Ernest Burden III Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 My browser wanted to open this with QuickTime, which couldn't read the file. Media Player plays it. The original file, as written, was a .m2v extension but MP didn't know what it was, so I changed the extension. EDIT: I removed the original file, see later for a newer one:: I'm thinking there is too much going on in this sequence. There is a lot of space to cover, but not much time. In the end, this part of a clip should be even shorter than it is, I go into the building and look around the interior. After putting this together I am thinking I need fewer, slower shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Man, nice work. Sure longer, slower shots would be nice, but if you only have so much time, I think it looks good. The only one that is too quick in my opinion is the last camera where it turns around very fast. And the only other thing I noticed were the trees. I do like how they are set up - did you draw those yourself? The 'x' thing is kind of distracting though. I'm not sure if it would help to have 3 planes instead of 2 or not. But its not that bad since you aren't going for the super real trees anyways. Care to share any budget info. on the project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 The only one that is too quick in my opinion is the last camera where it turns around very fast. That goes between the outside and inside, rather than track through the doors, looking forward. It may be a little too fast, but is not meant to be a 'shot', just an impression of movement. And the only other thing I noticed were the trees. I do like how they are set up - did you draw those yourself? The 'x' thing is kind of distracting though. I'm not sure if it would help to have 3 planes instead of 2 or not. It wouldn't. I have never had the X thing show much before, I was surprised by that. I rendered this stuff last night. I can be careful about cuts so as to not have them be a visual distraction, but that does not completely solve it. In other animations I had more heavy linework that fuzzes up trees, so it was not something you saw. This piece is more literal. Budget? Am I getting paid? Yes, I am. This animation is taking too long to make is all that profitable, but I am enjoying the result so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 looking very nice. the internal bits look spiffing indeed! my only comments so far - even though theres enough going on, i'd like to see just a tad more of each sequence. literally a second or 2. or maybe if all sequences were cross faded that would help rather than straight cuts. is this corriographed by you or has the client had a big say in it? about the X's - they are slightly distracting to be honest. have you played with the self illum options to minimalise it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 i'd like to see just a tad more of each sequence. literally a second or 2 Thank you for having a look... I agree, I've been cutting them back to keep the time down, but want to see everything longer. So far this is without input from client--that should change in a few minutes... about the X's - they are slightly distracting to be honest. have you played with the self illum options to minimalise it? They ARE done that way. I should go back and double-check the setting to be sure. I would hate to have to re-render all this, but it only took a few hours so not a big deal if I do. In fact, I think what is showing up is the difference in the map on each of the X polys--they are NOT the same painting, but are supposed to work together). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbr Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Looks great! But yeah, too fast and it would be really long to incorporate that many shots. Can't wait to see the final. On a side note, I've had tremendous difficulty viewing mpeg2 videos. WMP, Quicktime, and RealPlayer do not have the correct decoders. It took me a few days to find software that would install the decoders, and that was just a trial version. I though that was pretty strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Nelson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Budget? Am I getting paid? Yes, I am. This animation is taking too long to make is all that profitable, but I am enjoying the result so far. Yes, I know you are getting paid...but I was hoping for a little more info than that. It sounds like you don't think you charged enough. I'm just curious because I still haven't done a professional animation yet so I have no basis on how much work it is compared to single frame images. Are you only doing 12 seconds? If so, I would venture to say you are probably charging around 10k for that. Come on, we've all read the forum posts about pricing, etc. and its really a help to those that don't have years of experience. There was a job I proposed to do a 60s animation, interior/ exterior. I proposed a fee of 7k, plus another 5k for some still images. Grand total of 12k. I think if I knew what I was doing on animations already, this would be a great fee. But since I will be doing a lot of trial & error, the first one will take more time than its worth. Next one would be quicker though I'm sure. Can I live off of 12k a month? I think so but I'd have to try it first. But I won't pester you anymore. I know budgets can be a sensitive thing too, and not always advantageous to publicly announce how much you are charging on jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 Can't wait to see the final. It should look remarkably like this one, only more better. I've had tremendous difficulty viewing mpeg2 videos. WMP, Quicktime, and RealPlayer do not have the correct decoders. What did you view this one with? As I said, Media Player would not recognize it as a .m2v (but it palyed anyway, after ignoring the warning) but gave me no guff when it was named .mpg I'm just experimenting with output options, so how well it plays for all of you is good to know, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 nice work. i like the quick cuts. on the third cut though, you are starting from a stop as it cuts to the clip. the others it appears like the camera is already moving when you cut to them. also, i don't like the spin at the end. it is not that i mind the spin so much, but i don't think it is a good ending point, unless you are plannign on showing interior animations after the spin. if not, maybe you can do the quick cuts, but take out the one showing the overall front view of the building (actually, i think there are 2 shots back to back of this), and place it the end. ...and slow down just that clip. fast fast fast fast fast fast. slooooooow. end. or something like that. i think ending on that and slowing it down would give importance, and a lasting image to the building. the fast cuts build up the anticipation, the you feed the anticipation wth a slow shot at the end. just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lester_Masterson Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sweet. (I was able to play it after saving and renaming the file with a .mpg extention) Overall: Nice look, but made me dizzy. In my experience, I have found that less is often more. You have made great efforts to build a wonderful scene, but we never get to see it. I would focus on 5-6 cuts, lengthen them out and really tell the story that way. Also, a little continuity would be nice. Either a narritive where we are brought to the building in question, or "tease" us with long obscured shots, followed by a nice big "money" shot. Just my thoughts, and keep up the great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 Nice work! I really love to see NPR renderings. My take on the ani is that your scene cuts do not follow a logical order, and I think that may be whats making it feel like alot is going on and confusing. For example, you have a shot of the inside, then jump outside, then jump back inside. You show the door shot, after you've already been inside the building once. Also you have shots that are close up, then far away, and jumping from side to side. I think if you re-ordered your cameras to a path that one would take while walking it would make this ani make more sense. 3-4 cameras would prob do the trick. One of a slow overall pan of the building, on closer up to the front, and one (possible 2) on the inside. Keep up the awesome renderings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 do you ever use the MOV format? i exclusively use it over avi these days since i got C4D in. C4D does a tremendow job of rendering sorenson 3 MOVs. wonderfull compression in both size and image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 10, 2004 Author Share Posted June 10, 2004 do you ever use the MOV format? I tried that first, 31MB to the MPG at 9MB. But my client, and all the client's IT horses and all the client's IT men, couldn't get the file to play. So I had to send them a version in Indeo5, at 18MB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 My take on the ani is that your scene cuts do not follow a logical order, and I think that may be whats making it feel like alot is going on and confusing.. I'm sorry it comes off that way. I planned the shots as a logical sequence. But if an objective viewer doesn't read it as such, I'm not doing a good job. For example, you have a shot of the inside, then jump outside, then jump back inside. You show the door shot, after you've already been inside the building once. Also you have shots that are close up, then far away, and jumping from side to side. I am trying to get away from the usual flythrough method of pushing a camera in front of yourself, tracing a linear path into a door. The concept is: *Intro--show scene, developing through trees *see two new buildings across Quad *visit left bldg close-up, see past it back to travel path *approach main building along path *follow progress of imaginary viewer from inside shot *appraoch entry *track imaginary viewer going through doors the next 2/3 of the animation will be interiors Anyway, I will re-work the shots to be slower and more logically linear. Thanks for the opinions, I'll post a new version probably on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I am trying to get away from the usual flythrough method of pushing a camera in front of yourself, tracing a linear path into a door. that is what i liked about the animation ......it was not the traditional 'fly-through'. part of the problem of arch animation is a pre-conceived idea about what an architectural animation should be, and the other part is the armature nature in which most of us are doing them. we don't have experience in storyboarding, editing, creating mood through camera movement, ect.. ect... ted boardman talks about it briefly in one of his articles. schools teach you how to use editing software, instead of what it means to edit. therefore we have armature editors, who are technically proficient. ....and that is unfortunate. we have the talent and ability to create beautiful models, we spend lots and lots of time on tweaking surface styles, and lighting to get exactly what we want, but then we tend to be narrow sighted on what we do with an animated camera. i am probably more guilty of this than a lot of the people on the board. i spend a lot of time tweaking long drawn out camera paths that should actually be a fraction of there overall length. ...there are 2 direct problems that i see coming up when trying to create advanced camera paths and editing techniques. the first being the client, and the notion of what he wants to see. typically a client commissions a fly-through so he can see the building in its entirety. he wants to know exactly what it looks like, and he wants to show the public exactly what it looks like. he may be using it to raise money, ect... so in his mind, a slow long pass, showing all of the features of the building will really make the building. this can be troublesome to overcome, because he is the person with the money, and he often he is hiring you as a service, not as a visual director. we need to figure out how to be respected as the later of the 2. ...not just as a technical service. the people doing visual work vary greatly in talent, experience, and qualifications. i think it is often just a service because of this. i think it is perceived as being easy to create images, and to just create an image, it is easy. ...but we know that to really create images that are going to sell buildings and such it is a completely different ball game. anyway, trying not to get off to far on tangents, the second problem (which i already mentioned) being we simply don't have the formal training in the art of video editing. we are being hired to do this, and we often do it poorly. i am not saying that just because we are not trained, we can't do a stellar job, but i think we need to push ourselves away from the traditional notion of fly-through being just a way to show the building to the client. i think ernest is pushing this more than anyone else that has posted a animation in the WIP section. so instead of supporting him on the issue, and letting him experiment, we are trying to push him back to a traditional animation. anyway, i am in the midst of another walk through boring animation that i need to get busy on. i will post a link in the WIP section soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 i think ernest is pushing this more than anyone else that has posted a animation in the WIP section. so instead of supporting him on the issue, and letting him experiment, we are trying to push him back to a traditional animation. Thank you, but the comments have all echoed my own concerns about my piece. My client, having now seen it, also wants to be more selective and slow. I love slow. But how to cover 1000 feet in 12 seconds? anyway, i am in the midst of another walk through boring animation that i need to get busy on. i will post a link in the WIP section soon. I look forward to seeing it! Think like a director! Buy this book: Shot By Shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leed Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Ernest I would really like to see this animation but my media player or QT dose not recognise it, tried changing the .mov to .m2v and .mpg with no luck I am running os 10.3 Mac. Any Ideas Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 11, 2004 Author Share Posted June 11, 2004 I would really like to see this animation but my media player or QT dose not recognise it I'll send you an alternative by PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leed Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I look forward to it thanks lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 16, 2004 Author Share Posted June 16, 2004 A new version. I'm almost happy with this one. I still have problems with the 'logic' of the shot sequence, but my client is doing two buildings on the site, so I am really trying hard to pay a visit to the 'other' one, besides the main one. Not only did I not remove the interior shot, I added a bit to it. But in Premiere I had to slow down the added part and it shows. I will re-render those frames if I decide to keep the pacing. I will probably also slow down the 'turn' at the end a little, but remember that it really is there to pass you through the doors to the second part of the animation, the interior. This is another MPEG2 file, but I left the extension as written by Premiere. If MediaPlayer says it won't play it, try it anyway, otherwise just change the extension to .mpg http://www.architecturalvisions.com/temp/ET-ext2.m2v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 very nice. those X shaped trees dont bother me now as much as they did. but what does slightly bother me is the flikering noise. i'd personally tone it down a tad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leed Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Ernest Just got back from a week away relaxing with the family. Downloaded the file but still can not view it, not to worry. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 but what does slightly bother me is the flikering noise. i'd personally tone it down a tad. There is no turning it down. You either have random noise, that dances about like film grain, or static noise that looks like its a layer because it does not move as everything else does. I tried a different way to add a texture (used an EyeCandy filter) on a portion of this file and the result was most odd, with the static noise. I should post that. I realize that some people don't go for the grain, but that's my current thing, so I just have to do my best to make it work. It doesn't annoy me in the current, but if it does, I'll know it's time to try something else. I have a 'something else' in mind, too. I'll develope that later. What I'm really hoping for opinions on is pacing, cuts. I think I've gotten it pretty well to my liking now. The discussion in the other WIP thread with the hospital has been very enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 not to worry. But I do worry... I emailed you through your website... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 i know you have mentioned trying vray in the past. here is an animation using one of the new shaders for the upcoming release. thought you may find this interesting, you may be able to incorporate it with your style. vray 1.5, toon shader, not my work. http://www.chaoticdimension.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=53107#53107 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now