Vern made a comment the other day on another thread about the tradeoff between making one long movie or 50 short ones. People have shorter attentions spans and you can tell a story in under three minutes if you want to. He also made the point that 50 (or 20 or 10) short ones will get a potentially bigger audience than one long one.

I've been planning to develop "Nightcrawlers" (previously titled "Bugbots") in the new year and had in mind to create a trailer based on the storyboards I've mentioned here before (they're at http://mooneyart.com/bugbots/storyboards.html) but now I'm thinking of a series of shorts that might be self-contained stories or episodes.

Of course the main thing right now is to model the characters, environments and machines I'll need, but that gives me plenty of time to think about what stories to tell, whether I do the trailer in self-contained segments, or go in another direction altogether.

But my recent tests with Croaker have got my juices going and I'm contemplating this with more optimism. Stay tuned, I would love to have more to tell you about this in the new year!

Cool, Gerry!

I'm in complete agreement on the smaller ones adding up to something! I've been thinking about this alot the last couple of weeks. I'm really excited about doing this Christmas greeting and I think a big part of that is that I know I can finish it in a reasonable time. It's manageable. Which made me start thinking that maybe I should do a series of sort of micro-shorts... one joke shorts for the website once a month to sort of develop my skills leading up to the bigger, story shorts I've been working on.

One thing to keep in mind here is that while we occasionally provide a good sounding board we (those of us in the forum) really aren't the intended audience.

There is much room to take advantage of that fact as we refine our stories and find the true audience for our work.

Gerry,
You're work on 'Bugbots/Nightcrawlers' is already great stuff. I've been a fan of your work from day one. Working your project out in front of a proxy audience certainly won't hurt.

I like the idea of producing episodic installments.
There are many benefits to be found in this approach.
First and foremost it allows you to test out what will and won't work in the real world.
More importantly it helps you build a collection of things that do work.
In my estimation you cannot easily gain the same from investing in longer works in the short term.
For one artist... one computer... episodic installments sure seems to be the way to go.

Mark,
You've already pioneered a lot of this stuff in 'The Wannabe Pirates' and your success with that effort mirrors that of Gerry's closely.

What else is there to say.
I'm excited for you both and look forward to seeing more of your work!

Just to freshen this thread, I thought I'd list the elements I need to create for my short, as shown in the storyboards:

Characters:
Skarab
Enslaver Ant(s)
Centipete
Midge Lacewing
Colfax
Biff
2-3 extras

Characters are at http://www.mooneyart.com/bugbots/characters.html

Machines:
Jetwasp (I have one I originally modeled in '02 but it needs a lot of work and rigging)
Driver Ant/Shuttlefly/Scourfly/Bugbus for background activity

Machines are at http://www.mooneyart.com/bugbots/bugbot.html

Environments:
Bugbot junkyard
Centipete radio room
Skarab's workshop. ext. and int.
Weevil Hive, ext. and int.

This is just a rough list and will probably change. The only other proviso is that as of this writing I am planning to do all this on COMPANY TIME, so I can't really make a schedule or take anything for granted! The Croaker character I did was all on company time but we've been slow for the last 6 months or so, and no one wants that to continue or we'll all be out of a job. But on the other hand I learned a ton doing Croaker and it's kinda sorta possible that I will get faster as I go. Right? Right??

No doubt about it.

Budget for the learning as well as the production.
With your background you already know there are some things you can do better on paper before you even commit yourself to creating characters and sets in 3D. With what you have learned already you can redesign and refine to make your workflow even better.

I think most important is to keep things simple and plan ahead.
If you've got the basics in place you can always return and add more detail.

For example:

QUOTE

Environments:
Bugbot junkyard
Centipete radio room
Skarab's workshop. ext. and int.
Weevil Hive, ext. and int.

The initial proxy sets can be quite simple.
Use your artistic talents to draw these and fake the sets as necessary.
Then you'll easily see what details are needed in 3D.
Replace the proxies as necessary.

Work in layers.
Replace elements as needed as they gain importance in a scene.

(Consider a generic Bugbot and having all bugbots use the same rig - your 2 or 3 extras could have textures change to make dozens of other bugbots quickly. The rig will ensure animation works with every character)

Enlist an Apprentice. (or two... or three)
There are many willing to work for the experience.
Especially in creating worlds that are already made on paper.
Creating stuff out of thin air is a bit more difficult.
As projects like 'Scarecrow of Oz', etc. have all their modeling requirements met that'll free up modelers to work elsewhere.

Do something every day. (Sounds like you do this already)
Before you know it you'll have all of your movies made.

If only!
Thanks for the comments and encouragement Rodney!

This is a model I first did back in '02. I've done a lot of work on it in the last two days, though what I've done doesn't really show, mostly beveling, which I should have done in the first place, and redoing some decals. Anyway, this is just a beauty shot rotation so I could feel like I'm making some progress.

I guess it's like a Vespa. Looks cool.

Love the design Gerry. Can't wait to see it in action!

Kind of like a Vespa except, let's see, it's faster, it flies, and oh yeah, it has a laser cannon.

Oooo... very nice!

I like this in many ways.
Firstly because its such a great translation of 2D into 3D.
Secondly, because the look and feel of it (the texturing) makes it still feel 2D (as if you drew or painted it). In my estimation with this image you've improved upon 3D.

...and those transparent and very colorful wings are beautifully designed and executed.

Nice. Nice. Nice.

Please show us more in this style please!

Thanks, Rod! this is the most involved I've ever gotten with decaling and I'm pretty happy with the results. And I'm looking forward to rigging it and seeing it fly for "real". The wings are a big improvement over the way I did them originally and I'm very happy with the results.

As I set about to rig the Jetwasp I realized that I didn't take into account what it actually has to do in terms of the mobility of the wings and legs. So I've spent several days redesigning the back legs so that they can "fold up" when it lands. Here's a modified sketch of the back leg that will allow for that. Next I need to redesign how the wings attach to the body, and may do some work on the front legs as well.

I also found a side view of a Harley with dimensions, so used that as a guide to determine the foot and hand positions and then determine the actual scale of the thing to the size of the characters. However it seems a little bigger than the way I've drawn it in the comics and I may continue to make adjustments, but this whole exercise, converting comic book drawings into workable 3D models, is interesting and a LOT of work.

Here's the Jetwasp drawing off the website:

Very cool, Gerry! Looking forward to seeing this all come together!

There's definitely an appeal for me to take 2D characters I've drawn and model them in 3D.

Here's a WIP of a foreground painting I'm working on for the opening shot. Still not painted completely but AfterEffects can import a layered Photoshop file, so I could experiment with the movement a little.

Gerry, that is big-time awesome!

Thought I was watching the beginning of an episode of "Thundarr the Barbarian!" :-)

Thanks Mark, but I wish I could draw more like this:
http://aaronsimscompany.deviantart.com/art...ha-Bug-80214844

Looks great so far! I like your bugs more than that big... translucent... thingy. Can you imagine the render times on that?

p.s. I've changed my mind. The choice now is making 3.75 long movies or 187.5 short ones, or shy of that just getting one short COMPLETELY done before I end up in the old folks home. I'm working as fast as I can but I'm not getting any younger.

-vern

Martin kicked me up here as it's more appropriate than being down in the Archives, and it's a push I really needed. Been deep into Flash Actionscripting for the last couple months but always thinking about updating this thread. So I hope to be around more as time allows.

That isn't drawing. That's painting.
... and everyone can 'paint' like that with A:M.
... with moving images even.
The hard part is to produce the images quickly.

Investigate the work of Rich Jackson.
He's going for realism in human characters.
Tone down that need a little and you'll get the quantity along with the quality.

But keep all that 2D stuff going too. It'll keep things fresh. Heck even Pixar uses 2D to great advantage.

With what you know of 2D production techniques applied to 3D you and the Bugbots will be unstoppable.

Sounds like you've already decided, but my 2 cents worth - definitely multiple short episodes, for a very practical reason: if you do one show and get 90% finished and run out of money/ambition/time/freedom to do what you want, you've got zip. If you attack 50 episodes and get waylaid at 90%, you've got 45 episodes. You can generally see a disaster coming a ways off, so you just compress the story line a little and your 45 episodes do the work of 50. Nobody will know.

Education is moving in the direction of modularity for the same reason. Someone who goes for a 4-year degree and quits at 3 years and 2 semesters walks away with nothing. Bad gamble.

Wanting to revive this thread I've decided to try a stand-alone short story utilizing the models I've got built so far. It appears that animation festivals in general don't allow entries that are trailers or promos, so I've asked my wife vicki to write a short (2-4 minutes) script using just the characters I've got modeled and to make it self-contained.

If and when I've got something to show I'll post it here.

I like that idea!

go for it

Okay, so my last idea didn't work because my free time is completely consumed by my "Cicak" music video. I'm working on some 2D segments that aren't really 2D animation, just an "animated painting" of the devil for one or two shots. I've been struggling for what feels like months to get a particular effect, using Painter's script recording feature, but it was an excruciating exercise and it turns out wasn't generating the effect I was hoping for. I finally hit on an approach over the weekend that's coming along really well. (Just FYI, the script recorder in Painter has a serious bug. I found a workaround online that I'll be glad to share if you're planning on trying the script record feature.)

But I have been sketching some concept ideas for the Nightcallers "trailer" that's outlined in the storyboards over at http://www.nightcallers.net/storyboards.html. My thought was that the Jetwasp chase (I drew these back in the mid 90's I think) is entirely too linear and that it really needs to be more of a "thrill ride" like nearly every dang CG movie in the last ten years has, so I've been sketching some new Arthropoda landscape features on my iPad, and I'll post them in the next day or two.

Gotta' say Gerry, this project would be the one I'd be most disappointed if it never came to be.

Looking forward to it Gerry!

Keep it simple. You can always add more complexity/layering of details into the mix.

Thanks for the votes of confidence, gents. If there were three of me all this would be so much easier! But "Nightcallers" isn't going anywhere but forward, there just isn't an actual schedule, unfortunately. I will say though, that my character animation skills, getting honed on "Cicak", are improving vastly and when I come back to this project my tests will have a lot more snap to them.

Here are the *very* rough sketches, one from above and one from down inside the trench. My concept is of these trenches or canyons with razor-sharp (of course!) crystal or ceramic-like formations all throughout and over top, jutting from the walls etc. the high-speed Jetwasp chase could take place dipping in and out of these as Skarab tries to shake his pursuers.

can't wait

I'm continuing to work on this in bits and pieces, and finally updated the background page that helps fill in the big picture.

Where did Weevils come from?

Love this Gerry!

I'm working on a short set piece using what I've done so far, including the Weevil Hive, Midge, Skarab, the Jetwasp, and Odyl, and that will feature the very iconic scene of Skarab on a stolen Jetwasp, being chased by Enslaver Ants. I did a test sequence awhile back of Midge flying around the Hive and will use that as a basis, with Skarab in the wings (so to speak) as Midge creates a diversion so he can swipe one of the flyers.

I just want to have one neat sequence using what I have so far, with the emphasis on acting and body language. No dialog since what I have in mind doesn't really need it. I'm setting up the main shot and haven't decided yet whether to storyboard it or just, er, wing it, but it should be interesting. Really, I'm not doing the wing puns on purpose.

Still working on modeling Colfax, but having started watching the Barry Zundel tutorials I've decided I'm a complete numbskull at modeling and I may take a step back and review what I've done so far.

I've done this test of the Weevil Hive being circled by Jetwasps as one flies in from the foreground. It's rough and still needs some tweaking, but I would really like to know how to create some sense of distance with some kind of haze, mist or other aerial perspective. I tried fog but it doesn't have many controls other than start and stop points and usually comes out looking denser than I want. Suggestions are welcome!

I like the background, imagery, colors. Very, very attractive, good ominous mood setting, nice!

Without seeing a drawing/image of what you have in mind, it's a little difficult to suggest how to tweak fog, or mist to get what you want. I sometimes use an image for fog to get a more creative look to the fog.

As for sense of distance: My impressions are that there are no foreground objects, layers, in which to judge distances, speeds, scale. More detail would help add those cues for the viewer. Additionally, as it is now, the speed on the incoming wasp seems waaayyy faster than those circling the hive. Given the incoming speed, I would expect the circling wasps to be going much faster. Also based on wasp behavior I would expect more erratic, crazier motion trails (too smooth, slow, even now). Fighter jetwasps could have more dogfighty maneuvers. Think "Blue Angels", russian Mig fighters

EDIT: BTW how did you do the trails? Me likey.

Thanks, Nancy. What I'm after is making the mountains really look distant, giving a sense of scale and space, with some sort of atmospheric effect. Maybe I should try the fog with an image. I don't want to clutter it, just give it a real sense of space.

I'm also tweaking the motion of the Jetwasps as we speak. The ones circling def need some work and their trails need to be longer, with a more gradual fade out.

I'm glad you like the trails, they're two-part particle emitters, one for the yellow and one for the red "halo". Pretty simple and a lot of fun to tweak. I'll post a quickie tutorial shortly.

Here's a quick rundown, as promised. A screen shot showing how the emitter is constructed, and the emitter materials for you to play with. The particles spray generally in the direction of the normals and I think I've applied some forces to these to direct the spray, but I'm not sure. The red "halo" material is applied to the outer ring, and the yellow streaks material is applied to the small center plate.

Like I said, a quickie!

Cool, Gerry! The sky is very dramatic. I think Nancy's right about having something in the foreground. Even if it's a fake hill that shows a much larger version of the ground pattern. Just to emphasize the scale and distance.

Yes, you guys are right. Ii just did a quick google search on "vast landscapes" to see what defined them and gave them that sense of space. No matter how dramatic and atmospheric the distances were, they all had strong foreground elements that anchored them.

Very cool Gerry!

I love to see your project coming together.

I wanted to comment on some aspects of scale but honestly didn't know if I was up to the task so... spend a little time investigating/recreating your set to see if I could put into action my thoughts on scale. I even engaged with Ernest via Community chat and he provided an additional element that got me thinking about pushing in/out on the camera a little to augment the sense of scale.

My greatest concern with regard to scale in the video you posted is that the horizontal lines on each of the bases to the structures seem to indicate a smaller distance/scale. My thought was to force this horizontal line to be either downward or upward (in cinematic terms I believe a camera lens might have a gel lens that pushes the image up or down in the middle).

The problem with interpreting this is that I'm not sure where the POV is. Ernest pointed out that can be resolved by knowing more about the previous and subsequent shots and he is right on the money there. My feeling however is that this is an establishing shot in which the previous shot was not anywhere near this location. As such we are establishing the POV of this scene for the first time... which makes it even more important to establish a proper sense of scale.

With all of this in mind I established a POV for the camera as very near the ground and in fact even below ground level to cheat the shot a bit.

A really good method of accentuating scale is to move the camera in really close (too close!) and then bring the focal distance back out to compensate. This is the solution I attempted although there are certainly other ways to get at the same thing.

The important thing IMO is to get at that sense of scale. I think you do that to a large extent just by the timing of how long it takes for the jets to get to the structure. A very slight camera movement into (or preferrably out of) the scene even while panning around might add to the sense of scale. My thought is that as the jets are moving into the scene it would be best to have the camera moving out. This is to suggest there is a lot of distance covered by those jets and we aren't sure how far back the plain we we are establishing for these structures to sit on extends (yet). We'll get a sense of that later when someone inside one of the structures looks out toward the plain.


In the attached project the Chor I've got more of a zooming in to the location effect whereas you are panning around. I'm not suggesting you do that... it was just the way my experimenting played out. Note that it isn't timed in any way according to your shot... I think I set it up for 1 second.

In the attached movie you'll note that at the greater distance (at the beginning) all the bases of the structures appear horizontal. On the last frame the structure closest to us (the focal point in your scene) that horizontal line has changed considerably while the other two have not. This gives us a sense that we are closer to this one than the others. This is the element that I'm trying... but mostly failing... to capture.

You've done a really cool thing in your shot in that as your camera moves around the main spiral it reveals hidden structures via overlap... that definitely suggests scale and I really like that. Of course, ultimately what will fully establish the scale is the size of these structures in comparison to your characters.

Fun stuff Gerry. The jet trail effects are awesome and really stand out.
Nice!

Great comment as usual Rodney! You may be surprised to hear though what struck me most about your sample .prj was the way you treated the mountains like a flat shape! I went to so much trouble to model and texture my mountains, but I think that's exactly what keeps them from sitting on the horizon where I want them. The camera shot and movement were also very helpful, and I'm thinking of a more dramatic opening shot that will accomplish pretty much what you suggested.

Looking forward to it. I know you'll come up with some great shots!



The simpler the better I say. Rapid modeling is key to getting a production onscreen in a timely manner.
I can appreciate those who spend enormous amounts of time modeling but... that's not for me on a daily basis.

Keep in mind that my approach is one of Proxy modeling where I start ultra simple because that may be all that is needed. Then I replace elements that require more (geometric) detail as needed. I equate this with a movie set crew that is on a tight schedule and so constructs their sets in a modular way so that they can be easily adapted, exchanged or moved out of the way. Of course, with this approach one must take a little care to consider continuity so that's also a good reason to lock down those areas with the greatest amount of detail. Rendering out scenes for use with 2D background cards is also a great timesaver. Something like that would be very useful in closeup scenes on your characters.

In most closeups on any people in the structures I'd likely just use prerendered backgrounds to save rendering time. With your drawing ability you'll be able to get some really great scenes in place quickly and then refine as necessary.

Concerning this subject, I immediately think of Alain Descroachers and others who excel at scene planning/layout for their obvious grounding in stagecraft. For instance, when designing for TWO, Alain's use of a plan view over the top of a scene really cut to the chase and allowed the modelers and animators to see where the character would be and where the camera would be placed, which allowed everyone to concentrate on the areas that required detail and not waste time on things that would not appear onscreen. The exception to this is a set that we know for a fact will be used, reused and abused over and over and over again. For consistency's sake, a lot of detail may need to be added in those sets and if anything is moved (by the characters as part of the story) the location of those objects may even need to be tracked.

Of course a fun part of continuity is explaining away the various and inevitable errors that creep in. As you know, Marvel comics turned error into a strength when they created the 'No Prize' for explaining away errors in continuity. While often best avoided some errors lead to very interesting story arcs that were never considered. While there is a danger in this, that of confusing the heck out of the audience which losing them, folks like Baum turned inconsistencies into integral parts of the story they were telling.

Production... it's all about economics!
Say what needs to be said. Embellish only as necessary to accent, emphasize and direct attention to what you want to say.

Sorry to get longwinded.
This is really fun stuff to me.

Your enthusiasm and insights are much appreciated, Rodney! I did a quick render last night with some foreground elements but haven't solved the problems yet so it's not worth posting. But I'm getting closer.

I've come up with a nice 45 second teaser/opening shot, no dialogue but it sets up the story. Here's a still of the blocking on one shot. I know they look like mannequins but I'm getting excited!

I'm having entirely too much fun on this scene. Here's rough blocking for about the first 2/3 of it, just working out timing and character positions. Got a pretty economical work flow so I can render out these wireframes quickly.

The whole thing should run about a minute, but I'm finding my estimates for timing each shot is too short so it will prolly be longer by the time I'm done with this stage.

Here's a new version with a few more tweaks. I found I was timing everything way too fast, so this will be longer than I first thought, but that's fine!
Slightly low quality to get it down to a reasonable file size.

Wow Gerry, I sure wasn't expecting to see all of that when I clicked!

Very nice.
You've been busy!

Yes, one gets a better sense of scale, speed now. The first camera move (pulling away from the hive) seems a bit mushy, but I'm guessing all will be tweaked.

Like Rodney said you've been busy, nice!

Looking good!