Kind of :). I'm not sure which software they use, but you can do a lot these days with fairly cheap PC software.

The main issue is that they would typically have hundreds or thousands of computers to perform the rendering, while you would probably have one or two. That means it would take a lot longer to produce the shots for your movie.

The question is not "Can you", because you most certainly can, but the question you should ask yourself is "Do I need CG", "How much will it cost me" and "Will it increase my production value". If your answer to any of these questions is no, I would not suggest getting to heavily into CG.

In a basic sense, you can do some basic, low level CG effects with a single computer running a program like Lightwave 8.0 or the more "Professional" Softimage software package. Both packages will set you back several thousand dollars, and will require a fairly powerful computer to work well. Then you have to think about your ability to use the software. Doing the CG effects for the film by yourself, you?re going to have to be good at modeling, painting in the computer and animated figures.

The software is not easy, and it will take a little time to learn even the most basic of abilities. Lightwave is supposed to be fairly easy to learn, but even after owning it for more than 6 months; I still can?t tell you how to do some basic things.

Productions like LOTR does not do there own CG, generally they will hire a place like ILM or WETA to do the computer stuff. These are all large companies that do nothing effects for films, so they have over a hundred artist's working full time, a full featured render farm (group of sever computers to handle the work load, general 100 of them or many time more). They also have there own customized software packages, that while some of them use just basic off the shelf software, 99% of movies with CG requires that the company create there own add-ons and plug ins for the software, so that by the time it's all said and done, they use anything but off the shelf software.

Bottom line: Know what you?re getting into before you get into it. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it will take a lot of time! As Pixar once said, some of the frames take as much as 90 hours to render, and that?s on there render farm with hundred's of computer working at the same time... And that is just to render 1 frame (there a 24 in ever second of final film).

A good demo of what is involved in CG is over at Pixars website: www.pixar.com and click on "How we do it".

Have a nice day,
Landon Parks

I think its also important to seperate out which type of effect you're lookign for. If you want to create a cave troll swinging his club around as the camera pans through its legs from scratch that's hard. If you want a hundred orcs you can put 5 into makeup and shoot them in front of a greenscreen and plop them in over and over without too much difficulty.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

" i dont know where to post this topic but i post here anyway.
here is the question that i always wanted to know.
films like lord of the ring. how do they creat the visual affects, and what kind of software they are using. i know it takes long time and work, but is possible you use those techniques in 7-15 min. shorts? with limited budgets"
________________________________________

I Don't buy into that last statement 100%. While it is possible to shot them in front of a chroma screen and just "Paste" copies over and over again might work, it wont look very good at best.

In order to properly get 15,000 orcs to look like there real, you first need to model them in the computer. It will help you if you create several different types of orcs to ad to the real effect. Then you can use a program called "Massive" that will give each character an "AI" to "Think" on its own. Then you need to carefully copy and paste layers upon layers of these creates in the program... That?s the best way to do it. You can also bypass the "Massive" software and just animate each orc and give them "Minds" created by you and paste them over and over into the computer.

For reference, you might even use several suited actors in your live action so that you have a reference for how they move, ect for the computer models.

One mistake you don't want to make is this: If you have to use CG, MAKE IT LOOK AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE. In a Hollywood film people come to expect perfect CG, in an Indie film if it is not done just as well, people see it as very cheesy and fake looking and will actually make them lose interest in the film, especially if its effects driven.

Landon D. Parks

Darkcaver, You quoted the thread starters but seem to be talking about my post so I'll clarify.

The main key to having this work with 5 guys is to film the 5 guys for a long time, in different positions, doing different things, perhaps with 4 in some shots, 3 in others. Add a change to the costume here and there then shoot some more. Then you chop the shots into short sections and dump them into the frame so that you don't get a bugeye repetition effect you'd have with the same identical bit dropped in over and over.

It also helps to put something in the extreme foreground, perhaps another Orc or leg stepping into frame as if another Orc walked across up close. This can block the image for a second or two, providing depth as well as helping to distract and cover up any parts you don't particularly like in the process.

It also would work best if the scene is quick, forcing folks to freeze-frame in order to tell that really it is the same guys.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I'm not saying it won't work, I'm saying don'y expect it to be of the quality it could be if it was done completly or somewhat in the computer. Do you think it would have worked if Andrew Adamson had 5 minators in front of a green screen and just copied and pasted them to get the great battle? No. He used around 80 or so actors in costume to get the forground shots and the rest was digitally added in the computer.

I'm not saying your ideas won't work or that its bad, just don't expect it to be off top quality.

Landon D. Parks

Agreed, but I don't think we're talking LOTR quality anyway.

"7-15 min. shorts? with limited budgets"

Excuse me, but are you guys getting muddled or not? I thought you were discussing LOTR effects and then you go and mention Andrew Adamson. Just in case you've forgotten, Peter Jackson directed LOTR while Andrew Adamson directed The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. You weren't getting them muddled, were you?

How limited of a budget are we talking here. The only reason I ask is because I know quite well that my idea of a limited budget is completly different from yours. My idea of limited is $50, but right now i'm out of a job. I would have to suggest green screening. Personally, CG kind of irks me, its like an excuse. Just shoot the shot, then you don't have to worry about your budget. In addition, you receive a +10 on the realism scale, which is always a bonus.

When you're talking special effects I think any and all examples apply. We weren't exactly talking Lord of the Rings effects specifically but films "like lord of the ring". Lion is like LOTR but I would go so far as to include Forrest Gump as well if the special effects in that movie fit the dicussion in some way. I don't see any muddle at all.

If you meant muggle, well I guess I am because I don't believe Harry Potter was a con artist with some cheap parlor tricks and slight of hand and not a real magician. ;?)

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Sort of off topic but a great example of really badly done CG is in Spiderman. It was atrocious. Ask yourself if its really worth it.

Any specific examples? I was so caught up in the action I didn't notice any bad CGI.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

Its mostly the 1st one, they cleaned up a bit in the 2nd. Example one, after Uncle Ben gets killed and Parker is running down the alley and pulling on his mask. Right after he pulls on his mask it cuts to a tracking shot and before he jumps on the wall there is a grotesquely obvious switch from live action to CGI. Another instance is when he first discovers his powers and is running on the rooftops. Its an areial tracking shot in which he jumps towards the camera several times. I have to ffw through that part because it gives me a headache just to watch it. It is incredibly phony. I mean come on, when he was running it reminds me of Woody's uncoordinated gait in Toy Story. No humanoid runs like that. Not even by trying to run like that can a human run like that. Its unnatural. Also, though I am being overly critical on this, he was disproportionate. Again I was reminded of Woody because the way the shot was done made his arms look like they were the size of his legs. I'm not dissing the movie at all, its a fabulous flick, but they could have done much better on the CGI. Especially with their budget size. The 1st one also killed me on continuity, but don't even get me going on that.

And were an epitaph to be my story
I'd have a short one ready for my own.
I would have written of me on my stone:
I had a lover's quarrel with the world.
Robert Frost (1874-1963

Sorry bout the consecutive posts, but i had another thought along the lines of CG. For all the people who saw LOTR and King Kong, was I the only person who expected to see Orcs and Uruks hopping around during the areial shots of the island? The first time I saw teh movie I went to the bathroom right before that shot, came back, and actually stopped to check my ticket to make sure I didn't step through the space time continuum and walk in during a screening of ROTK. There is only so much you can to with CGI. But what you can do is incredible. In some cases though, you might just want to train one of your friends to be a contortionist or try models. Models are fun, but time consuming and if done badly can be worse the CG effects.

And were an epitaph to be my story
I'd have a short one ready for my own.
I would have written of me on my stone:
I had a lover's quarrel with the world.
Robert Frost (1874-1963