[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;53137359]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 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 incredibly complex, with all of the nuance of motion being programmed in with constraints and controllers.[/QUOTE]
Honestly I IK rigged a pair of legs years ago and I don't remember a single thing about the process or how it works.
[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]
it's a bit of both on an objective level. The models from 2004 are a LOT lumpier than what they can do now, and on top of that sub-surface scatter rendering and Global Illumination technology weren't very advanced at that point. Those 2 have jumped leaps and bounds in quality in the last few years, to the point where rendering global illumination is no big deal and you can pretty much have physically based rendering of light that feels like real lighting.
Back in 2004 you had to fake a lot of that with carefully placed lights in a scene, since you couldn't just check two boxes in Maya and have it do all the light calculation for you. A good example is Big Hero 6, Disney did a huge amount of work building a rendering solution to simulate GI on a massive scale. This video is 10 minutes long but it's a very thorough explanation of how this is all done
[video]https://youtu.be/frLwRLS_ZR0[/video]
and if anyone wants to learn how pixar does anything, they partnered with khan academy to do a 100% free entire rundown of every single step they do. Color Theroy, Story telling, simulate hair, character modeling, everything.
[url]https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Iu1Z0h1i1Y[/media]
[QUOTE=Wii60;53138068]and if anyone wants to learn how pixar does anything, they partnered with khan academy to do a 100% free entire rundown of every single step they do. Color Theroy, Story telling, simulate hair, character modeling, everything.
[url]https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Iu1Z0h1i1Y[/media][/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing this, I'm gonna have to take some time over the week to watch the whole series.
I've been doing self-taught animating for quite a while, and I'm always looking for more information on how professional studios work, both to learn from and to see where my process has similarities and differences.
And I've also friends who are in the same boat as me there, and would similarly love such a video series.
[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]
There's definitely more things that look dated than just the skin, but I agree that it's the aspect that is more obvious.
I'm pretty sure that before PBR shaders we couldn't do subsurface scattering, which is a material property that tells the surface how thick it is and how much light can go through it. It's something skin and vegetation NEED to have now or the whole thing looks dated and made out of plastic.
an extreme example:
[t]http://www.9bstudios.com/modo60x/Hand_SSS.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Segab;53138508]There's definitely more things that look dated than just the skin, but I agree that it's the aspect that is more obvious.
I'm pretty sure that before PBR shaders we couldn't do subsurface scattering, which is a material property that tells the surface how thick it is and how much light can go through it. It's something skin and vegetation NEED to have now or the whole thing looks dated and made out of plastic.
an extreme example:
[t]http://www.9bstudios.com/modo60x/Hand_SSS.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Incredibles 1 was literally pixar's first movie to do Sub Surface Scattering
[t]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/bardur/landing_1.jpg[/t]
I still don't like that they actually decided to make it about the underminer, I always felt that the ending to The Incredibles was supposed to be "and then they go on to fight more baddies as superheros, like this ridiculous stupid mole person" as kind of a riff on the ridiculous villains comic books often have. He seemed like a one off gag more than anything actually interesting. The villain in the Incredibles was actually relevant to the characters and world they set up, he was actually interesting, putting the mole as the main villain is like putting bomb voyage as the main villan.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53145076]I still don't like that they actually decided to make it about the underminer, I always felt that the ending to The Incredibles was supposed to be "and then they go on to fight more baddies as superheros, like this ridiculous stupid mole person" as kind of a riff on the ridiculous villains comic books often have. He seemed like a one off gag more than anything actually interesting. The villain in the Incredibles was actually relevant to the characters and world they set up, he was actually interesting, putting the mole as the main villain is like putting bomb voyage as the main villan.[/QUOTE]
From the plot synopsis, especially the part where it picks up just right after the first one ended, and all the details they've given out along with the context of this trailer, he'll probably be defeated in the first quarter of the movie, if not just a filler villain in the prologue exactly like Bomb Voyage in the first movie. They probably end up doing some damage in the beginning which for context is why Helen is going solo too, and most likely the real villain won't be revealed until the actual movie is out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
