Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Will To Fly Process Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Will To Fly Process Presentation

286
views

Published on

The making of Will To Fly. …

The making of Will To Fly.
Produced by the Fall 2013 SCAD Animation Collab Class under professor Jason Maurer. This slide show walks you through the process of how 15 people were able to make a short film in 9 weeks.

Published in: Career, Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
286
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Speaker: Rabecca
  • Speaker: ChelseaLead into Ahmed on story
  • Ahmed comes in here!
  • Speaker: Ahmed
  • Speaker: Ahmed
  • Speaker: Ahmed
  • Speaker: Ahmed
  • Ahmed leads into Lan’s bit
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Lan
  • Speaker: Rebecca
  • Speaker: Chelsea
  • Speaker: ChelseaWil noticeably trying to flyChanged Chuck’s characterRemoved his tieMade him a stay-at-home dad instead of a business manMade him a more active parentSoftened his character a bitWil in his own world, Chuck worried but unable to helpAdded small wings to better communicate that they are bats but are unable to fly because of a genetic deformity
  • Speaker: ChelseaLead into Linda’s part
  • Speaker: Lindaunderstudy:chelsea
  • Speaker: LindaUnderstudy:chelsea
  • Speaker: LindaUnderstudy:katie
  • Speaker: LindaUnderstudy:katie
  • Speaker: LindaUnderstudy:katie
  • Understudy:katie
  • LindaUnderstudy:katieTransition into Rebecca
  • Speaker: RebeccaTransition into David
  • Speaker: David
  • Speaker: David
  • Speaker: Riyad
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • David
  • David
  • DavidTransition to Ding
  • Ding
  • Ding
  • Ding
  • Ding
  • Ding
  • Ding
  • DingTransition to Emily
  • Emily
  • Emily
  • Emily
  • Chelsea
  • ChelseaLead into Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Emily
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Riyad Video: LGT_Wilbur_BumpTest.mov
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Katie
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • Carolina
  • CarolinaTransition into Riyad
  • Riyad
  • David
  • David “WilburRigDemo.mov”
  • David “ChuckRigDemo”
  • EricShattering-Video-Megha “RIG_ShatterTrial”
  • Lucas
  • Play “ANIM_BlockingSample”
  • Speaker: Megha
  • Lan presentLan_Play uncomplete_rig_AnimationClip
  • Lan present Play Lan_chuckClimb_willRun
  • Yang
  • Play the video “LGT_motion_test_2”8seconds
  • Play the video “LGT_props_turntable_use” I will cut it to 10 seconds
  • Riyad
  • Riyad
  • Ding “Ext_Lighting.mov”
  • Rebecca
  • Ding
  • AhmedTransition to Chelsea
  • Chelsea
  • Transcript

    • 1. Presented by Fall 2013 Collab Class
    • 2. Welcome! Introductions  Accomplishments 
    • 3. Overview  Story Challenges ◦ From mockumentary to family drama ◦ Starting over with story  Aesthetic Challenges ◦ Tessellations - creating a unified look ◦ Lighting  Character Design Challenges ◦ Integrating the aesthetic into the character model ◦ Rigging and deformation
    • 4. STORY DEVELOPMENT
    • 5. Initial Concept: Pitches  Original ideas ◦ Family of bats – proposed by Linda  Multiple characters for multiple animators ◦ Documentary – proposed by Lucas
    • 6. Initial Concept: Story  Mockumentary about a bat that wants to fly ◦ Wilbur makes crazy flying inventions because he was born without wings ◦ How the family deals with this  Five Characters ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦  Wilbur Chuck Grandmother Twin Siblings Lots of dialogue
    • 7. Initial Character Designs
    • 8. Initial Character Modeling
    • 9. Original Concept: Storyboards
    • 10. Checkpoint 1  After presenting the initial animatic, we realized the story would not work… ◦ Too many characters ◦ Complicated hand held camera movements ◦ Concerns about quality of voice acting  Major revisions had to be made in ◦ Story ◦ Design ◦ Overall concept
    • 11. New Concept: Story  New Story Direction ◦ Simpler genre ◦ Father-Son story  Two Characters ◦ Wilbur – son, eager inventor who yearns to fly ◦ Chuck – father, grounded, concerned about son’s carelessness ◦ Absent mother – deceased  No dialogue
    • 12. New Storyboards
    • 13. Editing Storyboards
    • 14. PREVISUALIZATION
    • 15. Previsualization Substitute Rigs Billy Barker as Wilbur (son) Bboy as Chuck (father) from CreativeCrash from AnimationBuffet
    • 16. 3D Animatic
    • 17. Issues   Broken workflow Communication Do not make assumptions!
    • 18. Team Challenges  What happened at Midterm… ◦ Story team fell through ◦ Sound turned in 30 minutes before showing ◦ Building community  Team building  Daily meetings  Personalized schedule
    • 19. After Midterm Again, major changes needed to be made to the story and characters  What wasn’t working…  ◦ Relationship between the characters isn’t strong enough to support later actions  Father acting as guard instead of parent  Unclear that Wil is trying to fly ◦ Confusion about species of the characters ◦ Who’s story is this? The son’s or the father’s?
    • 20. After Midterm  How we fixed it… ◦ Changed the opening sequence ◦ Changed everything except the final scene ◦ Strengthened father/son relationship ◦ Emphasized disconnect between the two characters ◦ Changed the design
    • 21. New Storyboards
    • 22. AESTHETICS
    • 23. Aesthetics: Early Inspiration Our story was relatively simple, so we wanted to push the aesthetics  The story became something reminiscent of children’s story  ◦ Wanted an aesthetic that would complement
    • 24. Aesthetics: Early Inspiration Paper texture aesthetic  Wanted a high quality, low poly look  Yum Yum Digital Paper Crafts Timothy J Reynolds Jeremy Kool
    • 25. CHARACTER DESIGNS
    • 26. Character References
    • 27. Character Sketches
    • 28. Final Design: Wilbur
    • 29. Final Design: Chuck
    • 30. Crew Transition  Workflow ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Modeling Tessellating UVing Texturing
    • 31. CHARACTER MODELING
    • 32. Evolution of Character Models  Initial five characters (four designs) ◦ Divided modeling between David and Riyad  After story change ◦ Realized this was too many characters
    • 33. Character Modeling: Final
    • 34. ENVIRONMENT DESIGN
    • 35. Initial Environment Concept  Originally housed in caves ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Mockumentary Bats living in cave colony Apartments Almost all interior
    • 36. Final Environment Concept  After story change, moved to tree setting ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ More organic Material readily available for Wil’s inventions Brighter color palette Softer appearance matching aesthetic Wanted to keep the feeling of a cave Characters lived inside a hollowed tree
    • 37. Environment Design Sketches
    • 38. Environment Design Model  Initial sculpt in Zbrush ◦ Organic feel ◦ David worked along side Katie  Making sure model met the needs of the story
    • 39. Environment Model: Early
    • 40. Environment Model: Final
    • 41. Environment Model: Final  Exterior Design ◦ Landscape made from displacement map ◦ Filled in landscape with 2 types of trees
    • 42. PROP DESIGN
    • 43. Inspiration For Wil’s Inventions
    • 44. Prop Concepts
    • 45. Prop Concepts
    • 46. Prop Concepts
    • 47. Prop Concepts
    • 48. Dividing the Work  Models split among modelers ◦ Making low-poly un-tessellated props ◦ Based on designs  Made more props than we used ◦ Due to continual story changes  Scale chart ◦ Didn’t adopt until after almost everything was modeled ◦ Should have come before modeling
    • 49. Prop Modeling
    • 50. Prop Modeling
    • 51. TESSELLATIONS
    • 52. General Inspiration Artist: Timothy J Reynolds Artist: Timothy J Reynold Yum Yum studio Artist: Timothy J Reynolds Artist: Jeremy Kool
    • 53. PROP & ENVIRONMENT TESSELLATIONS
    • 54. Early Tessellation Tests Props
    • 55. Early Tessellation Tests
    • 56. Tessellating: The Process Started with smoothed models  Reduced the number of polygons  Triangulated  Push and pull vertices until desired effect was achieved 
    • 57. Prop & Environment Tessellations
    • 58. Prop & Environment Tessellations
    • 59. Issues Lack of edge flow (no face loops)  Triangulating entire model  ◦ Resulted in extra faces ◦ More geometry ◦ Difficult to select
    • 60. CHARACTER TESSELLATIONS
    • 61. Character Inspirations Yum Yum studio Artist: Mateusz Szulik Artist: Mateusz Szulik Artist: Jeremy Kool
    • 62. Characters VS Props Didn’t use Carolina’s technique for the characters’ tessellations  Characters had different needs  ◦ Necessary to have symmetry ◦ Maintain specific edge flow ◦ Deformations in the face
    • 63. Modeling Process Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
    • 64. Tessellation test Cinema 4D Zbrush Decimation Master Zbrush Remesher
    • 65. Retopology Cinema 4D Zbrush Remesher Final Retopo in 3DS Max
    • 66. Final Solution for Tessellations  Used smoothed characters ◦ Aided in deformations  Applied a bump map ◦ Gives the impression of a tessellated model ◦ Considered displacement map but…  Animators wouldn’t know the final appearance until after the scene was rendered  Wouldn’t be able to see penetration issues
    • 67. TEXTURES
    • 68. Color Script
    • 69. Color References Ink Studio Artist: Dadu Shin Artist: Timothy J Reynolds
    • 70. Initial Color Script
    • 71. Color Script
    • 72. Texture Reference Artist: Paul McMahon
    • 73. Prop Textures: 1st Pass Props textured in Photoshop (UV issues)  Keeping with aesthetics  Multiple iterations of the same texture 
    • 74. Prop Texturing: 2nd Pass
    • 75. Environment Texturing
    • 76. Character Texturing
    • 77. RIGGING
    • 78. Character Rigging  Rigging Demo
    • 79. Character Rigging  Rigging Demo
    • 80. Painting Weights
    • 81. ANIMATION
    • 82. Animation References Acting choices  Style of animation  Process of animation  Acting challenges 
    • 83. Character Traits & Motivation
    • 84. Challenges  Animating without completed rigs ◦ Not used to working with unfinished rigs ◦ Didn't get the completed face rigs until very late in the animation process.
    • 85.  Challenges with character design ◦ Chuck and Wilbur's short legs; Chuck's long torso and Wilbur's big head ◦ Character design affects the animation style
    • 86. LIGHTING
    • 87. Lighting Test Environment
    • 88. Lighting Test  Props Blinn for contrast with tessellated planes
    • 89. Lighting & Shaders  Shaders and Surface Textures ◦ Blinn vs. MIA shaders Mia_material_x Render time: 1:12min Blend color original texture Blinn shader Render time: 1:26min
    • 90. Interior Lighting  Interior Lighting ◦ Color changes
    • 91. Exterior Lighting  Exterior Lighting ◦ Lighting Rig
    • 92. Postproduction End of the Quarter looming ahead  File problems  ◦ Rendering ◦ Old assets that wouldn’t go away ◦ But camera and object positions that will Continually running out of memory in collab space  Whole crew working together to fix render problems seen using FCheck 
    • 93. Compositing  Depth of Field Process
    • 94. Sound Design  Contracted two sound designers ◦ Recorded our sound effects ◦ Recorded voice foley with voice actor  Music ◦ Could not manage to find a composer ◦ Had to resort to scratch music ◦ Music became very important for the communication of emotion in the film
    • 95. Lessons learned… Communication  Organization  Following nomenclature  Asking questions  Story is never final 
    • 96. To view the film… Please email your request to chelseabill214@gmail.com  Then go to http://vimeo.com/79741438 and enter the password to view the film! 
    • 97. Thank you for flying with us!