Rodney

I'm telling you.. add cute little tiny backpacks. They'd be all the rage and everybody would have to have one. Mesmerizing stuff, Serg.

Now that is just refriggindiculous. Sorry... back on topic.

Nancy, If you are willing to expand on those subjects you know I'd be locked to the topic. (Check with David though... it's his topic) Given it's current state, I'd say it is required to be augmented. Would most definitely be of interest but perhaps to the newbie of a lesser priority? Did you just say 'math'? I was messing the other day with automated cool, warm and hot zones (via contraint to groups) so sure... why not! And don't forget to throw in the albedos for good measure to make sure we capture the whole environment. As always, I thank you for your considerate insights.

Potential (mild) spoilers abound in this topic so for those that would prefer not to know about the story... move on... move on. I can see already that Birn's book was a worthwhile investment. Very nice! I like this current lighting specifically because it is in contrast with the whole idea of Latimer being depressed/disconnected/despondent at the beginning of the movie. As I am assuming the middle section will be more into the greytones and such it'll also provides a nice bookend to match the one at the end of the whole story arc. I'm liking it! Follow your instinct in that. Not only will you provide insight into the process to others you'll be documenting your project! Also, consider that old saying, "If it's not documented, it didn't happen." Looking very nice. Random thought: You know, I really like how that desk fits so tightly into the nook at the window. To me this suggests this home is owed by a family with a considerable income. Someone must have measured that space before buying the desk or perhaps even had it made custom. If I owned that house there is no possible way the desk would fit as snuggly. I can almost sense Latimer's Mom directing the room layout.

Here's something this latest discussion has got me thinking about. While admittedly overly simplistic it represents an approach to the bouncing ball that I haven't previously considered. It is therefore highly exploratory in nature (by me). The idea is to consider each ball as a container and then make a determination of what the interior of that container consists of; a solid, a liquid or a gas. We may not actually know what may be underneath the outer shell but know that it can be presumed to favor one of the three. From there we can get a sense of how that object will react when it comes in contact with other objects in a scene. Note that while the inner material is important we cannot discount the outer container. For instance, the exterior may be made of solid matter while the core is in a liquid state (think of an freshly laid egg here). A bubble may have a thin layer of liquid that only momentarily can contain air. Another object might have a soft exterior with relative inner solidity (think of the human body's outer tissue with its mostly hidden interior support framework). This works well also if you consider balls of similar size, shape and exterior. A fully pumped up basketball can be expected to bounce higher than one partially drained. A flat basket ball can be expected to deform more easily. Fill that same basket ball with solid matter and it should squetch less. Submitted for your consideration.

One of the many unfortunate side-effects of exploring the bouncing ball exercise is that you quickly find out that people don't want to explore the bouncing ball exercise.

Edit: Drat embedding isn't working for me. Here's a fun video sequence with a golf ball against steel. Very unfortunately, the steel plate moves off screen so we don't get to see all of the #@$%! contact frames!

Richard Williams had an image like this in his book that is oft presented in animation lectures. For a long time that picture was a fascination for me. (Results: We should take some care in interpreting what we are seeing) We see an interesting thing in the images you've posted here and they are worth considering above and beyond the idea of squash and stretch for what we see and do not see: While we cannot be sure what camera was used or what it's particular settings were (we can assume 24fps) we can note that there are many missing 'images' from this tennis ball's bouncing sequence. IMO when considering squash and stretch the most important images from this sequence are not there... they are missing; the contact frame and those frames immediately before it and proceeding it. Note that this represents perhaps the most exaggerated squash and stretch/blur/distortion we will ever see... the action so quick that the ball is completely removed/blurred from the scene! If played back in sequence our brains have no other choice but to fill in the missing details and we assume a contact was made. There had to be a contact even if the movement was so fast that we could not see it. As you've stated concerning 2D, the squash and stretch is added mostly as a means to fill in the gaps of frames that cannot otherwise be seen. The blur of a fast moving object being one of the primary things that moves to fast for us to see. Now, if you are meaning to say that tennis balls do not squash upon contact... (please forgive the terminology but) that is something of a stretch to me. Although we may not see it, when a bowling ball makes contact with another object in a scene, something is going to give way (or break). What is interesting about Richard Williams's book is that he spends considerable effort suggesting squash and stretch is something that isn't needed but then goes on to fill up the rest of his book with examples with squash and stretch in them. While I get his point and gladly receive it, his internal conflict (or perhaps it is more his fascination with the exploration of that theme?) makes him harder to read. It's almost like he's got a theory that he himself does not believe.

I'm glad you hate to say that. Having seen some of Will's previous Tar comics material I'm a bit apprehensive on what the final content could be. If of that order I would respectfully decline from working on those scenes in lieu of something more agreeable to me. My primary concern being that while adult movies may make more money they are niche products with little value to me personally. Barring a personal story that just has to be told I don't see much sense in adversely limiting access to Tar's story. This isn't to say content can't created for mature audiences but every time we get too graphic we limit accessibility. As silly as it sounds, as soon as you bare one breast in a movie there is a domino effect that will play out on the whole thing. Heck, lots of people do that to sell things. For my part the whole idea of mature themes is of interest to me. I've delved into the idea peripherally and many years ago I thought I would specifically target it with a project I called "Graphic Violence". The project will likely never see the light of day because of how it explores these so called 'mature' themes but filtered through my own sensibilities of hyper-conservativism. This pretty much guarantees the project will not be made because it would require full attention from me to make sure it didn't escape the bounds of it's own integrity. Because of the commitment I know the project would take, it remains a very peripheral fascination for me. I'm not suggesting "Hey Kids, it's playtime with Tar!" with all the eight year old kids grabbing their Tar action figure and stabbing teddybears with their flexi-swords... I suppose that's the other extreme. In order to get to that point Will would have to do some serious Tar revisioning. Ulimately, what is in a story should be there because it is intrinsic to the story; something important would be lost and the story wouldn't work well without it. It won't ring true (and be true to itself) if it is just a gimmick. Within that framework there is a lot of room for exploring mature themes.

Nancy, you are the perfect person to question our reality. Added: It's interesting that I just plunked down my $4.95 for KineticSoA's webinar on distortion and smear in animation. It's almost like the release was perfectly timed to go along with this discussion for me. Our perception of reality with regard to squash and stretch is a fascinating study. Mike does a good job with his take on it and , if you can see well enough through the bad images on the video playback, posts some nice examples from live action film as well as classic and modern day cartoonery. It's fascinating to see the distortion and blurs that appear in still frames of fast action where to a strictly logical approach to animation they should not be. Although there is a lot of room for interpretation, with regard to putting distortion into an animated scene it's clear that there is an entirely logical approach and practicality to adding squash and stretch into a scene.

This is a good suggestion. Spend as much time as needed to really work the heck out of that two minute sequence and you'll not only have you cut your teeth on a quality two minute trailer, you'll have an experienced team. The trailer could also be a good way to test out some of the highlights and settings that will be seen in the actual series. Perhaps the trailer could even be one that is shown before each episode to bring new viewers up to speed.

I don't know how applicable this is but what appealed to me in Robert's use of the terminology he used (i.e. atoms) is how that augmented my perception of the ball in several ways: 1) in comparison to a plausible or relative reality 2) consistency in the object's solidity. In the first case, I got an immediate sense that the ball in question was 'real'. Not really real but within the framework of the scene. I began to sense, from it's movement alone, what it consisted of within the presented 'reality'. The second relates to the first in that as long as that particular reality is consistent I will not question the laws of physics within the context of the scene. This is that willing suspension of disbelief we are all trying to achieve in our animation. These things allow even the most cartoonish application of the bouncing ball to make sense to audiences as the ball will not be seen as suddenly changing what it is made of for no good reason. This consistency (I believe referred to as the Animation Principle of Solidity) is appropriate in this context and while complicating the matter, real world physics can play an important role in this. Why it is specifically important in CG is because the principle was first given as "Solid Drawing" and in CG, drawing isn't not something we are likely to see as we are animating on a computer screen. Therefore, animators tend to bypass this principle entirely because they see no way to apply 'Solid Drawing' in CG. I believe this is why thinking in terms of atoms (cartoon or otherwise) resonates with me. Hope that makes sense.

I don't know that I ever did. I just move the pencil and hope for the best.

Will, You know I'm interested in working with you. I hesitate to commit because I know I will be moving back to the U.S. this year. Even if not able to commit fully I'm good for modeling props and doing the odd job here and there.

I can't keep up with all these birthdays! Happy Birthday Mark! Hope it's a great one.

Excellent suggestion Malo! You know, I'm laughing at myself here because I'm usually really quick to suggest boolean cutters but in this instance the thought never even crossed my mind. Thanks for backing me up Malo. Booleans cutters can always use more attention.

Another great test! Too much fun. Your tests got me thinking about some of the old panarama tools I use to mess with and I see that Hugin was recently updated. It can be downloaded via: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ Is your pan background made with one of these digital tools or straight out of your camera?

Mark, That is an elegant solution. Love it. One thing to consider is the real object itself that is being represented. Especially where the object is man-made the object will often provide useful clues as to how we can recreate the object in 3D. Using Marks example for instance I could easily see a lock that had the keyhole as an added piece within the shell of the lock that would allow the lock itself to be disassembled and come apart for maintenance. Of course, we'll tend to lose a lot of the symbology as we get closer to reality. For instance, because having a keyhole on the front of a lock doesn't work particularly well we rarely see them on the front of padlocks these days: (Google Search for Padlock images)

You've got some great stuff on display here. Love the other Chris's battle scene. (intense!) Your request for assistance with secondary models/facial photos may get lost there in the middle of this topic. You might post that as a separate WIP and track progress on that there.

Now there is an award I hope I never win. I think moments like that are required so that we can remember how to laugh when we blinded by pain.

Nice thought! Brian Lemay seems to get a lot of flack from the fringe quarters but as a teacher he has a lot of insight into animation. If we were to adapt and put into practice all of his online exercises (in CG) we could reasonably expect to be much better animators. Sadly, I've never purchased any of his books but they are on my 'must get someday' list. He's got enough stuff online (many are examples from the courses teaches) that could keep an animator animating for years. http://www.brianlemay.com/Pages/animations...ook/squash.html What I like about this particular write up is how the idea of squash is related to a character's walkcycle with an emphasis on overlap and weight.

Yes! Says 'Hallmark' right there on the back cover.

Hi Roger, I'm going to guess you are trying to delete the roto in your Modeling Window? Wherever you are trying to delete it... ignore that for now (but that would be good information for us to have here). Locate the Rotoscope in the Project Workspace (PWS) listing and delete it there by either Right Click or Delete Key. The Active window is usually not the best place to delete things because A:M is trying its best to keep you from accidentally deleting things you've worked hard to create. (It's funny... I woke up this morning thinking that we need to replace all Delete keys (in the world) with Remove keys. Deleting would presumbably only happen after a great deal of hassle and even then only with clear evidence of a proper authority to proceed. The essential idea being that we often want to remove things but that does not mean we want to actually delete them.

Yes... very cool indeed! Awesome effect John!

Awesome. I look forward to it! I don't know if you had the time to rummage through the PDF file but hopefully you saw the comment on the scene with Franky and the teddy bear and its similularities to another project.