POV-Ray : Newsgroups : irtc.animations : to those that understand Server Time
27 Jul 2021 02:13:48 EDT (-0400)
  to those that understand (Message 4 to 13 of 13)  
<<< Previous 3 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages
From: i need a unique name
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 05:30:01
Message: <web.45e6aac1b94db359ac77a5930@news.povray.org>
>>> whats wrong with the human body <<<

Yeah point taken - though I think in Western society nudity to the level of
explicit genetailia is a bit more controversial than naked breasts.
Actually to be honest I think the temperature of Hades would be a degree or
two higher if I released an animation with an explicit vagina than the
penis.... anyway this post is as far as I fear to push the boundaries of
respectability :-) - my main distress was the workflow aspect of poser.


Yup I've recently started trying blender and other gui modellers (like 4
weeks ago) and already my admiration for anyone that can do modelling with
a point and click modeller has jumped by a few orders of magnitude.

I get the impression, from the special features section of DVD's, that the
animation houses don't model using point and click stuff - well at least
the initial models most of which appear to be scanned in. I'm not knocking
them I'm just wondering what the right approach for an amateur is.


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 05:30:01
Message: <web.45e6aae7b94db359f1cb1e660@news.povray.org>
Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with the human body? At least for adults. It strikes me as very
> > strange that the female form is acceptable naked but show a nude man and all
> > Hades breaks loose,
>
> The following comment may be considered juvenile and/or offensive: "Envy" ;)





> > As for your BTW there was a free version of Poser 5 given away a few months ago.
> > I am sure that you could get a copy if a way could be worked out.
>
> Maybe there is a way to use Blender or some other free modeller? My most
> recent run-in with Poser (yes, from that free giveaway thing) left me a
> bit unimpressed (the last Poser version i had was, i think, 2 or
> something, when it was still with MetaCreations(?) - back in the 20th
> century ;)


At least without spending more time on the modelling than anything else. As
it is I spend more time in Poser than I want to.


> I've only recently (like, three days ago) made my first POV scene, and
> already my admiration for anyone that can do an animation with a text
> editor alone has jumped by a few orders of magnitude :)




Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 07:50:01
Message: <web.45e6cbaeb94db359f1cb1e660@news.povray.org>
"i_need_a_unique_name" <ine### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >>> whats wrong with the human body <<<
>
> Yeah point taken - though I think in Western society nudity to the level of
> explicit genetailia is a bit more controversial than naked breasts.
> Actually to be honest I think the temperature of Hades would be a degree or
> two higher if I released an animation with an explicit vagina than the
> penis.... anyway this post is as far as I fear to push the boundaries of
> respectability :-) - my main distress was the workflow aspect of poser.


further.




Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Trevor G Quayle
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 11:45:01
Message: <web.45e701eab94db359c150d4c10@news.povray.org>
"i_need_a_unique_name" <ine### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> told my wife this, but she just doesn't really care :-(

This I understand.  I've tried to explain photons and radiosity and HDRI to
my wife, but she doesn't want to understand.  She isn't even convinced that
my hobby is a legitimate, constructive way to spend spare time.

-tgq


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 15:29:37
Message: <7tdeu2plk5986v445h510f2bi8ahakvn4g@4ax.com>
On Thu,  1 Mar 2007 07:48:46 EST, "Stephen" <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com> wrote:



>

I just did a test and when I uncheck Genitalia, they are not exported in 3DS or
OBJ meshes. Note that it is a global setting.

Regards
	Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: i need a unique name
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 18:55:00
Message: <web.45e76734b94db35943da915f0@news.povray.org>
> I just did a test and when I uncheck Genitalia, they are not exported in 3DS or
> OBJ meshes.

hmm, well for Poser 4 exporting as detailer they did ... oh well I can live
with it I'm just glad I gotta robot for $8 because its crucial to the story
(unlike my last IRTC entry which really didn't have any meaning).

I feel a bit guilty buying in a model but in this day and age, with fast
hardware and cheap/free software to me the IRTC animation competition is
about being able to tell as story with the level of skill one has.


Post a reply to this message

From: John VanSickle
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 1 Mar 2007 20:34:39
Message: <45e77f2f@news.povray.org>
i_need_a_unique_name wrote:
>>>>whats wrong with the human body <<<
> 
> Yeah point taken - though I think in Western society nudity to the level of
> explicit genetailia is a bit more controversial than naked breasts.
> Actually to be honest I think the temperature of Hades would be a degree or
> two higher if I released an animation with an explicit vagina than the
> penis.... anyway this post is as far as I fear to push the boundaries of
> respectability :-) - my main distress was the workflow aspect of poser.
> 
> Yup I've recently started trying blender and other gui modellers (like 4
> weeks ago) and already my admiration for anyone that can do modelling with
> a point and click modeller has jumped by a few orders of magnitude.

Try *writing* a point-and-click modeller.

> I get the impression, from the special features section of DVD's, that the
> animation houses don't model using point and click stuff - well at least
> the initial models most of which appear to be scanned in. I'm not knocking
> them I'm just wondering what the right approach for an amateur is.

 From what I see on the 2nd disc in the Incredibles 2-dvd set, the 
scanned models, if they use them, have to be heavily edited by mouse. 
The clothing in the Incredibles involved a masochistic amount of work, 
and a lot of it appears to have been done with a GUI interface and not a 
scanner.

One of their models, called Universal Man, probably was done in a 
modelling app.

The posing is done with an app called Marionette, which looks like a 
spreadsheet of animation variables over time.  Pixar doesn't appear to 
use motion-capture (although other houses definitely do), which makes 
their work even more impressive.

Regards,
John


Post a reply to this message

From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 2 Mar 2007 02:13:27
Message: <45e7ce97$1@news.povray.org>
John VanSickle wrote:

> The posing is done with an app called Marionette, which looks like a 
> spreadsheet of animation variables over time.  Pixar doesn't appear to 
> use motion-capture (although other houses definitely do), which makes 
> their work even more impressive.

I'm not sure how to put this in words, but most motion-captured 
animations in videos appears a bit "odd" to me. Most recent example i 
saw was "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" (yes, it's actually a 
movie, not a video game - but it sure feels like just watching someone 
play 1 1/2 hours without ever making a wrong move on the joystick ;) and 
before that, "Final Fantasy: Spirits within". Maybe it's because the 
actor supplying the spatial data doesn't exactly match the proportions 
of the CG character? Or maybe because the data needs to be smoothed or 
oversampled or something, removing what makes it "human" instead of 
"machine-like"? Whatever it is, it flips the "there's something wrong" 
switch in my brain... especially compared to Pixar. Maybe the manual 
tweaking approach, with the animators acting it all out in front of the 
mirror and then playing with the motion curves (i've seen the add-on 
DVD, too ;) works better - like an actor that needs to act 
"larger-than-life" on the stage to make it appear "natural" to the audience?

-Markus


Post a reply to this message

From: i need a unique name
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 2 Mar 2007 05:35:00
Message: <web.45e7fd0cb94db359ac77a5930@news.povray.org>
> Try *writing* a point-and-click modeller.<

Admiration is off the scale for folks that do that.

> The posing is done with an app called Marionette <

Yeah, for my first entry into IRTC I tried writing something similar (in a
tiny-unworhty-way) so I could script the movement of Poser figures. It
works of a fashion but my math just isn't upto it yet

I notice that Pixar have written quite a lot of propriatary stuff. REYES
(Renders Everything You Ever Saw) may make an interesting IRTC animation
topic - a bit of a tribute to one of our inspirations and quite open ended
in its interpretation?


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: to those that understand
Date: 3 Mar 2007 07:14:04
Message: <cjpiu2he6ght6e7miijhh1b7rei9rm8oo5@4ax.com>
On Thu,  1 Mar 2007 18:52:20 EST, "i_need_a_unique_name"
<ine### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
>I feel a bit guilty buying in a model but in this day and age, 

I know what you mean but not everyone is altruistic and some people what to earn
some cash from their hard work. 

>with fast
>hardware and cheap/free software to me the IRTC animation competition is
>about being able to tell as story with the level of skill one has.
>
I mostly agree with you about the IRTC being a place to show off your own work
but I can see the argument that says if you can buy a professional modeller and
renderer you should be allowed to use it combined with your skill and artistic
talent to enter. After all it's not the Internet Pov-Ray Tracing Competition :-)
 

Regards
	Stephen


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 3 Messages Goto Initial 10 Messages

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.