo then don't pull convergence in post. 

Crash of the Titans.

Clash of the Titans released here in Singapore on the 1st of April. When I saw the initial trailers I knew it was going to be a visual effects reel of sorts but I had some hope thinking about the original and considering the backdrop of Greek mythology. Well, I hoped for too much. Let me split this into two - Film making Perspective & Technical Perspective.

Film-making Perspective.

The film starts off with a nice pace that lasts for just 20mins, after that you just don't know what hits you. It feels like a bunch of sequences placed next to each other and printed out to film. The story has so much in it that it could have been really epic. I felt nothing for the characters it didn't matter to me if anyone lived or died. The character development was shallow, considering how much of a personality and backdrops Greek Gods have. 

Sam Worthington as Perseus feels like he walked out of the motion capture sets of Avatar and into the sets of Clash of the Titans keeping Terminator Salvation in his mind. Liam Neeson as Zeus was cool but even he cant save the film from an adrenaline junkie. Oh whats with the gods wearing overly polished stainless steel armors that seems be stolen from the  English Crusades? The bling effect from the armor was ridiculous. The introduction of Io, played by Gemma Arterton, as Perseus's guide makes you think that Perseus has a hallucination problem for the first half of the film as she keeps popping in and out. The only character I liked in the film was Ralph Fiennes as Hades, who was my only solace in the film. Hades did come across as someone you don't want to mess with.

The reason for Perseus to go on his quest is to save Andromeda from being sacrificed to the gods and if am not mistaken in the original Perseus is in love with Andromeda which doesn't have an inkling of presence in the film. It seems more like Perseus and Io have something going.

Medusa was another disappointment, I thought she'd be scary and creepy enough to get you to jump off your seat. The scene had a lot potential for something like that, especially knowing that you couldn't look Medusa in the eye or you'd be turned to stone.

A lot of story time is wasted on un-necessary areas just to show off action sequences. I agree that for a film like this you need that amount of action, but what I feel is the battle in the desert with the Scorpions before Perseus & Co. meet the Djinn could have been shorter, and more time given to the fight between Perseus and Hades, which ends in a flash when you'd consider a big bad one there.

Technical Perspective - 

Nothing much to complain here, the film lives up to the expectations in terms of Visual effects, which looks like the sole reason the movie was made. The opening sequence, the prologue takes you through the stars giving you a nice three dimensional look to the constellations and gives you a brief on the Greek myths.The early shots with sea and lighting were nice but nothing to talk about as they seemed quite bright for a stormy setting. Olyumpus for some reason looked like a futuristic city with long spiked architecture it didnt feel like a kingdom in the clouds, but Zeus's throne room looked nice with the floor made of clouds and little mountains give you the sense of the large size the gods were. Like I mentioned earlier, the armor was disappointing. 

Hades was done well, he had a good entry and exit concept, dark smoke\clouds mixed with fire and ash forming his cloak  and the furies that spawned from his clothes were pretty cool, I personally thought it looked better than the Death Eater apparition effect in the Harry Potter films. On the same lines the Kraken was nice, the scale at which he was depicted was done well. The fluid simulation surrounding the Kraken was impressive, which is now a job well done in most films that require large scale water sims. 

The scorpions who attack Perseus and the men of Argos were pretty cool. The action in that sequence was well choreographed  and brilliantly composited. The dust and debris in the shot was fantastic and gave you the feeling that you were in the thick of it all. The Djinn which lived in the desert and controlled the scorpions were also handled well. I thought the blue flames used in the Djinn's black magic to help Perseus was nice but nothing you haven't seen before in Harry Potter.

Medusa, looked plastic. Though the animation was done well, reflecting her weight and numerous snakes on her head, she just didn't come across as a scary person. I wish she was given more love in terms of concept and setting.

Pegasus, Perseus's winged horse was handled well. A good mix between prosthetics and full CGI wings made is very convincing. Even the shots where Pegasus was entirely CGI was done really you just couldnt tell the difference and making a CGI horse isnt easy.

Over all the effects are cool, but if I compare it to similar set films like Pirates of the Carribean (Seas, Storm, Kraken), Lightning Thief (Greek Gods, Underworld) - The effects in Pirates feels more organic and convincing but its definitely better than the Lightning Thief.

Conclusion - 

This movie is hard proof that its Visual Effects thats making ticket sales. Audiences\Directors\Studios are only looking at eye candy and are forgetting the art of story telling. It is disappointing mainly because a film like Clash of the Titans has so much scope to make it look epic. 

Looks like we'll have to depend on the likes of Ridely Scott and Christopher Nolan who know how to maintain the balance. Watch with film with lots of popcorn and truckloads of butter. It'll meant to be that way.

Importance of Sound

Being a very Visual person that I am, I think in perspectives and colors but what I often forget is there is an underlying auditory process that happens that support my mental images. Though most of us don't notice or pay attention, sound plays a very important part in our lives. The audio engineers are some of the unsung heroes in a most productions. 

Big visual effects shots don't have any grounding without sound effects, any VFX shot is only at its 75% potential without sound. Even when there is nothing happening or what we think is silence, there is still some atmospheric sound that gives the scenario some dimension or we could call it 'the sound of silence'.

I don't think there is ever a place that doesn't trigger your auditory senses, unless you are in vacuum where you wouldn't survive in any case. To think of it, in movies to depict vacuum, they have an ominous sound that subconsciously tells you that there is nothing.

My brother, Varun is a sound engineer for a well known Audio company in Mumbai. Varun has been an audiophile from his young age he always had a knack with music and instruments, he recently gave a talk on 'Sound as a Storyteller' at the India Game Developer Summit Bangalore 2010, he makes some interesting observations and points through his talk. Below you'll find a summary of his talk, definitely worth a read.

'Sound as a Storyteller'

I make sounds for a living. I create sounds out of nothing and mix and record music for a variety of media. Over the past 2 odd years I’ve had the chance to work on games - on a variety of them. Although, I have been involved largely on a creative level. I receive the game and a brief and provide sound, music and dialogues. I’ve had very little to do with the technicalities of implementation. So what I’m going to talk about today is what I’m best at - being creative and telling a story through sound.

I’m going to talk on two topics. One - Communication. Using sound as an effective communication tool - to enhance game play and make the experience for the gamer all the more enjoyable. And second, I will briefly go over the asset structure and how we do what we do.

So starting with communication. We all know that sound is one of our 5 senses. Along with sight, smell, touch and taste it helps us understand the environment around us. From the beginning of time sound has played an important role in understanding our environment. Birds tweeting would mean a danger free environment, while silence or low rumbles could mean approaching danger or disaster. These ideas have trickled down even today. That is why a happy scene in a movie might have birds tweeting in the background and definitely not a scary rumble. So this tells us that there’s a lot our brain understands from what we hear - and many of these processes happen sub consciously. And if we understand these clues and implement them into a game such that we leave hints both on a sub conscious and conscious level - then, we can create an environment that is engaging to the player without him/her realizing it. And isn’t that what we all want as developers and publishers? A game that’s engaging and sells?

Lets start with a question. What is sound?

There are easy answers that can be found in a dictionary. The first one - ‘sound is a traveling wave which is an oscillation of pressure’..etc..etc which is a purely scientific explanation. The second one is what interests me. “The sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations”. This is going back to what I was talking about. Sound is and can be used as a form of communication because it directly appeals to our brain.

If sound does communicate, how does it work? When we hear a sound - either consciously or sub consciously - our brain refers to a catalogue of previously learned information. It refers back to our past. These could range from memories, emotions, what we see and hear in the media - especially in today’s age - and also most importantly what we have learnt from society. We take clues from our environment and then make decisions based on our past. These responses could range from emotional to practical, total disregard or in most cases a mix of these. For example - when you hear an airplane pass over - you properly identify it as an airplane because you’ve heard it tens of times in your past. But on the other hand if you hear an alien spacecraft your mind might have difficulty making references because it might be a sound you’ve never heard before.

So this tells us: Sound is an effective communication stream. It can give us a sense of realness or fantasy. And if it communicated efficiently then it can help the player suspend disbelief easily. But also, sound is not king. We constantly refer to our visual stream for confirmation of what we hear.

How does this apply to gaming? We get to play God. We get to make decisions for the player and therefore have the power to steer the story and gameplay in the direction we want. We have control. We can make the player feel what we want them to feel  - either with strong sound effects or music. But does this mean we put in as much information as possible? No, our brain has limits. It can’t possibly take in infinite amounts of information. This brings us to the question - how do you find what you need?

To understand the importance of getting the right information out effectively, lets look at three scenarios. An ideal situation, then one of overload, and the third of underplay. Lets look an 

Ideal situation. Here we have the visual and sound or auditory information balanced out. They feed off each other, influence each other but don’t overload the player with information. They lead the player along. The results of such a scenario would be: enhanced story telling, game play and realism or surrealism - which ever you are trying to achieve. Now, lets look at a scenario that is very easy to accomplish - one where there is a lot of visual and auditory information. You have strong visual detail, a thousand sound effects, a heavy background score and dialogues back to back. Overload. This leads to confusion and there fore miscommunication which leads to less involvement which in turn makes it harder for the player to suspend disbelief and eventually leads to the player hitting the mute button therefore making my job - useless!

The third scenario - Underplay. Lack of enough information can lead to loss of interest and can make game play less immersive. This although is still better than overload and is definitely more workable.

So how do we avoid clutter and a scenario of overload? Planning, more planning and..eh..planning! It is important to get every body involved with the game early on. And yes everybody does include the sound team. We’re not the last minute guys! By bringing in everybody early on you have the chance for different departments to influence each other. How important is sound? Is it vital? Can it push game play in some ways the visuals won’t be able to? There’s a lot that can pre determined in the planning stage. But as we all know, plans are never set in concrete. Leave enough room and buffer for change. While planning you need to think of ways in which the streams can compliment each other. Predetermine what the scene/level/character/moment require both visually and aurally. Think if you need sound to convey things beyond visuals...can they underline certain moments? Can they take over from visuals completely?

So the point I’m trying to make here is that each department and stream cannot exist by itself. Maximum communication to the player can be achieved first if there is maximum communication between the visual and aural stream both during development and game play.

Next I’m going to talk about two real life scenarios. The first is called the cocktail party effect. We’ve all been in noisy environments and have found that we can consciously tune and focus on the sounds that are important to us. In a noisy party you can still manage to have a conversation with someone and tune out the noise around you. This is called the cocktail party effect. We can make conscious decisions. So what relationship does this have to game play? A game is not reality. It has fixed boundaries preset by the designer. And we want the player to follow the right clues into unraveling the story or understanding the game. As we have seen before we have to make the decisions for the player before hand. So the decisions in sound too have to be made. For example if its a war RPG we would want the player to first hear his own sounds - say breathing, communication, gun sounds or sounds in the environment that directly communicate with him - like ammo pick up sounds. Next in priority would be the enemy sounds - sounds of approach or gun fire. Third in priority would be the environment sounds - maybe distant gunfire..vehicles..etc. All three levels of sound are important in placing the character in the right space. But for example if the environment sounds are as loud or louder that the player’s own sounds it can lead to confusion. So it is important to simulate the environment for the player and lead them to make the right decisions.

Next is a little but important concept in avoiding clutter. It’s called the 2.5 rule. The 2.5 rule is something Walter Murch - a brilliant sound designer and film editor who’s worked on some ground breaking films - thought about. During his years in working with film he noticed that the brain could only understand two and a half themes at a time. The first two themes will have the audience actively involved, while the half theme gives passive information that is important in suspending disbelief. An example of this would be an intense argument between two characters. The visuals would occupy the first theme since it holds maximum active information, the second theme would be the dialogues since it gives information about what the scene is like. The half theme would be the music that would add to the emotional level of the scene. Other information like footsteps or environment sound might be ignored. This is when we go back to planning. It is important to make the right choices early on.

Moving on to sound assets and what they are about -

Our ways in working with sound does come from what we’ve learnt in the past in working in linear media formats like film. Sound is usually split up into three broad departments: Dialogues, Music and Sound Effects. I prefer to split up sound effects further into ‘Designed Sounds’ and ‘Real Sounds’.

Starting with Dialogues. They can be anything from in game character or NPC dialogues to those in cut scenes. They are important because they are a direct communication link to the player and can probably be most effective in communicating information when compared to any other stream. This too needs to go back to the planning stage where character sketches are built and scripts are written. This information is then used to cast the right voice. There is a lot our brains can understand from only hearing a voice. Therefore the more the voice matches the character in game, better will be the communication to the player. Once scripts and characters are written, the actors are recorded. After which, the correct ‘takes’ are edited and processed to what they need to sound like for the game.

Music is the most important emotional tool available to us. It can push the player to feel they way we want them to feel. For this too time needs to be spent planning and sharing ideas about the style/genre and expectations. Referencing can help communicate ideas better to the composer. Post which the score or songs will be written, recorded and mixed to the specifications of the game.

Am on a Horse..

I saw this Old Spice commercial a couple of weeks back and was totally impressed with the way it was made. For one, I couldn't, at first figure out what path the filmmaker would have taken to execute the commercial, as there were many ways to do it, secondly the mis-directions used in the commercial were very well handled and seamless and to top it all the talent does an amazing job at keeping you attention on him with a good delivery. I managed to find a 'making of' so posted it here. The commercial first, then the making of (the making is more or less an interview with the agency creatives on how they made it, you'd be surprised)

Am on a horse...

The commercial

The Making of 

Nuit Blanche

There are tons of high-speed footage lying around YouTube, clips of people bursting baloons, bullets going through apples etc. While they are nice to watch, it has nothing you can carry with you or get you so engrossed as "Nuit Blanche". Its an amazing blend of slow-motion, Visual Effects - great use of camera projections and atmospheric elements, and the Music (gotta love that music by Samuel Bisson).

Nuit Blanche is a short film directed by Arev Manoukian for Spy Films. Watch it, be amazed and catch the Making of too.

Nuit Blanche.



Making Of :



Making Of Nuit Blanche.