Yeah... FilmBox is awesome... we had a company called Motek
(www.e-motek.com) in Amsterdam do the mocap... very fun and the ocean
between us didn't seem to make a bit of difference. Oshri and Jasper rock
over there. We ran into the biggest struggles with the combinations of
plugins kinda messing each other up somewhat (mostly to do with the CA). And
Sasquatch... well... it sure likes to do things unexpectedly... very often.
At one point if the character got too far from the camera his hair would go
away and we just did a work-around on that as opposed to taking another week
or so to figure it out.
> > T,
> > Thanks. You're right... we were originally going to shoot the main
> > on HD and composite him into the setting, but got to thinking... if he's
> > real, then we can do this all in LW, no? Funny thing is, I would have
> > the scenes identically whether or not we went CG or not. And I think the
> > artifacts you're seeing might be on account of the streaming (WMV)
> > compression... the full-res D5 master doesn't contain that stuff.
> Yup, that coulda been it...
> > As far as your "technically very simple" comment goes... well... umm...
> > ask Arthur Ray how "easy" this was for us (i.e. trying to simultaneously
> > Sasquatch... and X-DOF... and Motion Capture... and...).
> Oh, that was mocapped? Cool! You musta messed with it in Kaydara some
> Either that or the actor was very good! Anyway, I did say:
> Except for the CA which was very good, it was technically very simple.
> For others reading this who may not know CA is Character Animation and in
> this case I also meant Character Modeling.
> Hehe, so now you're down to X-DOF Kevin O :-) Besides, technical
> is NOT a critical factor in determining excellence!
> > :)
> > Kevin
> > www.skylightdi.com
> > > I thought it was pretty damn good. I wouldn't say riviting...
> > > Except for the CA which was very good, it was technically very
> > > simple. It was all very well done. There are some artifacts
> > > around the silhouetted walker that I'm not sure I understand.
> > > It's well enough done that it may be a purposfull attempt to
> > > create the "look" of a figure (doll) which we later discover
> > > at the end of the video.
> > > Good Job dudes!
> > > > See I took a different look at this... It was easy enough to see the
> > > > CG-state of the main character in the video, but I chalked up his
> > plasticity
> > > > to the simple fact that he was really nothing more than an action
> > > > sitting on a kids play table...
> > > > Very good work, and a catchy little tune!
> > > > Cheers!
> > > > Joe Riddle
> > > > LW Tutorial Writer
> > > > > Hey Mark,
> > > > > The walking guy is CG using Mo-Cap (mostly). The only scene where
> > > > > actor is used is the "birthday party dream sequence."
> > > > > Maybe we should try a smaller data rate on the WMV.
> > > > > Thanks for your comments.
> > > > > AR
> > > > > > Very impressive. Nice look, decent tune, etc. Was the walking
> > figure
> > > > CG as
> > > > > > well?
> > > > > > My only crit is that the data rate on the file (nearly 680k) was
> > bit
> > > > large
> > > > > > for smooth playback on my older, smaller system (450 Mhz).
> > > > over to
> > > > > > a faster machine and it played fine. I've seen some other wmv
> > > > that
> > > > > > were in the 150k range on playback and looked fine but loosing
> > bit
> > > > on
> > > > > > the audio.
> > > > > > M.
> > > > ---
> > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > > Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/2003