Aren't you just paying for more man hours as oppose to hiring thousands of extras, building elaborate sets or going to exotic locations? I don't understand where all the money goes.

Mech

The equipment is VERY expensive, is both time and labor intensive, requires techincal and artistic know how, and still calls for a rather large group of people to use the equipment and liaise between them and management.

I mean, to get little bobby to make a 3D model on his pentium 4 doesn't cost much... but it would look like asscrap.

So, sometimes it is far less than using actual actors, sometimes not.

That's just what I think, though.

--Maurice

and the time it takes to do complex scenes is pricey.

- CGI crew animators, programmers, modelers, texturers, renderers, scene planners, storyboarders, administrative staff, animation director, animation producer, compositors, etc. The staff could be anywhere from maybe 20 to maybe 200.

- Professional grade CGI equipment is not cheap. A single license of Autodesk Maya (the industry standard) is $2000; and of course you need far more than just one license. And then you have to factor in the costs of the computer equipment (high end computers, network servers, render servers, electric bill, IT staff).

- A lot of clients tend to want to constantly change things around in CGI, since they think it's so easy to make changes. So they're never satisfied.

- If this is CGI for a live-action film, you have to do a LOT of work to make it look seamless. A lot of a lot of render tests, material creation, programming tricks, compositing tricks, etc. Granted, you have to do all of that for an all-CGI piece as well, but the integration always complicated things.

That's why I say it boils down to man hours because all the infastructure should already exist right? Or are they developing new hardware and software for almost every project?

MEch

its not like ILM has to go out and buy new shit every movie. is the man power THAT expensive? i guess if you have 200 guys on the crew, it adds up fast

since True Lies

and the demands of the scenes/sequences vary from film to film so i'm sure they are developing new stuff constantly

and no, location shooting isn't cheaper
ask michael mann

>its not like ILM has to go out and buy new shit every movie.

It sorta IS like ILM has to go out and buy new shit every movie. Much the same way that someone into gaming has to buy a new console/CPU/graphics card every one or two years, the equipment necessary to pull off cutting edge shit is going to go through upgrades.

Like Nukkapedia said, what was enough to pull off a cute little dream sequence a few years ago won't be nearly enough to pull off the new Jurassic Park.

--Maurice

In all seriousness, though, yes -- some films do indeed require software and hardware upgrades. If your crew is doing a few comp effects for a romantic comedy, and some quick animated cats for a dream sequence, it's gonna take some significant upgrading to be able to do Jurrassic Park IV.

complex and time consuming.

movies evolve, plans change for all kinds of reasons and cgi teams are expected to roll with those changes and make constant corrections.
MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/chaidealo

Check out my brother's band if you have a sec.

http://www.myspace.com/romeobleu

http://cdbaby.com/cd/romeoblue

His cd is also on i-tunes. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?p=6317794&s

complex and time consuming.

movies evolve, plans change for all kinds of reasons and cgi teams are expected to roll with those changes and make constant corrections. even just by watching the special features discs on most big movies will give a decent idea as to why it costs so much. you have several sequences that have constant cgi work. why should it be cheap?


MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/chaidealo

Check out my brother's band if you have a sec.

http://www.myspace.com/romeobleu

http://cdbaby.com/cd/romeoblue

His cd is also on i-tunes. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?p=6317794&s

(b/c if you are, I have homeboy that needs work)

that in order to be competative, cgi relies on the absolute latest technology

brand new technology tends to be expensive regardless of the form

the CGI in "Jurassic Park" looked more real than the CGI in "Revenge of the Sith". Something's not right there.

>the CGI in "Jurassic Park" looked more real than the CGI in
>"Revenge of the Sith". Something's not right there.
>
>

...probably because different people did it?

>>the CGI in "Jurassic Park" looked more real than the CGI in
>>"Revenge of the Sith". Something's not right there.
>>
>>
>
>...probably because different people did it?

Well, there's that aspect, but it was so vastly overdone in ROTS.

--Maurice

Ha.

Anywho, the main reason costs escalate (as opposed to why costs are high to begin with) is because directors make changes in the middle of production. Sometimes it's for legitimate reasons, usually it's because people don't do enough previsualization and just stick with their decisions. Ideally, they "make the film" before they make the film. A lot of work is done based on previsualizaiton and other early work done. Then to change later means redoing a lot of that. Man-hours is probably the main factor in that. But it's expensive because it means hiring more people to do the same work, and paying overtime (these are unions, you know) to get it done faster than normal because dates are already locked in. Along with hiring more people, you're getting more hardware to do the work faster too.

When used correctly, CGI can be a huge cost cutter. Things are rarely used correctly in Hollywood.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

I was listening to interview on The Business podcast. He basically made it sound like doing shit in camera was cheaper then CGI even with sticking to what's decided in pre production.

Shockingly good interview by the way. I learned a lot.

Mech

Was he reffering to a specific type of film effect he was trying to achieve?

But he also made it very clear that if you stick to a plan, CGI can save you a lot of money. I seriously suggest you listen to the interview, it really is informative (as is the show in general):
http://www.kcrw.com/show/tb

Mech

Yeah, I was surprised myself by the depth of the interview. I thought it would some 5 minute gloss-over.

So, I think it just comes down to the manhours. You figure if you're doing it in camera, there might be some cost to building miniatures, puppets and puppeteers, that sort of thing, but basically you're paying for the same crew you'd normally use for a shoot.

With CGI, you're paying the usual amount for the crew on the shoot, and then a whole separate crew to work on the same sequences of the movie.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

And I'm not sure if there is overtime in pre-production.

Mech

they can charge whatever the market allows

why nearly all CGI looks rubbish? Case in point - compare Blade Runner (done with models) to say Fifth Element. Which looks more real?

I feel like we've gone backwards with all this CGI (Except animation)

>why nearly all CGI looks rubbish? Case in point - compare
>Blade Runner (done with models) to say Fifth Element. Which
>looks more real?
>
>I feel like we've gone backwards with all this CGI (Except
>animation)

YES, YES, YES. I've been saying that for years.

--Maurice

that just cannot be done with analogue techniques.

I'm sure "Blade Runner" and "The Fifth Dimension" are going for differnt types of effects as it is anyways. There's no way you could make "The Fifth Dimension" the way it is without CGI.

And the Star Wars prequels were so NOT tastefully done that it was much more a distraction than a breakthrough.

Back when they used models for Eps 4-6? Yeah, that shit looked like a true "space opera", to use a term. The rebel ships looked used and weatherbeaten, and the Imperial fleet was imposing and massive.

However, both Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park truly proved that CGI can work well with actual human interaction.

--Maurice

Alot of things are enhanced subtly using cgi in movies. I think it's just when filmakers go effects crazy that it gets out of hand.

-------------------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/therealnopayne
http://www.last.fm/user/nopayne/

And I agree CGI can have its place. BUT I really think on the whole studios should start bringing models back. I mean back to the example of Blade Runner, imagine if that were made today. Theres no way they'd use models - and in my opinion theres no way they could get CGI to look as good as that film (which was made when??? 1982?).

not just people who draw but people who do 3d modelling and animation
and like practically every frame needs to be rendered individually
so you need a massive team, who are all very skilled

i assumed thats what it was

mad puppets son!

ventriloquiy gone wild.