HOME | DD

Published: 2010-06-27 22:02:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 3570; Favourites: 45; Downloads: 481
Redirect to original
Description
This was rendered and animated in full 3D. All the main poses per se should be accurate, but I don't have any way of testing to see if the in-betweening is the same as Andrew's. I usually would but for some reason my Softimage at home won't display animations for rotoscoping which is weird but whatever.This is just a piece of what I'm working on right now, LoHaC, and I have some cool new ideas for that project. If they're cool enough maybe Andrew will implement them. Guess we'll see how it goes.
Related content
Comments: 35
SomeGamerKid [2015-01-12 18:49:22 +0000 UTC]
I'm curious as to how you did this. Was much math involved?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to SomeGamerKid [2015-02-16 05:16:27 +0000 UTC]
Math? Hmm. Not a lot. It's actually just one line multiplied and inverted many times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ToddTech [2010-10-20 04:27:09 +0000 UTC]
OH MY GOD YOU MADE IT.
You are... holy crap. This is amazing. I want to use this so bad. I don't know how without re-calibrating it in alias (pixellized). I swear I will use this if my comic is able to spread its wings and fly. I mean, and you are okay with it and I mention you are the god who made it and it looks even better than Andrews' oh my good god.
Just... holy crap.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to ToddTech [2010-10-20 05:11:52 +0000 UTC]
Settle down buddy. You're gonna have a joygasm aneurysm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ToddTech In reply to Mattox33 [2010-10-20 05:40:11 +0000 UTC]
So, in theory, this could actually be flattened and tilted according to point of view on whim?
and... just wow. So, wait, this is, in actuality, a globe?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to ToddTech [2010-10-20 20:07:53 +0000 UTC]
This 3D model is identical to Andrew's 2D flash animation, save for the fact that it is made of tubes that exist in three dimensions(4 technically but whatever). I could rotate it around and it would always retain depth instead of becoming skewed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RozeUKun [2010-06-30 02:06:54 +0000 UTC]
All you need now is a progress bar on the bottom of the page, perpetualy stuck at 1%
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to RozeUKun [2010-06-30 03:47:31 +0000 UTC]
Hahahaha, yeah that'd probably help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Watashi-no-kibo [2010-06-28 17:33:47 +0000 UTC]
It's kind of peaceful to watch.
I can't wait to see what the whole project looks like finished!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nyubis [2010-06-28 10:08:12 +0000 UTC]
Full 3D? I thought the gates were actually "flat". Didn't we see a gate from the side somewhere?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to Nyubis [2010-06-28 21:16:47 +0000 UTC]
Everything in Flash is flat. It's all 2D unless you use a special plug-in to import 3D models.
What I mean is that this isn't done in Flash. This is a fully operational 3D model that I can place anywhere in 3D space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nyubis In reply to Mattox33 [2010-06-30 09:12:10 +0000 UTC]
I know that, but if Andrew he would intended the gates to be 3D, he would've always let them be viewed from "above" so you couldn't see the flatness, but I think he did somewhere.
Anyway, this is very nice. What program did you make this in? Blender?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to Nyubis [2010-06-30 09:46:15 +0000 UTC]
I think I understand what you mean, but I don't think that was an active choice Andrew made so much as the path of least resistance. Andrew tries to get the most out of anything he's already done and tries to get things done as fast as reasonably possible. Seeing the gates from the side with them still being flat was simply easier since all that had to be done was scale it. To actually add depth and dimension to the gates while doing it in Flash would require a very large amount of work that wouldn't be reasonable.
And no, I use Autodesk Softimage. Blender is very solid program considering it's freeware, but it's not by any means industry standard. Blender is a good starting point but to be commercially viable it's much better to be trained in Maya or Softimage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nyubis In reply to Mattox33 [2010-07-01 09:36:44 +0000 UTC]
I suppose you're right.
Anyway, very nice work. I hope you do more like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to Ledundead [2010-06-29 04:35:25 +0000 UTC]
Straight up monstrous, broski.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fury-From-Above [2010-06-28 00:06:54 +0000 UTC]
Wow, awesome! This is really trippy and accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to Fury-From-Above [2010-06-28 00:09:47 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. I'm glad you think so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
neofoxx000 [2010-06-27 23:34:01 +0000 UTC]
Wow, the way the animation flows is practically hypnotic. I could stare at it all day and not know how much time has passed. @_@
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to neofoxx000 [2010-06-28 00:10:12 +0000 UTC]
I guess that's what makes for a good loading screen, huh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RosieFreakish [2010-06-27 22:57:36 +0000 UTC]
I think I've been staring at it for five minutes. Hahahahaa, I should stop!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to RosieFreakish [2010-06-27 22:58:40 +0000 UTC]
Hahaha maybe I'll get someone to make it a screensaver or something!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RosieFreakish In reply to Mattox33 [2010-06-27 23:08:18 +0000 UTC]
Sneak a subliminal message in there, you could take the planet. Just a thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RosieFreakish In reply to Mattox33 [2010-06-28 17:51:04 +0000 UTC]
Pfffff..... worth a shot?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Beatfox [2010-06-27 22:48:49 +0000 UTC]
That's really sweet - you did an excellent job matching its appearance and movements to the gates in the comic! Would it be possible to increase the line thickness, though? That's the only real difference that stands out for me; otherwise, it looks perfect!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mattox33 In reply to Beatfox [2010-06-27 22:59:32 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, that's definitely possible. It would actually be fairly easy. I found that with thicker lines that the-
Actually I just had a really good idea. The next time I update this badboy it'll look twice as cool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0