Here is a question for you: just because we can make somthing in 3D, is it always the best approach?
I was a 3D producer at The Mill for many years before coming to Escape to work in their training team. As part of my job at The Mill, I attending many meeting with clients, pitching on jobs and helping them work through their ideas at at the initial stage of the process. It is important for VFX houses to get involved right from script stage with any idea that involves a lot of effects or might be tricky to achieve. It basically helps directors work through their ideas and also helps producers manage budgets and pick the best way to achieve the look and feel the client is after within time and budget constraints.
I was always amazed at how often a director would be quick to conclude that something should be created in 3D, when often this was not the best approach. We would end up spending our meeting explaining why and how to create the same effect by shooting elements in camera, even if we would enhance them with 3d later. Just because you can create almost everything in 3D nowadays, it not always the best approach. In order to create create a natural feel in the most complex scripts, it always a good idea to use a combination of in camera, 2D, and 3D effects. On many occasions our 3D artists would talk themselves out of doing any work on a job if we all felt it would end up delivering a better looking end result.
I came across this link today and I actually had to ask myself the opposite question. Just because you can make something for real, is it always the right approach? Levi van Veluw has used over 30,000 woden blocks to build this art installation. When I first saw it, I thought it was 3D as it had the look and feel in the movement of the character and the visual style of an extremely well executed piece of 3D.
This exhibition will be on show for a month from the 21st of May to the 25th June 2011 as a solo exhibition at the Ron Mandos gallery in Amsterdam. It will be open from 5-7 pm and Levi will be performing himself during that time. But lets imagine for a second that this was for the web or for a video installation. Would this be the correct approach or would it be more effective to create it in 3D? 3D would certainly allow you to extend the story telling aspect of the installation and make it in a more cost effective project.
As it stands, the lovely thing about Levi's installation is that it doesn't suffer from digital perfection. But any good 3D artist would be able to add the same level of natural imperfection into the digital work. I'm not to sure what the answer is, but there is a beauty to this - partly because you can see the artist acting his story and his emotions.
I'd love to hear you thoughts and ideas on this.