Edit Video Like in Star Wars ?

[SEJedi]

Years ago in the remaking of the Star Wars movies, the alien figures that was played by masked humans, were superimposed by CAD figures, with alien skin and whatnot. As much as I know, it was done by giving an input to the beginning frame of a sequence, and the software would remake the whole sequence.
Question [1]
I ask if anyone knows with which software and how to replace the whole figure in video. I know there is software for remaking whole sequences, I just don't know which is good enough.
Question [2]
Another thing would be to change the skin texture in, say, inch deep, then I could already change the actor into an alien. Naturally, also for whole sequences.
--- If there are any video-savvy persons out there, please, let me know.
NOTE I've tried several video forums, but got stupid replies like do each frame with photoshop. With a 30-min video it's almost 50,000 images. It seems some people don't realize the difference between still image and video editing.

[edDV]

The way Lucas does it is to model the characters in 3D with texture maps. Then these are composited into various backgrounds along with live charaters shot against green screen.

The the most used 3D object modeling/texture map software is Maya. Popular semi-pro character generation software is Poser. It is quite easy to use Poser to generate and animate realistic looking characters that can be composited into live video.

http://usa.autodesk.com/maya/
http://poser.smithmicro.com/poser.html

In order to remake the early Star Wars movies, Lucas went back to the original optical composite elements. There can be many layers to any one shot. If he desired to replace a green screen live character with a texture mapped animated 3D character, he just needed to replace that layer element in the composite.

Lucas recently announced he is going to revisit the early films for 3D conversion.
http://www.starwars.com/movies/episode-i/3dannouncedate/index.html
http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

[hech54]

NOTE I've tried several video forums, but got stupid replies like do each frame with photoshop. With a 30-min video it's almost 50,000 images. It seems some people don't realize the difference between still image and video editing.

Since Pixar's average is 6 hours PER FRAME during the rendering process....how stupid does Photoshop sound to you now?

[Constant Gardener]

Since Pixar's average is 6 hours PER FRAME during the rendering process....

I make that 88 years for a 90-minute flick...

[poisondeathray]

They use render farms

e.g
http://www.slashfilm.com/cool-stuff-a-look-at-pixar-and-lucasfilms-renderfarms/


I'd rather have Lucas release new material than spending time on the old classics. The Star Wars universe is well developed in books, comic books that could be the basis for screenplays

But apparently Lucas thinks the world is going to end in 2012 .

[AlanHK]

I'd rather have Lucas release new material than spending time on the old classics. The Star Wars universe is well developed in books, comic books that could be the basis for screenplays

But apparently Lucas thinks the world is going to end in 2012 .

"New material" to me would mean NOT Star Wars related at all.

He made one good movie in 1977 and has been exploiting it ever since.

[poisondeathray]

I'd rather have Lucas release new material than spending time on the old classics. The Star Wars universe is well developed in books, comic books that could be the basis for screenplays

But apparently Lucas thinks the world is going to end in 2012 .

"New material" to me would mean NOT Star Wars related at all.

He made one good movie in 1977 and has been exploiting it ever since.

Actually the good one was in 1980... and he didn't direct it

You probably haven't read the books or comics . It's actually a huge , well developed fleshed out world spanning many, many generations and timelines, with good character development. Some of the plots are excellent. There is huge untapped potential there

[Noahtuck]

since pixar's average is 6 hours per frame during the rendering process....

i make that 88 years for a 90-minute flick...

lmao!!

[El Heggunte]

Actually the good one was in 1980... and he didn't direct it

Hmmmm...

You probably haven't read the books or comics . It's actually a huge , well developed fleshed out world spanning many, many generations and timelines, with good character development. Some of the plots are excellent. There is huge untapped potential there

Hopefully you mean, Episodes -999, -998, -997, ... up to -1

And very seriously, "2ND Revenge of The Sith" has got to be their "non plus ultra"

[AlanHK]

You probably haven't read the books or comics . It's actually a huge , well developed fleshed out world spanning many, many generations and timelines, with good character development. Some of the plots are excellent. There is huge untapped potential there

Call me a snob, but I'm not interested in that kind of derivative stuff. Hack writers "fleshing out" ideas recycled from a movie that recycled them from 1930s serials that were in turn taken from earlier comic strips and pulp SF magazines.

There is plenty of good ORIGINAL SF that I don't have enough time to read.

The first Star Wars was great fun, but that's all. There wasn't one original story idea in it either, but it had relatable characters and looked pretty damn amazing when I saw it in 1977. It's all been downhill from there.

[lordsmurf]

Since Pixar's average is 6 hours PER FRAME during the rendering process....

I make that 88 years for a 90-minute flick...

I would bet 6 hours per frame is cumulative time among many developers.
It does take 2-5 years to create these flicks.

Source: That CNBC special on Pixar last year.

derivative stuff. Hack writers

Everything is a rip off of something earlier. Even the Bible is texts plagiarized from earlier ancient societies.
New takes make for good reading, viewing, listening.

[AlanHK]

derivative stuff. Hack writers

Everything is a rip off of something earlier. Even the Bible is texts plagiarized from earlier ancient societies.
New takes make for good reading, viewing, listening.

I could read a book by, say Gene Wolfe, Michael Moorcock, Neal Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson, Iain M Banks.
Or some hack writer's "new take" on a franchise.

Life is too short.

[yoda313]

So are zombie books and movies the only "new" material for this modern era by this defintion of new material?

[AlanHK]

So are zombie books and movies the only "new" material for this modern era by this defintion of new material?

I was referring specifically to books.

Books-of-the-film; books done to contract as part of a franchise = hack work in my biased opinion.

The films themselves are a different matter; there's much more to them than just words on a page. Though without the spark of a good script they're empty too (see Star Wars prequels, again).

Zombie movies though are hardly "new" in concept. They all borrow heavily from Romero's 1968 "Night of the Living Dead". But again, I wasn't talking about movies, but books.

[jagabo]

And the original Star Wars was just a remake of Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (Kakushi-toride no san-akunin).

[El Heggunte]

<OFF-TOPIC>

Everything is a rip off of something earlier. Even the Bible is texts plagiarized from earlier ancient societies.

However neither the Bible, nor the more-ancient stories on which it was based,
were regarded as "entertainment fiction" by the people of those epochs.

Fiction-writing as a business model, "intellectual property", and forcing a (non-existent) parallelism between the global history of mankind and the psychologic "development" of a "healthy and productive" Joe Average, this all is an ideologic framework which reached its "adulthood" between the centuries XVIII and XIX.

</OFF-TOPIC>