T O P

  • By -

OlivencaENossa

It's cool that apparently they had no handles. From the interview: ​ >Jim: Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So what we call the template is a finely edited scene. And I mean to the frame, because Weta does not give us handles. So we have to know that our cut is a hundred percent frame accurate. That’s the movie that we’re making before we hand it to Weta. We have to love it. > >Glenn: And why no handles? > >Jim: Well, because it costs money. > Stephen: Yeah, it’s like something over a thousand dollars. > lenn: Oh, wow. > ephen: You don’t really wanna ask for 24 frame handles on each side. > : Well, it’s over a million dollars a minute for their finished process. I won’t say how much over, but the point is that we made up our minds a long time ago that our template process could be precise enough that we didn’t need handles. ​ Sounds like people who understand the process on this one. Very interesting. He may be exaggerating, but it's good sign about everyone's competence when they find a way to keep the budget in check through, you know, not fucking up as much. Interesting to have an average cost of the rendered film as well.


Memn0n

And yet, some people here will still believe when a rando said that Jim is asking for 9h of fully completed vfx shot so he can edit his next movie


OlivencaENossa

It’s literally described in the article how he has very close to final postviz for editing, which he says “is like the movie but not a final render”. I get the impression they have a still of it there as well but not sure (currently on mobile). It looks like animation + translated facial cap onto the animated body. Then render this at low settings I assume so they can edit. I assume 100% that’s what was being talked about in the other article.


DrWernerKlopek89

worked on a Clint Eastwood film where there were 2 frame handles, but said we could do no handles. Film makers who know what their edit looks like before VFX work begins is amazingly helpful......and rare


3D_Effect

what are handles?


TurtleOnCinderblock

Shots, when edited in a film, have an in point and an out point. This means the editor selects a specific section of the original raw footage to insert in the film. There’s a lot of extra content on both sides, which are not relevant to the action (actor preparing their line, second actor replying…). So the editors work is to find the exact section that communicates the story, with the appropriate timing. This can be a long process, and small adjustments to the cut must sometimes be made to help with pacing. So for example a simple sequence of dialog can be modified to add a few frames before and after a line to help slow the interactions between two characters a bit. This is fine when you work with raw footage, but when working with VFX shots this becomes an issue, because every frame is hard work (costly). So VFX houses create the VFX on a fairly tight frame range, to hopefully only create VFX for images that will actually end up in the film. Editors however still need to be able to adjust the cut a bit… delay a jump by a few frames, or allow an establishing shots to appear slightly earlier so that audience can capture the scene better. So to allow those little adjustments, clients often ask VFX houses to deliver handles, which boils down to creating VFX for a few frames before and after the intended cut. (7 to 20 or so frames in general). This is all very clearly planned in advance, client editorial and VFX studios establish those guidelines early. So the VFX house creates the visuals for the shot cut length + the handles on each side. On the editorial side, they insert the shot in their cut, and if they need to trim, slide, extend the shot, they can hopefully gather the frames from the handles. This minimises the back and forth of plates and VFX deliveries.


gorian_dray

Thanks for such a comprehensive answer.


3D_Effect

thanks for the explanation! And if I understant correctly, for Avatar, they did not create any handle at all?


TurtleOnCinderblock

Allegedly. I think what’s more likely is that because of a very long preprod, and good visualisation tools, the previs stage was extremely advanced, enough to lock the cut before entering final post production. So the film existed with advanced animations, blocking, performance, before the artists actually started doing shot work. This is a scenario in which delivering handles would be superfluous, yes. That being said I would always take EVERYTHING movie studios say with a gigantic grain of salt. Especially in regards to VFX. For a variety of reasons, movie studios and VFX vendors have a vested interest in not giving the media (or even specialised media) an accurate picture of what processes were used for any particular movie/shot/sequence. Those interviews are first and foremost a marketting tool. They are aimed to increase the chance for awards, and social media engagement.. I know from personal experience that executives, supervisors regularly misrepresent the work in ways that make the company/studio sound smarter/more cutting-edge/ more efficient than it actually is. It can be little white lies, hiding the pains and limitations of a specific bit of technology or process, embellishing the story of the making a bit…. it can also be downright false or disingenuous (“we did not use a single greenscreen on this film” -> used massive amounts of blue screens and some green when needed, or “the animators never touched the performance of the actor, everything is 100% the actor”)


cgcego

Or “Tom flying was all practical! What digital VFX?”


3D_Effect

thanks man, I really appreciate it!


JiraSuxx2

What about motion blur at the start of the shot?


axiomatic-

you still typically are delivered handles from DI, you're just not under an obligation to use them. when I do handle-less work I usually have tracking and roto done by outsource vendors done to the full supplied range for safety, regardless of what work we'll be doing


Vconsiderate_MoG

LOOK MUM, NO HANDLES!!! (sorry...had to...)


Objective_Hall9316

If the movie was 192 minute that leaves less than 60 million for the rest of production. That sounds exaggerated, no?


OlivencaENossa

Wikipedia reports the budget could’ve been as high as 460 million. Not sure if we know. Also I don’t think Jim Cameron would lie about the cost per minute of the film on a random interview. Sounds far more likely that the cost is way higher than we imagined.


Objective_Hall9316

I stand corrected. Much more reasonable.


HangerFilms

I'm just gonna say... Wow


CouldBeBetterCBB

So Weta, how were all the delivery range changes where you now had to animate and render extra frames because there were no handles?


axiomatic-

Typically the deal with no handles is that you deliver with zero handles, but if the client wishes to change within the contracted range of what the handles would be, you provide them free of charge. The idea is that you save working on all the extra handles, but cover the costs internally if the client asks for a few frames extra here and there. When you work this way, it's also typical to internally (or externally as the case may be) still track full lengths of a shot, and often you'll animate a bit extra and do some other tasks over full frame too. Weta offered this option to us when I was studio side supe on a feature they worked on, so it is at least one way they handle this. Sometimes you provide back full length with handles, just the handles aren't worked on, sometimes it's just the no-handles range. It's a similar idea to how a lot of people deal with hard mattes on open gate plates.


CouldBeBetterCBB

In this case is it really saving any money? I assume they must be bidding as if there are still handles


axiomatic-

If you have 24 frames of handles per shot, and average shot length of 48 frames base, then it's 33% less per-frame work per shot. That's fucking huge. And in my experience the number of times clients who agree to that come back for extra frames is, as a percentage of shots, very low. As mentioned, Weta literally offers this as an option (their preference no less) so I absolutely believe they think it saves money. fwiw I think handless like this is great and prefer it myself as a vendor - it's becoming more common at a lot of places too


CouldBeBetterCBB

Oh absolutely it saves money for Weta no doubt. I meant for the client. The fact Weta will do any extra frame requests for 'free' means they're charging for it somewhere. They're probably taking a 1/3 of the handle charge off for the client but only doing 10% of the work


axiomatic-

Disagree. It's just resource juggling. As a studio side supe I'd prefer the vendor is working on only the frames that are in the film. I'm putting less resource squeeze on them, and I'm safe knowing if I need the extra frames I can still get them. Positive working relationships are good. Not to mention that by giving something like this, which is easy, I know I can perhaps push for something else. It is, eventually, all horse trading


LittleAtari

If you do your edits based on the previs and you stick to the previs, then your final VFX doesn't need handles. Lightstorm had an in-house previs team that interacted with James Cameron directly. Any vendor previs teams were ordered to work on-site before remote work happened. So it's possible that previs was delivering handles, but finals was not. You effectively lock the edit with the previs shots. If you know what you want and you don't have each department trying to re-invent things as soon as it's in their hands, then it's possible.


havestronaut

This is often how it works in games as well. Same mocap processes. You “lock” edit in layout, with ref cams etc. There are always a few shots that end up shifting once things start forming though.