Full Page Replies - Why?

[MangoKorat]

4 minutes ago, Dolf said:

How do you dig a hole on the internet champ?

I rest my case your honour.

[Bangkok Barry]

I've blocked @Dolf. Life is too short to read any more of his idiotic and ignorant comments.

[Dolf]

Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

Along with numerous other factors, your standard of socio-phonetics is confirms quite the opposite...      

 

 

 

Nobody cares what you think.

[Dolf]

1 minute ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I've blocked @Dolf. Life is too short to read any more of his idiotic and ignorant comments.

Abuse is instant loss of an argument. Thanks for proving me right. If life is "too short" why do you want people to read 400 word posts and lots of newspapers? You just put your foot into it.

[EVENKEEL]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

Why do people start topics that are utterly pointless?

 

PH

To find out who's the most educated poster. We're almost there, we got 3 posters who are neck in neck in the race. 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Dolf said:

1 minute ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I've blocked @Dolf. Life is too short to read any more of his idiotic and ignorant comments.

Abuse is instant loss of an argument. Thanks for proving me right.

 

He hasn't proved you wright....  He's proved you are below the standard worthy of his conversation.....   

 

 

[stoner]

2 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

I guess you must be one of the 10-second attention span generation.

 

funny enough we share the same name...

 

 

[transam]

35 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Adults admit when they are wrong.

So what do you do.........?  🤔

[Mike Lister]

This is the pub, there is more latitude but it is still not a license to insult other members at will. Please post respectfully.

[transam]

1 hour ago, Dolf said:

Well prove me wrong then.

He doesn't have to, we all know..........

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, transam said:

38 minutes ago, Dolf said:

Adults admit when they are wrong.

So what do you do.........?  🤔

 

He's unable to answer that on a technicality - he has to mentally reach adulthood first...   

[Dolf]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

He hasn't proved you wright....  He's proved you are below the standard worthy of his conversation.....   

 

 

I put you on ignore before. I will be polite though.

 

 

[transam]

1 hour ago, Dolf said:

Intelligent people don't want to read 300 words of rubbish. 

How do you know what is rubbish till you get to the end..............

[Dolf]

12 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I rest my case your honour.

So where is the judge on the internet? This topic is getting worse. 

[MangoKorat]

9 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

To find out who's the most educated poster. We're almost there, we got 3 posters who are neck in neck in the race. 

I have respect for those of all levels of intelligence. A friend of mine was pretty poorly educated but is an extremely gifted carpenter.  I wouldn't pay much attention to his views on certain (not all) matters but I wouldn't try to criticise his skills with wood. 

 

The difference between him and some others is that he knows when he's qualified to comment or not, just as I do when the subject is something I know little or nothing about.

[MangoKorat]

4 minutes ago, Dolf said:

So where is the judge on the internet? This topic is getting worse. 

And you claim you're intelligent?

 

Enough said, I think its time to leave this discussion.

[Dolf]

1 minute ago, MangoKorat said:

I have respect for those of all levels of intelligence. A friend of mine was pretty poorly educated but is an extremely gifted carpenter.  I wouldn't pay much attention to his views on certain (not all) matters but I wouldn't try to criticise his skills with wood. 

 

The difference between him and some others is that he knows when he's qualified to comment or not, just as I do when the subject is something I know little or nothing about.

What are you qualified to comment on?

[Dolf]

Just now, MangoKorat said:

And you claim you're intelligent?

 

Enough said, I think its time to leave this discussion.

The topic is about short posts versus long posts.

 

 

[MangoKorat]

1 minute ago, Dolf said:

What are you qualified to comment on?

Which part of 'leave this discussion' do you need explaining? I warn you though, an explanation might take more that a few lines.

[transam]

1 minute ago, MangoKorat said:

I have respect for those of all levels of intelligence. A friend of mine was pretty poorly educated but is an extremely gifted carpenter.  I wouldn't pay much attention to his views on certain (not all) matters but I wouldn't try to criticise his skills with wood. 

 

The difference between him and some others is that he knows when he's qualified to comment or not, just as I do when the subject is something I know little or nothing about.

Yeh, I think we all have our niche, sadly I haven't found mine yet, and time is running out.......😱

[Dolf]

2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Which part of 'leave this discussion' do you need explaining? I warn you though, an explanation might take more that a few lines.

I don't believe anything you say now. If you were an expert on certain topics you could just list them in point form. You don't need 300 words

 

[scottiejohn]

54 minutes ago, Dolf said:

I more educated than you will ever be.

I normally do not feed trolls and advise others to do the same!

 

Especially with regards to your constant and repetitive puerile outbursts which I normally treat with the ignore they obviously deserve!

 

However your last ludicrous statement, repeated above, shows just how uneducated you actually are!

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, Dolf said:

Nobody cares what you think.

And nobody gives a toss about what you post as we all know you have no origibal thoughts!

You are just a mouth peace for you "MASTERS"!

[EVENKEEL]

I just want to commend all the posters here. Pretty much everyone is down to one liners here, job well done.

[Mike Lister]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

I just want to commend all the posters here. Pretty much everyone is down to one liners here, job well done.

We can soon change that, have you read War and Peace. 🙂

[EVENKEEL]

11 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

We can soon change that, have you read War and Peace. 🙂

Is that one of the Hardy Boys series?

[Dolf]

19 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I just want to commend all the posters here. Pretty much everyone is down to one liners here, job well done.

 

44 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I normally do not feed trolls and advise others to do the same!

 

Especially with regards to your constant and repetitive puerile outbursts which I normally treat with the ignore they obviously deserve!

 

However your last ludicrous statement, repeated above, shows just how uneducated you actually are!

 

Feel free to list your education.

[Dolf]

28 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

And nobody gives a toss about what you post as we all know you have no origibal thoughts!

You are just a mouth peace for you "MASTERS"!

Nobody cares about people on the internet. That's the point you missed. You're right though I don't have "origibal" thoughts.

[Freddy42OZ]

18 hours ago, Dolf said:

I gave up after 2 lines.

 

 

How do you manage to get through books? or are you just not very well read?  

[Grusa]

22 hours ago, kwak250 said:

Hey! It’s been a while since I’ve posted-

Now, I have a consistent problem where I open my mouth intending to add just a sentence to a conversation and a nine-volume encyclopedia pops out instead. Accordingly, my attempt to answer the poster succinctly turned into a post-long response that I decided might as well just be a post, so here it is!

Thanks for your comment! You may be right that Spider-verse isn’t the best example, and certainly I wouldn’t hold it up as an example of the kind of production I intend to create--just as a very good example of stylized CG. I suspect that rendering in a stylized way, and making this style work with their existing methods, was quite expensive for SPI! I recall an artist who worked on Paper Man describing it as twice the work of ordinary CG. That's certainly a danger with stylized approaches--but I think it's an avoidable one.

The problem, it seems to me, is that you really can't approach this sort of production as if it were conventional CG, with a conventional methodology and pipeline, and expect to reap the cost benefits I think are potentially realizable with it. You'd have to treat this kind of production very differently.

For instance, you mention simulation as something that would be difficult with non-continuous motion, and you're quite correct. So simulation itself would be the first thing on the chopping block for the production, outside of the occasional FX shot. It's one of the many steps that gums up the works of CG production and prevents us from getting to that an-artist-can-sit-down-and-just-make-something state. Plus I generally don't like its results on an artistic basis (at least in this stylized context). When traditional animators animate clothed characters, the clothing takes part in the character's silhouette and becomes a part of the performance. They never had any difficulty animating cloth by hand.

Yes, I am actually claiming that hand-animating cloth would be faster then simulating it, and I know how insane that sounds from a conventional CG perspective. But stylization completely changes the game. Consider the monkey test I posted a few months back.

The monkey is unclothed, of course, but there definitely parts of his body that require secondary animation, notably his hair tufts and ears. The hair tufts at least would most likely be simulated if this shot were approached in a conventional manner. The way I approached the shot was not only to animate them by hand, but to animate them from the very beginning--the very first key poses I put down already included the ears and hair tufts as an inherent aspect of those poses, already contributing to silhouettes and arcs. It’s pretty difficult to get an accurate idea of exactly what percentage of my time animating the shot was devoted to them, but I’m going to guess it was only a few percent.

This is only possible because the stylized look allowed me to ignore the “higher frequency” details that would be required for a fully rendered character, and I expect these same details would also be unnecessary for character clothing. I’m much more interested in character silhouettes then I am in wrinkles and clothing detail, so some simple secondary that’s really just part of the character’s pose would actually be more effective.

The idea here is that this isn’t just any form of stylization--it’s a specifically chosen set of stylizations that support each other in the goal of massively reducing the amount of work involved. And that means choosing subjects that work with the grain of those stylistic choices. For instance, you may be wondering how I’d approach a long flowing cape or a long coat. The answer is...I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t generally put characters in long coats or capes. There are about a million stories you could tell that don’t require anyone to wear a cape. Creating low-cost CG in this manner would be about making the design choices that let you get the most bang for your buck production-value wise while maintaining the essentials of character animation, a very different goal then that which I suspect drives companies like SPI and Disney to create stylized CG.

This also applies to the NPR rendering. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem, and some may be very time consuming! The two-tone methods I’m using here aren’t, though. I was able, as an individual with some understanding of the problem but no custom tools, to sit down and do the shading for the Monkey test without much trouble. Partly this is again choosing the most direct path to something that both looks good and is efficient to create. The simple two-tone present in the monkey test carries far less detail then the more painterly frames from Spider-verse, but I think it wouldn’t have any difficulty supporting emotionally engaging characters or exciting action scenes.

That said, the efficiency of this process could be improved a lot, and there’s a lot of room for R&D here--there’s still a required level of manual tweaking that I’d like to get rid of, and the two tone shapes could be improved. I’m hoping to tackle some of those problems this year.

There’s still the question of how that process, however reasonable on a small scale, would scale up to a large production like a feature film. In many ways, it may help to think of the look development for such a production as being less like a conventional film production pipeline, and more like a game. Ideally, except for certain FX shots, such a production would not even have a rendering/compositing stage--what you would see working on the shot would simply be the shot. It might be quite literally “in-engine” if using a game engine as the hub of production turns out to be the right way to approach it (this is something I’m getting more and more interested in). While this doesn’t remove all potential issues with scaling the approach to feature film size, I think it does drastically simplify the problem. Of course, we haven’t actually produced a long-form project using these techniques, and I’m sure there are going to be unforeseen roadblocks, so we shall see!

In any case, thanks again for your comment! I hope this illuminates how I envision this production process being different from the way I imagine that Spider-verse is being done, and why I think that the immense cost gains I’m claiming here are achievable.

An artificial intelligence at work?