#seaQuest questions
38 messages in this thread
I wanted to ask about the work you do on seaQuest and how it is done.
How much time do you get to produce a segment? Between time it is
presented and the deadline. How much of that time do you guys have
to build new objects? Are new objects given to you as a sketch like
the ones on page 61 of Jan VTU, or are they verbally described and
you guys build to suit? Do you know of any of the animators for
Foundation that has a CIS account? It would be nice to be able to
talk to them as well.
John Gross has gone off to Bermuda for a week to do a Toaster
training seminar (lifes tough huh), anyway I'll try and answer your
questions. We generally get about 2 weeks to complete the scene
files requierd to complete a show. The third week is used for
rendering the final shots. All new objects are usally modeled within
the first week. Most everything is already built though already, so
modelling is minimal at best.
Yes, new objects are given to us as a sketch like the kind seen in
VTU, although the Art Director does closley interact with us during
the construction of a new model.
Tonight's episode featuring the "Stinger" one-man speedster was a
remarkable bit of CGI work. Congrats!
Glad you liked it. We thought for sure that it was going to kill us
time wise. We normally deliver a show the Monday before it airs, but
this one had us rendering until well into Thursday. Some shots were
taking two or three days to render- even with the Screamer. We were
calling the episode Stinker because of all the shots!
GT
Just for my own feedback, what impressed you the most about it?
Loved the episode, too. The CG, I mean. I was extremely impressed
with the shear speed of the images. That Stinger was flyin'!! I
didn't quite buy the back tail, which swung back and forth in an
organic way that seemed impossible for an otherwise metal(?)
structure. I missed some of the dialogue, so maybe they were working
with a new type of metal. The best was the overhead surface water,
as seen from below. The way it scrolled past at lightning speed.
BRAVO!
Glad you liked the water. It takes FOREVER to render because of all
the transparencey involved, not to mention the 24,000 polys. (for the
water alone) The Stinger tail was supposed to be made of a plyable
rubber type material, but construction crew in their infinate wisdom
made it out of sheet metal. Called a lack of communication. Anyway,
glad you liked the show!
One other question… When the prototype Stinger came in (the one
that broke down) there was some kind of oil leak trailing behind it.
It seemed to expand slightly in the water as the shot progressed and
the Stinger moved forward. Great effect, though it was very subtle.
Any way you could tell us how it was done?
I'd love to! Actually, we didn't do it. It was done at the Post
Group in a Hairy- or is it Harry Bay, as a post effect. In fact all
of the canopy shots outside the vehicles were done later in post.
I presume it's hard to do anything organic looking, especially fluid
movements such as that fishtail design demanded. I also liked the
storyboard — shot selection, angles, etc. A casual friend who saw
the episode said it looked more computerized than average for the
series, but even she couldn't deny that, choreographically, the race
was excitingly realized.
On the downside, the seabeds in a few cases looked a little less well
realized than usual for the show — maybe because you were forced to
concentrate on the foreground action.
All in all, this particular set of CGIs could be considered a
milestone of sorts for episodic TV. Not just an attempt at visual eye
candy, but a very powerful use of CGI to tell a highly kinetic and
imaginative story. Model photography would almost have been out of
the question, even with an unlimited budget.
Of course, you'll have to outdo yourself to stay competitive with the
Foundation Imaging folks, given the looks at their "B-5" work we've
had so far. That kind of friendly rivalry we viewers can use more
of. :}
>Of course, you'll have to outdo yourself to stay competitive with
the Foundation Imaging folks, given the looks at their "B-5" work
we've had so far.
I have to agree that the latest B5 stuff has been stunning. But
keep in mind that of all the environments that one could try to
model, space is the easiest. It is a stark, uncomplicated, and a
physically simple environment with no detail except for the
"techojunk" you put in it.
The underwater world of SQ is NOT simple. It is an infinitely
complex and variable environment visually. IMHO the problems of
creating a believable underwater shot are much more difficult that of
a space shot. In fact again IMHO the only reason it can be pulled
off is that the underwater world is for most viewers still an unknown
strange place visually, and they are willing to accept a "simplified"
version as being "the way it is". As soon as you move above the
surface where the viewer's visual knowledge base is full of images
you can't get away with it. (You have not see SQ running on the
surface have you?) Then only by mixing CGI's with real images (like
Jurassic Park) can you satisfy the human eye's expectation of
infinite detail and get a believable shot.
A very interesting and insightful posting. I had really never
thought about it that way.
I also thought the bottom looked a bit plain and clean. Maybe I need
to vacation on better tropical isles! (fewer tires and syringes!)
Jumping in here. I have to add my compliments to you, John and the
others regarding the stinger episode.
>Just for my own feedback, what impressed you the most about it?
Since I am stuggling with some of the same problems creating
underwater shots for our student video I have a GREAT appreciation
for what you have accomplished. If I am not mistaken the "stinger"
episode was the first time you attempted to show both the bottom and
surface underside in the same shot. Well done! And there was the shot
of the "stinger" doing a loop where the "stinger's" lights reflected
off the surface underside. Again nicely done!
What this shows me is that even under the pressure of cranking out
the shots on time you have been experimenting and stretching the
envelope of what is possible. That's the creative and fun part after
all.
Right now I am attempting to make my virtual underwater environment
a more lively "living" place. So I have been creating a variety of
fish both individuals and whole schools (using particles in Imagine
2.9). In one shot I needed closup of a device (the deadly, now
illegal, fishing device known as the "Z-9000" in our script) stuck in
the bottom. So I created a bottom fish to scuttle across in front of
it. Can you get all excited about creating a swimming flounder! Damn
right you can! Keep up the great work!
I am still planning to send you and John a tape. As soon as I have
accumulated enough shots to make it interesting. We've finished the
FX shots for the first scene "The Teaser" and we are working on scene
#2 "The Call For Help", so it should not be too much longer. I'll
include a copy of the script my student writers have come up with so
you can see how it all fits together.
BTW: I am sure you don't come it contact with the live cast members.
But in case you do – Jonathan Brandis comes from the Danbury CT area.
My female students would like him to know that he is a real home town
hero to them.
Your correct that this was the first time that both the seafloor and
the water surface were both shown at once. The hardest thing to do
was getting the caustic refractions of light to fall on the vehicles
and landscape, reqiuered that we raytrace a distant light through a
large mass op polys making up the water surface. Takes forever to
render. Send us your tape when your through!
Greg, since you are fielding questions for John, I was wondering if
you could shed any light on layered surface textures using the Morph
Surfaces feature.
Grant Boucher touched on this in the latest issue of Lightwave Pro,
but he only hinted at its potential. Could you explain what is ment
by layered surfaces, and is the effect a result of a less than 100%
surface morph (ie. if you morph a surface into another at say a morph
level of 25-35% to get a completely different surface
characteristic).
I just received the January issue of LWP and am looking forward to
reading your article on Compositing Live Video (as I type this
message I am on pg. 7).
Keep up the tremendous work on Sea Quest.
Well….. Let's see. I believe that what Grant was talking about
rgarding layered surfaces was a surface with multiple maps. – i.e
Color, diffuse, transparency, bump etc, all on one surface.
He could mean that objects that aren't 100% morphed to each other
would show characteristics of themselves combined, and if so, say one
object is 50% morphed into another, than the surfaces would be 50%
mixed. You could theoretically come up with many different kinds of
surfaces. Knock yourself out!
I tried last night to do a LW morph between 2 exactly identical
objects, other than one of them having displacement mapping, and one
flat, without the mapping. It didn't morph. Any way that you know
of to accomplish this? (It'd be awful tough to model the displaced
version…)
Thanks,
Jerry
P.S. Concurring with the other posts, I thought the graphics in
Sunday's show were the best so far, great! And if you ever see the
producers, pass on to them that there are a LOT of us who appreciated
a seaQuest without all the political overtones. Eg. 'Save the
whales', 'The evil military', and so on…
If the objects are identical, then the morph is indistinguishable! I5t
sounds like you either want to animate the displacement map, or save the
'displaced' object with the LW Save Transformed button, then load that as
your morph target.
Arnie,
I'm _almost_ positive that 'saving transformed' doesn't save a
displacement, but I'll sure try again. That would be the perfect
answer, of course. For some reason, I was also thinking that
displacement would not use a sequence, but heck, I may be wrong there
as well. Either would work equally well for my purposes…
You have to make sure that when you do a morph that the objects are not
only the same but also from the same layer. If you cut and paste the
morph target to another layer, the point order is changed and it won't
work. I'm not sure if this is your problem, but then agian I hate morhing
myself, so I may not be the best one to answer your question. I'll
mention the bit to the producers if I see them, but they wouldn't listen
anyway.
GT
I really hate morphing myself too; I never have quite feel like I've
gotten me back to exactly what I was before I started to morph.
That's what I thought. Until I read the article, I had not even considered
this possibility.
Thanks for the clarification!
>Takes forever to render.
And that's with a Screemer! I'd like to try that, but with my
single 4000 it would take months. Maybe I'll do a still as an
experiment. Thanks for the information.
Howdy paul, this is only Vaguely on this topic but……. Since
you've been doing alot of Underwater based work lately, would you
happen to have clipart of a Lobster,Crawfish,shrimp,catfish,Chicken
and Crabs? Color brush would be fine but Lineart would be better.
Thanx.
Whats it fer you ask? I'm putting together a little booklet of Cajun
Recipes for a buddy of mine(he's getting me a good deal on Crawfish)
and I'd like to spice it up a bit with some pictures. Thanx Paul,
can't wait to see yer new stuff on Amiga Gang II
Scanning. . . Clams. . .Roast Chicken. . .Lobster. . .Crab. .
.another Crab. . .Flounder. . .Shrimp or maybe Crawfish!
These are 300dpi B&W line art, but they are MAC TIFs. You have
ImageMaster so you can read/convert them. Which ones would you like?
BTW if you would like these and 4994 others pick up the CD
"ClipMasterPro", 5001 images for $29.00.
If their not too large I'd appreciate the
Clams,Flounder,Shrimp,Lobster, Chicken and Crawfish. Thanx, if yer
interested I'll send ye a copy of the Recipe Booklet when it's done.
Has about 8 recipes most of which are for Crawfish and Shrimp. The
Booklet includes recipes for Seafood Gumbo and Also for Jambalaya.
It's Wondermous I gaurentee hehehehehehe.
If you have a Phone # for the Clipart Disk I'd appreciate that too for
further reference tho I don't do much printing. Doing this Booklet as a
favor for my Buddy for telling me about 800-66-CAJUN which is a source of
fairly inexpensive Seafood. Tho the Shipping does offset the Savings
considerably. Now if I could just find someplace in Brooklyn that sold
Crawfish………..
Thanx Paul
Peter,
OK, I'll arc em up for you. Watch your Email.
I picked up the CD at COSTCO a wholesale store. As a union member you
should be eligible if there is a store near you. Great buys!
Greg, I keep hearing a lot about this new show seaQuest. I was wondering
if any of the episodes are available in video?
I am living in Tokyo and needless to say the show, not to mention English
TV in general, is not available.
Thanks for any comments.
Tim Budd
An Amigan in Tokyo
As far as I know seaQuest is not available on video yet, if at all.
Judging by the scripts we get though and the uncertainty of being
renewed for next season, look for us on MST3K!
That's Gazelle!
;-/
>John Gross has gone off to Bermuda for a week to do a Toaster
training
Thanks for taking your time to answer some questions.
Btw, I loved the CG in the Stinger episode. The school of fish and
the underwater grass added lots more realism to the shots. Excellent
work guys.
Glad you liked it. John Gross was responsible for that shot.
GT
Hi Greg, from the ongoing thread I conclude that you are one of the
gues that make the CA for the TV series seaQuest. Here in Germany we
only saw the first four episodes. The CG in the very first episode
were really amazing. Very good mood. But I was a kind of disapointed
with the episode I saw today. The one with the strange creature that
prodiced glowing droppings. The tentacles looked not very organic
(especially the movement). Also the small under water ships move more
like space ships in vacuum than submarines. They move too fast. maybe
they should drift a little more instead of going on a strait line.
Ok now everyone here will hate me for criticising. Don't get me
wrong, I like the CA in seaQuest a lot.
Your actually right about those things, but those are judgment calls
made by the effects supervisor, and we have to follow his direction.
The tenticles on the sea monster were very difficult to do, for a
number of different reasons, the most significant being the amount of
time given us to do it. That's one of TV's downfalls; we typically
get about 2 weeks to complete a show, so stuff is sometimes not a
finished or refined as we would like it to be. Glad you like it
overall though!
Greg,
no doubt about that, making tentacles look real good is very difficult. 2 weeks
for a show is very very tight. I'm sure if I had to do it it would not look
even clsoe to what you and the whole team is doing. <g>
Commodore is making a contest here in Germany. The task: making a 10-15 second
trailer aniamtion for seaQuest. The winning animation will replace the current
trayler. Only amateurs are alowed. Looks like I'll send in one, too <g>
-David
I've been very impressed with the work done on seaQuest…I wish I had the
time (and horsepower) to do that kind of work. Alas, keeping the family
fed doesn't really allow me to develop those kinds of talents. Keep up
the good work, guys!
Duane.