Action Analysis for Animators

[Simon Edmondson]

I started reading "Action Analysis for Animators" by Chris Webster and am finding it very tough going. I looked at some reviews for it on Amazon and they all seemed to be effusive about how good it is. I don't want to prefigure anybody's response but, has anyone else read it all the way through and, if so, what did they make of it?

regards

simon

[Rodney]

(I am) am finding it very tough going.

 

I haven't read it yet so I hesitate to comment but as books on animation tend to cover the same basic principles... from the author's unique perspective and priorities I think we can analyze the book.

 

From this outline is there any particular place you are getting stuck?

 

Introduction

 

Why analyse action? The value of action analysis to animators. Sports science, anatomical study.

 

The Study of Motion

 

Naturalistic action, abstract action,

 

Pioneers of Motion Analysis - Muybridge, Marrey,

 

Animation Based Analysis ? George Lutz, Fleisher Brothers, Disney Studios, Walt Stanchfield

 

Dynamics and Laws of Motion

 

Newtonian laws of motion, Laban system of movement.

 

Animation Principles

 

Webster's Four ?A's of Animation. Animation Timing, Overlapping Action, Follow Through, Drag, Balance and Weight, Arcs, Anticipation

 

Figures in Motion

 

Anatomy, Walks, Runs, Lifting, Carrying, Pushing, Throwing, Jumping, Character Interaction, Dance and choreography, Movement under Loads, Movement and the environment, Children in Motion, Adults in Motion, Movement in the Elderly,

 

Assignments

 

Animals in Motion

 

Quadrupeds ? Cats, Dogs, Horses, Cows, Others

 

Anatomy, Walk, Run, Trot, Canter, Gallop, Jumping, Hauling loads, Group Action

 

Birds ? Song birds, Pigeon type birds, Swans, Waders, Hummingbirds, Raptors, Others

 

Anatomy, Principles of flight, Types of Flight, Take Off, Landing, Hovering, Flocking.

 

Fish ? Bony Fish, Rays, Eels, Others

 

Anatomy, Modes of swimming, Types of Swimming, Shoaling

 

Assignments

 

None Organic Action

 

Clothing and costumes, Water, Wind, Fire, Others

 

Capturing Action

 

Drawing from Life - Anatomy, Construction, Materials, Mark Making, Sketchbooks

 

Photographing Action - Cameras, Exposure, Technical Issues

 

Filming Action - Cameras, Film speeds, Technical Issues, Creating movies

 

Motion Capture - Automated systems for the capture and analysis of movement.

 

Methodologies for Analysis

 

Staging actions, Analysis of Timing, Choreography, Analysis of Performance, Motion capture, Reading a sequence, Rotoscoping,

 

Reference and Research

 

Sources, Creating a Reference Library

 

From looking at this list I'd say the book attempts to cover (or at least introduces?) all of the currently hot topics in animation and appears designed for use in schools/colleges.

 

Just as the title of the book implies the importance of analysis, analysis of the book itself will help understand it better and know how to best apply its lessons. While I think much of the general information is available online (sans the authors views and exercises) my interest in animation and analysis will most certainly have me buying it.

 

Also: Google Preview Note: Most of the drawing appear to be the same as in Chris Webster's earlier book "The Mechanics of Animation".

[Rodney]

It occurs to me that you may be suggesting the book simply contains a lot of information.

If that is the case, I wouldn't be at all concerned as it'll all sink in.

 

For me, the key to book reading that contains a lot of technical information is to read, set aside for awhile and then reread again later.

With each additional reading layers of new understanding appear.

 

Given the amount of information in the book and that it is such a new book I'd say very few have actually read the book all the way through.

Of course in saying this I am assume they would have read it and actually understood it.

 

Added: I'll note that Chris attempts to bring a whole lot of college level information into this book. It's not every day you see animators consider motivation much less Maslow's Heirarcy of Needs with regard to that motivation. Chris is most definitely striving to dig deep in this book. Other obscurities abound from nature and you can learn interesting facts about the periodical breeding cycle of cicadias... 17 years, according to the book.

 

I can see why the book would be tough slogging.

The author is associating animation with the real world.

[robcat2075]

I have not read it but I presume part of the difficulty is trying to put into words something that is not verbal.

 

Like Frank Zappa observed... "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

[Simon Edmondson]

Rodney

 

I didn't want to prefigure anybody's response by giving my reasons first, I was worried that it may be my lack of comprehension that was making it so tough. I agree about the information content being quite dense but, I'm interested in it so want to read it. The writing is pedestrian and often stupefyingly pedantic but, my real problem is with the illustrations.

 

When you read the text and you've deciphered what is being said, then check with the illustrations to make sure you've understood, it causes confusion and doubt. The photo sequences are often almost too small to make out what is being shown and, this is the part that worried me, they often seem to be wrong. The sequence shown at the start of chapter Two is the most glaring example. It shows a young child running in a garden.

 

If I'm wrong please tell me and I will go back and try again ? If the sequence is to read in the conventional way, left to right, top to bottom, then the only way it makes sense is if the child is running backwards at speed.

 

In the first frame the right foot is forward, in contact with the ground, weight being transferred onto it as the left leg has the toes on the ground and is thrusting and forward.

 

The second frame has the right foot forward but in mid air as the foreleg prepares to swing forward, The left foot is in full contact with the hip in front of the toes.

 

The third frame has the left leg forward with foot in full contact, the right leg is back with the toes in contact and the energy thrusting forward

 

I could go on but if you look you will see what I mean, if not, please say and I will readily accept my error.

 

On page 95 there is a 9 drawing sequence of a Kangaroo in 'hopping' mode. There is no compression phase. There is a drawing were the feet make contact but there is no compression were the muscles would tighten up prior to the release that would provide the forward movement . As that would be something which differentiates Kangaroo Biped from other bipeds it seems a fairly major omission ?

 

I found the above depressing but, when I looked at the cover illustrations I started to get angry. That doesn't happen very often. Again I could be wrong, and will admit so if thats the case but, the drawings underneath the photos don't seem to show the same phase of motion in either the horse or the human figure? I could go on and on, and on, and on...but , I'm finding it hard to trust what I read in the text when the illustrations supposed to illumine the text are so poor or inaccurate .

 

rant over

simon

[robcat2075]

A problem I find with many animation books is that you see a sequence of images but never see them in motion. A video makes more sense.

 

And then i have one old book that has some drawings out of sequence. When I was eight I found it baffling and didn't understand how it was supposed to work. Now after only 45 years I can see that the book was printed wrong!

 

 

The Google preview doesn't include the kangaroo drawings so i can't weigh in on that one.

 

 

When I was coaching people for TWO I found I spent a lot of time trying to explain basic motion and finding it was difficult to move the needle on their vision of it.

[Rodney]

When you read the text and you've deciphered what is being said, then check with the illustrations to make sure you've understood, it causes confusion and doubt. The photo sequences are often almost too small to make out what is being shown and, this is the part that worried me, they often seem to be wrong. The sequence shown at the start of chapter Two is the most glaring example. It shows a young child running in a garden.

 

I don't have the book to check out the specifics. If I can track it down I'll look it up.

 

As Robert alludes to, sometimes it's not the authors fault but... sometimes it is his fault.

If there are a great many errors in this book then that would appear to indicate a pattern in Chris's books. Not good!

 

A few days ago I posted a comment (at least I think I posted the comment) that referred to Yves Poissant's review of Chris Webster's earlier book "The Mechanics of Animation." It would be kind to say that Yves did not like the book. If this book uses the same or similar drawings as the first... which from what I can see is the case... then I cringe at what Yves might say about this book. He ended his review with the words, "I should not have bought this book."

 

The author carries the burden for the book being correct and if there are known errors then the publisher should issue corrections. If it's a matter of author opinion and the author can be shown to be incorrect then that will usually get hashed out in public. The author might still to his opinion but, if wrong, he'll suffer for it.

 

If it's any consolation if you are spotting these errors... you are advanced beyond many animators who would not.

And if these errors anger you that may be an indicator that you are of one mind with the greatly revered Yves Poissant!

 

Added: There are times when authors take the shortcut or simply present what they've got.

I recently posted a graphic that I knew for a fact had errors in it but assessed that the errors approached being insignificant.

The problem with this line of thinking is that if put to the test it would taint the whole thing as being wrong (Ref: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

It would be better to take the time to do it right but sometimes time constraints convince us that something is 'good enough'.

I suppose that is when it'd be best to remind ourselves that, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right."

 

All this to say: Use that anger as a constructive force. If you can sort through the mess you'll be far better off.

 

(If you have a scanner perhaps you can post the offending articles?)

[Simon Edmondson]

If it's any consolation if you are spotting these errors... you are advanced beyond many animators who would not.

And if these errors anger you that may be an indicator that you are of one mind with the greatly revered Yves Poissant!

 

 

Rodney

I blush at the thought of comparison with any animator. My learning curve is vertical.

 

I've just been rabbiting with my elder brother and, it seems like I'm being grumpy so, is the following appropriate ?

 

 

 

>> All Muscle powered motion relies on the transfer of energy to change or sustain direction.

 

It does this by contracting and releasing the muscles.

 

The contraction stores the energy, the release unleashes it.

 

The major muscle groups provide the majority of the motive force, the skeletal structure and the minor muscle groups control the direction and the efficient use of the energy.

 

For an animal to move, it must exert force or energy in the opposite direction to to that in which it wants to travel.

 

Locomotion, the ability to travel from one point to another, uses a process of continual adjustment of directional force to achieve motion.

 

This applies to all muscle powered motion, Human, animal, piscine, reptile or avian.

 

For example;

a bird thrusts down with its wings to achieve lift. It rotates the skeleton during that thrust to adjust the direction of it and so moves in the opposite ( desired ) direction.

 

If a human wishes to walk, the energy is transfered down the thighs, through the calves and feet, into the ground. As that energy is transfered down into the ground, the directional force is adjusted via the skeltal structure to achieve the desired navigation.

 

All animals use the same process of energy transfer . They achieve this in different ways, across all species and within members of that species. Human motion uses the same process as Kangaroos but the results differ because of the internal structure of the mover.

 

All muscle based movement is based on controlling the direction and release of energy.

 

Could this be used as model to animate by ?

 

regards

Mr Grumpy.

[Simon Edmondson]

(If you have a scanner perhaps you can post the offending articles?)

 

My scanner is hiding somewhere in the reshuffle but, I'll see if I can take some photos with a camera tomorrow. I haven't tried it but, there is supposed to be a website with related resources to the book. I'll see if the images there are any better.

Enjoy your Sunday.

simon

[Rodney]

Dear Mr. Grumpy,

 

I received your post and desired to respond.

Here is what my thinker has thunk:

 

 

All Muscle powered motion relies on the transfer of energy to change or sustain direction.

(Sounds Good)

 

It does this by contracting and releasing the muscles.

(This can get dicey as they are still trying to resolve some of this once and for all in the scientific community. At the risk of typing the following wrong I'll pitch in my two cents. I believe that technically the motion itself is caused by release only... powered by the muscles that are otherwise already contracted. While technically written correctly the statement can give the impression that it is the muscle's contraction that causes the movement which, in my estimation, would be wrong. The release of the opposing muscle allows the stored energy in the contracted muscle to contract more tightly. Whooo... technical stuff!)

 

The contraction stores the energy, the release unleashes it. (He's back on track!)

 

The major muscle groups provide the majority of the motive force, the skeletal structure and the minor muscle groups control the direction and the efficient use of the energy. (I think I'm following... seems to make sense)

 

For an animal to move, it must exert force or energy in the opposite direction to that in which it wants to travel.

(Yes, I agree)

 

Locomotion, the ability to travel from one point to another, uses a process of continual adjustment of directional force to achieve motion.

(Gonna have to stare at this one to fully understand what he's going for)

 

This applies to all muscle powered motion, Human, animal, piscine, reptile or avian.

(The word "all" is always qualified... or should be. He appears to apply this to all human, animal, piscine, reptilian and avian. Okay, I'll buy that for now. If it applies to all though I'm already looking for the exception.)

 

For example; a bird thrusts down with its wings to achieve lift. It rotates the skeleton during that thrust to adjust the direction of it and so moves in the opposite ( desired ) direction. (Works for me)

 

If a human wishes to walk, the energy is transfered down the thighs, through the calves and feet, into the ground. As that energy is transfered down into the ground, the directional force is adjusted via the skeltal structure to achieve the desired navigation. (Okay, I'm following but... the more common anology is that the force from the ground is pushing up while gravity and other factors (such as the muscles) are pushing down. When and where the two meet there is friction and the release of heat... not to mention motion/action!)

 

All animals use the same process of energy transfer . They achieve this in different ways, across all species and within members of that species. Human motion uses the same process as Kangaroos but the results differ because of the internal structure of the mover. (Internal structure makes a huge difference. Sounds good.)

 

All muscle based movement is based on controlling the direction and release of energy.

(I'd have to look again at the term 'muscle based movement' to make sure his argument isn't cyclic but... so far so good)

 

Added: Forgot to answer your question!

 

Could this be used as model to animate by ?

 

This is something I hope to apply to my animation... the idea of constricted/contracted muscles storing energy and then using a controller (governing the muscle that will release) to animate the model. The benefit is that most current rigs do not store energy... and gravity... what is that? This of course, especially for someone like me, would be no easy task.

 

So, yes that can certainly inform your animation.

You should know however that most rigs are not set up the same as 'real' muscles.

We've got a ways to go before rigs cover a character sticking out a finger to touch a hot stove burner, the brain instantaneously reacting to the nerve endings and the muscles just as quickly retracting the arm. We are however getting closer and closer.

 

 

Bold=What you wrote

Unbolded=My response

 

All the very best to you and yours,

( > : o ) )

[robcat2075]

All muscle based movement is based on controlling the direction and release of energy.

 

Could this be used as model to animate by ?

 

This is true, however, one more item needs to be explicitly considered. That is the force of gravity. We can never control the direction and release of gravity, we must work with what it gives us.

 

Gravity is like the wind, we never see it, we only see its effect. Make sure the effect is visible.

[Rodney]

I'll add this because it relates to Simon's last post and analysis of muscles:

 

If you ever get really bored... try botox analysis.

Tis good for your animation.

 

One day I was surfing the net and happened upon a series of in depth videos on facial surgery (botox).

In one video the surgeon showed his approach to raising and lowering portions of the face. It was as fascinating as it was appalling to me.

The lesson really brought home the idea of contracted/constricted muscles storing energy and how all of that related to muscle and surface movement.

 

The main takeaway I remember is that the surgeon showed that if he wanted to raise a portion of the face he would go to the opposing/complementary muscle and relax that muscle (by injecting botox to interrupt its normal control on the face). With that muscle cut off from it's normal stimulus it relaxes thereby allowing the primary muscle to constrict further, pulling that part of the face upward.

 

The reason I think this is important is that this is the opposite of what our brains tell us should happen.

We might think that if a particular muscle is weak we need to strengthen it further when in fact we want to find its complimentary and relax that muscle. This will then allow that primary muscle to constrict. If we were to stimulate the primary muscle we would in fact promote more of it constriction while the complementary muscle was fighting that constriction... which is not what we want to happen. If we were to relax the primary muscle then it would be forced to stretch more and move in the direction the complementary muscle was pulling. Moving to the complementary muscle we can control the primary (either way) without direct control of the primary muscle.

 

Hope I've typed that right.

To validate go watch a bunch of botox videos.

[NancyGormezano]

The Google preview doesn't include the kangaroo drawings so i can't weigh in on that one.

 

Amazon preview is easier - search on Kangaroo.

 

I haven't bought the book, but had been considering it. So now - as I thumb thru it on amazon, and also based on what Simon is saying, I probably would not buy.

 

But I rarely, if ever, go thru any reference book start to finish. I usually just skim and then zero in on specific topics as I need them.

[Rodney]

Nancy to the rescue!

 

Now we can analyze.

 

Simon says:

On page 95 there is a 9 drawing sequence of a Kangaroo in 'hopping' mode. There is no compression phase. There is a drawing were the feet make contact but there is no compression were the muscles would tighten up prior to the release that would provide the forward movement . As that would be something which differentiates Kangaroo Biped from other bipeds it seems a fairly major omission ?

 

So, I guess we have to determine:

There is no compression phase.

 

There is something of a danger of taking any sequence out of context.

There may be a compression phase but it may not be observable in some motion contexts.

In other words, if the kangaroo is moving at top speed how much of a compression is there?

To know for sure we would have to analyze the motion from real life.

 

There is a drawing were the feet make contact

 

We should all be able to identify this.

 

but there is no compression were the muscles would tighten up

 

In order to fully understand you POV we'll need to know where you believe the muscles would tighten up.

 

prior to the release that would provide the forward movement .

 

It should be easy to determine if the tightening does or does not happen prior to release (of the feet I presume).

 

Steer us further on track Simon!

[robcat2075]

I've taken the liberty of sequencing the frames

 

KangarooFrames.mov

 

 

One problem is he doesn't provide any registration marks to exactly how on frame fits to the next. It's unclear.

 

I've aligned all the frames horizontally by the center of the oval he draws for the hips. I've aligned them vertically by the shadow on the ground.

 

After I watched it once i was sure i had misordered the drawings so i went and added frame numbers to the original JPG. But, no, i had them in the order they are in the book.

 

There's an obvious hiccup in the foot motion between frame 9 and 1 and the up/down motion seems not well spaced.

 

 

 

Some slo-mo of real Kangaroos:

 

 

 

Based on the video it looks like a real kangaroo's compression happens almost entirely in the foot bone from the ankle to the toe. The ankle comes down almost to the ground at its lowest point, something not suggested in the drawings.

[Rodney]

One problem is he doesn't provide any registration marks to exactly how on frame fits to the next. It's unclear.

 

I was putting the sequence together myself and cursing under my breath too.

 

Regarding the glitch between 9 and 1... consider this:

 

This appears to be an eight frame cycle of which number 1 and 9 are the same.

If you have both 1 and 9 in the cycle twice that frame gets exposed twice as long as the others.

 

I believe ideally these would be numbered thusly:

1, 3, 5

7, 9, 11

13, 15, 17

 

Where 17 begins the cycle anew.

That would make it a 16 frame cycle on 2s were each frame is held for two exposures... probably borrowed directly from E.G Lutz who directly borrowed from Muybridge(?)

 

*Rationale for thinking thusly: 16 FPS was the standard in film in the early days whereas nowadays its (mostly) 24 and 30.

I'll check my E.G. Lutz book, "Animated Cartoons" for evidence of kangaroos.

[robcat2075]

There are enough differences between 1 and 9, for example the body is higher and the tail curve has reversed, that I don't think it's intended as a duplicate.

 

The Quicktime is 12fps so that is like shooting on 2's

[robcat2075]

Here's a version that omits drawing 9

 

KangarooFramesB.mov

 

certainly better motion for the feet.

 

 

 

Here's Muybridge's version:

 

http://sillydragon.com/muybridge/Plate_0753.html

[Rodney]

Yes, that is much better.

 

While changing Muybridge's kangaroo anatomy to circles and lines could account for a lot of differences it sure seems to me that there is more hip movement in Muybridge's version than Webster's. Considerable differences between the two otherwise (for instance, watch the arms). Of course once rotoscoped, changes would be easier to make in the drawing.

 

Added:

I note that the Muybridge page does state that frames 1-9~10 frame the cycle.

I suppose that to mean that they aren't quite sure about which frame (9 or 10) is the resetting of the cycle.

Because there are actually 12 photos this could be confusing if anyone thinks that all 12 photos create a repeating action.

Of course they'd likely figure that out once they animated them.

 

I don't have my hard copy 'Animated Cartoons' at hand but I know there are copies online.

Edit: Didn't see any kangaroos in 'Animated Cartoons'.

Perhaps 'Action Analysis for Animators' give a source in back of the book?

 

Added: Mubridge's zoopraxiscope disk. Now with kangaroo action!

[Simon Edmondson]

Edit: Didn't see any kangaroos in 'Animated Cartoons'.

Perhaps 'Action Analysis for Animators' give a source in back of the book?

 

Rodney

Have to put my hand up to say I may have been wrong on the Kangeroo. Perhaps expecting too much compression. In Roberts sequence there does appear to be some but it is very difficult to tell from the drawings .

 

I did try the photos at the start of Chapter Two . Here is the ref image.

 

 

I put it together in Final Cut and got this, I did it on two's but it went by a bit fast,

 

Child_2frames.mov

 

So tried it on threes instead.

 

Child_3_frames.mov

 

If you look at the stills Its more apparent than the sequence ?

 

When I was doing these and some others in Pshop I wondered if they had been contacted off 35mm transparencies as the 3:2 ratio seemed about right. The child is reproduced slightly larger but, elsewhere they are shown at this size and I do find it very difficult to make out what is being shown. Perhaps I should change my glasses?

 

regards

simon

[Rodney]

It's looking legit from here but I note several things that make this hard to analyze (and I might have corrected something that is amiss in the process of analysing this!)

 

The first is that the kid is running from right to left. This can play tricks on our mind as we tend to prefer left to right.

 

The second is that the color of the kids outfit makes it harder to determine which leg is closer to us and which is farther back.

 

The third relates to the second and often produces a known phenomenon of strobing in animation (the classic example is that of a picket fence where all the wooden planks are exactly the same). This confuses the eye... (no doubt this relates to gestalt theory in that we are looking for groups of things first and detail thereafter... but I don't know enough about gestalt-ing to surmise more than that).

 

Another is that by the movement of the background it appears this kid is running pretty fast and yet there aren't many other clues in the picture that echo that.

 

Yet another is that the kids arms are not cluing us in to the positions of his legs. (this is really cool if you take the time to think about it). Because his hands are holding something and fairly stationary while he is running they don't move in the normal positions we equate with a run cycle (that of each arm moving in opposition of the legs... right leg forward... right arm back... left leg forward... left arm back. What is particularly neat about this kids run is that he is doing something else besides just running. There is an important lesson in that.

 

 

In the attached image I've reversed the picture, altered the color and provided some lines to highlight the movement of the legs.

I man put them all in line to allow the brain to connect with the idea that this is forward moving action.

 

Also: I've attached a animated gif of mybridge's zoopraxiscopic kangaroo hopping in an above post.

[robcat2075]

Trying to track subtle real life details when the frames are laid side-by-side is difficult and I'm not sure he's picked out good frames.

 

I think the author should have made a video. There isn't a DVD glued in the back cover is there?

[Simon Edmondson]

It's looking legit from here but I note several things that make this hard to analyze (and I might have corrected something that is amiss in the process of analysing this!)

 

The first is that the kid is running from right to left. This can play tricks on our mind as we tend to prefer left to right.

 

Rodney

 

You are right about the figure running right to left but, even then, the next frame shouldn't have the forward leg in the air when it was previously planted on the ground to receive the weight. And the thrusting leg in the first image is planed firmly on the ground in the second as the centre of gravity passes over it. In the third image that leg is about to receive the weight in the forward position.

 

The way its shown only makes sense if the child is running backwards ?. When its reversed as you have, it does make sense, albeit a little discontinuous.

I'm basing my reading of the leg positions, on the line caused by the fabric folds at the front of the trousers. It is awkward to make it out but I think thats right ?

 

Either way, the fact that we are having to debate it, puts the book in a poor light. Something that sets out to identify a program of study should have clear and concise illustrations that clarify and support the text. The Muybridge books you recommend are very clear and understandable.

 

I'll have another go with it,( I don't like to quit on something like this ) but, I've lost my trust in it and keep expecting errors.

 

Robert

There isn't a DVD with it but there is a web site. I haven't had a chance to look at that yet.

 

regardrs

simon

[robcat2075]

Added: Mubridge's zoopraxiscope disk. Now with kangaroo action!

 

 

That one agrees quite a bit with the youtube video where most of the up/down squash is from the heel lowering to the ground. Quite a bit different from how we might jump but we don't have feet a yard long.

 

Geez, the tendons pulling on that heel bone must like steel to survive all that weight.

[Rodney]

I'll have another go with it,( I don't like to quit on something like this ) but, I've lost my trust in it and keep expecting errors.

 

Well, there are errors and then there is just incomplete.

 

I think this does exemplify why animators need to use Extremes. (And Chris Webster should identify his extremes)

This is easier said than done of course because that is where the work (the detailed analysis) actually is.

 

This also isn't mocap.

I assume that a point of the book is to illustrate a means of referencing motion but not suggesting that we have to copy that reference.

In fact, it should be discouraging us from copying the reference. It's there just as a... reference.

 

In the image of the boy running... it certainly could be better... but sometimes we have to work with what is available.

This book might be doing us a very big favor by not being too precise, as that makes us figure out the details for ourselves.

 

Error can a good thing as long as the risks are acceptable.

What we don't want is to not be able to see the critical errors.

Because no little boy's bones got broken in the process we are all going to be okay.

 

I'm not sure what it is that you are using the images for. Are there specific exercises you are trying to accomplish?

Are you using them to rotoscope drawings or animate one of your 3D characters?

Knowing more about the intended target will help.

[Simon Edmondson]

I'm not sure what it is that you are using the images for. Are there specific exercises you are trying to accomplish?

Are you using them to rotoscope drawings or animate one of your 3D characters?

Knowing more about the intended target will help.

 

Rodney

 

At the moment I'm just looking to increase my knowledge. The book is doing that but not in the ways I expected or wanted.

I've just been looking on Amazon at some Muybridge books.They seem to be more reliable and available for about $20 US.

 

The new washing machine may have to wait yet again as there are human and animal motion books.

regards

simon

[robcat2075]

Most of the Muybridge can be found online as it's public domain.

[Rodney]

I've just been looking on Amazon at some Muybridge books.They seem to be more reliable and available for about $20 US.

 

It certainly won't hurt you to have the Muybridge books but I would exhaust the references you can find online first.

Keep that washer runnin'.

 

For those that are interested, I'm about to start a Muybridge topic.

Edit: Here is the new topic