Are there tricks to managing a huge choreography?

[luckbat]

Here's the deal. Like many animators, I've got an elaborate set in my choreography. Over two dozen models just for the one room, ten lights, ten cameras (so far).

 

Although it was necessary to place all of these elements individually, I often need to deal with them as a group. For example, when doing test renders, I may need to toggle the entire set on and off. Or I may need to flip all the lights off so I can add in another light.

 

Right now, doing stuff like this is really tedious. Clicking through the property window on 26 different models and setting each one's 'Active' property to OFF, and then back to ON when I'm done, is getting old real fast.

 

Managing all these camera views is equally cumbersome. The only way I know of switching camera views is by hitting the '1' key, so I end up having to do this a lot: 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,Oops--went too far!,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. And that's only with 10 cameras! I expect to have almost double that by the time the animation is finished.

 

I'm hoping there's a way to group these things, so I can globally disable the set, or all the lights, or some other arbitrary group of objects. Does anyone have any suggestions? Am I missing something really obvious?

[Dearmad]

I don't use that many cameras, so I can't speak to that.

 

But I sorta thought they'd have the on/off and controlling props in groups bit down by the latest version. Hm. It's one of my pet peeves during set-ups and tests for really large sets too.

 

Looks, from the screenshot, like you may have it easier than me though- you can go down that list and click-click-click, I have CLICK on the item, click on active in the properties box, then go back up to PWS and click the next item, then back to properties... FECK!

 

I think it's good that Hash will be making another, larger film, so these types of improvements will have more meaning to them and impetus for them to add them into the latest versions than what just a few wacko crazies occasionally sending them an email about, "Hey could you add in...?" can do...

 

-a wacko crazy

[higginsdj]

Well:

 

1. Why 10 Cameras? Are there 10 shots? If so create 10 Chors with 1 camera each.

2. Are all the lights used for each shot? If not - see 1

3. Are all the models visible in each shot? If not - see 1

 

Do one thing at a time, keep it simple and do not try to do everything in one project/chor etc.

 

To simplify it, copy the current chor 10 times (keep a master). In each chor delete what is not required for that shot.

 

Cheers

[Dearmad]

I dunno... speaking from the perspective of about 20 minutes worth of completed animation in my own short, that's somewhat dangerous advice with a cost that can be more than it's worth.

 

Example. Say I've gone through a sequence, say 0101 to 0120, so 20 shots. By the time I get to shot 20 (0120) I realize I want a different angle on 0110 (shot 10). It's a simple change, really, but will show a totally different angle to the set (but within design limitations)... OOPS! NO props there, OOPS, no wall, damnit...

 

I find retaining flexibility between sequences can help me unify a shot sequence more than sticking to a rigid story-board plan can- well worth it, IMO. (Obviously, though, I began with the storyboard sequence to lay it out!)

 

Also, if you're going to be rendering reflections- most likely a lot of the props "off" camera, are actually still "on" camera.

 

It's much easier to just include the whole freakin set for any given shot sequence, since I'm not an arthouse with enough people in it to labor at will over things- need the software to labor. It doesn't slow down anything in the computer much at all, if you can toggle certain ones on/off while you work and then turn em back on when you're done.

 

Designing a shot is not as simple as one imagines when it comes to actually doing it for a film sequence.

 

'cept I don't understand the 10 cameras thing, I divide my sequences into units that only ever involve 1 camera, even if there's a cut/edit inside one of those units, a simple step interpolation solves that problem. The only time I have more than one camera is during set-ups where I *rarely* use a second one attached to some character to assist in animating, but it is VERY rare I do that, I tend to animate in in 2-4-6 or top views then check my shot camera, when in a chor, otherwise it's in an action.

[Dearmad]

Just some stray thoughts:

 

I keep "sets" stripped of lights and cameras in stock, as choreographies.

 

I pull one out when I begin a sequence, and light it for that use, decide camera angles (in accordance with storyboards, etc).

 

I don't light a set and consider that set "solved" ever. I will change lights from cut to cut within a set in the same scene, if it suits the scene. So I tend to not need a lot of lights in any shot I'm animating.

 

What this has done is built up a LOT of different lighting solutions as I've moved on- each shot has one, so I sometimes go back to how I solved it in one shot and reuse that in another by stripping out characters/actions and beginning from that other shot's point.

 

I've been operating in my film with chors as the main unit for filming- I don't use "projects." I don't understand why I would need to, since the chor loads up everything- models, lights, actions, etc... Don't need multiple chors going at once either, which is the only thing a project could do for me.

[luckbat]

1. Why 10 Cameras? Are there 10 shots? If so create 10 Chors with 1 camera each.

There will probably be 60 or more shots in the finished piece, taken from a total of about 20 camera positions. In many cases the same action is viewed from multiple camera angles. Creating 10 choreographies would mean I'd have to make every keyframe 10 times, so that each camera would see the same thing!

 

2. Are all the lights used for each shot?

Of course. There's only one set.

 

Are all the models visible in each shot?

In about half of the shots, yes.

[Dearmad]

Yeah, then I see the reason for your organiziation.

 

Whatever- selecting groups of shortcuts and being able to activate/deactivate them all is a reasonable feature IMO.

[luckbat]

'cept I don't understand the 10 cameras thing, I divide my sequences into units that only ever involve 1 camera, even if there's a cut/edit inside one of those units, a simple step interpolation solves that problem.

In film school, this is called "editing in-camera," and it's discouraged. I plan to render out shots from each camera's POV and edit them in a separate editing program, like on a real film. Having so much overlap between shots gives me the ability to play with the 'rhythm' of a scene, not to mention the benefit of trying out different ways of cutting together the same set of shots.

 

I don't light a set and consider that set "solved" ever. I will change lights from cut to cut within a set in the same scene, if it suits the scene. So I tend to not need a lot of lights in any shot I'm animating.

Understood, but then I don't consider ten lights to be a lot for a set of this size, especially when the viewer will be seeing nearly every part of it over the course of the scene.

[Dearmad]

I thought about that, but decided I simply didn't have time to live my mortal life to not be efficient enough to generally edit in camera.

 

Since I have instant access to "dailies" (quick renders) and am editing together the film as it is shot (to see rhythm) I can go back and re-edit an animated sequence to stretch it out a bit right then, add something here, a beat there... the analogy to film didn't hold up for me- my actors are digital puppets at my total mercy and control, not actors; I can film them anytime I need to- I can even have multiple iterations of them (which I do) for various purposes. And I certainly don't pay them, so they work looooong hours... Also lighting conditions are static until I make them dynamic (losing light? Never!), things can blow up again and again until it's just as I want it, etc... it's a very different world of filming from reality.

 

I don't bother with another angle unless I think I want it while I'm editing- and even then I set it up from the originating shot but treat it as a completely seperate shot- meaning lighting will change if I need to get the right look, etc... I have a few cuts in my film like this, where I went back and needed another angle to intersperse. To look right even some animation had to change... I'm glad they're seperate "shots."

 

However, having said that, don't let me step on your toes as you move ahead- each person's method of approach will profoundly set the mood and tone for their work, and that is important to respect in art. Well, at leats I think so.

[luckbat]

Exactly. To each his or her own workflow. The important point is that we both agree that the PWS needs some sort of grouping system. Badly.

[higginsdj]

I dunno... speaking from the perspective of about 20 minutes worth of completed animation in my own short, that's somewhat dangerous advice with a cost that can be more than it's worth.

 

Example. Say I've gone through a sequence, say 0101 to 0120, so 20 shots. By the time I get to shot 20 (0120) I realize I want a different angle on 0110 (shot 10). It's a simple change, really, but will show a totally different angle to the set (but within design limitations)... OOPS! NO props there, OOPS, no wall, damnit...

 

I find retaining flexibility between sequences can help me unify a shot sequence more than sticking to a rigid story-board plan can- well worth it, IMO. (Obviously, though, I began with the storyboard sequence to lay it out!)

 

Also, if you're going to be rendering reflections- most likely a lot of the props "off" camera, are actually still "on" camera.

 

It's much easier to just include the whole freakin set for any given shot sequence, since I'm not an arthouse with enough people in it to labor at will over things- need the software to labor. It doesn't slow down anything in the computer much at all, if you can toggle certain ones on/off while you work and then turn em back on when you're done.

 

Designing a shot is not as simple as one imagines when it comes to actually doing it for a film sequence.

 

'cept I don't understand the 10 cameras thing, I divide my sequences into units that only ever involve 1 camera, even if there's a cut/edit inside one of those units, a simple step interpolation solves that problem. The only time I have more than one camera is during set-ups where I *rarely* use a second one attached to some character to assist in animating, but it is VERY rare I do that, I tend to animate in in 2-4-6 or top views then check my shot camera, when in a chor, otherwise it's in an action.

My comments weren't aimed at someone already 20 minutes into production - it was about how to set up a project. The point being that you only set up only what you need for each shot and not necessarily and entire set.

 

Whatif's can go on forever. Whatif I now want a window in a wall and be able to see a beautiful vista outside....... Do I 'struggle' throughout a project for all the 'just in case' situations?

 

If you are rendering reflections then you only need an image of the set behind you - not all the set items themselves.

 

Designing a shot - Thats what your storeyboards are for. Note that I am not condeming anyone for buidling and using an entire set - I'm just making suggestions for simplifying things through preplanning!

 

Cheers

[robcat2075]

The only way I know of switching camera views is by hitting the '1' key,

right-click in chor window>view>cameraX

 

Or I may need to flip all the lights off so I can add in another light.

If your lights were all in one "model" rather than separate objects inthe chor you could make a "pose" that would turn Active On/Off for any arbitrary set. Even if you made a pose for each light, at least they would be easily accessed in one window.

 

Lights are treated as bones in a model so they would still be animatable.

[robcat2075]

Stop the presses...

 

You can CTRL-select any arbitrary set of items in your chor in the PWS and then turn Active On/Off inthe properties window to affect them all simultaneously.

[luckbat]

You can CTRL-select any arbitrary set of items in your chor in the PWS and then turn Active On/Off inthe properties window to affect them all simultaneously.

 

Cool, thanks! That'll speed things up considerably.

[Dearmad]

My comments weren't aimed at someone already 20 minutes into production - it was about how to set up a project.  The point being that you only set up only what you need for each shot and not necessarily and entire set.

 

Whatif's can go on forever.  Whatif I now want a window in a wall and be able to see a beautiful vista outside.......  Do I 'struggle' throughout a project for all the 'just in case' situations?

 

If you are rendering reflections then you only need an image of the set behind you - not all the set items themselves.

 

Designing a shot - Thats what your storeyboards are for.  Note that I am not condeming anyone for buidling and using an entire set - I'm just making suggestions for simplifying things through preplanning!

 

Cheers

 

Luckbat:

AGH! That is SWEET- don't have that in 8.5. Grrr....

 

Higgins:

You need more than the set as an image behind you if there are actors in the reflections.

 

I think Luckbat in his project, and I in mine, are well beyond the point of what ifs. And in my experience, the advice I gave was sound.

 

I think I made it clear about setting up only what you need, but, in a rather complete set that can be a lot, nonetheless. Luckbat's (and alot of my sets) have a lot of elements to them, I guess.

 

I have storyboards. But when I hit the actuals of the set, sometimes the drawings aren't up to what I end up wanting and things change- in fact a lot of the time they change- sometimes small changes, sometimes so large I have to restoryboard.

 

I preplanned for 6 months, I preproduced for a year and a half. I'm well aware of the need to make only what I need and manage efficiently what I have made. I have many shots where if the camera moves even a pixel to one side it'll expose the edge of the set, for example.

[higginsdj]

Hi Peter,

 

There is no right or wrong answer here - they are simply options - each has their own strengths and weakness's.

 

And I am certainly not trying to teach you to 'suck eggs' - just offering suggestions that may suit others who read this thread!

 

Cheers

[JohnArtbox]

One word guys & Gals

FOLDERS

If you keep your seperate groups under folders in the choreography you can right click on the folder to select all children. Then any change you make in properties will apply to all models in that folder, colour diffuse ambience et al.

at a minimum I seperate my chos into foreground background and midground folders + a sperate layer for animated objects that interact.

In this Scene landscape I've used the folders to tint different trees and allow me to keep my choreography heirachy under control.

[Dearmad]

What does "suck eggs" mean here- I'm assuming it's figurative language.

 

John:

Wow... Hash has certainly improved the organization of the PWS, it sounds like. Amazingly good, and lots of them, improvements all around.

[higginsdj]

An Australian/English colloquial term meaning to teach you things you already know how to do.

 

Cheers

[luckbat]

One word guys & Gals

FOLDERS

If you keep your seperate groups under folders in the choreography you can right click on the folder to select all children. Then any change you make in properties will apply to all models in that folder, colour diffuse ambience et al.

That's what I wanted. I'd tried making folders before, but was never able to drag anything into them. It looks like you have to right-click on the 'Choreographies' folder itself in order to create the kinds of folders that will contain the models in the chor.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to reorganize my PWS...

[robcat2075]

Now, why can't we have folders for bones in a model in a chor?

[Paul Forwood]

Wow! This is a very interesting thread and very illuminating.

John, I had no idea that you could organise the PWS like that. Brilliant!

Thanks for sharing all this, guys!

[vf124]

One word guys & Gals

FOLDERS

 

Man, for me, this has been ONE educational thread God I luv this place ...

[williamgaylord]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought you can only render a single camera view (shot) at a time, anyway, so the total render time should be the same. The setup time seems like the main issue if I am understanding this.

 

I think maybe some planning ahead of time could save you some work and still give you multiple shots for interesting flexibility in post production editing. First a storyboard, followed by an animatic made of single frame renders. You can get a really good sense of the lighting and camera angles (and even story flow) without a lot of render time.

 

Can you not copy a choreography and edit the camera and lighting for a new shot? Then store the choreography in a separate folder?

 

Bill Gaylord

[luckbat]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought you can only render a single camera view (shot) at a time, anyway, so the total render time should be the same. The setup time seems like the main issue if I am understanding this.

Actually, my method actually takes longer to render, since I'm generating three or four minutes of footage for a two-minute short. But I don't mind the longer setup times--it's the unwieldy PWS that I was having trouble with. John Artbox's "folders" solution makes a world of difference in this regard.

 

I think maybe some planning ahead of time could save you some work and still give you multiple shots for interesting flexibility in post production editing. First a storyboard, followed by an animatic made of single frame renders. You can get a really good sense of the lighting and camera angles (and even story flow) without a lot of render time.

Unfortunately, the biggest contributor to my render time by far is the toon renderer, which more or less quadruples it.

 

Can you not copy a choreography and edit the camera and lighting for a new shot? Then store the choreography in a separate folder?

I definitely could, but as I mentioned in a previous post, you can only use this method if your choreography is final. Otherwise, any changes you make to the action would need to be mirrored across multiple choreographies, which doesn't make it much of a time-saver.

 

I think where I'm differing from my fellow animators is that I prefer to edit my footage after it's shot, rather than defining my edits as part of the animation itself. There's no question that this makes for longer render times and a complicated choreography, but I feel it gives me more control over the final product. I've been gradually developing techniques to squeeze down the toon-related render hit, and Artbox's folder trick has gone a long way towards helping me manage all my PWS elements. So things are looking up.