Before downloading to your desktop, and playing the qicktime, remember these commands. For PC users "Cntrl F" for full screen and "Cntrl 0" Zero not the letter O for Half size if the picture is too large for your display. For mac users substatute CNTRL with the Command key.


I hesitate to show this clip because its no where near finished and I am not happy with it at all. Not to mention this is one shot out of about 16 and its out of context so it will not be to impressive to you.

The shot lacks the render quality/ look that I desire. My inexperience caused me to shoe horn in some AO into an indoor scene and it kind of works but so far I feel a Radiosity look or an IBL look may be closer to what I am striving for in terms of render and lighting quality. I may try to use the skycast rig as it shows promise but I dont now if it will be applicable to indoors. I plan to add pictures on the walls as well as grime up the floors particularly the corners. I hate the humaginised clean look of CG and it apperas that It will take much effort to get the grime of reality I am looking for.

I still feel that lighting will give the highest % of quality/ look that I am going for. That type of look that catches your eye and will not let go because it looks so close to reality and yet kind of beyond.

Click to view attachment



For example this shot has a little of that

Click to view attachment

and so does this

Click to view attachment

i like, very well done

Thanks

looks great

I like it.

I see no reason that won't work.
I know you are setting the personal bar high though.
You've already exceeded my threshold and if we go to that level, I agree for a full assessment we'd need to watch it in context.
In that regard this clip is too short.

Translation=Look great to me! Very nice!

I like the lighting.
If there is any place I would concentrate on it would be in the lower right.
As this area remains the same throughout the shot it might be good to age or detail some of that area a little more.
Right now the lines are too perfect.
Note: In my personal view this isn't necessary because the movement in the scene keeps the eye from going to that spot. But if people look at each frame individually it will likely stand out.

keep pushing
great so far

That looks great and so does the bathroom set.

I think the bathroom is real good and the other but the bathroom has it for me

That looks quite good! I could only step thru it, it's too slow to play even at half size on my PC.



The kleig lighting has helped to keep the background from being too uniform.

I suppose grime details would be things like scrapes in the floor moulding where people have nicked it with their shoes.

The "Diffuse" map was intended for things like that, anywhere you want to darken a surface without having to paint that into the color map or figure out how to get a material to show such a thing.

The example pictures like the bathroom are not mine, but I hope to achieve results like that.

Thanks, I will have to learn how to use that Diffuse map.

High Res still of some completed characters.


Click to view attachment

Looks good!

What's the gyroscope about?

Great group! The Photoshop guy kick-ass! Where's our little yellow A:M guy?

Apples Motion. Its kind of like Adobe AE but its better in some ways and in others not so much. Funny in the chor the color changes from red to pink.
Click to view attachment

I felt it fitting that AM should be levitating as it is a Jedi master.

Click to view attachment

few more

Click to view attachment

Ok I know this is very sloppy but its just a rouhg test to get a feel. Ignore the lighting and horrible matte job. Basically what I am doing is what they have done in Avatar and a few other movies where they use a real camera or a real world camera that feeds to a computer to drive the CG cameras animation. In my case I shot with my Sony Ex1. Tracked it in synth eyes. Then I put my models into the scene to see how they matched the move aka Match move. I did that mostly for curiosity. I dont plan to mix live action with cg for my presentation. Then I used the the real world cameras move to drive an entirely cg generated animation. My philosophy is that CG is just too clean by introducing elements like a bad camera move it gives a unique feel for a cg world.

After looking at the 2nd clip tell me if its too much or if I am on the right track. Again please ignore everything else like lighting I am just testing the camera move.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

The camera sync looks great to me.
I'd say its ready to be taken to the next level.

Not to shaky of a move? Like I said I was going for that reality camera work look. but at this point I need an outsiders opinion.

IMO, it would work depending on the style & feel of the entire movie - I would not want to see this type of camera movement for all types of animation. eg it doesn't work for Pixar, Wallace and Grommit, Southpark styles, etc.

In your particular setting, I find it a little too shaky - my first impression, with seeing it stand-alone is I wonder why it looks like bad camera motion. But if I heard the dialog, and knew the rest of the story, and there was a purpose to the shakiness - then I would probably say it's clever and looks good.

In other words, it works for those stories/styles that are trying to simulate a hand-held, intimate, personal viewpoint - ie, just the character(s) and the camera man

thanks Nancy

I may try to delete some in between keys too smooth out the reality of it all.

It looks nice so far!
Is there any reason you are animating at 23.98fps?
If you are the person holding the camera and your are interviewing the red guy - "So, Red Guy, what are you doing here?" - Then it works great to me. Feels just like a real person is holding a small camera and doing the interview. Otherwise it does seem a bit much.

good point.

Yes I made it a rule to always work in 24p and or 23.98 aka 23.976 progressive frames per second.

First off AM does not accept fractional frame rates so true 24p is a must vs 23.98. Most video cameras with 24p abilities do not shoot true 24p as a film projector would project in a theater. Video cameras that have 24p options are usually doing one of two things. recording true 23.976fps aka 23.98 for short or they are recording 23.976 with whats known as a 3:2 pulldown. giving you 29.97 frames per second. Although the 2nd option retains the look of 24p it actually contains duplicated fields and frames.

Ive worked professionally in film and tv for 9 years now and 24p is the look of film and tv. I am strongly against 30p or 59.94i aka 29.97fps. Some may say it comes down to preference but the pros use 24p or 23.976 which is basically the same thing. But its practical. 24 frames renders faster, streams faster, downloads faster, compresses with more data (quality per frame), plays back smoother. And when it comes to spfx we charge by the frame and 24fps is alot cheaper than 30. When I worked on the tv show House and Numbers we would get 2nd unit camera ops fucking up all the time and shooting 30p. They were never asked back. 30p does not convert into 24p easily. Meaning it looks bad and is processor intensive. Those operators would cost thousands of dollars in unnecessary Post production work, not to mention lost time. Also green screen work you don't want any interlaced fields mocking up your key.

In my mind 24p or 23.976 aka 23.98 for short is the only frame rate. With that said if you do not want a cinematic quality and its not professional work 30p, 60p, 29.97 interlaced are acceptable.

Thanks for you answer. I didn't know film projected at 23.976fps (instead of 24fps).

Actual Film rolls / projects at true 24p but the short answer is that when you try to make 24p play nice with the frequency of the power coming out of the wall and the previous NTSC standards that are still in use, its much easier for manufactures to go with 23.976 aka 23.98. If you were to shoot with anything other than an actual film camera it would most likely record at 23.98 and when you make your print for distrabution across the world it is sped up to 24p. The difference is so small no one seems to care, however the duration does change.


All of this stuff is not to important for you to know but 23.976fps is a standard so it would be nice if AM could do that. In practice because of Am's inability to process fractional frame rates I have to take my 23.98 video and retime it via compressor to true 24p then track it with Synth eyes for the hash export to sync in AM. When I edit the rendered cg tga sequence in Final cut pro I do so in 23.98. By the way Blu-ray also 23.98 not true 24.

Its nice to know we still have professionals in the ranks. My fear is producing rubbish and not being told.

Cheers

The first 2 shots are completed. Took me about 13 days just to render them using 6 computers non stop. The attached movie is down res from 1080p to 720p to make it easy for download. This is Pre color correction which I will do at the end. I have about 13 shots left to create and Animate. I will add sound effects, score and hire an actor for the narration.

The first shot was rendered to TGA file regrettably as they have not proven to hold up in color correction. The 2nd shot was Open EXR. I added motion blur to the first shot using Reel Smart Motion blur plugin for AE. It was a hassle to get an accurate look and I had to learn the ins and outs to yet another program. The 2nd shot used the motion blur built into AM @35%. I think its worth taking the render hit but if you dont have the time RSMB is very fast to render. If AM had a way to export vectors like M@y@ that would help a lot with RSMB.

I was hoping to add DOF in AE via the open exr format but it does not work for me as described in video tutorials I will post one frame if some one can figure it out that would be great but for now these shots will not get DOF. Its not that big of loss. Any future shots that will need DOF will get it via AM. Unfortunately the "Fisheye" lens that I used for shot 1 does not seem to be compatible with AM DOF. Not Sure why.

This stuff is more work than I ever thought. Makes me respect anyone who is able to complete a project.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I'm afraid it's a bit too much res for my PC to play smoothly so i can't judge the motion , but the renders look real nice.


I'm sure the HD res is a time eater, but I'm still wondering if the lighting is as efficient as it could be.




I think Wendy Carlos summed up the problem 40 years ago, "Every parameter you can control, you must control."

I'm afraid it's a bit too much res for my PC to play smoothly so i can't judge the motion , but the renders look real nice.


Click to view attachment
The first 2 shots are completed. Took me about 13 days just to render them using 6 computers non stop.[/quote] I'm sure the HD res is a time eater, but I'm still wondering if the lighting is as efficient as it could be.

I am sure you are correct. I am not a master at any of this. At some point I had to just blast the problem with money and buy more machines to render frames faster. I have been doing so much Research and moving forward so slowly that I felt it was time to just get some shots finalized and rendered.

wip

Click to view attachment

Thanks for the lo-res. That looks good!

Shot 3 completed

1920x1080
Click to view attachment

1280x720
Click to view attachment

960x540
Click to view attachment

Still looking good. You should send that in for the Comicon reel.

It's ALL looking good! Can't wait to see it in sequence. Was the bald man with lightning in the screen done in A:M???

looks great, makes me wish I had all that nice software, but alas, I do not.

No, and its a she. The actresses name is Amazon Beard. She is kind of a Grace Jones but more muscles. That is some footage from a live action short I directed. The lightning was done in AE with stock filters.

The first three shots are in sequence. Does it not cut together?

It would be nice just to see a basic animation of this all put together (maybe just in 480x270 in shaded mode) so that we can see how the clips will work together instead of just looking at the graphics. That way it won't take a week to render out a few seconds. Your light choices look really good, though. Are you using Radisotity for these shots? If you are, I hope you have a giant render farm.

Looking very good, Jason!
My one concern is that the eye is not led to the question, "What can Jason Hampton do for you". On a single viewing that might be overlooked completely. Perhaps you could linger on that a little longer or have the character press a button entitled "What Jason Hampton can do for you", or maybe you have this covered somewhere else. Looks really slick though.

You bring up good points. In hind site I would have tweaked it to do more of that.

The entire one minute piece will be narrated, so I hope that will re iterate the sale of my skills. Although I have the "what can Jason Hampton do for you" up on the monitor its really more of a subliminal in my opinion. I am trying to pack a bunch of detail into the shots and make the piece fast paced intentionally. My hope is that people in the biz, their bosses or people who can recommended me to their bosses will see the piece and want to view it over and over pointing out details like the mac, the Matrox MX02, the Sci fi thing Final cut is editing, the lens flairs, the deformations in the walls, and all the characters/applications represented in my fashion.

By the way, I am not selling myself as an Animator,Modeler,Rigger,Texture r, Although the little skills I have are a bonus. I am selling my self as a Director/Producer for small budget shoots, for companies who want soemone who can Produce,Direct,Shoot, Edit, do moderate FX, Color correct, moderate Wed skills, and be self sufficient.

The Narrator's pitch will talk about the importance of this in the current economy. My pitch will hinge on how companies can no longer afford to hire "specialists" but instead hiring someone like myself will give the company much more bang for their buck. Obviously I will be trying to get hired by smaller companies who will find this attractive.

By "graphics" do you mean final renders? Thanks for the compliments. I have found that light seems to be one of the keys in both the real world and cg to make interesting shots. I have not used Radiosity yet. I do plan to for at least one shot just to see how cool it looks. The first shots does not have any Ambient occlusion and I feel it lacks a little bit of that tangible quality because of it. I could composite it in after the fact but I have moved on to other shots and besides I don't think its that noticeable. The first 2 shots are 49 passes .45samples for AO, reflection is 45% quality , The 3rd shot got upped to 50% quality on the reflection and 64 passes.

I dont think lens flares and volume for the lights are working properly because I added flares to all lights but only one worked. It turned out to look good so I didnt mess with it but if someone wants to test multiple lens flares on multiple lights that would be great.

Occasionally frames for no particular resin rendered incorrectly in regards to the flares. Rendering the same frame again on a different system solved the problem. everything was rendered 24p 1920x1080. The third shot had depth of field. I tried using the depth map generated in the 2nd shot via open EXR, but I couldn't get it to work, well give a good result.

Back to your original question. Other than my story board I dont have the rest of the shots done. I suppose that would be a better plan of attack but I dont want to burn myself out. I like to get excited about a shot and see it through to fruition. I have about 13 shots left and if I spend a ton of effort doing detailed animatics I fear that I will go to long without rewarding myself with finished shots. Than I will get depressed and burnt out. Kind of strange I know but for my own personal project its my thing. Obviously with a client I would do a story board then rough models, rig, create animatics, then animate the characters then texture, all while getting client approvals along the way.

I do not have a large render farm. But I do have about 30 Processors all rendering instances. If I had only tried rendering with one instance it would take at least a year for the three shots I have done to complete rendering. Some frames took 16 hours some took as little as 8 hours to render.

I am confident Net Render V16 with its multicore abilities will help me ease my pain. Setting up all the instances takes about 45minutes when you do it the old fashion way.

Did anyone notice the shadow that sweeps across final cut guy? did you get subconsciously that that's what he is reacting to before he runs out of the room? Thats his motivation. Him an AE are confused to where everyone is going. But if that not evident than I didnt do my job.

This storyline is why i dont give to much emphasis to "what can Jason do for you" because the narrator will fill that gap while you fallow the mystery. Below is my story board. I have made a bunch of notes and scribbles so be kind. You may also notice that I cut some shots.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Funny thing

I was super worried about Adobe changing their icons for CS5. As it turns out they did. Get this.. They made their new CS5 icons look like my 3 dimensional icons. They could not have done it better if I had paid them. before they were just 2D so when I created the characters I had to give the depth. LOL what luck or is it? Did I know the future? Did they see my work on the Hash forums?

Take the credit! I've found that questioning the cosmos like that can only lead to no good.

How long is it taking you to render all of this? 1080p with 49 passes with things like AO and soft reflections could take several hours per frame.

It depends on the shot. the first shot didnt have AO but it had a lot of models. it took about 16 hours per frame no motion blur. I did the motion blur in AE with real smart motion blur. the 2nd and 3rd shot did not have as many models and lights so I was able to add motion blur in AM, do 64 passes, AO volumetrics, and soft reflections @ 50% quality. took about 8 or 9 hours per frame. The first shot had a bunch of ray trace lights, the 2nd and 3rd had mostly Z buffer with penumbra on.

You're looking at a little under two years of continuous render time needed to do your minute clip. Do you need that many passes? I usually settle for about 16 passes though I've seen some people use 25 for stills.

Yes I do. Without motion blur, or Ambient O rendering in SD its possible to get away with less but in my case

My specs are

HD 1920x1080

no aliasing

Ambient Occlusion can NOT crawl as it does with low samples and low passes

I have done the math and with all my procs I am looking at about a month or so of rendering because I have 30 processors rendering 30 instances. If I need to I can always purchase a few for quad core or 6 core machines to speed up the process.

When I go to an interview with a blu-ray for my demo reel at a studio they may want to project it in there on site theater. Or sometimes they play it in a conference room on a 63" HDTV.

I live in the present but I want my work to have at least a little shelf life with all the hours I have put into it.

Mark my words in 3 years they are going to be selling 2k and 4k, 100" 3D TV's

You will be able to purchase a consumer camcorder that shoots 2K or higher for less than $1000.00

I didnt put hours and hours of my life into this work to skimp on the rendering.


Of course this is subjective and my standard of quality. Not all projects like TWO for example require this level of quality. In my case I am aiming high and I hope it shows.

James Cameron aimed hi and it worked out for him.

What sort of ray traced lights are you using?

That would be sweet if you rendered all this in 3D. Looks like you've got one heck of a render farm going. 2 years seemed a little much, but a month is not too bad.