PROJECT 2Bv2: ANIMATION

This animation shows the digital counterpart for the second attempt at creating a surface construct from the movie clips. The intent is to create a surface that acts as both frame and object itself. The walls of the "canyons" are meant to act as a framing device. The "hills" being objects. The hills also act as framing devices for the next set of terrain. While the hills are both object and frame, the canyons only serve as frame. The surface was created from a NURBS plane in Maya through use of the sculpting tools; the animation was also created in Maya.

PROJECT 2Av2: ANIMATION

This analytical animation is much different from the previous version of the project. Rather than interpreting the movie and changing it into something different, this one has overlays over the original scene. The "white" is representative of framing objects, while the black shows objects. The reason the white is in quotes is because of the use of gifs. Since they are index colored based, if a frame did not have white in it, the lightest color was substituted, so the light colors in some frames was meant to be white. An improved version with white white is in the works. This is based on the first scene chosen. There is no sound. The overlays end about halfway through, when the camera changes become more important than what is actually portrayed.

PROJECT 2Av1: ANIMATIONS

The scene I analyzed for these animations came from the ship battle at the end of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Due to copyright stuff, I can't really post the scenes here. I chose these scenes for several reasons. There are two levels of framing in the scenes; a world view outside the ships, and a framed view through the view screen of the ships. The ships are moved around in ways that take advantage of an environment that has a form which is neither constant or specific. There is sectioning to a small degree in one scene where one ship is hidden away from the other until is "emerges" from a blind spot. Lastly, in both scenes, the camera changes start out slow, like a kind of calm before the storm, then change more rapidly when the two vessels encounter one another.

The first animations are from the scene that starts with the Enterprise unable to "see" the Reliant, even though she lies directly ahead.




This scene is from the perspective of the Enterprise's bridge. The "view screen" frames the view out into "space," as the Reliant emerges from a blind spot created by the environment the ships occupy.



This scene is from the perspective of the underside of Reliant. The engines and the saucer form a frame as the ship pursues the fleeing Enterprise.



This last animation is the complete version. The point to make about the combination is the camera changes. In the first 40 seconds, before the ships encounter one another, there are only 4 transitions, showing that while the viewer can see Reliant moving from one angle, the Enterprise crew cannot. After the encounter in the last 20 seconds, the camera changes twice as fast, attempting to bring forth the chaos that ensues as the Enterprise attempts to get away from the Reliant.

PROJECT 1 FINAL: ANIMATION

This is the final animation for project 1. It is a culmination of the entire project, and consists of the final animations from projects 1A through 1C. The first segment is the original video of Yuval that formed the basis of the entire project. The second segment consists of a slide show showing the analytical drawings made from Yuval's video. The third segment is an animation of the model, showing off the form of the model. The next segment is the project 1B final (framing exercise) and the final segment is the final from project 1C (sectioning exercise). All segments are repeated three times for the purpose of presentation; allowing enough time for an explanation to be given for each sequence. As a viewer, one can take the repeating sequences as a chance to catch things not seen when the animations are first seen.

PROJECT 1Cv2

This is my second attempt at sectioning for Project 1C. I believe the introduction of a sectioning plane in the animations led to a more successful product. I've made several, but I'm not sure which one to use in my final. I'm not sure it if would be productive to put two versions in the final or not. Suggestions on that point?

The first set of animations are of the cave-like model.

This first animation is a crawl along the top, with the camera moving in reverse with respect to it's orientation.



This animation is the first of this series to implement a sectioning plane. Both the sectioning plane and ground plane are white, both are able to receive shadows. The camera is held away from the object to view the entire form as it emerges from behind the sectioning plane.



This animation is related to the previous animation. The difference is in the placement of the camera, which is located within the form. I believe this animation to be the most successful of the series with respect to the idea of sectioning. The sectioning idea reads clearly in looking at the changing form of the opening as the object passes through the sectioning plane.



This animation is a kind of synthesis of the ideas of the previous animations. The camera is placed above the object as it emerges from the form. There is an addition of a "rail" to act as a way point for the observer, seemingly holding up the camera in the animation.

The next set of animations utilizes the lofted form model.



This first animation is a sequence of animations that follows the core and exterior trace points of the model following a path that is in reverse, with respect to the orientation of the camera. The sequence starts at the core of the form, then goes clockwise around the form from the upper right, and ending at the top.



This animation shows the sequences of the previous animation all together.



This animation introduces the sectioning plane to this model. The camera is positioned in the center of the form, and is held in place, similar to the animation of the cave form, where the camera is placed within the cave.



This animation is another sequence animation. The camera location corresponds to the exterior trace points, and follows the same order as the previous trace points. Unlike the previous animation, the camera is not held in place for the duration of a sequence, but rather follows the form as it reaches the point where the camera is located.



This animation displays all the sequences of the previous animation together, showing the emerging form from several view points at the same time.

PROJECT 1Av3: ANIMATION

I've decided to make an animation for presenting the analysis drawings I used to create the digital models in FormZ.


The order of the lines that appear in the trace point drawings may seem arbitrary at first, but it actually corresponds to a clockwise order around Yuval's body, starting with his center, going to his right shoulder, and then around his body to his head. This is the same order I've used for the sequence animations in Project 1C.

PROJECT 1Cv1

This set of animations is a first attempt at project 1C, which is about using these animations to show how these objects are a study of surface, and frames said surface study as a sequence of sections communicating a clear process and intention.

The first set of animations refer to the first form of the previous post.


This first animation skims the outside of the model, and portrays the object as moving in response to the observer, rather than the observer moving with the object.


This animation serves as a counterpoint to the first, having the observer follow the surface of the object.


This third animation attempts to follow the path of the one of the trace points originally used to the generate the form. Specifically, this focuses on the trace point representing the location of Yuval's head.

The next set of animations originate from the second model of the previous post, the one composed of the five ribbon forms.

The first six elements follow six of the trace points used to generate the forms of the model.

The first point here is the navel. As the navel is often referred to as the center point of the human body, this animation is mean to act as he patch of the core of the five forms.


This animation follows the path of the right hand.

This animation follows the path of the right foot.

This animation follows the path of the left foot.

This animation follows the path of the left hand.

This animation follows the path of Yuval's head.

This animation is a composite showing the previous animations in sequence. The order is not arbitrary; it begins at the core, and then goes around the perimeter of the form going clockwise from the right hand and concluding at the head.

This last animation is another composite, and serves as a contrast to the previous. Rather than showing each sequence individually, this animation shows all the paths simultaneously, arranged in a manner imitating the locations of each point within the form.

PROJECT 1Bv3

After receiving feedback in class about how to make adjustments to the framing videos, I made modifications to the models and animations for both sets I have in the previous project 1B posts.

These first stills/animations go with the first post.

These two images show how the horizon line is framed by the object both from outside the object (first image) and from inside the object (second image).


This animation shows the processional sequence from the outside, through the inside, and back outside the object, focusing on the exit, and the plane beyond.

The next stills/animations correspond to the second project 1B post.These images attempt to frame a space between the ribbon-like planes, using the end of the center object as a way point through the middle of the forms to the horizon beyond.



This animation takes a path between the two forms representing Yuval's legs, attempting to frame an open ended space, with the ground plane serving as a reference.

PROJECT 1Bv2

Since I wasn't impressed with my first attempt at doing an animation focused on framing, I decided to take a second attempt. I believe this second iteration is more successful than the first. This version uses an entirely different model from the first, and introducing a new trace point for the model (at the navel, in bright green below).
The new model takes a different approach from all of the previous versions. Instead of generating one form there are five forms generated. Each represents sections of Yuval's body. The green represents the section between his head and navel, the red his right arm, the yellow his left arm, the cyan his right leg, and the magenta his left leg.
This isometric has the control lines shown as tubes along the long-side edges of the forms.
This a an axo of the forms, without the control lines (all subsequent images will be free of the control lines).
Front View
Top View
Right View



Color

White

I have included a version of the animation with the form in white to better present the shade and shadow. The color is the only difference. At the start of the animation, the object as a whole is framed. The next sequence brings up a framing of the left side of the form. From there, ones frame is adjusted to only include the lower two forms, represented Yuval's legs. The perspective is taken along a path representing a rough version of the path Yuval's legs took in his performance. At the end, the right side of the object is framed. What follows is a framing of the top 3 three forms, representing Yuval's mid section and arms. The path follows the reverse of Yuval's upper body. Notice how this path is more straight than that of the legs. The final segment once again frames the left side of the form, suggesting the sequence is about to start again.

PROJECT 1B: ANIMATION

This is the animation generated for this phase of project 1. It uses the first model shown in the previous post.

This first scene of the animation is meant to from the entire object. The following segment follows up the "mouth" of the object. Before entry, the object is framed up. The animation goes in the same direction as Yuval did in the action sequence that generated the model. The during the trip through the inside serves two purposes. The first is a rough imitation of the spinning Yuval does. The second reason is this rotation is meant to serve as a critique of the form; within the interior, the concept of gravity is left open; there is no reference point, no clear up or down. This spin is meant to make a point of this. The final sequence frames the object once again, as if the viewer is about to be brought into the object once again.

Neil Spiller: Towards an Animated Architecture - Against Architectural Animation

In his article "Against Architectural Animation," Neil Spiller discusses the consequence of using animation in the field of architecture. As a person who has looked through many student portfolios in his time, he becomes worried when a student presents him with digital material, as opposed to drawings. Though Spiller himself is a technology enthusiast, stating the many benefits technology has for architecture, he is worried about the use of animation in architecture. He fears that architects are becoming more concerned with making a good animation, rather than creating good spaces.

Architects in today's world are limited by how new applications of animation are in architecture. The typical animation software was meant for film and graphics industries, not architecture. In a sense, by using this software, and architect is asking an apple to be an orange. This leads to a tendency for those using the software to play around more with the features of the software, as opposed to the architectural forms they are attempting to represent. These users "push all the buttons at once" to see what happens, and labels it as a final product. Such representations do nothing to give another insight into architectural form. They may be pretty to look at, but they say nothing; they are mindless eye candy, rotting away the mind as sweets do one's teeth.

The graphics in these animations also lead towards a representation of ideals, made possible by the less restrictive rules of cyberspace. Clients presented with these pristine models are seduced by the graphic aesthetics, and assume the built version will be the same. In the end, built form can only approximate these animated forms, often ending up as deformations of a digital ideal, as real world influences, such as gravity and context disturb these idealistic bodies.

Another shortcoming of architectural in the virtual world relates to the approach on must take in order to represent architecture virtually. A high level of detail must be known; dimensions must be known down to small features, such as bathroom stall width. Such a level of detail is not necessary for the creative proportions brought about through relatively simply mathematics to create an aesthetic that architecture has held since the time of the ancients. Such picky details detract one from such grand simplicity to the point where one loses sight of the big picture in favor of the small. This over-attention to detail removes the ability for others to speculate and reinterpret; there is no room for the imagination when all the details are given.

For animation in architecture to work, one must "dumb it down." Architects employing this technology must focus more on the whole. Attention to overall form, not the width of an armrest, should take priority. Animations should not seek to answer all questions about architectural form, but, rather, should answer some questions, while raising others, allowing for speculation, allowing the minds of others to attempt to reach their own conclusions. Architectural animation should be nothing more than a trailer, as opposed to the whole film. The architecture and films industries are two separate, inherently different entities; their representations and re-presentations should be different on the basis of the fundamentals these industries hold.