#ILM
40 messages in this thread
>I also think that there's a certain limit to the term "artist".
>If you tell your lighting man to light the scene so it looks like night,
>even if you're not telling him exactly what lights to place where, I don't
>think that makes him a "lighting artist". As long as it looks like night,
>that's all the director cares about. I may be wrong, here. I just don't
>see how you can express yourself creatively by placing lights.
Aaron:
You're dead wrong on this one. I've been following this thread for a few days,
and must admit I'm a little disturbed. Many of us who attend this forum have
had formal, classical training in the visual arts, myself being one of them.
Having attended School of Visual Arts in NY for 4 years (BFA 1979), and having
been extensively involved in computer graphics and animation for over 10 years,
I don't think a day passes where I don't reach into "the closet" of those
fundamental principles of art. Today's computer graphic courses have a tendency
to focus a little too much on the technology – technology for technology's sake
– and not enough on the fundamentals. Whatever happened to anatomy and life
drawing?? The fundamentals are _SO_ important.
Granted, you might not have the time and budget for a full-blown education in
art, but do yourself (and your career) a favor by taking a course in studio
photography or 16mm film production. You'll see exactly how significant (and
how much an art form) lighting is to a production. While you're at it, take a
course on design principles. Perhaps a class an anatomy or life drawing. And
don't forget art history, film history and animation history. When you're
through with the classes, get back into 3DS and look at the difference these
fundamentals will make in your work.
I hope this helps!
-Tom
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure if you replied to the wrong person on this thread, but I'm
completely on YOUR side. I agree with everything you say. I'm graduating high
school this year, and next year, I'll probably be off to film school. I'm
taking art now, learning history and the fundamental stuff like design
principles and figure drawing. It DOES help me in my animation.
Aaron
Aaron:
Sounds like your on the right track… good luck!
-Tom
I'm a Senior studying Broadcast Communications, working on radio/TV production,
and currently working on a character based animation for an independent study.
I am interested in your opinion what I should do next. I will graduate this
spring, but there is a 1 semester program on Film that I can take in CA. It
contains the basics of film production and some other courses (I forget right
now what they involve.). I'm considering going there, and continuing my
undergraduate another semester to include the film program as a double
emphaisis.
What do you think? Does this sound good, or should I forget this and take a
full Film school program, and then apply it to 3D later, or keep looking? I
have also taken a basic art class, should I go to an art school to get more?
What is your opinion on a MFA/MA degree over just knowing it, without another
degree? Should I spend the time on the degree, or try to pick it up in the
industry?
I would eventually like to do animation for Film.
(That's how this thread got started. It kinda changed though. <g>)
I would appreciate your input. Thanks.
John Jordan
(JNJ)
I think that you first need to decide which field you want to go into
– 3D animation, film or video production – and then tailor your
courses accordingly. Let's say you want to go into video production.
Video production is a great field, and it ecompasses 3D and film. In
a typical video edit, you might be transferring 35mm negative to
video via the Rank Cintel (90% of the commercials you see today are
shot on film, because video just isn't quite there yet in terms of
that film "look"). This is a real tricky process and it would help to
have a background in film to understand it better. Once the film is
transferred to video, you might have some animation elements to deal
with. This is where your 3D background will come in handy. Also, a
good design background will take you pretty far. Take courses in
design principles, figure drawing (even if you can't draw, take it,
because you learn how to SEE things – pretty important in a field
which involves images), and art history. Once you apply these
principles to 3DS, the program will make much more sense and your work
will improve!
As far as the MFA goes, get your BFA and start working first. The MFA
doesn't buy you any competitive edge in the marketplace. Your skills
and the quality of your work count MUCH more than your degree.
The bottom line is this: today's technologies require us to be so well
versed in multiple disciplines. Learn what you can in school. The
real education, however, begins once you start working. Good luck!
Tom:
>I think that you first need to decide which field you want to go into
hehe, yeah… I'm still not sure where I would fit in best. 🙂
I took TV, thinking that film is a dated industry as it is right now. (in the
sense of actual film, etc.). I am sure I will see the end of film as we now
know it. I figured that the editing skills in TV is more applicable to the
future than developing film, etc.
BUT, now that I'm a senior, I realize that most of my TV editing knowledge will
probably be dramatically changed, or that it will be soo easy to learn that
anyone could do the editing from a technical standpoint.
About 3D, I see this as a possible next step in the sequence of
things. I doubt that it will wipe out the real world footage, but
will be used as often- freeing one of many hassles of the real
world. This virtual world is becoming that real. That is where I
would like to be- with the freedom of a virtual world, but the
realism of the real world. (and beyond) Essentially, I'd like to be
in a storytelling process. I'm not sure if I'm cut out to be a
director though. That's where I'm at. 🙂
I don't really think I'll try for film type school right now, but I'd like to
know alot of the content. That's why I'm looking at that 1 semseter program.
It should be a good overview.
Thanks for your input.
John
Tom,
Tom Rzonca is offering you some very sage advice, heed his words.
Fred
PMJI, but any film course will benefit you greatly. The principles involved in
animation are the principles of film. In animation, once you get past the
drawing, modelling, etc…, you're left with actors, a set, cameras and lights.
There are lots of basics and tricks that will benefit anyone who studies, and
these can and will be applied directly to animation on a computer.
If you're serious about film school you'll go to UCLA or USC. These are the
schools that producers watch for talent (there are probably a few others, but
there weren't when I went to film school). Other schools can teach you stuff,
but won't give you any advantage in the industry. And I'm sure UCLA and USC
have excellent computer facilities and courses, too. If film biz opportunity
and connections are less important, then you've got much greater flexibility in
choosing a school.
Regards,
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
If I were you (and I'm not, but anyway…) I'd look for a job and get a few
years' experience in one of the fields you're prepared for, in the kind of
company that allows the opportunity to learn other areas informally. For
example, you might get a job doing graphics at a small video production house
with the idea that you could be an assistant on actual shoots. I worked for a
small company like this for about a year and I learned tons. For example I
learned how to operate the editing equipment and when the editor was on
vacation they had me do it. I also looked for locations, cataloged the
existing footage, and witnessed an all-night lighting session where the
director *finally* got that tinfoil/fire look he wanted (don't ask, but I
learned quite a bit that night).
A big TV studio might be a nice job but you get sort of locked into your
department, and everything is so spread out that you couldn't, say, nip off to
the graphics dept to watch the Paintbox artist every time you have a bit of
downtime.
THEN, when you know a little more about the real life job market, the current
jobs available, the latest technology, etc. you can always go back to school
(full or part time) to round out your education.
I just think that in a few years your knowledge will be that much more
obsolete. The only way to really stay up to date is to get out into the
market.
Michele
Thanks. I appreciate your input. I do think that a smaller place would be
better as well, unless I get a big break somewhere. TV stations are not my
place though. 🙂 I'm not interested in their news shows or playback of tapes.
🙂 I've done enough of that here on our station. <dull> Thanks again. 🙂
John
Thanks, Tom, for sticking up for us art school schlubs. And as far as not
being creative by setting lights, HRMPFFFF!!! I set lights for film, tv and
commercials for 6 years, and it took a lot of creativity in ways Aaron probably
can't even imagine, both for visual effect and just being able to cram enough
lights in a six foot square bathroom to "make it look good". At least with a
computer you don't have to worry about real walls and cielings.
Art rules!
john.
John:
Have you checked out the lighting possibilities in R3 yet? Pretty serious
stuff!
-Tom
Yeah, R3's lighting offerings bring so much flexibility to the screen that I
enjoy spending time with the lights. Not being able to exclude objects in r2
was a big hinderance. I'm glad this is available now, it's much more like
lighting in the "real" world.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Hi John,
I concede. I really don't know anything about lighting, so I couldn't
comprehend how creativity could be involved. I think, though, that there are
different ways to define creativity. From the way you described how you set up
lights, I'd call that ingenuity, which is definitely a kind of creativity that
is great to have and is necessary. However, let me modify my original
statement by saying that I don't see how lighting can be considered "art" in
the traditional sense of the term. I mean, you're not expressing yourself in
any way. Or are you? Again, I don't really have experience in this area, so
if you can prove me wrong, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
Aaron
Hi Aaron,
I'm sorry I didn't reply to your last message to me, but I saw it on another
system and seemed to lose it along the way.
<<However, let me modify my original statement by saying that I don't see how
lighting can be considered "art" in the traditional sense of the term. >>
Let me jump back in. This thread was a fascinating one for me, trying to
explain what I thought – not very well!
Consider each light a different paint brush. As a light blasts onto to a dark
set, it 'opens' what's there, on a very specific path. Consider, as you sit
down at an eisal (sp?), the painting is already on the paper – you just can't
see it. So you take your paintbrush and stroke across the paper. What's there
suddenly comes to life. Now you can see that if you randomly stroke your brush
across the canvas, you won't get a true image: you won't light it properly. It
may be a neat effect, but somethings you want shown aren't and others you'd
rather were hidden are shown.
A DOP will look at his set with his Gaffer, and decide what he/she wants seen
and to what degrees. Once that is settled, the Gaffer will instruct his/her
crew to use "a par" blasting in "there", a "pinky" to bring out the hilites
here, a "baby" to fill that area.
We're down the chain three time. True, the lamp operator doesn't have a lot of
say for what's done, or what's lit, but it's up to them to make sure the image
the DOP and Gaffer want come to life on the film. They must make sure (with the
Gaffer's help) that the intensity is strong/weak enough, that the baindoors
shade something that doesn't need/want any more light. I think that's creative.
Sure, it doesn't orginate with the lamp op, but they are in there, making look
as good as possible.
I think what you may be stuck on is that you thing of an artist as one person,
doing most if not all the work to make the image come to life. Think of a film
set as departments, and each department is responsible for making their part of
the set/lighting/camera work. Each dept is the artist, and each person in the
dept contributes to making that artistic statement.
There. I have no idea if any of this makes sense <g>!
James
Well put, and please allow me add to what you say, James.
In a commercial scale film production, there is little room for single glory.
This may be possible in PR and credits of movies, but it is always a group
effort, and the professionals in all departments are hired to contribute to the
overall creativity and art (I use that term losely for commercial film
production). Even when I started out in film lighting as a grip, I was
constantly called upon to make creative decisions: put a half net on a C-stand
and take some light off that damned white shirt – it's blowing the scene out!
Put some black foil around that inky, it's leaking all over the place. Grab a
french arm and take that hot spot off the window with a dot!
Though these may seem mundane trivialities, without doing these things the
scenes would look amateurish. I think Aaron might want to check out some
films, any film with Nestor Almendros as Director of Photography will do, and
compare this to footage shot on the six o'clock news. The diffrence and art
will become more obvious.
Regards,
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Yes, I agree.
I think Aaron has a good question, and sees it the sam qay we do: it's just a
matter of getting a handle on the idea. Basically, in film, a single artist is
a whole department, each person contributing their own artistic skills to the
whole, in lesser degrees.
Aaron, it may be worth trying to get on a film set to see how it all works.
Check with your school – I know some shows allow observers. This would be
INVALUABLE experience, just to see how it's all done.
James
I agree with checking out a real film set. But it can be quite a myth
disspeller: BOOOOORRRRINNNNGGG to watch. Unless, of course, there's a
particularly interesting shot being filmed, like a stunt or a long master shot
of a good dramatic scene.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Oh yeah, you said it! I work off set whenever I do get work, and make it a
point to avoid set at all costs! Usually I get in and out between shots –
you've never seen anyone faster <g>
But it wouldn't be bad the first time. Any you'd be learning unbelievable
amounts. Even for me, set can be cool sometimes – when their setting up a
particularly complicated shot – dollys, lighting cues…
I always preferred working on set, once I got to know the folks in the crew it
was like some lunatic summer camp experience. I usually did on set jobs
anyway, like dolly grip, key grip, gaffer. I was in the union, so sometimes
they'd send me to the SF Opera and other theaters which was fun, too. The
theater is a whole different world, though, and pays less.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Yeah, I used to work set as well – lighting, grip and some sound (just a bit) –
sort of a whirl-wind tour. But now I'm happy to hide out in a dark office and
help think of all the crazy and stupid things to make the crew shoot. Mildly
sadistic, but hey, we're making art! <g>
Hi James,
Hanging around on an actual film set might be something worth looking into. At
school now, I'm hanging around film sets of my own, though. I just did a shoot
last night for about 6 hours. Trust me, I know how boring it can be. I think
that to really get an feel for it, I would need to see a full-fledged
production in action. The more people there are, the better you can see
expertise in different areas. I know people in 3rd and 4th year film school
whose films have pretty high production value, but only had about 10 people on
the crew. There, the lighting guy might also be the sound man or something
like that.
Aaron
<<I know people in 3rd and 4th year film school whose films have pretty high
production value, but only had about 10 people on the crew. There, the
lighting guy might also be the sound man or something like that.>>
This IS the way to make movies. I've worked on these sets and on sets with
upwards of 200 people. The bigger the set, the less that seems to get done (if
you can believe it!). I'm a strong believer in _small_ filmmaking. I think in
the end, the product will be more personal, more controllable, and definitely
more creative…
Hi James,
I am a believer in small production units also. This might be because
I've never been exposed to anything larger. I can never comprehend
why Hollywood movies backed by the big studios cost so much to make.
I figure that the cost of the film stock and the cost of the name
actors, depending on who they are, must be the bulk of a production's
cost. I could be way off on this, though, as I have absolutely no
knowledge of film financing from major studios. But $200 million for
one movie? That's insane. If there's one thing I've learned doing
stuff myself, it's to improvise. Granted, you want the highest
quality stuff for the big screen, but have people just forgotten how
to use their heads when they go and spend money on something like
wardrobe when you might have something at home in your attic that you
could use just as well. I don't know if that's such a good example,
but you get my drift.
Aaron
Fortunately there aren't that many films shot for $200 million. Most
are in the 8-16 million dollar range. The bottom line is the bottom
line. Hollywood has been around long enough to know what works for
them, and as long as they can make money doing it a certain way,
that's the way it'll be. If all of a sudden small budget movies
start making bucks, you can bet the larger production companies will
make "smaller" films. Film is a public and popular art. It requires
a great deal of public patronage to make a movie successful, and
nobody make commercial scale movies just for the fun of it, "sucking
for bucks" is an inalienable part of the art.
Hi James,
Haven't been on for a few days, so I gotta catch up on the messages.
Thanks for explaining lighting to me. You told me a bunch of stuff I
didn't know, and I can admit that I was slightly off base by not
being able to call it art. I didn't realize that the gaffer would
direct a bunch of other people to do stuff. I kind of thought of it
as the lighting guy being the lamp operator, and the director doing
the role of the gaffer. He would say, "I want this important and to
be lit more, so, Mr. Lamp Operator, do it."
<<He would say, "I want this important and to be lit more, so, Mr. Lamp
Operator, do it.">>
Well, the DOP might say this, but probably to the Gaffer. I think
you're right to question whether a lamp op is an artist. It's true
they don't get to make a lot of creative decisions, but it's a good
place to learn…
I'll take a shot at proving you wrong, Aaron. Lighting is often subtle and
subliminal, so I can understand how one could miss the art in it, but lighting
is the essence of the visual part of visual art. Without light, art is just a
bunch of lines and squiggles. In my opinion, the single greatest forward
achievment in the human history of painting, besides perspective, is the use of
single light sources (light coming in through a window, from a candle, etc.).
Study flemish painters, dutch masters, then compare them to earlier, say
medieval paintings, and tell me you don't see a difference. The fact that one
can apply lighting in different media (painting, film, CGI) does not change the
fact that it is a creative process.
Example:
Say you need to light a person's face. How would you go about this? Why are
you lighting it? What emotion are you trying to convey? A very blatant
example of this is a single light source coming from below, to create a scary,
moody look you see in many horror films. Another example would be placing
"cookies" in front of the lamp to throw special shadows accross the face.
Depending on what patterns you cast, you can convey an emotion that the subject
may be experiencing. In visual art it is often better to "show" it than "tell"
it, and lighting is often the best way to show an audience what's going on in
someone's head. Light color is also very important, just as color is in
painting. Warm colors will give an impression of liveliness, love, excitement,
life. Cool colors, like blue, can imply coldness, death, night.
These are very primitive, simple examples, and lighting can be a very
physically complex task, but I think you can draw similarities in the creative
process between lighting and painting (you can't argue that painting isn't a
creative art). Lighting is an extremely powerful, subtle, and important part
of visual art in any medium, and visual art is a creative thing.
Regards,
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
No No No… You got it all wrong. Is there Video? Audio? Alright… Air it.
P.S. I work in TV.
P.S.S Just joking. Quite frankly, I am overwelmed.
Just wanted to say that you wrote a great message on lighting. You
should be a writer. <g> Seriously, it was great.
Thanks for the complement.
>>You should be a writer. <g><<
Funny you should say that. That's how I made my living before doing this
animation thing. The career switch (3rd one) was easy: I liked 3DS more than
Wordperfect <g>.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
I guess you've proved me wrong. Thanks. I'm still not sure on where
the initial direction comes from. I guess it depends on the size of
the production and how many people are working on it. Using your
example about lighting a guy's face: Wouldn't the director be the
one who says "I want this to look scary" or "I want him to look
friendly", and then let the lighting guy do whatever he does to make
it look that way? It would seem to me, and I could be
wrong, that what the lighting guy does after that involves a lot of
technical knowledge and creativity in how to go about something, but
he's not saying "I want to make this guy look scary", he's taking
orders from the director.
I think, though, that what James said about having to consider that a
production is not a one person deal is true. You can't think about it
like you think about traditional art. There's a team of artists,
each with their own specialty, all working together rather than a
brain-child of one person.
I just thought of something else to argue my first point. When you
watch a film and then talk critically about it, you usually give all
the credit to the director. If you say something like "Mr. Director
used harsh shadows and contrasts to give a sense of eerieness (sp?)
to the dungeon scenes" are you giving credit to the wrong person?
Should you be saying "That gaffer did a great job"? Just a thought.
Aaron
Each individual in film production works differently, but your
intuition about who gives the direction is right: the director. But
he is involved more in the "big picture" and directing the actors, so
he makes (usually) vague, sweeping statements about what he wants the
look to be to the Director of Photography (who is FAR more involved
in the "look" of the film than anyone – he's the 'painter') who
often consults with the gaffer about how to realize his and the
director's vision. But the decisions at one point fall to the
gaffer, because he needs to interpret the DP's vision (which was an
interpretation of the director's vision) and make it become a
physical reality. He has to rely on his artistic as well as craft
instincts, because there are so many permutations of a vision and
there's no one to hold his hand when he's getting paid big $$$ to do
the job. If this all sounds super confusing, it is. That's why
there's so many people on a production, and why a famous said
directing movies was like being the "president of a banana republic".
Yes, I guess it is pretty confusing. All of this makes me ask the
question "Is it all really necessary?" I mean, do you really need so
many people to make a movie, or is just a huge bureaucracy (sp?) that
has ben created by higher-ups in the production biz? I mean, isn't
it possible for the lamp operator to also be the standby painter or
something like that? I know that all the jobs are important, but it
just seems to me that there must be a heck of a lot of people sitting
around doing nothing at one point or another.
Your statement will be retracted the moment you get on a real
commercial production set. I used to work at least 12 hours per day
(usually fourteen to sixteen), usually six day a week, each
department would hire extra help on heavy days, and productions
almost always run over schedule anyway. It is a HUUUUGGGGEEEE
undertaking to make a film to industry standards. And that doesn't
include special effects, which are alway more time consuming.
The only time people are sitting around is during takes, when any noise is
absolutely out of the question and grounds for being fired. We're talking
production costs of easily $8,000 per minute (usually more), and anyone who
costs a take is not going to get too many more chances.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)
Hi John,
I suppose you're right. I guess it's Hollywood's business to make films and if
they could figure out a way to make more money, they'd probably be doing it.
Aaron
<<I just thought of something else to argue my first point. When you watch a
film and then talk critically about it, you usually give all the credit to the
director. If you say something like "Mr. Director used harsh shadows and
contrasts to give a sense of eerieness (sp?) to the dungeon scenes" are you
giving credit to the wrong person? Should you be saying "That gaffer did a
great job"? Just a thought.>>
Yeah, you're right Aaron. The Director gets way too much credit for stuff that
he may or may not have come up with. In fact, you _never_ know who comes up
with a great idea, there's such a long chain: writers, producers, directors,
DOPs, gaffer, lamp ops, editors, etc, etc – lot's left out. Everyone
contributes – one big pool of ideas.
Hi James,
That's what I'm starting to believe from this conversation. That doing an
entire production is a huge group effort with everybody putting in their share.
One thing I don't get then is, where do all the other people besides the
director come from? I mean, does a gaffer go to film school? I'm sure he
probably does. In my current pre-college situation, I have to prepare a
portfolio to show the schools to get accepted. If I want to be, say, a gaffer
and have absolutely no ambition to be a director, why should I have to show
them my ability to direct in my portfolio? Supposedly they're looking to see
if you can tell a story and if you have an eye. What if you can't tell a
story, but you're a wizard with lighting and editing? How would you get into
film school?
Aaron
<<What if you can't tell a story, but you're a wizard with lighting and
editing? How would you get into film school?>>
Chances are anyone who can't tell a story (or at least know what makes a great
story) will not be a wizard with lighting and editing… Well, definitely
editing – that's where the story is told! I'm a strong believer in the fact
that everyone should know what it takes to make a film. Big sets with a hundred
people just is not condusive to everyone learning what it takes. So I think
smaller sets are better, because then you do have the lamp op as standby
painter, the DOP also operates the camera – everyone does everything. This is
filmmaking!!
Now, people get experience from all over – some come from theatre backgrounds,
some work with small TV Stations, some go to film school, some just start from
the bottom (PA) and work their way up.
And I think all of this is relevent to our projects with computers. Because if
we can learn how to tell a story, draw and design a set, build the pieces,
light it and shoot it (not even mentioning all the computer maintenance stuff
that we have to be experts at), we'll be so much father than the person who
knows how to place an inky and that's it. Our computer films will have crews of
15 (until the unions get involved <g> – oh, I'm gonna get shit for that!)
James
As far as the "below the line" (there is a line on production budgets that
separates actors, writers, directors, and DP's from the rest of the crew
budget) crew, they come from all over the place. I worked for six years in the
IATSE, arguably one of the most powerful unions in the world. Most of my
co-workers came from long lines of IATSE union members, nepotism seeming to be
the #1 way to get into the union. There were a few film/art school grads, like
myself, but they (like myself) were doing this until they got the "big break".
I got the "big break" when I dislocated my shoulder in an accident involving a
drunk driver, and considered myself a workman's comp. risk. My shoulder would
pop out of its socket without warning, in the wierdest situations. Thankfully
I have found an even more rewarding and varietal career in CGI animation.
John Tissavary (La Luna cie)