BLUMENKOHL

Short Version: There are virtual cameras and virtual lights and virtual sets.

Long version:

You may already know what the role of a DP is in a real world film, or at least the gist of it. The camera angles, the composition of shots (where things are in relation to one another), the lighting, color, the movement, the type of shot, down to the focal length of the lens being used. It can vary significantly from picture to picture and director to director. Some directors exert quite a huge influence and control over this stuff. Others leave it up to the DP they hire. For example someone like Sam Mendes is someone who knows exactly what he wants, to the point that he shoots most of his footage on one or two cameras. He works very closely with the DP to realize his vision. Other directors aren't so clear, so they leave everything up to the DP. Some directors don't know what they want to the point that there are sets where you can find 10 cameras at 10 different positions and angles capturing the same scene, so the director can pick his best shot in the editing room. Neither is better or worse, just different ways of going about creating film. So the DP role varies across the above spectrum.

When you go into the world of animation, most of all that remains the same, just translated in a virtual form. But the degree of freedom afforded to the cinematographer increases dramatically. There are still cameras, but the settings of the camera are all editable. The camera can be any camera you want. It can replicate the settings of any real world camera, and any camera that has never existed. It can be in any position you want. It can go through walls, zoom to incredible lengths. It can be stationary or travelling at beyond light speed. Its focal length can be 35 mm or 35.00000003 mm or 1.7958573 mm. The depth of field can be manipulated, the shape of the blurs can be manipulated, how motion blur behaves is up to the DP. The film grain, the distortion of the lens, all of this can be manipulated. The field of view can be adjusted. It goes on and on.

Then you have lights, which again have incredible levels of choice for whoever is in charge of them. How many lights do you want? What intensity of light? You can have 0. Or 50,000 lights. What kind of light is it? Spot? Point (think of the sun!), area light (stadium light). And again all of these things are invisible and non-physical. They can be anywhere in the scene. And then there is the lighting of objects. You can even decide the color of shadows and the color of the light from among millions of options.

So you are now a DP, with an infinitely greater number of choices and complexity in front of you. And behind that there are some technical limitations that you also need to be cognizant of. Everything you add to the scene, be it lights, cameras, has some computing cost. If 1 frame of your minute long scene takes 30 seconds to render, and your movie runs at 24 frames per second, and that's with nothing but one virtual camera and one low quality virtual lights your scene will aready take:

30 seconds * 24 frames per second * 60 seconds = 12 hours to render that scene.

The moment you add one virtual light that replicates how light bounces in real life, that might go up to 48 hours. Two days for a state of the art CPU to render the minute long scene.

Now here's the kicker, the 30 seconds to render/compute one frame I gave? That's child's play.

A single pixar frame can range from 6 HOURS to 300 HOURS to render on one CPU. 300 hours per frame. Times 24 frames per second. Times a minute long scene. That's 48 years.

And that's why these studios have render farms. These are stacks and stacks of CPUs (40,000 in the case of Weta for example), that work on these scenes. So WETA's 40,000 computer farm might render that minute long scene in 11 hours instead of 48 years.

So infinitely more choice combined with a huge potential time cost with each decision made. The first job of a DP for an animated film is imposing limitations that set a clear direction for the film, and then making choices within those limitations that balance an incredible visual feast with the cost of producing that incredible visual feast.

They still have a [virtual] camera, they still have [virtual] lights, and [virtual] lenses, and [virtual] sets. And they have real directors that they collaborate with to make all this happen, directors with their own styles, visions and working methods. They just get to play with more options.

Short Version: There are virtual cameras and virtual lights and virtual sets.

Long version:

You may already know what the role of a DP is in a real world film, or at least the gist of it. The camera angles, the composition of shots (where things are in relation to one another), the lighting, color, the movement, the type of shot, down to the focal length of the lens being used. It can vary significantly from picture to picture and director to director. Some directors exert quite a huge influence and control over this stuff. Others leave it up to the DP they hire. For example someone like Sam Mendes is someone who knows exactly what he wants, to the point that he shoots most of his footage on one or two cameras. He works very closely with the DP to realize his vision. Other directors aren't so clear, so they leave everything up to the DP. Some directors don't know what they want to the point that there are sets where you can find 10 cameras at 10 different positions and angles capturing the same scene, so the director can pick his best shot in the editing room. Neither is better or worse, just different ways of going about creating film. So the DP role varies across the above spectrum.

When you go into the world of animation, most of all that remains the same, just translated in a virtual form. But the degree of freedom afforded to the cinematographer increases dramatically. There are still cameras, but the settings of the camera are all editable. The camera can be any camera you want. It can replicate the settings of any real world camera, and any camera that has never existed. It can be in any position you want. It can go through walls, zoom to incredible lengths. It can be stationary or travelling at beyond light speed. Its focal length can be 35 mm or 35.00000003 mm or 1.7958573 mm. The depth of field can be manipulated, the shape of the blurs can be manipulated, how motion blur behaves is up to the DP. The film grain, the distortion of the lens, all of this can be manipulated. The field of view can be adjusted. It goes on and on.

Then you have lights, which again have incredible levels of choice for whoever is in charge of them. How many lights do you want? What intensity of light? You can have 0. Or 50,000 lights. What kind of light is it? Spot? Point (think of the sun!), area light (stadium light). And again all of these things are invisible and non-physical. They can be anywhere in the scene. And then there is the lighting of objects. You can even decide the color of shadows and the color of the light from among millions of options.

So you are now a DP, with an infinitely greater number of choices and complexity in front of you. And behind that there are some technical limitations that you also need to be cognizant of. Everything you add to the scene, be it lights, cameras, has some computing cost. If 1 frame of your minute long scene takes 30 seconds to render, and your movie runs at 24 frames per second, and that's with nothing but one virtual camera and one low quality virtual lights your scene will aready take:

30 seconds * 24 frames per second * 60 seconds = 12 hours to render that scene.

The moment you add one virtual light that replicates how light bounces in real life, that might go up to 48 hours. Two days for a state of the art CPU to render the minute long scene.

Now here's the kicker, the 30 seconds to render/compute one frame I gave? That's child's play.

A single pixar frame can range from 6 HOURS to 300 HOURS to render on one CPU. 300 hours per frame. Times 24 frames per second. Times a minute long scene. That's 48 years.

And that's why these studios have render farms. These are stacks and stacks of CPUs (40,000 in the case of Weta for example), that work on these scenes. So WETA's 40,000 computer farm might render that minute long scene in 11 hours instead of 48 years.

So infinitely more choice combined with a huge potential time cost with each decision made. The first job of a DP for an animated film is imposing limitations that set a clear direction for the film, and then making choices within those limitations that balance an incredible visual feast with the cost of producing that incredible visual feast.

They still have a [virtual] camera, they still have [virtual] lights, and [virtual] lenses, and [virtual] sets. And they have real directors that they collaborate with to make all this happen, directors with their own styles, visions and working methods. They just get to play with more options.

http://floobynooby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-cinematography-of-incredibles-part-1.html
[update] Here's Part 2
http://floobynooby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-cinematography-of-incredibles-part-2.html

There was something really special about that first hour or so of FOTR that in my view no further portion of the entire saga thus far has come close of matching

Now you can like my post too.
Karol

Well I think it's because something like Nemesis was very jarring back when it first came out. It was a brand new island of musical modernity in a sea of romanticism. It's the same reason people's ears bled when Rite of Spring premiered. And then when everyone started trying to delve into Straviniskian territory, everyone's like...wait...that [Rite of Spring] was actually really good.
Now that the entire ocean is modern music, works like "Nemesis", or hell even "U.S. Marshals" really stand out. Nemesis is a damn fine "modern film score." It's intelligent, it embodies everything that "saying more with less" should be.

Isn't it cute? It's programmed to appear sentient! It even has an adorable backstory about being a Dutchman!

Stefancos.
The original spambot. The most advanced spambot ever created. 59210 posts without a perma-ban to prove it.

You either die a moderator, or live long enough to see yourself become the spambot.

MP3?
No idea. It's also the worst in terms compression artifacts vs. bitrate.
But, let's all just take a step back and remember that Amazon is offering arguably one of the best recordings of a composer's complete symphonies, as well as additional works, for practically the price of one or two Starbucks mixed espresso drinks. 7.5 hours of music at a respectable but not perfect 256kbps MP3 format.
Are we really going "Nope, I'm too good for that." ?!?!?!?!
Really?!

Go back to your Roger Moore DVD's

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/leonardo-da-vincis-wacky-piano-is-heard-for-the-first-time-after-500-years-20131118-2xpqs.html

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/leonardo-da-vincis-wacky-piano-is-heard-for-the-first-time-after-500-years-20131118-2xpqs.html

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/leonardo-da-vincis-wacky-piano-is-heard-for-the-first-time-after-500-years-20131118-2xpqs.html

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/leonardo-da-vincis-wacky-piano-is-heard-for-the-first-time-after-500-years-20131118-2xpqs.html

I love the slow meandering in FOTR. It works.
Yes, it's less notes per unit time, but it works. This is a big universe. Painting it with dainty little strokes just wouldn't work.

I don't care for the circumstances of the song, nor do I take its backstory into account for my judgement of the final work, which is lovely. The fact that a day was spent on it has no relevance to its quality.
But, you have a right to be as bitter as you like. It's your forté 'round these parts!

My analysis of this situation:

My analysis of this situation:

My analysis of this situation:

Samples sound gorgeous. Looking forward to this one.

Greetings everyone,

Just a couple of weeks ago, Norwegian contemporary classical label AURORA issued the first album to solely portray my chamber music. The centerpiece is my Sonata for Cello and Piano, written for two of Norway's finest virtuosi, cellist Johannes Martens and pianist Joachim Kwetzinsky. The sonata is complimented by two solo works, Trauermusik for scordatura (detuned) cello, and 4 Memento Mori for solo piano. I'm immensely proud of the stellar performances by Martens and Kwetzinsky captured on this disc, and urge you to check out their work:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marcus-Paus-Trauermusik-Memento-Sonata/dp/B00FESKLJS

http://www.grappa.no/en/aurora/marcus-paus/

Hope you'll enjoy!

Cheers,
Marcus

I don't think that's a reasonable fear, Steef. This might just be the future of film scoring.
If nothing else I would take a fresh and energized Shore over serving critiques over Skype to an in-person jet-lagged zombie Shore who hasn't slept in 48 hours to work on the score.

I don't think that's a reasonable fear, Steef. This might just be the future of film scoring.
If nothing else I would take a fresh and energized Shore over serving critiques over Skype to an in-person jet-lagged zombie Shore who hasn't slept in 48 hours to work on the score.