Al: Let’s talk a little bit about the 15,000+ frame scene. Was that the hardest shot? Or what was the hardest scene that proved to be the most challenging for you?
Richard: It probably was. That challenge is, for us, for one, creatively, getting the shots to look the way they did and the details and everything. And then there were some logistical challenges as well, for example, that shot or quite a few other shots which were really long. And the reason that they were difficult was because we had to cut them up in to 12-15 individual shots, slice it up and spread it out. At one point, we had pretty much everybody in London working on one shot. It cost about 60-80 artists so yes, logistically, that was incredibly challenging because you can imagine the amount of rendering time, the amount of Roto for it. It’s not possible for someone to open up that amount of Roto for example. I think it was time stamped, the Roto, the production management of the shot. Copying it to the review machines in the cinema. Me reviewing the shot that long and then me reviewing it again with the client. That was really difficult. You could imagine the amount of nodes that we had to generate just for a shot. It was like 40 shots within itself kind of thing, for that duration. That was really difficult. Then once we got the shot cut up into sections getting it to match and dove tail it together because although it might have the depth map rendered in the same environment, of course, artist playing artist, you get a little bit of “doing their own thing” we had to make sure that stayed on track. So that and the creative time, that’s also the biggest thing for us.
Al: Let’s talk about more the View-D process which is Prime Focus’ proprietary effects software. So how did you integrate that in?
Richard: Our proprietary tools, basically it’s a magic set of nodes which in effect a depth map plugs into or something with values like that plugs into.
Matthew: But really the magic is in the creative style and the seeds of the artists that we have. As time has moved on, it’s less about that propriety tool and more about the work of each artist, the way that we incorporate now getting multiple VFX out of them. It’s in how we approach it. I mean 3 years ago when we started, having a number of really talented artists with good stereo eyes, that was the hardest thing. And now over time we got that team built-up as well. What it’s about is how we approach shots creatively. It is less and less about the technology and more about these seasoned people. In a way View–D refers to the whole package now.
Richard: It’s the artist in the pipeline that we’ve developed, the actual tools, they do all the computations with the pixels and everything. And that’s always getting R&D’d, of course. Biggest jump is what leads up before that.
Al: Conversion has got a lot of mixed reviews as you well know. And it’s actually something that some of the bad reviews have been very well deserved. How do you feel that you’ve grown in the 3D conversion process? And with Gravity taking it to a whole new level, where do you go next?
Matthew: I think I’ve always mentioned that in this business, you are only as good as your last show. That’s really what it’s all about. It has always been important, for me, for us internally, as well, that we keep improving. Even though it’s different films, different movies, how will we develop, how will we take it any further. I think we’ve been lucky. Let’s go back to “Crash“. Where it all started. The criticisms are often rightfully so, but then equally it’s very much that we’ve come to this dawn of this evolution.
Had we not moved it on since then, then those criticisms will rightfully stand up but we have moved it on. Hugely, we are safely moving as well. Look at some of the movies we’ve done like “Narnia”, it was a big step forward in terms of how we balanced the stereo. Even “Wrath of the Titans”, “Frankenweenie”, all these are different projects were done in a different way. We’ve seen it kind of evolving each time. And I guess at the point where “Gravity” has come out, you can trace that evolution. I think that was very much a stereo evolution. The most the exciting thing, that we are taking off leaps and bounds and what we’re going to see next. What’s really important as well is that none of these films are going to be like Gravity. So the next big extravaganza that we do superhero movie or whatever that movie is i’d like to see it take on board a lot of what we learned on Gravity in terms of incorporating geometry with Roto, giving it a bit more time. Giving more faith to the creatives on the stereo side rather than just trying to back end it as a process because it’s not just a process. It is a VFX creative tool. I want to leave visual effects to the last couple of things done. You want to get under way pretty early on that. I don’t want to see Gravity be just a glitch.
Richard: Needless to say, we’ve shown how much we’ve move forward. I mean look at the visual effects 10 years ago. Look at the one of the early “Harry Potter” and look at the props and the lighting on that and look at it now. That’s progression. That’s the same in any business whether it’s film cameras to RED cameras, everything evolves.
Matthew: I think also when I look at our competitors as well I wonder if they’ve developed as much as we have in the last couple of years. We’ve gone from “Crash” to “Gravity” in three years. That’s a huge leap.
Richard: I think that what we’re keeping as we come out the other side of “Gravity” is that we’re not tied into one particular workflow. It’s not just Roto or geometry. With our facilities now we can hybrid that completely. We’ve got flexibility to approach different kinds of projects. That’s what is important I think. This project needs this type of approach. Or this client needs this kind of approach. That puts us in a much better position I think.
Al: You guys have worked with some fantastic directors. Alfonso Cuaron and Tim Burton to name a few. Who is on your personal bucket list for directors that you would like to work with?
Richard: Oooooo, ahhhh… Ridley Scott would be great! An English director and he does a lot of great films. But it’s also nice to work with directors that are new and just coming to the table I think. Always nice to get a mix of that. In terms of broadening our horizons I think there are a lot of people would love to work with. Lovely to work with them. I’d love to work with Tim Burton again, but that was a great pleasure, as with any director.
Matthew: Actually, I have been lucky enough to work with a lot of my film heroes. People like Danny Boyle, Ken Loach, Tim Burton. Someone like Ripley Scott would be great and I think James Cameron. I think it would be really great.
Richard: He’s a fan of conversion, right? Ha! Ha!
Matthew: I think what I’d like to do is to work with some directors who are working on their second or third 3D films. Like a David Gates or someone coming back to 3D. And kind of doing it again and improving it. Working with the same guys again would be really nice I think.
Al: Danny Boyle isn’t a big fan of 3D. Have you been working on him to try and convince him to do a 3D film?
Matthew: No, not at all. Not at all. I think if Danny ever comes to it, but we did have a conversation about it a few years ago. I don’t think it is in his bag at the moment but if he does change soon, then it’ll be a great, great movie because he really is the most collaborative and enjoyable filmmaker to work with. If he did that would be fantastic. The thing about Danny, if you look at all of his films he’s always doing something different. He never follows the same path so who knows.
Al: That would be nice to see. He is such a talent. I would love to see him do a 3D film with you guys. Now let’s talk about a little more off subject. Now 3D films have been doing so fantastic. I think 9 out of 10 top box office films are 3D films. But 3DTV hasn’t been seem to be able to go very far except in Asia. What do you think guys think about it in England? How is it evolving there? Virgin Media just opened up with another 50 hours worth of content but on the other hand BBC stopped their testing. Do feel that 3D has to expand on TV in order to be truly accepted?
Matthew: I think looking back 3 years ago, we’re like, “Wow! Everything’s going to be 3D!” 3DTV’s were just flying out of the shops. The reality is it’s just going to be how we watch TV at home. I’ve got a family, I’ve got kids and we watch TV on a very surrounded place and my daughter, she’s watching TV, her favorite program, and drawing at the same time. It’s not actually sit and focus. So I think it’s going to have the struggle to go beyond what it already is. Apart from the big events or the big movies. I think our expectations a few years ago are not going to be the next. That’s just natural.
Richard: I think for me it’s a big thing. 3D is all about BIG SCREEN experience. I haven’t got a lot of interest in sitting at home and watching 3D. Sitting at home with glasses on? I do it in here at work all day, every day. Maybe if they had Glassless 3DTV for an impact. Essentially for me, it is still a big screen experience. Like Avatar, like Gravity, like any other films which was done really well. That’s where it is appreciated the most.
Al: That’s great guys. Thank you so much. So what last question can you guys tell me anything about some new project that you’re working on or something exciting?
[DEAD SILENCE…]
[Followed by laughter]
Matthew: When we were working on Gravity we couldn’t talk about Gravity. So is really like that. We are just about to start on a huge, huge movie. To actually, we have two movies ramping up at the same time. I can say were working with Warner Bros. on a big film.
Richard: They are the next two big projects for us. They’ll be taking a hard time for the next six months. I want to once again thanks Richard Baker and Matthew Bristowe from Prime Focus World for taking the time to sit and talk with me. With “Gravity” they have elevated the art of 3D conversion to new levels. Personally, I can’t wait to see what comes from them next.