Renderosity Forums
Search Results: Threads
14 threads found!
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChrisD | 0 | 63 |
(none)
|
|
| ChrisD | 31 | 628 | ||
| ChrisD | 13 | 213 | ||
| ChrisD | 13 | 366 | ||
| ChrisD | 45 | 1245 | ||
|
|
ChrisD | 113 | 1998 | |
| ChrisD | 2 | 33 | ||
| ChrisD | 0 | 4 |
(none)
|
|
| ChrisD | 0 | 5 |
(none)
|
|
| ChrisD | 9 | 48 | ||
| ChrisD | 2 | 15 | ||
| ChrisD | 3 | 26 | ||
| ChrisD | 0 | 660 |
(none)
|
|
| ChrisD | 0 | 10 |
(none)
|
Search Results: Comments
121 comments found!
I can answer the frame rate question: The more frames that you use per second, the smoother the animation will look. 30 frames per second is the rate at which North American videotape runs. 24 fps is the rate of film, most tv cartoons are done at 12 fps and a lot of games and cd roms are done at 10 fps. The key here is the words PER SECOND. So... if you animate an action that you want to happen in 2 seconds, it would take 60 frames to accomplish it at 30 fps, only 48 frames for the same action at 24 fps and a measly 20 frames at 10 fps. The action will run at the same speed but it will look choppier at the lower frame rates. Motion capture is a complicated, expensive and generally useless procedure. No video camera can do it; it invoves a mass of expensive equiptment to do the job of one animator. To make things worse, raw motion capture data is full of errors: jiggling and twisting limbs etc. It still takes a few animators days of ear bleeding tedium to fix it to a useable state. Bunk! Chris
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: Questions | Forum: Animation