The success of the film Gravity at the recent BAFTAs and Oscars for its special effects was seen as a triumph for the British Film Industry and those of you who have seen the film will no doubt concur that the that the visual effects were indeed amazing. Although we are now all getting quite blasé about seeing special effects in films, there was no doubt that the seamless visuals in Gravity were something special and the technical achievements of the company Framestore deserve all the plaudits they have been receiving.
Having thoroughly enjoyed the film, I nonetheless came away thinking ‘How did they do that?’ and ‘I wonder what was computer-generated and what was real?’ It was in the subsequent weeks that I read with interest about some of the details behind the visual effects and the tricks of the trade to make those scenes in space so believable and ‘real’. It turned out that, in fact, the vast majority of the film was actually made within a computer and just about the only real things in the film were the actors’ faces! I was amazed to learn that even the helmet and spacesuit worn by Sandra Bullock were computer-generated (though why this was necessary was not clear). So, although it was impressive to read about the technical expertise of the special effects wizards, it was also only by delving into the background that the reality of what we saw on screen became apparent. Some may say that it’s of no consequence how something is done and all that matters is the end result. In the case of films, I could go along with this position because cinema is, after all, an essentially escapist medium and who wants to know all the secrets anyway? However, in our daily working environment of technology and engineering, I think it certainly pays to go that little bit deeper and to question things to find out what really may lie behind an impressive front.
I was reminded of this recently when I was in a dialogue with a prospective client who wanted a particular micro machined end product. Over the course of a couple of weeks, this person divulged (drip-fed) certain bits of information and it became slowly evident that what was required was extremely challenging, to the say the least, if not downright unachievable. Then, finally, I was shown a picture of a desired result which, I was told, had been directly produced using a laser. This is where my feeling from Gravity surfaced again: ‘how did they do that’ indeed. I was very impressed with the result while at the same time being slightly sceptical that such a stupendous part could be produced as claimed. When I said as much to the enquirer and told them that I didn’t think that we could match that result, it came out that the part had not actually been machined just with a laser but had also been post-treated in a variety of processes after laser machining. This cast a completely different light on our discussion and I was then able to guide the dialogue along a far more practical — and realistically achievable — line.
This episode highlighted something which is worthwhile to remember, especially in our fast- moving fields of high-tech manufacturing: understanding the basics of a technology, even appreciating a tiny amount of it, can be highly rewarding, not simply for its own sake but for getting the best out of any interaction. A little knowledge is said to be a dangerous thing and this might be true if you want to take up brain surgery. However, when discussing manufacturing issues, appreciation of a process or knowing its limitations can pay great dividends if it helps in spotting something which is not quite right. Sandra Bullock’s spacesuit may not be the only thing which is not real.