del82

People when you have to make animation of an apartment, do you make an entire fly through appartment, or you make few smaller animations of different rooms in that apartment, and then use some post work to fade out/in one to another?
Im was going to do a BIG one, but

__________________
Beeeee!

STRAT

depends on the client. allot of 'old school' clients prefer the single straigh on fly through. but its generally better to do the anim in small chunks and edit them together later. suggest this to your client.

it's easier to render this way and is less monotonous and boring to watch.

__________________

John Dollus

Even in the 'old school', I never used a single continuous path. Breaking the animation up and treating it as an overall production gives you so much more creative flexibility and also lends a technical advantage overall.

NOOXY

I think strat and dollus are right, breakin up the animation to me looks more like a professional production and does have a IMO is a bigger imapact for small presentations..

Saves time too..i guess

__________________
I had a dream & now it's just another rendered image

thinice

Yeah, breaking them up will give you more flexibility.

On the other find, I find long continous shot, if done properly (the difficult part) can be mightily impressive as it suggest something that is impossible or very expensive to do with real camera.

Personally, I am a fan of the long shot - so I try to stretch them as far as possible, but only as long as I can keep them interesting.

__________________
www.realismstudio.com
www.shadesofterengganu.com

mahorela

I'm a big fan of creating several small renders and editing them together. I think that in alot of cases you will want to tweak lighting from room to room and this approach facilitates that. I also think that when doing the "old" style of flythrough that you spend alot of time trying to make corridors etc look good when the real point is to show the rooms. You also almost invariably must use the forward moving camera path approach to achieve the old style of fly through which I think looks crappy compared to more tasteful and arty camera work that you can use when creating segmented fly throughs.

del82

Thank you guys!
Ill do few small ones and use AE later on.
Agree with you that in this way you can tweak every room seperetly, and yes its a lees job, but lets not forget its still animation!
As for the client, I think they didnt see any CG animations yet, so they didnt express any desires.
Strat, can we make voting thread here to see people opinions long /few short?

__________________
Beeeee!

alfienoakes

Here is another vote for smaller chunks, pieced together then.

As mentioned, smaller chunks allow you to add detail where it makes a difference. Also, once you try and light a huge model, work with it in VIZ /MAX ADT etc.. it can become very difficult just to view objects or move around etc..

Once broken down, you have a model that is quicker to render, easier to navigate around, and generally more user friendly..

You will find that you can put more detail, or a better lighting solution on smaller chunks, as they wont be quite so demanding, certainly on interiors, and to some extent exteriors as well.

Andy

__________________
Andy Wiggins

MAKING COFFEE.
Making a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak. And then you put in the milk.

Swiss Tony.

John Dollus

Playing devil's advocate, there is a lengthy shot in Panic Room when the thieves break in that is an excellent example of how a continuous shot can be used in small environments to tell a story effectively and give you a real sense of the space.