PDA

View Full Version : jungle book



vonpietro
04-15-2016, 09:51 PM
Hi, just saw jungle book and i have to say the visual effects on the animal work are just stunning.
Seriously - flawless visual effects.

Fluid animation of the animals. Great gestures like paws scratching ect.

Two thumbs up!

anyone know some details about the movie - like what programs were used for creating such realistic animals?

djwaterman
04-16-2016, 12:33 AM
It was all real animals, just very well trained with a lot of vocal coaching and off camera treats.

Spinland
04-16-2016, 08:45 AM
It was all real animals, just very well trained with a lot of vocal coaching and off camera treats.

:ohmy:

SteveH
04-16-2016, 09:16 AM
The same animals were used in the Life of Pi (the Tiger) and the Revenant (the Bear). ;-)

prometheus
04-16-2016, 09:44 AM
Hi, just saw jungle book and i have to say the visual effects on the animal work are just stunning.
Seriously - flawless visual effects.

Fluid animation of the animals. Great gestures like paws scratching ect.

Two thumbs up!

havenīt seen it..looks good though, I suspect the weta team behind

anyone know some details about the movie - like what programs were used for creating such realistic animals?

10 special effects guys...
Visual effects guy...I canīt list it here, it is too long.
You may suspect weta team since they were involved in gollum, king kong etc, and developed that special muscle system tissue, so I suspect that is some of those folks, and yes....checking the imdb you will find MPC, and the weta team.
so by narrowing it down to which studios, you may get an idea on the software as well.

most likely maya for modeling and rigging,probably zbrush or mudbox..for additional sculpt...do not know exactly what fur system, renderman for rendering though..but if it was entirely created with it?..maybe, it uses a primitive for fur, called riCurve.
Maybe lightwaves new fur primitive.. has been worked out with that as a lead to follow?

info on rendermans hair...
https://renderman.pixar.com/view/hair-and-fur

the rest is probably just good artists modeling and sculpting, not sure if they actually scanned models from either real animal or other sculpted models and retopy it.

some info here...but please add to the list by searching google you too :) you can always start at the imdb site and check full cast and crew so you will get info on studios and people behind the vfx.

https://www.inverse.com/article/14351-how-the-jungle-book-made-its-animals-look-so-real-with-groundbreaking-vfx

The hard part is said to be the grooming of the fur, and the interaction between the boy when he touches the animals and of course, it takes a lot of time to render each frame maybe up 30-40 hours per frame or even several days, not something you throw out with your own computer in a flash...think they had thousands of computers around.

ianr
04-18-2016, 08:46 AM
It will pop up in Cinefex shortly, in fact in issue no 147

They always show you the little wrinkles, excuse

the expression.

- - - Updated - - -

It will pop up in Cinefex shortly, in fact in issue no 147

They always show you the little wrinkles, excuse

the expression. Yeah '[Pi'] nailed wet fur.

Dan Ritchie
04-18-2016, 01:22 PM
The part in the credits that stated...

Shot in downtown LA

is what gets me.

50one
04-18-2016, 02:14 PM
The same animals were used in the Life of Pi (the Tiger) and the Revenant (the Bear). ;-)

I've heard half of trees were re-used from Avatar!

prometheus
04-18-2016, 02:29 PM
I've heard half of trees were re-used from Avatar!

Makes sense though...to use a good asset also in other productions, and why not? especially things like rocks and treeīs that might be hard to spot as unique for a specific film, It must save tons of time instead of doing new ones just because they want new ones..unless a certain hero tree needs another look, and in such case they make one with speedtree..or vueīs newer tree generator, I wonder wich one might be the best though.

Michael

prometheus
04-18-2016, 05:27 PM
unless a certain hero tree needs another look, and in such case they make one with speedtree.

l


And as I guessed....check blog covering the use of it in the jungle book, though as mentioned previously, a lot already made with speedtree for avatar, and reused....
http://blog.speedtree.com/

Also for filming the only live actor..blue screens, not green screen.

Though all that is off topic from your questions about what they used for the animals.

Schwyhart
04-20-2016, 09:10 PM
My wife and I just watched it. While we both liked it, we didn't love it. The CG was incredible, but at times it looked very fake. Even my wife said that. I think it was more to do with the uncanny valley. Our eyes want us to believe it's real, but our brain know it isn't.
IMO, The best part of it all was the book at the end.

Schwyhart
04-20-2016, 09:12 PM
Also, when it rained, I felt like the animals weren't getting rained on.

I'm just nitpicking.

MichaelT
04-21-2016, 02:43 AM
Trees are coming from SpeedTree, so it is easy enough to use. In regards to Renderman, I think most of you know that Renderman is now free (non-commercial, but even the commercial isn't expensive.. ~$500). If you didn't, you know now :) (https://renderman.pixar.com/view/renderman)

Dan Ritchie
04-22-2016, 09:54 AM
Also, when it rained, I felt like the animals weren't getting rained on.

I'm just nitpicking.

I thought that at first, then I noticed the water was beading up on the wolves hair, which I thought was very cleaver and realistic. The problem was we "think" their hair would clump up and be all soaking wet, but they're animals. Like a ducks back.

Schwyhart
04-22-2016, 10:11 AM
Maybe so.
I'd have to watch it again when it's out to rent.

Another thing was the frame-rate. I don't think it was the movie. I think it was the projector this particular theater used. Fast movements were very blurry and jerky. It was a HUGE screen though.

Netvudu
04-22-2016, 05:51 PM
The bear swimming and carrying Mowgly was ridiculously well done. I mean, itīs hair, itīs fluids, itīs wet fur behaving nicely with dynamics AND contacts with both the CG character and the actor?? come on...

The final book credits were awesome as well.

Dan Ritchie
04-27-2016, 12:54 PM
The bear swimming and carrying Mowgly was ridiculously well done. I mean, itīs hair, itīs fluids, itīs wet fur behaving nicely with dynamics AND contacts with both the CG character and the actor?? come on...

The final book credits were awesome as well.

Where's the like button on this crazy thing! Yes, yes, yes!

prometheus
04-27-2016, 03:30 PM
Where's the like button on this crazy thing! Yes, yes, yes!

Cool down Dan, You are Not Meg Ryan:D

I wonder if One would loose out a lot of not watching it in the theaters, and just see it when it arrives on air and tv?

Schwyhart
04-28-2016, 08:39 AM
I wonder if One would loose out a lot of not watching it in the theaters, and just see it when it arrives on air and tv?

That's probably the case with most movies.

prometheus
04-28-2016, 11:54 AM
That's probably the case with most movies.

Donīt think so, I reckon I could watch a love film, documentary, comedy in most cases and really donīt need the big format to enjoy what it is supposed to deliver.
Higly cinematic and vfx driven movies, I am more certain I would, so perhaps my question was a bit dumb in retrospect ..since I knew that :)

Then again, you might be right..you said most movies, if that means most movies are cinematic and vfx driven.

Michael

erikals
05-02-2016, 01:51 AM
the 3D was very well done in this movie.

and the fur render was... Fabulous!

i could spot the uncanny valley once or twice, but i must say... > Impressing!

often there was no way to tell.


Michael, go see it at the movies. Movies like these are not the same on a TV.

it's like watching "The Force Awakens" on a TV screen... it's just not the same quality.

unless, you have a 180 inch OLED 3D Tv hangin' around at home   http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

kopperdrake
05-02-2016, 02:42 AM
I wonder if One would loose out a lot of not watching it in the theaters, and just see it when it arrives on air and tv?

If you can, see it at the cinema - the attention to detail is ridiculous - I spent a lot of the fill just staring at the ground, trying to figure out what was texture, what was modelled, and it was 99% difficult to figure out which.

I loved it - the chase at the end was brilliant, really got the heart pounding, and yes to the book - beautifully done.

The *only* thing I think they haven't quite got yet, and I noticed it as I've seen another film recently that had the same problem, is the wind. Now we can do wind on foliage, it seems to be used everywhere! The opening shots had way too much of it, everything in the base of the jungle, was swaying to and fro. It was too regular, too 'syrupy', and too much of it. But after those opening scenes, it was less obvious, either because the foliage became more of a backdrop to the focal point in the scene, or I'd got used to it.

Brilliant film, and glad they added a bit of the music :thumbsup:

lightscape
05-02-2016, 06:03 AM
Great movie! FX are amazing. Story was also good and not watered down for kids.