[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: BBC Planet Dinosaur
The body feathers of the Dinosaur Planet Ep. 2 critters looked more
like fur than body feathers of modern birds to me. To what extent is
that accurate and to what animatorial convenience?
Tangentially, something that struck me as odd was that the poison
grooves and sacs on Sinornithosaurus was introduced in the
conditional, but they didn't follow up with any counter-arguments or
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Christian Darkin
> At the risk of turning this into a Cgi list, you're right that fur and
> feathers take a lot of time and effort and can be a bit crap if the budget
> (and time) aren't there. Certainly I'd always model downy feathers as fur,
> and flight feathers as geometry.
> Christian darkin
> Twitter: @Christiandarkin
> Sent from my iPod
> On 24 Sep 2011, at 00:34, David Krentz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> It looks like the body feathering was sculpted on, rather than the usual
>> 'hair simulations' that can be costly. I could be wrong, as I've only seen
>> a Youtube video. Its not that the technology for making body covering isn't
>> there, its just that during the rendering process things slow down
>> (time=money) , and you can get interesting surprises such as fur flicker,
>> collision, hair standing on end...etc. That means you need to send the shot
>> back a few times for rendering until you get it right. Given the budgets of
>> TV shows that is something that really needs to be considered. It depends
>> on what kind of deal you strike with the fx company, there are very few
>> chances they allow (1-3 usually) for it to come out right. If you want to
>> give it just one more try they charge you for it. The same kind of rule
>> goes for animation...so you REALLY need to spend the extra $ and get a good
>> company because it may save you in the long run. If someone knows of an FX
>> company that values science over losing money please let me know.
>> Attaching the primaries to the second digit is technically a challenge.
>> All too often the third finger will collide into the feather geometry above
>> it if any movement other than curling is to happen. The geometry that
>> represents the individual feathers is usually ridged and unless its a
>> special case, will not move as fluidly as a real feather does...unless you
>> have all the time and money in the world.
>> We had a second digit attachment in Dino Rev and ywe really had to watch for
>> things like that. It became a little limiting on the poses you could
>> strike. I can see the temptation for an animator to rotate the wrist just
>> so that he can get into his needed pose.
>> In general I liked the second Planet Dinosaur. Far less headache-inducing
>> camera moves and focus pulls/zooms than the first ep and the animation was
>> better too. It was good science programing.
>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Jason Brougham wrote:
>>> One big anatomical oversight is that the primary feathers on Microraptor
>>> and Sinornithosaurus attach to the third, rather than second, finger. And
>>> the wings don't fold so great. The Epidendrosaurus without feathers is a
>>> But overall I think there is a lot to like with these reconstructions. At
>>> least they are lively little fellows.
>>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Habib, Michael wrote:
>>>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM, K Kripchak wrote:
>>>>> ...seeing Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus reconstructed as gliding
>>>>> animals was,
>>>>> for lack of a better word, silly... They looked silly. A waste of bio
>>>>> material. Not one arm flap... not one... Just a lot of scampering up
>>>>> trees and jumping into the air like lemurs or flying squirls with
>>>>> outstretched arms to glide from tree to tree. It didn't look right at
>>>>> Like I said, pointless observation in terms of science... but I tell
>>>>> ya... it just didn't look right.
>>>> Having managed to get some stills from the series, I am at least happy to
>>>> see that the Microraptor model doesn't use an extreme sprawl in the hind
>>>> limbs. However, they hindfoils do seem undersized and the limb position
>>>> is still a bit odd, so I think the animators may have struggled with the
>>>> hindfoil situation a bit. Still, a lot better than just about any other
>>>> reconstruction currently available in that regard.
>>>> --Mike H.
>>>> Michael Habib
>>>> Assistant Professor of Biology
>>>> Chatham University
>>>> Woodland Road, Pittsburgh PA 15232
>>>> Buhl Hall, Room 226A
>>>> (443) 280-0181
>>> Jason Brougham
>>> Senior Principal Preparator
>>> American Museum of Natural History
>>> (212) 496 3544
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?