Rodney

Once upon a time I was attending the wrapup gathering at Martin's house for initial foray into 'Tin Woodman of Oz' and suddenly felt the urge to depart wisdom to Martin Hash. Martin had just revealed he had a boxful of the original Preston Blair books on Animation and wow, what treasures they were*. With regard to the Preston Blair approach to lip sync I explained that I thought it should only take four or five shapes to account for all that was required for lip sync**. Martin graciously nodded and smiled as if to say, 'thanks for stating the obvious Rodney' and the conversation pressed on to other things. But the idea of using limited shaping for lipsync still reoccurs from time to time. As this is something I've wanted to explore for awhile but lack the musical skill to properly investigate I thought it might be worth exploring or at least setting into a more proper perspective here in the forum. Firstly, the general down-side... This whole realm of interest is not unlike use of mechanical methodologies such as use of an automated dopesheet to drive movement (lipsync or otherwise). In A:M this would extend to such plugins as the Midi or Amplitude plugins, or any other method to use data to articulate movement. This is akin to programming using a script or expression to state 'for every x do y'. For the uninitiated 'shape note singing' is the basic genesis of the idea. Shape note singing, often referred to as 'Sacred Harp' due to the hymnals that first were published for its use, was introduced in order to expedite the teaching of music where other methods were considered harder used. As near as I can tell there are two primary approaches to shape note (singing). The first uses four notes and the second seven (to account for all the notes in the Do, Re, Mi, Fa, So, La, Ti scale. The four notes used in the former are 'Fa, Sol, La, Mi'. Although I am aware of no direct connection, I equate these two approaches with that of the general idea of using FACE and EGBDF on the notation of a musical scale. I've attached a couple graphics that illustrate the general idea of note shapes. Two are from the wikipedia write up about shape notes and the other from 'Beginners guide to Shape Note Singing' by Lisa Grayson. I suppose this mainly demonstrates that there are just as many approaches to lipsync as there will be people willing to set their minds to publishing a system for formulating it. But there does to appear to be a general approach that can account for the articulation of mouth, face and body. Is one approach better than another? I suppose it depends on the person and the work to be done. The simplest approach of course is on/off (ala the muppet's open/closed approach); it's either in one position or another with added accents from the body, environmental interaction. There are a whole lot of variations that can be produced by per-centing arbitrary measurements from an otherwise binary on/off scale. *The original Preston Blair book on animation has been covered variously online but the important distinction is that the original book published included characters that were under copyright by other companies and so Preston Blair redrew those characters and the book was republished. I don't think Martin realized how dangerous it was to put a box full of those original books in front of me. It took all my strength to resist the urge to appropriate one. **The origin of my thoughts for a four/five point system (for dialogue) actually stems from an earlier premise for full body articulation. If I understand correctly that in turn came from puppeteering where there are five primary (suspension) points used to animate a puppet (head, two arms and two legs... or neck, two hands and two feet). The book where I saw the method briefly illustrated was from a collection of art correspondence from Federal Schools Incorporated bound in a book titled, 'Illustrating and Cartooning' which I assume the recipient had personally bound into a single (incomplete) book. The Five dot action approach was presented in the lesson as a method for 'chalk talks'; used for rapid drawing in front of a live audience for the purpose of entertainment on the standard technology of the time... chalk boards.

I'll add the following to the mix for info purposes. This is only slightly modified from one of Martin's papers: So, I take it that A:M can read through a spline's CPs to determine if they can form a valid patch. Or put another way: I shall now guess that inverting a selection loads the new data into memory which by itself might jumpstart the recognition of an area that is valid as a 5 point patch from what previously was not known to be valid because it hadn't been saved/loaded but merely selected. I'm sure there is a way to test this to determine whether inversions allow for this to be true on not... ...

The Period.Period.ShiftPeriod method works so well that I might submit an A:M Report requesting 'Shift +.' be set as default/permanently for 'Make 5 Point Patch'. In this way the standard answer to the question of troubleshooting 5 point patches would be, "Hit the Period Key twice (invert selection/return to original selection) and then Shift Period (to create the patch). Hmmmm....

Here's a short video of me going through some randomly splined shapes and turning them into 5 point patches.. There are a few surprises (for me) along the way and in one instance... I almost... almost... think I find a 5 pointer that won't activate. In the end that one gives in and forms a valid 5 point patch too. The one example I should have included is the standard one that you demonstrate via your post. Spline layouts like that are often created for places where arms or legs or necks will extend out of an area. But those areas are just as easy to troubleshoot. My hope would be that folks approach 5 pointers with a confidence that they can and will form valid patches. I get a sense that folks avoid them because they run into these cases where the 5 pointers don't immediately work. The easy solution is Period.Period. If that doesn't work, inspect those connections a little closer and reattack! Edit: Glad to see it's working for you! I like that. Added: I should include for completeness sake that we can assign a shortcut key to selecting that 5 point patch icon. I recently assigned Control 5 as my shortcut keys (but should look at a better combo to go with hitting the period key twice... pehaps Shift Period? (I'll try that) In this way we can quickly hit... Period.Period.ShiftPeriod (or whatever final key combo) and fix those troubleshome 5 point patches. Edit: I think Ima gonna go with Shift Period that works well. 5pointers.mp4

Fuchur means period key here. The period key inverts any given selection. If we use the comma key A:M will sound a loud blast of Pong! Pong! Pong! for every time we use the invalid key command after selecting Control Point (CP). (Note that hitting the comma key after selecting a spline I believe will just have A:M sit there and stare at us... doing nothing... as if to say... yes, I've selected the whole spline as you requested...um, what else is it that you want me to do with that comma? My understanding is that A:M only knows how to select the remainder of a spline via the comma key if a spline, not a CP or set of CPs. Edit: What Robert lectured. Added: I'm tempted to capture a video of me making 5 point patches rapidly with all manner of selections to demonstrate just how useful deselect/reselect is when 'troubleshooting' 5 point patches. If we aren't using the period.period. method we aren't properly engaging our wannabe 5 point patches. It is important to note however that just because we can make a patch does not mean we should make that patch as A:M will allow us to create less-than optimal patches.

Close but nope. HIt the period key twice. Period. Period. Once to select the complement (inverse) of your selection and then once again to have A;M reselect your original selection. This is an easy solution that is a little hard to explain but I'll give it a try. A:M's basic rule for 5 point patches is similar to the rule for any valid patch and A:M's eternal question (it asks itself as we are modeling) is, "Is this a valid patch?" If the answer is yes it renders the group as a patch. If no, then it doesn't. I suspect in cases like this if you were to follow the splines all the way around to the other side of the model you might discover that the spline is one very long continuous spline (or at least a selection that A:M has determined is not a valid (5 point) patch. But here's the thing... we CAN make a 5 point patch out of a single spline! We just have to tell A:M that is something we want to do. So, we can select our set of 5 Control Points, whack that period key to get everything except those 5 points and then... whack the period key again to (properly) select the 5 points. *I* suspect that A:M is reordering these points in some internal matrix and after the reorder it 'sees' the selection as valid for closing as a 5 point patch. Hitting the period key twice after selection (and having the 5 point patch indicator stay greyed out) is what I'd call the 99 percent solution. It works (for me) *all of the time*. The only exception (when it doesn't work) is when the selection isn't valid for forming a 5 point patch (i.e. I've selected at least one CP that isn't congruent and would not properly form a patch. Sometimes this is because I'm trying to make a 6 point patch and don't realize I've selected that 6th CP. Sometimes it's because I've only select 4 CPs. More often than not, I've selected 5 CPs that share the same spline or that or not congruent (i.e. do not form a valid patch) and A:M (initially) think we will not want to make that selection a 5 point patch. In other words, A:M sees our selection as invalid for forming a 5 point patch. So, WHACK... do NOT gently select... thy period key... TWICE!

Hehe! Cute little guy. Too short John!

Yes, there is a trick to posting larger animated gif files. The process is to upload the gif file first then go back in and edit the file linking to the initial animated attachment (instead of the generated thumbnail). Unless linked in a separate post this will results in two images displaying in the post one static thumbnail and the original animated attachment. The alternative (as you've seen) is to reduce the size of the file because if the images is small enough not to require a thumbnail the forum will just utilize a link to the original attachment. So for instance, to post the animation from your earlier gif we would Right click and select 'Copy image URL' or whatever equivalent in the browser of your choice. Then past that URL back into the post and submit: https://www.hash.com/forums/uploads/monthly_11_2015/post-3042-0-13788400-1447947855_thumb.gif Note that in order to copy the URL you'll have to have posted the attachment. At this point we want to remove the following text from the URL in order to get the full animation to link into the post rather than point to the static gif thumbnail the forum generates automatically. The text we are looking to remove is: '_thumb'. Thus making the URL posted into the image: https://www.hash.com/forums/uploads/monthly_11_2015/post-3042-0-13788400-1447947855.gif Which displays: Bottom line: URLs with '_thumb' at their end are statically generated in the background via the forums code. This is because the forum has a set limit for size of images shown in via attachment... larger images then get the thumbnail treatment that links to the full size attachment. For gif animation I assume the code grabs the first frame of the animation (as if the gif file consisted of a single image) and uses that as the thumbnail.

Thanks Matt. I agree. And that's why we have a WIP section in the forum in the first place. It's kind of like posting in a personal blog... but more interactive.

Ha! I remember that guy. Great character!

Thanks Robert your thoughts on dialogue align with what I think is important (priority-wise). I keep thinking that where it comes to mouth shapes I'm mostly insterested in a japanese phonetic approach to shaping (primary of the open/close variety). Namely: A (Ah - as in 'Ah, so that's how it's gonna be') I (E - as in the letter E) U (Ooo - long drawn out) E (Eh - as in 'Eh? What was that?) O (Oh - as in 'Oh, Oh, that's gonna leave a mark') Those five shapes are the primary open/close variations. The accents then are the consonents Ka Ki Ku Ke Ko Sa Shi Su Se So Ma Mi Mu Me Mo Ra Ri Ru Re Ro Ha Hi Fu He Ho Pa Pi Pu Pe Po Etc., Etc. M and N are mmmmostly closed (M usually being the initiator and N being the closer) I'd say a lot of personality shots can be pushed by moving the jaw slightly to the side (ala a person who speaks largely out of one side or the other of his mouth). As you well know, the joy of dialogue isn't even in the facial movement but in the accent of the body itself, with hand gestures and poses that convey something other than what is being conveyed in the dialogue. Too often we see dialogue heavy pieces that explain (or reexplain) what the visuals have already sold to the audience. Whereas the dialogue would be better served by revealing through words what is in the mind of the character that the visuals don't show. For instance, a disinterested character that is pretending to pay attention. Or perhaps better yet... as a foreshadowing of something that will be returned to later as we learn more about the character. As you say though, I think the simple open/close of the mouth can serve the job best in many cases. Then it's mostly a matter of tying the facial poses into the intended emotion of the character. This is even further demonstrated by the many shots that have a character talking while the camera is fully focused on the reaction of another person who is (suppose to be) hearing the dialogue. In those instances not only does the sound hit its cue but we get to see the reaction of what another character perceives concerning the dialogue. It is through that secondary character that we (in the audience) are able to assimilate the true intent of the purpose/existence of the dialogue. Time after time after time we see that most dialogue is unnecessary and yet scripts are still packed full of the stuff. I see two primary purposes to dialogue; the first is to intentionally lead someone astray (regarding the plot); i.e. to believe something other than that which needs to be reserved or withheld until later in the plot. The second is to clarify and or resolve such ambiguity so that misunderstandings do not happen. Of course, some dialogue intentionally leads us to believe that we, along with the characters, don't have a clue what has happened (i.e. dangling plots). Added: I do think that something most cg characters lack is ability to really exaggerate mouth shapes. We really need to be able to show those toothy grins, puckered lips and such to gain enough exaggeration to push those personalities. Of course this is mostly for characters whose performance will be highly energetic. One who isn't energetic might have very little mouth movement consisting of mumbling to themselves.

If he isn't he sure could be! His motto: "I may not be the brightest bulb in the box but some day I might be."

Possibly related. I think this is the guy who dares to wake Tinman up from his eternal slumber...

What I've seen of these is really impressive. I've been out of gaming since back in the D&D roleplaying days. I recall using my first computer to throw drawing of (mostly) non player characters encountered up on the screen so players had an idea what they were suppose to be seeing. It's a bit odd that just as computer gaming started to gain major traction I had lost interest in playing. The difference seems to be that I was more interested in creating the worlds than playing in them, especially those games that it seemed you had to study how the game was made in order to 'win' rather than just play it for the sake of playing. I wonder where I might have done differently if I'd had more interest in actually playing games. The thing that impresses me most about games these days is that they are increasingly worlds that are big enough to explore and not feel that you are being forced into a particular area of the game (more often than not because the other areas have not yet been created). One of the last trailers I saw for and Old Republic Star Wars game was really intriguing because it put a lot of time and thought into the storytelling. It's the one where the twin brothers share traits of good/evil and the twists and turns keep you guessing all the way to the end. So, as for what I think... I'd say what they've got going is 'Impressive'! With cinematic quality graphics running in real time... the entry level for game creation is really tough these days. Aside: Not long ago I had some interested parties approach me that wanted to create a mobile game. I can't talk about much of it because I agreed not to but the short of it is that almost from the outset it seemed that I was going to have to be the one that keep interest high and motivated folks to create the game. This is an all too familiar scenario and what can I say... if I have to be the most motivated person on someone else's project... that project is very likely going nowhere. Where the rubber hits the road, you've really got to be the champion of your own idea.

Decals work well with 5 point caps. Patch images... not so much.

Copy pasting almost always retains the 5 point caps/patches... Useful for speedily duplicating objects that are closed/capped. That way we don't have to go in to each object and close or cap. I mention this because this wasn't always the case in earlier releases.

Here's a cyclinder lathed with 5 cross sections and capped to make it look like it is filled with water. For objects that just need to be tossed in the background this approach can lower spline/patch counts considerably because not only are we limiting the number of splines/patches but we are reutilizing a part of them by capping them as 5 point patches. Worth noting: a downside of lathing with 5 cross sections is that the center of the model isn't always where you think it might be (i.e .when looking at the object from the cardinal directions; front, left, right and back.

Just when I thought I knew the limits of 5 point patches along came Malo and demonstrated that I didn't. Here's a single spline with 4 - 5 point patches. At the outset I mostly used 5 pointers as a quick and easy way to cap the ends of stuff. Lathe things with 5 sections and you can always turn the ends into 5 point patches. This is especially useful when the objects are small and the ends don't need anything fancy... just need to be capped.

I've been trying to convince folks otherwise for years... many years. I believe I first stubbled upon the capability when I was trying to close shapes for use with boolean cutters. The secret (usually) is to use the comma key to select the entire spline rather than another method to grab the whole thing. ALTHOUGH in current releases we often don't even need to do that. Here's a shot of some quickly splined/copy pasted flower petals... all are created via 5 point patches.

Thought I'd try to get the nose and ears mirroring the general style of the eyes... Tinman v4a is attached. Edit: Fixed the jaw/jaw bone and uploaded again. Added upper teeth as well. Tinman004a.mdl

Now with patent pending rivets...

With regard to the eyes/eyesockets perhaps a fitting something like this... (maybe even with a few tiny rivets)... Edit: Thanks William! The Tinman I'd really like to create would be short/tiny... cute even. But I have no plans to go there anytime soon.

Here's a slightly updated Tinman. Changes include: - Got rid of the 'Average Normals' - Named most of the groups - Modeled a slightly more proper jaw - the previous one wouldn't work mechanically - it was just there for looks The new one still needs a lot of work - Eye Sockets adjusted - A few other things I've forgotten To Do: - Place bone to be better aligned to proper pivot points - Figure out why reflectivity shows only when normals are inverted and disappears when pointing out (this is odd) - Eyebrows - Termination of neck and refinement of (inner) mouth - at that point I obviously just stopped modeling - Probably need a spline ring on the outside (facial surface) of the eye sockets - Possibly even a separate piece to suggest joining of real metal Perhaps this is a WIP after all... so all suggestions for improvement appreciated! For folks that wonder where this guy might fit into Oz continuity, I'd say this guy is a part of the Tin Army (from a very short and short lived story by Baum). As such we'll probably have to exchange the tin hat for some kind of helmet. Tinman004.mdl

I belive one of those groups has 'Average Normals' set to on. My memory tells me that it's best if that group is the first one in the entire listing of groups... and it is not. Maybe that relates to what we are seeing? When I toggle that Average Normals setting to 'Off' a lot of artifacts go bye-bye. For what it's worth I see a lot of named groups are in the wrong order too. For example the black surfaced groups for the eye sockets don't appear because they are overwritten later by the 'reflect' group. This is another area where learning occurs... if these groups were all named it'd be much easier to know at a glance what their role is suppose to be. Added: I note that the eye sockets should have another ring just inside to limit the extensive curvature at that location. Peaking those splines that enter into the eye socket removes a lot of unwanted orientation.

Stressed Out 5 Point Patches... it's a feature. ... like on the tip of Tinman's nose.