The Weekliest of the Comments!

I really missed doing normal blogs... And having 2 genuinely interesting articles as their comeback brings me joy. But with that sentiment aside let's do some junk.

This week I learned that rapid cutting is good for adding tension and building up momentum in a scene. While i may have learned that from a video, given that we're on the final project, it's fair to say we won't really be taught anything from now on.

What I want to know is how to get really good morph cuts. I remember all the really beautiful morph cuts from the movie Stay and I want to try one out in my final project.

Easily the best part of this week was watching Captain America: Civil War! It was really good. It gave us really fun and imaginative battles between the heroes, and that this really was them fighting each other over genuine philosophical differences makes it much more compelling, not being able to fully root for or against either side. And Ant-Man was awesome.

What sucked? Turns out I have a field trip on Friday so I lost a day on my Final Project. Hooray. Honestly if it's not perfect when I hand it in Thursday I'll still work on it. If not for my portfolio, for creating an entertaining short.

As much as I like the new Spiderman, I'm of the mindset that the first 2 Sam Raimi movies are the best incarnation that there has ever been or will ever be, much like the first 2 70s superman movies. I could have wrote a long article on why they're so good under a pseudonym, but this video by someone more skilled should do better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD3h_bT0Mfg

Tracing Dat A...namation

Ready to learn how to pose characters? No? Well too bad! Poses are a way for your drawn character to express themselves. Most of animation and even acting is moving from pose to pose in order to illustrate how they feel. It's more obvious on lower budgets, but it's always there. But what makes a good pose? The speaker conveniently broke it down so I don't have to think as hard. 1. A good pose is clear and instantly readable. It's important for us to immediately know what they're doing, thinking and/or feeling. It should be very clear and not easily mistakable. 2. A good pose demonstrates proper physicality. This is less about how they carry themselves and more about how the world carries them. Balance is usually the go-to but so long as it feels like they're constrained by physics they could be doing a leaping action and still pull this of. 3. A good pose is visually interesting. If their to static or generic that's boring. There should be some form of movement or dynamic placement of their limbs to make their pose more unique and personal. There should be a strong line of action, and a lack of symmetry. 4. A good pose conveys character. The pose should be unique to how the character behaves and postures. More importantly it shouldn't break that character's personality. Peter Parker is a dweeb so it's jarring to see someone portraying him move with confidence and swagger. Same for any other character.

This was also pretty good. Principles of animation can still strengthen the way actors move as well. The breakdown of what makes a pose work is intriguing and a good outlook to have in posistioning any character in any medium. Overall pretty useful, but the 15 minutes are more about reinforcing claims than adding to them. Which is useful for explaining the theses, but not really something I can write about.

Editing

This video is all about the editing process. It starts with an anecdote about how difficult it is to describe the creative process of editing. The narrator, and other editors, find it difficult to describe, explaining that they cut and transition based on instinct. On emotion. So we kick off the exploration on how editors think and feel. We begin with eyes. Eyes are the most expressive part of the face, and so when the actor does really good eye acting when the cut to what they see is made we know how they feel. He also discusses how adding or removing time from a shot can cause a different emotional response. Shorter shots build momentum and longer shots let events sink in. Shots usually have a rhythm to them, and cutting to that rhythm makes the editing feel invisible. It concludes by saying that the only way to learn it is to just do it.

I liked this one. I found the breakdown of how editing can drive the tone to be both fascinating and useful. I will try to employ this in my final project. I especially like learning that long shots are good for letting things settle in.

Sorry about what's below

The colors were acting all wonky on my last post so I eventually got that funky mess below. All the words are visible, so theres that

You Know What's Easier? Practical Effects!

Before we begin, he forgot a button. Moving on, the science is a combination of the physics of the lights bouncing off of everything and computer science; which is primarily the coding of the real life light physics into an algorithm for rendering the the scene's lighting. The Math is what a computer does best, and the base for most computer code. It takes form in geometry, coordinates, vector, and matricies.

Rasterization is when light rays are traced from the object to a single point (the camera) While Ray casting is a ray from the camera to the object.

The first problem with rasterization was that it failed at depth. The objects were layered based on when they made rather than their position in 3d space, with required a Z buffer to fix. Ray tracing solved this automatically only acknowledging what the camera beam first hits. Another problem was shadows. This was solved by drawing a secondary ray after contact is made from the camera rat, redirected to the light, based the lightness on interference with the ray. Another problem was reflections. This is solved by having the secondary rays mentioned before targeting other objects and splitting further.

 Direct lighting is light directly from a source, while indirect light is the light that bounces of stuff. Since light naturally bounces off everything, it is more realistic to have indirect light in the scene while it is less dramatic. 

The problem was over come when James Kajiya calculated the equation of light based on physics. However it was complicated and needed lots of computer power and time.

Moore's law is that the number of transistors in a circuit doubles every 2 years, ie computers are getting way more powerful all the time. While Blinn's law (is it the same Blinn that made the Blinn texture in Maya?) states that rendering time is constant, because the more powerful the machine, the more we do with it.

CGI is far in a way different from other art forms. Primarily due to other forms being physical in some way or another, with CGI is entirely math. Boring and tedious to make, but unique to no end. An overuse of CGI is lazy on part of the Director, not the animator