Here is a rough view of the animation pipe line of Traditional Vs. 3D and how they are closely related.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Animation Podcast Recap and Expand
Hello reader, This is my first time to do a podcast so I used this as a way to retouch things that i believe were more important and expand on ideas that I didn't mention in earlier posts.
I hope you all enjoy the podcast.
-T.O-
I hope you all enjoy the podcast.
-T.O-
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
What the Future May Hold
Technology advances fast but the concepts stay the same. So what can we expect to have or hope to obtain in the future?
This big dreams list:
This big dreams list:
- Interactive stories
- Holographic animations
- More intuitive software for all aspects of animation arts to make professional quality with few people
The realistic wish list:
- Higher degree of motion capture
- Better 3D animations to replace stereoscopic 3D
- Tablets that can run to software needed on the go
- Better ways to view films (new theater set ups)[1]
References:
1. future of animation article by Robin Wilding Feb 10th, 2012
1. future of animation article by Robin Wilding Feb 10th, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Interview with Sean McComber
This is the second post of two interviews with industry professionals.
1. To start off the interview let's start by who your are.
My name is Sean McComber and I am an animator who happens to also teach classes in ATEC.
2. What studios have you worked at?
I have worked at Rhythm and Hues Studio, Reel FX, and Sucker Punch Productions.
3. When did you join the industry?
I got my first job animating in 2004, but it took me 2 more years before I made it into film.
4. If you had to pick the biggest barrier with animations right now what would it be?
When it comes to CG, technology is generally the biggest barrier. As an animator I want to have full control over the character that I am animating and sometimes it’s just not possible to bend, stretch, or contort them into the positions I want.
5. How have things changed since you started working within the animation industry?
The quality level is immensely better. That is in terms of animation quality in movies, but also in students coming out of college. It is extremely competitive.
6. What is your preference? Working in studio or working as a contract artist and why?
Technically even when you are working in a studio you are still a contract artist. Your contracts last about 6 months to a year at a time (or run of the picture which just means until the movie is done). There are pros and cons being staff vs contract. Staff has a bit of security, but with contract you are free to bounce around to try different studios and other projects.
7. What is your favorite animated feature film? Either 2D or 3D
I still really like Finding Nemo. The Incredibles is also one of my favorites. If we are talking strictly animation style I really like what Sony is putting out these days with Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Hotel Transylvania.
8. If given the chance to start over fresh would you still chose the same path?
Absolutely
9. If you were to guess where animation is heading in the future, where would that be?
Honestly I have no clue. I see motion capture getting a stronger foothold as the technology advances, especially in games. I also think it will begin to encroach more into film and specifically VFX films. There will always be a place for full key frame animation, but I do think it will get smaller.
I would like to take this time to thank both Todd Fletcher and Sean McComber for their time. I hope that all the viewers enjoyed these sessions.
Interview with Todd Fletcher
Today we start a two post series where industry professionals agreed to answer a questionare so that they answers can be compared and contrasted.
1. So to start off with the interview lets start by who you are.
Todd Fechter, Assistant Prof of Computer Animation
2. What studios have you worked at?
DNA Productions, Element X Creative, Reel FX (contract freelance)
3. When did you join the industry?
Upon graduation in August 2002
4. If you had to pick the biggest barrier with animations right now what would it be?
Money and Technology. Things are getting cheaper and faster however the need for bigger and better makes money the biggest set back for animation
5. How have things changed since you started working within the animation industry?
Technology has got faster and more complex. Studios are slightly less stable. Animation has spread far beyond entertainment and into medical, architectural, web, etc…
6. What is your preference? Working in studio or working as a contract artist and why?
Each has its good and bad points. Studios allow you to work closely with other artists which is rewarding, but you also have to deal with the studio politics and procedures. Most cg artists working in studios are now contracted only for the duration of a project. This causes a lot of jumping from one studio to another. Freelance contract work is usually done off site, so you don’t get the interaction you would in a studio. You also have to live and die by often very fast turn arounds.
7. What is your favorite animated feature film? Either 2D or 3D
The Incredibles
8. If given the chance to start over fresh would you still chose the same path?
Yes.
9. If you were to guess where animation is heading in the future, where would that be?
In all directions and into every field imaginable. Everything will involve some kind of animation or visualization in the future.
Guest Appearance by Matt Thurman
Today we have a guest blogger, Matt Thurman. Writer of the blog "The Evolution of Animation."
Hair has always been a troubling problem when it came to 3D animation. Over the years there have been several different methods for dealing with the issue of hair. Some of the most common solutions are what is know as helmet hair, rigged hair, and simulated hair.
Helmet Hair
Helmet hair is by far the easiest solution to hair in 3D animation, and just like the name implies it treats the hair as a static element that is attached to the characters head like a football helmet. This method was common during the early years of 3D animation because it was so simple to sue and required very little time or computing power. The downside of this method is that it doesn't seem very realistic, especially with characters that have longer hair. To mitigate this characters were almost always given short hair or in the case of female characters had it tied up in a bun. Although it is the easiest solution to hair, it's severe limitations led studios to switch to using what is known as rigged hair.
Rigged Hair
Rigged hair is similar to helmet hair in that it is also geometry stuck the the characters scalp. The difference is that rigged hair is movable and as such is more realistic. The hair is split into sections with can be moved around which allows characters to have longer hair that reacts to their movements. It's still limited and has trouble with things like long flowing hair, hair blowing in the wind, and hair colliding with the environment, but it's still noticeably more realistic than the helmet hair method.
Simulated Hair
When 3D animation first came to mainstream attention in 1995 with 'Toy Story' the thought of having dynamically simulated hair was a fantasy.Out of the three methods, simulated hair requires by far the most time and computing power. With this method thousands of strands of hair are created and attached to the character. A computer then simulates, using both real and imaginary physics to make it work correctly, how the hair would move as it follows the character and interacts with things in the film. This method gives the most realistic results and is generally used by the larger studios today who have the time and resources to commit to such a complex method for hair. Sometimes this method works out wonderfully and other times it gives some interesting results that take months to correct. Ultimately though this method achieves the best results and is quickly becoming the industry standard.
Go check out Matt's blog at The Evolution of Animation
Hair has always been a troubling problem when it came to 3D animation. Over the years there have been several different methods for dealing with the issue of hair. Some of the most common solutions are what is know as helmet hair, rigged hair, and simulated hair.
Helmet Hair
Helmet hair is by far the easiest solution to hair in 3D animation, and just like the name implies it treats the hair as a static element that is attached to the characters head like a football helmet. This method was common during the early years of 3D animation because it was so simple to sue and required very little time or computing power. The downside of this method is that it doesn't seem very realistic, especially with characters that have longer hair. To mitigate this characters were almost always given short hair or in the case of female characters had it tied up in a bun. Although it is the easiest solution to hair, it's severe limitations led studios to switch to using what is known as rigged hair.
Rigged Hair
Rigged hair is similar to helmet hair in that it is also geometry stuck the the characters scalp. The difference is that rigged hair is movable and as such is more realistic. The hair is split into sections with can be moved around which allows characters to have longer hair that reacts to their movements. It's still limited and has trouble with things like long flowing hair, hair blowing in the wind, and hair colliding with the environment, but it's still noticeably more realistic than the helmet hair method.
Simulated Hair
When 3D animation first came to mainstream attention in 1995 with 'Toy Story' the thought of having dynamically simulated hair was a fantasy.Out of the three methods, simulated hair requires by far the most time and computing power. With this method thousands of strands of hair are created and attached to the character. A computer then simulates, using both real and imaginary physics to make it work correctly, how the hair would move as it follows the character and interacts with things in the film. This method gives the most realistic results and is generally used by the larger studios today who have the time and resources to commit to such a complex method for hair. Sometimes this method works out wonderfully and other times it gives some interesting results that take months to correct. Ultimately though this method achieves the best results and is quickly becoming the industry standard.
Go check out Matt's blog at The Evolution of Animation
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Motion Capture in a Nut Shell
Motion Capture is the new shiny object for the animation industry, using the word new loosely. However, many people still don't understand what motion capture really is or how it works yet. So we are going to take this post to explain the different versions along with the pros and cons of motion capture.[1]
First up is "Mocap." This is the generic version of motion capture that everyone seems to be the most familiar with. In this version an actor is given a spandex suit with glowing orbs around it and is put inside an empty set with dozens of cameras tracking the position of each orb as the actor moves.[1]
I-Mocap also known as inertial motion capture uses smaller sensors than the generic mocap. This makes use of tracking bright colors on a suit. The cameras track simular to the previous version, but they have the advantage of letting the actor move more normal by not having to make use of the orbs that can get in the way.[1]
[2]
There are also now some companies making fully thermal motion capture cameras such as the Kinect from Microsoft. These cameras could be considered a cheap route but they also come with more flaws like not being able to track as much data on exact position of body parts, and can not track any facial animations.
Advantages:
First up is "Mocap." This is the generic version of motion capture that everyone seems to be the most familiar with. In this version an actor is given a spandex suit with glowing orbs around it and is put inside an empty set with dozens of cameras tracking the position of each orb as the actor moves.[1]
I-Mocap also known as inertial motion capture uses smaller sensors than the generic mocap. This makes use of tracking bright colors on a suit. The cameras track simular to the previous version, but they have the advantage of letting the actor move more normal by not having to make use of the orbs that can get in the way.[1]
[2]
There are also now some companies making fully thermal motion capture cameras such as the Kinect from Microsoft. These cameras could be considered a cheap route but they also come with more flaws like not being able to track as much data on exact position of body parts, and can not track any facial animations.
Advantages:
- fast results ( also using the term fast loosely)
- director can correct acting mistakes before they are applied to an object to be animated
- more data is taken in a shorter amount of time than traditional animation processes
- There are some free ware softwares that reduce costs ( just remember you get what you pay for )
Disadvantages:
- Specific hardware and software are needed to make use of this process
- Expensive, most smaller studios can't effectively use motion capture
- Actors still can't break the laws of physics so animation will sometimes still be done by hand
- Models or objects that are not in the same proportion are much more complicated to adjust to fit than to just start traditionally.[1]
References:
1. motion capture explained Uknown Author. August 14 2011. Computerstories.net
2. Match Move Reel vimeo video active on 11-18-2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)