Cool look at vintage bluescreen technique from on old ILM'er:
[video=vimeo;174782388]https://vimeo.com/174782388[/video]
[video=vimeo;174782388]https://vimeo.com/174782388[/video]
Bluescreen 1980
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Every time I read/watch something about the old optical printing composite work, it reminds me how sick those guys were to even try some of the stuff ILM did.
It seems like there should have been a way to streamline the process for the Star Wars model work. They had so much control over the shooting elements. Couldn't they have shot the models against a totally black backdrop and skipped a few steps?
It seems like there should have been a way to streamline the process for the Star Wars model work. They had so much control over the shooting elements. Couldn't they have shot the models against a totally black backdrop and skipped a few steps?
I love old school effects but I have to say: thank heavens for digital composting.
robn1
Master Member
A "front light/back light" technique was considered for Star Wars, but Richard Edlund pressed hard for bluescreen. Despite it's complexity bluescreen had a number of advantages, primarily when fast moving action is needed. Bluescreen mattes allow transparency along streaked edges caused by fast motion, which front light/back light can't do. To get technical, a back light matte pass, where the model is silhouetted against a bright white screen, the white backing would burn through the streaked edges (and possibly through the whole silhouette depending on how bold the move was). A front light matte pass, where the model is rendered as white against a black backing, would not have any transparency at all, the white image would create a solid matte. In either case, a fast moving object would not that natural transparent streaked look.
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
I love this video.
curious about how starfields worked in the context of the process in the video. So you have your ship filmed, and you've separated all the colors, now you need to film a pass of stars flying by the camera to composite into the shot. Do you have a big piece of black material with tiny holes in it? It's it curved? Is it flat?
I don't mean to venture too far off topic, but while we're on the subject of 1980, and earlier, effects: does anyone know how moving starfields worked before computer simulations? I'm talking about stars coming toward the camera, to give the appearance of a POV moving through space.
curious about how starfields worked in the context of the process in the video. So you have your ship filmed, and you've separated all the colors, now you need to film a pass of stars flying by the camera to composite into the shot. Do you have a big piece of black material with tiny holes in it? It's it curved? Is it flat?
I don't mean to venture too far off topic, but while we're on the subject of 1980, and earlier, effects: does anyone know how moving starfields worked before computer simulations? I'm talking about stars coming toward the camera, to give the appearance of a POV moving through space.
I believe I read somewhere... great source :lol that they painted white dots on glass, shot against black. Please correct me, I too want to know for certain
I too love "old school" visual effects.
I "know" how they did the 3D zooming text in Superman the movie, but I definitely don't understand it :wacko
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
hmm, right that makes sense. From the same source as you ("I believe I read somewhere") I'm remembering that I read that for Star Wars, they tried pinholes on a backlit black piece of something, but that it didn't work out? But panes of glass could be a solution.
I suppose you could also set up a series of panes of glass covered in tiny dots, and fly the camera toward them, giving a depth effect?
I suppose you could also set up a series of panes of glass covered in tiny dots, and fly the camera toward them, giving a depth effect?
Exactly, what I had in mind. Like a motion controlled rig, and then shoot them one at a time, could also work I suppose.
I remember reading about he ANH starfield somewhere. This was a while back so I can't vouch for the accuracy:
The crew made one big starfield that they used for everything. (With the space scenes being all composite work, the backdrop didn't need to be scaled for 1:24 like the ship models.) They used a huge piece of black velvet, backlit, and poked full of holes in varying sizes. I recall somebody mentioning that it was very tedious work and it's surprisingly hard to keep the coverage of "stars" looking even & random. Several people made it over the course of multiple smaller work sessions.
robn1
Master Member
I read it was a piece of heavy foil painted black with holes poked in it, which makes sense because light would show through velvet.
There were many different techniques for star fields in different films and shows, some were back lit some were painted. Zooming through the stars, like seen in Star Trek, was done by moving the camera toward or away from the stars. Multiple zoom passes were superimposed together to make the multi-plane effect.
Beat me to it. Also, there's this great Cinefex blog about stars in the analog days: http://cinefex.com/blog/outer-space/
SB
Just to throw in my two cents, I read from an article ages ago on some long-lost ANH set/props/models as dictated by some former ILM'ers, as far as the starfields in ANH were concerned, they used only one backdrop and it was a rather large (if I recall, it was the size of a wall), round, slightly curved/almost hemispherical, sheet of acrylic or plexiglass that was painted black and with tiny holes scraped off from the paint and back-lit. It was back-lit and curved so when the camera would move in on it, the stars had a parallax effect and would create a a sense of distance between each streak when they did the long exposures needed for the hyperspace jump.
Unfortunately, it was scrapped along with a bunch of stuff they couldn't bring with them when they moved out of the shop in Van Nuys. It was later replaced by methods you guys already mentioned for ESB and RotJ, I believe.
Last edited:
SteveStarkiller
Sr Member
you guys are awesome. This is been a subject I've wanted to get into for a while, but felt shy starting a dedicated thread about it. Looks like I should have just gone for it.
- - - Updated - - -
yeah, yep yes, that totally makes sense. I guess I was focused on some in camera trick, but if you're already doing composites, why not just zoom in on different orientations of stars, and composite them at a staggered rate.
- - - Updated - - -
yeah, yep yes, that totally makes sense. I guess I was focused on some in camera trick, but if you're already doing composites, why not just zoom in on different orientations of stars, and composite them at a staggered rate.
robn1
Master Member
It could be done in camera or as a composite on the printer, depending on what was needed.
Until Bluescreen 1980 was posted, this was probably the best description of the process....and is still pretty darn good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWNYh9vfvgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWNYh9vfvgQ
Thanks for posting this. Great video!
I didn't start learning compositing until a couple years ago, so all I know is digital. This was very cool to see.
I didn't start learning compositing until a couple years ago, so all I know is digital. This was very cool to see.
robn1
Master Member
I read anything I could get my hands on about this stuff back in the day. Most of it was so simplified that it was useless, making it sound more like magic than a technical process.
Here is a page from Cinefantastique with an interview with Denis Muren, trying to not be too simple.
Here is Cinemagic magazine with John Dykstra getting a little more detailed, page 32.
https://archive.org/details/CineMagic033
If you really want something aimed at pros, here is the American Cinematographer Manual, bluescreen article on page 430.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3...ZWVlLWFhMjctYzQxOTE1NjAyMjBk/view?usp=sharing
Here is a page from Cinefantastique with an interview with Denis Muren, trying to not be too simple.
Here is Cinemagic magazine with John Dykstra getting a little more detailed, page 32.
https://archive.org/details/CineMagic033
If you really want something aimed at pros, here is the American Cinematographer Manual, bluescreen article on page 430.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3...ZWVlLWFhMjctYzQxOTE1NjAyMjBk/view?usp=sharing
Similar threads
