PDA

View Full Version : just something interesting about Layout



SamuraiSlayer
01-21-2004, 04:32 PM
the timeline in layout will go up to 32767 frames, and also a negative 32767 frames, so total you can have 65534 frames on a single scene without having to use a video editing program.

can you imagine watching one camera view for 33 minutes?

this is obviously something that doesnt need changed in LW8, 65534 frames is plenty

:D

stib
01-21-2004, 05:43 PM
can you imagine watching one camera view for 33 minutes?

perhaps they should make that the next 3d challenge at CGTalk (http://www.cgtalk.com/)..

Nemoid
01-22-2004, 06:30 AM
LOL !

Remember however to split huge scenes in small pieces, or rendering times of the final animation will be smth very close to eternity :D

Alan Daniels
01-22-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by SamuraiSlayer
the timeline in layout will go up to 32767 frames, and also a negative 32767 frames, so total you can have 65534 frames on a single scene without having to use a video editing program.

Well, let's see. A frame from a typical scene takes me about 5 minutes to render, give or take. So, if I were rendering a scene that long, I'd need 5 minutes per frame * 65534 frames, or about 327,670 minutes, which is a little over 7 months worth of rendering time.

Yeah, I'd say 65534 frames in Layout is enough. :) Either that or I need to buy a faster computer.

NanoGator
01-22-2004, 11:36 AM
Don't ever assume that it's 'enough'.

It's funny really, just yesterday I had a conversation with my boss about a new project. We're going to build a 3d model of a facility and use it to figure out exactly where its security cameras should go. One of the things we wanted to consider was varying light conditions over the course of a year. What I wanted to do was set up a really long scene where a frame equals a minute (or something like that) and actually build a functionally working model of the sun and the earth and take into account the lat/long of the facility. I wanted to set up the earth to rotate, revolve, be luminated by the moon, etc. I don't know if this limitation steps on my toes, but potentually it could.


Heh fortunately I think I have an alternative, though. (Sliders instead?)

SamuraiSlayer
01-22-2004, 01:13 PM
oh its definately enough

if it wasnt for one camera view, you can always combine renders in a video editor

stib
01-22-2004, 04:08 PM
while we're on the subject: does anyone use the negative numbered frames? If so why?

hoping to learn something here..;)

Anttij77
01-22-2004, 04:27 PM
I mostly use negative frames for particles. That way, I can have control of what is happening in frame 1, where the rendering starts... eg. the particles have already been emitted, so the simulation won't start at frame 1...

hrgiger
01-22-2004, 04:37 PM
The best use I found for negative frames is simulations like Anttij77 just said, esp. Motion Designer.

Generally, if you're doing cloth, you have to let the cloth fall and rest against the body. It's nice to be able to do that in negative frames so that when your animation starts on frame 1 or zero, it's ready to go.

Jockomo
01-22-2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by stib
while we're on the subject: does anyone use the negative numbered frames? If so why?

hoping to learn something here..;)

I just love it when my client comes to me after the animation is finished being built, and says, " can we add a little section to it in the front that does...."

Usually rather than deal with pushing all of my motions and envelopes around, I just go into the negative frames.

SamuraiSlayer
01-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Jockomo
Usually rather than deal with pushing all of my motions and envelopes around, I just go into the negative frames.

or tell the client "pay me and leave"

and then bang your head against the desk at the ignorance of all people inexperienced with 3d animation, that's why i usually have a headache :(