TG2 for film and Broadcast

[TheBadger]

Hello,


How is terragen 2 used in Film and TV?
http://www.planetside.co.uk/galleries/tg-in-film
http://www.planetside.co.uk/galleries/tg-in-tv


OK, so I know TG2, I know how to do a lot of things with it that it really was not ment for from the start, but has proven to be a great tool for creative development. And, obviously, it makes entire worlds in a few short seconds 


But thats about as helpful an explanation as one would get from a congressional hearing on where all the money went.


So what I want to ask is how, precisely, the pros use TG2 to make the movies I love to see.
I would remind myself and others that chris_x422 posted a very insightful post into his work with TG2 on the film "Snow White & The Huntsman". A great little look into using a TG2 world to tell a story, with a whole lot of moving parts. If you have not seen the post by Chris you can search for the thread and checkout the breakdown here http://1isok.com/huntsman_workflow_01.htm


But I my self am left with more questions. What is typical, what is pushing the envelope in terms of use? What are the "boundaries" of professional use, in a pragmatic and proven way, to use TG2 for production?
Is what was demonstrated in the Snow White film typical, or exceptional?


At the top of this post I linked to planetside home, where you can see some of the productions that used TG2 for some part of the films. Lots of great movies and shows in those listings! And I am very pleased that Tg2 was used in them, it means I made a good choice in choosing to learn TG2, At least I know it can do what I want it to.


Now realize that I don't expect the kind of information that Chris provided for all of those movies and shows I was just talking about. It was rather nice of chris to post what he did. And clearly, he did it entirely out of his own scene of community, rather than because it was easy or because he had to.


And that brings me finely to the point. Which is simply this... I want to know more than I do now.


So I have learned modeling, texturing, dynamics and I have a good understanding of motion graphics. I can do compositing in after effects, and while I cant deal with nuke, I am downloading Smoke as I type. I can sculpt in 3d, and soon I will learn rigging and animation in a serious way. And of course, I can at least get a decent render out of TG2 


But having said all that, I don't feel like I could reproduce a single frame from any of those movies we were looking at earlier.
So what am I missing? What do I need to learn yet? And the most important question of this post, where on line can I find the information in a comprehensive form, for free <---- Ha ha, got you on that last part




Your thoughts, please.

[chris_x422]

Hey Mate,


Since you reference me, I'll try to provide a little feedback.


TG forms a huge part of my workflow during any environment tasks, and for many reasons.
Some of  which are. flexibility, stability, workflow and how well it plays with all of the other applications I use, which is hugely important.
A lot of the tasks I'm set require a lot of artistic direction, and changes have to able to be made easily and quickly!, (sometimes with a cg supervisor sat over my shoulder).


I'd say it's not always about pushing the boundaries, but getting the results that are necessary for the shot and there's a big difference, it can be easy to go looking for different and unusual solutions to a problem and just as easy to get lost in the woods while doing so. Keeping things as simple as possible and not over-complicating things keeps the workflow easy to manage, and generally the results are more predictable (less nasty surprises at rendertime!).


The Snow White shot was one of the trickiest I've done, purely as 45% of the shot was made up of the original plate, so I had to work closely with the matchmove team to develop a camera that would work with both the plate and the augmented data. The actual landscape would never accommodate the directors original vision so making the new base landscape work for both the camera and the elements that had to be added was a challenge.
This is pretty typical though generally, when working in this field, where no two shots are really ever the same, and that's where learning to be flexible comes in.
By no means would I say the shot was exceptional (technically or artistically), but I learned a lot while working on it, and hopefully it worked in achieving the shot the director was after.


That brings me to the main part of my response, and the advice I'd like to pass on.
I've been working in this field professionally (or at least getting paid for it ) for over ten years now, but studied for at least three before being hired.
It took me at least two years before I started to create work that I was anywhere near happy with.
Learning the tools on their own is not enough, it really comes down to being able to realize on screen either the task you set yourself or that which is set for you, and feel happy that you've achieved a good result. So it takes a lot of patience, and you're skills will develop over time.
Set yourself tasks if you can, if you want to work in the industry, it's a good idea to try working with some real footage or even stills, and work at incorporating your work into that.
It's very rare indeed that I'll get a completely cg shot to work on, so much of what I do incorporates working with plates and live action elements.
99% of the time that's also what studios (film + tv) want to see on your reel.


Hope that helps a little, there's an endless supply of info out there on the various techniques that are used, and a little searching should yield tons of results.
Good specific questions help, and there are loads of pretty cheap training options out there too.


Chris

[TheBadger]

Thanks for the reply Chris. Its some more good incite!


I hope over time more people who use TG at work will stop by here and post something similar to the stuff you shared from Snow White. It would be nice to have all that kind of information (as it relates to TG) right here, as apposed to scattered across the internets in bits.




If you don't mind saying... Are you a freelancer or at a firm, or both? And are you a generalist? Also, do you find that people you work with tend to be specialists?
Because you sound in your post here, like everyone was doing only specific things. At least its sounds clear that you did not do all aspects of the shot from Snow white that you shared. So I'm curious if in general, you find so far that people do one or two things in VFX, or many, but just a few on any given project?

[Tangled-Universe]

TG forms a huge part of my workflow during any environment tasks, and for many reasons.
Some of  which are. flexibility, stability, workflow and how well it plays with all of the other applications I use, which is hugely important.
A lot of the tasks I'm set require a lot of artistic direction, and changes have to able to be made easily and quickly!, (sometimes with a cg supervisor sat over my shoulder).

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your insightful response. It was a nice little read!

To relate to my experience with TG I was wondering about the quoted part above...

How do you make TG work *for you*? Instead of you working for TG.
You say TG fits your needs because it allows you to adjust things easily and quickly in a art-directive way I suppose you mean(?).
In my experience I find that actually one of the most difficult things in TG, but perhaps I'm doing too complex things too often or I want too much.
Generally speaking for myself I find making art directed adjustments to TG scenes very difficult and thus time consuming.
I have to work for TG and it seems you've got TG working for you, see?

The flexible and open-ended structure make this inherent to TG, mostly because of the fractal/random nature with only about a handful (though very useful) tools/nodes to "art direct" your scene and have things layed out the way you want.

I suspect the difference in our experiences must be because of the different type of needs and that you have found ways/shortcuts to get quick results.
Would you agree with me that it could also have to do with the fact that the majority of shots aren't 100% TG?
A whole shots would require more elements prone to art directions and thus a lot harder to handle.

[Hetzen]

Good post Chris. Some very good insight there.

Badger, the production team depends on what sort of work you get involved in. TG is inherently a set tool, so therefore gets used in film pipelines which split up the workflow to be shared amongst a team of specialists.

Martin, I understand your comments as I've shared those problems at some stage or another. What I find now, is that by working in texture space for as long as possible, I can set parameters as constants which I label up. So if a decision to move a road for example, to the left by 2m, it's a matter of tapping in that offset in a transform shader. Because there's a heirachy that influences everything connected with that road including it's position and how it cuts into the landscape, it's actually quite simple to make major changes without fucking everything up. It's not the quickest method, but it solves a lot of agravation later on, and also gives the scene longevity in terms of assets that can be ported into other scenes.

An example I had not so long ago. We had some air-to-air shots that were produced as animatics from Max. Once the general moves were signed off, I was given the cameras to make the plates. As the cameras were placed at all angles around the plane, the background had to work in 360. TG will allow you to move the camera import, but not it's facing. So seperate scenes had to be made using two HFs with masks, one hero terrain the other mid distance detail. This meant I could move these features into camera shot, that blended into a far distance fractal terrain. And when the client came back to us and said that plane is flying too close to that mountain, it was very easy to correct.

[Tangled-Universe]

Thanks Jon,


I understand the transform stuff you're talking about, I actually use that too. Very convenient and efficient.
I was mostly referring to the fractal stuff. Clouds and terrain displacements (by PF's) is just very difficult to art direct and in that regard you're doing the work for TG.

[chris_x422]

Sorry for the late reply, back at work again now.

@ thebadger

I'm currently freelance at the moment, which means we tend to work contract to contract. Sadly there are very few full time roles in film.
I was previously a full time artist (generalist) for a broadcast studio, but in film you tend to have to specialize more.
Even if you are taken on as a generalist, you are pretty much expected to specialize for periods of time. So for the past few months I've been purely lighting, then at a moments notice was asked to help out on a big environment shot that came in at the last moment, so I was back on Terragen again.
That's one of the elements of being a generalist that I love, I like to have new challenges, keeps me on my toes.
Large studios usually have teams, departments and pipelines to see things through, so it's very rare that anyone gets to work on a shot from start to finish.
Although on Snow White, apart from the matchmove and some assets, the 3d was all my own work, which is rare, but I was pleased to be trusted with the shot.
Broadcast and commercials are much more generalist friendly, and tasks can vary from day to day depending on the depth and level of your skill-set.


Hi Martin,

I do indeed mean that the ability to art direct. Though much of that is done often outside of terragen, there was one case recently where I able to break up a landscape, and spent two days with a film supervisor where he had me moving around and merging various parts of a large landscape shot in terragen. Even he was surprised at the level of flexibility, so when I say art direction, I do mainly refer to the larger elements of composition.

"Would you agree with me that it could also have to do with the fact that the majority of shots aren't 100% TG?"

I don't really think its relative to how much terragen ends up on screen, if anything most shots would be simpler and far less complex without having to work to plates.
On Snow White, we would have saved over two weeks in camera solving, and mesh matching, and the art direction would have been far more flexible and forgiving.
I think the main reason I feel that terragen works for me is that I'm so used to cross workflows with other 3d applications. When it comes to the finer points of getting the fractals correct, I've usually already been through an extensive period of establishing all of the layout and rules that I'll need  to complete the scene, so these are usually the finishing touches for me that that work on top of all the preparation I've already laid down. I do agree though that a workflow that relies on a great deal of procedural workflow is very challenging, which as far as using it to establish landscapes  on their own, I know is far more time consuming.
Having said that, there are ways of simplifying that workflow, say by taking on a good sculpting application, which is where I'm able to simplify and direct so much of my workflow.
As jon said, it can be so much easier working in texture space, and being also able to take a procedural mesh out of terragen, then re-sculpt to your wishes can also take out a lot of the pain. It also allows me to freely paint and generate all sorts of rule based masks very quickly.


Chris

[TheBadger]

Thanks for talking on this Chris. Cheers man!


If anyone else has something to say, please do. It can only help to break down a huge question into more understandable parts.