Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens VFX Breakdown Reel - General

[video=dailymotion;x3may5f]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3may5f[/video] Disney is on a witch-hunt for this, if it gets taken down I have it downloaded and uploading to a private Dropbox as we speak Oh and Spoilers obviously dropbox link in case it goes down: [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqhjox6w9qtnkoa/Star%20Wars%20The%20Force%20Awakens%20VFX%20%28Before%20and%20After%29.mp4?dl=0"][x][/URL]

-woops nevermind-

it's down

Still uploading, I'll update the OP as soon as it finishes

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;49526289]it's down[/QUOTE] It loads if you click the link Snoke kinda looks like he took a lightsaber to the face [img]http://i.imgur.com/leS2LUY.png[/img]

For all the "practical" talk in the promotion, certainly seems CGI enhancement was still in plentiful use for a lot of these shots (from the rumors I heard, I was thinking they had managed shots of the spaceships with models in the same way the OT did.) Though considering this is a reel dedicated to VFX in particular, maybe I'm just looking at too narrow a focus. If anything though, this shows how well CGI has improved sinced 1999-2005. If it's not a creature we can compare to the uncanny valley scale, it's pretty darn hard to tell what's real or not. And even then, the creatures aren't far off either, Maz was really darn real-looking in this one.

[QUOTE=Drewsko;49526791]For all the "practical" talk in the promotion, certainly seems CGI enhancement was still in plentiful use for a lot of these shots (from the rumors I heard, I was thinking they had managed shots of the spaceships with models in the same way the OT did.) Though considering this is a reel dedicated to VFX in particular, maybe I'm just looking at too narrow a focus. If anything though, this shows how well CGI has improved sinced 1999-2005. If it's not a creature we can compare to the uncanny valley scale, it's pretty darn hard to tell what's real or not. And even then, the creatures aren't far off either, Maz was really darn real-looking in this one.[/QUOTE] By practical they mainly meant practical sets, real tangible places, actual creature sfx instead of CGI giraffes and bison and shit. Obviously there will be some CGI, but compare this video to these pictures of the behind the scenes of the prequels [t]http://i.imgur.com/IA9Oqxx.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/Plcj0ZR.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/T4cguV5.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/6S19EO3.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/GksuXg8.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/l9MXn0O.jpg[/t] Where the prequels (thanks to Lucas) favored CGI and Green Screen over practical sets and effects, episode VII is the opposite. Also the fact that there literally wasn't a single real Clone Trooper in the prequels, vs that single shot where there are 30+ real Stormtroopers In regards to the spaceships, we're at the point where we can squeeze unbelievable detail out of CG models, so it just makes sense that they'd build the starships digitally

The one thing that really bothered me was Snoke. I don't really see why he needed to be 100% cgi, when they could have used makeup and cgi'd the huge hole in his head, like they did with Voldemort's nose. The whole time I was just thinking of Gollum.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;49526987]The one thing that really bothered me was Snoke. I don't really see why he needed to be 100% cgi, when they could have used makeup and cgi'd the huge hole in his head, like they did with Voldemort's nose. The whole time I was just thinking of Gollum.[/QUOTE] What bothered me was Kylo Ren's mask being CG It seemed really unnecessary

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;49526878]By practical they mainly meant practical sets, real tangible places, actual creature sfx instead of CGI giraffes and bison and shit. Obviously there will be some CGI, but compare this video to these pictures of the behind the scenes of the prequels *Evidence* Where the prequels (thanks to Lucas) favored CGI and Green Screen over practical sets and effects, episode VII is the opposite. Also the fact that there literally wasn't a single real Clone Trooper in the prequels, vs that single shot where there are 30+ real Stormtroopers[/QUOTE] I, for one, consider even those images as showing off practical sets to a point. What's so different from only building platforms and grounds as part of massive cityscapes or arenas in those films as opposed to the small elements of Star Destroyer wreck and Starkiller Base bottomless pit we can see in the TFA reel? And it's not like the whole trilogy was shot on bluescreen, there were a plentiful amount of surrounding-scenery sets like those TFA used: [thumb]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/dpvv8wub.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/z62h2fcs.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://s1.directupload.net/images/140108/btsx7n7h.jpg[/thumb] I'm also wondering if TFA used many minatures for the non-set backdrops and exterior shots. The prequels had plenty of those, too. [thumb]http://s7.directupload.net/images/131229/68mhklfa.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://s1.directupload.net/images/131229/7npnjq8e.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/v2kiuwoo.jpg[/thumb] Fair point on the clone bits, though. That always struck me as Lucas trying to prove a point and mix saving on the costume budget (It seems reasonable that there are some budget concerns even with ensured-revenue films like Star Wars, does it not?) and trying to prove a point of CGI's potential by leaving troopers to renders. Something that pops up a lot with the production team's attempt to push the envelope with new effects and techniques with those films, particularly with all the CGI on the creatures and aliens in Episode II. Doesn't quite work right with technology marching on though, yeah. If anything, perhaps all the computer-generated creatures and compositing of elements, practical or not, kinda hurts the film by making things look less real than they really are, in a way. Too much editing and computer enhancement, so to speak. Too shiny for some peoples' taste, like how the clean enviroments turn off those who remember the "used universe" feel of the original trilogy's settings.

Just goes to show that using green/blue screen and lots of CGI wasn't the only problem with the prequels. You can use plenty of that and still end up with an excellent movie.

I think the great thing about TFA isn't it's use of practical effects, but rather the fact that I couldn't tell a lot of those things were CG while watching the film, and other than [sp]Maz Kanata, Snoke, etc.[/sp] or some of the obvious dogfight scenes, I believed in the CG quite a bit and it fooled me. When older films used those effects, it was not used subtly, but here it's used well and is only an element of the shot, not the main focus. [QUOTE=Drewsko;49527031]-big post snip-[/QUOTE] I think it's unfair to use those as examples for what the prequels did with sets considering all of those (unless I'm mistaken) are from The Phantom Menace which was made at a time that CG was not really stable. Episodes 2 and especially 3 are at the height of "everything cg" and those films are where you get a lot of CG done like the forementioned post explained. With that said, it's also unfair to TPM to throw it under the same bus as the other two [sp]especially when it's the better movie of the three in my opinion, even if it's still pretty hard to sit through.[/sp] The original trilogy was trying to be something from the past, a serial action film made to be nostalgic of the years prior. The thing that sticks out to me with the prequel trilogy is that it was trying to be the [I]next generation of Star Wars,[/I] with it's large, expansive universe and huge open sets built with advanced (for the time) computer graphics. However, they were immediately dated because nobody expected technology to advance as fast as it has since 1999. 10 years later, they made friggen Avatar, which is miles ahead. The Force Awakens, in both it's tone and usage of the source material, [i]is the next generation,[/I] and therefore is able to achieve it's goal of being the next generation as it has great visual fidelity and a director who understands how modern action films are made. TFA is just that, a Star Wars film directed as a modern action film. And it's great.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49527021]What bothered me was Kylo Ren's mask being CG It seemed really unnecessary[/QUOTE] I didn't even realize until seeing the reel that his mask wasn't real, I would have said you were crazy if you told me it was added onto him in post [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Gamerman12;49527227] I think it's unfair to use those as examples for what the prequels did with sets considering all of those (unless I'm mistaken) are from The Phantom Menace which was made at a time that CG was not really stable.[/QUOTE] Episode 1 [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/dpvv8wub.jpg[/t] [t]http://s7.directupload.net/images/131229/68mhklfa.jpg[/t] Episode 2 [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/z62h2fcs.jpg[/t] [t]http://s1.directupload.net/images/131229/7npnjq8e.jpg[/t] Episode 3 [t]http://s1.directupload.net/images/140108/btsx7n7h.jpg[/t] [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/v2kiuwoo.jpg[/t] Episode 1 had by far the most involved practical sets. The set from episode 2 was literally on screen for 5 seconds (which raises questions as to why they built a huge section of practical set for such a small shot), and the one from episode 3 is palpatine's chamber on grievous' ship. The miniatures seen from episode 2 (the white spire thing) is from the planet obi-wan goes to to check out the clones, and the one from episode 3 is used for a 3 second wide shot of CGI clones killing Aayla Secura. I rewatched episode 2 and 3 shortly before seeing TFA and those two movies REALLY suffered from even less practical sets than TPM. Attack of the Clones especially feels SO sterile and artificial that I nearly couldn't finish it. I counted maybe a grand total of 3 practical sets, not including a patch of sandy ground or a few props thrown around on a special-built floor

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;49527254]I didn't even realize until seeing the reel that his mask wasn't real, I would have said you were crazy if you told me it was added onto him in post [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] Episode 1 [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/dpvv8wub.jpg[/t] [t]http://s7.directupload.net/images/131229/68mhklfa.jpg[/t] Episode 2 [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/z62h2fcs.jpg[/t] [t]http://s1.directupload.net/images/131229/7npnjq8e.jpg[/t] Episode 3 [t]http://s1.directupload.net/images/140108/btsx7n7h.jpg[/t] [t]http://s14.directupload.net/images/140108/v2kiuwoo.jpg[/t] Episode 1 had by far the most involved practical sets. The set from episode 2 was literally on screen for 5 seconds (which raises questions as to why they built a huge section of practical set for such a small shot), and the one from episode 3 is palpatine's chamber on grievous' ship. The miniatures seen from episode 2 (the white spire thing) is from the planet obi-wan goes to to check out the clones, and the one from episode 3 is used for a 3 second wide shot of CGI clones killing Aayla Secura. I rewatched episode 2 and 3 shortly before seeing TFA and those two movies REALLY suffered from even less practical sets than TPM. Attack of the Clones especially feels SO sterile and artificial that I nearly couldn't finish it. I counted maybe a grand total of 3 practical sets, not including a patch of sandy ground or a few props thrown around on a special-built floor[/QUOTE] was one of those sets the room that Anakin eats in with Padme. because it feels really artificial, but that was entirely a set.

Imagine getting a hold of those cg models.

Here is another source, because daily motion's video player sucks ass [video=vimeo;151719063]https://vimeo.com/151719063[/video]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49527021]What bothered me was Kylo Ren's mask being CG It seemed really unnecessary[/QUOTE] That baffles me but didn't bother me so much because I wouldn't have known it was cg if it wasn't for this video. Was it cg in every scene or just when he's talking to Snoke?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49527021]What bothered me was Kylo Ren's mask being CG It seemed really unnecessary[/QUOTE] tbh I actually didn't even notice a single time there's an impressive amount of good shit in this really

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;49528846]That baffles me but didn't bother me so much because I wouldn't have known it was cg if it wasn't for this video. Was it cg in every scene or just when he's talking to Snoke?[/QUOTE] Probably not in the scene where he takes it off lol

Wow there is a lot more CGI then I thought, however it's hard to notice since a lot of it is set extensions. That forest being a set is crazy. It's also really well done, things look a lot more organic and real. However, the full CGI characters still look blatantly 3D

Maz Kanata, whatever. I still think Snoke would be better if done the practical way though.

[QUOTE=Glitchman;49529015]Wow there is a lot more CGI then I thought, however it's hard to notice since a lot of it is set extensions. That forest being a set is crazy. It's also really well done, things look a lot more organic and real. However, the full CGI characters still look blatantly 3D[/QUOTE] Some things you just can't avoid and have to do with CGI. I can tell that they went with this logic really.

I always wondered, if they are filming sequences like the beginning scene in the video where Rey jumps down from that thingy, you can see greenscreen but also studio lights and its ceiling. How do they get rid of it, I thought everything in background should be greenscreen?

[QUOTE=J!NX;49529108]Some things you just can't avoid and have to do with CGI. I can tell that they went with this logic really.[/QUOTE] You never HAVE to use CGI, what? how do you think they made movies before the 90's [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Antimuffin;49529161]I always wondered, if they are filming sequences like the beginning scene in the video where Rey jumps down from that thingy, you can see greenscreen but also studio lights and its ceiling. How do they get rid of it, I thought everything in background should be greenscreen?[/QUOTE] rotoscoping / masking out only the bits they need. Notice the top of her head is still surrounded by green. I've had to do lots of greenscreen work and as long as you get most of the subject surrounded by the green, you can mask out the rest.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;49529161]I always wondered, if they are filming sequences like the beginning scene in the video where Rey jumps down from that thingy, you can see greenscreen but also studio lights and its ceiling. How do they get rid of it, I thought everything in background should be greenscreen?[/QUOTE] Greenscreen is just convenient because you can chromakey (I think that's the right word) the background and replace it very easily. Rotoscoping (as Glitchman mentioned) can be used for objects that you can't just chromakey out, but I would guess it's quite a bit more time consuming.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49529184]Greenscreen is just convenient because you can chromakey (I think that's the right word) the background and replace it very easily. Rotoscoping (as Glitchman mentioned) can be used for objects that you can't just chromakey out, but I would guess it's quite a bit more time consuming.[/QUOTE] Correct, you are literally using a pen-tool for every single frame of footage. Then you have to make sure you feather parts of it correctly and do all this other shit so it doesn't look wonky. The little Xs or dots you see on the screen are tracking points (you need at least 3 in a shot for good 3D tracking. Notice there are 3 of them in that shot), they are a a different shade of green but give a solid enough point so the software can track the motion. You can then add in digital objects in 3D space around the subject which will move correctly as the camera moves

[QUOTE=Glitchman;49529189]Correct, you are literally using a pen-tool for every single frame of footage. Then you have to make sure you feather parts of it correctly and do all this other shit so it doesn't look wonky. The little Xs or dots you see on the screen are tracking points (you need at least 3 in a shot for good 3D tracking. Notice there are 3 of them in that shot), they are a a different shade of green but give a solid enough point so the software can track the motion. You can then add in digital objects in 3D space around the subject which will move correctly as the camera moves[/QUOTE] Using the pen tool on even a single picture in Gimp and make it look good-good is a pain in the ass, so props to those editors.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49529283]Using the pen tool on even a single picture in Gimp and make it look good-good is a pain in the ass, so props to those editors.[/QUOTE] They don't use GIMP they use Nuke, the roto tools in that are a lot more intuitive.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49529381]They don't use GIMP they use Nuke, the roto tools in that are a lot more intuitive.[/QUOTE] I've never used Nuke, looks like a whole dedicated program for compositing! I'll have to try it out. I've been using After Effects forever

Nuke is an amazing program, IMO the node based workflow is much more intuitive than After Effects