posted on U.K.Talentcircle:-
Animation in the YouTube Generation, Wolverhampton
Author: peter mcluskie | Contact/View posting
Profile: Not Created
2 November
3.30 6pm, includes drinks & networking
This panel discussion will look at the impact of new and emerging online platforms and tools and will ask what the opportunities are for animators and filmmakers and can online distribution and exhibition lead to professional commissions? The panel comprises an exciting line up of animators who have had a significant impact online and who mix this amateur' work with professional commissions: Greg McLeod, from the Brother's McLeod who are responsible for the recent Skittles ad campaign and whose Spamland has received nearly 1m views on You Tube; Lasse Gjertson, whose films have had a huge impact on You Tube, particularly Amateur which has received more than 6m views and 6 honours, including most viewed all time; Katy Davis, who has been shortlisted for the MyMovie Mashup competition and has been a feature profile on MySpace and produced the award winning short animation, Gone Fishing; Mick Foley, from Sumo Dojo productions, a one-stop provider of digital media production and animation services across all platforms and responsible for Weebl, one of the leading cult websites in the world with over 1.5 million users per month. The panel will also include Ana Kronschnabl: author of Plug in Turn on: A Guide to Internet Filmmaking and is the founder of plugincinema.com. The panel will be chaired by Kate Taylor who has worked in short film distribution and exhibition since 1998 and has been involved in a number of leading festivals and agencies, including Kinofilm, onedotzero, British Council and is co-founder of the London Short Film Festival.
Light House, The Chubb Buildings, Fryer Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1HT, www.flipfestival.co.uk
Sounds like a great opportunity, Don. Hopefully some from this community will be able to attend.
I think the term 'virtual filmmaking' is a more apt description of what is going on in the upper reaches of this hobby (although that depends on your definition of 'machinima,' which some interpret pretty broadly). As this hobby advances, the cutting edge is becoming less about crafting stories within the inherent limitations of a game and more about pure filmmaking, using games as one tool among many to achieve a particular creative vision. The people pushing the envelope today are using advanced sound and visual post-production software, including graphics software that isn't necessarily game based. It seems that the term 'machinima' as I've always understood it may be ill-suited to describe what this hobby is becoming--at least at its highest level.
There's something almost quaint about keeping the hobby simple and working within the limits of what games give you. You could liken this to model railroading, which is really just a miniature representation of something much bigger. It never pretends to be the real deal, but it doesn't need to--its appeal is in seeing what can be accomplished on such a tiny scale. Blow that scale up to something approaching life size, and it loses its charm.
Taking machinima to higher levels--levels that strive to imitate professional productions--in a way makes this all seem so 'serious' and less like a hobby. Some filmmakers might be discouraged by that since they have neither the interest nor the resources to produce films that aim for that level. Increasingly, their work will pale in comparison to the work of those with loftier ambitions and the skill and means to pursue them. As time goes on, there will be more of a division between the weekend-warrior types and those who are serious filmmakers who apply the best tools they can afford to achieve their goals. That's already starting to happen.
Today there probably isn't enough of a divide to justify separate divisions in a festival, but eventually the little guys are going to find it difficult to compete, and some sort of class/division system may be needed to maintain interest among the vast majority who merely do this as a casual hobby.
As someone who first discovered a love of filmmaking and later this unique means of pursuing that love, I think it's exciting to see the technological advances, both in the tools available and in the productions that utilize those tools. I really think this is just the infant stage of a filmmaking niche that will one day be able to compete with professional productions.
Aye, interesting looking seminar, ta Don_X. No mention of our medium unfortunately, but it will come.
Machinima is still a relatively unknown term outside our community. Should we change the name, as GL2 suggests? Or keep pushing the Machinima name, though it still lacks an agreed definition? The latest definition from AMAS is:
I had to laugh at Microsoft's reason for creating the term 'gamevids'Machinima (muh-sheen-eh-mah) is filmmaking within a real-time, 3D virtual environment, often using 3D video-game technologies.Actually, seriously, this is taken from Microsoft's very helpful Game Content Usage Rules (yes, I DID say that Microsoft was being helpful!)...it's not that we hate the word "machinima" and are trying to rename it into "gamevids" this is related to a character limit issue on our server side for automated aliases, not a nefarious plot to rename anything
I wasn't necessarily trying to coin a new term, but maybe a new term is in order. 'Machinima' is far from being a household term today. I have friends my age (I'm still south of 40) who had never heard of the word until I started telling them about FH&C. The problem with 'machinima' is that it's meaning is by no means self-evident. As I see it, people such as Paul Marino, who has a personal interest in promoting the term, have had to stretch the definition of machinima in an attempt to keep pace with the advances brought to this brand of filmmaking by its practitioners. Their current definition looks suspiciously similar to a term that has already existed for many years: 'Computer-generated images' (CGI). In fact, apparently we're to the point that what I've always considered to be the most fundamental core element defining machinima is no longer even necessary: Game-derived video!
Stolen Life, which was not made from game video, would not have qualified as machinima under my definition. I'm not complaining about the festival outcome, BTW, I'm just trying to understand what machinima means, or what it maybe should mean...or if it even applies to what's being done today. As I pointed out in my post above, I'm talking about the cutting edge of this hobby, not what 99% of the people out there are doing (i.e. still using only game-derived video).
'Machinima' for me has always referred to filmmaking that uses a computer game as the primary graphics engine for generating video that is then edited into a film. There's certainly no need to limit the hobby to that, just as in FH&C we made extensive use of CGI (with 3D Max) and post-production enhancements to the video (with After Effects). Adding live-action with bluescreen techniques has even been attempted, although there hasn't been much work with that yet. I hope the hobby continues to grow in all of these directions. But at some point, is what people are doing still going to be machinima'? At what point does it become good old fashioned computer animation or CGI? Or is it already that? Is there even a need for 'machinima' as a term? By that I mean, is the term a hindrance or a help?
Personally, I like my more limited definition of machinima' a lot more than Marino's. I like the quaintness of using games to tell stories the game's makers never dreamed of. It's part of what drew me into this forum and hobby originally, and machinima' seems as good a name for that as any. Most of these films wouldn't stand a chance if people had to pay to view them, but it's cool to see (for free) just how much can be accomplished using a mere game. It's like a toy car made out of Legos (I'm thinking of a replicate of an SUV I saw at Legoland in California). You wouldn't buy one, but it's cool to see nonetheless. But you put real tires on it, a real engine in it, replace those Lego panels with steel and fiberglass, etc., etc."eventually, you're not making Lego toys any more, you're making real cars. So should you continue to call it toymaking? That might be misleading to other carmakers out there who have never heard of you or your work. Some of those people you actually might like to hook up with to pursue serious carmaking ambitions.
Rather that letting machinima's definition continue to encroach on CGI, maybe we should cut it off with what I think everyone in this forum has always understood it to mean. I'm not suggesting we banish the word machinima,' just that we limit its use to game-based filmmaking.
However, for those who are taking their filmmaking to the next level and creating things closer to what has traditionally been known as CGI, maybe what they're doing should be called something else. Virtual filmmaking'? Computer-generated animation'? There's a good reason to adopt some sort of terminology that is readily recognizable in the world of serious filmmaking. Even those in the industry who know what machinima is probably associate it with the very amateurish stuff that clogs Youtube. If you want to play with the big boys, you don't wear your glow-in-the-dark Spiderman shoes to the playground. You wear your Nikes. If you want to pursue filmmaking at the highest level, it might not be in your interest to have Machinima' stamped all over your work.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying GL, but you are missing the key words in the PM definition.... "REAL TIME". It is that real time which is at the absolute core of the nature of machinima. It's that real-time generation that divides and seperates. From the most eawrly days of machinima the game itself became irrelevant... it was the game ENGINE... as you've actually alluded to:
"'Machinima' for me has always referred to filmmaking that uses a computer game as the primary graphics engine for generating video that is then edited into a film."
Stolen Life uses a computer game engine as its primary graphics engine. The only difference is that that gaming engine (A6) was released without the game, but at it's heart it is a licensable gaming engine identical to Quake, Unreal, HalfLife.... IL2. Does the film resemble a game? Nope. Does Anna resemble Quake? Nope. In Anna, for instance, they replaced the 'assets' and 'objects' with their own objects and then scripted the movements within the game engine... not unlike what WE do. We change assets (skins, building placements, etc) and we script movements within the game engine (map editor). If one is going to be so restrictive with the term then really "true" machinima should only represent actual in game action, recorded and re-edited to create a narrative. No manipulation of the game should be allowed whatsoever. Once you start manipulating the game it no longer is game but just a "real-time 3D environment" that you are manipulating for your own narrative purposes.
So we see that it is the real-time nature of the graphics engines... that WYSIWYG trait that really defines the category. Once we start to try to limit beyond that where do we stop? Do we allow map editing? How about asset replacement? User scripted movement? Post-production colour balancing? Compositing? Where does the line get drawn? Like I said, the core... the absolute core of what we do is the real-time nature of the engines we use. The scene is created, the engine is run, the action is recorded AS IT IS RENDERED IN REALTIME. Thats the crux... CGI entails massive rendering times and massive rendering farms (in most cases)... MACHINIMA is immediate, there is no rendering pipeline.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I think Paul Marino et al have come up with about as pointed a definition that is possible. They've gotten to the core of the idea and they've defined it. As long as that real-time core remains in the definition it's all under the same category in my opinion.
MrVH
i don't think and i don't hope so!Originally posted by GL2:
As this hobby advances, the cutting edge is becoming less about crafting stories within the inherent limitations of a game and more about pure filmmaking, using games as one tool among many to achieve a particular creative vision.
...
I really think this is just the infant stage of a filmmaking niche that will one day be able to compete with professional productions.
there might be professional productions using tools, which are nowadays not used - or, in case of _machinima'-like, only by amateurs. however, i believe the chance of being able to use game-engines, flash or cheap cameras (speak tools available for non-budget production) means in first order being able to create things, and most of all to realise own ideas. the meaning of those tools is never in reaching a higher standard, competing with pro-equipment or aiming for substitute other ways of production. the value of those tools is in the possibility to go new ways. it doesn't mean, that these ways have to be different at all, but there is this great chance to go different ways.
sites like 'urbanchillers.com' for non-budget horror-pics, 'hoogerbrugge.com' and 'hippielook.com' (with 'felix and cil') for flash and the 'machinima'-productions (in parts) have exactly shown that: offer ways for cheap production to everyone and find jewels of creativity and expression amongst the productions. sure, there is also a lot of trash always, but in my experience mainly the most restrictive tools - or: if tools are used by knowing AND staying within their limits - show extraorinary, astonishing and, most important to keep picture-art alive, unseen before results.
it might be, that business will once get in touch with nowadays 'tools', but for sure this will happen as soon as 'tools'-productions will show to be possibly able to compete with pro-business. and the same it is sure, that as soon as 'new ways' are into business, they will lose most of their quality, at least when their producers aim for business levels.
the possibilities of tools of the digital age make creativity available for anyone. probably that means a lot more waist also, but for those who want to take a chance, it can (and should) be the way to express their ideas, not imitate what is already there in perfection (where perfection doesn't necessarily mean good).
I would disagree with Marino that recording in real time is the essence of machinima. After all, live action is recorded in real time. And, when you think about it, IL-2 films usually are not' recorded in real time. The CGI characters (prefabricated compliments of 1C Maddox) are animated' via the filmmaker's joystick (as opposed to a CGI animator's keyboard"although I think some computer animation may use a joystick, too). That input is recorded as an ntrk (just as the CGI animator's instructions are saved in an applicable file). The ntrk is then rendered via the game's engine and recorded with Fraps. A CGI film is also rendered into video. If Marino's is trying to make a major distinction between those two processes, I think he's really splitting hairs.Originally posted by MrVH:
So we see that it is the real-time nature of the graphics engines... that WYSIWYG trait that really defines the category.
On a somewhat related note, I was actually a little worried that FH&C might not get accepted into the recent festival in England because it had too much CGI in it! I thought someone might look at it and say it went beyond the bounds of what could be considered machinima. lol
My point exactly. I disagree that real time recording' is the essence, so where does 'machinima' end and CGI begin? Hasn't this new definition of 'machinima' become a substitute for well-established filmmaking terminology that already existed?Once we start to try to limit beyond that where do we stop? Do we allow map editing? How about asset replacement? User scripted movement? Post-production colour balancing? Compositing? Where does the line get drawn?
BTW, I'm not on a mission to rid the world of the term machinima' or to coin a new term. For those who aren't aware of it, this thread is sort of a continuation of a discussion that has been going on in a Machinima.com thread. I've been trying to figure out what machinima' means, and I've learned some think it means a lot more than I do. I think machinima' is fine to describe what people are doing in this forum (i.e. films made predominantly from captured game video). However, if anyone takes this to the next level (as THX may be doing right at this moment with a film student in Florida), that may very well cease to fit my' definition of machinima, not that that matters any.
Of course, Marino is free to use whatever definition of machinima he likes. It's just a word, and he didn't make up the word (Hugh Hancock claims credit for that) or invent this brand of filmmaking. His definition is just one among many, including my own. In fact, it just may be because the definition of machinima is so nebulous that some in the game industry have chosen not to use the term, as Joe illustrated above.
At the end of the day, of course, filmmakers are going to call their own work whatever they want. For my part, I'm going use more traditional terminology for work that I think already had a name, and a name is that more recognized, to boot.
i don't think and i don't hope so! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GL2:
I really think this is just the infant stage of a filmmaking niche that will one day be able to compete with professional productions.
Deepo, my friend, I would have thought you of all people would know never to bet against technology.
I agree that the films being made today are not going to be showing in a theater near you anytime soon. But in 5, 10, 15 years or so, technology will allow people to make films at home that will be commercially viable products.
I believe that in the near future, respected film schools will be teaching their students what filmmakers here have been doing for years. Just think about what an amazing learning tool this is. A single person can now sit in front of a personal computer and create an entire movie using resources that are relatively affordable and insanely cheap compared to live action. A young filmmaker can easily practice or experiment with many aspects of filmmaking that would be much harder to practice in RL: Cinematography, blocking, lighting, etc.--all from a computer chair. This truly is filmmaking in a box. This is a huge advancement in technology that would have blown away guys like George Lucas back in their film school days. I can't think of a more useful tool for young filmmakers. I'm not saying this is the end of RL cameras and actors. But cartoons and films like Final Fantasy have shown you don't have to have real actors to make a movie people will pay to see.
It's only a matter of time before filmmaking tools like Moviestorm become better. Imagine a future version of Moviestorm with near photorealistic people and objects (and if you've been following some of the other threads in this forum, you can see photorealism isn't far off). Imagine voice creation software (which currently exists) that is so sophisticated it can pass as the real thing (not there yet, but it will be one day). You could have a hundred premade voices, and all the filmmaker(s) would need to do is pick the ones he wants, type in the lines of dialogue and sync it to the characters (software already exists to help sync CGI lip movement to dialogue). No doubt, future software would allow you to customize the delivery (stressed, happy, sad, emphasis as needed, etc.), similar to the way music software allows you to tweak the character of musical notes now. I'm not saying you wouldn't need to be able to create your own CGI objects (although even those can be purchased now), but that is very doable for amateur filmmakers, as MrVH showed in FH&C.
The one thing you can be sure of about technology is that it will get more powerful, easier to use and cheaper with time. The technological infrastructure for rank amateurs to create something that a studio would buy and distribute might not exist yet, but it will in the not-too-distant future. I'm not saying a single person is going to be able to do it alone, but a small team of talented amateurs could create a film that people would pay money to see. Many amateur indy filmmakers have already done so with live action films. When the future George Lucases of the world get ahold of this new form of filmmaking, they'll do it, too.
"I would disagree with Marino that recording in real time is the essence of machinima... ...IL-2 films usually are not' recorded in real time... ...I disagree that real time recording' is the essence, so where does 'machinima' end and CGI begin?
Ahhh... but you have a slight misunderstanding of the definition. It is not the real-time RECORDING that is the essence, it is the real-time RENDERING that is the essence. All computer generated imagery needs to be "rendered". The computer needs to take the all those mathematical formulae and calculations that everything is based on and render out 24 images for one second of film (I know you know that part).
"CGI" films take hours for just one frame to render out of their render farm. The calculations are so vast that rooms of computers are used... a "render farm"... computers networked together who's sole purpose is to turn all those calculations into an image... to "render".
"MACHINIMA" films use real-time renderings. Those calculations are done fast enough that the frames can be shown as they are rendered thusly creating the motion immediately, and in-turn then, called "real-time". Whether you chose to record it with a camera at that time or not is irrelevant.. the point is that you COULD, if you wanted. Whether you script the movements in a level editor, or create the movements with input from a joystick, or whatever... is irrelevant. The point is that the imagery and motion is "rendered" immediately. That is impossible with "CGI" as it takes days and weeks just to render out a scene.
Now, because Machinima is rendered in "real-time" it is obviously of much lower quality... it has to be. You just can not get the kind of detail available, say in Beowulf, in real-time rendering. Something must be given up to allow for that quick real-time rendering. Lower polygonal detail, magnitude less photon tracing (for lighting), less photon bouncing calculations (if any), less detailed bump mapping, lower texture qualities, etc etc.
In our Beowulf example, here's what can be rendered in "real-time" (the game, the machinima engine):
![]()
...and here's what can be rendered for the CGI film (using the CGI film process)...
![]()
Again, it is that "real-time rendering" which defines the category of Machinima. It is the inherent part of the process, it is it's core definable nature and so creating a definition surrounding that nature is really the most prudent way in my opinion.
MrVH
There is another major difference between rendering from a game engine and using a CGI application - it is MUCH easier to do it from a game.
Most people with half a brain, and even some with less than that, can do something funky in a game. They don't need learn a new software package, don't need to build sets, select and postion objects and do all the other stuff that is a mystery to me in a CGI app.
In a game, you can just jump in, do something and record it.
It's bringing the movie making abilty to the unwashed masses and although a lot of the outpit will be ****, a lot will also be really cool and innovative! It's not a competition with the pro CGI artists for quality.
But I do agree with you, GL2, that we shouldn't get hung up on the nametag. Leave that to the festival organisers
There was a time that I wanted to get people to understand the term Machinima when they asked what I was did for a hobby. Now I don't bother, because as soon as you say that, the interested party gets hung up on that, and forgets that you had a movie to show them. 'Just watch the movie, mate, aye, it's an animation. Cool, huh?'
hi gl2,
well, i still hope, that it will never come to what you described...
first, the more trying for commercial films with possibility of no budget there will be, the less commercial it will become. the gap is, like with all things, between art and commerce.
take the sites, where right now movies about 'il2' are posted: when they are full, they can go on and get overfilled or they will make choices.
i think, that making films at low budgets, possible for everyone, should be used for new ways (what i said before), not for staying in those limits of 'historical' cinematography!
we will never see progress, if we don't use the chances given, but following and copying the old trails.
when you talk about possibilities for home-users and that they have a chance to become commercial, don't you think, that as soon as it might work, the business wouldn't try to step in as soon as it can and use it for... business? there are times, when production companies come out of nothing with new stuff (take aardmnan or pixar), but it doesn't take a year and they are incorporated or established - or down again. never they are low budget again, and never they can play outside business rules.
whatever comes out of new AND promising things, i can only hope, it will be used for alternative content and other ways to entertain. and this hope is beside commercial - the aim for money never made things change.