You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

ILM vs WETA digital

ILM vs WETA Digital

ILM (Star Wars)49%[ 41 ]
WETA Digital (LotR & King Kong)51%[ 42 ]

Total Votes : 83

Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:09pm

Post 1 of 81

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

So between ILM and WETA, whose digital effects do you prefer? I prefer WETA myself, because Peter Jackson uses different techniques that make the CGI more real, because besides photo realism, he also has realistic character movement, which to me, is what sells it as realistic or computer generated.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:14pm

Post 2 of 81

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

They both have they're Good and bad parts. ILM is really, really good at water and coming up with new ways to do stuff. Weta Is Insanley good at animation/mocap utilization and Coming up with crazy shaders.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:23pm

Post 3 of 81

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

WETA Digital for sure. All of the trolls in ROTK were SO real. Plus, king kong's cgi looks really sweet. Since there isn't a ton of animal cgi in star wars, and that is what I enjoy so much in the lord of the rings.




Film freak
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:27pm

Post 4 of 81

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

We literally had this exact same thread not too long ago.

Here you can continue the discussion, no need for a new topic to repeat itself. I still stand by WETA because I think now, they are much better than ILM. ILM just isn't special anymore, they are better than most, but Weta digital is to now as ILM was to 1977.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:30pm

Post 5 of 81

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

But Serpent, that thread started Jan. 1st this year, it's really old. I don't know, just saying that I think it's a little old of a topic to be posting in.




Film freak
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:30pm

Post 6 of 81

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Keep in mind, though, that ILM has done A LOT more than Star Wars.
This is a pretty cool thing about ILM, and here are some of their more recent movies. Anyway, I think ILM is better, but WETA is still amazing.

For more information:
WETA Digital
Industrial Light and Magic

"You can't spell 'film' without ILM" -Anonymous

Last edited Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:36pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:32pm

Post 7 of 81

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Discussions can be continued, what would be the difference? If you want to continue a discussion that was discussed a lot to make the same points, or maybe you have some new ones, go there so other people can see the old P.O.V's.

Ther eis also a lot of information in that thread that will probabaly be repeated here, like what rogolo just said.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:35pm

Post 8 of 81

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

ILM has done alot more and pioneered more than WETA has...

I beleive WETA has done some stuff that is equal to and better in some cases... however overall i pick ILM smile


*edit* and yeah this is kind of a repeat thread I think....

-MAGIC
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:38pm

Post 9 of 81

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Technically nobody can touch ILM still.

Star Wars EP3 has the greatest quality (maybe not best use of) CG of any blockbuster film. Quite recently Lucas invited people from Weta to the ranch to see what they'll be able to do "in 20 years time".

George has great respect for Weta and how quickly they are progessing although saying they are 20 years behind is a bit OTT. Personally I think its more like 4-6 years or 2 feature films - I don't know if they ever will catch up but everything is getting so high quality we will all probably not be able to tell the difference before long.

The Weta team apparently say that ILM are a level they are trying to get to but that they still have some way to go.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 9:55pm

Post 10 of 81

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

WETA has pulled out some stuff I think is more convincing than EP3, that being, I just feel like the Star Wars stuff is so "fake" due to the lack of physical objects accompanying the digital world. WETA possilby looks better because they take on less complicated projects.

Granted, they have worked on projects together as well. L, W, & W (Chronicles of Narnia) is being done by both ILM AND WETA. WETA is just the poster child on this project.


You have to look past Star Wars at more believable things like "The Abyss" "T2" and "Jurrasic Park" and "War of the Worlds", where there is more real-world integration. Still, WETA is pretty cool, and they are conservative with their CG, which I think is the more believable and better-looking approach. I'll take models and practical effects any day.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:05pm

Post 11 of 81

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think ILM has done much much more, and got really far. But I think now, Weta just absolutely topped them with the LOTR trilogy over andything they have ever done. There was not one shady visual in the LOTR trilogy as opposed to some of the crap visuals in Ep. 1 and 2 (were released around time LOTR was made, easiest to compare.) I am not saying the visuals in the new SW sucked, but some ove the visuals did, where none of the visuals in LOTR made me feel that way.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:15pm

Post 12 of 81

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

LOTR: Fellowship came out in 2001, and SW: Ep. 1 came out in 1999, and that is a pretty big difference. The reason there were no "crappy" effects in LOTR, is because they didn't push the envelope until Two Towers, in the way that GL and SW: Ep. 1 did. (Fully digital characters and whatnot. Army people don't count though, because they aren't interacting a lot with the actors and aren't getting close-ups and being the main focus of the shots)
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:43pm

Post 13 of 81

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

If ILM and WETA joined forces on one project, it would be the singularly most spectacular CG epic ever made. With landscapes and water and effects by ILM and characters by WETA.

Also: The effects in LOTR were great, but the effects in Episode 3 and War of The Worlds top them.

Last edited Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:47pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:44pm

Post 14 of 81

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

First of all , I said Episode 1 and 2. Secondly, I don't care what the scenario is. There were a few crappy things that even I could've improved on (via advising) in SW Ep 1 and 2. LOTR was flawless, and i don't care about any scenario you throw at me, even if SW had the most difficult stuff to pull off, that doesn't change my opinion on their current quality. Weta also worked on physical effects and models for LOTR, so even if a digital charcter looked great, but not as good as some of the more physical mehtods Weta used in the LOTR trilogy, my opnion stands with Weta choosing the better path for that kind of effect. Your sentences are alittle hard to understand, but Weta also did a lot of things better that were very similar. Like the monsters in SW had to do interact witht eh actors just as much as they did in LOTR.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 10:56pm

Post 15 of 81

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

even if SW had the most difficult stuff to pull off, that doesn't change my opinion on their current quality.
I'm just saying that WETA really isn't as much of an innovator in the way that ILM is. I still think that WETA is an amazing company, though. I just prefer ILM.

Serpent wrote:

Your sentences are alittle hard to understand
Yeah, I've noticed that. I seriously think I may be a tad dyslexic or something like that...
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 11:21pm

Post 16 of 81

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Now i'm probably biased because LOTR is my favorite movie ever, BUT, i must say that I actually do think their stuff does look more believable. Sure, Episode 3 looked great, but it had that slight... I dunno... too perfect look to it. All the floors were crystal clear with no dirt or dust. Hell even the landing platform on Mustafar was spotless. Just didn't sell for me. LOTR on the other hand, and from what I've seen of Kong is damn near perfect. ESPECIALLY in animation (Gollum... Kong...)
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 11:23pm

Post 17 of 81

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah, Kong looks awesome. In the new trailer, though, some of the greenscreen work looks absolutely horrible. (Wide shots of girl backing up towards Kong in the jungle)
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 11:29pm

Post 18 of 81

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

That's because it's unfinished.
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 11:30pm

Post 19 of 81

rogolo

Force: 5436 | Joined: 29th May 2005 | Posts: 1513

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 User MacOS User

Gold Member

That's what I hoping. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 6th Nov 2005, 11:41pm

Post 20 of 81

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

also, WETA does some amazing things. Look at I robot, some of it just looked so real, and the only reason you knew that it was CGI was just that building a robot, or having something do that was completely unpractical. Also lets not forget who won an academy award for best special effects.... not star wars! lol
Hmm, I'm gonna start my own digital effects studio, and it will be called SADE Studios , for Super Awsome Digital Effects Studios. smile
Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2005, 12:53am

Post 21 of 81

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Gnome326 wrote:

Also lets not forget who won an academy award for best special effects.... not star wars! lol
ILM HAS won an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for Forrest Gump and Best Achievement in Visual Effects for T2, Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her, The Abyss, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Innerspace, Cocoon, Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark. As for Star Wars, Ep IV won for Best Achievement in Visual Effects and Ep V & VI won for Special Achievement in Visual Effects. Not to mention all of the nominations...

<whew!>

In my opinion, WETA has a long way to go before they achieve ILM-status. They are great and I look forward to Kong & Halo 2, but that's where I stand.
Posted: Mon, 7th Nov 2005, 8:42am

Post 22 of 81

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

There was not one shady visual in the LOTR trilogy
There are many suspect visuals in LOTR both with the CG and the minatures - the fact that they are fantastic films means you normally don't care.

Gollum doesn't appear to fit in to some scenes scenes due to colour grading and strange edges. The digital doubles in FOTR and TTT (and some of the compositing) are very odd at some points seeming to be low quality and you can even spot visible blue spill from time-to-time on the composites.

You might not the perfect digital look of Star Wars but in EP3 some of the compositing is just insane and utterly perfect (although I spotted a couple of suspect shots). The animation and digital doubles the ILM team can pull off are a level above anyone else - you can't even tell when they are used half the time.

Weta are doing amazingly well but they are no ILM just yet.
Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2005, 9:21am

Post 23 of 81

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

I think it's really hard to compare the two. Not because one's better or worse than the other, but because ILM has been around so long, they're almost a household name. . .
Overall, I think ILM may be a tad more versatile than WETA, but given time, WETA will be neck and neck without a doubt.

I definitely don't agree that the visual effects of the LOTR movies were perfect. There were plenty of 'shady visuals' as Schwar was kind enough to elaborate on.
They were good enough, in their own rate, but they did a much better job in I, Robot.

Weta just absolutely topped them with the LOTR trilogy over andything they have ever done.
Now that's just ridiculous.
Between War of the Worlds, Terminator 3, Pirates of the Caribbean, Minority Report, The Jurassic Park movies, and Starship Troopers, I think it's safe to say that it'll be a while before WETA tops anything ILM has ever done. . .

Oh, and someone mentioned that if ILM and WETA paired up on a movie that it would the ultimate in CG goodness, or something to that effect; both ILM and WETA worked on Van Helsing, and I think we've all seen better effects.

Star Wars movies aside, I still have to cast my vote with ILM.
Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2005, 9:52am

Post 24 of 81

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Isn't Chronicles of Narnia Teaming the two up as well?
Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2005, 5:11pm

Post 25 of 81

Job

Force: 150 | Joined: 26th Jun 2005 | Posts: 108

MacOS User

Member

both ILM and WETA hire only the best of the best artists, both use high end software that technically can produce the same realism... but anyway i like LOTR so much, i just have to go for WETA razz
Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2005, 6:17pm

Post 26 of 81

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Even though this debate is as pointless as any other like it I've decided to creep out of my cave to give my views.
Whether or not one is better than the other will change more or less every time ILM or WETA's next big project arrives. ILM give us EP I and shortly after WETA blow that away with huge near-photoreal crowd sims and Gollum in LOTR, then ILM deliver Ep 3 raising the bar again and I daresay soon Kong is going to place WETA firmly on top again. ILM have a much larger body of work credited to them and will always be *the* special FX company but both will continue to improve and try and outdo eachother.

Having said that, the Trex in Jurassic Park (hand animated muscles remember) still trounces that awful "Legolas on the elephant" sequence from ROTK.
Posted: Tue, 8th Nov 2005, 7:38pm

Post 27 of 81

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM has a better track record than Weta but as Rawree says it really is hard to compare the two because they will each surpass the other when their next big project hits the screen. I really did like way Weta's animation was used in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, even if it was not perfect, much better than I liked the way ILM's animation was used in Star Wars. Part of that probably has to do with the genre of the movies and part of it is has to do with the director but because I liked Weta's work on LotR so much my vote goes to Weta.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 1:32am

Post 28 of 81

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Psh I don' t care what you all say because really ILM just blows them to peices..The only reason people think Weta is always showing 'how they did it' ILM is much much more secure in their tactics..They really concele what they did and how they did it just to make you wonder and stand in AWE more.

And ILM has so much throw away detail it's not even FUNNY! In Epidode III debris hits a Republic cruiser in the opening scene and if you have a commentary on they explain that it's a kitchen sink! I still cease to stand amazed at all the detail and work they have put in this..And Weta is very good also but I gotta say I thin ILM could ANIMATE(NOT DIRECT OR CREATE) better on King Kong..They could perfect him like no tomorrow and make him look as real as hell..That's what happens when an Animating team works on ONE model for a character.

You also have to consider that ILM has much more expirience and has been around the block much more. If you've seen the opening sequence in Episode III and focus on all the STUFF and THROW AWAY DETAL they use you are just stunned. Yes a big army of orcs is good modeling but They did use a program that applyed the models they made for orcs to the bone structure of the simulations of movement as if in an army.(It's in one of the LOTR extera features).

ILM has made so much more to me than Weta because jsut take a look at all the planets they had to make! That's not using Terregan either!

Plus all the sequences in LOTR are people..Just people no ships and barely any mechanical things. ILM deals with a heavy load of mechanical structures and doohickys that just flavor up the movies. Almost every clone in Episode III was a 3d model.

ILM is my choice though they both have their strengths ILM is overall better.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 2:23am

Post 29 of 81

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

swg33k wrote:

Psh I don' t care what you all say because really ILM just blows them to peices..The only reason people think Weta is always showing 'how they did it' ILM is much much more secure in their tactics..They really concele what they did and how they did it just to make you wonder and stand in AWE more.
Yeah... you do realize that ILM probably did just as many if not more interviews and revealed more in the raw making of footage as WETA did... its not their decision what gets put on the DVDs... also considering the LOTR extended versions cost a lot more and had 2 bonus discs, not just one...

And ILM has so much throw away detail it's not even FUNNY! In Epidode III debris hits a Republic cruiser in the opening scene and if you have a commentary on they explain that it's a kitchen sink! I still cease to stand amazed at all the detail and work they have put in this..
Yeah cause adding a kitchen sink into a battle really is an amazing feat in the 3D modelling/animating world... I'm totally sure WETA could put useless crap into movies just as well as ILM can.


And Weta is very good also but I gotta say I thin ILM could ANIMATE(NOT DIRECT OR CREATE) better on King Kong..They could perfect him like no tomorrow and make him look as real as hell..That's what happens when an Animating team works on ONE model for a character.
Have you seen King Kong? I haven't. Look at Gollum vs... lets say... Jar Jar... or all of the Clone Troopers... or any digital animating in star wars... no contest.


You also have to consider that ILM has much more expirience and has been around the block much more. If you've seen the opening sequence in Episode III and focus on all the STUFF and THROW AWAY DETAL they use you are just stunned. Yes a big army of orcs is good modeling but They did use a program that applyed the models they made for orcs to the bone structure of the simulations of movement as if in an army.(It's in one of the LOTR extera features).
Throw away detail is a bit harder to add into middle earth, where everyone is restricted to the ground than in outer space where theres a complete 3d environment with no restrictions. I still stand by the episode 6 space battle as being the best, you knew exactly what was going on, and it was still amazing, even without such amazing details as... a kitchen sink...

And you really expect WETA to hand animate upwards of 300,000 orcs? The movie would still be in production. A good effects house not only produces quality results, but it is efficient.


ILM has made so much more to me than Weta because jsut take a look at all the planets they had to make! That's not using Terregan either!
A great deal of the planets/environments in ep3 were practical, filmed models, as were most of the buildings/environments in LOTR and Kong (From what i've seen of the production diaries) They're about equal here I'd say. ROTK created an entire 3d representation of pelenor fields made out of real photographic elements though... something not that hard... As for planets themselves, as objects in space in the shots, thats one of the easiest things to do... but i don't think thats what you meant.

Plus all the sequences in LOTR are people..Just people no ships and barely any mechanical things. ILM deals with a heavy load of mechanical structures and doohickys that just flavor up the movies. Almost every clone in Episode III was a 3d model.
Mechanics are FAR easier to animate than organics. Organic things are unpredictable and harder to replicate. There are no ships in Tolkiens Middle Earth anyway. But if you really think mechanical models are a huge feat over organic, then look at all the war machinery created for the pelenor fields battle... trebuchets, catapults, siege towers, rams etc.


A lot of your arguments don't hold much ground.... with me at least, it's clear I won't be changing your opinion, but its worth pointing all this out.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 2:30am

Post 30 of 81

JT9

Force: 852 | Joined: 11th May 2005 | Posts: 521

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ILM BABY!
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 2:34am

Post 31 of 81

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Weta is Great at Mechanical objects. Have you SEEN I, Robot? the closeups of the Robots heads and necks? its Un-friggin-believably detailed, with all the servo's, wires and joints. So, Really, I think They're both similar in quality level. Not quantity. Ilm handles sooo Many more jobs than Weta, its really not even in the same catagory.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 5:00pm

Post 32 of 81

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

LOTR was flawless,
besides ROTK right? razz

they went for too much and I was chuckling throughout for the last bit of the film.

same with SW though.

nobody's perfect, but i go with ILM simply b/c of work they did that i didn't even KNOW was visual effects (Forrest Gump). I think that's the greatest compliment, when you think that it's actually really real, which WETA hasn't really pulled off for me and ILM has.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 5:05pm

Post 33 of 81

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Who did the compositing in i Robot? Was that Weta as well? The 3d stuff in i Robot is great but some of the compositing isn't very good.
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 5:16pm

Post 34 of 81

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I completley forgot about Starship Troopers. To me, everything to do with the arachnids made me believe that such creatures exist. But that's also attributed to how the film was shot; incredibly smart (despite what you think of the rest of the movie).
Posted: Wed, 9th Nov 2005, 5:50pm

Post 35 of 81

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Episode 2 - I didnt know that there were NO actual "real" clone troppers anywhere in the film when I saw it

Theres a shot with mace windu deflecting crap with his saber...a clone tropper runs over and sits on the edge of the ship (there are alot of scenes around there that are crazy awesome looking)

Also the digital doubles in episode 2 and 3 I think beat anything WETA has done....

the digital legolas on the elephant looked pretty cheesy (in ROTK) if you ask me....

oh - not to mention that samuel l jackson wasn't available for 3/4 of the shooting for episode 3.. so he is almost all digital in the movie...


(obvisouly I'm kidding.. lol)

-MAGIC
Posted: Thu, 10th Nov 2005, 9:39pm

Post 36 of 81

Ice_Man

Force: 1390 | Joined: 26th Nov 2002 | Posts: 1208

Windows User

Gold Member

Schwar - I'm not certain who did the compositing on I, Robot.
Posted: Thu, 10th Nov 2005, 10:25pm

Post 37 of 81

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

For over 80% of the shots in the fight between Jango and Obi Wan in ep2 they were both digital doubles. Obi Wan was totally digital where he reaches out to try and force pickup his lightsword then Jango ropes his arm and then drags him about! Still the best digital double I know of.
Posted: Fri, 11th Nov 2005, 2:18am

Post 38 of 81

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I have a serious question, that will probably sound sarcastic, but it's not.

You guys who complain about how some of the time the compositing is bad, or the animation is bad, etc. etc., do you still enjoy the films, or think "these effects are amazing", even though you notice the flaws?
Posted: Fri, 11th Nov 2005, 3:09am

Post 39 of 81

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

In my opinion, YES - 100% for sure... regardless of some flaws that can be seen - that doesn't change the storytelling and how much I will or will not like the movie.

But when it comes to debates on the internet (lol).. then all sorts of stuff comes into play, and certain movies that are AWESOME take the back seat to others which may not be as good (as a film..)


-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Nov 2005, 3:36am

Post 40 of 81

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

WETA is winning, cool. They are both great, but I prefer WETA. King Kong looks great, so that is one of the reasons I think WETA is better than ILM.





Film freak
Posted: Fri, 11th Nov 2005, 8:49pm

Post 41 of 81

outsiderlookingin

Force: 60 | Joined: 10th Nov 2005 | Posts: 138

Member

Comparing WETA and ILM is like comparing apples and oranges. ILM has been around for so long, and they have practically created the meaning behind the words "visual effects". WETA has proven themselves a wonderful house, but if you compare the amount of movies they've worked on it's just not fair.

That being said...the future holds promising things for both and all.
Posted: Sun, 13th Nov 2005, 2:56am

Post 42 of 81

cinemafreak

Force: 1312 | Joined: 14th Dec 2004 | Posts: 322

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'll just give my input. I like both, but WETA has appealed to me more lately because of their strategic use of mocap and practical models accompanying digital graphics. I don't know about you, but I felt that the artificial environments and characters in LOTR felt a whole lot more real than anything the prequel trilogy as offered as of yet. Yes, EPIII did have stunning 3D action sequences and boasts the most digital effects scenes out of any movie to date, but I just feel ILM is starting to rely on cg to heavily. I actually like the look of the old miniature models featured in the original SW movies more than the new, digital ones. There is just something about them that I think connects them to reality more than there digital counterparts. Also, despite the hard work of ILM, a trained and knowledgable eye can easily tell when the actors are in front of a greenscreen. Also the digital stormtroopers w/ real heads really bothered me. Lucas is the richest director/producer in the world! Surely he can afford to outfit a few guys with real costume!!
Posted: Sun, 13th Nov 2005, 7:36am

Post 43 of 81

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

as far as i know, it's not ILM's decision whether to use puppets or not. I'm pretty sure that'd be Lucas' call.
Posted: Sun, 13th Nov 2005, 1:36pm

Post 44 of 81

DarkJedi07

Force: 598 | Joined: 29th Jun 2002 | Posts: 789

Windows User

Gold Member

cinemafreak wrote:

I'll just give my input. I like both, but WETA has appealed to me more lately because of their strategic use of mocap and practical models accompanying digital graphics. I don't know about you, but I felt that the artificial environments and characters in LOTR felt a whole lot more real than anything the prequel trilogy as offered as of yet. Yes, EPIII did have stunning 3D action sequences and boasts the most digital effects scenes out of any movie to date, but I just feel ILM is starting to rely on cg to heavily. I actually like the look of the old miniature models featured in the original SW movies more than the new, digital ones. There is just something about them that I think connects them to reality more than there digital counterparts. Also, despite the hard work of ILM, a trained and knowledgable eye can easily tell when the actors are in front of a greenscreen. Also the digital stormtroopers w/ real heads really bothered me. Lucas is the richest director/producer in the world! Surely he can afford to outfit a few guys with real costume!!
Episode III did use a lot of miniature models.
Posted: Sun, 13th Nov 2005, 8:37pm

Post 45 of 81

cinemafreak

Force: 1312 | Joined: 14th Dec 2004 | Posts: 322

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

DarkJedi07 wrote:

cinemafreak wrote:

I'll just give my input. I like both, but WETA has appealed to me more lately because of their strategic use of mocap and practical models accompanying digital graphics. I don't know about you, but I felt that the artificial environments and characters in LOTR felt a whole lot more real than anything the prequel trilogy as offered as of yet. Yes, EPIII did have stunning 3D action sequences and boasts the most digital effects scenes out of any movie to date, but I just feel ILM is starting to rely on cg to heavily. I actually like the look of the old miniature models featured in the original SW movies more than the new, digital ones. There is just something about them that I think connects them to reality more than there digital counterparts. Also, despite the hard work of ILM, a trained and knowledgable eye can easily tell when the actors are in front of a greenscreen. Also the digital stormtroopers w/ real heads really bothered me. Lucas is the richest director/producer in the world! Surely he can afford to outfit a few guys with real costume!!
Episode III did use a lot of miniature models.
Yes, it did, but not for the space battles I'm fairly certain. Also, most of the interior walls of the starships are obviously digital. I'm not saying that it was wrong to not make the starships all digital, it is probably more practical to make them that way for high action sequences, but for the close up shots of the early star destroyers and such I like the miniature models from the originals more than the digitals from new three.
Posted: Mon, 14th Nov 2005, 1:15pm

Post 46 of 81

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ILM didn't do the bugs in Starship Troopers. Phil Tippett's lot did.

Loads of miniatures and models are still used in Star Wars, including spaceships. In battles I expect it's almost 100% CG, because to do otherwise would be plain daft.

Both ILM and WETA rock.

Just thought I'd correct a few points there. smile
Posted: Tue, 15th Nov 2005, 1:59am

Post 47 of 81

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

really? i saw CG work for starship troopers being done for the bugs on computers. isn't phil tippett animatronics?
Posted: Tue, 15th Nov 2005, 4:10am

Post 48 of 81

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

Lucas is the richest director/producer in the world! Surely he can afford to outfit a few guys with real costume!!
I would think that Spielburg is richer. After all, he's helped out with some scenes in the star wars prequel, as well as owns several of his own companies (one that distributes his films, where as Lucas still has to rely on 20th century fox to distribute his movies) Not to mention he's done way more block buster movies than Lucas acan ever think about. Lucas has done about 10 or so, I guess, where as Spielburg has done like 30, give or take a lot to a little.
Posted: Tue, 15th Nov 2005, 10:23am

Post 49 of 81

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Cypher wrote:

really? i saw CG work for starship troopers being done for the bugs on computers. isn't phil tippett animatronics?
Yeah, the bugs are mostly CG. Tippett used to be a go-motion expert, but with the dawn of Jurassic Park (when Spielberg was going to hire him to do the dinos stop motion, then changed to ILM when he saw some of their computer tests) he quickly moved into the digital arena. Hence Tippett went on to direct Starship Troopers 2.

As for who is richer, it's almost certainly Lucas. The man is a genius when it comes to business (either that or he was really, really lucky back in the 70s).
Posted: Sun, 20th Nov 2005, 6:02am

Post 50 of 81

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

WETA is known for Massive. Does ILM have an equivelent?
Hence Tippett went on to direct Starship Troopers 2.
I haven't ever seen that movie because no one will let me watch it because it sucked so much....
Posted: Wed, 23rd Nov 2005, 1:53am

Post 51 of 81

jrg2134

Force: 2491 | Joined: 11th Oct 2003 | Posts: 288

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

There both really good but i personally think more of ILM saying that Geroge Lucas pretty much envented the digital character. I mean LOTR wouldn't have been as good at this time if there hadn't been SW or ILM also LOTR special effects will have perhaps digital humans but from a far view....ILM and SW had digital humans faces in a Movie Theater! You really can't beat that. I could go on all day why i like ILM better but hey that's my opinion i'm sure someone could do the same for the other one but that's why i like ILM better.
Posted: Thu, 24th Nov 2005, 7:27pm

Post 52 of 81

starfan

Force: 325 | Joined: 27th Mar 2005 | Posts: 353

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User FXpreset Maker

Gold Member

imagine what ilm and weta can do if they worked together. clap
Posted: Tue, 29th Nov 2005, 1:04am

Post 53 of 81

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Ice_Man wrote:

Schwar - I'm not certain who did the compositing on I, Robot.
I though ILM did?
Posted: Sat, 3rd Dec 2005, 7:39am

Post 54 of 81

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

After seeing the effects in WotW and Weta's latest projects I don't know who's better. I guess I'd still say Weta cuz thier quality is overall better, some of ILM's smoke looks like the smoke that Solthar produces with effects lab (I dunno if thats a compliment for him, or a bad thing for ILM, or maybe its both?) And anyways, I was impressed with Irobots graphics, and i'm extremely impressed about what they did to recreate the 1920's New York or w/e year it takes place in. I mean wow, Massive = Genious, but I guess I'd say they're pretty on par with each other, one does some things better than the other, and vise versa, they both have thier pro's and cons, so I wouldn't go anywhere near as far to say that , "WETA is 20 years behind ILM," because its just simply not true.
Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005, 12:53am

Post 55 of 81

jrg2134

Force: 2491 | Joined: 11th Oct 2003 | Posts: 288

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

even the landing platform on Mustafar was spotless. Just didn't sell for me. (Gollum... Kong...)
Well i know one thing for sure if it had dirt and stuff on it it wasn't frrom lava because the whole place was surrounded by a shield of some kind.
Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005, 6:33pm

Post 56 of 81

Z28Jerry

Force: 700 | Joined: 15th Jun 2004 | Posts: 141

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

This debate will be settled with Kong. Either the story telling was so good I ignored and overlooked the cgi, or the cgi was so freaking good I didn't even notice it.

Best CGI stuff ever. Hands down. There are scenes that were so lifelike and real the part of your mind that say's "this is cgi" doesn't even kick over.

On the other hand, there were some terrible scenes that were REALLY obvious.

Even if you don't like Kong, go see it. The story telling is brilliant and the cgi characters are REAL, down to the last hair, scar, ticks and mights, and most importantly body movment and facial expressions.

Golum cgi sucked

LotR cgi overall SUCKED

EP3 has the worst CGI I EVER saw in a movie. It actually distracted me from the story (it's not supposed to do that, right?)

Side note: what are your guy's definitions for top quality CGI. Mine is either unoticable, or not taking away from the story.
Posted: Wed, 7th Dec 2005, 6:48pm

Post 57 of 81

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Golum cgi sucked

LotR cgi overall SUCKED

EP3 has the worst CGI I EVER saw in a movie. It actually distracted me from the story (it's not supposed to do that, right?)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are joking I hope? LOTR and Gollum CG, in places, is fantastic - at worst it is still very good.

When it comes to Star Wars EP3, some people claim EP3 has a cartoon/comic look but thats mainly the saturated colours and the clean / pure look of HD when we are all used to film. There are hardly any effects in EP3 which are not of stunning quality - far beyond the quality of any other effects house so far.

I expect Kong to have really good CG for the beast himself (although fairly cartoonish from what I've seen so far). I will be highly impressed if Kong can get anywhere near the compositing quality of EP3 (it hasn't in any of the trailers so far which have had some fairly average compositing just like Lord of the Rings).

Look forward to seeing how much they've caught up on ILM.

WETA is known for Massive. Does ILM have an equivelent?
Weta has Massive and helped work on 4D's Colossus which is now a Discreet application (Lustre).

Things are a little more complicated with ILM but they probably have fingers in many more pies than Weta. ILM / Lucas have shares in AVID (quite a few I think) which owns SoftImage who make current 3D post-production king -> XSI. Top versions of XSI also include a massive-like program.

ILM work mainly on XSI now and I think they have quite a big say in its development. It has often been said that they have a hand in post production tools made by Adobe as well.
Posted: Mon, 12th Dec 2005, 11:20pm

Post 58 of 81

Justinec101

Force: 0 | Joined: 11th Dec 2005 | Posts: 5

Member

Personally I thought yoda looked better than gollum. golem. whatever. I think the reason star wars looked worse than lotr is lucas' demand to make 99.9% of his film cg where weta combines the cg fluently with real stuff. . .
Posted: Fri, 16th Dec 2005, 1:33am

Post 59 of 81

Z28Jerry

Force: 700 | Joined: 15th Jun 2004 | Posts: 141

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Man, I'm telling ya gollum cgi sucked imo. I was only "sold" on it a few times over the three movies.

Your right about EPIII, the CGI maybe was to clean and made it look, I don't know how to really express it, but too good to be real.

King Kong's cgi was dirty and real, as if most of it was done in front of the camera.

ON THE OTHER HAND, as with most movies some scenes were HORRIBLE (really, I've seen a few FXHome movies top them in a few parts, lol)
Posted: Fri, 16th Dec 2005, 1:40am

Post 60 of 81

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Z28Jerry wrote:



King Kong's cgi was dirty and real, as if most of it was done in front of the camera.
Yes, Kong's CG was fantastic - EXCEPT for a few extremely dodgy shots. (I'm looking at YOU, one of the shots in the TREX fight where Ann comes close to camera while shes in Kong's grip, and it looks like a child cut her and paste her into the scene)
Posted: Fri, 16th Dec 2005, 10:35am

Post 61 of 81

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

A couple of shots stood out for me - when the get into the rowing boat to head to shore for the first time, which looked rather odd, and when Jimmy was running along the cliffside as it collapsed under the weight of the brontosaurs.

Still, in just about any other movie even those shots would have been pretty impressive. But against the astounding quality of the rest of the work in KONG, they stick out a bit. I imagine it's a matter of time rather than talent - if WETA had had another 6 months, I imagine they could have got the whole film up to the same level as Kong himself.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 3:18am

Post 62 of 81

FXhomer131878

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Dec 2009 | Posts: 1

Member

Comparing ILM to WETA is like Comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo, a Davinci to stick figures, a Filet Mignon to a burnt piece of bacon. ILM innovates, WETA is just cheap copy.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 4:21am

Post 63 of 81

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, glad you can bring a four and a half year old topic back so you can state your opinion on false facts. Weta was the first to use a computer program called Massive. It helps animate crowds of people with Artificial Intelligence. That's not a copy. BTW, how did you find this? Did you really go looking back that far?
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 4:27am

Post 64 of 81

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Avatar kind of swung the whole thing in Weta's favour anyway. razz
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 4:42am

Post 65 of 81

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'd still argue ILM is the best for many things and that the range of creativity, innovation, and implementation in both companies is vastly different; and that neither are 'better' than the other even after Avatar because of this.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 4:51am

Post 66 of 81

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'd go with WETA. LOTR's VFX were pretty much flawless. Gollum far exceeded anything I saw in SW Ep 3, and ROTK is older than Ep 3 by 2 years. Plus, very often what ILM does seems rather bland to me. The prequel SW environments and few animals were cool enough, but they weren't anything exciting or really special. The Balrog, trolls, and to a lesser extent Gollum, were really awesomely designed and were fantastically animated. I'll take WETA as the innovator.

But ILM is good at lots of shiny plasticized ships and lazor beams. Go them, yeah?
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 5:14am

Post 67 of 81

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You mention SW Ep 3, but sidestep the absolutely excellent (perhaps not so with the actual film) and completely trumping effects in War of The Worlds from the same year?

You mention trolls, but ignore the flawlessly photoreal robots of Transformers. You talk Gollum, but don't mention Davy Jones. And the list goes on....

Like I said, comparing the two is nearly pointless- they're picked for their different styles and strengths on different projects.

As of late I'd say the best/best-employed use of CG in a live-action film I've seen has been from ILM; with it's work in Harry Potter 6, Star Trek, and Transformers 2. This is, of course, also a product of how the films succeeded and were enjoyable for me, because that's obviously a part (perhaps minor, but yeah) of how well CG is implemented- how the film stands overall*. They're just firing on all cylinders in each film, masterful industry-topping stuff.

*although I think this principle is complete bullshit if we want to talk about The Golden Compass beating Transformers for VFX in 2007

Avatar is perhaps a different story for me because I recognize the nuances and intricacies in the modeling and animating, but I didn't feel like it was something I could see in real-life; which was fine in the context of the film- it was these two clashing worlds (for me one of digital-y clean live-action and another of whimsy and magical CG) and absolutely didn't have to be photoreal- but in shots of the two interacting, it just didn't work for me at all because of this. (I'm looking at you, so-embarassing-I-wanted-to-go-to-the-restroom-just-to-miss-it shot of Ney'tiri holding human Jake Sully. wink)

But, again, both companies worked on that and it certainly doesn't top every chart in the realm of CG, so I still think the two are relatively incomparable.

And then, also, lest we not discount what I think many would consider perhaps the most seamless use of CGI, which would be Digital Domain's work on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. wink
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 5:25am

Post 68 of 81

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Those comparisons are ridiculous Terminal. Atom sort of pointed out your major flaws there, but in addition, Weta has just attained the same photorealism as Davy Jones.. years after the release of Pirates 2. Lets not mention that they've made most every special effects advancement in the history of cinema.

Oh, and LOTR's VFX was not flawless. Just throwing that one out there wink Oh, and while we're on the subject of Star Wars, lets not forget Episode 1 and 2, which had fantastic effects for their time. Episode 3 wasn't too shabby either, and I was surprised it was only nominated for make-up in the Oscars.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 3:30pm

Post 69 of 81

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

Those comparisons are ridiculous Terminal. Atom sort of pointed out your major flaws there, but in addition, Weta has just attained the same photorealism as Davy Jones.. years after the release of Pirates 2. Lets not mention that they've made most every special effects advancement in the history of cinema.

Oh, and LOTR's VFX was not flawless. Just throwing that one out there wink Oh, and while we're on the subject of Star Wars, lets not forget Episode 1 and 2, which had fantastic effects for their time. Episode 3 wasn't too shabby either, and I was surprised it was only nominated for make-up in the Oscars.
I was using the two comparisons I knew about. I thought WETA had done Davy Jones and I wasn't going to run around the Internet looking for better comparisons. Excuse me for my ridiculosity. (<--word?)
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 3:39pm

Post 70 of 81

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Don't forget that ILM and WETA have collaborated on a few projects... including Avatar.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 5:33pm

Post 71 of 81

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

So why is Weta considered to be the best at character animation? Don't get me wrong, I think Gollum was pretty well made, but so were the stuff in POTC. They both look pretty real to me so I really couldn't say one is better than the other.

I always thought though that ILM looked more photorealistic then Weta. While King Kong was impressive, I could tell when something was GC (about 90% of the movie) and it looked fake.

Which is why in my mind I've always thought of ILM as the better one because Weta's stuff always seems fake to me.

But they're two big companies that can do amazing stuff, so no point in comparing. Plus they work together in some stuff.

Who did GI Joe? Cause for a 175 million dollar movie, the effects were horrible.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 7:48pm

Post 72 of 81

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

G.I. Joe was split between a few places. Digital Domain did the Paris sequence including the Eiffel tower destruction and MPC did the Underwater base. CIS Vancouver & Hollywood, Prime Focus, Framestore and CafeFX also did work.

http://www.fxguide.com/article562.html

Say what you will about G.I. Joe, though some of the VFX are crazy.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 7:58pm

Post 73 of 81

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The Paris sequence was pretty good, I'll admit, but the rest went from being soso to bad. I wouldn't mind if it didn't have 175 million dollar budget though. Transformers had less than that and had better effects. I compare the two since they're basically the same type of things.

Hybrid-Halo, one thing I've been meaning to ask you since you work in the industry. Does special effects companies have a 3d model database? Like, if they're working on a sequence that involves car flying everywhere, do they just type "taxi cab" somewhere and have the model pop up? Or do they remodel stuff like that for every movie they work on?
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 8:20pm

Post 74 of 81

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

RodyPolis wrote:

Hybrid-Halo, one thing I've been meaning to ask you since you work in the industry. Does special effects companies have a 3d model database? Like, if they're working on a sequence that involves car flying everywhere, do they just type "taxi cab" somewhere and have the model pop up? Or do they remodel stuff like that for every movie they work on?
That's a good question, though I don't have a precise answer because I work in 2D rather than 3D. My impression is that most places build up an element library of stock footage, textures and models. Though whether or not a stock model gets used or something gets remodelled is up to the VFX Supervisor.

If something works/is not noticeable then it may as well be used so the time can be spent in areas that need more work. One problem is that often different uses of (let's stick with) a taxi-cab requires differing types of detail with the model. For example, a distant background car's model will be significantly different to a foreground element that needs to crumple, smash or explode in a certain way.

-Matt

p.s. It's not set in stone - though Special Effects usually refers to on-set pyrotechnics and prosthetics/make up whilst Visual Effects refers to post-production additions.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 8:24pm

Post 75 of 81

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ya I meant visual effects smile
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 8:38pm

Post 76 of 81

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

RodyPolis wrote:

ya I meant visual effects smile
I'll have a word with the 3D guys I know and let you know if my impressions were accurate.
Posted: Thu, 24th Dec 2009, 8:44pm

Post 77 of 81

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Alright, thanks. It's just been something that's been on my mind I don't know why.
Posted: Mon, 4th Jan 2010, 10:52am

Post 78 of 81

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The WETA/ILM debate is as silly now as it was back in 2005. They're both awesome and have their own areas of expertise.

The key difference in the 2000s, for me at least, is that WETA have had the good fortune to work on far more interesting films than ILM. So while Davy Jones is amazing technically, Gollum is far more memorable. While the Star Wars prequels are astonishing in their overall quality and diversity, Lord of the Rings is simply more entertaining. And so it goes on. Not necessarily fair, but that's how it goes. Doesn't mean WETA's better, though - it just means they work on films I preferred overall.

(and, yes, the Transformers/Golden Compass issue is a bit of an anomaly)
Posted: Tue, 5th Jan 2010, 3:00am

Post 79 of 81

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

(and, yes, the Transformers/Golden Compass issue is a bit of an anomaly)
It's all about controversy.
Posted: Tue, 27th Jul 2010, 8:13pm

Post 80 of 81

seedbag

Force: 0 | Joined: 27th Jul 2010 | Posts: 1

Member

I myself prefer WETA they do far fewer movies but there cgi seems slightly better and more believable and i always root for the underdog. Stuff like Xmen3 they got handed the harder stuff and the result is just amazing when Pheonix vapourizes all those people, theres no doubt ILM are superb aswell but i hate how the US media has layed the smackdown on WETA like the ton of news articles like this http://cbs2chicago.com/entertainment/ilm.avatar.graphics.2.1381919.html
saying how WETA were in over there head and needed to be rescued by ILM and ILM doing the crutial part of Avatar etc ..I guess with so many big directors(cameron, speilburg, jackson) now heading to Wellington NZ todo there filming hollywood kinda needed to do something. There both great companies and the competition between them is what drives vfx to the next level.
Posted: Wed, 28th Jul 2010, 7:51am

Post 81 of 81

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Wow, that's an amazingly badly written article. Lots of uncited paraphrasing of Knoll, and an embarassing attempt to create an exciting hook ("ILM rescues WETA!") out of the completely ordinary story of multiple VFX houses working on the same film.