heyvern

I move points very carefully while in shaded mode. I rotate the view at a steep angle to the surface to see the "bumpy" spots, I then nudge the points that are causing bumps until it gets smooth. It can be tedious but it works. It really is all about the flow of the splines. If the patches are evenly spaced and the splines flow smoothly the smoother the surface. Whenever there is a turn or a point that causes an abrupt change in th direction of the spline you could get a bump. For something like a helmet or a "mechanical" or man made object that has an "unnaturally" smooth surface think about that during creation or modeling too. If you start with a "smooth" spline and extrude/rotate/extrude/rotate the surface is more likely to stay smooth. It maintains that continuous surface and equally spaced patches. Hard to explain. It is the same as when you create a sphere by using the lathe. You never get bumps because everything is smoothly and perfectly oriented. You goal in smoothing a surface is to get that kind of perfect patch layout. Don't forget... sometimes perfectly smooth is a bad thing. I would expect a helmet like this to have dings and bumps even when new.... just an opinion. I love mechanical modeling and try to add those kind of imperfections on purpose. -vern

What part of the image is a rotoscope? Can we see a side by side comparison? Fuzzy and not fuzzy? When I look at your sample at the size it is rendered at it is not fuzzy... at least the skull and rocks up front are not fuzzy. The edges and detail are sharp at that resolution. A rotoscope is an image. If you render it larger than the original resolution it will be fuzzy. -vern

I'm thinking more along the lines of your desires to animate and what you want to do with those animations. The models on the extras disk and the the AM disk would have more than enough different characters to do what you want. All of those models are complete, rigged and ready to animate. Even if there is a remote possibility down the road that you might learn to model a little bit in AM you could even change some of these models slightly to suit your needs. I would invest in the extras disk or download those models (are they available for download?). I think you could spend hours playing with those models before getting bored with them. -vern

If you need to preserve the number of splines you could use hooks further down. -vern

That's what makes these tutorials so fantastic. Even for someone like me who already knows all this stuff I love reading them. -vern

The image you posted doesn't look fuzzy at all to me. It looks sharp and clear. How are you viewing it? If it is a rendered animation and you view it at full screen... it's going to look fuzzy. -vern

The more I think about it the more I think my issues with fingers may be related to good "posing" or animation. If you look at your own hands "at rest" or even in other positions they are never "straight". They always are "curved" slightly bent. Hands and fingers naturally have "elegant poses". You can't really put your hands into an "ugly" or unatural pose. Yet in 3D it is easy to get strange awkward poses. I think my eyes are looking for a more natural position. Hands are probably as important to get right as a face. when something is "off" it really stands out. I have always had problems with odd looking 3D hands. -vern

Sorry for bringing up a subject from 3 pages back... I'm catching up. Finger rigging seems to always be a challenge. There is one thing I notice on most 3D finger motion (not just in AM... but lots of 3D), and it's something that is hard to put my finger on (I'm Vern. pun intended.) Fingers and hands always look... "spidery" to me. Its that "stick" like motion. When the curl they don't... squish up or change volume enough. I almost prefer the version where the extra splines "overlap". The overlapping/squishing of splines is bad yes, but the fingers curl and compress together more realistically. I haven't been keeping up on the forum with this type of thing so maybe it's already been done, but I was thinking of some more fan bones on fingers (ouch!) that would really really really "fatten" the fingers BETWEEN the joints as the finger curls. I would love to see a hand/finger rig where the fingers... look... like fingers when they bend. Most times they look like... bending tubes. I've not often seen a good finger (except when I cut that guy off in traffic the other day but that doesn't count.) -vern

Finger rigging seems to always be a challenge. There is one thing I notice on most 3D finger motion (not just in AM... but lots of 3D), and it's something that is hard to put my finger on (I'm Vern. pun intended.) Fingers and hands always look... "spidery" to me. Its that "stick" like motion. When the curl they don't... squish up or change volume enough. I almost prefer the version where the extra splines "overlap". The overlapping/squishing of splines is bad yes, but the fingers curl and compress together more realistically. I haven't been keeping up on the forum with this type of thing so maybe it's already been done, but I was thinking of some more fan bones on fingers (ouch!) that would really really really "fatten" the fingers BETWEEN the joints as the finger curls. I would love to see a hand/finger rig where the fingers... look... like fingers when they bend. Most times they look like... bending tubes. I've not often seen a good finger (except when I cut that guy off in traffic the other day but that doesn't count.) -vern

This is due to perspective and the camera taking the photo. Most photos or portraits are shot fairly close to the subject so features closer to the camera will appear larger. This seems like it would be very subtle but for what we try to do in AM it is an enormous annoying difference and can completely distort the model if the photos are followed exactly. Look at freaking EARS! Front view photos the ears are TINY compared to side view. Another problem is slight rotations of the photo subjects head when the photo is taken. A front view might not be even CLOSE to being front if there is even a slight rotation forward of the head. It will throw EVERYTHING out of whack. Side views are easy to fix by rotating the image but front views are impossible. It is often hard to find straight on photographs of a subject shot in such a way as to reduce the lens and perspective distortion. What I've done in the past to try and overcome this... a little bit... is to view the model in AM in perspective mode and try to adjust the AM camera to match the perspective of the photo. This can be done in the modeling view by decaling the rotoscope on a grid. It shows in perspective mode and you can sort of line it up with the face. It is not perfect but sometimes you can see clearly what areas are incorrect because of the camera lens distortion. I used this technique on my Dave Bowman image (it's on the AM box if anyone has it... shameless plug. ). I was so FRUSTRATED that my model wouldn't not line up AT ALL with my rotoscopes. Once I did this sort of... perspecive trick I could see the areas that I modeled too skinny because the of the camera distortion in the photo reference. As I mentioned before I end up using "artistic skills". Instead of using the photos to "trace" I have them visible in another completely separate window only as a reference. Then I "sculpt" the model... tweak it... so it looks like the person in the photo. I nudge points here... push them there... I don't measure... Like painting a portrait. Eventually when I look at the model it looks like the person... but... the photo reference would never line up with the model. ------------ I may get yelled at for saying this... but... I think you really need to know how to properly draw faces before you could ever model them effectively in AM. Realistic faces. Maybe I am wrong... but I just can't see any way to cheat that. There is no way to take a short cut. AM is still just a big pencil. You might get close using photos but it will always appear slightly "off" if you don't know how the shapes of the head connect, how the curves of the mouth connect to the cheeks and chin, how the nose and eyes connect to form the brow. Even my own results are not nearly perfect. Not even close to perfect. Realistic heads are probably one of the hardest things to do in any medium. -vern

Whitley Strieber comes to mind. I don't know if you are asking for AM help or "artistic" help. Seriously though, look at any books or web resources you can find on drawing faces. There's a lot on the web. Creating a "nice looking" face in any medium is the same. The same proportions, structures etc. All the same rules apply whether it is a pencil, a lump of clay, or AM. You should do a ton of sketches of faces. Over and over. It will be hard to "learn" to draw working in AM because the modeling process is much longer than sketching. Even if you use photo reference and "trace" on paper the positions and proportions of eyes and mouths and ears you can still learn from that. Learning to draw a face from scratch in AM could be a bit difficult and counterproductive. -vern

It can be if the there is a weird hard to spline area like a face or shoulder. If you can "experiment" with different spline layouts before modeling it could save a lot of trial and error in AM. I've seen sketches from the "pros" here of arms legs, shoulders, heads, with "splines" drawn with pen or pencil. These can be helpful before modeling. They can help determine how to start... extrude or lathe or just stitch. -vern

Even if you need more splines in certain areas for animation or contour detail you still have too many. AM doesn't need that many splines even for "close up" detail or animation. It will just drive you insane trying to keep everything smooth. More splines are really only needed around the eyes and mouth where most of the animation takes place. The mouth area might include some of the bottom of the nose. It doesn't take as many splines as you might think for realistic facial expressions. It DEFINITELY takes much less density than with polygons. If you are use to working with polygons, forget about them completely. AM is totally and completely different. -vern

And all this time I was using a rotoscope and tracing it. -vern

Working with clay allows for one thing that drawing doesn't... you can draw splines on the model before you start (if it is the kind of clay that dries of course). I've seen some people who do this both with the clay model and on 2D drawings. Those who prefer to use drawings can often "fudge" when encountering areas that aren't clearly defined in the image reference. AM is used as the "clay" so to speak. I have trouble sometimes in AM when I have areas in my reference that are unclear or hard to see. Many times I've wished for a 3D sculpture to use as a reference. With an actual sculpted model you can see the 3D. A drawing or photo, even with different views, doesn't have that 3D reference. Everything is flat and also distorted by the camera lens itself. I've done "portraits" from photos that ended up looking distorted because the photo increased the perspective and distorted the reference. It takes an artists eye to fix those things. I often use the image reference in AM initially then remove it completely and only "look" at it as if I were painting a portrait. I don't "trace" the photo but use it to tweak the AM model to look more like the reference but from a purely... artistic point of view. Directly tracing from a drawing or photo may only get you so far. A lot of times an artist will use drawings or sketches just to get the initial form of the character they are creating. At least for me, at some point the AM model goes way beyond my sketch. Even with photo references, eventually the model looks like my photo yet I couldn't possibly "line it up". It has gone beyond the reference. Does AM require a ton of artistic skill? Hard to say. Artistic talent and skill is definately a plus. In your brain AM isn't any different than drawing or sculpting. AM is just like using your hands with a sculpting tool or a pencil or a paint brush... once you get the hang of using it of course... just like learning to draw or sculpt. I've learned over the years that using a drawing or photo reference rotoscope is only the beginning when building the model. It gets you going in the right direction. I almost ALWAYS end up discarding it and treating AM as a "canvas" and my reference as a model posing for me. -vern

Yes, if it is set up that way the scroll wheel could be used to do the "zoom" trick. I have that set with the key board though. However it is software zoom, it zooms the pixels and gets "smooshy" (like increasing image size in photoshope). Works in a pinch though. -vern

I can't put my pants on right now... I'm setting up my new computer. No one should wear pants when setting up a new computer. It causes dangerous static and can snag on the furniture and cause tripping. Additionally the pants can be used as temporary padding to prevent damage and scratches during set up. -vern

Yes I'm using a mac with FF but this doesn't work with an image loaded in a page, iit works with text though. Like I said, small quibble. PDF would be better for printing too. -vern

Any chance of PDF versions? Image quality is fine but trying to read the all caps text on a huge monitor when you can't zoom easily is a bit of a pain. ----- Nice job once again. I know all of this stuff already but it's really fun to read about it again this way. It's like watching reruns of the Love Boat on DVD... uh... not that I actually have The Love Boat on DVD... I am sure it might be fun to watch that old corny show... but... actually buying the DVDs would just be plain silly... a real man wouldn't buy the Love Boat first season Volume 1 on DVD. I certainly wouldn't. I have no idea what gave anyone that idea. p.s. Season 1 Vol 2 is suppose to be coming out this month but I haven't seen it on the shelves yet. -vern

That's the first thing I thought of too! Stealing the idea! We are just a bunch of creative cannibals after all. -vern

Skype? That's video right? I have no camera in my puters. I am technologically challenged. I do however have a digital video camera. Could I hook that up somehow? Can I use a green screen to change my back ground? That last time I used skype... no wait.. it wasn't skype. I used MSMessenger to chat with Steve S. live over the computer... that was weird. Audio only. for some reason I have skype on my mac. I don't remember downloading or installing it. I don't know about this. I've been returning to my primitive roots and have started believing that photographic images steal your soul... and make you look fatter than you really are. p.s. Skype always sounded to me like some sort of derogatory name for some persecuted minority. Maybe like chipheads or nerds. I never really liked it. -vern

I can't wait to see if Capt. Spline defeats the Evil Dr. Crease and his horrible henchmen the Dynamic Duo (two brothers dynamically constrained at the hips.). Will the Halls of Hash survive the onslaught of viscous (YES! Viscous!) Poly Polygon? Will she tempt our hero to the dark side? Will the Hairy Hordes descend on the great halls and overtax the Processors of Protection? Will the Spriticles free themselves from the Blue Fields of Fatality in time to render assistance? Will the new data disk be delivered in time to stop the flesh eating android insects of disaster? Will professor Euler come up with the solution to stop the space station from spinning wildly out of control and burning up in the atmosphere? Will Capt. Spline see the dead end and stop himself before it's too late? Will Shaggy and Scooby ever discover they could just buy their own dang snacks and not be enslaved by the other members of Mystery Inc.? Stay tuned to find out the answers to these and many other questions in the next episode of.... the next episode... of... uh... This comic book really needs a cool name. How soon till they make it into a movie? -vern

I get it now and I see Robcat's point (cp? ) If you really did put splines through all the holes you would likely get creases or even potentially internal patches. The way I see it, if splines go through any two "sets" of symbolic "holes" the third set should be "grayed out" or vanish, or at least an indication that another spline intersecting should be used only by "experienced" AMers with the skills to know how and when to do that... only in an emergency.. or... on the back of the head... under the hair... in a snow storm... at night... with your eyes closed. . p.s. I love the "Spiderman" cable splines. Makes me want to model a suspension bridge... or pop in my Spiderman DVD. They look so perfect I wonder if you could zoom in close enough in AM those braided cables could be seen? Reminds me of when I do my over the top mechanical image contest entries... I get so obsessive over detail I imagine I should be modeling individual atomic structures at a microscopic level... to get it perfect. -vern

These are by far, in my humble opinion the BEST most EASY TO UNDERSTAND and visually PLEASING tutorials for AM I've ever ever seen! They blow my socks off! The imagery style is PERFECT.. it's just... so clean and special. The comic book style is really fantastic. Great job! Wonderful! -vern

The implications aren't nearly as severe as they use to be. You still have to jump through hoops but the hoops are larger now... and they aren't on fire. The tricky part is FINDING the hoops. You can't see them. You have to look for them and then jump through. Fortunately some people on the forum know where the hoops are and will share their locations. In the past there weren't many hoops, they were on fire and they were so tiny it was hard to get through them without burning yourself. I've taken this analogy too far haven't I? p.s. I keep thinking of Will Ferrel in the movie "Old School". -vern