As a visual effects supervisor at Toybox, I’m regularly involved in bidding projects for digital post-production. Sometimes we are in a position to recommend an approach to our clients; at other times we’re responding to an effects breakdown provided by the studio / production VFX supervisor (as with most feature film productions). I also get to see first hand the 'digital clean up' which is required on various effects shots, and the results of taking 'short cuts' at various stages of production, in the belief that just about everything can be 'fixed in post' these days.

My general impression is that while most people are taking creative advantage of the tremendous advances in processing power and in CG / FX software solutions, there is a growing reliance on post production technology to 'substitute' for sensible, effective, production methods. There is also the wrong assumption that digital post fixes are relatively cheap in comparison to the cost of achieving more 'in camera'.

In the current economic and political climate there is an atmosphere of aggressive, competitive bidding in film and broadcast TV post production, where equipment costs and overheads are high. 'Clean up' tasks such as rig removal, rotoscoping, matte fixing, tracking/ stabilising and other repetitive processes are being achieved by 'second shift' operators at a fraction of the normal rate for online machines such as Inferno, Flame and Henry.

Often these processes and their costs are not included in a bid, but are accepted as the 'penalty' for achieving a job award and developing a relationship with a studio / network / production company. There are also many small scale 'basement' post companies, operating on cheaper (and slower) platforms (e.g., Combustion running on Mac / PC) are achieving high level work by operating '24 / 7'. However these smaller operations generally have little back-up in the event of system failure, and can run a higher risk of missing delivery.

It’s also certainly true that digital post companies can look like heroes when they perform their magic on a scene which was otherwise doomed through some error in production, or something which was simply poorly conceived or worked out in the studio. However, it does little to encourage a full discussion of VFX methodology throughout the production, editorial and post process, in order to guarantee and protect the creative vision of the director, art director or director of photography.

Where does all this leave production technology, including motion control?

It seems to me that we need to better promote the concept of achieving stable, well operated, well crafted shots, for there is always someone willing to bend over backwards to fix any problems digitally. There is generally less reliance on producing 'perfect' layers for a composite effect, and all too often the simple additional technique in production, which would save hours of digital fix, is overlooked.

It’s often the case in advertising (commercials) production, that the post production company provides a VFX supervisor in pre-production, and on the shoot. This will normally be a compositor, CG animator or digital FX artist, who may have little experience of production technique, including the use of controlled cranes/grip/camera/lenses/lights, which might provide better plates with which to stitch together a composite.

Motion control is (unfortunately) sometimes regarded as a complex intrusion into an otherwise highly efficient production process. It's easy to overlook the time saving aspects of motion control, and the cost savings (in terms of film stock, processing, editing, and of course digital post) are often not fully discussed or even raised.

With all this in mind, I suggest that pre-production communication is the most effective route to encouraging practical and cost effective solutions for visual effects. This might lead to better informed decisions over allocation of the VFX budget, which should benefit everyone in the long run. A little more control at the production end, and a lot less clean up to squeeze into the post bid.

We need to talk up the successful use of production technology, the creative possibilities that have yet to be explored, and the new interfacing which allows a dynamic marriage between camera support / image acquisition systems and digital effects / computer graphics.

As a VFX supervisor, I find it extremely beneficial to have the practical experience as a moco operator and lighting cameraman (DoP), in combination with a working knowledge of post technology. I think we should be helping more people in our industry to cross the divide between production and post (both ways), and try to encourage a more informed approach to any given creative / VFX scenario.

Jerry Andrews

Command Post & Transfer (Toybox), Toronto, Canada