Maybe my memory is failing, but I thought I heard about it from this group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk

It IS a great inspiration to see what one guy can do in his basement.  (That's
why I love the early Disney & early Wallace & Gromit flicks).  I see all kinds
of things that will help in my animations.

But $300?? My specific objection is in the photorealistic smoke.  Can that be
done that well with a plug-in under twice that?  Doubtful.  And I didn't even
mention the program.  Don't get me wrong, this artist has done something
amazing, but I'm guessing he has access to $2k to $10k in software.  Perhaps it
was only $300 "once you already have" the software, which is like counting the
cost of the movie "Titanic" "once you already have" the ship.

Post a reply to this message

In other words, the proper inspirational message is, "This is what well-stocked
university computer labs can empower a student with talent to do."

It is NOT "This what you-- yes YOU-- can do with $300 if you have talent."

Oh, and it was slashdot (my memory IS failing!)

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/1711256/300-Sci-Fi-YouTube-Video-Lands-300m-Movie-Deal

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> But $300?? My specific objection is in the photorealistic smoke.  Can that be
> done that well with a plug-in under twice that?  Doubtful.  And I didn't even
> mention the program.  Don't get me wrong, this artist has done something
> amazing, but I'm guessing he has access to $2k to $10k in software.  Perhaps it
> was only $300 "once you already have" the software, which is like counting the
> cost of the movie "Titanic" "once you already have" the ship.

  Well, what should be counted into the "budget" of the movie?

  If you make a movie using your personal computer, should the price of the
computer be included, even though it was not bought precisely to make the
movie? Should the electricity consumed by the computer during the production
be counted? How about the rent, if you live in a rented apartment? The food
you eat during the production?

  If we go to an extreme here, one could equally well say that a CGI movie
took $0 to create or, alternatively, that it cost $50000 (depending on what
you count as going into the making of the movie).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

saw it before.

gregjohn wrote:
> In other words, the proper inspirational message is, "This is what well-stocked
> university computer labs can empower a student with talent to do."

Yeah, I found the budget strange too.  Maybe the render farm and 
software licenses were really for free if he's a student.

on a side note, it's nothing but a pyrotechnics technical demo.  Even 
2012 has something resembling a story somewhere there.

Still, Hollywood took the bite about the low budget and undoubtly the 
guy will be directing the latest Hollywood multi-million mindless flick 
some time from now... ironic, isn't it?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   If you make a movie using your personal computer, should the price of the
> computer be included, even though it was not bought precisely to make the
> movie?

Ha. That's why the smoke put me off, and that's why I hate the $$$-ware
programs.  I'm guessing smoke like that is a >$300 plugin, bought precisely to
make smoke for a movie. It becomes like the mock-up stage for _The Titanic_.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b2cdce812950fc534d207310@news.povray.org...

> Maybe my memory is failing, but I thought I heard about it from this
group.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk
>
> It IS a great inspiration to see what one guy can do in his basement.
(That's
> why I love the early Disney & early Wallace & Gromit flicks).  I see all
kinds
> of things that will help in my animations.
>
> But $300?? My specific objection is in the photorealistic smoke.  Can that
be
> done that well with a plug-in under twice that?  Doubtful.  And I didn't
even
> mention the program.  Don't get me wrong, this artist has done something
> amazing, but I'm guessing he has access to $2k to $10k in software.
Perhaps it
> was only $300 "once you already have" the software, which is like counting
the
> cost of the movie "Titanic" "once you already have" the ship.

Why focus on the software? The hardware, the time (credits list was fairly
long) all have a value. That's why it's meaningless to claim such a project
was done for only $300, when it's done with volunteer actors, composers,
animators, extras, with borrowed equipment and software... etc. One should
assign a monetary amount to a project only if it is commercially feasible
(that is, when it's repeatable on demand and on a timeline). Do you think if
I offer the guy another $300 (each), that he would make an (or a dozen)
advertisement clip(s) for my business that is (are) comparable? If he will,
then I'd say he's come up with a supremenly efficient workflow. If not, it
says $300 is nowhere close to quantifying the real resources that has gone
into that project.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:

>
> Still, Hollywood took the bite about the low budget and undoubtly the
> guy will be directing the latest Hollywood multi-million mindless flick
> some time from now... ironic, isn't it?

I kind of feel sorry for this guy. I'm not so sure it's a great idea to
'advertise' that you can make anything dirt-cheap...in this case, $300 (or so he
says.)  What usually happens is, the next (real) client comes along and says,
"Hey, can you make MY thing for $299?" I know this from personal experience,
having worked in Hollywood.  :-(   Ah, youth--the sheer excitement of "Oh boy,
I'm going to make a REAL movie now!" usually overrides any practical
considerations. I can foresee a slick producer--with a
$30,000,000-budgeted-film--waving a check for only $1,000,000 under this pore
guy's nose. His reaction will probably be, "WOW!!!!!! When do I start?!" If he
*survives* the experience, then his future *is* probably assured--making more
low-budget stuff.

Am I jaded?  NAW!!!  :-p

Ken

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4b2d11cb@news.povray.org...
>  Well, what should be counted into the "budget" of the movie?
>
>  If you make a movie using your personal computer, should the price of the
> computer be included, even though it was not bought precisely to make the
> movie? Should the electricity consumed by the computer during the 
> production
> be counted? How about the rent, if you live in a rented apartment? The 
> food
> you eat during the production?

Fixed assets, such as computer equipment and software, will be continuously 
amortized to a zero value over a typical replacement time, say three years. 
The value of the amortization over the project period would be a typical 
cost tied directly to the project. Some assets, if purchased specifically 
for a development project, may be figured in as a cost to the client, or the 
cost may be shared between client and studio with an eye toward defraying 
the cost of future projects, or the equipment and other assete may be 
purchased outright by the client and leased back to the studio, which offers 
some attractive tax options for the client. Electricity for the equipment, 
lighting, travel, and other studio costs would normally be figured into the 
a base rate for the project, and costed out as "overhead". Labor is 
typically estimated in man-hours, with a min-max to protect the client from 
overruns and a reasonably clear definition of what constitutes a change in 
the project requiring additional labor to protect the studio, with 
stipulations of bonuses/penalties for early/late delivery. Overtime pay will 
almost always be the responsibility of the studio, unless you can get away 
with charging a premium for "rush" delivery, or some such. If you can get 
meals for the animators worked in under the line as an overhead expense, 
more power to ya, but it won't happen if the client has a decent contract 
lawyer.

Or wait-- was that a rhetorical question? I was never good at figuring that 
out...

:-D

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message

"Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> Some assets, if purchased specifically for a
> development project, may be figured in as a cost
> to the client,

Yeah, it was the smoke. I in effect viewed smoke plugins as an asset
specifically for the film.

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message 
news:web.4b300fd19aba8bda34d207310@news.povray.org...
> "Captain Jack" <Cap### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>> Some assets, if purchased specifically for a
>> development project, may be figured in as a cost
>> to the client,
>
> Yeah, it was the smoke. I in effect viewed smoke plugins as an asset
> specifically for the film.
>

It kind of depends on what you specialize in, too. If your studio is known 
for smoke and other fluid effects, you probably just treat that software as 
overhead.

The best smoke generator I know of (that isn't completely custom) is built 
into Houdini, which is about the top of the mountain for pricing. The best I 
know of that's in most studio's reach is RealFlow, which is still pretty 
pricey, even for a single core CPU.

However, you can get some really great results with the particle-based fluid 
generator that comes free in Blender. Turbulence4D is in beta, and some 
people may have access to it for free. For the programmatically inclined, 
there are some free algorithms with code floating about in the 'Net. Robert 
Bridson and Ron Fedkiw are both big names in the fluid-simulation-for-video 
field, and there's a lot of academic papers published by them that would be 
helpful for someone trying to do it on their own. I have Bridson's book of 
his compiled SIGGRAPH notes, and, while the math makes my head spin, the 
ideas are all there, including some pseudo code for solving the PDE's for 
different scenarios, including smoke.

I don't know what was actually used for this particular video, but there are 
some pretty spectacular free tools out there. With some patience (okay, a 
*massive* amount of patience) and ingenuity, it's possible to make stuff 
like this without a big cash outlay. You may spend a couple of hours per 
frame in rendering, but I think it's possible.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message