> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Anyway, this isn't the Stills group, this is the Animations group, so
>> all, what's the general consensus with 'sound' in animations?
> raytracing comp and adding sound adds another dimension. I seldom listen to
> sound on my machine, in fact I generally have it switched off completely.
Me too. Sound shouldn't be a deciding factor. It seems unfair -
composing or mixing an additional soundtrack is something that favours
things like audio clipart collections or software that doesn't come
cheap, OR just slapping some MP3 to a video and risk getting into
trouble with copyright. OR digging for hours through the Creative
Commons file pools in search of something that fits the mood of the video.
> switched on.)
<me waving hand in Jedi gesture>You do not at all want to watch my
> So I think that since sound can improve or detract from the
> enjoyment of an animation it should have a separate category for marking
> which is not taken into account for the final placing but only for feedback
> for the authors. I think that the ratings should not take sound into
> account. I would be willing to be talked out of this.
I'm not exactly inclined to talk you out of this - sound or no sound is
also a matter of having the tools and resources available, and this
shouldn't be a deciding factor for an animation competition. Just
because i've happened to be editing home videos for more than a decade,
which means i've stacks of disks of background music that came with the
software available, to use legally, doesn't mean i should be getting a
higher rating for an animation because of the soundtrack.
Sound is extremely powerful in evoking emotions, i'd say much more so
than visuals alone. Videos without sound are automatically at a
disadvantage, no doubt about it.
> Another point is the Technical rating. How are we supposed to judge this?
> For me it is fine marking Pov-Ray created animations but how would I know
> what is hard or easy to do in Cinema 4D? Just a point for discussion.
You can't begin to imagine how hard it is. :)
Basically, anything that can be "script-controlled" or is
procedural/recursive by nature is easier in POV than in Cinema. Pushing
polygons or meshes around is easier in C4D than in
POV-without-a-modeller. Particle effects are so-so. Setting them up and
previewing is easier in C4D. Rule-based particles are a pain in each
software. Setting up dynamic effects (clothing, hair) is easy in C4D,
getting them to work as desired is unnerving, but i guess that's the
same in every software.
It seems POV compares rather to the render module of Cinema alone than
the whole C4D package, e.g. feeding said module the data by hand would
be the equivalent of using POVray combined with a text editor.
I've played around with "plain" POV for a while (sadly, it doesn't
launch any more on my new computer), and that's why i've got lots of
respect for everyone doing computer animation that way...
Post a reply to this message