Cinamatography of an Avatar like Movie..

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

the Director of Photography of such a movie will have the responsibility to shoot in two different modes or to generate his images in two different ways one is the real life mode and second is the CGI mode..
that's a question does he really does create the lighting of the two modes? or its likely that he would just shoot the life mode only and CGI lighting people makes the lighting of the CGI scenes?
if he does the two modes then does he have to learn the tools of 3D scene lighting in the 3d application that is used in making the images? or he uses a 3d lighting operator to mimic his visions in the lighting and mimic matching characteristics with the real life scenes?

 

[Craig Parkes]

Avatar is a dramatic exception to the norm, because of the multitude of complicated factors involved.

In this particular case, they did work out a way to light and shoot actual actors with real film lighting, against the green, simultaneously with actors working in the volume for motion capture (who would also be lit by that lighting and recorded that would provide some sort of rough reference for the CGI guys).

In a movie like Avatar, where James Cameron is so hands on, he had a lot of direct input on both the real life stage lighting, and the post lighting, as he would be giving the CGI guys specific direction on what he wanted in terms of filmic lighting set up, and they would then endeavor to best simulate that lighting within their tool set.

Avatar, however, is probably an exception to many films. On a lot of films, especially those with lower budgets, things would be a lot more discrete, with the director of photography shooting the life action stuff against green screen, potentially with minimal film like lighting, and then the effects shots being taken over by compositors/FX/3D guys who then relight the scene etc.

So in effect, the CGI guys should have as much knowledge as they can possibly get in film like lighting so they can communicate with the DOP/Director in their language, and in an ideal world the DOP/Director has as much knowledge as they can possibly get in CGI lighting so they understand the difficulties/realities of the lighting/CGI guys. This isn't often a reality, because both are huge disciplines to learn, but the more both sides understand about the others craft the better the result is likely to be.

Which means ideally there is an onset VFX supervisor who knows both sides of the equation and can act as a go between and help communication.

All in all there are different operators, working with different disciplines (practical vs CGI), hopefully trying to achieve the same ends (i.e the vision of the director/director of photography.) Whether one stays on for the whole shoot and post, such as either the DOP or the VFX supervisor, is a question of budget. Ultimately - the director is in charge of what they want, and if they want the DOP to be responsible for making all the calls on the VFX look, then the DOP will be if budget and time frames accomodate (it rarely does though.)

Another example of this is in Wall-E, where they brought Roger Deakins (award winning director of photography) and Dennis Muren (award winning VFX supervisor) as consultants for 'real world lighting'.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

thanks for all this great clarification/info.. it helped me a lot..

that's means its a matter of ideal situation and budget related case..!!??

 

[chrislancaster]

thanks for all this great clarification/info.. it helped me a lot..

that's means its a matter of ideal situation and budget related case..!!??

look up the latest vfxshow.com ..david stripinis worked on Avatars lighting for four years

really cool stuff
http://blog.vfxshow.com/?p=341