The Gate - short film being adapted into Feature

edited December 2012 in Everything Else
I came across this short film today, written and directed by Matt Westrup, which has recently been picked up by Wayfare Entertainment to be adapted into a feature. The short is pretty sweet, and I expect a feature built around the concept could be quite cool also. The short was made last year, apparently, so maybe some of you have seen it already. I recommend watching in full screen mode.
http://vimeo.com/32844733#

Comments

  • They had a nice little budget, like the MRI machine thing.
  • Pretty sure that machine is CGI, the same as the creature in it, but I'm not positive. One thing is for sure though, the production values are great, whatever their budget was.
  • That was great. Thanks for the share.
    @ Axel
    In the credits under the gaffer. What is the crew position of spark or sparks?
  • Yeah, the creatures and lab machine were CGI. So were the guys in the mechanical suits and the police vans.
    But it all looks really good. It's the sort of production value I'm trying to go for. Except that I don't have any actors or a production team. haha
  • Bryan - I'm not certain, but I'd guess they are electricians, working under the Gaffer on the actual wiring and electrical safety stuff.
  • Really cool stuff, though I thought the little rant about uncontrolled pharmaceuticals cheapened it a bit. Like it's some kind of abstract, long-form "don't do drugs" PSA.
  • I agree with Aculag. In the end it makes it seem like an anti drug commercial.
    but have to say great fx.
  • I can do the same level of VFX and animation as in this movie. The question is just how much time does it take?
    As a challenge, I changed the materials on my model and tried to give it a sterile, white environment like you see for the scanner in The Gate. I also threw in a nurse in a futuristic medical suit. My models aren't the same, but it's enough to give you the idea. This is what I got after spending 6 hours rendering a single frame on my computer.
    [img]http://earthshatteringpictures.com/lux/RobotConstruction.jpg[/img]
    It looks real nice. But it would take me forever to render out even a short animation. The limit is really time and available computing power. I'd be interested to know how much time the guy who did The Gate spent on rendering animation and what he had for a render farm.
    BTW, if anyone would like to use that for wallpaper, you can. It's sized 1920x1080.
  • FoxFox
    edited December 2012
    I think is a good habbit to credit the makers of the 3D models 8-|
    ES Pictures model "cyborg-maintenance-uint is done by Cybertenko Renderosity
    Cybertenko does very great models, if your into steam punk then he is the man to c

    I can render the same ES picture and in same quality in aprox 15 mins per frame, it all depends on your hardware @-)
    I allways work in layers. The renders are faster done if you seperate the models in thier own layer on green or blue screen. Less models, props in picture means lower render time. It also provides you with the great posibility of controling each models apperance in the scene without affecting the hole scene. Considering the basic shadows in the setup of the animation and adding some more of them afterwards in HF2 is a pice of cake.
  • edited December 2012
    @Fox If people used their real names, I'd be happy to credit in a finished video. It seems a little silly though to use nicknames and handles. Or to credit every time I render just a single frame. 8-| Besides the fact that it's payware, so I can use it commercially without crediting if I choose to. I make plenty of models myself while waiting for renders. If I sold some on rendo and someone used it without credit, I could hardly complain. I only use models that I have a license to use commercially or have made myself for that very reason.
    You can render the same pictures at the same quality in 15 minutes? I'm rendering in luxrender to 200 samples on a i7 3930k 6 core w/ 12 threads, 32G ram, and dual 560ti's. It rendered for 6 hours precisely at 100% cpu usage. Somehow, I find it unlikely that you could render to the same quality in 15 minutes on a single computer. :D I could have stopped the render myself after 15 minutes or rendered it under a different engine more quickly. But it wouldn't be the same quality. That was the entire point of rendering it. To show how long it takes to get that quality. I could easily have rendered thousands of samples and spent a month on it.
    Separating everything out into layers works great on a non-renderman compliant engine. But on an engine that is, all of the ambient occlusion, etc is done at render time. If at all possible it's better to render everything you can into the environment. Usually I separate forground and background and render them separately. Also, you don't need blue or green screens. Just use an alpha channel.

    For comparison, ILM with thousands of computers in their render farm use a renderman compliant engine (which luxrender is) spend between 8-90 hours of rendering per frame. (Just for you, I'm citing a credit for that number here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7r5mz9aTlA&lc=FimQB-0yy_HV5LUagPoQ7XcX3nZq3rFI6SmypwewUQo )
  • To be fair, ES, you did say "My models".
  • FoxFox
    edited December 2012
    That you buy the models (otherwise it wut be a pirat copy) Is not really important.
    You use the term "My model" . . .
    I use a lot of Cybertenko's work. Bought like yours, but i still mention the maker.
    Its polite and a cado to the many hours of work they put into it.
    Artist names are as good as any other name, thats really not an excuse. I never use my own name . . . Not even here :D
    You will just have to take my word on i can render it in 10 - 15 min a frame in that quality.
    6 hours a frame seems a bit much for such a small scene.
  • edited December 2012

    To be fair, ES, you did say "My models".

    Ah, I meant that in the sense that it was made of models that I have. As in "my Ford is a piece of crap" I don't mean that I built it myself in a factory. :P
    If people want to remain anonymous on the Internet, that's great. It's everyone's right. But I think it's silly to credit nicknames. If you want credit, use a real name. And in any finished production, I'll definitely wade through the Docs for any purchased content I use and credit every real name I can find.
  • If it would make all of you happier, I could spend a month making a detailed bio-bed scanner myself and then re-render everything. That doesn't change the fact that the point I was making is that it must have taken the guy who made this months of render time for what amounts to about a minute of CG footage.

  • That you buy the models (otherwise it wut be a pirat copy) Is not really important.
    You use the term "My model" . . .
    I use a lot of Cybertenko's work. Bought like yours, but i still mention the maker.
    Its polite and a cado to the many hours of work they put into it.
    Artist names are as good as any other name, thats really not an excuse. I never use my own name . . . Not even here :D
    You will just have to take my word on i can render it in 10 - 15 min a frame in that quality.
    6 hours a frame seems a bit much for such a small scene.

    I think buying the model is an important distinction to the guy who makes it. Getting credit is nice, but making money is even nicer. Also, read the license agreement. There is absolutely NOTHING that requires you to cite the model maker. Nothing. Of course it's polite, and as I said, if I had rendered a finished video I'd be happy to do that. You're arguing over nothing.
    And sorry, but I really couldn't take your word on it. You could render a model in 15 minutes - yes. To that quality, on a single computer - No. It's just a fact.

  • Ah, I meant that in the sense that it was made of models that I have. As in "my Ford is a piece of crap" I don't mean that I built it myself in a factory. :P

    It just that before Fox pointed out that you didn't make them, I was ready to say, "Damn fine modeling job on those, ES."
    It's not a big deal to me, but I did assume you had made them based on your post. *shrug*

  • It just that before Fox pointed out that you didn't make them, I was ready to say, "Damn fine modeling job on those, ES."
    It's not a big deal to me, but I did assume you had made them based on your post. *shrug*

    It's a difficult thing to get a handle on. Because most of the time, I'll modify models that I purchased or just use my own models. For example, on this picture I redid all of the model materials on the scanner model myself, creating new normal and bump maps myself. I used the stock Victoria 5 body for the nurse, but made her hair myself in a program that I'm testing out. And then I made the environment myself using primitives. I rarely ever use anything out of the box or as it comes. It's like buying an unpainted model kit at the store. You rearrange, reassemble, add to it your own stuff, repaint from the default color. So some of the picture is made of cybertenko's models, some of it is Daz models, and some of it mine. And even the stuff from other people is modified by me before use.
    But the render itself is mine to use for any commercial purpose I like. I don't bother making credits for everything in still images. And I assume if someone wishes to have credit, they will use their real name. Using a handle is done for the purpose of being anonymous.

    And some models do have real names buried in the README files. And when I use them in a finished production, I'll be happy to dig the names out and list them as modelers in the credits.
  • Fom DAZ 3D site :
    All of the content available at the DAZ 3D Store is covered by the standard EULA which allows 2D renders including sprites as well as rendered animations or movies.
    Comercial lisense :
    Developers with Personal or Business income of LESS than $100,000.00 annually : 500 USD
    Developers with Personal or Business income of MORE than $100,000.00 annually : 2500 USD
    :-?
  • edited December 2012

    By the way you can't use Victoria in unrestricted commercial work (Do check on this because i have been involved in projects where the Victoria base mesh had to be removed for this very reason, DAZ are very open about it if you ask them direct, Saying that, modelling something like Victoria before doing morphs is a days work even for a slow modeller, so not so much hassle)
    It is good form to credit somebodies models but it is just that "Good form" and not any legal requirement unless stated in the licence (Some Rendo artists do state it)
    It is very possible that i am missing something here but if that frame took me 5 hours to render in LW i would assume my machine was damaged, there is very much a fog of reality between perception of quality and render times, if you think it needed a 6 hour render for your perceived level of quality then that is what it needed ;)

    Check again.
    http://www.daz3d.com/shop/license-agreement
    You may (i) access, use, copy and modify the 3-D Models stored on such computers at such single location in the creation and presentation of animations and renderings which may require runtime access to the 3-D Model(s), and (ii) incorporate two dimensional images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense such combined works;
    ...
    you may copy, distribute, and/or sell your animations and renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s).

    Section 4 is clear. You have 100% rights to rendered images. The commercial license Fox is talking about is for video game developers that use the mesh. If you want to distribute the mesh by using it in a video game then you have to pay a separate license. It's a pretty standard software agreement. Like I have 100% rights to anything I make using Hitfilm, but I can't give the software itself away.
    As for render times, that depends on what you are rendering and how. If you render using a biased rendering engine with few elements, it can render quickly. If you use an unbiased render engine you can get photo-realistic results. But you have to invest the time and computational power into it.
    It's sort of like a movie with good animation v. a Syfy channel direct to TV movie. You can look at the Syfy channel movie and it has a giant Anaconda in it, but it looks really fake. The reason is that they used a low quality-fast render engine and then tried to fix it in post-production.
    What I am saying is, the guy who made The Gate used an unbiased render engine and spent a lot of render time to get it right. Look at some of the images in the Luxrender gallery and you'll see the difference an unbiased render engine makes to images: http://www.luxrender.net/forum/gallery2.php
    There's a reason ILM has thousands of computers rendering 8-90 hours per frame. Their computers aren't broken. :D/
    Having said that, you can slide by a little more with video as opposed to still images. In video, your eye is less likely to notice little flaws and imperfections in the render.
    And here is another version of a scanner device that I modeled myself to illustrate the point further.
    [img]http://earthshatteringpictures.com/lux/BioScanPro.jpg[/img]

  • Having actually had discussions with DAZ about this stuff i could argue heavily, but i wont, I could also argue heavily (And so would quite alot of people) that you can't get photo real renders out of LW hahaha, but again, I wont ;)

    Maybe they changed their license agreement after your discussion? I don't know who you talked to, when, or about what. All I know is how to read English and from reading the license agreement, it's all perfectly clear. And the fact that plenty of people are selling their renders commercially without being sued would also seem to refute what you're saying. But I'm not interested in an argument either.
    I haven't used lightwave for a long time. Maybe the newer versions have a better internal render engine. You can also model/animate in lightwave and export to an external render engine for better results, I would assume.
  • So how about that short film, eh?
  • Heh, its a bit curious that this is the second thread in like a week to get completely sidetracked from the video initially posted into a copyright debate. But anyway...
    I think its pretty cool that a small team of people is able to produce something of sufficient calibre that a studio sees enough potential in it to option it for a feature. And you can bet that it wasn't the quality of the CG that sold them, but rather the story potential. While I do agree that the ending title cards made the whole thing feel a bit PSA and cheapened, I think they are also significant in indicating how a feature could be developed from the concept.
  • Sorry about that. I was trying to express my admiration for the time and effort put into the animation and CG in the The Gate and how much time and effort it would take to do something similar. I'm not sure why copyright keeps getting brought up.

  • I can do the same level of VFX and animation as in this movie. The question is just how much time does it take?
    As a challenge, I changed the materials on my model and tried to give it a sterile, white environment like you see for the scanner in The Gate. I also threw in a nurse in a futuristic medical suit. My models aren't the same, but it's enough to give you the idea. This is what I got after spending 6 hours rendering a single frame on my computer.
    [img]http://earthshatteringpictures.com/lux/RobotConstruction.jpg[/img]
    It looks real nice. But it would take me forever to render out even a short animation. The limit is really time and available computing power. I'd be interested to know how much time the guy who did The Gate spent on rendering animation and what he had for a render farm.
    BTW, if anyone would like to use that for wallpaper, you can. It's sized 1920x1080.

    What software did you use
  • edited December 2012
    My current workflow is that I will use models I purchased a commercial license to use, or build my own models in Hexagon / Sculptris / FaceGen 3.5 / Blender / Wings3D or a combination depending on what I'm making. I use CrazyBump and Photoshop CS5 to do texturing and mapping. I then import and animate all models in Daz Pro 4.5, use Reality 2.5 to convert all the materials, and render with Luxrender 1.1. For camera matchmoving and tracking, I use Blender (Spydurhank is the man for tutorials on that!) / PFHoe Pro / Mocha HitFilm. I composite and do VFX in Hitfilm2U. I do audio work in Sound Forge. And do a final assemble and render in Sony Vegas MS Platinum 12.
    So pretty simple. haha

  • I think is a good habbit to credit the makers of the 3D models 8-|
    ES Pictures model "cyborg-maintenance-uint is done by Cybertenko Renderosity


    thank you for kind words... :-) actualy I need publish models under my nickname since renderosity does it this way. My full name is written in readme file, which is offical documentation file.

  • thank you for kind words... :-) actualy I need publish models under my nickname since renderosity does it this way. My full name is written in readme file, which is offical documentation file.

    You made a really awesome model. And if I ever use it in a movie, I'll be sure to list your name in the credits as a modeler. But there are some models that don't have real names in the README file. If it isn't there, then I assume the person doesn't want their name in the credits. If I say modeled a bedroom, sold it on Rendo, and someone used it to make a porno, I would be uncomfortable having my name associated with that production. So I probably wouldn't put my real name on it for that reason. And if anyone had asked me, "Did you model that yourself?" or "Where did you get that model?" or had said, "Great model!" I'd have told them I bought it off Rendo and pointed them to your store.

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment