Rodney

Please do!

Hehe. I like it! Nicely done. I hope you downloaded that free 2000 BVH pack that truebones converted. They were initially released by Carnegie Mellon University and the new modifications streamline and simplify the BVH data which should make using them even easier. http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43273 For a moment I was going to start a new topic wherein I would begin to convert each of those BVH motions to Actions for use with A:M Characters but then I came to my senses. I figure we could have them all done in a few hundred years.

Ooo... very nice! Thanks for that!

I suspect there could have been several reasons for Bill Waterson's response, one of which is relates to what I'll label as 'protocol'. In protocol terms the reason many would not accept such a call is that it wasn't Steven Speilberg that made the call himself. Rightly or wrongly, when we get into highly successful operations where people have something of value to barter with or trade protocol, becomes a major factor in decision making and negotiation. At its most simple explanation, Bill could have just been answering the violation of the protocol required to enter into a negotiation. (I can almost imagine Bill calling a friend and saying, "Speilberg is interested' to up the anti at another corporation). The general rule that Bill seems to be following is that if you have something of value you don't just 'give' it away. And this relates to something I like to say regarding animation but life in general as well, "the importance of resistance cannot be overstated." My primary concern with this relates to the human condition. Bill Waterson will not live forever. Eventually some derivative C&H product will be made. It may not be through negotiation with Bill. It might not even be in full compliance with the wishes of his estate. The fact is that Bill himself, who should be the one to decide what form those derivatives might take, will not be there to add his considerable 2 cents into the negotiation. I am not concerned with this BTW, just acknowledging it. Bill is a smart guy and I am quite sure he has considered his fate. I once was let go from a job wherein the owners died and left their store to their children. The children (apparently) squandered their money away. The store was sold to the competition for a ridiciously low price and the competition closed everything. This silliness pointed me toward employment at the opposite end of the stability spectrum... the military. As the movie asks, "If you could change your fate. Would you?" To which I might answer, "Whoops", "Sorry" and "Too late." Back to the topic a little... (and my ever present harping on the emphasis of character) Calvin and Hobbes is an excellent example of leading stories with character. There are an infinite number of stories that can be told with these characters but note that the monetary value of C&H is not in the stories themselves but is vested fully in those characters.

Nice update Dan! It's great to see you at it again. I'm still absorbing the news of not seeing 'the real Dan' but I'm optimistic that it will work well for you. I can see how the move will streamline the workflow. Hopefully it'll be okay if, at least for a moment, I miss the real Dan... I'm looking forward to the adventures of the new real Dan! Added: One thing I want to suggest is to keep videotaping yourself even though you won't be using that video in the final product. You'll gain a lot from acting your part out and then referring back to that video as you animate your virtual self.

But that is rather the point. I DON'T know better! So I stick my head out a little and see what I can see... and while I will be forever apologetic to those who might follow after me... at least others may learn from the experience. I see no issue there. My primary issue with using arbitrary numbers though is that they are in fact arbitrary and as such they are prone to iterative inflation. As an example consider the store where things are sold at an average 50-60% discount rate... and yet they still make a really good profit at that rate. 'Buy one get one free', 'five for the price of one', smaller and smaller content in larger packages, etc., we've gone past the point of being ridiculous. One must take care not to mind game the system at the expense of the system itself or they risk losing everything. Perhaps it's just my perception but honest weights and measures seem to be a particular rarity these days. Transparency is given lip service and means "Everyone else is transparent but me." Dishonesty makes a mockery of it all and forces new and stricter laws into place to ensure fairness is maintained. Because there is such deeply resounding conflict at the core of it all it can't help but produce stories of woe and of waste. And then when one looks at the content/product itself... yikes... "For that... How much did we pay?" This is something of a broad stroke but I hope others can relate. If it is critical to stick to a budget and yet no one has a good grasp on how to create and maintain that budget that presents a risk that isn't going to be worth a long term investment. Perhaps this directly relates to why we don't see a lot of long term investment these days? Are budgets totally passe?

Simon, I'm enjoying this exploration! I believe there are some great misunderstandings with regard to many of the bite sized advisories we often share with one another so I want to comment on that a little. This doesn't mean those catch phrases aren't useful but words of such brevity can lead to interpretations that weren't there in the original context where those words were being formed. "Show don't tell", is a good example of this in that if we grab hold of the phrase and mentally transform it into "Show, never tell." we'll be (unknowingly) heading down a different road. In my estimation such a misinterpretation will also plot a course to a place we don't wanna go: bad storytelling. Your thoughts on exposition hit a strong chord with me. That reverberation is intensified when I consider that, in almost every production, every single word is considered... and purposefully crafted (and people get paid big bucks for writing the words!). This last part is a factor in why we see so much dialogue... if people are getting paid to write words then the expectation is that there should be a lot of words. Where these paths diverge is in understanding how a good story has layers of 'dialogue', much of the most powerful dialogue being... non-verbal. Herein lie the danger though in that we don't want to neglect dialogue. It also has a purpose in moving the story along. This is the realm of opposing forces that animators have the inside track on. Like animation itself, dialogue is subject to motivated forces. A character may think for a second about going one way before choosing another. They may exaggerate to prove a point. They may NOT tell the truth. Something drives the internal and external dialogue in all of us. Our inner motives are often betrayed by our outward display of emotions. There are deep veins of rich ore that can be molded into a good story that is then spun into apparels of the finest gold. Or they can be recklessly cast out into the drought and left forgotten and unknown. There are a couple of popular sayings about writing that mirror each other; "Write what you see" and "Write what you know". These are certainly compatible. To write what we know implies that we have an intimate relationship with the subject under consideration, whereas when writing what we see we can only guess at what we do not yet know. External dialogue is extremely important as will reveal (or mask) the inner motivations that prompt each character to act out their part in the story. Something not discussed here but essential when considering dialogue is Sound. To neglect good dialogue would be to miss the opportunity to fully engage the audience. We would all do well to study "Calvin and Hobbs". That is an excellent example of effectively using visuals with dialogue. Does the fact that we haven't seen a Calvin and Hobbs movie yet suggest that translating it into moving images might be really hard? (Note: I have seen rumors of a movie being in production)

I experimented a little with John's previous project file but didn't produce anything worth sharing. A similar take here might be to 'disappear' the vase entirely leaving only the sense of environmental air and I expect to get that done there would need to be some thickness to the vase. As always, thanks for these tinkerings John. They are inspiring. You have a real talent for it. Here is the only frame from my test that I thought was worth keeping.

I've always preferred the term cartoonist myself... Off to a good start!

Since I percieve that wisdom is flowing I will assume that I am learning. Again, you raise some nice points. I believe it is that very art of best guessing that this topic attempts to approach. Interesting you should say that. In the military I often bemoaned the practice of 'doing more with less'... especially where it came to manpower I learned to really hate that stuff. With respect to manpower it seemed to me that a perfect budgeting of manpower would re-equate 1 to 1.5 (I'm interested in that additional .15 padding that you've added in because while I can guess, I don't know particularly where that figure comes from. Perhaps you are rounding down? If you'd have said 1.66 percent I would have instantly exclaimed, "AHA! I got it." (If this is really confusing think in terms of thirds where the set becomes (0, .33. .66 and 1) Thanks fo giving me more food for thought.

(Just returned from the Library were I grabbed a few books on writing... nothing particularly focused on story or storytelling... but all cross pollinate in some way. One book that caught my eye was 'The Hidden Art of Hollywood' not so much for the title but for some of the short stories contained therein. Those stories are related as factual as observed by witnesses from that time period. A name that interested me is that of Ernst Lubitsch and I hope to read a bit more about him.* I don't know much about him but folks in the biz sure knew him. He's said to have been inspired by Charlie Chaplin and was renown for his ability to construct a sequence. Here is a short story within a story that relates some of Lubitsch's approach to establishing a sequence for two characters in conflict: I recall similar stories being told of Walt Disney, also an avid Charlie Chaplin fan, who was able to describe and act out sequences instinctively and with a flair of pantomime. This is something I hope to consider more in my consideration of story. This is the realm of character acting, the place where we 'show don't tell' and 'don't state the action in the dialogue'. The audience will get to know the characters better and they won't even know 'the story' was ever there. They'll simply connect with the characters and be entertained. So the point to this post... assuming there is one... "Show don't tell!" How can we show our story if we don't approach it through visual characterization? *Lubitsch favorite subject matters are of less interest to me than is his approach to simplicity. He was simply selling sequences. He was particularly a master of implying activity occurring off screen.

Very interesting. I like the points you've raised and I will set to pondering them. This was my first inclination as well but mostly because I personally feel to be considerably weaker in modeling and rigging than in the concept department. It seems reasonable that it would be good to find ways to rid budgets of such personal biases. I'll note that another element relative to your ratio breakdown may be that you may be able to get more Product Hours Per Bazooza (PHPB) in the Concept stage because those folks may be willing to work for considerably fewer bazoozas and longer hours while the smaller pool of technically savvy and more scarcely distributed Riggers and Modelers work just as hard but on fewer assets. Not sure about that but... could happen. Added: What that last paragraph suggests is that although the breakdown is budget is actually 2:4:4, the work generated by the Concept Deptartment can still rise to equate to a similar level of work accomplished in Rigging and Modeling. So through innovation, work ethic, really-mean-boss, etc., in effect they all trend back toward a 1:1:1 ratio. And if they don't trend in the right direction... perceptions of the day overrule... and someone may get fired. Hmmm. Gonna hafta give that one some more thought.

Nice blog link David. I'm liking it. The one thing that I grabbed out of what I just skimmed through: Jim Butcher says: and some text from the referred to location: and Regarding the second link I see there something that I recall being linked here in the forum before. Namely, 'The Thirty-six Dramatic Situations' by Georges Polti. I've always wanted to read that but as of yet have only skimmed over it. They are indeed. Thanks. Added: Perhaps a bit off topic but here's an article on the Wordplay site by Terry Rossio that tells us why we shouldn't write scripts for animation (with the expectation they'll get put on screen by the big animation companies): http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp22.Ink.and.Paint.html

The last two I've heard of before but the first is new to me. Sadly, none of those three are in my library. Speaking of Libraries, I need to visit my local one! They often have these kind of books for check out. It's books on animation that they tend to lack. Simon, Hope they get that fixed soon!

I like the way you put that! I suppose I am thinking in terms of those things that will be common to all productions and asking questions regarding what porportions might be allocated. I can google it but I'm more interested in opinions as those will give us a good idea of the ground we are operating on. As another 'for instance', I don't think most of us would suggest that preproduction, production and post production will all receive the same/equal budget BUT... I may be wrong in this. I can guess at what might be optimal and hope that everyone would go easy on me for inevitably presuming so much. Given your first statement, which again I like a lot, I would guess a 80% allotment up front of 20% of the over all 'anticipated' budget. So, in bazooza's the breakdown might be? - Conceptual Designs: 5 - Modeling: 2.5 - Rigging: 2.5 Give or take a plunk*. *1 plunk=1/20th of a bazooza. Give or take a zuz** **1 zuz=1/20th of a plunk.

I'd like to open a discussion on budgeting for projects. The primary bias I have going into such a subject is that I equate the outlay of a budget with the establishment of the project's priorities. As an example of this, lets say that you are allotted 10 bazoozas in which to apply to a production. These bazoozas are all that you have at the moment to pay forward toward the final product. You have considered approaching the producer but he's already complained that you are on a tight budget and you think you might actually be able to pull off preproduction on a 10 bazooza budget. The only guy signed up on your team as of this moment suggests the following areas to apply the budget. - Conceptual Designs - Modeling - Rigging Note: Any bazooza remaining will not be applied to changes in these areas but will instead be applied to the Production Budget. Changes/Updates will require an increased investment which requires authorization from the Producer. To which areas would you invest and what amount of funding would you apply to them? Are there any other major considerations?

Oooo. I really like that last one John. (although... I'm picturing it as smoke trails floating up vertically all around a subject)

This is something of a tangent but I post it because it serves to go back and address of few of the things brought up during this discussion. I'll say going into this that there are a few aspects of the project this guy is working on that I would like to critique and I won't spend time doing that here. I was debating doing that in another forum where he asked for feedback. My primary thought is that I think he does himself a disservice when he uses silhouetted (black) flat figures against flat colored backgrounds in 3D. To my eye this seems to counter the 3D effect he is seeking. What to expect if you click this link: Jeff Boller is a guy who creates his own movies (playing all the music, animating etc.) and in this case talking about short 3D films/music videos. In the video he discusses his approach to 3D and along the way he covers some interesting information. He covers very quickly a few things I would like to have said in response to some ideas raised. For instance he very briefly talks about beats and rhythm, rule of thirds, leading the audience's eyes, etc. There are a few things that he covers more briefly and clearly than I have seen to date and he punctuates his presentation with humor that obviously engages his audience. There are some technical aspects in his presentation that are easy to pick at (for instance, he forgets what you call those thingies down at the bottom of his animation program.... oh yes, keyframes!) but overall his video provides a nice survey of his approach to filmmaking and is possibly the most accessible to beginners than many I have seen. 3D Filmmaking Lecture He says it is: For such a short video he covers a lot of territory. Rather importantly, he is experimenting and sharing what he has learned. There is much that could be said regarding the effectiveness of the end product; the music video 'Tornado' (shown at the end of the video). While there is a story to be found therein I hesitate to say what is there constitutes effective storytelling but figuring out what good storytelling is and applying that to our efforts seems to be the whole point of discussion here. There are aspects of his video that remind me a lot of of Gerry's 'Cicak' music video. (For what it's worth Gerry, yours is much more cohesive and entertaining)

Following Robert's advice is wise and I won't go deeply into exceptions to the rule but I will offer the following for the inevitable point in the future where someone offers (seemingly) contradictory advice. I believe the important point to understand is that you want to animate to the 'rendering camera' wherever and whenever possible. An incredible amount of time can be wasted animating to the wrong camera and it gets confusing when you have multiple cameras and aren't sure which are 'helpers' and which are your rendering cameras. It also increases the chances that you will accidentally animate something that you've perfected while in the wrong camera! The main reason to add a Camera to any character would be to set up a shot that captures the precise point of view of one or many characters. For this you could constrain the Camera to the Character but... it'd be as effective to add the Camera directly to the Model (and you wouldn't have to worry about the Contraints at any time). In A:M, Cameras and Lights that are added to a Model are treated as Bones for the purpose of adding them into Models so you access them via Bones Mode in the Modeling window. An example of this would be placing the Camera at the position of one of the Character's eyes or slightly behind the Character for a continuous over-the-shoulder shot. Wherever the Characters goes so goes the embedded Camera and/or Light. File this away as potentially useful information for later down the line... but... not for this shot!

Ouch. Now that is one short and sweet, scathingly pointed critique. I really need to get McKee's book if only so that I form an opinion. When I do, I'll keep your crit in mind. Regarding the utility of his approach and ideas, at this point I remain mostly uninitiated and unbiased. As a counterpoint I'll suggest that while McKee may not have the credentials of an accomplished screenwriter, I'd be cautious of equating his lack of success as a working screenwriter as any true test of the value of his ideas. Some folks are excellent at capturing successful methodology (re: his babbled observations) but not as effective at applying those ideas. In truth, he might be a really lousy screenwriter with excellent ideas. 'Mrs Columbo' and 'Spenser for Hire' huh?

I see that an update to Lightworks has been released. http://www.lwks.com/ Top Features All Features Note there is the free version and the annual subscription ($60 but 50% off with educational discount). The sub seems to be there mostly to cover development and licensing fees that allow the full integration of cutting edge/professional grade codecs which eliminate the need for transcoding. Anyone that'd use the app professionally would be able to easily afford the $60 annual fee. For those interested, they have a comparison table that shows what is added for subscribers on the site: here. There are several things that I find compelling about these guys approach. Much of it can be seen from their Roadmap. Their approach is different from the typical hobbleware approach that follows most software versioning. I'll post the Roadmap here to highlight what is most interesting to me: While they state that they are at stage three it looks to me that they are well on their way to stage four and the release of the source code could make this application the ideal video editor for use and integration with A:M. I haven't fully embraced Lightworks yet because my computer doesn't fully meet all of the required specs (Note: It doesn't meet the specs for any mid to high end video editor). During my initial testing I thought navigating the Lightworks interface was considerably different from my experience with that of Adobe Premiere (so there is the inevitable un-learning curve we have to navigate if we are use to editing video in other applications) but then again the current release of Premiere is considerably different than that early version as well. Specs: Using Lightworks on the same computer as A:M will work but not optimally. If really serious about video editing I'll need to invest in a dedicated machine.

I haven't investigated very deeply either but somewhere along the line where Hash Inc added smartskin and relationships/poses that allowed the model files to store that data. My brain wants to say that was in the v8 timeframe but that is where my journey with A:M began. It may be that circa v9 (versions prior) that A:M only stored CP data via smarskin and that was expanded to encompass 'relationships' of a greater variety. In other words, whereas before that data was limited to smartskin it is now a relationship that is user defined. This is significant in that we don't yet know the extent of what we can define. Marcel Bricman's Treez plugin is an excellent example of how A:M's function set can be extended (as are plugins like Emilio's Sweeper). Like the duplicator wizard these take advantage of manipulating model data over time. I'd say the reason that Actions are used with Treez is that there is something in the approach to generating and manipulating the splines that could not effectively be accomplished in a pose/relationship but could in an Action. I suspect this might be as simple as an SDK call that is available in an Action window but that is not available in a Model. I once exclaimed to Heath at Hash Inc that A:M's interface was like a visual object oriented programming language. He accepted the compliment with great humility but I could sense that he thought I was nuts. The basic elements are there all there. Create or Modify the Object. Define or Redefine an Action. Alter Attributes. Run/View the Results. Smile or Frown. Rinse and Repeat the Process.

Windows in A:M are like unto a reality show... (a good one worth watching I hope) Think of all the various windows on a house and you are walking around outside the house. You can look in any one of the windows and see what activity is going on but that is the only view you get. People do certain things in the kitchen, the living room, bathroom, bedroom, etc. Since you have only one set of eyes and can only see into one window at a time you can set up cameras at the various windows and have them all display in front of you on different televisions sets. The number of views you can watch at the same time is limited only by the space available in which to place your TV sets. You can even set up your own special cameras inside the house; disguise one as a light for instance. Regardless of what you are seeing it's all different views on what is occurring in the house. The folks that spend their time in the house usually cook in the kitchen but they can cook in the bathroom if they want to. They'll just find the cooking more difficult. The kitchen has been optimized for food preparation and the dining room usually best for eating that stuff. Now 'disappear' the ceiling. Now remove the walls. Now transform the house into anything you want. A:M is like unto a virtual reality factory... Each windows in A:M is a context sensitive view on what is going on in virtual space. The programmers have defined the context under the paradigms of Subject (Model), Verb (Action), Adjective (Properties) and depending on the view we set we see differ views on our Subject. Each window iin A:M is a different perspective in a Theatre... Some views echo that of the audience. Some focus on stagecraft. Some on Direction. Some on Acting. Some of Costumes. Some on Lighting. A:M's windows (interface) is like a programming language where the user doesn't even know they are programming with the language...

I'm a bit frustrated at the moment and as that may translate over into this post so I'm going to keep my response short and get some sleep. Tomorrow will be brighter. Yes, that a nice outline but what does it mean? I'm not reading 'a story' in that outline. It could just as well be a book on how to approach font design. I like Mark Kennedy's outline better. Now, that's got style! There is a story there already. The key difference between the two lists appears to be Action or at least the implied potential for Activity. The Robert McKee's list is something of a given. Every story will have them. This is not true with Mark Kennedy's list. The author must supply them. Note: I'm not really trying to read into the lists and recognize that they are just sound bites. I'm very interested in this stuff... so I'm commenting.

The Road Runner cartoon may be a good example of using a story framework to explore character. It's the same characters and same basic plot but the continual drive of the protagonist explores a wide range of variations. This is not unlike real life in that we live within a specific framework until we venture out into a different (presumably larger) framework. That the Coyote's perspective adjusts but never quite changes is a satirical look at the daily grind where every day plays out in very much the same way... over and over again... every time. We tend to identify with the Coyote often more than the Roadrunner... we laugh... not only because of the preposterous situations he gets himself into but also because we identify and understand his frustration. There is also that ever present comedic element of repetition that works time and time... and time and time... and time and time again as we cannot help but laugh (or scoff) at such clear examples of absurdity. I'm convinced that at least a part of this is our (mostly unconscious) understanding that a real human being has crafted this story purposefully and intentionally and to think that someone would devote such effort to endeavor is in itself a proof of the power of caricature; exaggeration to the point of absurdity. I can easily see the benefits of describing a story in just such a fashion as that sets the stage for the players. Here's a quick breakdown/dissection of what I think I see in this particular storyline:> The title asks us to discover what 'the Scarlattiti Tilt' is. We instinctively know or at least can supply our understanding of what 'hard living' is. We can visualize a studio apartment and (may know) where San Jose is. Our senses are engaged in more than one way. We can recall the actual sounds of a violin even though they aren't present here. We can easily imagine the frustration of someone learning to play a musical instrument and cringe at the thought of the inevitable notes that are off key. We can see the stereotypical policeman and know what a gun is. That is it empty is telling but vaguely mysterious. We begin to imagine the relationships. This story will play out differently based upon each individual in the audience's experience. Most stories will strive to engage the audiences imagination but there is a class of story that leaves almost everything to the imagination. I'd love to explore the point of where a plot becomes a story but I'm not sure if I'm qualified. It does seem to me that rather than being a story this is more of a setup for a story... hence my use of the term above 'storyline'. The story isn't told but the basic directions of that story are implied. It's almost as if it were a single frame or short sequence extracted from an old film that is forever lost to time. Assuming we can muster up the curiosity, we will forever wonder about the deeper motivations behind it. (See #3 above on Motivation).* It is wise to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination and audiences do expect to be surprised but there is a danger of leaving too wide a gap. On another note, this does demonstrate one prime example of the old adage about starting a story in the middle with the action already well underway. The goal in this is to deeply involve the audience from the start. This automatically supplies the element of Time and is key to storytelling (see #5 above concerning Timing) which relates to the revelation, reciting or repetition of something that has already happened. To the audience everything is unfolding/unraveling in time but to the author everything has already happened in the past, out of time. *I tend to get frustrated when authors leave the ending of a story up to the audience. If the author would have told me up front that I would be finishing their story I would at least feel better about investing the time. In all fairness, I realize that satisfactory conclusions are not easy to come by and that all stories worth watching don't stop at the credits but continue on in the audience's hearts and minds.