The Case for Specialists Prev 1 2
	Increasingly, 3D is being used in commercial work to embellish shots that were originally planned to be purely 2D. Subtle elements, such as smoke, set extensions, or even full-out object insertion or replacements for things like lake surfaces, buildings, car parts, and so forth can easily be created by an advanced 3D artist. These 3D elements add to the compositing artist’s arsenal of elements to add realism and help merge the different elements together into a shot. As a matter of efficiency however, compositing artists are being called upon more often to create their own simple 3D elements for composites or for 3D artists to composite their own final shots, to further condense the workflow. “ Right now, the distinction between 2D and 3D in the high-end television market remains a valid technological barrier, keeping artists separate but in tight cooperation. ” Should this trend go further, we’ll see a new definition of CG artists as fully self-sufficient, who need to create impressive CG as well as stunning composites all at one workstation. And indeed, this notion is also being fed by the march of technology. With desktop systems and effects software getting more robust, more stable, and just plain faster by the second, we may yet see desktop systems truly rivaling the feedback power of today’s high-end composite boxes like the inferno. So it is truly a temptation to say the real technologies of 3D and high-end 2D will merge into one machine in the near future. But that may be a treacherous projection. Although systems may soon be able to handle both 3D and 2D functions in one box run by the same operator, there’s an important distinction between the technologies, and hence, the workflows. What truly runs these machines is the human artist, a fact that can be easily overlooked on paper. Keeping at least a phantom division between the technologies that create 3D CG and composites is a good idea, no matter the technology. Switching from one artist to another when creating visual effects also has other benefits; just the sheer need to collaborate at that level creates a crucible in which better work results.[an error occurred while processing this directive] Having a single machine capable of taking a shot from start to finish at a speed comfortable for the client breeds a dangerous family of potentially lazy or just plain naive work. Add to that the omnipresent need for faster and cheaper, and this danger becomes an all-too-noticeable future in the witch’s cauldron. The collaboration between artists who need to understand each other simply drives the visual effects to better heights, though sometimes at the cost of time and money and a few aspirin. It’s true that with the advent of better desktop systems and more efficient software able to deliver real-time feedback for high-end compositing, facility costs can be dramatically minimized. But the banner of merged efficiency should not go further to advocate the amalgamation of tasks onto a single pair of shoulders as well, as the danger seems to be. Right now, the distinction between 2D and 3D in the high-end television market remains a valid technological barrier, keeping artists separate but in tight cooperation. This formula can lead to strong results within tight deadlines. Automating that collaboration with merged technology will, on the whole, make it easier to lower the bar of quality (and at least get you a dirty look from Ayn). But no matter which way you look at it, in at least television work where budgets can be low and timelines short, the worlds of 3D CGI and 2D compositing are becoming much more enmeshed, faster than in perhaps any other entertainment category of special effects. Lower resolution needs and faster schedules of commercial and TV effects welcome the need for TV effects to be streamlined. But it should carry with it a cautionary Post-It of the possible degradations brought on by simple mechanical automation. Keeping the bar high and the effects notable simply requires the tight integration of 2D and 3D so that each supports the other seamlessly in the shot as well as in the office. Look not to the gadgets to bring about efficiency, but to your collaborators. Source: DMO Prev 1 2