Horizon's look a ILM and VFX - Part 3 (Rotoscoping)

BBC's Horizon looks at ILM and visual effects. This show is from 1985 and is a true gem. I thought it would be important and educational to show the interesting bits of the show, focusing on subjects such as optical printing, matte painting and even rotoscoping.
[You can also download the full show (via rapidshare) - http://bit.ly/9ZLx7p ]

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ILM
• optical
• printing
• star
• wars
• george
• lucas
• vfx
• visual
• effects
• light&Magic
• rotoscoping
• roto
• rotoscope
• vistavision

[STROBdotNET]

So many steps and equipment for something so simple to do today. And we still complain!!

[rorschachnite121]

thank god we have a computer and a software to do that these days...

[jomirife]

All that work for only 2 seconds :) amazing!

[NewAgeDirector]

Great video keep up the good work.

[TheKumaDB]

@eimb1999 Yeah I love miniatures too, reason I'm such a huge fan of some of the work Weta did on Lord Of The Rings.

[artjagman1]

@eimb1999 : Also going back to the happy accident, which I absolutely agree, most films still use real and miniatures for pyro, which I think is great for sheer randomness of the elements in special effects, the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films are a good example of highly detailed modelwork, also CG simulations in the past for a crash has looked 'hokey' in the past ('Air Force One' sea crash sequence is one that sticks out for me)

[artjagman1]

@eimb1999 : Yes, I have heard special effects people speak about 'happy accidents' and I know Chris Nolan tends to stay away for excessive CG, Batman Begins had a great use of miniatures (train crash and car park at the end touched up with CGI) and The Dark Knight (Tumbler crashing into garbage truck underground). This maybe controversial but what if Lucas/Spielberg went back and retouched some of the opticals in the 'Indie films' rear projection, matte paintings what this would look like.

[eimb1999]

@artjagman1 : Exactly. Plus, because you can so tightly control CGI FX, no "happy accidents" happen anymore. Flaws are often what make the film more charming. Often, some model shots produce un-thought-of happenstance that makes the scene work. Yes, there are sometimes shortcomings and CGI can help fix those when needed (such as with water), but a physical object always looks more real because it IS a physical object. CGI sterilizes too much when used too much or exclusively.

[eimb1999]

@TheKumaDB : Well, I do like miniature effects precisely BECAUSE they are models. I'm biased. I love things like the Gerry Anderson puppet shows not because of the plot lines (pretty awful) but because of the wonderful artistry in the miniature work. BUT some of the best FX of course are the ones that go unnoticed, like in "Temple Of Doom" when th Ford Trimotor flies over the Wall of China. Completely invisible, all miniatures effects work, you'd never guess it was a composite model shot.

[TheKumaDB]

Thanks for uploading this! Helped me a ton since my dissertation for university is on ILM.