Ok, so I see “The Incredibles” over the weekend. I know that I recognize some of the voices so I stay and watch for them in the credits. While I am waiting through the credits I see a couple names connected with camera operator credits.
I don’t understand how a movie that is apparently 100% CGI can have a camera operator. Is it because they used a camera to convert the digital image to film? I would have thought that position to have a different title.
Any SAG members out their have any answers?
TIA
Jim
Was it actually “camera operator” or was it possibly “cinematographer” or “director of photography”? (The two are essentially interchangeable. In the U.K. the title is “lighting cameraman.”) If either of the latter, the explanation is fairly simple: a DP establishes lighting, camera angles, lens selection, and many other factors that have direct analogs in an animated film, if not the same physical procedures as in a live action film. I happen to know, for instance, that for The Polar Express, director Robert Zemeckis had a set of cranks, exactly like those used on pro camera head, adapted to control the pan and tilt of the virtual camera he used in creating the animation.
But a “camera operator” is not the same thing. He’s an assistant to the DP, and handles fairly low-level mechanical stuff related to the camera: changing magazines, filters, handling lenses, etc. I don’t think a camera operator be needed for the digital-film conversion. That’s handled by film recorder, not a camera per se, and I doubt the operator of that would get a credit as “camera operator.”
If it was a camera operator credit, it could have been for indirect source material such as rotoscoping or filming/taping of actors used as models for the animators. Just my semi-informed WAG.
Even though the thing is CGI, there is still a very important ‘camera’ function - the camera is simulated by the rendering software, yes, but it must still be ‘operated’ -not in real time, obviously, but someone still has to tell the software what kind of lens to simulate, how to zoom/pan/dolly etc - it isn’t really all that similar a job to operating a real world camera, but it is still a job.
Motion capture. Also called performance capture. It’s a technique that’s being used more and more in CG. Gollum in LotR is the most famous example of this, but it’s far from the only one.
A live actor, with a bunch of sensors, acts the part and his movements are used to control the animated character. There is an actual camera on set, whose motion is also closely monitored to control the virtual CG camera. The footage shot isn’t used photographically, but is analysed to extract the actor’s movement.
I checked IMDB, and didn’t see credits for “camera operator”. Because of its cartoonish style, I wouldn’t be surprised if motion capture wasn’t used at all, but like I said, it’s becoming more and more popular, so it might have been used here and there.
The other thing I can think of is that I know Pixar shoots a lot of test footage in real life, so they can make their computer models better. Stuff like grass blowing or trees waving or water running down a window. Someone has to work the camera for that.
I don’t know that it is enough to get a credit in the final movie though.
A “camera operator” does just that. He sits behind the camera and moves the tripod head, etc.
1st Assistant Camera does the filters and lenses, pulls focus, etc. (hardest job in film and the most fun)
2nd Assistant Camera changes the film (load and unloads magazines), cleans and organizes, records all the info for the processors, etc. 1st’s right hand man.
Pixar does not use any motion capture, and doesn’t use photographs for pasted-in scenery, either. Everything in a Pixar film is either computer-generated, or artist-generated. They will use models created by artists in a physical medium (clay, styrofoam, etc.) and “scan” them in to become computer models, and people’s voices are real, of course.
I think there might be two exceptions. The model for the baby in Tin toy, might be generated from a scan of an actual baby or some combination of segments from different babies, and the “grown up” Luxo in Luxo Jr. might be generated from measurements on an actual Luxo.
And there are huge numbers of people designing virtual camera paths, focal lengths, apertures, etc. through every scene, as well as hordes positioning virtual “lighting” in the scenery to produce the right visual effects, too.
Slightly off-topic, but another example of “real-world” work that gets done on GCI films. A friend of mine did some extensive fabric work (mostly dying) for one of the Pixar films. They wanted to see how the fabric would react to the dyes, and how dyed fabric reacted to various lighting angles and intensities.
The model for 3-D Animation, whether it be Pixar’s RenderMan or the more easily available OpenGL inteface, is to:
Create a CG world, which acts as the set, complete with lighting.
Create the CG “actors”, and move them around the world.
Create a “virtual camera”, place it and orient it somewhere in the set, and point it in some direction, or perhaps move it through the set as well.
Essentially the same as a real movie, although the CGI cameramen have much more control over the camera, since they simply plug in the coordinates and there’s no heavy hardware or wires.
Bah. Another exception to my “no real-world data” statement are some easter eggs that get put into many Pixar flicks. There are particularly famous models (well, particularly famous in the computer graphics world) that often make their ways into many CG works – the Utah Teapot, Ivan Sutherland’s VW Beetle, etc., and Pixar is no exception.