Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Will To Fly Process Presentation

612 views

Published on

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
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Will To Fly Process Presentation

  1. 1. Presented by Fall 2013 Collab Class
  2. 2. Welcome! Introductions  Accomplishments 
  3. 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. 4. STORY DEVELOPMENT
  5. 5. Initial Concept: Pitches  Original ideas ◦ Family of bats – proposed by Linda  Multiple characters for multiple animators ◦ Documentary – proposed by Lucas
  6. 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. 7. Initial Character Designs
  8. 8. Initial Character Modeling
  9. 9. Original Concept: Storyboards
  10. 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. 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. 12. New Storyboards
  13. 13. Editing Storyboards
  14. 14. PREVISUALIZATION
  15. 15. Previsualization Substitute Rigs Billy Barker as Wilbur (son) Bboy as Chuck (father) from CreativeCrash from AnimationBuffet
  16. 16. 3D Animatic
  17. 17. Issues   Broken workflow Communication Do not make assumptions!
  18. 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. 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. 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. 21. New Storyboards
  22. 22. AESTHETICS
  23. 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. 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. 25. CHARACTER DESIGNS
  26. 26. Character References
  27. 27. Character Sketches
  28. 28. Final Design: Wilbur
  29. 29. Final Design: Chuck
  30. 30. Crew Transition  Workflow ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Modeling Tessellating UVing Texturing
  31. 31. CHARACTER MODELING
  32. 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. 33. Character Modeling: Final
  34. 34. ENVIRONMENT DESIGN
  35. 35. Initial Environment Concept  Originally housed in caves ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Mockumentary Bats living in cave colony Apartments Almost all interior
  36. 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. 37. Environment Design Sketches
  38. 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. 39. Environment Model: Early
  40. 40. Environment Model: Final
  41. 41. Environment Model: Final  Exterior Design ◦ Landscape made from displacement map ◦ Filled in landscape with 2 types of trees
  42. 42. PROP DESIGN
  43. 43. Inspiration For Wil’s Inventions
  44. 44. Prop Concepts
  45. 45. Prop Concepts
  46. 46. Prop Concepts
  47. 47. Prop Concepts
  48. 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. 49. Prop Modeling
  50. 50. Prop Modeling
  51. 51. TESSELLATIONS
  52. 52. General Inspiration Artist: Timothy J Reynolds Artist: Timothy J Reynold Yum Yum studio Artist: Timothy J Reynolds Artist: Jeremy Kool
  53. 53. PROP & ENVIRONMENT TESSELLATIONS
  54. 54. Early Tessellation Tests Props
  55. 55. Early Tessellation Tests
  56. 56. Tessellating: The Process Started with smoothed models  Reduced the number of polygons  Triangulated  Push and pull vertices until desired effect was achieved 
  57. 57. Prop & Environment Tessellations
  58. 58. Prop & Environment Tessellations
  59. 59. Issues Lack of edge flow (no face loops)  Triangulating entire model  ◦ Resulted in extra faces ◦ More geometry ◦ Difficult to select
  60. 60. CHARACTER TESSELLATIONS
  61. 61. Character Inspirations Yum Yum studio Artist: Mateusz Szulik Artist: Mateusz Szulik Artist: Jeremy Kool
  62. 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. 63. Modeling Process Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
  64. 64. Tessellation test Cinema 4D Zbrush Decimation Master Zbrush Remesher
  65. 65. Retopology Cinema 4D Zbrush Remesher Final Retopo in 3DS Max
  66. 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. 67. TEXTURES
  68. 68. Color Script
  69. 69. Color References Ink Studio Artist: Dadu Shin Artist: Timothy J Reynolds
  70. 70. Initial Color Script
  71. 71. Color Script
  72. 72. Texture Reference Artist: Paul McMahon
  73. 73. Prop Textures: 1st Pass Props textured in Photoshop (UV issues)  Keeping with aesthetics  Multiple iterations of the same texture 
  74. 74. Prop Texturing: 2nd Pass
  75. 75. Environment Texturing
  76. 76. Character Texturing
  77. 77. RIGGING
  78. 78. Character Rigging  Rigging Demo
  79. 79. Character Rigging  Rigging Demo
  80. 80. Painting Weights
  81. 81. ANIMATION
  82. 82. Animation References Acting choices  Style of animation  Process of animation  Acting challenges 
  83. 83. Character Traits & Motivation
  84. 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. 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. 86. LIGHTING
  87. 87. Lighting Test Environment
  88. 88. Lighting Test  Props Blinn for contrast with tessellated planes
  89. 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. 90. Interior Lighting  Interior Lighting ◦ Color changes
  91. 91. Exterior Lighting  Exterior Lighting ◦ Lighting Rig
  92. 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. 93. Compositing  Depth of Field Process
  94. 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. 95. Lessons learned… Communication  Organization  Following nomenclature  Asking questions  Story is never final 
  96. 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. 97. Thank you for flying with us!

×