Attached Link: http://robotcracy.blogspot.com

Based on a science fiction novel, this animated film took 6 months for principle photogrpahy and the rest of the time in post (trying to fix it).

It has an orchestral score, is rendered in widescreen and has been made using readily available low cost software.

The models have been bought from contractors around world through Renderosity and DAZ3D, and the actors sent their performances from LA or London by email.

It is an example of a new age in internet based co-operative open source style film making.

You can see a trailer at the Robotcracy blog (listed above).

Message edited on: 04/02/2006 07:48

You DO realise you've made PIXAR look bad.... less than half the time, and a better job, too. Love it! Lou.

Attached Link: http://film.forumsplace.com

Very kind of you 'archdruid'. What Pixar do so very well is detailed animation of the characters so they they move and really ACT. That takes a lot of time and skill. There's a detailed explanation of the difference on the film forum Oh, the other thing that we did at lower budget is using just one 3.4Ghz machine (plus nvidea 6800GT graphics) compared to maybe 700 machines that a big buget movie uses. The total difference in budget/time is around 1000 to 1. (I think that even the electricty bill for a major animated movie is roughly 1000 times our total budget )

I dont get it. What's it about? This trailer did not give me a sense of the piece at all. I'm not even left wanting more. Maybe I watched the wrong trailer, or something...?

I didn't get it =/

I don't know about PIXAR, but many of the studios do something that really makes me sick at heart... when they're done with a project, they sell off the systems as salvage. I think that big budget does something to the brain... instant stupid? The trailer seems to be a standard "spot".... a kind of teaser... This is done with many studios, just before they re;ease the longer version, that gives you a "thumbnail" of the story. I don't know if it was intended that way, but if it follows the way they do it, you SHOULD be left with the images in your head, wondering what the story is... then when the "Full" version comes out, it all clicks together. Maybe I'm in fantasy-land with this, but that's what I see. Lou.

Ah well, yeah. a 'teaser' is different than a 'trailer'. At first I thought I was watching more of a teaser, but it was said it was a trailer so I went with that and thought 'where is the story?' - I think as a teaser, it could have been a little more relaxed, with not so much stuff crammed into it. I can almost even accept the screaming child - if that is an integral part of the 60min piece. As a trailer, however, it doesnt say enough.

That's a good comment. Yes youy are right it really is a teaser, but would people go click on something called a teaser? Also the trailer (teaser) was made before the film was completed so not all the video existed at the time. How long would you expect a trailer to run? Any thoughts on pixel size or level of compression based on other trailers you have seen?

A teaser can be :30 to a 1:30.

A trailer, I would go with 2:30 max.

I would click on a teaser regardless. I think the idea is expectation. A trailer has a certain level of expectation that goes with it. One being, the viewer pays attention and by extension, the edits and chossen scenes address the viewers attention by giving them the essences of the story.

A teaser is ment simply to wet your mouth about the piece. It's usually done to hype the name of the piece and/or names attached to it, rather than the the story. If they did the job right, you'll want to wait, look for and hopefully watch, the trailer.

Teasers are a relatively new thing in the industry. I mean if you consider how long the industry has been around, teaser's weren't teaser's until the advent of television and even then, didn't come into it's own until the internet. Where the idea of selling the piece before its finished actually helps finish it and can generate an interest even before the trailer. It's at a point now where the concept of the teaser has become as important as the trailer.

Message edited on: 04/04/2006 08:38

Usually, a trailer, as such, will run from 90 seconds to somwwhere between 2 and 2 1/2 minutes.... generally not longer than 3. for someone to click on, you'd really need the 90 second, or two minute... teasers are usually for TV spots, or insertion in DVD... much like what you see on previews for Anime.. though they mostly run to the longer 90 sec. The compression & pixel size was good on both my main system, (which always is set to very high resolution), and a system at home, which is more like normal. On the side, though, a teaser like that would normally have text... you know, the advertising kind.... Like; "A flash of light. .... A whispering shadow. .... Some things are better left alone." That kind of stuff. Lou.

Congratulations on completing a feature-length project. That's a feat in and of itself these days. However, if you're up for some critique, I have some to give. I can't speak for the plot or story, because the teaser you've shown here doesn't do much to enlighten me to that aspect. The visuals, however, seem very lacking. The first things that jump out at me are very poor character animation, texturing, and lighting. The characters in the teaser move like puppets rather than organic beings in most of the shots. In one snippet, a female character with "long" hair moves about, and her hair is stiff as a board. The environments, although seemingly surreal, still leave me wondering what I'm looking at for the most part. Water looks like metal, metal looks like water, and everthing looks shiny and new. In other words, the entire thing screames "raytraced!". If the texturing were more interesting, I think it would look a lot more professional. Same with the lighting, which in most shots, seems overly simplistic and "CG". I would have loved to see some more natural lighting effects in the outdoors shots (even if it's an alien environment). Otherwise, you end up with an effect that resembles CG back in the mid to late 80's. I don't mean to completely "slam" your achievement here. I think it's great that you had the vision and fortitude to put something like this together, but I also hope that the storyline and dialogue serve to overshadow the seemingly lacking visual appeal in the teaser.

I appreciate luvver_3d's comments and I tend to agree. Articulated animation is a huge skill and cost. You can read about this in detail at http://film.forumsplace.com where I detail the reasons for the lack of it in this film. The grunge look of skuffered objects is very popular right now, but I chose to go for shiney and clean. The faults with the water are shear incompetance as I have never done animation before, but also reflect the need to finish within a reasonable period of time rather than work on a masterpiece and then give up from exhaustion. I remeber the character with the stiff hair. Bothers me too. Again incomepetnant and need to finish within a reasonable time. I could have worked an extra week, but I didn't notice till it was rendered and then did not want to extend the time. I felt that everything could be better, but that I had to prove to myself that I could actually complete the film rather than make 5 great minutes and then crash with the thing never getting finished. It won't win any prizes, and I know it looks poor against people who spend 6 months on a 5 min short. I am currently working on episode 2 - it is a bit better. I have decided to take longer and render at a higher quality and I spend about 3 times as long animating, but I am avoiding or leaving till later the animation of articulated models because they are so difficult to do. So much to learn.

Oh, forgot to mention... All the articulated animation was done using the graphics card. Not raytraced. Its, what do you call it, OLE? That was done while the CPU was doing the raytraced scenes in the background. Again this was to get the thing done. The two different methods, of course, look very different on screen. Principal photography took 4 months. The voices took a long time to find. It was previewed at a film-school and the lack of comprehension was so great that 10 mins more was filmed and new voice-overs added to make it easier to follow.

Why not post a synopsis?

> Quote - Why not post a synopsis?

The main website is a synopsis, and taking the criticisms above the 'teaser' has now been re-edited to more of a trailer, giving some idea of the story.

Thanks for the suggestions