Well, it sounds like you're gearing up to do some cool new light cycle animations!

I'm looking forward to them.

When you get it down to a science, you'll have to try two cycles dueling. That would be REALLY cool! And a LOT of work. Something to shoot for though

I don't know if you have TRON 2.0 or not, but if you want to cheat (in a sense) and watch two light cycles duel - multi-player, online light cycles is where to get some great action choreographing ideas. If you have a TV output from your computer, you can literally record the game, and then use the cycle location coordinates (which you'll have to eyeball and program in) to make the cycles in your animation duel it out.

The thing that most TRON fans are probably not aware of, is that light cycle duels do not look much like they did in the film, when two people are playing for real. They are much more intense with many, many quick turns and fast thinking along the way. Of course, as in the film when Flynn had to do so, there are mazes that form that one finds themselves trying to navigate through. I've been caught in my share of mazes and it's not easy. I'm no Flynn!

Anyway - just thought I'd pass that along as a great light cycle chorography helper

wwwmwww Wrote:...What I expect to be the hard part is the camera positioning. I could have the coordinates of a GREAT light cycle duel and if my camera doesn't move and capture all the action it will look rather dry...

Yes it would. I don't know if this is possible, but if so I would try this. Animate a duel and don't worry about camera placement until the duel coordinates are all plotted for the animation.

After the duel is pretty well down, start playing with camera placement depending on each moment's most dramatic viewpoint.

If you just use a kind of following technique (as seen in Armagetron), the animation may be lacking in the excitement department. But if you figure out camera points that would work for the duel and switch angle every few seconds - then you should end up with something with a far more dramatic presence and is more exciting to watch

That is of course, assuming you can plot the paths up front, independent of camera moves.

Any way you go about it, it will be a good learning experience and give you insight as how to attack future animations
order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

TheReelTodd Wrote:That is of course, assuming you can plot the paths up front, independent of camera moves.

Yes, very easily and also exactly what I was planning on doing.

Carl
order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

Hey Tod if you mean animation through the program POV that it was made with. It would be interesting to make a functrion added into that program to be able to do that. With the programming that has already been provided by Carl for the lightcycles themselves. .

If memory also serves me correctly as well. On their web site they do provide the source code of the application of POV there. I might take a look into it and see if I can add it into it And see what I can do. Still a junior newbie of programming in C++. But it would be interesting to have that available for the program.

I might take a crack at it if I have a chance to do so without drowning myself in the source code either.

TheReelTodd Wrote: wwwmwww Wrote:...What I expect to be the hard part is the camera positioning. I could have the coordinates of a GREAT light cycle duel and if my camera doesn't move and capture all the action it will look rather dry... Yes it would. I don't know if this is possible, but if so I would try this. Animate a duel and don't worry about camera placement until the duel coordinates are all plotted for the animation. After the duel is pretty well down, start playing with camera placement depending on each moment's most dramatic viewpoint. If you just use a kind of following technique (as seen in Armagetron), the animation may be lacking in the excitement department. But if you figure out camera points that would work for the duel and switch angle every few seconds - then you should end up with something with a far more dramatic presence and is more exciting to watch That is of course, assuming you can plot the paths up front, independent of camera moves. Any way you go about it, it will be a good learning experience and give you insight as how to attack future animations

wwwmwww Wrote:...P.S. Can someone tell me how many frames per second most movies have? Is this the same number for TV? How about computer animations as this one? This one uses 10 but something tells me the norm is 16 (or maybe 32) frames per second.

Film is shot at and played back at 24 frames per second.

TV (NTSC, video) is 60 fields per second, but really only 30 frames per second - for interlaced video (the current standard). For all intents and purposes though, consider TV 30 fps.

Video cameras shoot video at 30 fps, but it's interlaced so it's really 60 half-frames per second (almost like 60 frames per second). The image differs 60 times a second.

Many professional, high-end video cameras can shoot progressive scan. That shoots a true 30 frames per second, and not the 60 half-frames per second. With a professional grade video camera that offers progressive scan, you will end up with 30 crisp frames per second and none of that interlaced crap.

What is interlaced crap? In a nutshell - A PAIN IN THE FREAKING ASS! That is what I have to deal with when I produce my videos. Actually, I do my best to take the interlaced video and convert it to simulated progressive scan frames so I have 30 full frames per second and not 60 fields (60 half-frames interlaced) per second. Visual FX are damn near impossible to add to interlaced video. That's why I need full-frame video.

Anyway, I think I've answered your question and then some. I hope this was a help.

If you're looking to produce video of ONLY CGI - I'd go with 24 fps. It will play back at the same speed as film, and also require less frames to be generated than the video standard of 30 fps.

If you plan on integrating live action with your animation, you may want to consider going with 30 fps. Live action will most likely be shot via video, which will be 30 fps. It is possible to take 30 fps and reduce it down to 24 fps by removing every 6th frame, but the motion ends up looking slightly glitchy. It's workable though and is only noticeable only to those who are looking to notice it.

Oh, I almost forgot. In most video apps - 30 fps is really 29.97 fps. What this means is that it's really 30 fps, but to sync the time code to TV broadcast time code, it considers 29.97 frames to be one second instead of the even 30.

Again - 29.97 really IS 30 fps, but it's called 29.97 so that it syncs properly with TV broadcast timing. It's really more technical than that and if you're curious there are several web sites that explain it far better than I could.

I hope that was helpful.

Now, a few notes about your test animation.

First off - it's cool, as always!

But to get in to the nitty gritty of it, it looks like you've got the jet wall too thick. Ok, I just watched the light cycle scene of the film again and their jet walls do have some thickness to them, but yours seem a tad too thick. It's hard to gauge the proper thickness. Maybe it's just the angle and distance of the camera? Hmm.

Also, the turn is odd - the way the jet wall separates from the rear tire, appearing to be hinged at the back fender (for lack of a better way of putting it). Now this is just my onion and I don't think it's ever been specified, but I believe that the jet wall is supposed to be literally coming from the rear tire itself, projecting up and outward on the top-side at the angle of the rear fender, originating before the end of the fender itself.

In the film, the cycles are moving much further per frame, and they always turn so that the jet wall is already angled at the end of the tire (no separation). I think I know what you're trying to do, which is program the jet walls to be an automatic thing so you can concentrate on the task of animation path. Even using the method you did, it would probably not be noticeable when moving at a faster speed.

Just some constructive criticism.

I'm lo

Carl,

It looks good. I personally don't think the wall is too thick. I think what's missing is the gradients of color in the wall. They tend to make it look thinner. I am sure the program you are using probably has some limitations in that area, but if you look at the walls in the movie I think you aren't far off in thickness.abortion pills online abortion pill online purchase cytotec abortion

wwwmwww Wrote:...In that software it asks you "How long do you want each frame to be displayed (in 1/100th of a second)? For 24 fps I would need to enter 4.16667 but I can only pick 4 or 5. Why is that if 24 fps is the norm?

The short answer is because this software is not designed to be utilized in generating video output. It can do it, but offers few options. I'm sure you can opt for exporting separate frames. In doing this, you'd plan to export your frames (animated in a 24 fps time frame) and then animate them by importing them in to a video editing package.

wwwmwww Wrote:...The best example is the scene where TRON and RAM are driving parallel to each other and then turn toward each other to form the wall the other program chashes into. Look at the frame before that turn and the frame after that turn. You'll see they were infact able to make TWO turns between the frames of film...

I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Believe it or not, I've studied much of the light cycle sequence frame by frame. I do that with a lot of animations to learn.

I cropped this down from its original frame size, but it illustrates what you're talking about (frames slowed down):



In terms of your animations, figure out your optimal frame rate and how you're going to render your animations - either through this software or via another application via single frames. If you're just going to use this software, then going with a value of 4 should closely approximate a frame rate of film. Actually 25 fps is the PAL frame rate (or 50 interlaced fields per second). Many professional video producers who want a more film-like look on a budget use PAL cameras because they offer a greater vertical resolution and 25 fps is closer to the frame rate of film than the NTSC 30 fps.

wwwmwww Wrote:Thanks Todd. That's exactly the part I was talking about...

He he he - I knew you were talking about that part Again, I've studied almost the entire light cycle scene frame by frame. In fact, I actually HAVE every single frame of that scene as TIF files on my PC. I had to capture that scene from my DVD to put together a promo demo for a TRON based music video... which never materialized. The song was "Digital Risk", by a local artist. FOR THE RECORD - I was plotting a TRON themed music video long before "The Strokes" beat me to the punch. Things didn't come together for me unfortunately, and a soon their video debuted. I wanted to be the first to produce a TRON-based music video. Oh well, that's what happens when one sits on a project too long and fails to pull it together. And now another band has also produced a TRON music video - forget their name off hand, but DaveTRON posted their video not long ago. It was well done.

I checked out your new animation. DaveTRON was right about the wall looking better with the gradient applied. It still looks a tad too thick, but is much better looking with the proper gradient blending. Your gradient is very close to the film's too - well done!

There are things I know you're still experimenting with and working through and we can get more in to that later as I'm sure you're already planning your revisions for the next animation.

I like the idea of a new thread called "Light Cycle Rules of Engagement". I'm looking forward to really letting out my inner nerd (as if it wasn't out already ) and getting deep in to discussion about the mechanics of light cycles! The light cycles always were my favorite TRON-thing!

Wow! I'm very impressed, I've had a go at modelling the lightcycle on my Amiga many many years ago and didn't get anywhere close to that, I didn't have the exact dimensions but took them from an old graph paper drawing I made back in the 80s from a Tron book, which I first used the dimensions to render a wireframe version on a BBC Micro when I was still at school.

Anyway some of you may have seen the Amiga version I rendered:

http://www.haku.co.uk/pics/AmigaLightCycle.jpghttp://www.haku.co.uk/pics/AmigaLightCycle2.jpghttp://www.haku.co.uk/pics/AmigaLightCycle3d.jpg

Man these POVRay cycles are absolutely fantastic. I wish I could bring them into Maya or Max, but I haven't found a way to get them there.

Does anyone know of a way to translate POV files to other 3D file formats?

Thanks!