58 réponses à ce sujet

[DahliaLynn]

Thank you John, much appreciated. Hope you have a Great Holiday!

[Yara C.]

Great. Thanks, John! Enjoy your holiday.

[John Epler]

Hey folks! Sorry I haven't been online this last week - turns out I needed the time off more than I thought, and I've been trying to avoid the forums as much as possible. Not because of you guys, though! I swear!



Anyways, I have some stuff written that I'm going to edit tomorrow and then post up. I haven't forgotten about you, I swear!

[DahliaLynn]

Welcome back and happy new year Glad you're still with us !
I've had a question that's been nagging at me, so I figured I'd ask it here.

For a relatively still shot, what would be the reasoning behind choosing to shoot a medium shot (for example) by using a high camera distance/ low Field of View ratio as opposed to close proximity with high Field of View, with Depth of Field settings adjusted to create the exact same effect for each shot scenario?

Edit: I'm assuming that with an actual camera the same Depth of Field settings could only occur with a proper lens size/distance combo, so is it safe to say that in the CS editor virtual camera, the shot choices would be made on what is realistically possible? (i.e. setting high Field of View with close proximity along with insane settings of Depth of Field simply wouldn't be realistic) Am I in the right direction?

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:44 .

[John Epler]

Hey, I feel like the worst person, but as you can see I wasn't able to post anything yesterday. Was at work fairly late so I apologize! I'm pulling this in at lunch today and will post it right after work while eating dinner. Delicious, delicious crunch food.

[John Epler]

DahliaLynn wrote...

Welcome back and happy new year Glad you're still with us !
I've had a question that's been nagging at me, so I figured I'd ask it here.

For a relatively still shot, what would be the reasoning behind choosing to shoot a medium shot (for example) by using a high camera distance/ low Field of View ratio as opposed to close proximity with high Field of View, with Depth of Field settings adjusted to create the exact same effect for each shot scenario?

Edit: I'm assuming that with an actual camera the same Depth of Field settings could only occur with a proper lens size/distance combo, so is it safe to say that in the CS editor virtual camera, the shot choices would be made on what is realistically possible? (i.e. setting high Field of View with close proximity along with insane settings of Depth of Field simply wouldn't be realistic) Am I in the right direction?

Generally speaking, we do try to keep things at least relatively close to what's possible with a real film camera. There are really two schools of thought here, both of which I consider to be valid. The one school of thought is that, in much of our work, we're trying to emulate cinema, so we should try to at least keep things close to what a real camera could achieve.

The other school of thought, of course, is that we've got certain freedoms that you'll never get with an actual film camera, so why not take advantage of those? And, of course, everyone finds certain comfort zones when they're setting up FoV/lens length.

I apologize if this doesn't answer your question! My brain is kind of fried this week.

[Seb Hanlon]

JohnEpler wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...

Welcome back and happy new year Glad you're still with us !
I've had a question that's been nagging at me, so I figured I'd ask it here.

For a relatively still shot, what would be the reasoning behind choosing to shoot a medium shot (for example) by using a high camera distance/ low Field of View ratio as opposed to close proximity with high Field of View, with Depth of Field settings adjusted to create the exact same effect for each shot scenario?

Edit: I'm assuming that with an actual camera the same Depth of Field settings could only occur with a proper lens size/distance combo, so is it safe to say that in the CS editor virtual camera, the shot choices would be made on what is realistically possible? (i.e. setting high Field of View with close proximity along with insane settings of Depth of Field simply wouldn't be realistic) Am I in the right direction?

Generally speaking, we do try to keep things at least relatively close to what's possible with a real film camera. There are really two schools of thought here, both of which I consider to be valid. The one school of thought is that, in much of our work, we're trying to emulate cinema, so we should try to at least keep things close to what a real camera could achieve.

The other school of thought, of course, is that we've got certain freedoms that you'll never get with an actual film camera, so why not take advantage of those? And, of course, everyone finds certain comfort zones when they're setting up FoV/lens length.

I apologize if this doesn't answer your question! My brain is kind of fried this week.

As someone completely uninvolved in cinematics, but with a background in photography -- and because you asked about a relatively still shot...

A short camera distance/large FOV will emulate a wide angle lens. DoF settings notwithstanding, the effect this has on the composition is to exaggerate the scale difference between objects nearest to the camera and those further away.

A long camera distance/tight FOV will emulate a telephoto lens, which will have the opposite effect -- it'll tend to flatten the relative perspective scaling between objects.

And when you blend between them on the fly, you get dolly zoom!

[Lord Methrid]

Thanks for those incites fellas!



I have a question regarding voiced dialogue animations.



After using the Speak Line action and setting up my actor's voiced dialogue, the results are rather unflattering. Numerous parts of the mouth and upper chin appear to clip through the flesh. As you can see in the circled areas of the picture below:





Is there a way I can fine tune this or am I setting a wrong value somewhere? I know there is a seed option I can experiment with but so far these clippings appear to be present only during certain parts of a name pronunciation. I am also using my own head morphs. Any incite you may have on this would be greatly appreciated in advanced!

[DahliaLynn]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

DahliaLynn wrote...

Welcome back and happy new year Glad you're still with us !
I've had a question that's been nagging at me, so I figured I'd ask it here.

For a relatively still shot, what would be the reasoning behind choosing to shoot a medium shot (for example) by using a high camera distance/ low Field of View ratio as opposed to close proximity with high Field of View, with Depth of Field settings adjusted to create the exact same effect for each shot scenario?

Edit: I'm assuming that with an actual camera the same Depth of Field settings could only occur with a proper lens size/distance combo, so is it safe to say that in the CS editor virtual camera, the shot choices would be made on what is realistically possible? (i.e. setting high Field of View with close proximity along with insane settings of Depth of Field simply wouldn't be realistic) Am I in the right direction?

Generally speaking, we do try to keep things at least relatively close to what's possible with a real film camera. There are really two schools of thought here, both of which I consider to be valid. The one school of thought is that, in much of our work, we're trying to emulate cinema, so we should try to at least keep things close to what a real camera could achieve.

The other school of thought, of course, is that we've got certain freedoms that you'll never get with an actual film camera, so why not take advantage of those? And, of course, everyone finds certain comfort zones when they're setting up FoV/lens length.

I apologize if this doesn't answer your question! My brain is kind of fried this week.

As someone completely uninvolved in cinematics, but with a background in photography -- and because you asked about a relatively still shot...

A short camera distance/large FOV will emulate a wide angle lens. DoF settings notwithstanding, the effect this has on the composition is to exaggerate the scale difference between objects nearest to the camera and those further away.

A long camera distance/tight FOV will emulate a telephoto lens, which will have the opposite effect -- it'll tend to flatten the relative perspective scaling between objects.

And when you blend between them on the fly, you get dolly zoom!

Thank you very much for your answers. I needed to see that in black and white.

I will add that although the image is "flattened" in relative perspective,  when using long distance and tight FOV, and the camera is moving while focusing on an object, the background images tend to move faster (as in a record where you are farther away from the center, the distance traveled is higher when rotating).

I also have been experimenting with dolly zoom quite a bit lately (loves this), and found that when at extremely close proximity with a FoV setting of 170, this will actually create a fish-eye lense effect!

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 05 janvier 2011 - 07:04 .

[John Epler]

Ahh, the dolly zoom. The greatest of all zooms.

[tmp7704]

Lord Methrid wrote...

Is there a way I can fine tune this or am I setting a wrong value somewhere?

You might need to tweak your character morph to take care of it, namely adjust the placement and size of teeth to match the "external" features.

[Lord Methrid]

tmp7704! You are a genius! I totally forgot I can re-size the teeth!!! /me bows down to your holy wisdom.

[John Epler]

Hey folks!



So I know it's been a while since I updated this, and while I could spin a tale of woe involving illness, busyness and just a whole lot of stuff coming down the pipe at once, I won't bore you with that. I do, however, have some good news!



Part of my job at the moment involves a lot of documentation work, and I've been able to take this and start compiling some of it into a format I can share with you folks. This involves things such as best practices, things to avoid and general information about the toolset and how to use it (stage editor, cutscene editor and conversation editor).



I'm not going to make any promises as to when this'll end up online (I've learned the folly of making any kind of declarative statement about this!) but it's finally getting into a useable form, so it shouldn't be too much longer.



Hope everyone has a great week!



John

[BloodsongVengeance]

wohoo!



lots of help with facefx studio, perchance? oh, how to properly use stages and get them where you want. i need that. :X



dunno about my week yet, but i got two scenes done this weekend! hoo! a record!

[Seryn]

Any update? This effort sounds very useful if it comes to fruition.

Modifié par Seryn, 18 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[Seryn]

crickets . . . how disappointing.

[John Epler]

I've been fairly busy with work lately, and was out-of-country - however, things are winding down again and I'll be giving this another shot.

However, please feel free to send me any questions and I'll respond to them in a timely manner. I've had a few people asking me various things and been trying to get them answers.

[Beerfish]

This is not a technical question John but more along the lines of a 'style' question. Any tips on that? For example I notice in DA2 there are a fair number of cutscenes where the camera very slowly pans diaganol or left to right while actors are talking. I often have a tendency to just find my camera angle and let it sit there as characters do their thing.

Is this just a matter of person style by the cutscene creator of does it talk about this type of technique in the "Grand Codex of Advanced Cutscene Creation and Direction."

[John Epler]

Beerfish wrote...

This is not a technical question John but more along the lines of a 'style' question. Any tips on that? For example I notice in DA2 there are a fair number of cutscenes where the camera very slowly pans diaganol or left to right while actors are talking. I often have a tendency to just find my camera angle and let it sit there as characters do their thing.

Is this just a matter of person style by the cutscene creator of does it talk about this type of technique in the "Grand Codex of Advanced Cutscene Creation and Direction."

Generally speaking, it's an attempt to inject a little organic movement into the scene. Because of the sheer amount of dialogue in DA2 compared to, for example, ME2, we had a lot of ground to cover and we didn't really have the opportunity to get too 'in depth' with making everything as interesting as we wanted to. Minor amounts of drift, push and pull on the cameras make the shot slightly more interesting to the viewer, without significantly increasing the amount of work - since we had to pick our battles, the lengthy 'chat' conversations tended to get that treatment more than extensive gesture work.

We did notice that we used that technique perhaps a little -too- much in DA2, so we've been paring it down a bit for other endeavours. It's a good crutch to lean on, but it really is that - a crutch. Wherever possible, we'd rather make conversations interesting through how the scene is constructed and through the actions of the participants, instead of camera trickery.

[Beerfish]

Thanks John, I did like the effect when I noticed it, it is often slow enough as to not cause a distraction but certainly as a viewer you can notice that something is different than a normal static camera.

[DahliaLynn]

I've got a question or two regarding fighting sequences and the 180 degree rule.

I'm very curious to know what techniques you use regarding fighting between say for example two people (or creatures )
My personal understanding would be closeups on hits and quick moves + reactions, medium and long shots when both are moving during the completion of the particular attack,  while remaining angle-consistent when switching between closeups and medium shots.

Any advice on nice techniques to implement? Does the 180 degree rule remain throughout or is this sometimes broken?

My personal preference is faster cuts editingwise  as the action increases speed, but as far as 180 line maintenance, I'm a bit blurry on that.

So far I can feel that when the actors change their positions and continuity is maintained with the crossing it's alright to cross once, then continue to maintain so long as the actors remain in position. 

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 31 mai 2011 - 09:39 .

[tmp7704]

DahliaLynn wrote...

but as far as 180 line maintenance, I'm a bit blurry on that.

So far I can feel that when the actors change their positions and continuity is maintained with the crossing it's alright to cross once, then continue to maintain so long as the actors remain in position. 

Fights are probably a situation where you can relax on the rule, if just because you're likely going to have quite a bit of characters trading places as result of their actions/maneuvers.

[John Epler]

DahliaLynn wrote...

I've got a question or two regarding fighting sequences and the 180 degree rule.

I'm very curious to know what techniques you use regarding fighting between say for example two people (or creatures )
My personal understanding would be closeups on hits and quick moves + reactions, medium and long shots when both are moving during the completion of the particular attack,  while remaining angle-consistent when switching between closeups and medium shots.

Any advice on nice techniques to implement? Does the 180 degree rule remain throughout or is this sometimes broken?

My personal preference is faster cuts editingwise  as the action increases speed, but as far as 180 line maintenance, I'm a bit blurry on that.

So far I can feel that when the actors change their positions and continuity is maintained with the crossing it's alright to cross once, then continue to maintain so long as the actors remain in position. 

You can break the line of action, so long as it's A) motivated and  doesn't obfuscate the scene in a way that you're not intending. This is, of course, different from a multi-actor conversation where you have, by its very nature, mulitple lines of action that you're going to be constantly switching between. However, there are two 'main' ways where you can break the 180 degree rule -

1) Move the camera.

2) Move the actor.

You can, of course, combine the two, and in an action scene, that's most likely to happen. Though minor breaks in continuity are more acceptable when you have fast camera moves because the viewer is less likely to notice it. As for the other side of things, when I'm doing combat scenes I tend to use a lot of fast camera movement, following the action as much as I can. Though I do have a personal grudge against the shakycam style from Robin Hood and Gladiator  It works for them but I feel a lot of movies use it to hide mediocre choreography.

[DahliaLynn]

Thanks for sharing and clarifying Tmp and John!

With regards to Shakycam you took the words right out of my mouth. Personally I think it's way overdone in more recent productions, and would use it sparingly if at all.

For 3-4 actor conversations I guess its safe to say the line gets "bent" making it more of a 270 degree rule I suppose

I'm going to assume that the meaning behind "motivated" would be if I want to express a "blow" associating a disoriented actor along with disorienting the viewer as an example. Or, perhaps sudden movements by the actors which I want to purposely change the cameras position to enhance the feeling with the cameras assistance.

Edit: in my current scene I actually did break the rule, but not without continuity in camera movement, so telling me this makes me feel better about my choice.

Modifié par DahliaLynn, 01 juin 2011 - 12:57 .

[Seryn]

Beerfish wrote...

This is not a technical question John but more along the lines of a 'style' question. Any tips on that? For example I notice in DA2 there are a fair number of cutscenes where the camera very slowly pans diaganol or left to right while actors are talking. I often have a tendency to just find my camera angle and let it sit there as characters do their thing.

Is this just a matter of person style by the cutscene creator of does it talk about this type of technique in the "Grand Codex of Advanced Cutscene Creation and Direction."

Yay!  Good news.  The more info you can share with us, the better.  Thanks!