Rodney

I should know the process more exactly but yes it is accumulative. Each render within the multipass process being averaged back in to get anti-aliasing and smoother rendering. While there may be something to what you are saying about one pass being darker than the other I hesitate to say that isn't as it should be. For my part I wouldn't spend a lot of time examining individual passes but rather the end product of those passes. It is that end product that is important and the passes should be expected to vary. How much variation I cannot say. Much of that will depend on your settings and I suppose you could isolate some of those settings but you'd probably want to render out to one pass (or very few passes) in such cases. Otherwise you'll get that cumulative effect. Since the other lights are pointed up and spread out that is likely why they have no shadowing effect on the chair. It is that sun lamp that should be causing shadows to appear from the chair. Since you have that turned off... no shadows. Edit: I don't know what is going on with the TGAs in your posts but you may want to either render out to JPG or PNG or convert the TGAs to those formats for posting. Webbrowsers don't generally display TGA images without plugins. This is true also with BMPs. There are a lot of image conversion utilities out there and you can also convert quickly in A:M via the Save As Animation option in the Project Workspace. Most people (rightfully so) will not take the time to download and convert/view your TGAs. I recommend rendering to PNG for the purpose of online posting.

Hi Simon, I can't really comment on the darkness or the artifacts as it's not clear to me what is going on there. I assume you refer to multipass rendering here. If so then how many passes do you have the renderer set to? Those artifacts are interesting. I didn't see them until I read your text but now I surely do see them. They appear to be a byproduct of the lighting. Regarding the walk I don't think the issue is with the timing there but rather in the spacing. What you've got in the poses appears to approach a tip toeing (almost a sneak) rather than a standard walk with (I think) more of a need for movement/action in the knees. It is as if his concentration is on lifting his feet in order not to make noise on the floor/carpet rather than lifting and walking via his hips and his knees. To my way of thinking no matter how you re-time that you will always see those poses in the final rendering (just sped up or slowed down). What you could do is set up another camera that views him walking from the side and use that view to get the walk you want. Then retime that walk to taste from the main camera view. If you have the time to do it seeing a side view of him walking (from that second camera) should be very revealing. Something else I note is that there doesn't appear to be any shadows as evidenced by the floor underneath the chair. I don't think that has anything to do with the artifacts but with the strong light being emitted it seems those shadows should be there. Perhaps shadows isn't turned on in the renderer?

For some reason Yves Poissant's review of Chris Webster's earlier book on the mechanics of animation comes to mind wherein Yves ends his review with the following words, "I should not have bought this book'. That review is somewhere here in the forum and if anyone is interested I'll track it down for them. I didn't have the same issues with that previous book as Yves did but considering that Yves is a genius his reviews hold serious weight with me. (Fortunately or unfortunately, I had purchased the book prior to reading Yves review of it) I suspect that many of the drawing from this book are in his previous also. Repackaging of previously published information seems to be what many animators writing books are doing these days. Repackage, retitle and extend... repackage, retitle and extend... For what it's worth, if I saw this new book in a bookstore I'd probably buy it. There is an incredible lack of books about (the process of) animation in bookstores today.

I suspect that one of Elm's issue might be with the AO Plugin which is reported to have issues in v16/v17. It's a compiling issue that despite the issues is workable if the right plugin is matched with the correct version of A:M. If so perhaps he didn't get a chance to read that info. This assuming he uses that plugin at all and not his own custom methods which we've seen him sharing with us elsewhere. It doesn't do much good to speculate so we'll have to wait until Elm has the time to clue us in.

Without knowing more about these characters I'd say that does indeed look like it could be an ice man. I like where you are going with the animation. Tell your buddy if he doesn't give you a copy of the script you'll quit. The important thing is to lock things down to the greatest extent possible. It is hard enough to complete a project already even when you can see the plan. For every change to the plan/script I'll suggest that the powers that be add one additional production day to the schedule. 'Failing to plan is planning to fail' or so they say. Every change is critical and that will be especially true with the deadline looming large in November... only a few short weeks away. I have the ultimate confidence in you (but I confess that I really don't know your friend). Let us know how we can help. Perhaps most important of all, have fun with it!

How can anyone go wrong with Ninjas? Congrats on taking the leap into animated film production. I am excited for you and look forward to seeing your progress on the film. I know it is far to early to crit but based on your first image I'll postulate a question/consideration. Please note that there is no right/wrong answer here. Shouldn't the ninja be more of the iconic black or at least darker color that is normally associated with ninjas at least at the beginning of the film? With all that snow it might help with the instant recognition, silhouetting and constrast against the (lighter) background. This seems to be the case because I didn't not immediately know that the character in the image posted was a ninja. It was only upon reading your text that it became clear. Disclaimer: I have never actually met a ninja so I do not know what colors they prefer to wear.

Congrats Gene. You got that one by a good margin. Be sure to tell us when the next round starts!

Voted! I'm not sure what factors the judges consider so just to hedge the bet I recommend letting the video play all the way through. Who knows, if the voting is close the judges might check to see how many have watched the video all the way through. Have it play in the background while you work. Go Gene!

You should be able to install and run any subscription version of A:M. That should be circa v13 and up. Some folks initially object to the subscription (especially older users because change can be difficult) but once they've subscribed they just get on with using A:M. It is entirely understandable (logical even) that those who are the most unhappy with the subscription will be those who have never subscribed to A:M.

While it won't be of comfort to Elm it's certainly a learning opportunity. Gerry hits on an important distinction in the fact that he has upgraded but has not updated his entire production pipeline as of yet. In the abstract I'd say in a production environment a good update path should run initially at 20/80 (Preproduction), 50/50 at apogee (at the final point before fully committing to Production) and 80/20 at full production and thereafter (there is no looking back at this point barring the very odd exception in Post Production). Difficult shots that rely on new and unproven features get tested early and are scheduled for completion early in the process. You'll note that if this path is followed that toward the end of one production there is a comfortable overlap that will allow the next production to begin within the framework of the next iteration of updates. Note that the update path can and generally should be different than the upgrade path which for most organizations to maximize their return on investment must continuously replace 10-20 percent of their software and equipment. This is that 20 percent seen at the beginning of a production cycle and if this upgrade path is followed the primary variable to focus on then becomes how long a particular budget/production cycle is as dictated by the schedule and funding it receives. It is important not to wait to upgrade because we never want to find ourselves focused on internal issues when the more weighty external forces are at play. Upgrades become the constant while updating remains a variable. Updating will always vary upon the just-in-time needs of the organization while upgrades tend to be refreshed more slowly, cautiously and deliberately. I note that Google is trying to tackle some of these pesky issues in the form of their 'Chrome Canary' release. Through use of the canary, power users can live on the cutting edge if they are willing to accept additional risk. This shortening of the update cycle ultimately increases stability for all users and ushers in more and improved features as the feed back from the canary is recognized and incorporated into the next stable release. This is similar to the upgrade path outlined above that places 10-20 percent of an organization's computers into the higher risk category. When you have only one computer the game certainly changes and it's good to know that we can run multiple versions of A:M simultaneously. Generally, we should not rely on only one computer. It's got to be tough being a studio.

I really like that Marcos! There is something... some small detail that is missing that I can't quite place my finger on. I've been watching the reel over and over in an attempt to find it. Perhaps I can walk away and view it at a later time and I'll see what that is. A few thoughts while I am exploring: 1. Fade (Very Nitpicky!): The fade from decal/drawing to rendering could be a little more subtley faded so as not to pop. By this I mean to say that there is an apparent difference in the height of the drawing versus the final character and this catches the eye. My thought is that perhaps could pop in two frame each of a wireframe and and rig shot instead of a fade. However, I think this might change your intended theme and I'm not sure what that is. (See Number 3 below) 2. Character: I get the feeling this character may not smile a lot BUT it seems to me that you may want to make him smile for the purpose of this demo reel even if out of character. This would accoplish at least two things. 1) It would end the reel on a smile which ties into what you want to accomplish... getting a sponsor inspired (smiling and enjoying your project) enough to support you. When an audience see a character smile they tend to smile. 2) It will provide further progression and a place for the eye to focus while awaiting the presentation of your card. My underlying thought here is to somehow get the viewer to identify or connect with Lau. 3. Theme: It should be clear what this reel is saying to me and yet it isn't quite. While I can assume that you are trying to suggest that you can transform a drawing into a fully articulated character this is not clear to me. Did you do the drawings only and someone else create the model? (I know you did but others will not) This might be resolved simply by adding a few words to tell viewers about it (fading them in/out). This could be during the drawing, at the very end right before or on your card or at the appropriate place (See thoughts from number one) 4. Clarity. There is an old saying "Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them and then tell them what you told them." (I paraphrase). Adding a hint of this might prove useful in your reel. Similarly you could also just tell folks the facts and what you want. An extreme case of this might be to simply narrate the video (in words or text). "Hi I'm Marcos and this is Lau." "We are seeking sponsors for the environmental short film 'Trem do Pantanal'. 'Contact us!' 5. Extending the card. Most of these random thoughts can be eradicated by some further creativity on your part. For instance, if this is card #1 of 3 or a larger series of cards then I think you'd be rockin'! Things seen in this first card could build upon subsequent cards. Who knows, you and your 'Trem do Pantanal' cards might even get an avid following. All of this to say what you've got is already great. I challenge you to make it awesome.

Looking good! She is really starting to shape up. Did you ever send me the latest update of your script? If you did I didn't see it. I'll double check my spam folder.

Welcome back! Right now there aren't any certificates being issued for completion of TaoA:M but that doesn't mean we can't make an exception for you and issue you one anyway if you post your progress here in the forum.

As a workaround, could you possibly just drag the CP back?

Nicely done John. I can see that radar effect as being very useful.

Whoops. VERY GOOD POINT! Sorry Robert, I forgot that was an intrinsic part of 'Rear Window'. For what its's worth, flat planes would still give a mostly 3D effect if *all* of the elements where rendered separately and composited appropriately. (But that sure sounds like a whole lot of work!) With everything going 3D these days that becomes an even more important consideration when using rendered layers and compositing. The cool thing is that if each separate element is a rendering of the original 3D geometry then it should still retain it's 3D look. There are of course a lot of areas where such things become more difficult. For instance a character that begins at the front of the stage/scene and receeds toward the back. One would have to be very careful of plane clipping and such as the image plane recedes. This is where the new Open EXR 2.0 format should help considerably in compositing because it (supposedly) it can store depth information.

Well, be careful here. If you have keyframes that are in sync with dialogue or music this could knock it out of sync for you. You don't just want to stretch out everything when stretching out specific problem areas will do. The following is something most people would be better served to do in a dedicated application designed for editing movies but something we can also do in A:M: We can retime a movie by bringing it back into A:M as a patch image, decal or rotoscope. We can stretch out shots and sequences, reduce them, even reverse and repeat parts of the movie. We can retime specific actions of individual characters if they are rendered out separately so that they in effect deliver a different performance. You would do this via the frame option underneath the image you want to retime in the movie.

The link is working fine here Rodger. I'm not sure whether it's your browser, browser cache, or something else but this appears to be something going on at your end. I seem to recall Internet Explorer truncating some links so perhaps your browser is just truncating Robert's link. That would explain the forum specific error that is usually generated after an invalid search or link. Do you get the same thing from this link: Full Link

Thank you! I didn't know myself until you asked the question and we started investigating.

At the risk of igniting the old discussion about DPI again, here's a DPI to PPI calculator what has quite a few displays precalcuated. Just click on the display type and the data is displayed in the calculator: http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html Note: This calculator assumes square pixels which may be a relevant factor in many cases.

Here's a quick down and dirty video that scratches the surface of the tech going on behind the scenes: This second one goes into what Nancy referred to regarding screen viewing distance (which with the Retina display is assumed to be 10 inches away): and another that focuses on Pixels Per Inch (PPI) and viewing distance: and the scoop from the guy himself, Steve Jobs: Steve implies that the name Retina for these displays comes from the retina's upper threshold of being able to view no more than 300PPI at a distance of 10 to 12 inches. With Retina displays at 326 PPI Steve says they are "comfortably over that threshold". So, extrapolating from that I begin to assume that images should target this 300PPI threshold or risk not being optimal on Retina displays. I'm not convinced this is the case but its a starting point. REF: Emphasis added. Source: Wikipedia Perhaps yet another reason to target 300PPI.

That camera angle works much better!

It may be a good thing that I didn't know you as a kid. For sure that'd be fodder for a nightmare. Here's the scenario for the movie chronicling my adventures: Little Rodney is sleeping Enters JohnL3D induced sleep cycle Screams and wakes up Mom says, "There. There. It's okay. Can you tell me what happened in your dream?" Wide-eyed little Rodney says, "I-I-I had another T-T-Tinkering Gnome nightmare! The... The... Gate!".

It's funny you mention Yves. I just ran across this:

Some of the variation might be due to A:M knowing where the UV CPs originated from. In my movie for instance a simple click reattached two out of three CPs on the same UV patch. If it was just a little bit more accurately placed I'm sure the third would also have attached. As it wasn't I had to separately attached that. I guess the important thing is that whether attached or unattached the decal is still going to show up on those patches. Attaching simply facilitates moving those patches around. Added: Some of the difference in what we are seeing may be due to the fact that you are using a mouse while I am tapping with my finger on that little rectangular square on my laptop. I'm certainly satisfied. Although DARN IT!!! just now I realized I should have included ROTATION and SCALING of some patches. Maybe next video.