This is for the stickman groupies...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by azz_kicker
You could create a stick figure in max using splines and then on top of that you could set up a bone structure to the splines.

---

An additional bone hierarchy is not necessary with MAX 4 as arbirary objects can be used as bones with IK solvers. Read up on 'Using Objects as Bones' in the User's Guide.

As an FYI for people in this thread, orbiting a camera around an object is not Matrix-style motion. It has nothing to do with the flo-mo FX used in the movie (which are actually discreet, not continuous). If anyone has the VHS or movie DVD, you should listen to Johh Gaeta's description of the technique. You can also find a good writeup in the archives of VFXPro.

An approximation in a CG environment involves variable-speed camera motion and is a bit more complex than a simple orbit in the standalone package or basic path animation in a 3D package. People were orbiting cameras around objects and path-animating them in CG packages long before the Warchowski brothers even thought of the movie concept.

Not tyring to dis anyone ... just an aside. Have fun with those stickmen!

hth!

HA HA, you're right about the bone structure not being needed......

I usually make complete models then add bone structures to them..... it didn't occur to me that you wouldn't need a bone structure for a character created with splines.... because the splines can be and are bones themselves....

INNNNNNNNTERESTING!!!!!

It's a different thought process for this type of animation, so it takes some getting used to, especially coming from older versions of MAX.

good luck!

Quote:

---

As an FYI for people in this thread, orbiting a camera around an object is not Matrix-style motion. It has nothing to do with the flo-mo FX used in the movie (which are actually discreet, not continuous). If anyone has the VHS or movie DVD, you should listen to Johh Gaeta's description of the technique. You can also find a good writeup in the archives of VFXPro.

An approximation in a CG environment involves variable-speed camera motion and is a bit more complex than a simple orbit in the standalone package or basic path animation in a 3D package. People were orbiting cameras around objects and path-animating them in CG packages long before the Warchowski brothers even thought of the movie concept.

---

err... i thought the flo-mo FX is to take the orbiting camera concept from CG environment to real life... since u can't possibly freeze an actor in real life that's why they use multiple cameras and fill in the gap between them to get the illusion of orbiting camera. In that case it should be a lot easier to do that FX in CG environment since the motion of the object is totally under control.
[Edited by phlegm_thrower on 05-31-2002 at 04:00 AM]

And even more importantly, even if it may differ slightly in its method, as long as the final product appears the same to the viewer, does it really matter if the process for getting there is different?

One thing I've found with Swift is that you can't animate a a camera along a curved path. However, you CAN animate multiple short straight paths. As long as you keep the absolute distance between the camera and the target/focal point fixed (or changing at a constant rate), AND you move the camera manually a short distance every frame or two, it appears to be following a curved path. Is there really a difference to the viewer? "No." Is it the same thing? Also, "no." Does it matter then, that they are different? Once again, "no."

I find that I use this concept again and again when doing my 2D stuff. Sometimes erasing something distorts another part of an object, so, instead, I mask and cover parts with whatever is behind them. It then appears as if that part were erased, but in reality, it isn't. This is like a partial "move to back," but only with the part I want obscured. This wouldn't work well with 3D, though.

Don

Quote:

---

err... i thought the flo-mo FX is to take the orbiting camera concept from CG environment to real life... [/B]

---

Not quite. People seem to be obsessed that a simple constant-velocity, circular orbit is flo-mo and want to throw the word Matrix at it.

have fun!

peace :)

isn't it possible that they're actually trying to get that constant velocity but couldn't? if im not mistaken, the gap between the cameras are filled by some program, maybe that's why the speed is not constant, coz it's only a "probable animation" calculated by the program.

im not trying to dis u but think on this for a while...

u said and i quote "As an FYI for people in this thread, orbiting a camera around an object is not Matrix-style motion. It has nothing to do with the flo-mo FX used in the movie..." i don't think any of us are dumb enough to really believe that what we're doing is the REAL matrix effect... we're quite happy just to get a similar effect and label it "matrix effect" otherwise we'll have to spend an obscene amount of money hehehe...

but if u know how to create the perfect imitation of the Flo Mo FX then by all means Please... enlighten us...

Just an editorial comment -- nothing more. I'm not going to drag the thread any further off topic.

best wishes :)

im sorry MATRIX i don't mean to spam or just being disagreeable...

this thread IS about MATRIX EFFECT so if u know a better way to do it then i'm willing to listen and learn from you... i am new at this and you're certainly better at this thing than i am :)

I don't take your comments like that at all. Apparently, mine were not well-worded. It seems to me to be a stickman thread, not a Matrix thread. I was hoping to get people interested in checking out the Gaeta interview and the VFXPro writeup as they contain a lot of information and might inspire people to get more interested in film FX. I got interested in VFX at a relatively young age by someone in the film industry who told me that something I called a 'transporter effect' (Star Trek style) really was not. He recommended some books to read and that's how I got interested. So, I like to pass the editorial comments along ... and, my comment about orbit-vs-flomo was simply editorial ... just an aside.

I don't claim to know more about this than anyone, although I have played with the effect in a purely CG environment. Even in http://www.2112fx.com/bulletflash.html , I still state that what I've done is at best a crude approximation to the movie effect.

As a moderator, I have committed two sins.

1) I did not completely explain myself in a post.

2) I drug a thread off-topic.

For both, I apologize and will not comment further in this thread. Although I've got a lot of work to do in the coming weeks, anyone is welcome to continue this discussion offline via e-mail. It may take a while, but I try to answer all e-mails.

As I said before ... have fun with those Stickmen!

peace :)

i believed that this is a matrix effect thread coz people's talking about making stickmen with matrix effect...

i saw that stickman movie pope... it's really funny... i recognised several different styles of martial art (like wing chun-bruce lee, aikido-steven segal, karate-van damme etc) but i digress...

im hoping to get to that point sometime next year probably hehehe... in the mean time can i ask u some questions? what kinda fill do u use? average fill? where did u get the sound/music? did kinda lighting scheme did u use? free light or trackball light? how did u get that predator effect?

i'll have more questions later hehehe :D
[Edited by phlegm_thrower on 05-31-2002 at 03:07 PM]

hey wat happened to pope's post?

MATRIX... where can i check out the Gaeta interview and other VFX stuff?

i've seen a documentary on the matrix camera effect (not matrix specifically). it's not an orbiting camera as you say it isn't, but multiple cameras capturing motion at all angles. i'm probably rattling a spider's nest here but i think it's perfect for switf3d. the idea is a moment is captured in 360 degrees, the simplest effect you have in swift3d. i mean, i just don't see what the problem is?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think Swift's 3D camera pan is almost exactly what the Matrix stop-motion is. I am not posting this to be argumentative. If I am wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out where my error(s) is(are).

My explanation is as follows:

The cameras used to capture the stop motion are a one-dimensional array along a path (whatever path they want the "animating camera" to take). Then they insert live actors via a blue screen, and superimpose these actors on the backdrop of the sequential-but-simultaneously captured photos from the camera array. Ignore the blue screen actors, if you like, as they are not necessary for the flo-mo.

Now, when we animate a camera, we move it from place to place, which gives us individual snapshots (the rendered frames) that appear to be the object from different angles taken simultaneously.

The matrix flo-mo camera photos are discreet frames at an instant in time. Our swift 3D rendered frames, since we "froze" time, but moved the camera are the same thing. All we'd need is a real-time person or animated object in the frame and we're there.

One thing we can do in 3D that the flo-mo folks can't do is a full 360 deg from any angle. Were they to try it, they'd then capture their capturing cameras in the shot, unless great care were taken to insure the proper angle for the cameras. Horizontal view with horizontal pan wouldn't work.

I also agree with others that this thread IS about the flo-mo effect, as illustrated by a stickman rendering.

Don --
Posted at the risk of angering the Moderator gods.

Personally, I agree with you guys completely. :)

DUde I realy need a good animator in my site if someone thinks they can be in it please email me. you have to be at least as good as me to join [email protected] http://www.aots.tk

and yes I am the 13 year old kid evryone is talking about lates

hello is anyone here please I need someone that can do some serious animating dude I am affiliated with stickwars that has the famus skood who made the max paine cartoon please join :)