dblhelix

you've been editing? read your first version, got me thinking and figured out there's been a gargantuan violation in terminology on my side. thanks for your patience, this should help enormously: forget cycles. i've this action, let's call it step-action. i make an animation sequence with the step-actions and then i scale the animation shorter. all is good and well. until i close a:m. starting next session when i open a:m again, the scaled keys look ok on the timeline, but a:m previews and renders an animation that is different than the one it previewed and rendered the night before - from the exact same keys. there! (he has no stride nor is he on a path and this is as it should be. i must have activated something while testing stuff since you say he has stride when walking in place. but it doesn't matter: the first version of long sequence made of chor "runcycle" previews according to given keys, with or without faulty, irrelevant programming. only the scaled version behaves with willfull obstinate soul.)

sorry, had to sleep&work&have fun. - - i think i got it; this is cluedo, and it's your nice way of not saying "a:m - in the study - with character" proceeding to scale the original slow-paced project for each new speed test. curious as to why the autonomous night-life of keys had no effect here.

and slipping forward, backward, whathaveyou. this was not so yesterday. i make keys, scale the length of the animation, approve, close am, open am, the keys are visibly there on the timeline - but they have no effect! i know it sounds weird, but it's twice now.

oh, texas.. we up here in the frozen tundra call it skiing when animated feet slip forward and/or back when they should stay put on the ground. the film looked weirdly ok, but what if you scroll? #theremin music#

edit, sorry, the proper forward motion was a different project, not included in the link. problem remains the same.

good! the forward motion in both was impeccable yesterday before closing am. not so today. yesterday there was a (remote) chance i'd done something by mistake to cause the change when it happened the first time after closing am, but not today. i open the chor, the motion has changed "by itself" overnight, it seems. which is impossible, so where did i go wrong? i can work around this, but i tend to do any animation as slow first, then speed it up, so i'd really like to understand where the hiccup is.

there are two projects there. the first shows thom slowly dappity-dapping across the stage. the second, faster, shows him skiing across the stage. do you have two projects in there? can't control content on this machine.

i made a run cycle; a choreography that i saved as an action. created a new chor for testing speed in relation to distance, imported the runcycle and scaled its length in the view that's all white with only red squares. prolonged the cycle to span the scene, then proceeded to animate the cycle nailing toes so thom wouldn't ski. took a break, closed am. came back, worked on an object in the same project then returned to the finished runcycle across the stage. thom was skiing. i cursed "must have scaled something by accident" and did it all over again. rendered, pondered, took notes and went to bed. today i open the project and whaddyaknow, thom is skiing again. hateful creature. is this gratitude? what am i doing wrong/not doing? i've this nagging feeling there's a workflow issue here again. only linear interpolation used. just in case: 1sttestfast.prj

let it simmer. do another scene. come back to this. repeat. since it's a doll you can pretty much make him whatever? on a glance, his eyes are out of frame just a little too long given the length of the first scene. when he moves it feels he just woke up, it looks good, as does the stumble. you could play with that to make it seem more accidental=sudden but it works just fine the way it is. it's "morning". when he sits up, you could test what the arms can do when lifting the body up. try doing this yourself, in front of a mirror, to find a normal way of doing it, but do take a while to figure how your doll would do it. that is a moment where a little effort can go a long way. this could be about the placement/movement of the palms against floor. since the doll's fate is hanging, you've chosen gravity as a major player in the film. when he looks around his neck rotation shows mechanical behaviour while his hand rubbing head is quite organic behaviour. for some reason, it feels good to know whether the doll is more robotic than human. ragdoll with organic tendencies will probably win you empathy. test moving the neck slightly up-down during sideways movement, pausing/slowing the head rotation as if eyes lingered a moment on something?

ok ok ok now i know why you're called TheSpleen - i'm splitting mine laughing at your films. this is so brilliant that there's an interesting dilemma with today's clip: the one trying to fly out of the trash can. it's too good to start the clip. seriously. he's like a punchline he's so good. he stole the show completely. it wasn't until the fourth (5th?) viewing i discovered the darling discombobulated bulgy-eye in the drain. your films could make a.. running joke i think it's called? is it? was that weird? not my first language! i mean that they would be strewn between other films. in which case the pappy bird picking reaper probably works better in the shorter version? it would amplify the reaper-dynamic and the delectable end result; starting small, building up. is there an after life special?

oh yay! got it! i could only select the the null (with the constraint picker) in the pws, wow that was too easy and embarrassing..

simplest basics trouble; trying to make thom's hand stay in one place when doing a walk cycle (but i'm in chor). tried some constraints and a null but it seems i'm not understanding something basic, since nothing achieved anything. could someone give me the name of the null i need and say if i need to brush up on my so-called understanding of hierarchies? edit, the hand should stay in one place in space regardless of the motion of the rest of the body

so you did have more exact shots planned, just didn't tell. all sounds good, is it opening night yet? he he. one of the strengths here is, that it doesn't seem he has a place to hide. just communicate that well, and it gives horrific payoff! A-HAAA! see, stuff like this is crucial in films like this. ok, officially withdrawing remarks on dollying. you have made the camera an independent mover altogether. can't wait to see more!

good, energetic and mischievous laugh, too!

yes, stitching looking good. and so it does. it will work. i was gathering impressions. if you use a ready-made effect, here's my number one tip for AE: at least double it. if it's anything other than blur, the first thing i do is double the layer and then go nuts starting with the top one on 20-40 opacity. try anything, everything. any additional effect, offset, colors, color masks, noise (i tend to scale a lot) - and then run the layers through layer modes starting with the top layer. you can find tiny or massive things no one's ever seen because no one ever looked. they give a personal touch to using a good program. glad you liked the idea of showing, very welcome to it, and what i mean comes after the showing. well you can start before: do you show the connection to viewers before letting the doll figure out what's up. or do we find out as he does? either is ok, depending on how you want to play it. it's all about building suspense. the horror -and tragedy- comes from him understanding his situation. what does he do? how do you show it, pace it? it can be done in many ways (music plays a huge part here) and doesn't necessarily require that much animation either, just shots. you're looking at 10 new shots (at least) to render. having a lid to the box complicates things - why doesn't he just take shelter in the box under the lid? you might have the lid broken in half, one half missing. if you want to animate, you can do a lot here. he could try to find cover. he could climb the big boxes with the help of a hook and a string - only to find out that there's some head-stuffing and a long piece of thin white rope in a loop on top.. maybe he tries to find a weapon of sorts, trying things out. or maybe the doll tries to find comfort holding a tin soldier with a gun. the situation is very inspiring, as you can see . but without a doubt, he'll be looking out for the spider. and it's still all about how you show it. you could take a day to brainstorm, see what comes up and what you've time to do. and check this out, how self-evident it might feel, try and read - i thought of this due to the confines of the scene - the emptiness of the attic: the shot tells the story and this basic staging principles yes i see. editing could also help you do the same. still not saying that dollying won't work, just not entirely convinced. i knew you'd say that, was just too tired for a pre-emptive disclaimer! and thanks, just writing this made time fly by amidst all boredom. up and running soon enough. looking forward to more. (withholding one last idea till i see your camera in action, with transitions. bit of a gimmick, might not help at all.)

hey! if it's ok to read, ok to use, it's ok to have made it up, right? didn't know about her librarian descent, suspected as much but only suspected. when first seeing her, i was struck by her colors and took for granted you had chosen them purposefully. or..... an apple! approaching can she dunks the apple in.

that is anarchy gone ostrich. quite un-anticipated move!

but why do you call snow white 'lady goodbody'?

WONDERFUL! compelling, you can smell the wood, the doll looks good, color scheme is naively nasty and i like the cold, soft light. you've made a burton-fan fanatic, so here goes; 1- are you likening the camera to the spider? the "view now from the top, somewhere in the woodwork, looking down at the doll" gave that inkling, but camera movement in the beginning did not? dollying is a rather large device, and serves you best when either "invisible" or used with a very singular emphasis, a clear purpose. you're sure you've played out all chances cutting between still images in the beginning could give you? - a tree between the light and the window, shadow giving motion to the stills, scares in the cuts - the wind could come and go, stopping the shadowplay, simply by using sound - a car passing by once could animate large areas, the moving lamps throwing the light upward 2- that dark inky-blotchy-thing at the end of "sneaktest", is that a transition you're going to use? (it looks really good!) if yes, it would also play heavily into the camera-philosophy? or, together with the fade-into-light after titles, they would play into the general abstraction in components, which benefits from a meticulous, clean approach. - this is still regarding the dollying, just making sure you've gone the distance with that decision. 3 - i can't help wondering why you're not playing up the horror? just a little bit? purrleaaase? it would not make the film any less, so to speak, but that's a matter of opinion of course. i think a serious story can contain horror, and horror can be manufactured in many ways to suit different needs. 4 - a hypothesis: if you play up the fear, play up the tragedy, you could show the doll making the connection from the polaroid to the web. his situation is abstracted enough, your components are abstract enough, you would benefit from going down-to-earth when building his emotion and motivation. it gives an emotional doorway to viewers, and really, really packs that much more punch. and all this without abandoning the style i think you're going for. in case you're not used to showing material to others, let me just say that this lengthy a response means you've touched me, inspired and motivated me greatly. doesn't happen every day, y'know. thanks so much for an exciting script and images, i'm down with fever and you've just made my day!

heeeee's cute! a fluid solution to bodyparts, too. the eyes will win with something to bring more focus to them but you're probably all over it. what a charming, endearing walk!

thank you and robcat for the compression tips, and an extra thank you for the 90-degree-following-camera suggestion. the mouse-solution lasted just hours, it's not the mouse it's me, and it's a great relief to have the camera solution to look forward to! setting that up will be the first chore come the next session.

thanks! i'm always too short with the information, leading people astray; this one is the beginning to the longer short. after this there's thom's resignation giving audience time to commiserate, then a bit of milking their pity, then a stark surprise followed by acute cuteness with a finale of beutifully slow onslaught of magic. well that's the plan anyway. the two second short, which will be my contribution, is just a run-through, have to model two things for that first. scary. working dayjob 10 days of next 11, easing up your workload

well the fun four days are over, here's the result. a whopping two seconds. on the bus stop theme though the set is not there. this would be the beginning so yes, he just missed the bus. only just animated the hands today, couldn't post without at least an inkling of follow through. arms were the hardest thing to do. the balance i've been at for the longest, have a hearty go! it was very interesting to move the hips in relation to the feet to experiment where he is the most tired, when the motion is the most cumbersome. what's here is not the only thing that worked, but the most "thom organic". a dead tired jogger does his best to not let the hips sink cause he can't lift them again; i had thom push his cute belly up and onward. this has been a newbie hassle with trying to hit the right bone, telling left from right (always a challenge!) and basics like that, so interpolation has received 0.5 interest and would be the next test area. tips? tiredt.mov

of course you're right! big pardons for complicating a straightforward assignment, mea culpa i'll put all my smash into the brand spankin' two seconds idea and get lathing. didn't really think a short film would qualify, but had to try for a side-line submission at least.. thanks Gerry

a bit funny: reading "set" when looking at that content table it unconsciously translated into "this is all set, don't touch". "choose" would have prompted me to click there. it's the little things. chose my favourite H264 cheer.mov