BRIAR ROSE TRAILER

[pequod]

Stephen, we're all blown away here at Hash. You've topped yourself again, by a factor or 10 at least!

 

I've booked a flight to London so that I may shake you by the hand sir!

I was going to go to work the booth at MacExpo, but after seeing the new animation, that's just secondary to meeting you again. :-)

 

We would very much like to show this in our booth at our upcoming trade shows. We will make sure everyone knows you are the talent behind this. A:M was the conduit.

 

You know, I'm going to stop typing and watch it again!

 

I shall do my upmost to see you there Ken, and I'll try not to give you such a hard time this time!

 

Teresa - I'm pretty much self taught, started the traditional route with 2D animation and then discovered A:M way back.

I won't be re-entering the Mascot contest with these guys again..... they had their moment in the limelight.

[pengwin]

I'm a little late to this thread...all I can say is WOW!! That's amazing work!

 

I remember those characters from a couple of years ago. Then, I thought WOW!...now it's WOW!!!!!!!

 

erm...what else can I say...except WOW!!!

 

(running off to find another hobby )

[ypoissant]

Well, I'm late at this thread. I resisted installing QT7 until you posted this trailer and I read all the comments. And in addition, I love the Briar Rose character. You know that. What a fantastic job you did there all around. Bravo!

 

This project was perhaps only 40% animation, lighting and re-rendering for example took inordinate amounts of time.

Yeah! Lighting takes a lot of patience and perseverance along with a fast rendering computer. In addition, lighting comes hand in hand with composition and camera placement.

 

Doing lighting on TWO for a while, that was probably the aspect I took the most interest and care observing. And you did a hell of a good job on this aspect. You worked a lot on this and it shows marvelously. I particularly appreciated how you used the interior night shot to use light in an impressionistic way and support the tension and emotions.

 

Now, I just need to view it a fourth time, this time to look at the poses, animations and expressions.

 

Did I wrote Bravo!?

[Gerry]

Utterly and completely outstanding. I have to mention that my computer at work currently has no sound so I had to watch it silent. And that wasn't a minus! The story comes through loud and clear and the number of tasty little touches and body language, well, I can't think of any superlatives that haven't already been worn out on this thread so far.

 

Great work, great timing, acting, lighting, great characters. Okay, I'm done. Can't wait to watch it at home tonight.

[Kamikaze]

Sense you rendered on one machine may I ask if you used AA or multi pass x?, sky light rigs?.........and what would you estimate was your time to render one frame ,on average?

 

Thanks a bunch

 

Once again amazing work...

 

Mike

[Rodney]

I posted a link to this topic in Renderosity.

 

Brair Rose Trailer announced in Renderosity

[pequod]

Yeah lighting is very time consuming and there are infinite possibilities, I have so much to learn. Like many, Yves, I really appreciate the hard work you are putting into these new lighting features. I wish I had had version 13 for many of the scenes. Kevin Waldron's hair shader for one would have been a god send.

For the end scene I used a multi pass spinning light trick to simulate AO (thanks to John Keates for the techie info), it rendered quite quickly, but I had to render her hair separately otherwise I'd still be looking at the render progress bar now.

 

Kamikaze - I rendered everything with multi pass (16x). You get better motion blur, less artefacts and better antialiasing. Sometimes, to avoid excessive shimmering on textures or bad aliasing on edges, I would render at twice the size (1600x900) and then scale down in Photoshop. I really should of oversampled on that last scene.

 

Virtually all the lighting was your basic 3 or 4 light setup, no skylights, apart from the multi pass trick I mentioned earlier for the last shot. There was lots of rendering out of different sections from the same shot to be composited later. Average render times - I'm not sure, but I felt relieved if I could keep it down to 15 min per frame, but that wasn't often. I rendered it on a 2GHz AMD computer.

 

Thanks Rodney for promoting it on Renderosity.

[Rodney]

Thanks Rodney for promoting it on Renderosity.

 

I just linked to here. In renderosity that's about all I can do.

 

I'm sitting here wishing I was you right now.

If I was you'd see me plastering this trailer all over the place.

 

Seriously, you've done something really tremendous here.

Your vision, your talent... you!*

 

Please, take a bow!

 

It's almost painful (for me) to think that people interested in this type of story, characters, quality animation, might not be seeing this. This is only from the perspective of a viewer. There is the creative side as well where there are legions who want to do that too.

 

I'm enjoying this with you.

Brair Rose is really a beaut.

 

(You really need a press agent)

 

 

*Briar Rose is also a direct reflection on the talented support behind you (i.e. John Keates!)

As Yves might say... Bravo!

[Fab]

Wow !!! it's incredible. Fantastic work!

[kuep]

This another example of the power of AM. It is very cool. looking for more!!!

[trajcedrv]

AMAZING WORK! come to think of it, some studios make 4 minutes movie and then they break their breastplate pounding about their talent pool od 40 - something animators and minuscule render farm of 100 computers... and you did it yourself... and it is only a trailer!

 

WOW!

 

Congratulations, this movie deserves some REAL publicity and fame!

 

Drvarceto

[animas3D]

Perhaps the greatest thing ever created with Animation Master.

 

Congratulations.

 

Joe.

[rusty]

Stephen,

 

Wow. WOW. I hate you! LOL! How do you do that! It looks so Frigging good! The colors and tones, the animation, the sets, the character development. The hand animation knocked me over. And no fair on the hair!

 

Well I'm going to have to read this entire thread (I just saw this, as usual my head's been in the sand with my own stuff). I must ring out all the info I can. What version did you do this in (I assume its A:M). Well, a zillion "how did you..." questions but, I'll see what you've given up so far before I assault you with them.

 

I seem to remember this same kind of reaction to 'Mosey' but you've taken a quantum leap from that master piece (but I 'do' see a little 'Mosey' in there don't I!).

 

Congratulations! I'm amazed, awed, speechless.

 

Rusty

 

How did you get those rich textures and colors!!??

[johnl3d]

anazing to say the least

[Dalemation]

I can't add much to what's already been said except to say that I needed some motivation and inspiration and your work has given me both. Stunning!!

[ddustin]

Any idea what the feedback has been on the CGtalk forum?

 

David

 

EDIT: Just checked it out, seems mostly hashers commenting.

[Dhar]

Superb. Simply: Superb!

[MikeSanderson]

WOW Stephen!!

........................Absolutely Awesome Work!!!!!

[gugesbri]

Stephen, we're all blown away here at Hash. You've topped yourself again, by a factor or 10 at least!

 

I've booked a flight to London so that I may shake you by the hand sir!

I was going to go to work the booth at MacExpo, but after seeing the new animation, that's just secondary to meeting you again. :-)

 

We would very much like to show this in our booth at our upcoming trade shows. We will make sure everyone knows you are the talent behind this. A:M was the conduit.

 

You know, I'm going to stop typing and watch it again!

 

 

Amen Ken, amen.

 

Gustavo Pabon

[MixePix]

very cool!

[Kamikaze]

Thanks so much for taking the time anf posting the info I asked about, boy I sure hope this can becomes a full length feature ..I can tell you I''d defineatly take my family to see it, at full price too (we rarely do that) and not just because it was done in AM , but because of the whole package, story, animation and all, this is what I'd call the whole enchilada.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Kamikaze - I rendered everything with multi pass (16x). You get better motion blur, less artefacts and better antialiasing. Sometimes, to avoid excessive shimmering on textures or bad aliasing on edges, I would render at twice the size (1600x900) and then scale down in Photoshop. I really should of oversampled on that last scene.

 

Virtually all the lighting was your basic 3 or 4 light setup, no skylights, apart from the multi pass trick I mentioned earlier for the last shot. There was lots of rendering out of different sections from the same shot to be composited later. Average render times - I'm not sure, but I felt relieved if I could keep it down to 15 min per frame, but that wasn't often. I rendered it on a 2GHz AMD computer.

 

[dborruso]

Sorry to be redundant, but I don't think it can be said too many times how amazing this work is. Great Stuff!

[John Bigboote]

I need to chime in late...FANTASTIC!

 

It is great to see what this software can do in the right hands. You have inspired us all! Thank-You! And thanks for all the QnA on it...makes for good reading!

 

Now I'm off to gawk at it again.

[pixelmech]

Really great work, hope you get to do more.

[LurkerAbove]

Great stuff. Very inspirational!

[dragonwind]

Fantastic Work! Loved it!

Chris

[pwknox]

Great Job. The clip is very entertaining and quite habit forming. I downloaded it on the first day it came out. Since then I have watched it at least once a day. Whenever my wife hears the "Love Machine" music piping through the house she laughs at me for watching it again for the 'umteenth' time.

[jakerupert]

Hi Pequod,

 

Great work!

I admire your style.

If this wont get funding what else will?

 

Could anybody send me a link to the cg-talk thread please?

I am curious, what they will be saying over there.

 

;>) Jake

[itsjustme]

The CGTalk thread is located here, Jake.

[Paul Forwood]

Ah! At last I have seen your trailer and it surpasses all expectations. Absolutely beautiful work, Stephen!

 

I hope this attracts some big fish very soon!

 

( Four stars, at the moment, on CG Talk and climbing!!! )

[cosmonaut]

Just noticed this made the front page over at 3D Total! Still can't figure out why this didn't make the front page on cgtalk.

[mediaho]

Mag-fuggin-nificent. Some of the best stuff I've seen anywhere. Congratulations!

[Rodney]

Would somebody PLEASE explain to me what is wrong with these characters eyes in this animation.

Anyone? People have mentioned the darting of the eyes... um... still don't get it.

Do these people ever watch real eyes in motion?

 

Maybe people just want something more like Colin Freeman Uber eyes?

Am I missing something here?

 

The eye movements seem perfectly suited to the animation and do a wonderful job conveying what is in the mind of Briar Rose. What an awesome job conveying the first part of the story with no dialogue at all. Beautifully animated eyes and all. When watching again the eyes have become a particular favorite.

 

And great job at hinting at the wonderful things to come in 'The Adventures of Briar Rose'.

That dragon at the end... bet he's got a story to tell.

 

My daughters Jessica and Julia just watched and they say, "Make More!" hehe

[Dhar]

I'm with Jessica and Julia. "Make more"

[trajcedrv]

Make More! me too!

 

I guess dartiong of the eyes could use one inbetween... Eyes move very fast, but when they take so much of the screen space, thaey should behave more to the people's expectations ;-P

 

Drvarceto

[Rodney]

Eyes move very fast, but when they take so much of the screen space, thaey should behave more to the people's expectations ;-P

 

Drvarceto,

Even if those expectations may be in error?

I realize the answer to this questions is often yes in many cases... frustrating.

 

 

I admit I know little on the subject but my intuition is telling me the critics may be in error.

Of course... I may wrong too. Its still worth looking into it a little as there is much to observe and learn.

 

FACIAL ANIMATION SYSTEM WITH REALISTIC EYE MOVEMENT BASED ON A COGNITIVE MODEL FOR VIRTUAL AGENTS*

 

In the end I'm sure Stephen didn't get everything animated exactly right all of the time.

But he sure came close.

 

*All Caps are the authors not mine.

 

Edit: I just thought of something that could easily get confused and look like it works against the darting of the eyes. The eyes do (and should) travel in an arc *with the body* as it moves.

If you take the individual frames of an animation/film and place one dot on the eye that dot should travel in an arc as part of the body movement in the shot. If the eye darts around outside of an arc then it won't generally read well in action. While I haven't gone back and looked at 'Briar Rose' with an 'eye' for that I'll bet we'll find nice arcs there.

[KenH]

Of course, there's no hard rules for animation, but I believe people thing it would "feel" better if the eyes didn't complete their moves in the space of a single frame. It looks good as is and it was a conscious choice by the creator....just it could possibly be "better" if done how most people expect it to happen. The audience is always right?

[Stuart Rogers]

People have mentioned the darting of the eyes... um... still don't get it.

It's interesting which details catch people's attention. The eyes didn't grasp mine at first, but the subtle finger movements really did (check out the hesitant move to pick up the apple). And the transfer of objects, such as when she put the knife down. And the teddy bear's acting is gorgeous...

[Kamikaze]

I thought the eye movement may have had the effect on me that the creator intended? It made me tense up, and feel great anticipation for what might happen next....great choice in my view....

 

Mike

[My Fault]

Yeah that close up of the eye dart was the only thing that I think needs some slight massaging, outside of that it is a beautiful piece of work. As quickly as eyes can move when you are that close up it is still a good idea to add a frame or two of cushion. So slight overshoot then settle back.

 

I love watching this. You have always been one of my favorite A:M animators and this looks sooo amazing and makes me want to see more.... more...more...MORE!!!!

[ypoissant]

A better (shorter and more direct to the point) read, from the same author, it the "Eye Alive" article in pdf where the author shows that saccades happen in between 5 to 7 frames at 30 fps or 4 to 5.5 frames at 24 fps.

 

I didn't watch the Briar Rose clip on a frame by frame basis so I can't tell how fast the eyes are really going (although they seemed to move at the right speed) but to me, the effect of those eye movement was to raise the dramatic tension. And to this effect, the eye movements were really effective.

 

One particular aspect I really appreciate about this piece of animation is that it is not animated in the mannerism style that I way too often see in animated features these days. Instead of focussing on trying to blindly apply all the 12 infamous rules of animation, Stephen focused on telling the story.

 

I watched this clip several times and in half speed too. There are a lot of subtleties in attitudes, movements, facial expressions and body language. Subtleties that would be simply incompatible with the nervous animation mannerism style.

 

So bravo for developing a personalized animation style. Bravo for exploring the true expressiveness of your characters. Bravo for not falling in the trap of animating by the 12 rules. Bravo for avoiding the animation mannerism.

[Rodney]

The audience is always right?

 

Heck no! But they will be the most vocal about it.

I think its safe to say that the creator of the work is always right.

Its their interpretation the audience will accept or reject... agree or disagree with... mistakes, ommissions and all.

 

I'm thinking the audience is giving 'Briar Rose' a standing ovation at this point.

Thousands of thumbs up from the critics is generally a good sign.

 

I still have to watch the trailer with popcorn to get the full effect.

 

 

Edit: Yves snuck his post in. Just want to say 'Well said'.

Thanks for that link. I was hoping to find something that concise instead of the one I posted.

I did find a lot of information on the eyes though!

Edited August 31, 2006 by Rodney

[My Fault]

One particular aspect I really appreciate about this piece of animation is that it is not animated in the mannerism style that I way too often see in animated features these days. Instead of focussing on trying to blindly apply all the 12 infamous rules of animation, Stephen focused on telling the story.

 

Totally disagree with Yves here, but I find I usually disagree with him. Not to get off topic but people tried this same excuse at Animation Mentor and were rightly shot down in most cases. The rules weren't created haphazardly but are time tested by people who have centuries of experience when you add it all together. As good as this shot was there are things that can be improved. Personally I believe that Stephen is one of those individuals that works at a level high enough where he can tell the story and nail the animation in all parts. He didn't get this good by using the old "it's my style" excuse.

 

When do we get to see more?

[ypoissant]

Totally disagree with Yves here, but I find I usually disagree with him.

That is OK. So I also disagree with you. But I think it is mainly because you are reading way too far into what I wrote.

 

Not to get off topic but people tried this same excuse at Animation Mentor and were rightly shot down in most cases.

That is an argument of authority. A sophism. That doesn't validate anything.

 

The rules weren't created haphazardly but are time tested by people who have centuries of experience when you add it all together.

Of course. I don't disagree with that. What I have against is when those rules are elevated as an animation system. A school of animation. A church of animation with its animation cathechism: "You shalt not... You shall..."

 

There is a point where too much is just too much. It is like the difference between knowing about the golden ratio for guiding composition or obsessively applying it on every aspect of composition and then denouncing anyone who don't abide by the golden rule.

 

Yes, knowing about the 12 rules of animation is a must for an animator. But once those rules are integrated into the animator experience, there must be a councious effort to try to do otherwise, to try to not apply them, to try to find a different way, a more efficient way. Let the artist's intuition guide the art rather than let the rules guide the art. When the rules are the guiding force behind a piece of animation, the result just look like an technical rehash of animation tricks. Déjà vu. Animation "in the manner of" is what I call mannerism. Rules are made to be integrated and then forgotten.

 

As good as this shot was there are things that can be improved.

I can point to a lot of places myself. But that is not the point and is not something I like to do when I see such a tremendous work by basically one person. I like to focus on aspects that were done really well and work. Personally I like to point on the positive aspects. I'm not looking for the little misshaps to point to them as if they were sins. In a piece like that, there is obviously a lot of places where things could be improved if one is looking for that. But Stephen is not a big studio. He doesn't have a large team of artistic and technical helpers behing him. And he did a hell of a good job.

 

This said, about the eye darting: The eyes didn't bother me at all when I first saw the clip. I think they were effective in conveying the emotion at stake. And the fact that someone mentioned something about the eyes is not going to make me change my mind. Looking at the animation again and again, I just cannot agree with this "eye darting" comment. What bothers me more is when I see those followers, who, after someone mentions the said "eye darting" problem, just parrot "Yeah! Me too I have an issue with the eyes". I just can't give credibility to those "me too" posters.

 

Personally I believe that Stephen is one of those individuals that works at a level high enough where he can tell the story and nail the animation in all parts. He didn't get this good by using the old "it's my style" excuse.

??? I don't understand where that argument comes from. I certainly don't think, let alone imply, that Stephen is using any excuses. It's probably not what you meant either but just to be clear.

 

I agree that there are peoples that use the "it's my style" excuse to skip learning and integrating the basics. What can I say? Each their own. Nevertheless, a few of those artists have produced or are going to produce some stunning animations.

 

When I go at animation festivals, those who really departs from the crowd are those who are not animating by the rules. Those who have developped a true personal style. Those who I can recognize just by looking at their animation. I don't care how they got there, if they just developped their personal style or if they first learned and integrated the basics and then departed from it. I can see storytelling mastery when I see it.

 

But I get to see way too much animation done in a very technical "by the rules" way that don't have a tiny bit of story to tell. And this bothers me.

[luckbat]

What bothers me more is when I see those followers, who, after someone mentions the said "eye darting" problem, just parrot "Yeah! Me too I have an issue with the eyes". I just can't give credibility to those "me too" posters.

Well, I can. No one wants to be the only person criticising a well loved piece. It's only after someone brings it up that everyone else can go, "Oh, so I wasn't the only person who noticed that..."

 

Step through the animation frame by frame, if you like. The pupils aren't darting, they're teleporting from side to side. Not even one frame of tweening. It's clearly an artistic decision, and therefore subject to interpretation. Some people here are saying it looks wrong; other people are saying it feels right.

[martin]

What bothers me more is when I see those followers, who, after someone mentions the said "eye darting" problem, just parrot "Yeah! Me too I have an issue with the eyes". I just can't give credibility to those "me too" posters.

Well, I can. No one wants to be the only person criticising a well loved piece. It's only after someone brings it up that everyone else can go, "Oh, so I wasn't the only person who noticed that..."

Well, I can't. Why don't we have a vote: "all those who think 'darting eyes' does not rise to the level of criticism," vote "Yay."

[robcat2075]

Not to get off topic but people tried this same excuse at Animation Mentor and were rightly shot down in most cases.

That is an argument of authority. A sophism. That doesn't validate anything.

 

Perhaps, but I only hear that trotted out when someone doesn't like the authority's opinion.

 

For me, the eye darts seem odd because they aren't in the style that the rest of the movie lives in, and they aren't a big enough part of the movie to expand the style to include them. They're like a blip and so their intended meaning isn't conveyed.

[ddustin]

There were so many other magnificent moments in this piece, that I for one will not offer criticism.

 

Stephen's work is awe inspiring, breath taking and glorious.

 

He has poured his heart and soul into it, and deserves all the accolades we can throw at him.

 

I guess if that means I'm a poor critic.... Oh well........ I'll just have to live with it.

 

We struggle to show a character pushing a button or driving a car in a remotely realistic way and could never (I hate speaking in absolutes, but it is correct here) animate one scene as well as Stephen has his entire clip.

 

Sorry if I sound upset, but this is an excellent work...

David

[pequod]

Gosh! such debate over poor Briar's big googly eyes

 

As I admitted over on CGTalk, the eyes were an experiment which hasn't quite come off. If there had been a director looking over my shoulder they surely would have pointed it out, instead I easily convinced myself the 'eye darting' was perfect. I think people are right though, the style is incongruous with the rest of the animation.

Quite a lot of the animation makes me wince, and actually the first couple of minutes were probably completed 2-3 years ago and I hope I've got better since. I know I have so much more room to improve so this type of criticism is perfectly valid (and welcome).

It is odd though, the better you get, the more glaringly obvious your mistakes become and the willingness of people to point them out. Over on CGTalk, there is a very nice short movie called 'Stilt walkers'. I felt the animation was fairly stiff but the rest of it was great. It is curious though how few commented on the stiff animation, perhaps because it was consistent, whereas Briar's eye darting stands out the more I replay it.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Thanks again for all the replies.

[robcat2075]

Whatever the eyes, we still hope to see more of your work on this!