http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcKkKsUH4SA
A nice overview of the use of green screens in some well-known productions. Kinda creepy, really ;-)
You're blocking ads, which pay for BlenderNation. Read about other ways to support us.
About the Author
Bart Veldhuizen
I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Head of Community at Sketchfab.
44 Comments
Not creepy, just the way it is done :)
It's too bad blender is, when it comes to compositing, nowhere near the big packages like Nuke or I'd use it for that too.
Right now, modeling and texturing is where blender excels!
Props to everybody working on it!
Hey Blender excels in Animation tools as well !
Hopefuly after the Mango project Blender will be more friendly and powerful in compositing. I'm using it for VFX in movies, but it's too slow and crashes a lot. Node editor is very powerful but it would benefit if the rendering would be faster (there is no option for live preview like in AE for example, and even the simplest comps take ages to render).
Why does the blender development refuse to add OpenFX support? This would allow for 3Rd party plugins. Whether you have use of commercial plugins or not. no studio is going to touch Blender as a compositor until that happens.
the new tracking system "Tomato branch" coupled with animated mask "addon RotoBezier" blender is quite functional for such effects,
Yes it is, I'm using both a lot :). The only true problems are: the node editor speed, no option to preview the final result in realtime while editing, the node editor / blender stability when compositing. It crashes a lot if you have movie clips longer than 10 seconds.
Wow, I wouldn't have expected green screen shots in series like Monk ! Impressive.
Loved the one with the guy's running in the background you could see some poor guy having to push the green screen along with them :)
I bet acting's a lot harder without hardly any real props and sets anymore.
Yep. Once I had to "drown" in the ocean when in reality I was kneeling on a bunch of rolled up curtains in a green studio. Its hard to drown in no water when you're almost totally dry. Just my hair was wet!
How do they simulate the effect of your hair in water if you're not IN water? I mean, wet hair will stick to each other and to your head, but hair in water will go out in all directions - wherever the water flows. It doesn't seem to make sense.
I think the opposite, the actor is less interfering by others and no need to travel a long way or going many places, i.e. cost time and many uncontrollable factors. Bad scene x bad acting the trouble factors are multiplied.
I love all of the elements, but I'm pleased to know that, for non existent places, we don't have to pay royalties... There are small and big cities charging producers for royalties over existent places all over the world, but they can't charge producers over non existent places. We can use green screen not only for production cost reduction, but to stop further ideas of charging producers over existent places as well...
They all are the fake? Nooo :)
Very impressed with this, speechless !
I wonder if all of this can be done using Adobe After Effects?
Most of it yes, it often comes down to the skill of the VFX supervisor, the lighting team and the compositor.
But AE can't really compete with the big boys like Nuke, Shake, Flame/Flint/Inferno and Fusion.
I didn't realize AE was not a "big boy" I remember hearing that most all SFX of Lord of the Rings was done in AE.
A lot of work for LOTR ie. touch ups and cleaning the film and such was done with Cinepaint which is a branch off of gimp
Like ROUBAL I was shocked when the "monk" screens were shown. This is a very impressive compilation. I understand how screening works and how to align media ... but this is way over my head.
How can we know that environment is faked and not a green screens?
Good eye, logical thinking and experience.
Back when the Superman movies were being made, they made mistakes. I suspect it was a lens mismatch. I always thought the Superman flying scenes looked 3-D.
Of course, back when they did Superman, they didn't even have green screen; they filmed the actors in front of projections.
They were using bluescreens in the 1920's already, greenscreens were been used in the 1960's. Movies like the Thief of Baghdad have bluescreens in them. You don't need a digital system to do compositing people were compositing photographs in the mid 1800's already and a movie is just a ton of still photos.
Why would you want to know? It the end it's all about the viewing experience and enjoyment.
For many of us, the pleasure is as much in learning the process and the inner cogs and workings as it is to behold (and for some folks, they simply prefer the former)
Just a question: where does the person who compiled this video get his footage from? I am not ascertaining this video is fake (it seems pretty much what studios will do nowadays if they have the chance to do so - greenscreen is the easiest, cheapest solution), it's just that since such footage is typically locked-up very tight in studios' safes (and if these pre-compositing videos were illegally leaked, it would probably be considered a trade secret breach) so there is a possibility of a fake (I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am just suggesting a possibility - however unlikely - of a hoax). I wonder: how easy would it be (e.g. with blender) to create a video faking to reveal the use of a greenscreen based on broadcast footage (whether a greenscreen was used or not) - if possible, it could be used by unscrupulous defense lawyers (or worse, unscrupulous accusation lawyers).
you can buy stock footage of cities, a lot of this footage is from a demo reel of a company that goes out and films stock footage of locations (specifically for series and movies), that would be impossible to film eg. times square etc.
I believe this was actually compiled by Stargate Studios, which regularly releases effects demo reels of its shows.
http://vimeo.com/stargate Their portfolio is really quite impressive.
@yahoo-R2ZGS3EVMTCVDSFNRISQQHA2QA:disqus : You obviously don't work in the industry. You get better performances from actors when they are in the environment they're supposed to be in. You also get MUCH better performances when they have other actors to play off.
@fca6ddec1856190b0f3d39e4359ac092:disqus : They certainly did have matting capabilities when Superman - The Movie was shot. To get the flying scenes they used a combination of techniques including blue screen and rotoscoping, as well as rear projection and glass painting techniques.
@Roubal:disqus : There are composited shots in surprising places. As well as the obvious sequences in King Kong, almost all the exterior New York shots and the waterfront sequences both in New York and on Kong Island are multiple layer composites. There aren't too many exteriors in that film that weren't some form of composite, whether with models, digital matte painting, 3D modelling, or combinations of those techniques.
Even in Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliette a lot of the exteriors are digitally enhanced, although I can't think of too many that were actually green screen.
Personally I feel that these techniques are a useful addition to the film-makers toolbox. Unfortunately one often feels that it's the effects driving the film, not the script. I suppose it will settle in due course.
The first reference in my post above was to Ng. For some reason the forum software expanded it that way. I have no idea why.
Your point sounds solid but I need to get in the industry to find a proof...haha.
After rereading up on chroma-key technology and history, I stand corrected. Rear projection was fairly more commonplace though (and looked better)
The problem with using Blue Screen to replace the background and make Superman fly is of course that Superman is predominantly dressed in blue.
you guys better agreed with all BART's FRIENDS ! Otherwise you are going to be banned, with a footnote like: STOP INSULTING ! Even if you did not do so !
Is this an INSULT? Or do you Bart react with Favoritism when someone is your friend? OH ! You prefer to delete comments and write a big lie leaving a footnote like: STOP INSULTING..... RIGHT? :) Now we have just set up a chessboard Mister Bart !
Call CEKUHMEN ! He call people THIEFT without proof and then you delete all his comments! AM I WRONG? OHH let me guess is he from GERMANY too? THAT EXPLAIN YOUR NASTY BEHAVIOR BART !
WHERE IS THE INSULT HERE? WHO STARTED? ME? nope ! :)
ha ha ! Sure 15 years on a couch watching movies and spitting out your own 3D frustration ?
Sure sure ! "It cracks me up" that means FRUSTRATION !
If you just like to enjoy films then go and watch movies at the theater. Here we are discussing technical aspects of 3D work, like quality vs time vs hardware vs manpower. It is obvious that you are not in the technical 3D field, you are a passive viewer who just relax watching a film falling asleep. It is obvious when the author does not show it means he has provided FALSE information about the production pipeline. Which is obvious by default.
BART, DIDN'T YOUR LOVELY FRIEND CEKUHMEN STARTED TO CALL ME THIEF T WITHOUT PROOF AND THEN YOU CAME FORWARD WITH AN APOLOGY FOR THAT, THAT WAS A BAD REACTION FROM CEKUHMEN AND THEN YOU WITHIN AN HOUR DELETED THE WHOLE THING EVEN THE APOLOGY THAT YOU WROTE?
WHO IS THE NASTY? DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET RETARDED?
Is this an INSULT? Or do you Bart react with Favoritism when someone is your friend? OH ! You prefer to delete comments and write a big lie leaving a footnote like: STOP INSULTING..... RIGHT? :) Now we have just set up a chessboard Mister Bart !
WHERE IS THE INSULT HERE? WHO STARTED? ME? nope ! :)
ha ha ! Sure 15 years on a couch watching movies and spitting out your own 3D frustration ?
Sure sure ! "It cracks me up" that means FRUSTRATION !
If you just like to enjoy films then go and watch movies at the theater. Here we are discussing technical aspects of 3D work, like quality vs time vs hardware vs manpower. It is obvious that you are not in the technical 3D field, you are a passive viewer who just relax watching a film falling asleep. It is obvious when the author does not show it means he has provided FALSE information about the production pipeline. Which is obvious by default.
that was awesome!
The Boardwalk Empire VFX reel is a nice one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_hh57j1eLs .
I thought it was funny when, in the scene with the boy looking out of the taxi, that the Chevrolet logo popped onto the back of the taxi when they removed the VFX.
Hmm Kane used this allready in C&C Red alert. :P
You know what they didn't show? A shot of an aircraft flying against a green screen, with no sky or ocean or land, just flying in a studio.
Why are you looking at me like that?
Good stuff...definitely reminds you just how important the crew is in a film.
Bart, the movie was removed. Any chance to find another source?