Pre-sales question: animating realistic people

[beachdog]

Hello,

 

I am looking into different 3d animation programs and found out about Animation Master. I am mainly interested in animating realistic people, like the kind that Poser and Daz3d can do. But A.M. seems to be easier to use so that's why I'm considering it.

 

I've looked at the A.M. examples and have read some forum messages but I'm not quite sure if A.M. is best for what I need so I thought I'd ask here.

 

Specifically, I read that importing Poser/Daz3d human models into A.M. is not wise, but how hard is it to build a "person" from scratch in A.M.? Do A.M. humans look as good as Poser/Daz3D humans? I saw the talking male head in A.M. and that was pretty impressive, but have not seen many other examples. It looks like A.M. is mostly used to do "cartoony" characters.

 

Many thanks!

[robcat2075]

There is no brief answer to "how hard is..." questions.

 

It's like "how hard is it to climb the stairs?" Well... how many flights of stairs? how long do you have? what shape are you in?

 

Making a model from scratch will always be harder than using one supplied by a program.

 

Modeling and texturing and rigging and animating an extremely photo-realistic character is an advanced skill. No one in the history of CG has made a character that is 100% realistic in every possible way.

 

a few minutes poking thru the user gallery found some pretty good efforts done in A:M:

 

http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=1&pos=37

 

http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...m=1&pos=171

 

http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...bum=1&pos=0

 

http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...at=1&pos=11

 

http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...at=1&pos=56

 

those are all by advanced users, with a good eye for shape and form and anatomy. I'm sure none of those were made in the user's first year.

 

Cartoony characters are favored in animation because they serve the purposes of the story without creating impossible-to-meet expectations for reality. Pixar never has realistic humans in its movies for that reason.

 

If you need a normally shaped human TODAY however, a program like Poser might be your only option. I presume it installs some sort of rig also so you dont' need to know the inner workings of that either.

 

If you need a two-headed cyclops with wings, Poser may not have a practical road-map to such a thing.

 

 

all in all, I think it's a trade off between flexibility and accessibility.

[TheSpleen]

There are people here that do incredibly realistic people in A:M.

No not just cartoony at all. Check out the stills section.

Spline modeling gets you better curves than polygons.

I used to do polygon modeling. no more.

[mtpeak2]

It depends on what you consider realistic. Check this out.

[Rodney]

We are biased of course so you'll not get too many suggesting that you purchase other programs here.

 

To create and animate realistic people is a considerable undertaking that many devote their entire lives to these days. It will take considerable time in any program to develop the skills necessary to animate realism. This is complicated by the whole idea of what 'realism' is.

 

Having said that there are a number of realistic characters that have been donated to the A:M community that you can use to test the possibilities. These characters can be easily modified and adapted to your purposes. With other programs you'll be collecting/buying kits to satisfy your needs. No program generates realistically animated people out of the box. Time and effort must be applied to get there. The more time, the more effort the closer to realism you can get.

 

If you've only looked at still imagery from the A:M Gallery you might come away thinking that cartoons are A:M's specialty but that is a reflection on a simple fact; cartoons are easier to animate. At least with A:M you get to choose. The programs you mention don't excell at the variety of different styles you'll find here.

 

Realism is subjective. I have yet to see a Poser/Daz movie that I thought looked realistic. There may be some out there but I haven't seen one yet. Check out A:M Films for a look at similar interpretations of realism in 3D. How real is realism? I don't know the answer to that question.

 

Concerning difficulty... tough call there. Some take to it very quickly. Others never achieve satisfactory results. Yet another reason realism is scarce. In my opinion if you want realism forego 3D animation programs entirely and invest in video/film.

 

If you factor the time/money it'll cost to animate realitically in another program A:M excells here as well. In some cases you may want to seek out someone to build your character for you if your time is more valuable.

 

Ultimately, at $49 it is going to be worth the effort to investigate A:M but don't expect an easy transition from other programs to A:M. Polygons don't transfer well.

 

Should I try to talk you out of purchasing A:M?

Personally, I don't think realism and animation make a very good mix with the notable exception of Special Effects. The reason to explore 3D animation is to escape the confines of realism.

 

[Note: We are on the edge of violating forum rules here by posting about competing products. Lets steer clear of that.]

[itsjustme]

Joe Williamson's "Hunter" is a stylized human, but it might give you an idea of what you could do. There are several animations:

 

Hunter dynamics test

 

Hunter motion capture

 

Hunter forest (this one uses Hunter composited into live action video)

 

Hunter dances

 

Hunter motion matching test (this one also has Hunter composited into live action video)

 

Hope that helps.

[John Bigboote]

Yeah...when you say 'realistic people' you are sort of referencing the 'holy grail' of computer animation. Sure you want it, I want it...everybody wants it. I've seen Poser images and animations, they are good- quiet good...but not fully realistic in my eye. What you are after is 'convincing' CGI people.

 

The THING that buggs me about Poser imagery that I've seen... is that from user to user, and there are a lot of Poser users... the thumbprint of the work does not change. There is no individualism. It's all out of the same gun... Not so in A:M land. You can sell people on YOUR vision of what 'realistic' really is, to you.

 

And if realistic imagery of humans is what you are after- you should also be familiar and expert with these CGI concepts:

 

-Facial motion capture and expressions

-Motion capture full body

-Sub Surface Scattering and advanced lighting techniques

-Render farms and network rendering solutions (You'll need this)

-Particle hair

-CGI cloth simulations

-Character animation in general

 

And remember...if Hollywood really had the ability to do fully realistic 3D characters... they would have no need for the Angelina Jolies and Brad Pitt's. They might be there in the near future, but the actors are not worrying yet.

[beachdog]

Thank you all very much for taking the time to respond. Let me clarify a few things:

 

I believe I mis-used the word "realistic"... I am not trying to create animations that are indistinguishable from actual humans. Perhaps a better way for me to phrase the question was to ask if A.M. can create "people" that look similar to or better than the figures in Poser/Dax3D. I know this is subjective, but based on the examples you gave me, it appears the answer is yes.

 

And by asking how easy it is to create these types of figures, my context was in comparison to programs like Poser/Dax3D or Blender. I've done some research and it looks like Blender has a huge learning curve where Poser/Dax3D seem to be somewhat easier to get a 3D human made because of the pre-built models. I was wondering if anyone here has used all of these products (or others) and can share an opinion of how A.M. compares.

 

Thanks again!

 

PS to Rodney: the A.M. annual subscription is now $79. Also, you mentioned that some figures have been donated to the A.M. community. Do you know where these can be found?

[robcat2075]

I was wondering if anyone here has used all of these products (or others) and can share an opinion of how A.M. compares.

 

 

Well, the forum rules say we shouldn't be discussing competing products. You may want to give contact information so people who can give you specifics can email you directly.

 

But Poser and A:M aren't really the same sort of program. A:M is a program in which you model whatever you want. But it's up to you to model it.

 

Poser presents you with premade models and some options for varying them. That isn't somewhat easier, it's far easier as long as you only need something within the options they give you.

 

A:M is really for people who want to make something unique and are willing to put the time into achieving that rather than re-use someone else's work. Making something unique is 100x more difficult that re-using something.

 

As far as animating (a whole different discipline) A:M's powers are as good as it gets. I've never seen good animation from Poser. I dont' know if that is because only clueless people use it or if it is genuinely limited in its animating controls.

[phatso]

Poser seems to be in the category of programs that are easy to master, but also limited. I've worked with a number of programs that are easier than A:M but I soon ran into a brick wall when the programs' limitations became evident. I value my time too much to invest it in a program if I'm going to have to abandon it and go to another when my needs expand.

 

I also tried Blender and found the learning curve to be very steep. Too steep; I gave up.

 

I think A:M is the only program that is easy enough to start "paying back" after a modest investment in time and money, and yet keep up with you as your skills improve. You are not likely ever to reach the point where you have to move on to another program to do the complicated things you'll eventually want to do.

 

A:M's biggest benefit is not in the modelling, but in the animation. Once you get the hang of it, you can build models that move right, bend right, stretch and compress right - without a lot of fudging. The plasticity of splines and patches (as opposed to the rigidity of line segments and polygons) mimics the way organic materials like skin actually work. It's worth mentioning that A:M began as a polygon program and switched to splines and patches to improve its ability to animate organic objects.

[Rodney]

PS to Rodney: the A.M. annual subscription is now $79. Also, you mentioned that some figures have been donated to the A.M. community. Do you know where these can be found?

 

Sure enough. The websubscription is $79. See what happens when I blink?

Did I just imagine that $49 thing?

 

Ah well... I guess timing is everything. Even at $79 Animation:Master is the best 3D animation program for the price.

 

As far as the community files, Hash Inc hosts projects, files, actions etc. on their FTP site. I can't remember the size of the Extra DVD (over 5Gigabytes?) but that can be had for $30 from their online store.

 

Another couple hundred megabytes of data from the first Extra CD can still be found online:

http://www.hash.com/amtutes/X_Vol001/Menu/...cifiFantasy.htm

 

(It should go without saying that these files won't be very useful without Animation:Master)

[heyvern]

The first thing you need to ask yourself is WHY you want realistic humans? Going down that road is going to be ten times harder. Will the end result be worth the effort? Not only do you need to be an EXPERT in drawing and portraying the human anatomy but you also need to be very skilled in AM itself.

 

Not trying to discourage you... but... as it has been said before, EVERYONE wants "realistic humans" in 3D and so far the most convincing are characters that wear costumes and masks . That is why Poser is so "popular". It doesn't mean it is "better" it's just "popular" because any shmoe can buy it and have "realistic humans" right out of the box. If you only want a realistic human 3D character because it's "cool" or a "novelty" than try out Poser. Get it out of your system.

 

I would recommend deciding what the story is you are going to tell first. Decide later how realistic the characters NEED to be to tell the story effectively. Keep in mind something else, if the realism isn't "dead on" you get characters that are LESS realistic than so called "cartoon" characters. There is a point when real looks awful because it isn't "perfectly" real (Polar Express anyone? Final Fantasy?). Those movies "failed" in part because they tried to achieve absolute realism and never quite reached it. The look of the characters was talked about more than the story, the animation, the rendering or the acting.

 

Don't "limit" yourself to "realism". It can be like chains holding you back.

 

This is just my opinion of course.

 

-vern

 

EDIT: I still think that Hunter character needs a really good sports bra. With... uh... things that big and unsupported they will be hanging down to her knees in a few years.

[phatso]

Geez, Vern, can't you let us dirty old men have our fantasies? I mean, there is a reason to create something in animation rather than find a live model and photograph him/her/it.

[heyvern]

Geez, Vern, can't you let us dirty old men have our fantasies? I mean, there is a reason to create something in animation rather than find a live model and photograph him/her/it.

 

Yes, of course. That is why you buy Poser... to get that "out of your system"... then you use AM to do REAL animation. This is just a wild guess... but... Based on the HUGE number of 3rd party lingerie and leather outfit addons available for those figures, I think 90% of Poser purchases are not for "real" or serious animation work. I could be wrong of course.

 

p.s. Seriously though, I have a copy of Poser and the only thing I ever use it for is, sketching reference and creating rotoscopes for AM and other applications. Poser was originally created as a drawing reference for artists. That's pretty much how I use it... no really. I swear I bought that black lingerie outfit for the Vici figure completely by mistake. I clicked on the wrong button. I intended to buy the business outfit. Honest mistake.

 

-vern

[KenH]

Some of the technology Poser uses is impressive, but it's not serious animation software. Are you seeing a pattern here?

[Hisako 100112]

i have all three programs; DAZ, Poser 7 and A:M. I believe A:M can create the effects of poser or daz it all depends on what type of decals you use for the model (skin texture, skin bump maps etc). I have also found poser to be a great library of textures that i use on my models in A:M (if you go into Poser's runtime folder you can find all of the images they used to make the poser models. I took some skin samples from some of the images and used them as patch images.

 

as for creativity A:M beats Poser and DAZ (i think everybody else said that but i recommend A:M highly). In Poser or DAZ you get preset models that you can change a little bit (it's fun for a while). But with A:M you basically get to play God. You can create whatever comes to your mind as long as you can find the time to do so. but whatever you do, it takes 'time.' I myself am working on the graphics of what poser seems to capture in their models, and i still haven't found it yet (had the program for 7 months and been working very hard for 5). but the key is to never give up. i believe to keep working for your goal until you accomplish it; and the reward is satisfying.

[phatso]

I'm having a senior moment; I can't remember what you call those wooden figures with articulated joints that artists use. I have one myself. (A really small, cheap one - that was a mistake.)

 

Anyway...I don't understand the appeal of programs that substitute GCI for the wood figure. It is much easier to pose, re-pose, and rotate the real thing than the computer-generated equivalent.