-
Senior Member
Maybe this has been posted somewhere here at Ubi-Forums but just in case, I want to share this nice film.
Ever since I made my first film (3rd place winner on IL2-Ubi's only movie contest) back in 2003, I felt something important was missing. I have tried to find an easy way to get around it but nothing was found and with my latest contribution to "Faith, Hope and Charity" we stretched Machinima to it's maximum without the use of human beings! Any film longer than a couple minutes without a human element of some sort will result in a disconnected movie with the audience. Some have tried but fell short in quality but finding this short film made me continue to pursue what I have always wanted. Take a look and let us know your opinion for the next step towards something like this:
http://www.alonelysky.com/
-
Senior Member
Awwwwwwwwwwww, the vid won't play. Quiktime error pops up and says mime not available at Quiktime website.
As far as pilots in the cockpit I think technically we have the power to make rather realitic pilot bodies et al. I play GTR2 and the racers look gretty good.
The human portion of IL2 movie making has been a link that's been missing to 'totally' draw in the viewer. It's amazing the emotional accomplishments with movies like 'I Promise" and Faith Hope, and Charity."
A well done pilot body would add a bit more dimension to IL2 moviemaking.
In REAL LIFE cockpits I always wondered the sounds coming from pilots as they take their plane and body to the limit. I'd guess I'd be grunting and groaning or what ever expression escapes my lips as I'm tossing myself and plane in the sky.
I remember a documentary with a docu/film maker. He was in the rear seat of a trainig Spit. He was documenting the effects upon the bodies of pilots through high speed and avoidance manuevers.
The pilot is narrating as he describes a normal scenario where bogies are picked up. He'd tell about scanning the sky then suddenly he yells out 'Bogey at ten oclock. 1, 2, 3, Break left."
You can hear the pilot and the documentary maker groaning. The pilot was more accustomed to higher G manuevers so he wasn't as vocal, but the other guy made noises I'm not even sure he knew he could make.
The pilot continued. "That was only a three G bank. Many pilots feel the effects of much higher G Forces."
They continued with more exhaustive manuevers.
After landing the Documentary gave his report on how he felt and the effects on him. One thing he said was his heart felt like it was suddeny overpressured by the G's. He wasn't expecting that. He got blurred vision and a headache.
Sooooooooo, where I'm going with this since you mention the human element in IL2 movies, I'm amazed more voiceovers in movies haven't included vocalizations of body strain in manuevers.
-
Member
Well obviously that was bloody marvelous 
Not sure if you counted the people involved... 73, and that's not including the employees at the different companies listed either.
What kind of people worked on this project? A set director who worked on Batman Begins (Paki Smith), Producer who worked on Far and Away (Seamus Byrne), Assistant director from Jerry Bruckenheimer's King Arthur (Tony Aherne) and Reign of Fire (Owen Magee), Art director from 2002's The Count of Monte Cristo (Elaine Vaughan), just to name some.
Oh, and not including the 6 main actors who have been in projects such as 2001:A Space Odyssey, 2010, Veronica Guerin, The Good Shepherd, Law & Order... just to list a few
.
Also required are the cameras. This production actually used high def film (photo from their site)... you're not going to film something like this with your regular home video camera, hopefully a prosumer digital HD camera could serve as a replacement, but anything even approaching that quality would easily be $5000-7000.
Next you need sets and props.
Next.... you get the idea 
I would give my right arm to be involved in a production like that...wow... what a dream project... but is that within the realm of what we do? Financially? I would have a hard time believing that it is unfortunately.
I really don't think live actors is the next step for what we do. Others do believe it is, and I don't mean to discourage it, but you start getting into live actors and sets and cameras and the costs : production-values soon spiral out of control. My guess is that this great 'short' cost in the range of $25-50,000 to film and produce. Who here has the resources for that?
To ME... I believe our next step is even greater CGI inclusions, beginning with CGI characters and complimentary CGI "sets" (much more aggressively than we had in FHC). For instance, in this movie "Lonely Sky"... the bar scene. It was a CGI exterior, for us, it would be a CGI INTERIOR as well, with CGI characters populating it. The next logical, achievable step is closer to things being done by people/groups like Cee-Gee.net and that other guy (Asian I believe, can't remember what it was called, maybe "1942"?).
The "McClusky" liveaction/machinima that was recently posted here is, I think, a realistic example of what "we" can do with live action being integrated, and almost the height of what is feasible, unless of course someone like "MataNishu" can produce the extensive live-action shots required for shots external to the aircraft and flight itself. But honestly, with someone like him who has those resources at his ready, would HE not be the one producing and directing and then it becomes a project where "we" help with supplying machinima shots only, "we" are basically out-of-the-loop for everything else unless "we" travel to where he is and get permissions to work with those resources as well.
Can we do what was done in "A Lonely Sky"? Sure, maybe even with less than his "73" people, but that's what it took "Nick Ryan".
Now, CGI? One person can do that at home with his home computer, there are many examples, it just takes education and practice in the skills required. A few people working together... now yer talkin'
.
Sorry for rambling
.
MrVH
-
Member
I cant get quicktime to run either I'd love to see this.
-
Senior Member
You're dead right, MrVH. This is way out of our league!
I would still really like to see some human characters in machinima films, but that would take real collaboration with somebody like Matanishu (I hope somebody does, btw!).
The McClusky movie on youtube shows some potential. However, despite what I am sure were great efforts, it still looks unprofessional. I don't think you can get great looking real actors and sets without a LOT of money!
Another good example was 'Der Ostwind'. This really excelled as well with the mix of humans and CGI. The cartoony and very artistic approach compensated for the unrealism of the sets. One of my favourites!
I am, however, still skeptical about whether we can make serious CGI humans. CGI characters only really work, I reckon, when they are clearly cartoon characters i.e. Shrek, Toystory, and the rest of the more recent ones I haven't watched.
To portray a human with CGI in a serious story is still too distracting because you just can't shake the feeling that they aren't real.
Maybe the next step is to use CGI humans in a subtle way. I like the very subtle Call Of Duty clip that Wolfbic used in 'Revolt in the Desert'. You can just see the top half of a chap's head in the back of a truck, mostly obscured by his tin hat. You don't get distracted by the falseness of CGI human because you don't see enough. Maybe that is as far as we can get on the tools and money that this little group has available.
I hope you prove me wrong, MrVH, because it would bring this hobby into a new realm if CGI artists could provide that human element to work alongside Machiniuma artists.
-
Member
Great movie i must say and sad that you didnt use WW2
. I have heared that in docy of P47 that song "I didnt care" what is that songs name.
-
Member
The way I see it is that there are four options for continuance:
1. Integrating Live-action
2. Integrating other games
3. Integrating CGI
4. Status-quo (only IL2)
Number one is most likely too expensive to do "right" or at minimum it will take way too many resources (as per my previous post) so as to negate using a defunct WWII flight sim for dogfight footage, might as well shore your movie up with CGI.
Number two is a possibility which has and is being explored by some movie makers (my first public movie was a rather unsuccessful preliminary attempt at this
). The issue with this is finding a game which can be scripted and filmed as easily as IL2 and which kind of "feels" the same.
Number three is a possibility, but again, the more you push into CGI the less and less IL2 and "machinima" is needed.
Number four, while seeming like a cop-out, is the most realistic for the masses.
For those who want to push forward and break new ground I really think options 2 and 3 are the future, with 3 (CGI) taking the forefront. BUT, if one is expecting CGI to be 100% like real-life... so much as to trick you that it isn't CGI... forget it, your standards are too high, you might as well go the live action route becuase it will be cheaper
. yes, CGI can be extremely realistic (look at the Final Fantasy movies), but you are talking about incredibly high end rendering farms, etc to get that done. You can't do that at home without being prepared to wait weeks for one simple short scene to render on your home computer. I don't think the CGI characters need to be ultra-realistic. I ALSO don't think that they have to be 'cartoonish' to be effective. All they need to be is as good as some of the games we have today, like CallofDuty, Arma, Ghost Recon, et all. Now THAT is doable by the at-home enthusiast, its a bit of work, but it can be done. And I believe that to be very passable. Camera work, filtering, and animation can also had a lot of reality where there was little previously. Basically I'm saying don't dismiss CGI just because it may not be 100% like live action. It doesn't need to be cartoony, but it doesn't need to echo reality 100% either.
We have to be realistic about where, how far, and in what direction we progress (for those who want to push the boundaries). As most know I am 110% in favour of pushing our product to levels not seen yet, but I am also trying to stay within realistic goals. If your goals are too high they'll never be reached and disappointment and disillusionment creep in and harm the work/final product, and then you just stop and let it fall by the wayside.
FHC was a small step forward with the implementation of CGI with our machinima. I think next... a bigger step... one or two CGI characters with a couple of CGI scenes on-ground OR heavy implementation with another game engine.
One of those two options is where I'm heading anyways
.
MrVH
-
Senior Member
This is great healthy discussion, just like the 'good ol' days' when creating FHC. 
Anyways, seems that what I wrote got lost within the discussion. I meant GOAL, a light house where I am headed. I do realize the hardships and difficulties ahead but that is what I like. A challenge, a way to push the boundaries and move forward. That is where I am heading
-
Senior Member
D'oH, I guess if I could watch the film I'd have had a better idea of what you meant, NTESLA.
I wasn't TOOOOOOOOO far off the mark. LOL
Good discussion though with intersting points.
-
Member
I viewed the youtube version, I should have guessed it would be there, reminded me of "The right stuff" particularly the bar interior which I thought was identical, lovely little movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id5vYdIkSMQ