(this thread also posted in 3dattack.net|3D ATTACK|CINEMA 4D Q&A forum.
Will monitor this NG as well.)
I've been looking at the choices for high-quality character animation
work, and have read all the rave reviews of C4D (post-release 8) in
general. There seem to be a huge number of C4D plugins, from Maxon as well
as 3rd parties, but as I
climb the learning curve on jargon and concepts it becomes no clearer
which 3D suite I should be seriously considering for my dive into
animation.
After viewing DreamWorks' latest disaster, Madagascar, I see how even the
most costly tools crank out real visual crap when misapplied or
underutilized. Doing a frame-by frame checkout on Pixar's The Incredibles
shows true awareness of
human visual perception (like perfect motion blur) that makes all the
difference. Watching rapid motion in Madagascar was like watching the
Wallace And Grommet preview before the feature: a tiring, annoying,
flickering, stop motion-like
quality -- something I don't see in Pixar movies. We won't even go into
Pixar's superior storylines and scripting.
What I'm trying to get a grip on is how suitable-to-task C4D animation
tools (w/ or w/o 3rd party plugins) are compared to those of Maya, the
current 300-kg gorilla of professional animation. I know Pixar develops
and uses proprietary tools
they aren't about to sell to competitors, but I like their visual style
and want for myself the best tools that can offer a hope of approaching
Pixar's standard.
So I'd like to read some commentary from experienced animators who can
address C4D's character animation tools & techniques made easier by its
basic and plugin-extended features.
How does C4D presently handle the following character animation techniques
(please excuse my ignorance of 3D jargon):
1) Muscular-skeletal/rigging connectivity and subdermal volumetric
bunching/relaxation. Would include joint rotation incor****ating parallel
bones (e.g. ulna & radius) and limits of motion, as well as dynamic dermal
mesh expansion and
contraction with realistic paint/texture mapping.
2) Muscular-contraction based movement definition. Would include dynamics
of inertial buildup and slowdown, script specification of which muscles
contract in sequence to effect motion.
Why am I obsessing over anatomical-derived motion? Because even the big
boys in the animation industry still find unnatural movement time-curves
and Gumby-like flesh dynamics to be acceptable. Exaggeration and parody
are fine, but I suspect
there's a deeper underlying ignorance of natural movement and how to
achieve it.
3) Film exposure-analogous tem****ospatial integration, a $10 way of
expressing the concept of motion blur on a frame-by-frame basis. Not sure
how this is done today, in animation or in rendering. I don't imagine
microstepping during
rendering would be time/cost-effective, but it would be the closest to how
film is exposed. How would C4D fake true motion blur?
4) Flesh inertial effects: the "jiggle factor" done whole-body, not just
wiggling boobs and buttocks for titillating the fanboys.
5) Audio tools for keyframe synchronization of facial macros. I've seen
some examples of this but they seem pretty lame at present.
6) Recording/capture and playback of motion macros/scripts that can be
executed simultaneously to generate complex body motions. I imagine dozens
of scripts running at once to allow speaking, hand gesturing, running, hair
motion etc.
without bringing the system to its knees.
7) Realistic hair & cloth tools, including turbulent/chaotic flow, wavy
vs. straight hair. Lots of hair sims look limp and unrealistic --
something not quite right about stiffness and motion decay after
disturbance. Multiple layers of
clothing, and muscle/dermal "pushback" (term?) for clothing that is tight
in places, loose in others.
Maybe I'm demanding too much; I dunno, because the 3D market seems chaotic
and I don't have a sense for where it's going or what animators can do with
C4D vs other suites. There's quite a bit of rooting by biased diehard fans,
agitprop by
industry ****lls etc. A little impartiality would be nice.
Maybe the current industry practice of employing dozens or even hundreds
of bullpen "artists" (frame grunts) to fake the above works for now. Seems
awfully inefficient, however.
Sorry for the long-windedness. I would really *like* to go with C4D (the
naive American's cheering on of the underdog!), but want to climb the
right learning curve and keep my cash investment reasonable as well. If
only Maya comes close to
all of the above, so be it. I'd like some enlightenment from the pros
first, however.
|
