Now Free Download Hight Quality 3d models 3d objects for 3DSMAX, Maya, Softimage, Lightwave. (3D Cars, 3D People, 3D Furnitures, etc). For use in all your 3D Animation and multimedia works. animation | art | vr | tutorials | 3d models | 2d | software | plug-ins | textures | materials | scripts | poser and find out new 3d jobs and hot 3d video. http://www.all3dmodels.com

This smells of university project. not a bad way to test aplicatoin of 3d modaling animatoin and varouse other 3d / animation video editing skills . but it seems a bit pointless visualizing something like this especially when augmented reality tech already exists that can do this. should have visualized something less obvious that would be possable with augmented reality

I work for a large company and they had a pretty good amateur orchestra going for a few years. They did this piece and i created a 3D animation to project in the auditorium while they played. I was impressed that an amateur orchestra would attempt something in 9/4 time signature or whatever it is. But they did a good job. I should post the animation here, it was pretty funny.

>> ^demon_ix:
We disagree completely then. The point of what he made wasn't to make a cool animation "to fully show an understanding of the advantages that stop motion animation offers"... The point was to make a video of 80's video games using nothing but Lego blocks. He achieved it superbly.

Yes, he did achieve that. But like I said, he wasted his time (not all of it) since he could have done that AND have done something more suitable for the medium with the same amount of time spent. Again you're missing the point.

What you're suggesting, is using a computer software to replicate Lego blocks and use those virtual blocks to make an identical animation in less time, and while that's more pragmatic, saves time and effort, it's completely losing the actual point of making a video with Lego blocks..... Why still make a video of Lego blocks moving around, when you can make a 3D animation of the actual game characters?

Because then it wouldn't look like Lego blocks. The whole point of CG was that it can replicate the effects. Using actual characters would not produce the same effect. Isn't that obvious? Do I really have to explain that?

And while you're at it, why not program the original games, making a version of Pong, Pac-Man, Super Mario etc? And why not go beyond that and make a better game, and market it? He could make lots of money that way, no?

Ok You've missed the point by a mile now. How did you get from animation to making games? Did you even read what I wrote?


I actually think my Usain Bolt car analogy is very good, since he could save years and years of rigorous physical training and sacrifice, and go do something useful with his time, since he can get from the start to the finish with ease and more speed in a car.

No, you see, his career as a athlete revolves around racing on foot, not to get from start to finish by any means necessary. Therefore, using a car would not achieve the same effect. Now if the effect he was going for was to get to the convenience store faster, and he spent thousands of hours to train for that and never raced, then that would be a waste of time since he could have done it with a car. Your analogy fails in every way.

We disagree completely then. The point of what he made wasn't to make a cool animation "to fully show an understanding of the advantages that stop motion animation offers"... The point was to make a video of 80's video games using nothing but Lego blocks. He achieved it superbly.

What you're suggesting, is using a computer software to replicate Lego blocks and use those virtual blocks to make an identical animation in less time, and while that's more pragmatic, saves time and effort, it's completely losing the actual point of making a video with Lego blocks..... Why still make a video of Lego blocks moving around, when you can make a 3D animation of the actual game characters? And while you're at it, why not program the original games, making a version of Pong, Pac-Man, Super Mario etc? And why not go beyond that and make a better game, and market it? He could make lots of money that way, no?

I actually think my Usain Bolt car analogy is very good, since he could save years and years of rigorous physical training and sacrifice, and go do something useful with his time, since he can get from the start to the finish with ease and more speed in a car. Never mind that the whole point was to do it without a car...

But if you look at it in a "he got a world record, and thus accomplished something" perspective, consider the guy who came in last in that race. He technically accomplished nothing, and I doubt very much he even expected to win vs Usain Bolt. Why race at all then? Why not just give up and lie down? Why spend as much time uselessly training, keeping a diet and so on, when you won't break a world record or win the race?

In reply to this comment by mentality:
Look, I'm not saying what he achieved isn't art, or it's not cool. I'm saying it's a colossal waste of time because he didn't do anything unique to stop motion animation, and didn't make best use of his time.

Usain Bolt did something unique that you can't replicate with a car: break the record for human running speed. Terrible analogy. It looks like you're the one who's missing the point here.

Again: He could have designed his animation better, to fully show an understanding of the advantages that stop motion animation offers, and in the process do everything you said he accomplished: having fun with a hobby AND produce something truly cool and unique with it.

Sure he had fun making it, but by not achieving something more it's pointless masturbation.

We disagree completely then. The point of what he made wasn't to make a cool animation "to fully show an understanding of the advantages that stop motion animation offers"... The point was to make a video of 80's video games using nothing but Lego blocks. He achieved it superbly.

What you're suggesting, is using a computer software to replicate Lego blocks and use those virtual blocks to make an identical animation in less time, and while that's more pragmatic, saves time and effort, it's completely losing the actual point of making a video with Lego blocks..... Why still make a video of Lego blocks moving around, when you can make a 3D animation of the actual game characters? And while you're at it, why not program the original games, making a version of Pong, Pac-Man, Super Mario etc? And why not go beyond that and make a better game, and market it? He could make lots of money that way, no?

I actually think my Usain Bolt car analogy is very good, since he could save years and years of rigorous physical training and sacrifice, and go do something useful with his time, since he can get from the start to the finish with ease and more speed in a car. Never mind that the whole point was to do it without a car...

But if you look at it in a "he got a world record, and thus accomplished something" perspective, consider the guy who came in last in that race. He technically accomplished nothing, and I doubt very much he even expected to win vs Usain Bolt. Why race at all then? Why not just give up and lie down? Why spend as much time uselessly training, keeping a diet and so on, when you won't break a world record or win the race?

In reply to this comment by mentality:
Look, I'm not saying what he achieved isn't art, or it's not cool. I'm saying it's a colossal waste of time because he didn't do anything unique to stop motion animation, and didn't make best use of his time.

Usain Bolt did something unique that you can't replicate with a car: break the record for human running speed. Terrible analogy. It looks like you're the one who's missing the point here.

Again: He could have designed his animation better, to fully show an understanding of the advantages that stop motion animation offers, and in the process do everything you said he accomplished: having fun with a hobby AND produce something truly cool and unique with it.

Sure he had fun making it, but by not achieving something more it's pointless masturbation.

I was able to find the basis of this video from reddit. Its a fan made 3d animation (sorry, no direct japanese link this time) of several meme's. The 2 guys are from a popular (?) gay wrestling movie, many 4channers have probably seen it as a flash animation played/synched to one of Kirby's background soundtracks. The steam roller is from jojo's adventure, and the girl (!) driving it is the vocaloid character Kagamine Rin. The scene is a remake of one of the over-the-top drifting scenes from the anime Initial D.

Goodbye spammer.

In reply to this comment by aaronhebrew:
3D Animation Studio : dOUGh-CGI: 3D Animation Studio - Dienstleistungen für CG Filme, 3D Animationen, freiberuflicher 3D artist, 3D Kurzfilme, VFX, SFX für Filme, 3D Artwork und Visualisierungen. 3D Animationen Online Portfolio und Galerie

http://videosift.com/talk/3D-Animation-Studio is against VideoSift rules.

Read http://videosift.com/faq-en.php

Wow that's great. It took a while for me to get my head around this concept just reading about it and looking at diagrams, but even that was actually better than the 3D animations I tried to follow. This sort of thing seems to happen a lot in scientific academics. They say the difference between a genius and a charlatan is that a genius takes something complicated and makes it seem simple and a charlatan takes something simple and makes it seem complicated.

Now, I'd like to see one that's similarly explained but for a limited slip differential, because that I still understand very well.

>> ^Zyrxil:
I get a kick out of the part where they mention how a drive shaft above the floor would be uncomfortable, when cars today all have that little bump in the floor for it.


Actually the bump on the floor would be much higher without the off-center driveshaft connection. But in any case, very good explanation of the subject. How come a lot of these old footage manage to explain things better than all the 3d-animation you see today? Is it because these old ones explain them through simplifications as the modern equivalents have gorgeus animations that are simply too complex to grasp..

>> ^spoco2:
This doesn't get a WTF from me in the sense of 'Holy cow, are they really doing that?'
This gets a WTF from me in the sense of 'Really, people older than about 12 years old find this sort of stuff entertaining?'
Really, Anime fricken leaves me so cold. People wax on and on and on and on about how it's so damn superior to western animation, but really, so much of it is lazy (a LOT has an awful lot of static image in the frame with barely a mouth moving), outlets for the repression of the Japanese culture. The amount of violence and sexual abuse that is in these things is truly horrible. I found the violence funny when I was a kid, but after that, it just bores the pants off me.


How do you know this anime was made for people above the age of 12? Studio Ghibli films are usually for kids, I thought.

As for the rest of your post, I certainly spend more time enjoying animation that's "Made in Japan" than animation that's "Made in America", but I don't see why I should care either way. I'm an American. If I draw a shitty cartoon in my basement, am I automatically an example of shitty American animation? At what point is my failure my own and not my country's? Factor in multi-national corporations/ownership and the whole issue becomes even more muddled. Dreamworks and Pixar, to my knowledge, are the sole two animation companies in "The West" that are admired, and Dreamworks is owned by an Indian company based in Mumbai. Elsewhere, multiple anime titles have been and are being produced by Japanese studios specifically to appeal to "Western" audiences (read: white middle class youth), or at the very least significantly factor in their interests.

Anyway, the giant budget 3D animated movies cost dozens of millions of dollars to produce, and only offer up perhaps 90 minutes of entertainment after years of production time (The Incredibles cost $92 million, Wall-E: a whopping $180 million). Because of the massive budgets these movies require, the scripts of these films rarely take any risks. Everything's rated G and has a story that is very "lowest common denominator" in my eyes. I'm getting far too old to enjoy these films beyond their technical merits, since their target audience is primarily below the age of 14.

Meanwhile, partially due to smaller budget requirements in anime production, I can choose all sorts of anime that tries to cater to a slightly older crowd. Very little anime attempts to appeal to anyone above the age of 30, but even in the "age 13-18" type shows, there's interesting themes to chew on. One of my fav animes, Gundam, is basically Star Trek with robots. Its creators have described the show as a humanist show, and the shows take on imperialism, racism, and war really line up with what I saw in the humanist Star Trek shows (I loved TNG/DS9). Since Star Trek has been dead for a while, it's nice to have a place to go to (btw: the upcoming movie will abandon much of what the shows were about in favor of violence and sex). Most Gundam shows are about a teenage boy who hops into a war robot, gets traumatized by war, manipulated by corrupt politicians into fighting questionable wars, and deals with issues of imperialism. Not the most intellectually challenging stuff in the world, I know, but it sure beats what I've seen in stuff like 24 or Heroes and a lot of other dramas on the major networks. And those are aimed at considerably older demographics. I think the much smaller budget requirements of anime helps studios create things for niche demographics (such as sci-fi loving humanists) and that's good for me. Are they technically superior to something like Wall-E? Not by a long shot. But a 1,000 minute Gundam series didn't cost $180 million every 90 minutes either, and yet still left me more entertained.

>> ^andybesy:
OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?
Is the synapse the area between two neurons?
Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?


Axons are just a part of the neuron

(simplified picture of a neuron)
http://www.morphonix.com/software/education/science/brain/game/specimens/images/neuron_parts.gif


The synapse is basically the sum of all components: The end of in the axon sending the electrical signal, the space between them ( called a synaptic cleft) and the receiving end of the other neuron.
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/neuron-synapse.png

The neurons in the video communicate chemically via synapses. Axons are just extensions that each neuron has. Any given neuron can have numerous axons. At the end of each axon, there is an axon terminal this is the rounded ends you see in the video. The space between them is a synaptic cleft. Some neurons have electrical synapses instead. These are found in places where you need the fastest response but dont need to be able to interpret data or make decisions. Reflexes are an example. Electrical synapses are a minority though.

Sorry, I'll edit the description soon to try to make it more clear. I posted it in a rush.

Tags for this video have been changed from '3d, animation, cool' to '3d, cool, 00s, vancouver film school, cube, rubiks, city, drums' - edited by Eklek

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ode to summer, stylized, 3d, animation' to 'ode to summer, stylized, 3d, animation, calligraphy, china, 00s, modelling, poetry, fish' - edited by Eklek