How do you set up a scene?

Deke

I'm curious how other set up an animated scene. For example, if the scene has a car drive up to a building, a person get out, and then enter the building - and if each action is covered with a different camera/angle - do most folks just handle that in one scene and set up three cameras at three different parts of the timeline? In a complex scene, that timeline could be long and the number of cameras/angles complex.

DUDU

To start, it would be necessary to know with which software you work…

Richard Haseltine

The general "best practice" seems to be to render each scene to an image sequence, then assemble in a video editor.

Deke

Oops, sorry. I'm such a newbie that I think the entire universe is Daz Studio (what exactly does Carerra do that's different?). But I'm in Daz Studio on a Mac.

I'm rendering shots in layers and then assembling and doctoring the layers in After Effects. Then Editing in Premiere. I render as a movie as opposed to image sequence. My question has more to do with the management of complex files. It is best practice to handle the whole scene in one file, or separate files for every camera angle/ shot? I would imagine most have several angles in one DUF project. It's quite hand to have the same set, lights, and movements set up…and then shoot it from various angles with various cameras. That seems logical to me, but I wanted to see if there was anything I'm missing.

DUDU

I don't know Studio, but in Carrara, for this type of scene, I make only one project with several cameras, a zone of keyframes for each one of them, thus, I don't have any problem of connections (movements, lights etc…) as you say it.
Sometimes the timeline can be a little long, then I make copies of the project with the sliders positioned for each camera, but it is rare that one has more than two or three angles for the same scene.
But in any event it's true, it is always necessary to pass by a film editor to carry out a movie…
The sequences of images are preferable because you can stop the render and start it again later at the next image, if you must use your computer for another thing.
I don't know the render files options of Studio, but if you make compositing, the formats .PSD and Targa are the best to use the alpha channel and preserve full quality.

BC Rice

It's really up to you. But generally you're probably best off just covering all your angles in a single file. Like if you have two characters talking or fighting or whatever, it's probably best to handle it like you would a normal movie shoot, ya know? With several cameras running at once.

But that's in a *single scene*. If the character gets up, leaves the house, and then gets into their car and then drives to McDonalds, that would be, for me, four or five completely separate files.

Steve K

dkutzera said:

I'm curious how other set up an animated scene. For example, if the scene has a car drive up to a building, a person get out, and then enter the building - and if each action is covered with a different camera/angle - do most folks just handle that in one scene and set up three cameras at three different parts of the timeline? In a complex scene, that timeline could be long and the number of cameras/angles complex.

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of the question, but FWIW I think in many cases you can simply skip some action. For example, the person could drive up and look out the car window at the sign on the building, then a "jump cut" to an interior office scene. I.e. you might not need the car exit, building entry, etc. This all goes back to the 1960 film "Breathless", directed by Godard. From Ebert's (4 star out of 4) review:

" ... throughout the film, Godard uses jump cuts--cuts within continuous movement or dialogue, with no attempt made to make them match. The technique 'was a little more accidental than political,' writes the Australian critic Jonathan Dawson. The finished film was 30 minutes too long, and 'rather than cut out whole scenes or sequences, Godard elected to trim within the scene, creating the jagged cutting style still so beloved of action filmmakers. Godard just went at the film with the scissors, cutting out anything he thought boring.' ... The movie had a sensational reception; it is safe to say the cinema was permanently changed."

The entire review is here:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-breathless-1960

I saw a documentary about this, contrasting Godard's approach with earlier Hollywood approaches. In an example of the latter, the star (Cary Grant, I think) walks in the front door of the office building, then across the lobby, then into the elevator, then out of the elevator, then down the hall, then into the office. One of the famous commentators in the documentary said nobody ever questioned why this all had to be in the movie, until they saw "Breathless". The reaction was that either Godard did not know how to make movies, or he was a genius.

This reminds me of a quotation from the great crime writer Elmore Leonard (RIP), from his ten rules of writing:

"10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip."

As for the mechanics, I agree with Dudu on having copies of the project with several cameras, and render only the various sections of the timeline for each camera, then assemble in the video editor. Just don't render segments that don't add anything.

Deke

Yeah, i was just using that as an example. The chief rule of writing is enter the scene as late as possible and exit as soon as possible.

I am more interested in how folks handle complex scenes with multiple cameras over an extended period of screen time.

Steve K

dkutzera said:

Yeah, i was just using that as an example. The chief rule of writing is enter the scene as late as possible and exit as soon as possible.

Right. I still catch myself starting a scene with everybody just standing there, then jumping into action. Bad editing.

I am more interested in how folks handle complex scenes with multiple cameras over an extended period of screen time.

Yup, that's where Dudu & I agree, as I mentioned.