Jeetman
-
Posts
902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jeetman
-
-
Well, I wanted to get a lot done last weekend but I had too many interuptions to get a lot done. I did get something done so it wasn't a complete loss.
I do have a clip to share. It's only facial animation though. I didn't get to work on the poses yet. Because I have just the lipsync (no eyebrows or smile controls) in the action, I wanted to add the full face chor action. There's one particular part in my shot where Tin responds to a stupid thing Pessim says. I wanted to see If I could get the right facial reaction. Here's what I got.
Let me know what you think. Remember, there are no body movements yet. Just facial and this shot is only Tin's reaction.
Here it is
removed
-
What I do is set up my shot and and render it making note of the times.
Then I move camera make another shot starting one frame forward so when I join them it is seamless.
This works very well for me.
If you don't plan on editing the clip (I.E. adding after effects, etc to a single or each clip) and all you're going to do is join them together, wouldn't it be faster to just animate one camera?
Just a thought.
George
-
This is excellent for flexing while bending, but is there an option to just bend without flexing. Realistic muscle movement is very hard to re-create in a model I've found because of the interactions between the muscles while bending or just in a static contraction.
Just for fun, I wanted to see if I could model Bruce Lee's forearm muscle and make it go from relaxed to flexed with a pose slider. After looking at the complexity of muscles in his once well developed forearm, I realized it was way above my modeling and rigging abilites.
George
-
A:M does not animate different cameras. If you add a camera, you basically animate from the 2 separate cameras.
You have 2 options:
1. render your cameras separately and use them as separate clips that you'd edit together (in another program).
2. The easier way is to animate the one camera. Move the camera to where you need it to be. You can use the "hold" function to make it jump into place or animate the zoom.
-
Ken and Nancy,
Excellent analysis of this shot. Nancy, I too had the same response of confusion as you did when I watched the clip of Trot's and Bill's reaction. I was going to respond but decided to read the whole thread and I'm glad I did. Nothing for me to add to both of your suggestions. I can't wait to see what Mark decides to do.
Mark, it's looking good so far! Keep up the good work.
George
-
This validates 2 things that we already know: 1, A:M has the potential for incredible professional quality productions and 2, How inadequate you feel when you see an incredible professional quality production done hehe.
Elm and Michael, this is one of the best productions I've ever seen using A:M. It's literally awe inspiring, OUTSTANDING work!
George
-
This looks great John!!!
George
-
I personally would move it slightly so the small charaters head is blocking TM groin
Mark, thanks for the input but because depth is 2D with the illusion of 3D, I don't think it would be a good idea to put Pessim's head in front of TM's groin. It might look a little strange don't you think?
George
LOL True LOL
I just thought that maybe a different angle might be better and that was a quick but not good suggestion but I would look for a way to avoid what you have now IMHO.
The idea of the shot is to give the "over the shoulder" angle. I think it adds interest while putting the viewer at Pessim's vantage point. I borrowed the concept from Ken's 2_05_04 shot. I really like his camera angles and I'm basically trying to duplicate what he did. What is it about the camera angle that you don't like?
Thanks again for commenting.
George
-
I personally would move it slightly so the small charaters head is blocking TM groin
Mark, thanks for the input but because depth is 2D with the illusion of 3D, I don't think it would be a good idea to put Pessim's head in front of TM's groin. It might look a little strange don't you think?
George
-
from what I can see, it looks really good. I agree with Joe about getting a closer look to check out the details a bit more.
George
-
Btw, in the shot where there are no words, I'm expecting to see TW look exasperated.....like raising his eyes to heaven/sighing or both.
I was thinking more of a dumbfounded look. When I was playing the shot to get a feel for the poses and expressions, everytime I hit that spot where Tin is reacting to Pessim's dumb comment, I see Tin giving him a look of, "huh?".... it makes me laugh every time.
If you look at the first post, the original camera set up is there. It's basically the same camera angle for Tin and Pessim that alternates back and forth as they talk.
Thanks for the input Ken.
George
-
I didn't get anytime last night to do much but I wanted to play around with the camera angles a bit. I like Ken's camera shots in 2_05_04 so I tried to get a vantage point perspective on a few of the cuts. I didn't really like jumping back and forth to the same angles for the whole shot. In trying to vary the perspective (and I'm certainly no expert on this), I'm hoping to add a little more interest to enhance the story.
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this. My next step is to set up the poses. I want to establish the camera angles first.
In watching this this morning before going to work, I noticed a few things I need to adjust in the lipsync.
I've reduced the file size as much as I could while still maintaining the screen size.
George
-
Just got the lipsync done and adjusted the timing to the camera changes. After seeing Ken's shot though, I think I might play with camera angles if it's OK. I used the camera angles that were already set up. Anyway I wanted to show that I am working on my shot so here's the whole shot (56 seconds) with just the lipsync and camera cuts.
George
-
Looks Great Jerry!!
I love the star effect in the beginning, the things coming out of the ground are in good time to the music and the present morphing is very smooth!!
Excellent job!
George
-
Day 130I would use a bluish ambience light
Coincidently enough, I just happen to have a blue tinted version.
I dinked around trying to reframe this scene because unless you're watching on HDMI or in Letterbox, Mrs. Yoop is barely visible at the bottom of the screen. However... My conclusion became "one thing at a time." I stated from the beginning that I'd like to continually refine TWO, so I'm not obsessing here but I also need to pour a similar amount of time into SO. I'll practice my camera & framing techniques on SO - at least for now.
This looks really good maybe a slight more blue on the edges of Yoop to get a very subtle effect like Yves has only coming from the door and highlighting the edges of her feet and knees and gradually blending with the hot color on the edges of Yoops upper body?
I really like the cold and hot color scheme here.
George
-
Coincidently enough, I just happen to have a blue tinted version.
It is more something along this line that I had in mind.
I think the one that Martin posted has a better mood. The blue offsets the hot colors and gives a nice balance to the room IMO.
George
-
Day 132
When I did an SVN Update today; Ulrika, Holmes, Myron & Michael had been conscientious enough to contribute this week. I'm pleased and thankful to them, and hope to see their continued commitment, but the numbers of people working on SO is diminishing - so-much-so that I wonder if we can finish the project. I'll hang in there as long as there's a chance we'll be a "movie company" but when the participation gets down close to zero... Poof! (I'll be gone.)
I also contributed. I committed my latest updates last night. I'm surprised it didn't register. True I'm still on the lipsync but I did contribute.
George
-
Katt,
I love the characters and I admire your perseverance to this project. I do think the camera action is a little choppy but it's coming along great!!!
Really good work!!!
George
-
I agree with Will. If you used a little blue light, it would make the colors of the shot look a lot better. It looks good now but you need more back lighting IMO.
George
-
Oh, that's very close. Let's call it "good," so you can move onto another assignment.
My plan is to make an Edit of the 1st half of the movie then watch it and make notes of any animation polishing we think is needed. We'll post those suggestions into the appropriate threads and you can come back and pick them up later if you feel so inclined. I've noticed that once people have been away from a sequence for awhile, they're more willing to dink on it. We're leaving time in our schedule to do just that.
Do you want me to delete the extra keys and set the frames to hold?
-
Way to go George! I really like what you've done with it.
Thanks Holmes
-
Yaaay! Jeetman does animation!
I like it! You've got some good poses in there. Nothing that doesn't make sense. It's hard to tell how the lipsync is, but it doesn't need to be perfect at this stage. Those pops in the audio are very distracting....we can't leave them in there.
In my higher res rendering at home I didn't hear pops. It's probably because I'm using the lowest quality to keep the file size down maybe?
So the camera angles look Ok to you?
-
I posted in the wrong post so I'm going to repost here.
Well I FINALLY got enough time to finish the blocking. I still need to do a little clean up (delete keys that are not used per KenH's request) and set the frames to "hold" but the initial poses are in place. Here's a render of the poses and camera angles. All crits and suggestions welcomed. I really would appreciate the feedback.
Bear in mind that this is ONLY blocking so you'll see passing through and robotic movements. What I need to know is if the poses are good enough or not.
Thanks,
George
One more thing, As much as I tried to reduce the file, because it's slightly over a minute long, the file size is 11 meg.
-
Can you set A:M to render in final with back faces off? If you can it would be a huge time saver I think.
You mean to not render faces that would not be seen anyway? The renderer already figures those out in the "computing Patch visibility" step.
or do you mean back-facing patches off like shaded mode can? No.
I mean as in shaded mode. My theory was if you flip a patch then put in a patch with a hole, because the back is transparent, you'd only see the hole. Oh well. Too bad. It would saved a lot of time.
George
A rather newbish question
in New Users
Posted
In the project work station (PWS) next to the model shortcut, you'll see a hand. Click on it to make a red "X" appear over it. If you have it selected while doing this, just select a clear spot in the chor or select another object in the PWS. Now it cannot not be selected in the chor. You can still select it in the PWS though.