robcat2075

I just got the results, minutes ago! Now I need to make the video to reveal the results and do the big scratch-off.

I'm not sure I understand the whole problem. As long as you don't have to turn "action objects" on and off in a shot, how about if you skipped the action object thing altogether and import the hair and head and body into one model?

OK, I finally voted. It was hard to pick just three! I shall be curious to see the results.

Today is the last day to vote for your three favorite bugs! See the link at the top of the thread!

Looks like you got that fist bump working!

There isn't much room to move things in front of other things to suggest depth in a low-relief sculpture. Everything is really on the same level which creates unattractive intersections in overlapping shapes. To try to make the monitor frame appear to be behind the oval (the ant head) I make some cuts in it and slope it down to the background level before it contacts the oval.

You can vote tonight and Monday. Then the polling booth will close!

Not every video codec works well in A:M. Have you converted the video clip to an image sequence? Like a targa sequence. Those always work better. Come back if that isn't a solution. Congrats on the gig!

Call your Aunt May and tell her to vote She's got two more days...

Two more untested, not simple, ideas... -Constraint the light to follow the object, then bake it. Look at the curves and delete the keyframes that are just creating brief small motions and leave in the ones that are carrying the light over a substantial distance. -It may possible to create expressions that test to see if the target has moved some minimum distance before following it.

First experiment with creating low-relief, forced perspective sculpture...

You can still vote for three more days! (see link in top post)

An untested notion I'm thinking of would be to have two or more targets constrained to the character but lagged by positive and negative amounts and then partially constraining the light to follow each one. This might get a sort of averaging effect that would generally follow the character without doing so exactly. Haven't tried it, however.

I think manually animating a target to generally follow the character is the right plan. Generally, the wider you make the light the less closely it will have to track him and the narrower you make the light the more it will need to track him exactly. It's a trade-off in priorities.

Arrangement to allow for a hole at the top to put a ribbon through...

overlaps and underlaps? You mean he's getting out of the light?

Mock-up of some elements to test the placement. This is only a test...

I suppose that could be a 'tip-o-the-hat' to the first contest that gave out a medal? Or... every future contest could be an "Insect" contest. Problem solved!

Michelangelo's painting was actually an art school project and the earliest of only four known easel paintings by him. He based it on a previous engraving of the same subject by Martin Shongauer. In terms of the depictions of the creatures, both have strengths. In Shongauer's version the demon with squid-like wings has a head that is much more dog-like than Michelangelo's and more anatomically plausible.

Thanks for dropping in, Ed!

Four days left* *to vote!

That's my first guess. I'm thinking that some 5-pointers are not pointing the same way as their adjoining patches. BTW... you can post JPGs and PNGs directly to the forum for easier viewing by your readers.

I'm going to need more shape information than the painting gives me so... I've been trying to find some creature that has a head similar to that demon and I'm thinking that, minus the triceratops frills, it's basically a rodent because of the side-mounted eyes on the head rather than front-wise-facing eyes like a cat. My next step was to look at rabbit skulls to see how they are built and... geez, get a load of this ... a rabbit with fangs much like the demon.

Example B is mysterious. The double bias handle will normally only show up when there is a spline on both sides of the selected CP. That's what makes me think there is a hidden spline segment there.

I suppose it's possible that in an imported OBJ the property of Peak/Smooth is somehow being written oddly.