PDA

View Full Version : lightwave used for charcter animation in BSG



cresshead
12-21-2006, 07:09 PM
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=4086908#post4086908

it's a thread about moving lightwave scenes back and forth between lightwave and xsi but in a new post we get someone from the fx house who make battlestar galactica tv show [the new one!:thumbsup: ] that they now apparently animate the cylon centuion characters in lightwave and do not move them to maya anymore...

here's the cut and paste of that message.

Why not just do it all in Lightwave 3D 9? Or are you one of those people who still believes in the marketing myths that LW is poor for character animation??
All of our Centurions are done in house now with lightwave exclusively! By one guy!!! (But then again we have Tim Albee on board, so there you go, but it's all in his books.) Before it was a mishmash of herding kats between maya and lightwave and the producers never liked any of the shots previously done in maya.
I don't know what your time line is, but I would seriously take a look at it completely in LW.

pooby
12-22-2006, 03:32 AM
Or are you one of those people who still believes in the marketing myths that LW is poor for character animation??


Marketing myth?
I find it difficult to believe that there are still people who think LW in it's current state is a contender in the Character animation world. It's really not.

Fortunately Newtek are more aware of this, it seems, than many users.

LW hasn't been judged unfairly on the C/A front, but, put it this way..
Jurassic park was done in what? 1993...
If a film came out made with LW now to exactly the same standards of Jurassic park then would it be proof that LW is as capable as the rest?
I would imagine that most would agree that, effects wise, Jurassic Park beats TV battlestar galactica.
Do you really think that the software that was used to make Jurassic park THIRTEEN YEARS ago hasn't advanced that much?

I think those who shout about it being ok, are the ones who haven't experienced the competition.

Bog
12-22-2006, 04:12 AM
I would imagine that most would agree that, effects wise, Jurassic Park beats TV battlestar galactica.

Apples and Oranges. Galactica's effects are the best space effects that have been done, ever, before.

Softbody stuff like J.P. is a different kettle of fish entirely. Also, moving mechanical entities like Cylon Centurions is just fine in LightWave - there's nowt wrong with that. If you want a clothed girl with long hair dancing and her iPod headphone cable swinging around, well yeah - those dynamics are easier to rig in Maya.

Try modelling a decent spaceship in it, though ;) Come to that, a lot of the dinosaurs in things like the BBC's critically acclaimed "Walking With Dinosaurs" were modelled in LightWave.

So, y'know - there is a lot of hype. A lot of the time, Maya gets used because it's all the guy who's commissioning the project has heard of.

DiedonD
12-22-2006, 05:09 AM
A lot of the time, Maya gets used because it's all the guy who's commissioning the project has heard of.

Aaaaan it has a bad name. Maya was an ugly girl with glasses back when I was younger. And Maya also is this old, vanished civilisation. Now put the two pictures together and you'll have an old ugly girl with glasses from that civilisation who has vanished long ago, and we hear about it in history books.

Anyone wants to buy this software now? :D

Bog
12-22-2006, 05:10 AM
*ponder*

This ugly girl with glasses. What colour's her hair?




;)

Kuzey
12-22-2006, 05:24 AM
Try modelling a decent spaceship in it, though ;) Come to that, a lot of the dinosaurs in things like the BBC's critically acclaimed "Walking With Dinosaurs" were modelled in LightWave.


That was a great series :D

What I would love to see is truth in advertising, was maya really used for that and this. It's not enough that if an artist or studio has a copy of maya to say the project was totally made in maya(in return for cash no doubt)...I want proof, screen grabs, videos of maya in use in the project. That brings up other questions like...if the person can use maya, why on earth didn't they use it instead of using some other program. There really must be something wrong with maya in that case...me thinks :hey:

Isn't false advertising a crime...otherwise, I have these imaginary pills I can sell to you that will make your dreams come true :hey:

:D

Kuzey

cresshead
12-22-2006, 05:32 AM
regards character tools in lw, yeah they're not top banana but there's enough capability in there for animating robots for bsg with a push...

currently if i were a lw only artist i'd probably add xsi findamentals 6.0 as a 'plugin' to rig and animate characters...thoguh myself i have max 9.0 to lean on.

the really interesting thing to note is the amount of moaning and groaning here on the newtek forums about the renderer yet i keep reading interviews with studios that animate in maya or xsi but RENDER their scenes back over in lightwave...for a 'antiquated' renderer it sure does get used alot on tv shows more so that maya software, xsi mental ray, maya mental by the looks of it....and who know what newtek are doing to expand the capabilities of the renderer with the next point release...note we have 2 ex electric image chaps on board the newtek dev team now...

:santa:

DiedonD
12-22-2006, 05:41 AM
*ponder*

This ugly girl with glasses. What colour's her hair?




;)


By shear and atmost coincedence, I believe it was red of all the colors imaginable and unimaginable. :D

Bog
12-22-2006, 05:54 AM
What I would love to see is truth in advertising, was maya really used for that and this. It's not enough that if an artist or studio has a copy of maya to say the project was totally made in maya(in return for cash no doubt)...I want proof, screen grabs, videos of maya in use in the project. That brings up other questions like...if the person can use maya, why on earth didn't they use it instead of using some other program. There really must be something wrong with maya in that case...me thinks :hey:

Argh.

RANT ON

I went with some chums to see a thing from Weta Digital in London. They showed "The Autodesk Demo Reel", and when lots of footage from Serenity came up, I completely Red Misted. I can't say if there was Galactica footage in there, due to aforementioned mist - Dogboy or Dalang may be able to confirm/deny.

Did they say "Modelled, textured, lit and animated in LightWave, just happenned to be rendered in Maya so we could pack more objects into one pass?"

Nope.

Course they didn't.

They just showed a big, glorious space battle as part of the Autodesk Showreel.

Total, utter Red Mist moment, accompanied with clanging in ears and leaving my fingerprints in the metal arm-rests.

RANT OFF

cresshead
12-22-2006, 06:06 AM
of course autodesk do loads of software...could have been colour graded in lustre or comp'd in flame/inferno/combustion...that way it would be 'autodesk clip''...apple could even claim it it it were a quacktime clip!:agree:

tis irritating but just the way of things...if there's ANYWAY a company can add their 'tag' to a cool clip they will!

Kuzey
12-22-2006, 07:26 AM
Argh.

RANT ON

I went with some chums to see a thing from Weta Digital in London. They showed "The Autodesk Demo Reel", and when lots of footage from Serenity came up, I completely Red Misted. I can't say if there was Galactica footage in there, due to aforementioned mist - Dogboy or Dalang may be able to confirm/deny.

RANT OFF

Bog, you should have yelled out "Lightwave Rocks" during that section :hey:

I guess there wasn't any Q&A after the demo reel...where you could have asked exactly what part of that was maya and not Lightwave.

Someone should fix that demo reel and upload it to youtube...that would be fun :thumbsup: :D

Kuzey

Yog
12-22-2006, 07:35 AM
I refuse to (again) take part in this oft trotted out argument :p

Happy Christmas one and all :santa:





p.s. - Men in Black.

Cageman
12-22-2006, 07:59 AM
of course autodesk do loads of software...could have been colour graded in lustre or comp'd in flame/inferno/combustion...that way it would be 'autodesk clip''...apple could even claim it it it were a quacktime clip!:agree:

tis irritating but just the way of things...if there's ANYWAY a company can add their 'tag' to a cool clip they will!

To my knowledge... Zoic used alot of Combustion for the comps. End of story...

But, yeah... why not have a subtitle stating what software from Autodesk was used in each shot in their own reel?

jin choung
12-23-2006, 11:45 PM
meh,

imo, it's not just soft body animation that is wanting in lw and it's NOT just "marketing myths"!!! WTF?!?! dang, that guy asking that question must totally live in his own world... or not have touched another animation app.

just as when you compare polygonal modeling in lw and maya, lw wins hands down - despite how truly CAPABLE the maya modeling feature set is....

when you compare even simple things like setting up bones and IK and just setting limbs (even hard body ones) to move... maya beats lw hands down. even if you would argue that lw's character animation tools are capable. (which i wouldn't).

but definitely, newtek is not in denial anymore which is good. so i have confidence that it will be addressed and definitely understand that not everything can be tackled at once.

they're doing the rendering, surfacing and catmull clark thing now so i'll definitely cut them slack in terms of time to get to CA.

jin

p.s. regarding claiming credit, no big deal. everybody does this including newtek. they claim projects for lw where lw's usage was minor to incidental at best. if you can claim and inch, you can claim a mile.

Cageman
12-24-2006, 01:40 AM
meh,

imo, it's not just soft body animation that is wanting in lw and it's NOT just "marketing myths"!!! WTF?!?! dang, that guy asking that question must totally live in his own world... or not have touched another animation app.


If you read the Case Study of Flash Film Works, they have a similar experience with LightWave as that BSG-guy. Animating the stuff is the same whatever app you use. Rigging, on the other hand, is where Maya shines and LW doesn't cut it, imo.



just as when you compare polygonal modeling in lw and maya, lw wins hands down - despite how truly CAPABLE the maya modeling feature set is....


I'm not sure about this at all. Modeling seems to be alot more dependent on wether or not you are comfortable with the tools. In our team, everyone, except me and our lead, use either Maya or Modo for modeling. One of them is probably the fastest modeller I've yet to meet, and he use ONLY Maya. He looks at Modo and says "Cool stuff, but... I work so much faster in Maya and I have all the tools I need, why switch?" We are still using LW8.x for the minor LW-work we still do, and they can't believe that people actually use LW for high-end production because of the "inferior" toolset... both modeling and rendering/animation wise.

There is alot of LW-bashing going on in my team, and some things are valid, other things are because of lack of knowledge and will to learn and use it.



when you compare even simple things like setting up bones and IK and just setting limbs (even hard body ones) to move... maya beats lw hands down. even if you would argue that lw's character animation tools are capable. (which i wouldn't).


Hmm... I've found a script that set up the IK with a mouseclick instead of the process of adding an additional bone and a null. :)

But yeah, imo LightWave needs a rewrite of everything related to animation. Graph Editor needs to get alot faster handling many keyframes. Offsetting mocap-data (plotted from Motionbuilder on each frame) on 40 joints can take 5 minuts or more... not acceptable at all.



but definitely, newtek is not in denial anymore which is good. so i have confidence that it will be addressed and definitely understand that not everything can be tackled at once.

they're doing the rendering, surfacing and catmull clark thing now so i'll definitely cut them slack in terms of time to get to CA.


I'm pretty happy with the progress of LW so far... I really hope that when they start adressing Animation, they get hold of people who knows LightWave as well as other apps such as XSI and Maya.

Pooby and T4D seem to have alot of experience, their input would be valuable to NT, no doubt!



p.s. regarding claiming credit, no big deal. everybody does this including newtek. they claim projects for lw where lw's usage was minor to incidental at best. if you can claim and inch, you can claim a mile.


Yeah.. I know.. :) I just went to the project list over at NT-Europe and saw Superman Returns in the list. I checked out EdenFX homepage and they did 80 shots for that movie. I wonder if they used LightWave, or if NT assume they used LightWave because they are a Maya/LW house? :)

pooby
12-24-2006, 03:52 PM
Newtek really have their work cut out..
Some people ask for more character animation 'tools'.
Firstly, 95% of what needs to be done isn't directly related to 'characters' at all. It's just the handling of motions and channels.
Layout's core is currently not designed to cope with constraints or motion modification. there is so much in LW that is handled outside the core by plugins that can't share their info to other plugins that, unless this whole system is totally replaced, then adding to it won't help.


Imagine an american city that is a grid.. It's consistant and easy for a newcomer to drive from A to B by a variety of different routes.

Well, LW is more like a european city slowly built up from roman times.. the roads look like tangled spaghetti and there's loads of one way streets. It wasn't originally designed for cars, so unless you are very familiar with the place. It's awfully confusing.

This analogy falls down because it implies that there is always a method of getting from a to b in both scenarios. In LW there are plenty of things that are simply impossible.
My point is.. Layout suffers from no animation design on a fundimental level.
It needs a complete overhaul.
If it ends up really good, Its going to be a radically different layout indeed.

cresshead
12-24-2006, 04:34 PM
and if newtek can't create what your hoping for then we're going have to continue to use messiah or xsi as a 'character plugin' to downside of this is eventually people will see lightwave as the 'plugin' to xsi or messiah or they may just jump totally to xsi, maya or max and stay there...

interesting times ahead for lightwave 9x or lw10 i believe...now did i put ''crystal ball' on my santa list?

jin choung
12-24-2006, 07:19 PM
actually, lw is already considered a MODELING PLUGIN in a lot of places. it's usefulness lies in modeler and that's it. but this must be taken into account so it is good that newtek is jumping on-board the notion of "interoperability" and playing nice with other apps so that it can maintain even this kind of presence in the industry instead of taking a hardline our way or the highway kind of thing and possibly getting themselves shut out of the workplace (*cough* "no polys" animation master *cough*).

but this is becoming a moot point as dedicated apps like silo, modo, zbrush and mudbox start encroaching on lw's core competency - and surpassing it.

my mantra about lw modeler is make it as standardized as possible so it can play well with other apps (catmull clark goes a long way towards this) and if we're ONLY GONNA DO POLYS, we gotta do polys better than anybody else hands down. we got a huge challenge now with zbrush, mudbox and modo (even silo) workflows becoming the next gen de facto standard.

cageman, i don't have a problem with what the BSG guy said, just the guy who was asking the quite leading question.

i've also no doubt that there are PLENTY of maya and max and xsi modelers that can mop the floor with lw modelers. and i agree completely that it can come down to familiarity with the tool. BUT, MY POINT IS THIS: if you take the BEST maya modeler in the world, the absolute pinnacle of maya modeling and put him up against the BEST lw guy, i would wager that the lw guy would mop the floor with the maya guy.

also, considering that maya has a few pull down tabs of polygonal tools while ALL OF MODELER is dedicated to polygonal modeling, i don't find this assertion controversial. in recent days, maya started rolling out things like BONUS TOOLS and even integrating those tools into the main app but it still falls short.

every so often, after a maya update, a maya guy at work would come up to me all excited about some new modeling feature but he invariably has learned to interpret my look... "lw can already do that?" all i have to do is smile and nod now. :)

jin

jin choung
12-24-2006, 07:29 PM
pooby, i dunno - i think we're at a stage in software development where if you put in enough blood sweat and tears, it is possible for ANY of the major apps to pretty much do ANYTHING.

the difference is how much blood sweat and tears the task will end up exacting.

jin

hrgiger
12-24-2006, 07:40 PM
If they have restructured Lightwave to be truly modular, then it should just be a matter of taking all the pieces of Layout that currently do not talk to each other, and replacing them with ones that do. I'm not implying that it's an easy task, I'm just saying what Jin said in that with enough blood, sweat, and tears on Newtek's part, it should be possible now if they have made Lightwave a modular application. I'm hoping that we'll hear some news somewhere along the life of the 9.x cycle, sooner rather then later.

By the way, good to see you around these parts again Jin.

DiedonD
12-25-2006, 02:47 AM
...downside of this is eventually people will see lightwave as the 'plugin' to xsi or messiah or they may just jump totally to xsi, maya or max and stay there...


You mean jump to Maya, the ugly old girl with glasses from prehistoric times? And the almighty totalitarian Max, that its either his way or noway?

Nah, I better make waves of light that enlighten even the most lost and darkened person on earth instead!

But you got me by XSI? Appart from imposing you to work with it proffesionally, I dont see any other flaws in it at all. And it is a flaw to impose professional work, cause some segments in market are in 3D for hobby purposes, and work with it with scraps of time that are thrown to them by fate from above.
You know fate throws scraps of time from above, just like in Medi Evil times, when the higher royal class would through scraps of food to awaiting servents behind.

Kuzey
12-25-2006, 04:12 AM
What I want to see is that the law catch up with the 3d sector. eg in the end credits of movies or tv shows we have information on who supplied the food, the actors agent, the song that was use, who sang the song, who wrote the song, the record label, the film stock used in the film etc. etc.

So why not have a CG tools section in the credits:

CG tools:

Modelling : Lightwave 3D
Animation: Maya 90% Lightwave 3D 10%
Rendering: Lightwave 3D

or what ever.

after the animation studio credits roll past, that would help with the truth..I think :D

Kuzey

SplineGod
12-25-2006, 06:31 AM
The problem is that studios use multiple packages for 3D and several for compositing. If a shot has elements from LW, Maya, 3D Max or XSI how do you separate out exactly what was done with what?

Kuzey
12-25-2006, 07:06 AM
Maybe use a percentage system like the above example when more than one app is used in one of the sections/categorys. Just a rough guess is all I'm talking about, not someone sitting there trying to work out how many hours each program was used :D

At the very least, they could name them all....that would do it too. That way it would stop Maya or anyone else from claiming the whole project as their own because they have more money or what ever.

Which would be a good thing :D

Kuzey

DiedonD
12-26-2006, 02:01 AM
That way it would stop Maya or anyone else from claiming the whole project as their own...
Kuzey

But I would like LW to take credit for the whole project :D that Im doing, when it comes to it . Perhaps this is rivalry among software users. They like a certain 3d application more, so they keep on stressing "IT WAS ALL DONE IN 3D-XYZ". Perhaps sometimes it has nothing to do with money. Its just emotional. They want their 3D programe to rule among others, and there you have it "May the best 3d software win (or even worse, may the best software exist)"

Kuzey
12-26-2006, 05:09 AM
But I would like LW to take credit for the whole project :D that Im doing, when it comes to it . Perhaps this is rivalry among software users. They like a certain 3d application more, so they keep on stressing "IT WAS ALL DONE IN 3D-XYZ". Perhaps sometimes it has nothing to do with money. Its just emotional. They want their 3D programe to rule among others, and there you have it "May the best 3d software win (or even worse, may the best software exist)"

I would love to see more all LW projects myself :D I'm a curious person by nature and what was used in which project is interesting to me....the more detail we can get the better...it doesn't matter if it's a smal role or a major one :D

That kind of thing will stop studios from being paid off to say one thing or another.

Another way to do it is list the program each artist used next to their names in the credits something like :

This cool artist name (Lightwave,photoshop)
This other cool artist name (Maya,Lightwave,photoshop)
etc.

That would give us a visual clue to how much each app played in the making of the project without all the added crap :santa:

Kuzey

nlightuk
12-28-2006, 09:04 AM
Come to that, a lot of the dinosaurs in things like the BBC's critically acclaimed "Walking With Dinosaurs" were modelled in LightWave.

So, y'know - there is a lot of hype. A lot of the time, Maya gets used because it's all the guy who's commissioning the project has heard of.

Framestore-CFC used Softimage for the animation on "Walking with Dinosaurs" (although they are now using Maya almost exclusively in UK and NY offices). The dinos were laser scanned from clay models, then turned into NURBS+Disp.maps from the hires scan data using CySlice from Headus:
http://www.headus.com/au/

Lightwave was not used at all.

As far as I am aware, there's only ever been 1 seat of LW at Framestore, and that was used by Stuart Penn to model some of the accessories, saddles, goggles and suchlike for the dinosaurs in "Dinotopia":
http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/penn/penn_1.html

faulknermano
12-29-2006, 01:02 AM
Maybe use a percentage system like the above example when more than one app is used in one of the sections/categorys. Just a rough guess is all I'm talking about, not someone sitting there trying to work out how many hours each program was used :D

Kuzey


the PR game is a game, and NT does not seem to be on the advantage.

however, i really like the approach of the "case studies". i think it's a cool lateral approach. but i believe it suffers from a narrow distribution. but the general concept is great as it is simple: let studios / individuals who want to talk about lightwave do so, and have an article printed or published over the web.

but on another level, as larry pointed out, it's quite difficult, if not altogether pointless to pinpoint the exact software used for a particular shot. my team here have put together a shot recently whose 3d elements were rendered in both maya and lw. modelling was also divided. in these cases, from where i stood, my concern was using the most advantageous apps for a particular part of the scene given the multifarious factors acting upon us at that time - be it timetable, existing format of available data such as scenes and objects, and/or the artist on the particular job and his/her corresponding specialty and familiarity.

i agree with you: i, too, get real peeved when there is a deliberate attempt to mislead people by false advertising. but that is one for the courts, if it holds. for now, the PR game must be played.

btw, was there ever a Newtek reel?



Firstly, 95% of what needs to be done isn't directly related to 'characters' at all. It's just the handling of motions and channels.
Layout's core is currently not designed to cope with constraints or motion modification. there is so much in LW that is handled outside the core by plugins that can't share their info to other plugins that, unless this whole system is totally replaced, then adding to it won't help.


i think lw's new nodal system could play a part in this, but i have little idea how the core data handling of lw operates and performs. i can tell you that animating in maya is fast with loads of constraints and expressions; hidden items and their heirarchy are not evaluated due to the DAG (i presume). this actually lightens up a whole scene simply by hiding items and is, on the whole, highly efficient. i noticed in LW that putting things in bounding box mode doesnt significantly speed up scene manipulation (although bounding box threshold does).

on the whole, a nodal architecture, NOT a nodal interface to a linear architecture is probably the best way to tackle the "animation problem" of lw.