October 8th, 2015

Designer of holograms – interview with Anna Fraser

The last decade has seen a surge of interest in exploring holographic interfaces in major sci-fi movie productions. Anna Fraser is at the forefront of this wave, and you can see her work in “Ironman 3”, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Insurgent”. In this interview she talks about what goes into creating holographic interfaces, from the initial exploration to subsequent collaboration with multiple departments, working within the post-production constraints of existing actor movements and eye-lines, her love of a strong grid and minimalistic, retro-futuristic interfaces, how people see and perceive color, and how the screen graphics work fits into the much larger flow of story-telling on the big screen. In the last part of the interview Anna talks about the evolution of technology on-screen as well as in real life, advances in virtual reality hardware and software, their possible implications on the fabric of our social interactions, and how, despite all the changes in the world of digital tools, the art of story-telling transcends technology boundaries.

Kirill: Please tell us about yourself and your professional path so far.

Anna: My name is Anna Fraser and I live in Sydney, Australia, which is a long way away from America where these things are made.

If we’re talking about screen graphics and holograms, I ended up doing them kind of by accident. I originally studied visual arts, and I had a child when I was quite young. I was making art and having small exhibitions of bronze-cast sculptures and other things, but I couldn’t make any money. I had always liked movies so I decided to become a director [laughs]. Somehow I thought it was going to make me money; I’m not sure what I was thinking.

I went back to university and I did a communications degree in film, media and writing. A sort of a broad postgraduate, and then I started making short films. I then went to the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, which is one of Australia’s best film school. Everybody knew that once you got into the Film School, they would give you money to make films. You also didn’t have to pay money to go there, so I thought it was a great idea. I wanted to do directing, and that was hard to get into.  It was very competitive, so the back door into it was to do another subject. I did digital media back then, around 2000, when it was starting to take off. I studied titles design, because I always loved graphics and text, and I was working doing part-time jobs in outdoor advertising and billboard art, which was very boring but functional in earning money. I still thought that I’d earn money being a director. I made some short films and they all had titles and graphics in them but they weren’t straight visual effects and they weren’t straight live action, but rather a combination of live action and titles.

I kept making short films and when I graduated I started working as a motion graphic designer as a day job. I thought it would be my day job and I would continue to make films.

Kirill: And that was around time when computers got reasonably powerful and cheap to be able to afford having them as your own personal tool.

Anna: The first films that I’ve made were made on 16mm or 35mm film, but by then you could buy reasonable cameras that weren’t too expensive. I also had a lot of friends that were in the film industry, and you could always beg or borrow some ridiculous gear that you couldn’t afford.

Kirill: Back then you didn’t have the variety of digital cameras and tools available these days. It must have been more expensive to be an indie filmmaker 10-15 years ago.

Anna: I was working as a motion graphics designer and trying to make films and also being a parent. It was very expensive. You could often get good deals, but I spent an awful lot of money on films, which is silly really. Something had to give. So I decided, and I found it quite hard at the time, to not be a Director anymore, and just be a Designer. The Designer road is a hard enough in itself, and since I didn’t come from a traditional design background, I did a lot of learning on the job. I had all the formal qualifications of creating ideas and images, balance, shape, form etc. but it took me quite a while to understand the communication aspect of design. I made a lot of mistakes [laughs].

Kirill: Lucky for you there’s a lot of people on the production around you.

Anna: At that stage I was working in television, print and advertising, and I made quite big mistakes but I had good friends who, in one instance, did work out jobs for me and literally saved me. But I learned from them, and I learned from all the people around me.

I started doing a lot of freelance work for a company called Fuel VFX in Sydney. I worked for them on and off for quite a long time and I was getting better at being a Designer. I love film and the storytelling side of it, and fortunately for me Fuel was working on VFX [visual effects] and design for films.   I mostly worked with Paul Butterworth who was one of the Founders & Directors at Fuel. He comes from a solid art and film training background as well and I found that it was good to work with him.  I still work with him on all my film projects; he’s my main VFX supervisor and my main team member that I work with or for.

Read the rest of this entry »

September 28th, 2015

Tech reporting

Two types of tech reporting / analysis out there.

The intellectually honest, hard working one where you look at publicly announced products (and maybe vaguely hinted future plans) and invest effort to make intelligent, thoughtful, researched predictions of how the different players in different interrelated markets will evolve in the next couple of years.

And then there’s “building your reputation” on top of some anonymous source inside the company that feeds you the actual plans and blueprints. The lazy kind where you’re just the conduit of plans and upcoming product announcements, always at the mercy of that source being continuously employed in that position of “close knowledge”. The kind that is disguised as “original content”, and is anything but.

Guess which one is more respectable even if you might make a mistake or two down the road. Play the long game.

August 24th, 2015

The art and craft of production design – interview with Adriana Serrano

Continuing the ongoing series of interviews with creative artists working on various aspects of movie and TV productions, it gives me great pleasure to welcome Adriana Serrano. Her work spans the worlds of feature film, television, theater, commercials, music videos and short film, and in the last few years she worked as the production designer on “Arcadia”, “August”, “California Winter” and “Afternoon Delight”. In this interview Adriana talks about splitting her time between her various projects, the smaller scale of independent feature film productions, approaching the script and translating it into environments that live and breath around the cast, the changes we’re seeing in how storytellers bring their worlds to large and small screens around us and how the world of indie films is evolving in the last few years, and a deeper dive into the particulars of “Afternoon Delight”.


Kirill: Please tell us about yourself and how you got into the industry.

Adriana: My name is Adriana Serrano and I’m from Colombia. Originally I’ve studied fine arts in Bogota and in 2000 I’ve moved to New York. I was very interested in installation art and drawing and at that moment I was looking to learn something else, but I didn’t know what it was. I didn’t think it was film, it just didn’t occur to me, i was looking at the time to learn a technical skill. And then I saw a sign in La Mama Theater that a theater designer named Watoko Ueno was looking for interns, I met him and started working with him. I thought that set design was very similar in a lot of aspects to what I was doing in my installation work – working with the space and the colors and the space. I was fascinated with the stage

I decided to study set design, did a lot of theater in NY and then I transitioned to film design. My first short movie was in New York in 2003, a film thesis for Columbia University, and then I went back to Colombia, got offered a job teaching and started working on episodic TV. I learned a lot from my experience on television, and since then I’ve just been working on movies. I did move again in 2009 to Los Angeles where i continued working as a production designer.

Kirill: And it’s not only movies, as your work spans music videos, theater and commercials.

Adriana: I do enjoy designing anything that works with a 3d space. I like the challenge, and It’s very different working on a feature than working on a music video than working on a commercial, they have different needs. I would like to do other things as well outside of the film world. I think that production design is working with the space, working with the concept and working with a team of people. There’s plenty of things that I would like to do like concert design, events, and anything that involves creating an experience for an audience.


Phychiatrist’s office set, courtesy of Adriana Serrano.

Kirill: When do you usually start the production cycle of a feature film?

Adriana: Production designers are one of the key elements and are hired early on. Everything happens very fast. I get a call for an interview, I have to read the script and I have usually two or three days to prep for the interview. I meet the director and the producer, and pitch them my vision of the story. When I go into a job interview and i have to sell a world that is not visual yet and invisible, a world that only exists yet on paper.

In most cases the director has been working on that idea for a long time even years if he or she is the writer. That first encounter is always interesting to me. The perception of the script changes so much after meeting the director, feeling the direction that the story can take.

Kirill: Are you expected to bring some sketches?

Adriana: I don’t think necessarily I am expected to bring any, but I usually bring visual research and references that inspire me. It might be a color palette, photos, art work, references for the characters. Its easier for me to establish a conversation based of some references, I believe an image can explain so much than words can.

Kirill: How do you know that clicks?

Adriana: [laughs] It’s really strange. My background is very conceptual and for me production design it’s much more than aesthetics, it’s a key element part of the storytelling. Sometimes the connection is unbelievable. I would start showing photos and they’d say that this was exactly what they had in their head. And sometimes they’d say that they didn’t think about that and it may be interesting. And sometimes you think that the connection is great and then nothing happens. Or simply the language its different and there is not much in common. Very much like chemistry in a relationship.

It’s always different and it also depends on many different factors. Getting a production designer hired is like casting an actor, i think. Sometimes they think it’s a good fit based on the personality, or the story, or the other movies they have done. And sometimes we talk about other things like life in general or other movies.


Kids’ bedroom, courtesy of Adriana Serrano.

Read the rest of this entry »

August 4th, 2015

Off by a pixel

About a month ago I was tagged by Ron Amadeo who spotted an off-by-a-pixel misalignment in some of the content rows in the Play Store app. This is the story of that extra pixel – as illustrated above with zoomed in portion in the inset showing that the last card in the row is by one pixel taller than the other two cards.

We start with a Nexus 6 device (which showed this problem). The screen is 1440px wide and we have margins of 28px on each side. This leaves us with 1384px horizontal space for the three cards. This is where things get interesting:

Dividing 1384 by 3 gives us 461px for each card with one pixel remaining. Where should that pixel go?

In the previous implementation of the layout the custom onMeasure pass iterated over all child views in the row keeping track of the horizontal space already “given” to the previous children. Starting with the first child, it gave it 1384/3=461px, leaving us with 923 pixels. The second child got 923/2=461px, leaving us with 462 pixels. And those pixels are given to the last child. All is nice and good since we’ve used all the horizontal space available to the card content.

However, we’re operating in a two-dimensional space and each card type is responsible for determining its height based on how much horizontal space is available to it. As we operate in a continuum of screen sizes and screen densities, the grid spec starts from the edges of the screen and proceeds inwards. That means that instead of predefining hard-coded sizes for cards, it instead defines the margins and the maximum width of the content area and that, in turn, defines the width of individual cards within that content area – as illustrated above.

Once the card width is determined, each card proceeds to determine how much height it needs. Cards in this cluster lay out their content as a vertical “stack”. It starts with the cover image and then proceeds downwards to item title, subtitle, price and other textual elements that can be displayed in the card. The height of the cover image is determined based on the available width and the aspect ratio of the image itself:

And this is how we’ve ended up with the last card being by one pixel taller than the other two – that extra horizontal pixel bubbled through the measure pass of the card itself, respecting the aspect ratio of the cover art and maintaining the edge-to-edge layout of the cover image.

After considering possible options, the layout logic in a card row has been revised to use constant card width, in this case 1384/3=461px:

This means that on some devices the right margin is going to be by one (or two on larger screens) pixel wider than the left one. What are other alternatives?

We can keep the current logic that makes the trailing card(s) by one pixel wider than the leading ones. In our case, the trailing card is 462px wide as compared to 461px wide. Then tweak the measure logic within individual cards to account for this off-by-a-pixel difference to enforce consistent height of all cards in the row. What are we going to do? If all the cards are 462px tall, then the first two need to account for an extra vertical pixel. It can go above the image, between the image and the texts or below the last line of texts. In all the cases that extra pixel will create keyline inconsistency within the row. And if the last card is 461px tall, we need to take that extra vertical pixel out of something. We can crop off the image or reduce the vertical space above, between or below the texts. In the first case we’re removing visual information from the cover image – and we don’t want to do that. In the rest of the cases we’re back to breaking the keylines.

Alternatively, we can push that extra pixel in between the cards. That would break the horizontal spacing rhythm of the entire grid instead of the vertical one.

To summarize, there is no magic solution here. In an ecosystem with a continuum of screen sizes and screen densities you cannot create pixel-perfect designs. You can always end up with an extra pixel or two to account for. There are multiple options to shuffle them around, each with its own consequences on what it breaks in the grid. In the absence of a solution that eliminates the visual disruption the next best thing is the solution that minimizes it. In this particular case the visual “barrier” (card content) between the left and the right side margin would be such a minimizer.