SPB Research Presentation & Notes
Dec, 11 2009 | School Work,Visual Effects | Michael | No comments
I had the presentation in Studio Practice & Business this Wednesday. As I don’t particularly enjoy being the centre of attention, holding presentations isn’t exactly a favourite of mine, though I believe it went reasonably well.
You can download the presentation as a QuickTime file or as a PDF below.
While researching, I came across more information than what I could fit in the presentation itself. If you’re particularly interested, I’ve posted some notes here.
- Vfx shots in Jurassic Park in 1993: 60. Jurassic Park The Lost World in 1997: 78. Fellowship of the Ring in 2001: 650 Normal vfx shot count in 2005: 1000ish. Today (2009): over 2000.
- not a very good business model. tiny profit margins and high overhead
- more about the love for the craft than the money – paying artists and affording to keep upgrading equipment
- needs to be constantly on the alert – always have the facility ready – expensive
- needs to keep staff and hardware between projects
- might burn profits from 3 projects in a row in 6 months, waiting for the next big job
- many have gone bankrupt when the investors wanted their money back
- “Anybody who is connected into putting their money into a visual effects company as an investment will always lose it” – Kevin Tod Haug, Visual Effects Supervisor
- constant struggle, finding and keeping talent.
- often spends time and money training people only to see them leave for another company
- artists are getting bored between big jobs, even though they are still payed
- keeps a core group at the facility. hires the rest as freelancers or from other facilities as needed
- “We have people that we work with often and as much as possible; but between projects, it there’s not much work going on, we let people go” – Gray Marshall, Visual Effects Supervisor
- keeping the pipeline full at all times is the most important thing for a facility
- most big films come out in the spring/summer. therefore most work in the months leading up to that. not enough big features coming out the rest of the year, making it difficult to keep the pipeline full
- need to be diverse, work in other fields than just film and TV (design, ads, live action effects, miniatures, sets, props, makeup, etc.). Larger facilities might start production companies where they can create their own content without having to deal with studios
- important to maintain relationships with directors and producers
- many companies prefers to be under or round 100 employees by choice
- don’t want to change their working dynamic
- smaller companies have to make sure they don’t take on too big projects
- will be gone from the rest of the market for maybe a year, making everyone else forget you, and if the project goes badly, it often ends badly for the company
- companies tended to be either large or small – very few medium sized ones as they couldn’t compete with the bigger companies on price and speed and were generally to big to take on work smaller companies usually did - better now
- small startups might do very well
- advantages: can adopt new software/hardware quicker because of less complex pipelines, offer more hands-on interaction (more personal contact), cheaper
- disadvantages: everyone doing everything – might end in poorer management, usually don’t have the power required for heavy stuff such as volumetric rendering, sss, and global illumination – might already have changed though, due to advances in technology, often don’t have the resources to develop software if needed, don’t have the same amount of experience, not the same security) will they deliver on time?), big company names might actually help selling the film to the public
- up to 2005 and maybe still(?) it was a trend that one production got split between different vfx facilities
- many productions got too big for one company
- the studio might have an unrealistic idea of the amount of vfx shots they need. a film that was supposed to have 25 shots might end up with 300 in extreme cases.
- “So you start to rely upon specialists who can do certain kinds of things for you” – Kevin Tod Haug, Visual Effects Supervisor
- budget – maybe the studio can’t afford to have all shots done at a bigger, more expensive facility
- in earlier times facilities prided themselves on proprietary software/hardware. Because work is more split up between a lot of facilities, the studios has to be a lot more compatible than they used to.
- “More and more , we’re looking to form collaborations with other companies that have different specialities… The producer gets the very best assembly of companies for his project, and we get to work on larger visual effects pictures that might not have been interested in us before” – Craig Barron, Visual Effects Superviser
- future: companies that manage smaller facilities and thus making things easier for the studios
- “I firmly believe that all the bigger companies will mutate into brokers in the future. The big facilities of the future won’t even be facilities. They will be people with Macs or PCs at home, a loose affiliation of people that you cal a company” – Jeffrey A. Okun, Visual Effects Supervisor
- vfx industry locations: Canada, Engalnd, New Zealand, Australia, France, US
