KenH Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 This shot is from a Brown Bag who make shorts. I was interested to see a face rig in their characters that looks not quite like the one we used for TWO: Rig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Is that you, Ken? There is something familiar about the face. Are you working for Brown Bag? I have liked what I have seen of their work in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted February 7, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting. That certainly could be done with A:M, although I'm getting to be less a fan of control-panels-on-the-side interfaces. What's a "brown bag"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 http://www.brownbagfilms.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeSlice Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting. That certainly could be done with A:M, Yes .... but why would anyone want to? I think perhaps the reason people build such clunky and inefficient interfaces in other programs is that they don' t have any other choice. Face rigs like LiteFace may not provide as much expression out of the box as that rig, but that's only because I wanted to keep it simple and fast. The more I look at other programs, the more convinced I am that A:M has a vastly superior constraint and animation system ... for those who know how to use it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 No not me Paul. Brown Bag are located in the same city as me. Maybe I'll work for them one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted February 7, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting. That certainly could be done with A:M, Yes .... but why would anyone want to? .... The more I look at other programs, the more convinced I am that A:M has a vastly superior constraint and animation system ... for those who know how to use it ... I'm with you! I don't see much there that we're not already doing and I don't see anything that we can't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting. That certainly could be done with A:M, Yes .... but why would anyone want to? .... The more I look at other programs, the more convinced I am that A:M has a vastly superior constraint and animation system ... for those who know how to use it ... I'm with you! I don't see much there that we're not already doing and I don't see anything that we can't do. I never understood why people want to have such a thing like a "on screen" face control. Why not use pose-sliders? They are an really elegant way which is easier to handle because they are not somewhere in the 3d-space... But if someone wants to do such a thing, why not just do it? See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting. That certainly could be done with A:M, Yes .... but why would anyone want to? I think perhaps the reason people build such clunky and inefficient interfaces in other programs is that they don' t have any other choice. Face rigs like LiteFace may not provide as much expression out of the box as that rig, but that's only because I wanted to keep it simple and fast. The more I look at other programs, the more convinced I am that A:M has a vastly superior constraint and animation system ... for those who know how to use it ... Agree 100% And the liteface rig is very, easily modifiable in order to get as much expression as one could ever want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted February 7, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted February 7, 2011 I never understood why people want to have such a thing like a "on screen" face control. Because it's "there" where you are looking anyway. Why not use pose-sliders? When i was doing AnimationMentor and we got the "Bishop" Character everything for the face except the jaw and mouth corner controls were done with the Maya equivalent of a pose slider and so when i made my A:M version of Bishop I did that too thinking that was the way it was done. But I hated that. Over in your pose box you have a long list of sliders like Left Lip Upper 1 Left Lip Upper 2 Left Lip Upper 3 Left Lip Upper 4 Right Lip Upper 1 Right Lip Upper 2... ... and on for about 40 items Everytime you want to adjust something you have to scroll through that box and read the labels to find the one you want. The problem with pose sliders is they represent all adjustments as a horizontal scale even for things that do not move horizontally. And they are not on the face. I very much prefer having a control on the face and that's what I've done since. When I want to adjust an eyelid or an eyebrow or a lip I like a control that is right there on what i'm moving. My preference may be too on-the-face for some and it doesn't look glamorous. Maybe they don't like the controls obscuring their view of the face and that's valid. These instrument panels we're seeing like Ken is showing are sort of a compromise between the two extremes. It's near the face but not on it and it doesn't abstract everything to a horizontal slider. But me... I prefer to have all those control details on the face itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeSlice Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I never understood why people want to have such a thing like a "on screen" face control. Why not use pose-sliders? They are an really elegant way which is easier to handle because they are not somewhere in the 3d-space... But if someone wants to do such a thing, why not just do it? I agree with Robert. I am not exactly a professional animator. I don't work in the industry. I've never worked on a big budget ultra-high quality production. But I do have some animation experience. I've animated on five feature length animated movies so far - TWO and SO were the better ones IMO . Two of the movies used "on screen" face controls and three of them used either pose sliders or attributes which acted kind of like primitive pose sliders (In a different program). I have never animated with a widget like that in the picture Ken posted. In my experience, properly set up on-screen controls allowed me to animate much faster. It is more efficient for me to grab a control on a character's face and move it directly, than to hunt through a list of pose sliders or attributes looking for the control I need. This is especially true if there are many controls. The speed is magnified when I want to blend face controls. With on-screen controls, it is simply a matter of posing the face how I want it. With pose sliders and/or attributes, I have to keep sliding the various sliders back and forth (or punching in numbers) until I get the expression I want. This becomes very tiring after a few thousand frames. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted February 7, 2011 Hash Fellow Share Posted February 7, 2011 I recall Victor Navone saying here once that Toy Story (1) was animated entirely with off screen sliders. No on-screen bones. That was long before he got to Pixar, so maybe he heard it wrong, but that's what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 You know that you can use tabs for poses and combine several poses in one new poses, etc, right? But hey, just do it the way you want to do it... I see why it can be fast to use onscreen-controls, but normally my screen is that crowded already, that I am happy to not having more stuff on it. Posesliders are always easy to access for me, easy to move and with the right setup (which is heavy eighter way) they are very powerful and be brought down to only a small list of pose-sliders needed. See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Combined poses with the pose sliders have to be predefined. With the Face rig, you can do it when/if you need it. The time difference is negligible for short animations, but when you're making a feature, it adds up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fae_alba Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 My one complaint/comment about the on screen face rig was that I was constantly grabbing the wrong null to move the part of the face I wanted. I still had to "hunt and peck" to find the one I was look for. It could very well have been my inexperience with the rig, no denying that. What would be nice is if a label could be displayed when the mouse was floated over the null, to show what part of the face it effected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 My one complaint/comment about the on screen face rig was that I was constantly grabbing the wrong null to move the part of the face I wanted. I still had to "hunt and peck" to find the one I was look for. It could very well have been my inexperience with the rig, no denying that. What would be nice is if a label could be displayed when the mouse was floated over the null, to show what part of the face it effected. With the liteface rig, you can position the nulls anywhere you want. It's a good idea of course to position them in places that make sense to you. In my version, I also removed labels, as I don't like the labels cluttering up the screen. That being said, even tho I have been using my own modified version of the liteface, and have positioned the control nulls to where I want them & removed the labels, I of course, still forget which null is which. But I don't find that a problem because, if I click on the null, it is highlighted in the PWS/time line as to which null it is. (FYI, once the null has keyframes, one doesn't have to turn the FACE interface back on again, and can manipulate the nulls by selecting it in the PWS/Timeline, just like any bone). EDIT: If there is interest - I can create a simple model for inspection (no decals, hair, materials, etc) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted February 8, 2011 Admin Share Posted February 8, 2011 If there is interest - I can create a simple model for inspection (no decals, hair, materials, etc) You betcha. I'm interested! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandoriastudios Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I favor the pose sliders... I have been making -100% to 100% sliders, based on Jason Osipa's "stop staring" method [eg. Upper Lip_down-up], and then using these base poses to build more complex expressions (Smile-Frown) and Phonemes. It seems pretty easy to organize the poses into folders to keep from having to scroll... I think it's just a matter of preferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What would be nice is if a label could be displayed when the mouse was floated over the null, to show what part of the face it effected. It already does that. Don't you get "tool tips" when you hover over a bone, model or null? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fae_alba Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I favor the pose sliders... I have been making -100% to 100% sliders, based on Jason Osipa's "stop staring" method [eg. Upper Lip_down-up], and then using these base poses to build more complex expressions (Smile-Frown) and Phonemes. It seems pretty easy to organize the poses into folders to keep from having to scroll... I think it's just a matter of preferences. I'll have to go back and look tonight.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What would be nice is if a label could be displayed when the mouse was floated over the null, to show what part of the face it effected. It already does that. Don't you get "tool tips" when you hover over a bone, model or null? Yes it does! hee heeeee! Funny I never noticed that before, as there is a bit of a delay before it pops up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DArtZ Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I favor the pose sliders... I have been making -100% to 100% sliders, based on Jason Osipa's "stop staring" method [eg. Upper Lip_down-up], and then using these base poses to build more complex expressions (Smile-Frown) and Phonemes. It seems pretty easy to organize the poses into folders to keep from having to scroll... I think it's just a matter of preferences. I agree. I know I have not been around here too often and probably dont know enough about all these advanced rigging setups that people have been working on... but it just seems to undermine the ease and control that is already built into the software. I sort of feel that other software use this sort of stuff extensively due to the fact that they dont have the tools that A:M has built into the software. 2cents. Mike Fitz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.