Feedback for Artefacts 9B, 10 & 11

Artefact09B from Adam Weaver on Vimeo.


Artefact 09B - with changes from artefact 09.

After fixing up the eyes to remove the autonomous ideas the second performance was suggesting it allowed for a clearer communication for the experiment. As i had anticipated there was no clear version that was better than the other. As i had noted the information is presented but in a different order. That is to say not the thought and reaction, but the link between object and character and the distance between them. These two elements were manipulated via the concave and convex positioning of the core of the body between poses. The transition between them does bring the conversation onto subtext. The (A) convex to concave suggests intrigue where as the (B) concave to convex suggests intimidation.  (A) pulls the audience in through the line of action via both core and eyes, putting a clear link between character and object that is lacking before and confirms that the previous thought process was about the object. (B) starts with that clear connection between character, thought and object through the line of action via both the bodies core and the eyes. The reaction to the thought see the characters core pull away from the object breaking the line of action. This breakage and distance suggests some form of rejection, discomfort, intimidation or fear. The line of action is retained through the eyes. It was also noted the role the hand played in this connection as this to fell on the line of action. 

Referring back to Rob Dressels comments at animex, it was suggested that his use for the eyes to manipulate camera angle change was specific to the issue. This shows the flexibility the eyes can offer in practice for changing posture for subtextual purposes but retaining objective communication. Using them for being suggestive of other spatial relationships whilst retaining a comfortable balance of spacial framing.

Artefact 10 & 11

Artefact 10 shows the modeled and rigged hair follicle that can be key framed via clusters, be completely dynamic or blended between both. In this instance i wanted to push it through a quick narrative to explore the limitations of the rig whilst trying to push an emotive performance. This has completely keyed, blended and completely dynamic action. The completely dynamic action is where the illusion of a mind existing inside the object is disposed of. There is only one instance i where i personally 'feel' the character, and that is during the shrug before he lies back down in the same move. The shrug was particularly difficult to get right. I tried to give it the impression initially of a spring but the rig couldn't perform this due to the limited number of vertices along the IK spline. I then tried to shake the tip of the follicle which from a manipulation point of view worked well, but the silhouette was very poor and this action could not be read from the camera's perspective. The concave positioning of the follicle produced a very suggestive gesture. The original reasons for picking a hair strand was that it was to be an extension of what was being tested in artefact 9. In this artefact it was used as the primary character when in truth the simplicity of the rig means it would always struggle. There simply isn't enough control to express complex emotion.

(Artefact 11 to be posted here when it has finished uploading)

However, it is far more suited to the secondary role that it finds itself in artefact 11. As this PGD stage is focusing on character design, it is through adding these secondary elements to improve performance via motion, layout and gesture. In this piece i chose the convex to concave performance as i felt more subtext could be pulled from concave to convex (see above). In the original performance (minus the strand) i suggestive a positive subtext was the result of the action. I decided to use the follicle to produce the opposite of this. I wanted to express that he was stressed. So the strand starts positive by following the convex curve in a very clean resting position before changing to an awkward resting position, concave, cutting between each eyebrow and eye. The feedback was that this did aid the subtext and improved performance for a more emotive outcome. It is an interesting manipulation as this changes what it means for the character to be concave post-thought in this instance. It also affirms that a characters personality can be expressed through secondary elements, and that abstract gesture can be part of the character than an extension of it, as shown in artefact 08. It was also noted that the grasp of the hand worked successfully as a mechanical representation of a blink that is present when a character has made a mental decision. 

Script

Over the last few weeks i have been working on a script. I've been in regular contact with Ed Hooks who has been supplying me with feedback. The major issue with the script as it stands is the clash in POV. I am going to give it a major overhaul (whilst still trying to get some animation done!). I am restraining from publishing Ed's feedback in its entirety due to personal comments that have been added. However, here is the script as it stands at this moment in time. 

INT. UNDERGROUND BUNKER

It is pitch black. The sound of FIREWORKS can be heard faintly in the distance. The sound gradually becomes louder and slowly sounds more like EXPLOSIONS. The sound of GUNFIRE creeps in and confirms we are in a hostile situation.

ALBERT'S PERSPECTIVE

ALBERT'S eyes open. His vision is blurred and ears are RINGING. Through the ringing we can hear a MANS VOICE calling out. The sounds source is unknown but we are aware that it is a radio through the STATIC noise. 

RADIO

Calling all troops. Calling all troops. We are evacuating. I repeat. We are evacuating. Please rendezvous at co-ordinates 65-72. Please rendezvous at co-ordinates 65-72. You have 2 hours. 

The scene is lit by a couple of flashlights scattered around the floor. Albert is lying down on a bench carved out of mud and attached to a wall carved out of the same material. 

Albert is breathing HEAVY. He looks around trying to make sense of his environment but fails to do so. He picks up one of the flashlights and searches his immediate area. He finds a box of matches, a photograph of a lady and a piece of paper.  The photo is a sepia colour image of a woman but the eyelids have been coloured blue. The image is signed 1942. He takes a look at his left hand which reveals a wedding ring. Albert drops the photo. It has no frame but still we hear a SMASH. He picks up the photo and waves it up and down. He is shocked to hear the sound of falling CRASHING against the floor. This time he places the photo to the floor. He is confused. Albert picks up the box of matches. The image on the box contains the date 2012. He throws it to the floor. It makes a SPLASH noise as it hits a puddle that is not visible. 

The sound of another EXPLOSION echos through. This explosion is closer and causes some rubble to drop from above onto him. He realizes this could be difficult. A large static noise reaches out from the radio transmitter. Alberts eyes search around for the sounds source.

Albert spots what appears to be a supply crate on the other side of the bunker. He stands up attempting to walk to the crate intently, he immediately falls to the floor. He looks at his legs which reveals a cast. He rises to his feet and attempts to walk again, this time taking more care. His gait has a hobble to it.

Albert brushes away the excess rubble from the crate. He pulls out a helmet which he places on his head. He pulls out a canister. He takes a sip before tipping it upside down confirming it is empty. 

ALBERT

Urgh!

Albert goes back into the crate. He pulls out a map and places it to his side. He pulls out a radio transmitter. He takes it over to the bench. CLICKING the reciever button, Albert turns the radio on. STATIC noise fills the airwaves. Albert turns the frequency dial until he hears a VOICE. 

RADIO

Calling all troops. Calling all troops. This is a final call. This is a final call. Please rendezvous at co-ordinates 65-72. Please rendezvous at co-ordinates 65-72. You have 2 hours. 

Albert picks up the map. He searches for the co-ordinates. He finds 65 - 72. He looks around the bunker before his eyes frantically search the map. He cannot find his current location. He throws the map to the floor.

Albert looks at the ring on his left hand. Something catches him in the corner of his eye. Just behind the crate a tiny ray of light filters through. Albert goes over to the crate and tries to pull it free. The crate will not move. The rubble above it is trapping the crate. Albert looks through the gap but it is not big enough to see through. VOICES can be heard. Albert turns his ear towards the hole. 

FEMALE VOICE A

The daffodil is a popular plant for ornamental purposes in parks, gardens and as cut flowers.

Albert becomes confused. He turns his ear towards the sounds direction before beginning to listen again.

 FEMALE VOICE A

All daffodil species contain the alkaloid poison lycorine. Mostly in the bulbs but it can also be found in the leaves.

Albert turns his eye back toward the small opening. He is still confused but this time determined to establish a solid idea of the sounds source.

Albert pulls rocks from the blockage. More light filters through. He still cannot see clearly through the holes. He pulls at a bigger piece. Albert falls to the floor failing to remove the block. His helmet falls off his head. He looks toward the helmet. It has broken into two. He stands back up in shock. His lips mime the words 'what the' though no sound can be heard. A CLICK can be heard. The VOICE stops. A ROARING race-car engine can be heard. 

Albert steps back away whilst still facing the hole. He steps on something that makes a plastic CRUNCH noise. He picks up the broken object. Albert's eye become fearful.

It is a remote control. It is too futuristic to be of this time and location. Albert drops the object avoiding as much contact as possible. It is as if it is poisoned. An EXPLOSION rips through the passage causing all the rubble to fall towards Albert. He is trapped by the rubble. Alberts eyes slowly begin to close. He tries to keep them open. He is focused. He is looking at the picture he had previously found. His hand stretches out to reach but is restricted by the rubble. His eyes close. Everything goes black.

INT. LIVING ROOM

It is pitch black. A muffled VOICE is heard. It slowly pulls into focus.

MILLY

Albert? Albert? Are you okay?

ALBERTS PERSPECTIVE

Alberts eyes open. His vision is blurred. He can hear clearly. A TV can be heard in the background.

MILLY

What happened? Here let me get you up. 

Albert is trapped by a chair. MILLY Lifts the chair up. We do not see her face. Albert is much older. He looks across the room. A coffee table has been turned over. Next to the table is the broken remote control, an empty glass and a lamp. He moves his focus. He sees a dish split into half. Moving his focus again. He is surprised. He sees the same photograph but in a frame that is smashed. Albert is scared and confused but aware.

MILLY

Everything's okay. I'm here. I only went for a brew. You remember who i am?

Albert looks up. An older looking women from the photograph is revealed. She has the same blue eye shadow. Albert smiles. He knows who she is.

MILLY

You do? 

Milly smiles. Albert stands up. Milly and Albert hug each other. Albert is home.

Animex - Part 02

In this post im going to focus on Rob Dressels talk on the making of Wreck-it-Ralf. Rob is a layout artist which can be described as a cross between cinematographer and screen director. Interestingly enough this poses the fundamental difference between live-action and pure CG - CG has people with specific roles but it is generally under the umbrella of a group of people making group decisions, where as live action will fall to the producer/director calling the shot. Make no mistake, this can be seen as a really naive difference between the two because live action is as much a team effort as CG and CG still has producers and directors who have the final say - but the process these movies take to make them are significantly different. This was a hot topic during the post graduate research day i had attended earlier this academic year. 

Rob showed us the design theme and colours for each world. They were defined by a shape - Fix-it-Felix was square, Hero's Duty was triangular, and Sugar Rush was circular. This informed the camera pan movements which would generally follow the angles found on these shapes. I will list the notes i had taken following a very interesting and relevant conversation between Dressel and David Au during the Q&A at the end. 

- Angelica from Rugrats? We were shown the very early drafts and evolution of the shot where Ralf leaves the game to the train station like exchange in the plug socket. There was a blurred out character because they never used it in the final clearly they did not obtain the rights. It was replaced in a later shot. It looked like angelica from rugrats to me. Maybe we'll never know.

- Layout

• Translate story from 2D to 3D
• 3D sets, props, characters, cameras
• Enhance the story though the visual language of cinemtography (if you break the rules make sure you have a good reason)
• Clarity and appeal
• Never be noticed - make camera movement invisible

- Screen direction

Bolt - traveled from New York to California so always move right to left when travelling. 

Tangled - Positive actions move right to left, negative actions move left to right.

Wreck-it-Ralf - positive action move left to right, negative actions move right to left.

David Au asked Rob during the Q&A how he would of tackeld a conversation in a car between two people using the left to right rule, assuming it would have to be broken to keep the spatial space consistant with the viewer. Rob's response was that he would use the eye to move the line of action without making it overly noticeable to the audience. This is significant considering where i am at with my artefact 09. It would seem that the eyes can hold more power with the line of action and potentially that mean that the core of the body is of lesser importance in communication - entirely consistant with the autonomous subtext attached to my artefact. It appears the line of action can be used to aid camera direction as well as a manipulation tool. 

Animex Part 01

I spent the latter half of last week at the Animex Festival at Teesside university. I attended the Ed Hooks Acting for Animators masterclass as well as attending talks by David Au, Murray Barber and Rob Dressel. 

Ed Hooks Masterclass

Having read Acting for Animators a few times over i have to admit this was the reason i found out about Animex and why i subsequently attended. I'll be honest, this was my first animation festival and i cannot speak highly enough of the experience. I will certainly be attending many more. 

Ed Hooks is a very engaging, entertaining, interesting and most of all an inspirational individual. He has had the most positive effect on my outlook on animation. After attending the workshop i felt proud to be an animator and confident to press forward with my own goals and to not be afraid of them. One of his biggest messages was to seek to produce our own philosophy toward animation and not what the major studios expect of us. I have to admit this spoke to a part of my general anxiety as an artist. Deep down i have always had my heart on serious animation, where as my tutor has always been on the other end of the spectrum, where he feels it shouldn't have too serious undertones. 

The following points are from the notes i had taken:

- Animators create an imitation of a moment;

- Behaving believably in pretend circumstances for theatrical purposes. (To do with the illusion of life - Disney said the mind is the pilot. Gave Mickey Mouse a brain thus emotion);

- Emotion = automatic value response - Thinking = Values, Emotion = Reaction;

- Disney made films for children that charmed adults, we now have a hybrid. This is interesting point, think of Wall-e and Up by Pixar. Each of these has two stories in them that Ed feels is the wrong thing to do. One part is for adults the other for children. Think of Wall-e's love story with Eve (for adults) and The baby like humans overcoming 'Auto' (For children). Think of Carl and Ellies relationship (for adults) and the battle of Carl Vs the Explorer and dogs (for children). For me, Up ended as soon as the house arrived in south america. At this point he achieve his overall objective that is established at the start of the film in the exposition. My supervisor concurred and we both agreed that we felt these thoughts but had not articulated them before Ed's input. 

- Acting isn't feeling, acting is doing.

- Emotion is not theatrical on its own. Crying is boring. Crying and reacting (Doing) is theatrical.

- Sympathy (feeling for) = Audience doesn't share experience and if kept here too long will pull out. Empathy (feeling into) = Audience shares experience and share the emotion thus experience. A good example of the 'pull out' can be found in the Lorax. The Once-lers story starts with him as the protagonist. We at first empathise with his want to change his fortunes and escape the environment from his family and his low regard from them. The shift happens once he has succeeded in his objective - to invent an invention that will see him gain financially and potentially gain acceptance from his family. He becomes arrogant and becomes the antagonist once his family move in to cash in on his success with excess and greed. We start to sympathise and this mixed with his actions causes us to drop in and out of favour with him. The process happens again, much bigger as we pull out back to the main story. The audience becomes disengaged with his actions completely before a constant stream of sympathy is created before finally the audience withdraws a final time. This is a clever process which allows the audience to accept him as an aide to the main narrative, leaving enough empathy to accept his support but not enough for him to replace the main protagonist. 

- If a character does not change to make it better - 'get it (his shit) together' - The audience will pull out. S/he has to at least try to succeed. Examples Ed gave of films that lack this are Treasure Planet, Over the Hedge and Leaving Las Vegas. This exactly what im talking about above with the Lorax's Once-ler. He fails to get his shit together.

- Action in pursuit of an objective whilst overcoming and obstacle.

- Look at something from the characters point of view. 

- Male objective becomes female obstacle. Obstacles can only be one or multiples of being with self, environment or other person.

- Ask the right questions. What is the character doing?

- Higher power center is faster than lower.

- Blink when thought process ends. Blinks happen when someone finishes speaking. Blinks happen when something is understood by the other person.

- Acting has almost nothing to do with words.

- Wiley Cyote had what Mizyaki calls 'ma'

- Sexy eyelids Monroe and Jessica Rabbit represent the moment of orgasm = gives them sex appeal.

- Drama = Mans potential
Comedy = Mans limitation

- Chaplin realised failing to get your foot out of the bucket is funnier than getting it in there in the first place.

- Keaton = sympathy
Chaplin = empathy

- Hero = Exceeding expectation
Villian = Fatal flaw

- Older the audience the more realism needed of the villian
Younger viewers need more obvious indications

- What is important to the tribe is how the character feels the emotions.

- The avoidance of failure is different than the pursuit of success. 

All of these ideas can be found one way or another in acting for animators. Despite three editions the book conveys these ideas differently to how Ed puts these ideas across in person. I do hope that he eventually decides to make a dvd. Ed presented a series of questions an animator (or artist in general) should ask themselves. He backs the assertion which i posted about previously where Meyerson commented Pixar were in the decline stage. Ed said something similar but referred it to the industry as a whole, that they should be tapping into the purely adult market. He said that we should answer the following questions. 

What do i think people could learn from me?

What do i think we need?

What do i care about?

More to follow in a another post tomorrow. Until then, enjoy...

Artefact 10

Artefact10 from Adam Weaver on Vimeo.

Here is the refined version for artefact 10. This process reflects a similar process to before where i transmuted narrative ideas to a reduced form, though in this instance it is self defined and not needing support from other abstraction in itself, although we do have support/influence from other characters. The purpose of this artefact was to test the a) if the convex and concave relationship could be used b) limits of  the rig set up and c) if it can be used as primary character.

I have been able to convey a narrative that uses both of the extreme elements of the rig - completely manual key posing and completely dynamics. Occasionally, and subtly, a blend of both. Some of the gestures are limited by curve size. Because the geometry is connected to bones which is driven by the IK curve, which itself is then driven by another IK driven by clusters and also another IK driven by the Dynamic input. Getting the blend to work smooth is a fragile relationship. 

The shrug gesture proved problematic. I had planned for it to act link a spring down and to stretch up. The curve would not stretch the geometry with it and the spring shape could not accomodate the geometry cleanly enough. I then tried to make what resembled a head shake which did not work. It looked ugly, emotionless, unreadable and killed the shape of the geometry.  The solution was to add some subtext. The over hanging arch when the hair shrugs adds emotion to the character. I think it is the only time during the piece that we emote with the hair. Which i think is okay, as this is the most important part of the narrative - his confusion. The supervisor sessions this week has been cancelled as we are all attending Animex to see Ed Hooks. It may have to wait until two weeks for our next session for feedback.

Feedback - Artefact 09

The questions that I asked post viewing exposed the weakness of the artefact in the terms of the question. However, it did lead to responses which give hints as to where the next stage of development may lie. For those not familiar, here is a re-post of artefact 09:

Artefact 09 from Adam Weaver on Vimeo.

Questions:

Which do you prefer?

Which version do you think communicates the narrative more effectively?

Feedback: My Response:

1) It was to hard to tell because there was just enough action to suggest narrative. 

In future i'll be sure to make the narrative clear prior to showing, particularly if they happen to be as short as this piece. 

2) There were many issues raised with the concave to convex, particularly with the eyes looking up as he asks the question. The thought process stops being internal and starts to ask autonomous questions. Generally what is the purpose of this in regards to the narrative? 

During the production of the concave to convex piece i was consciously aware of aligning the pose consistently to a convex position in order to not break the central purpose of the artefact. A result of this clearly appears to be an neglect of the other areas of staging, framing and relationship between the elements (and this actually counters my initial intention.) I concur that there is a break in the thought process's internal representation and this is having autonomous influence on the narrative. The questions this artefact exposes shows its value. The question for me at this point, being that i wanted to see the influence of dynamic positioning, use of core and line of action, is at which point do they become silenced by other elements of information signals with the audience? In terms of line of action, which is stronger, arm/hands or eyes? do we need a combination of both or just the eyes? Its clear that hand and arms alone in this instance do not work when separated and cause conflict. So should the line of action be considered with eyes as much as the body in staging?

Picuture showing line of action and the breaks causing the conflict in the test.

You may of noticed in my notes on the sketchbook pages my thoughts express whether the change in of  concave and convex shapes doesn't change meaning but can delay it. I still feel that this is the case, but this experiment hasn't been executed efficiently enough to test it. The eyes, it indicates, also plays an influential role in directing the audience. Before i set about testing the eyes against the arms, i am going to re-attempt this experiment to ensure it tests the question efficiently. Before that though, i am going to continue with the re-rigging of the strand of hair.

Artefact 10 - model test

So i have rigged a strand of hair that is able to either be controlled manually, dynamically or a blend of both. Since i was learning to rig this the actual model of hairs geometry was neglected as was the resulting bone size structure. Whilst i created this quick blocking pass it was clear the issues that resulted from the poor design. I will be reattempting this tomorrow afternoon/evening so hopefully over the weekend it shall be completed.

https://vimeo.com/59616256