This happened to me last year as well, and similarly with the smaller Vancouver SIGGRAPH events in the past few months, in which I lose perspective in the massive sea of expensive blockbuster film work:
However, perspectives need to be kept in check. My short, Blind Spot, has been doing rather well lately, getting into yet another festival (I think that is 6 now), and the VFX of that film was the result of only two people working in their spare time.
But for now the plan is to feed off of the helpful part of my rage and do the best job I can do, both at work, and independently. I'll be back next year, hopefully knowing a few more of you and having a slightly larger influence on the industry and presented works.
Sessions continued like normal, with me learning too much and inspiring me to try working with way too many of them... like normal. There was a theme that I kept hitting on this week, however, that requires some additional reflection.
My work in this industry thus far has been constrained to (relatively) small projects, mainly on episodic TV or direct to DVD movies. However, many of these sessions (not just the production sessions but also many talks and tech papers) reveal to me that the scope of these projects is at a completely different level than I am used to.
For example, I attended the ILM Battleship presentation on the 4th day in which there were a number of stats thrown around for a particularly heavy shot (the presenter said that he believed it to be the most complicated VFX shot, ever) including that it took 2-5 days per high resolution fluid sim (of which there were many), they cached approximately 20TB of simulation data, and it consumed nearly 23 years of sequential CPU time. Another was during the Disney Paperman presentation on the 5th day in which the director talked about how casually it seems like he was handed a few dozen animators who just happened to have some spare time.
These scales (of both tech and personel) are staggering since the majority of the work I have done in the industry has been limited to what can be accomplished in a few months by a handful of people, but I am very excited (although terrified) to hopefully be a part of these sorts of massive projects in the future.
I also greatly appreciate that the people who are involved in these projects still respect the work that us little guys do, as demonstrated by a number of the Pixar engineers when I discussed my work on The Borgias with them.
Today I will focus solely on the video processing session. First, the eulerian video magnification really demonstrated a fundamental gap in my knowledge of signal processing. I like to operate by having an intuition of how every part of a system will behave once we start introducing changes or stresses, and working in the frequency domain is one of those places that still seems like magic to me (and in this case magic is a bad thing).
The paper on selectively deanimating video (see their webpage) resulted in incredibly cool cinemagraphs with very little user effort. While there are still a number of subtle artifacts that I would still remove if doing this work by hand, going from several hours of expert compositing to under a minute of untrained user interaction is a fantastic reduction of complexity. I am certainly inspired to break out some footage I shot a few weeks ago for this very purpose and give it another try.
Finally, the paper on seamless cuts of interview footage (see their video) was very conflicting. The technique is very smart and has absolutely stunning results, but the honest filmmaker in me (not just the general filmmaker, mind you) is absolutely appalled that this tool exists. Unless this becomes accessible to the general public (which it is not in the current incarnation) and therefore always in consideration when watching edited interviews, it exists to convince an audience that a third party interviewee is speaking within a context that is completely artificial. You don't have to take someone out of context anymore in order to twist their words, you can do it right in front of the viewers face without blinking.
The day started with a little bit of a jolt, since sleepy Mike is apparently unable to operate an alarm clock effectively after watching the Curiosity landing. Once I finally made it to the conference, my first stop was the Pixmondo Hugo production session.
My new eye for pipeline was very impressed by the massive amount of data that they automatically collected and shuffled around their numerous facilities. I can only hope that when I finish breaking and rebuilding the data flow at work that it can be even remotely as smooth and impressive.
There was a lot of focus on the miniatures used for the train crash sequence. While many people may question how you could get away with miniatures in stereo since your brain can figure out scales from the stereo imagery, they don't realize that you can simply shrink the scale of the camera system (by scaling the interoccular distance by the same as the model scale). This not only gives you a feeling of the intended scale, but I would believe that the cues picked up by the brain are so powerful that they would likely override other details and let you get away with miniatures even easier than before!
Another interesting challenge in stereo is how to deal with some of the often forgetten details of the medium:
If you have random grain on both eyes then some fraction of them will line up and be perceived as physical bumps. If you have the same grain on both eyes (potentially offset by a constant amount) then you will perceive a fuzzy veil hanging in the frame. What Pixmondo ended up doing for the heavily stylized segments that called for turn-of-the-century grain is generating one set of grain and displacing it by the disparity map for the second eye, effectively wrapping a layer of grain around all of the objects so it ends up on their surfaces.
Finally, I was delighted to learn that there is at least one shot in the film in which the color was hand painted as an homage to Méliès' films themselves. While it was done in Photoshop, they still made the painter work on a 35mm sized frame. Paraphrased:
You really made some poor bastard paint on that tiny frame?!
Mike Seymour, fxguide
A few minutes into the time slot for one of the "birds of a feather" sessions, someone from the conference announced that the session had been cancelled for unknown (to them) reasons. The immediate reaction from a fellow named Benjamin (who works at a place called Rushes in the UK) was "How about we just keep talking anyways?". I was delighted at what followed:
He went on to direct an impromptu discussion with most people electing to stay. I think I have a better handle on answering fundamental questions such as "What is asset management?" and "What is a pipeline?", although those are topics for another time. We ended up with a large mailing list with subgroups for local chapters to carry on the conversation later this year.
I made sure to catch part of the sketching session including CrossShade, for whom I designed and implemented the non-photoreal rendering pipeline for their results. They certainly took what I had created for them and ran with it, creating some really nice looking results.
Someone in the audience asked about integrating the normals (into a depth map), which is something that the researchers and myself both tried to implement (although they were most successful with it than I was). I really wish that we had been able to finish that as the lighting clues from proximate geometry would have been a subtle but fantastic inclusion.
I attended the traditional opening of the sake barrel, in which Paul Debevec enthusiastically landed a quick follow up (and final) blow with his wooden mallet after the carefully choreographed countdown to the first (and synchronized) blow. Shortly after came the annual dessert reception.
I had a number of fun conversations including ambushing the emissaries of Dropbox to quiz them on their upcoming two-factor authentication (which I have confirmation is using OATH, which will work nicely alongside my existing systems). Good for Dropbox for (apparently) sending them just for interest's sake. I also met up with former colleagues and will potentially be getting involved in more graphic research consultation work on the side.
Lots of exciting things are developing!