hi,

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I just wondering how other people here do their animations. ...
>  Any thoughts will handy.

in addition to what has been said already, I'd begin with paper + pen and create
a storyboard.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for all your ideas!
 It is interesting to see how other people tackle a problem.
Sorry I've haven't posted earlier. I've been animating and time slipped away.

 I do animations by frame count and most of what I've seen here work with the
clock. Its not that I don't use the clock, Its that I hate fractions. Frames
1450,1451 means more to me than .503647100, 0.503994443.

 The story board is a good idea, but I can ever get one done. I do use an
outline that changes as I go along.

 My idea about an array of camera locations came about because I wanted to have
the fastest parse and render times I could get. The array for my 2880 frame
animation is about the same size as one of my mesh2 belts. I have already done
basic walk trough with boxes for placeholders. It took 45 minutes to render,
seconds to parse each frame.
 I fill the array piecemeal,in sections. You know :go to this location look at
that thing then another location ,look another thing and so on. One thing about
the having an filled array, is that you can go back change any time sections
using values already stored.

Thanks again for all your ideas!

Have Fun

Post a reply to this message

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>  I do animations by frame count and most of what I've seen here work with the
> clock. Its not that I don't use the clock, Its that I hate fractions. Frames
> 1450,1451 means more to me than .503647100, 0.503994443.

That sounds good on the surface, but sometimes I do a quick, sparsely populated
animation, just to look it all over and debug anything that's off or left out.
When I want to make it smoother, I just increase the number of frames, and
nothing in my scene file needs to change.

You could always have the clock run from 0 to 2880 in the ini,
or multiply the clock value by 2880 in the scene.

>  The story board is a good idea, but I can ever get one done. I do use an
> outline that changes as I go along.
>
>  My idea about an array of camera locations came about because I wanted to have
> the fastest parse and render times I could get.

I don't quite understand ... but I'm really looking forward to seeing the
results of your coding and animation method!

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> ... I have already done
> basic walk trough with boxes for placeholders. It took 45 minutes to render,
> seconds to parse each frame.

looking forward to the final version.  (hoping it'll be larger frames than the
256x256 "teaser".  :-))


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

I'm done!
 I plan to put it on You Tube after I leave here!
It's a full 3 minutes long and only took 48 plus hours to render.

 The {camera & look_at} array, along with a {is viewed} array work out very
well. To make the camera array I had file that contained the key locations and
how to move between them that pov could read and make all the in between
locations. Also pov using debug list all the key points and their times. This
came in handy when I went to make music for my animation.
 I had 16 object that could be viewed at any one time. So I made the {is viewed}
array by using the bounding boxes corners and center with the {camera & look_at}
array to calculate if a object was in view. That worked well no object would go
unnoticed. But the shadows would be. So with a little work I calculated every
shadow corner of a bounding box. I had 3 lights so there was 12 more points for
each object. All of this boiled down to an yes or no element in the {is viewed}
array.
 Most of the objects where animated. Since I never really knew when one would be
in view, they where timed based on the frame_number. So I never had to worry
about timing. He..He..
 Hope you enjoy it!
Have Fun!

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > ... I have already done
> > basic walk trough with boxes for placeholders. It took 45 minutes to render,
> > seconds to parse each frame.
>
> looking forward to the final version.  (hoping it'll be larger frames than the
> 256x256 "teaser".  :-))
>
>
> regards, jr.

It at you tube:
https://youtu.be/B9fG-p0S4CU

Post a reply to this message

It now at
https://youtu.be/B9fG-p0S4CU

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > "Leroy" <whe### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > ... I have already done
> > > basic walk trough with boxes for placeholders. It took 45 minutes to render,
> > > seconds to parse each frame.
> >
> > looking forward to the final version.  (hoping it'll be larger frames than the
> > 256x256 "teaser".  :-))
> >
> >
> > regards, jr.
>
> It at you tube:
> https://youtu.be/B9fG-p0S4CU

thanks.  man, you really "went to town", so many nice features.  will update my
'youtube-dl' later this weekend and grab a copy.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/20/20 7:50 PM, Leroy wrote:
...
> 
> It at you tube:
> https://youtu.be/B9fG-p0S4CU
> 
Cool. Most complex actual animation I've done was a short fly through of 
a simple scene. Someday maybe...

Are the images of the dirt road and trees from somewhere there in Missouri?

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Am 3/20/20 7:52 PM, also sprach Leroy:
> It now at
> https://youtu.be/B9fG-p0S4CU
> 
> 

Very cool!  I love the fence. :)

-- 
dik
Rendered 49,882,521,600 of 49,882,521,600 pixels (100%)

Post a reply to this message