Loading...
> >

Battlestar Galactica: The Field. Bryce 7 Animation

Francis TaylorFrancis Taylor Posts: 84
edited December 1969 in Bryce Discussion

The Remaining ships of the Colonial Fleet have an unexpected run in with some Raiders in an Asteroid Field rich in Tillium. Animation created completely in Bryce 7. No Postwork.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz44MsNJ6lc

Comments

  • OroborosOroboros Posts: 326
    edited February 2013

    Excellent camera work. Mr Taylor did a sterling job, not only bringing a sense of dynamism to the scene but recreating BG's am-cam shooting technique (needed more crash-zooms though :D)

    No Postwork??? Man, the lens flare and DOF must have taken months for a few seconds of footage. Any chance of breaking down the scenes for us animation enthusiasts?

    ===

    I might be confusing something though. There's a lot of lens flare and light streaks, as well as a fabulous dirty lens shot - really cool advanced stuff. But... This wasn't done in Bryce, right? I'm thinking you made bokeh images with a real camera, made them transparent, put them on a 2D square in Bryce and parented them in front of the camera.

    So... no POST production, but some non-Bryce stuff done in PRE-production? :)

    Post edited by Oroboros on
  • David BrinnenDavid Brinnen Posts: 3,136
    edited December 1969

    fran444 said:
    The Remaining ships of the Colonial Fleet have an unexpected run in with some Raiders in an Asteroid Field rich in Tillium. Animation created completely in Bryce 7. No Postwork.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz44MsNJ6lc

    That is a stunning video, but I would be very surprised if there were no postwork, essentially for the reasons outlined by Oro and from my own experience with the render engine - some of the effects would be so time consuming to achieve using Bryce, it would have made far more sense to apply them in post. And besides, I don't think that that may have been done detracts from the result in any way.

  • LordHardDrivenLordHardDriven Posts: 937
    edited December 1969

    Very nice and I agree with Oroboros, the camera work has very much the same feel as you got from the space scenes in the tv show.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 10,644
    edited December 1969

    Yup, looked at it earlier today. Don't believe there was no postwork. Nevertheless, stunning work.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 1,325
    edited December 1969

    Fantastic Brycing work, really amazing. Really captured the BSG look and feel. Being greedy I want you to do it all again in at least 720, if not 1080. Shouldn't take too long. ;-)


    I accept the claim about no postwork. It was clearly stated.


    Wow.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 1,325
    edited December 1969

    Just love the shot starting at 1:32, complex action with constantly changing paths for the models, effects and camera - with such great flow.
    That must have taken some serious planning.

  • OroborosOroboros Posts: 326
    edited February 2013

    _ PJF _ said:
    I accept the claim about no postwork. It was clearly stated.

    Well, this isn't a 'come clean, tell the truth' inquiry... Frankly I don't care how many other applications were involved in producing this clip – the field of animation demands that you use several applications to finish your work. But while Bryce CAN do several interesting, volumetric, time-expensive effects, this doesn't mean you should ONLY use Bryce to do everything.

    Ultimately, whether you're a director, creature animator, compositor, video editor, any specialist in the animation field, you're there to tell a story. It's not about trying to 'test the limits' of a single application – you can do that by yourself, for yourself. You do what you can, with whatever you have at your disposal, to make the story work.

    That said, my interest is in cheating :)

    'Cheating' is a movie industry term and generally means doing something that in reality is either impossible or unusual, solely to make the shot look good. On sets, plants might be moved from their original position slightly, for shot composition reasons. Actors might take unusual paths, walking around invisible, out-of-shot tables to make the shot look more interesting. Lights might be re-arranged to show off details that, had they stayed where they were from the previous camera location, would look horrible.

    I don't care if Mr Taylor rendered his special effects within Bryce, or if he used alpha-masked explosion movies projected on 2D planes within the scene, or if he finished shots in After Effects, Motion or any number of other applications, because this is how the professionals do things. There's no shame in postwork. But I would like to know how he approached the animation in terms of effects, rather than the modelling.

    Post edited by Oroboros on
  • Francis TaylorFrancis Taylor Posts: 84
    edited December 1969

    Hey whats up guys! Thanks for the feedback.

  • Peter FulfordPeter Fulford Posts: 1,325
    edited December 1969

    Oroboros said:

    Ultimately, whether you're a director, creature animator, compositor, video editor, any specialist in the animation field, you're there to tell a story. It's not about trying to 'test the limits' of a single application – you can do that by yourself, for yourself. You do what you can, with whatever you have at your disposal, to make the story work.

    I don't disagree with anything you've said in the thread. But maybe fran444 wanted to test the limits of a single application, just because he could. I watched his other videos, and it seems pretty clear he enjoys showing the "you can't do that with Bryce" crowd that, actually, you can.

    Being a fan of the pre-digital visual effects era, I'm also interested in "cheating". The effects I admired the most were those captured in camera, with no optical printing. Anything went to get the shot right, because there was no rescue after the fact. That prejudice has always stuck with me, and that's why I like the "no postwork" route. It's not important, of course, but I like it.

    Sure, if you're working on a greater project (especially with other people, professional or amatuer) then yes, who cares what you work with or how it's done. You do whatever it takes to achieve the shot that propels the story.

  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,803
    edited December 1969

    Brilliant, highly impressive footage! Looks top notch. Way to go you and your team. Please keep it up!

  • dyretdyret Posts: 182
    edited December 1969

    Fantastic and inspiring work!

  • FirstBastionFirstBastion Posts: 7,760
    edited December 1969

    That had some impressive production value.

  • foleyprofoleypro Posts: 485
    edited December 1969

    I didnt help in any way here...Wished I would have had the Opportunity to help tho...Just giving folks a heads up on this You Tube Channel.

    Excellent job on all these guys and I see a few that were Beta testers for Bryce helping out...

    Battle Star Galatica done in Bryce

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited February 2013

    Thread Merged

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • OroborosOroboros Posts: 326
    edited February 2013

    I hope Mr Taylor can put up a tute on his explosions. Lighting, texturing and animating vol. clouds is a time-expensive endeavour I really try to avoid :D

    But it doesn't look like he's going to write up his process anytime soon.

    ...

    Would anyone like a vid tute on how he did his camera work? I'd skip the explosions and lighting, largely because... THAT STUFF TAKES FOREVER. But most of this animation was typically 2-3 keyframe movement with 4-5 keyframe camera-rigs – easy to do, but because few people understand the role of the camera in an animation it can really humanise and stamp 'production value' on your animation work.

    Post edited by Oroboros on
  • Francis TaylorFrancis Taylor Posts: 84
    edited December 1969

    I am planning a tutorial on my techniques, i'm just preparing some screenshots for you guys. I should have a simple camera tutorial up by tonight.

  • foleyprofoleypro Posts: 485
    edited December 1969

    Oroboros said:
    I hope Mr Taylor can put up a tute on his explosions. Lighting, texturing and animating vol. clouds is a time-expensive endeavour I really try to avoid :D

    But it doesn't look like he's going to write up his process anytime soon.

    ...

    Would anyone like a vid tute on how he did his camera work? I'd skip the explosions and lighting, largely because... THAT STUFF TAKES FOREVER. But most of this animation was typically 2-3 keyframe movement with 4-5 keyframe camera-rigs – easy to do, but because few people understand the role of the camera in an animation it can really humanise and stamp 'production value' on your animation work.

    Actually it is nt that hard with the ability to have Video textures..The lighting to illuminate the explosions is easy by linking to the 2D Plane/Square that has the Video Texture..And some of the Volimetrics he uses comes standard with Bryce...And if a Person Has Kia's Plugin then that extends the ability of Bryce...

    When it comes down to the camera work I am sure he links to the model...I did mention to him he needs to use the animation editor more to fine tune what happens in the scene..Some of the movements have the alll to tell tale of Bryce Bugs...But with the new improvements in animation department and the editor...Makes it so much easier...

  • foleyprofoleypro Posts: 485
    edited February 2013

    ...doh

    Post edited by foleypro on
  • foleyprofoleypro Posts: 485
    edited December 1969

    Not too rip off the thread but....
    Once DAZ lets us save animated Data In Bryce(And Fixes the Non Geomentry issue) I can say that folks will be able to use Effects from DS aka Particle FXDS4.5 in Bryce...I have been working towards this since I bought the Source code for PFX....

    Both Programs compliment each other..

  • OroborosOroboros Posts: 326
    edited December 1969

    foleypro said:
    Actually it is not that hard with the ability to have Video textures..The lighting to illuminate the explosions is easy by linking to the 2D Plane/Square that has the Video Texture..And some of the Volumetrics he uses comes standard with Bryce...And if a Person Has Kai's Plugin then that extends the ability of Bryce...

    I'm sure video textures were used (in one multiple explosion you can see they're all the same explosion), but that's not what I was getting at. That's sane use of technology :)

    What I'd like to see is how fran planned the original explosion: what texture he modified, how he lit it and how the explosion was altered over time. The fact that he used the same explosion for one sub-second scene is testimony to HOW LONG vol. effects take to render within Bryce, and why animated volumetric effects should not be attempted by the faint-hearted... or at least, the faint of CPU power...

    I mean, planning-wise, there's scalability: how big was the original explosion footage, and how small/big could it be scaled in-scene without people noticing differences in resolution; how he lit it such that it didn't affect other elements in the scene (or did affect them, whichever the choice); if render-time was an issue; what object he used for the texture, the sort of lights he used and why, all that good stuff :)

  • CybersoxCybersox Posts: 9,054
    edited December 1969

    fran444 said:
    I am planning a tutorial on my techniques, i'm just preparing some screenshots for you guys. I should have a simple camera tutorial up by tonight.

    Er... where?
  • OroborosOroboros Posts: 326
    edited December 1969

    Here.

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/16455/

  • Francis TaylorFrancis Taylor Posts: 84
    edited December 1969

    I personally like the shot at 1:40 :)

Sign In or Register to comment.