• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

SFX ideas?

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

Okay, so the effect I want should be relatively simple, but at the moment, I can't think of how to get it done.

I want a character (many, actually) to be ghost-like. Semi-transparent is easy enough. But that's too simple. I was thinking it would look way more cool if they had a shadow trailing them. Except, it's not an actual shadow, but as if wind was keeping a bit of them behind, almost like the trail on a comet -- little chunks blowing in the wind, every time he/she moves. Hmm, on second thought, this could require some serious CGI.

So, maybe that's not the exact aesthetic. I just need them to be ghostly, but not overly cheesy. They exist in another plane, walking amongst all of us, but invisible to us.

Any ideas?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Just about to go out, but… if you combined the usual semi-transparent ghost trick with a particle generator, you could do the chunks blowing in the wind fairly simply. It'd probably require a fair bit of rotoscoping (to keep the particles from flowing in front of foreground objects, for example), but using it really subtly could look fantastic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
Just about to go out, but… if you combined the usual semi-transparent ghost trick with a particle generator, you could do the chunks blowing in the wind fairly simply. It'd probably require a fair bit of rotoscoping (to keep the particles from flowing in front of foreground objects, for example), but using it really subtly could look fantastic.
Click to expand...

Hmm, cool. I'm a novice, to be frank, with AE. But I have a lot of patience. This sounds like something I could do. I'll definitely give it a try. Thanks!

All other ideas still being entertained, of course.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Semi-transparent is easy enough. But that's too simple. I was thinking it would look way more cool if they had a shadow trailing them. Except, it's not an actual shadow, but as if wind was keeping a bit of them behind
Click to expand...

You could do two semi-transparent layers and "stagger" one of them. Use Blur on the slow layer to get rid of the fine edges, or even break that second layer up. You can also change the exposure or lighting on that second layer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
...or for that trailing effect you can stack the same video track but stagger track 2, say, -1 or -2 frames and track 3 -3 or -4 frames adjusting the opacity on all 3 to taste.

Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I need to do something similar:

I need aetheric robots fighting in the atmosphere above Earth. I'll use NASA pics for the backdrop. The robots represent memes in the information war that's being fought around us.

You could do some subtle + original audio, to cue the listener that something paranormal is going on...

I'll keep watching this thread...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
If they aren't supposed to be ghosts but stuck on the astral plane, I don't think you need to have an effect at all. You can sell it by having everyone else act as though they can't see them. They did it in Star Trek all the time. Same with that one Sliders episode.

To sell it more you can do a straight composite, no transparency and then have the characters walk through tables and stuff. Or stick their arm through a wall, that kind of stuff.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
First, never underestimate baby powder, a gren screen and opacity settings.

I don't totally get the CGI stuff though.
Would it be something like Wolverine desintegrating in XMen: The Final Stand?
Like if they were made of sand?

It could be done, and it's not THAT hard. Though it would need quite a bit of modelling to aproach you actors shape.

I don't promise anything, but let me try to get something similar.
I'm not that good, but I have a couple of ideas.

UPDATE: Well, shit. I tried but what I had in mind did not work. I'll see if I can find a way around it, cause modelling a whole body would be a pain if you have that many ghosts!

Still, as a famous poet once said, Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for the ideas, everybody. Scoopic and CamVader. That also sounds like a very workable idea. I'll be sure to do that in the test-footage.

Dready, they're not literally ghosts, but pretty darn close to it. Actually, I'm about to email you the full idea (I'd be glad to email anyone else, if you're curious -- I just can't share it on a public page).

Sully, this is for a feature-length movie, and presumably, I'd be doing the FX work myself, so I'm afraid full-blown CGI is out of the question. Thank you, though.

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, the more I think about it, the more I think Dready is right. For a strictly aesthetic reason, I thought it would be really cool to have some transparency/trailer effects. But from a strictly narrative perspective, as Dready points out, it's not needed.

Originally, I was hoping I could shoot the transparent actors at the same time as the non-transparent actors. This would of course require rotoscoping. But then I started doing the hard math, and I think rotoscoping my two lead characters, for a feature film, for the ENTIRE movie, would be 7 or 8 months of FULL TIME work, at a minimum, and that's if I work FAST. I'm going to go ahead and call rotoscoping out of the question for this project.

So then, I started thinking green-screening. My hesitance to do this is twofold.

First, I really prefer to have all of my characters interacting with each other, in real time. I know it's done all the time in Hollywood, but I really don't like the idea of having my actors pretend they are looking at something that's not actually there. Mainly, I'm thinking from a timing perspective, it's going to be really difficult to pull off at the low-budget indie level. Secondly, greenscreening could become really messy whenever I want to move the camera, and I llike to move the camera. So, I'm going to go ahead and rule green-screening out of the question for this project (at least for the entire duration of the movie).

I think instead what I'll do is use the "Star Trek" method that Dready mentioned, combined with an occasional brief effect shot, similar to the TV show "Dead Like Me" (actually, I guess I can say this, cuz it's not revealing too much -- my lead characters are grim reapers, or Death).

I think I'll mostly use the "disintegrate" effect shown in a Video Copilot tutorial.

Thanks again for the ideas, everybody!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wha about setting the camera on a tripod.
Get a clean plate for the take.
Shoot the scene normally, but having the second actor on a foldable greenscreen.

Layer clean plate.
Ghost.
Masked take.

Bonus, the ghost doesn't cast shadows.

Anyways, I don't know if that would work, since it ges f'd up with camera movments.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jake has the right idea.. green screen in the actual setting works better. And you know what, these days the software kicks butt so its easy to pull key..

Shot the non ghost scene. Lock down the camera when the ghost are supposed to be there..
dont move the cam.
Move the furniture around so the ghost can walk THROUGH where the furniture was in the first shot (if you want that.. )
Shoot each ghost character walking around while someone holds a green screen backdrop behind them. Setup to avoid the feet ( there not in the green screen)
Key the ghosts
Add special effects to the ghost, since there is no background to worry about you can do all kinds of cool stuff, animated directional blur, use particle system to blow off of them.. etc..
Composite to your hearts content..

The key is having good assets to start with, then your not limited.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Right. That is exactly how I would (will) green screen. However, there's no way in heck I'm going to shoot a feature film without moving the camera. I love moving the camera. And that would be very tricky. Too tricky for me, to be honest.

So, most of the time, they will be perfectly solid, and shot at the same time as all the alive people. Then, for the occasional SFX shot, I use the method you two describe.

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sure. If you shoot in 1080p but your final product is 720p, then you're either cropping the extra pixels off or shrinking the original larger video to the right size.

Say you shoot a scene in 1920x1080, then composite all your effects in so it's a solid "finished" shot. Then take that shot into your 1280x720, zoom in to the left side of it so that the pixels are full size (cropping out the rest of the frame) then move it to the right of the shot... If that makes sense?

You can also start the shot scaled down, then scale it to 100% to fake a push. Since you're releasing in a lower resolution you don't blur the shot when scaling it up. One pixel is still one pixel max, instead of being blown up to cover 4 or 9 pixels or something.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh, I thought you were offering another way to add an effect. But you're just talking about faking camera "movement" in post. Got it. Yeah, I'll be honest, I'm not particularly fond of that method. I've done it before, subtly, but it's more of a last-resort for me. I wouldn't ever actually plan it that way in pre-production. Thanks anyway for mentinoing it, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top