Rodney

Rather than start a new topic I'll add to this one... Aaron Blaise isn't standing around and letting his skills atrophy. He's already got another set of videos out. This time he is focusing on large cats; lions, tigers, cheetahs cougars etc. While this series s primarily one for drawing and anatomy, I believe the benefit to this series for all animators will be Aaron's insight into how anatomy makes animated movement possible. Think of it in roughly the same way as you viewed that 'Model a giraffe' tutorial in the TaoA:M manual. You said, "Heck, I don' wanna model no giraffe!' and yet those who take on that challenge inevitably gain experience in the process of modeling that giraffe. Similarly, studying with Aaron whose experience includes animating on Disney's 'Lion King' is going to be beneficial for those that want to thoroughly explore animation. The going rate appears to be $35 (reg. $75) and includes the following: *emphasis on areas specifically focusing on animation added I've enjoyed Aaron's past offerings and will very likely grab this one as well. (serious car repairs have me strapped so I may have to pass for now!) For those with the extra cash to spare it may be worth a look so check it out at: https://creatureartteacher.com/product/how-to-draw-animals-course-big-cats/ Note that the site says: sale ends soon.

Nice! I hope you can share a video of the final projection.

We have a verbose community don't we. I've really been enjoying your short and have been developing even more appreciation for what you put into it (in an almost accidental way). I thought I might try to see what it might look like tinted more toward the black and white and failed there rather miserably. More on that later... In the process of watching the short over and over again I kept noticing the nice touches you added throughout. There is a lot of physicality... movement through real space... innovative camera cutting... movement that complements and suggest that props are useful objects (i.e. real). And this doesn't even get into the excellent sound work, dialogue, lip sync etc. Which I gained even more appreciation for when I tried to resync the sound to the imagery that I'd recolored and discovered it didn't quite sync. You sure now how to put on a show in the course of one minute! With regard to my failure in my color study... my theory is that two elements might make the transition easier. I don't know if this is actually the case but I'll add it to the mix. Firstly, it seems to me that the title 'Flash Gordon in "Frozen"' could have been in a different color (yellow is what comes to mind but perhaps red or Red for his name and yellow for the subtitle). The reason being to differentiate that (currently) white text from the white of the clouds. This might have been a conscious decision (to blend the title into the clouds) but I'd say it mostly just makes the title harder to read. Another way of looking at it would be; if the film were in black and white the clouds would be white and the title black. The second color change I would suggest would be the robots. If they were silver (rather than gold) that would help differentiate Flashes yellow/golden hair and (if colored) would focus more attention on him. Don't get me wrong... I love the golden tint on the robots but in the process of color studying I found I kept losing the differentiation (presence?) of Flash's hair. In black and white film the audience often 'felt' the presence of color even though it wasn't there. I suppose one could argue that making the robots silver and enhancing the yellow of Flash's hair might draw more attention to the robots but I'd have to test that out to be sure. My sense is that with Flash's darker contrast in the midst of two brighter robots the focus would be drawn to him. I do have a side by side view of a slightly more saturated version where I decided it was about the best I could muster with color. I can post that if there is interest. If pushing toward black and white some additional contrast would need to be brought to bear (such as in the titling). Remind me to pick your brain for audio suggestions. IMO your layering of animation and sound approaches perfection. For instance, I can almost hear Ming's knuckles pop as he adjusts and tightens his grip on his ice gun. You've got a lot of nice touches that most folks would think of as unnecessary but they sell the whole thing and bring the characters into reality. And I love the turning of Ming's lift as it launches upward... nice touch there! Shall I go on? I can.(and if no one else does) probably will. Disclaimer: In case it's not obvious I'm not suggesting anything actually be changed. I'm just studying/analysing what is there. There is a reason the root world of analyse is 'anal'.

Thanks William, I always enjoy the insight into the making of just as much as I do the finished product. I'm looking forward to seeing more of the Cinematic Submarine Shot! I'm sure it would be put to use. I know over the years similar things have been posted but we having kept those resources in view. We should probably add a 'tools and utilities' category to the A:M Exchange area of the forum to collect some of the useful tools that can be made with A:M. I suppose that is what the 3rd Party area is often used for. Composition (and the rule of thirds) is one of those things where we rightly deem it important... then set it aside and forget too reference when we need it most. I do think there is a natural tendency toward balanced composition and with experience folks tend to incorporate those 'rules' into their work. I often think of the camera rig that Jason Hampton created and wonder if creating an all purpose (customizable) camera setup with such things as rule of thirds overlays might be useful. I suppose in the end everything can be useful.... if/when it is used. So, short answer, yes most definitely the community could use it! Thanks for the additional info... I'm may not be commenting on it all but read all of it with interest. For instance, I've found that A:M's motion blur often works best in specific conditions but haven't set down to formulate/document my own approach. There have been times where I've wanted to proclaim that motion blur works best using rendered imagery BUT I know that would be an oversimplification and (also) just isn't quite so. Specifically, when Z depth is taken into account. Motion blurring a series of 2D images can't get at that third dimension. A general theme of this discussion seems to revolve around 'planning' projects/shots and you've definitely got that going on!

Very impressive. I really enjoyed that. That bring back memories of when I watched the Flash Gordon reruns as a kid and every episode ended with an impossible scenerio for our hero to escape from... which conveniently the shows creators just totally ignored in the next episode. That was part of its charm of course but oh so frustratng to me as I wanted to know how Flash had managed to escape. Your animation is smooth as silk and the audio compliments it nicely. Entertaining it is! Perhaps best of all, you have lots of nice character moments throughout to savor on repeated viewings. A lot is going on there yet it all serves to support the charcters' performances and story. Nicely done. Please tell me you have the next episode waiting in the wings! I do have one question regarding the general color. It appears to me that you made a conscious decision to mute the color a little but I'm curious as to your thought process specifically related to dialing that back even more (pushing more toward toward the classic's black and white/greytones). Any insight you can share on that aspect will be appreciated.

Nice! Love the style. Sounds very interesting. Do you mean projection as in projecting on the side of a building?

That was useful (the tip on turning things off in Settings/Privacy) Microsoft should have turned the majority of those settings off by default and asked users if they wanted to opt in upon installation; the goal being to get folks to upgrade/update to Win10 not sit on the fence wondering if it's the right move to make. That would have eased the minds of a lot more folks who are wary of such things, not to mention the potential for bad press when those that oppose see opportunity to sow seeds of discontent.

Didn't have to reinstall anything (no programs, apps... zilch) as they all appear to have made the transition automatically. I did update Adobe CC shortly after updating to Win10 (because the manager said updates were available) but none of those updates mention anything about Win10. I would imagine that companies will release updates to take advantage of Win10 so won't be surprised to see them. That's interesting. From my days as a workgroup manager I often opined about how nefarious types could circumvent passwords and it seems Microsoft has used that exact same strategy to enable them to do just that. Wheels within wheels. There are some aspects of this that I think are 1) inevitable 2) advantageous. Inevitable in the sense that in a perfect world there would be no passwords (or at least not of the form we are accustomed to using) and advantageous in that where no passwords exist a freer exchange of resources, information and ideas is enabled. And I'll add, also inevitable in that the folks in power need that framework in place to move to the next stage of where they are heading I suspect that we haven't heard... 'the rest of the story'... of Microsoft (and the general push from just about everyone) moving toward authentication via methods other than passwords (images/parts of images/captchas, biometrics (fingerprints, eye scans, voice recognition), etc.). This surely will play into this 'your password is shared with everyone scenario'. This is both good....in that validation of who we are in a transaction is important... and bad... there are many times we prefer/desire not to be known as involved in a transaction. There is a very fine line to travel inbetween those two extremes to find optimal parity. But consider this; if you can know for a fact that I stole your wallet (the one you left out on the front porch next to the jar full of candy and a sign saying, 'Please help yourself') as well as when I stole it and where the wallet went thereafter, might that make a difference in how much you care about sharing passwords?. Bottom line: Remember passwords are an artificial construct that makes us feel safe when in fact we aren't safe from those who know how to circumvent that password. Translation: I ain't scared although I surely I should be.

Love the style of that last image!

Back awhile I was going to post some info related to moving your files from older After Effects into current release but for a variety of reasons didn't post that info (specifically, I don't like to spend other people). I assume you already know the ideal upgrade path and prefer to maintain your older software as well as preferring not to move to the current Adobe CC subscription. All cool. If that isn't the case just say the word and I'll provide what little I know. One thing worth looking at is Adobe's move with the new subscription to enable older versions to operate. It won't go back as far as yours but if it allows the right middleman version to update your files may be well worth it.

Well, it wasn't released yesterday (yesterday's yesterday that is). But to circle around the question to hone in a little more on likely answers. Firstly, I assume you are referring to my earlier attempt to install back in May (and not literally yesterday because it never did not work yesterday so... invalid question). Back in May I started the process by signing up for the initial early release candidate to get a feel for what the final release would operate. Parts of that downloaded and parts installed. Somewhere in the process the install wasn't sure it should go forward and gave me the option to continue. I chickened out** and stopped. So, Windows restored the previous install. After that I tried to make sure that all parts of Win8.1 were updated to the latest updates before initializing the official Win10 install. I think updating those helped and normally I might not install those but didn't want to take any chances on interim fixes being missed. So the update from a fully refreshed install of Win8.1 to Win10 was pretty straightforward. It did takes some time... I'm not sure exactly how much time as I started the install and didn't get back to my computer for about 10 hours. After returning I finished the install which took about 30 minutes. That's my story and Ima stickin' to it. *By chickened out more accurately I mean to say that I must have selected an option that stopped the earlier install. Techically, I didn't know that I'd chickened out but was quite relieved when I found myself back at my old v8.1 desktop. Win10 doesn't look a whole lot different from my old desktop.

There are a lot of folks writing/blogging about the changes so I won't try to itemize it all. The main thing that appears to have changed is Microsoft approach to remaining relevant in an age where competition is brutal. This is signaled primarily by the introduction of Microsoft Edge which is their move away from Internet Explorer which has lost ground to Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc. and will likely continue to lose ground. It's not entirely clear what Microsoft plans to do in the short term with two browsers; indications are that Internet Explorer will be dropped. Cortana (which is Microsoft's take on Siri-like personal assistants) I have mostly ignored to this point but it does demonstrate Microsofts recognition that such personalized yet automated services are gaining serious traction as mobile platforms continue to make computer users out of everyone. It's this last element that of mobility that has caused a major shift in the market as the space once maintained by technical-types gives way to new generations that have grown up with access to internet connectivity. More simply and superficially Microsoft has taken a step back on it full push into mobile in that it realizes that it moved too far and too fast in it's effort to ditch the desktop; alienating a large part of their customers with it's removal of the start menu that everyone who had ever used WIndows was well accustomed to. I've been using Win 8.1 so had access to a proper start menu but was always dismayed by the extra steps necessary to get to programs I wanted to use. Does Win 10 address this? Time will tell. First I have to unlearn some of that workflow established in 8/8.1. There are some promising changes that might relate to A:M, like DirectX12, but I'm not sure how that all plays because with recent releases of A:M DirectX has been out. OpenGL is working so well on my system at present I'm quite happy to leave it out. So the answer to the question of what has changed approaches both 'everything' and 'nothing'. With Win10 I'd say Microsoft is primarily laying the foundation they wish to build upon. Added: I have read reports of numerous bugs (and anti-Microsoft rants) but thus far I haven't ran into any of them. The one of most interest to me is a copy/paste bug because I use that a lot but again... I haven't run across that in the wild. As a lot of A:M Users dual boot into Windows via Mac it will be interesting to see how that works for them.

So this morning I launched the Win 10 update and... It's up and running. So far so good.

As I recall something that will kill glow around the edges of objects is rendering the object with glow with alpha channel with nothing behind the object. This is generally something people don't like... they want to see the glow emanate out past the object but in your case you may want it to stop at the object edge threshold. The workaround to fix to get the glow is to put a solid shape (a plane perhaps) behind the object to prevent the loss of the glow so refraining from placing that mask behind the object should remove it all. If the mask is of a specific color then a chroma keyer can be used to remove everything but the object and it's radiated glow. None of this particularly relates to the banding issue but I'm including it for discussions sake as I try to understand what actually is going on with SSAO. Regarding the banding, perhaps if you crank up the number of passes with multipass that will blend out the banding more. There is much about SSAO I am unfamiliar with (I thought SSAO could apply it's settings to every pass of the multipass render but at present I don't see that option). There is an option to blur the SSAO effect which when combined with higher levels of multipass should soften out any banding considerably.

Assumption: The same thing happens wihen the SSAO is rendered out to diffrent images (rather than with the 'Add to Image' option on?

Interesting discussion. This makes me wonder if A:M's subframe rendering capability could be shoehorned into blending three thinner camera positions into one widescreen image. Does anyone know how Eggslice (Eggprops/Billy Eggington) handled the approach to stitching imagery together? (it seems to me that it accomplished it's feat by leveraging A:M's internal features) The approach to a Cinerama shot might be similar but would extend the process from a camera constrained in XY axis to one that rotates left and right. At a guess I'd say a 'card' placed in front of the camera to block parts of the screen might allow the superimposition of parts of the previously rendered and the anticipated subframes..

Okay you know this stuff already right? Because I'm a big fan of Right Clicking I sometimes forget about the ease of double clicking in the Project Workspace and use alternative ways that often add a few extra steps. The primary exception to the rule in double clicking in the Project Workspace is the top container (Project). As you are already in a project double clicking won't create a new project. In fact it won't do anything. When clicking on Image, A:M will prompt you to open an image. The same goes for double clicking on Sound. A:M will prompt us to load a audio file. Double clicking on a Material will create a new (default) material, ready and waiting for it's attributes to be customized. A good example of saving time via a double click is when creating a Post Effect. As with Materials, if we double click on the Post Effect container it will directly create an empty (new) post effect ready for the assignment of the Type of Effect we want. Right Clicking will get us there too (via the New option) but not as quickly as a double click will. There are some default behaviors that go with the double click to consider too. For instance, there are a lot of different types of Objects we can create (Model, Camera, Light, Null, Force, Motion Control Device, Layer...) but double clicking on Object will create a new (empty) Model. To create the other types of Object, Right Click and run through the available options (New, Import, Wizards, etc.). Once an Object has been created, double clicking on the next tier down (the Object itself) will open that object. Double Clicking on a Camera is an exception like clicking on Project. Nothing will happen. I suspect a reason for this behavior is that as with Projects we can only have one default Camera. We can add additional cameras by Right Clicking on Object and selecting New/Camera. At any given time while in a Choreography the view can then be set to a different camera (or even a light, which can be viewed from almost as if it were a camera).. Single Clicking on an Object in a Choreography will activate it (for animating) while double clicking it will open the original Object (for editing).

I will guess that you are selecting the Null from the PWS listing? Hmmm... I must confess that I am not smart enough to convey what I'm after here and a lot of this is due to my ignorance of the deeper side of Nulls, constraints, etc. I obviously need to approach this from another angle. Nulls have their uses but the elegance of manipulating a single CP is what I'm after. As for the attached gif animation... um... er... I'm not sure what it represents. It's just me moving a single CP around through time and space. Not shown here: Unlike Nulls or Objects that have been constrained/limited in rotation or other orientation CPs always face the viewer so moving them in Z depth works just as well as X and Y without CP scaling or rotation.

I'll investigate. The short answer is 'yes' but the demonstrable answer is 'hmmm... now how did I do that again..." Edit: Actually... it's easy to demo. If you accidentally select the roll handle of the Null then it will rotate. This doesn't appear to happen upon first click but with a second click. I'll see if I can prevent it. How are you creating your translate=-only Null? I assume the Null is part of a Model because, unless I'm missing something, Nulls cannot be limited in such a way outside of a Model.

In that particular case the desire is to be able to always grab a Null (or whatever) and not have it activate rotation. I note that even with limit manipulation settings set to only translate occasionally selecting them will rotate. This can be seen in most face manipulation menus and I recall it happening a lot on characters from TWO when animating via face menu. Perhaps it might be easier to ferret out why the controls allow for the behavior and submit that as a report but Nulls in general haven't satisfied the need. A comparison of grabbing a single CP and moving that around (in any dimension) versus any other object will demonstrate the differences in precision. This isn't to say that single CPs don't have their issues... sometimes they can be hard to click on individually and need to be marque selected (apologies if thats not the right term). One of the benefits to CP controllers is they are trivial to create in just about any configuration. I suspect that one of the reasons I like Point Controllers (Control Points that are controllers is that they always appear to face the user. There are other reasons to like CPs (prefer them to Nulls, etc. that is)... for instance we can stick/project a bunch of them to a surface just by projecting them onto that surface.

I ran an experiment with locked CPs that performed well but as I recall the main downside of that turned out to be that locking CPs is an all-or-nothing type of thing (as is hiding them). In other words, let's say a series of CPs was locked and then a second series of other CPs is desired to be locked. In th proces of locking the second series the first gets unlocked. I think the workaround at that time was to use mulitple models combined together in a Chor where dIfferent CPs were locked/unlocked in model. Then just pretend they are all in the same model. If theCPs were able to be locked in layers (levels?) that might have worked better but I can see how this could easily get out of hand with complex models.. I probably should log some kind of narrative that describes the purpose of the test because I don't have a clue what previous test was about. These recent tests were an attempt to create quick controllers that are easy to access yet very hard (ideally impossible) to manipulate incorrectly. I may have to revisit the multiple model angle again. It might be worth investigating that as Models can easily be Turned On/Off, Pickable/Unpickable, etc.

Yes, that's likely the workaround in the short term. The simple setup that demonstrates the premise is a single CP controller... a trivial example (click for animation):

I must be remembering incorrectly but... I thought when we hid Control Points in a Model or Project and saved the files they remained hidden when the file was opened again. Apparently I just imagined that because a test in an earlier version behaves the same as current version. I must be thinking of Locking CPs. Any thoughts or redirections? I've been using hidden CPs in some experimenatal ways but if they return to visible state when a file is reopened (after saving) that defeats a key part of the experiment.

You aren't talking about volumetrics are you? It doesn't look like you've got that turned on in your shot.

Looking vry good! No suggestions here other than perhaps to dirty up the places where objects meet (brick wall and ground.... trash can and ground). Perhaps that can be accomplished through rendering with SSAO (or AO) but mostly just to break up the smoothness of those lines. If all part of the general style then disregard. I've started four or five insect related images and finished none. Sigh.