Mate Helen Parr is thicc as fuck, and the first film knew that and kept showing it off. I [sp]hope[/sp] wonder if the sequel will follow up on it since it looks to be a role-swap on the first film so far.
[QUOTE=megafat;53134713][B][U][I]Don't give him ideas.[/I][/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Give him this:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/9rN7sQW.png[/img]
[QUOTE=ThePanther;53135150]Give him this:
[img]https://i.imgur.com/9rN7sQW.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Oh baby.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/BY9gQwn.png[/img]
Seeing how much the CGI has improved since the first one, I'm glad they have waited the 14 years since the original and taken their time. It looks incredible, can't wait to see it.
I only just learned that Brad Bird voices Edna Mode. That had me a good laugh.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;53134166]fucking hell, as an animator i can't even begin to imagine the amount of thought that goes into every movement for that octopus. massive credit.[/QUOTE]
What kind of "math" goes into animating an octopus? I don't really get how the algorithmic shit translates into models, shaders, and such.
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;53135739]What kind of "math" goes into animating an octopus? I don't really get how the algorithmic shit translates into models, shaders, and such.[/QUOTE]
Well I imagine for moving the tentacles you start with the bones closest to the center, then work your way outwards. You gotta think exactly where the farthest away bones will be before you even pose them so you get it right where you want them. If the starting motion is off by an inch, every bones motion after it gets affected. So you really got to get it right first try, or at least make very small motions as to make it easier to change down the line.
In other words, I never want to touch that model.
[QUOTE=megafat;53134584]Oh no.[/QUOTE]
oh yes
[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;53135739]What kind of "math" goes into animating an octopus? I don't really get how the algorithmic shit translates into models, shaders, and such.[/QUOTE]
There is a hell of a lot of math involved in rigging. I believe most of the stuff talked about in that video was things involved in creating the octopus rig, not as much animating it. Riggers create highly simplified tools for animators to use but the majority of the bone movement, the squash and stretch, etc. is done by the rig automatically based on how the animator chooses to animate the "simplified" version. The rigger basically "programs" the rig to react to the animator's control of the simplified version. In the video you can see when they show the version the animator works with, there are only a few "nodes" on the length of the tentacle that the animator uses, the movement of the bones is all decided by how the animator uses those nodes, along with the physics of the objects the tentacle touches in the scene, the tentacle's weight, its "springiness" and elasticity, momentum, etc. So you can understand why there is so much math involved. The rig is doing 99% of the work, as it needs to, as no animator would be able to replicate movement like that perfectly on a per-bone basis.
I'm very tired so I don't know if I explained that well but hopefully I did.
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;53134050]Yeah, and the Underminer is Hamm’s VA[/QUOTE]
It's not a Pixar movie if John Ratzenberger doesn't voice something in it.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53135812]There is a hell of a lot of math involved in rigging. I believe most of the stuff talked about in that video was things involved in creating the octopus rig, not as much animating it. Riggers create highly simplified tools for animators to use but the majority of the bone movement, the squash and stretch, etc. is done by the rig automatically based on how the animator chooses to animate the "simplified" version. The rigger basically "programs" the rig to react to the animator's control of the simplified version. In the video you can see when they show the version the animator works with, there are only a few "nodes" on the length of the tentacle that the animator uses, the movement of the bones is all decided by how the animator uses those nodes, along with the physics of the objects the tentacle touches in the scene, the tentacle's weight, its "springiness" and elasticity, momentum, etc. So you can understand why there is so much math involved. The rig is doing 99% of the work, as it needs to, as no animator would be able to replicate movement like that perfectly on a per-bone basis.
I'm very tired so I don't know if I explained that well but hopefully I did.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty good explanation of it in my book.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53135812]There is a hell of a lot of math involved in rigging. I believe most of the stuff talked about in that video was things involved in creating the octopus rig, not as much animating it. Riggers create highly simplified tools for animators to use but the majority of the bone movement, the squash and stretch, etc. is done by the rig automatically based on how the animator chooses to animate the "simplified" version. The rigger basically "programs" the rig to react to the animator's control of the simplified version. In the video you can see when they show the version the animator works with, there are only a few "nodes" on the length of the tentacle that the animator uses, the movement of the bones is all decided by how the animator uses those nodes, along with the physics of the objects the tentacle touches in the scene, the tentacle's weight, its "springiness" and elasticity, momentum, etc. So you can understand why there is so much math involved. The rig is doing 99% of the work, as it needs to, as no animator would be able to replicate movement like that perfectly on a per-bone basis.
I'm very tired so I don't know if I explained that well but hopefully I did.[/QUOTE]
It's certainly more than I knew before, thanks!
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I don't know a lot of advanced math besides very elementary calculus. It's hard to fathom how concepts like weight or elasticity can be defined to the point of entering it into a computer. Am I right in assuming the computer models are based on real-world physics equations?
[QUOTE=Zakkin;53135400]I only just learned that Brad Bird voices Edna Mode. That had me a good laugh.[/QUOTE]
Holy hell, I did not know that. You got me there.
I've got a pretty bad memory, but I do remember that I watched the Incredibles in the cinema and thinking how awesome it was.
And it's amazing how it's still such a damn good film nowadays. I'm super hyped about this.
For those interested: [URL="http://floobynooby.blogspot.nl/2013/12/the-cinematography-of-incredibles-part-1.html"]http://floobynooby.blogspot.nl/2013/12/the-cinematography-of-incredibles-part-1.html[/URL] is a pretty good
analysis of the cinematography of the Incredibles. Imo really interesting to read.
Aw man, these comments are just sad
Imagine being the kind of person whose first instinct upon seeing a trailer for such a wonderfully animated and ambitious family film is to cry about a female character existing
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;53135796]Well I imagine for moving the tentacles you start with the bones closest to the center, then work your way outwards. You gotta think exactly where the farthest away bones will be before you even pose them so you get it right where you want them. If the starting motion is off by an inch, every bones motion after it gets affected. So you really got to get it right first try, or at least make very small motions as to make it easier to change down the line.
In other words, I never want to touch that model.[/QUOTE]
Can't you use an IK rig to animate from the extremities inward though?
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53136742]Can't you use an IK rig to animate from the extremities inward though?[/QUOTE]
You can do whatever you want if you can code it.
Are the hordes anti-feminism comments just a prerequisite for [I]every[/I] movie sequel now? Jfc how fragile must your masculinity be to get offended that Helen might be the primary driver of the action this time around?
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;53136949]Are the hordes anti-feminism comments just a prerequisite for [I]every[/I] movie sequel now?[/QUOTE]apparently yes.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53136742]Can't you use an IK rig to animate from the extremities inward though?[/QUOTE]
Yeah you probably can, but I've never seen the extent as to what you can do with ik rigs, so I wasn't sure.
Recently watched the original again, and holy shit, the graphics have improved A LOT since then.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;53136949]Are the hordes anti-feminism comments just a prerequisite for [I]every[/I] movie sequel now?[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Ghostbusters.
[QUOTE=Xyrec;53137021]Recently watched the original again, and holy shit, the graphics have improved A LOT since then.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://i.imgur.com/iTpZ4sq.jpg[/t]
Not the best quality, but hoyl shit.
Something I look forward to is the music - The Incredibles is one movie among too few that really stand out musically. So many movies I've seen lately have had soundtracks that might as well have not been there, really. The soundtrack for The Incredibles actually transformed the scenes, whereas for a lot of movies the music kinda seems like an afterthought that just needs to technically be there.
Take this for example:
[video=youtube;r-CTHdM1ky4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-CTHdM1ky4[/video]
When I hear that piece of music, I know exactly what's going on in the scene. I can still see Bob looking around the room when the music swells. Sure, it's a movie I've seen loads of times, so maybe I'm predisposed - but it has distinctive pieces of music for every scene, whereas with TLJ, which I watched way more recently, I probably couldn't whistle anything from that, much less connect it to a specific scene.
[QUOTE=Stimich;53137081][t]https://i.imgur.com/iTpZ4sq.jpg[/t]
Not the best quality, but hoyl shit.[/QUOTE]
Is it weird that the only thing that's wrong with this to me are the materials?
The models are fine, and the lighting in the entire movie is always on point. It's always the textures, the surfaces, mostly human skin, that look off.
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;53137099]Is it weird that the only thing that's wrong with this to me are the materials?
The models are fine, and the lighting in the entire movie is always on point. It's always the textures, the surfaces, mostly human skin, that look off.[/QUOTE]
Mmhh, not sure I agree with you there, at least on the lighting part. The shadows might seem to soft too me, really.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRwtlHf5loA&t=[/media]
And another scene with Edna:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Ij7ElJnqM[/media]
Honestly the lighting feels too sterile and white. Too boring.
its mainly due to the fact in 2004 pbr ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physically_based_rendering"]physically based rendering[/URL]) wasnt a thing that could actually be used yet (Edit: i was wrong about this, pbr is more of a general goal rather than a piece of tech. I mainly came into pbr from the gaming side so im probably inaccurate on the movie side of things)
now it is in todays world and literally everything from games to movies look better due to it. (along with actual other obvious enhancements to lighting/hair/water/render software/all that shit)
[t]https://i.imgur.com/6xs7mDe.jpg[/t]
[t]https://i.imgur.com/kSdgeQG.png[/t]
[t]https://i.imgur.com/BRFRAmk.png[/t]
albedo = the color of it
metalness = how metallic is it from black (0) to white (1)
roughness = how shiny is it from black (0) to white (1)
and then a normal/height texture
as a result alot of world textures and stuff will look way better and be lighted better. Human skin can also use PBR.
if you want to see a ton of examples of PBR textures, here's a entire section of them:
[url]https://source.allegorithmic.com/#/substances/home[/url]
and a entire indepth page about PBR from the same people above:
[url]https://www.allegorithmic.com/pbr-guide[/url]
[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;53137099]Is it weird that the only thing that's wrong with this to me are the materials?
The models are fine, and the lighting in the entire movie is always on point. It's always the textures, the surfaces, mostly human skin, that look off.[/QUOTE]
I think it also might have to do with the shift of color palette in the movie.
In the first half, before the adventure kicks off, everything is drab and washed out. When Bob takes the role of a superhero again, everything has a more vibrant color to it (the jungle setting also helps)
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;53137011]Yeah you probably can, but I've never seen the extent as to what you can do with ik rigs, so I wasn't sure.[/QUOTE]
IK rigs are just a shorthand for a combination of controllers, constraints, and computation logic.
Classic IK rigs are a handle controller on the effector (the "hand" of the IK chain for the arm), with orientation constraints that follow the logic for implementing inverse kinematics, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_kinematics#Analytical_solutions_to_inverse_kinematics]which can get mathematically complex pretty fast[/url].
You could technically make an "IK" rig that, given a single controller, you could stretch it and pull it to animate an entire model dancing. It's all just a matter of applying the logic.
So, yes, you can make an IK rig to animate from the extremities of the octopus inward. In this particular case, that IK would be incredibly complex, with all of the nuance of motion being programmed in with constraints and controllers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
