Friday, 12 October 2007

BBC Reference Footage Wolf Run

Hi, been working on a new wolf run trying to use some reference material from the BBC Motion Gallery, an amazing site that is FREE too for all you animators out there!

Latest wolf run, with more extension on hind legs. Struggling with the rig here as it deform, otherwise I'd like to work on the rear legs more. Credit to Drew Vaughan who built the rig!

Wolf Run Post Wes and Tim Crit from Spangles on Vimeo.

So here's the basic wolf run cycle, I think the footage is running slightly slower than real time as the cycle seems to be about 16 frames and also annoyingly you can't see the wolf's feet on the Beeb footage. Anyhow here's my effort with background:-

Wolf Run with Background from Spangles on Vimeo.

And the BBC reference footage:-

Wolf Run Idaho from BBC Motion Gallery from Spangles on Vimeo.

BBC Motion Gallery -


libra bear said...

Glad to see your still at it, Did you follow the timing of the ref footage?

messytimbo said...

yeah i was gonna say it looks a bit slow. but i'm inpressed at how good your getting!

the only other thing is, the back legs don't seem right some how, like they're hobbling a bit or something, it's hard to see what there doing in the ref vid coz of the grass. the wave through the back is moving really nicely.

all in all good job man!

Spangles said...

It follows the timing of the original footage, BUT, I'm sure the original has been slowed down, it's a slow mo shot.

I conouted out the timing of the cycle and it's 16 frames using Quicktime, which is too slow for this kind of run.

Gonna sort out the back legs tonight! They're a bit too stiff, cheers for pointing that out Timbo!

Maarten Rijs said...

Looking really natural, its great.

messytimbo said...

looks better! this is a really good run.

i still think there's a little bit of a problem with the back legs. i downloaded your clip off vimeo and stop framed through it. and i think the reason is because the part which would be the ankle (i think thats wright) it's not bending up into it's body enough, and i think thats what making it look a bit stiff. but i think thats got more to do with what you can do with the model than the way your animating.

you've done such a great job. i can really see your improvement.

libra bear said...

It feels better, I can't tell why, it's so hard to judge this, As Timbo said, it could be limitations with the model, it could be the fact your limited by what the footage shows you, There something about the neck and the back and the way the head comes up, also check the pattern on the dogs body, it expands and contracts,sort of what you told me about the cheetah but not as exaggerated. Have you tried approaching this another way, exaggerate the animation then tone it down, if you have that kind of time, saw Ratatouille the other day, I really liked it but I don't really know why yet...

Spangles said...

I know what you mean Wes about the Cheetah. The hind legs in particular are limited by the rig though as they deform when you really compress them.

As for really exagerating it, I'm trying to go for as realistic as possible, I used a lot of the graph editor and dope on this to get it right, adjust stride patterns, and timing on it to get the energy flow through the back and body.

Finally after nearly 12 months of Maya I feel like it's almost intuitive. Still know nowhere near everything though.

libra bear said...

Thats a shame man. I'd get really frustrated if I had a model that limited me, can't you get another one? I commend you for going the realistic route, thats a tough road to take but it will make you a better animator I guess. The reason I said exaggerate was so you can tone it down after, kind of how you shoot a film, you shoot many hours and many takes, more than you need, then edit till it feels right, so in other words, edit your movement. It might be a waste of time but I find sometimes changing an approach to something can also change what you get out of it. (i don't know how maya works so what I'm talking about might not be possible) I find