Littlebrick

Re: Posters! [large images]

maronislego wrote:

Conclusion:
TO MAKE A THIRTY MINUTE FILM at five frames each second at fifteen frames per second WOULD TAKE A TOTAL OF 93.75 (NINETY THREE POINT SEVEN FIVE) DAYS

I'd like to see that done.

Oh, BLUNTY!

http://www.hostbrickmovies.com/Littlebrick/ZZ5E3FD104.jpg

Leonardo812

Re: Posters! [large images]

maronislego wrote:

I have it.
Leo, a 30 minute film would be a freaking 27000 frames long at 15fps. Which, if each fram took 5 seconds (my fastest speed), it'd take:
27,000 x 5 = 135,000
135,000 / 60 = 2250
2250 / 24 = 93.75

Conclusion:
TO MAKE A THIRTY MINUTE FILM at five frames each second at fifteen frames per second WOULD TAKE A TOTAL OF 93.75 (NINETY THREE POINT SEVEN FIVE) DAYS

I'd like to see that done.

I have five bucks that says I could do it in CG in 10 minutes.

-Leonardo

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2348/sigod9.png

BertL

Re: Posters! [large images]

maronislego wrote:

I have it.
Leo, a 30 minute film would be a freaking 27000 frames long at 15fps. Which, if each fram took 5 seconds (my fastest speed), it'd take:
27,000 x 5 = 135,000
135,000 / 60 = 2250
2250 / 24 = 93.75

Conclusion:
TO MAKE A THIRTY MINUTE FILM at five frames each second at fifteen frames per second WOULD TAKE A TOTAL OF 93.75 (NINETY THREE POINT SEVEN FIVE) DAYS

I'd like to see that done.

That, of course, is assuming that the animator literally takes 27000 pictures. There are many other things that reduce this amount of pictures drastically: you can loop a lot of still frames (lots of people do that), there are the titles and stuff... lots of nifty little tricks to reduce it.

EDIT: Might I add that your calculations are wrong.

If you take 5 seconds on 1 frame, you do one minute on 12 frames. That means that 15 frames (one second of animation) would take 15/12 = 1.25 minutes.

15 frames is 1.25 minutes, so 27 000 frames takes (27000/15) * 1.25 = 2250 minutes. This is 2250/60=37.5 hours or 1 and a half days of non stop animating.

Last edited by BertL (2008-05-07 14:55:36)

http://www.maj.com/gallery/BertL/Stuff/mlnw.pnghttp://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn19/tehbertl/Stuff/stlsig.png

Littlebrick

Re: Posters! [large images]

Lol! Pwnt.

That means you could churn out a film about the length of Return of the King in under a month.

http://www.hostbrickmovies.com/Littlebrick/ZZ5E3FD104.jpg

Mtnbiker

Re: Posters! [large images]

Littlebrick wrote:

That means you could churn out a film about the length of Return of the King in under a month.

Well that math, while correct, does not take into account everything else, scripting, casting, set building, editing, and also, 5 seconds a frame is only correct when you are moving 1 or possibly 2 subjects or the simple nature (such as cars, things that just need a slight touch) i would say about 5 seconds for 1 frame with 1 fig walking, and up from there.

Also as we all know, harder moves take longer to plan and animate. So yes, in theroy he could make a 4 hour movie in a month, but i might just be one figure walking around since our mathematics arent factoring in the rest of the process.

i woud go so far as to say that its not even worth the time to compute, because those other processes are different for all of us, and vary bettween scene or movie.

I'll use myself as an example, there are alot of graphcs in my newest film (mass media in a changing world), specificially alot of "news" style graphics. In dicussion with a production major class mate of mine recently he commented on how he wasnt even sure of how i built alot of those graphics and that he would have taken him ages to do simplier version of them, where as it took me around an hour for each of the news sets to be finsihed (an hour from when i captured the frame to when i finsiehd the graphics, on aveage, some took longer, some took less).

So to end this rant, it all comes down to skill level and experience, i hadnt animated in almost 3 years when i started making mass media, but i had been working around 30 hours a week in photoshop, premier and AE for those 3 years. So it took me longer to get back into the animating swing, but less time to complete my graphics (since i'd been doing stuff like that daily at my former job).

Well, i think i got a little off topic there, but thats ok, thats what brickfilming is all about smile

Mtnbiker (Jeremy Markowitz)
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Mtnbiker14/Avator/mass_media_in_a_changing_world_final_sig.jpg
1st place winner of the 2008 KSU, Black Squirrel Flix Fest ^^Clicky^^

randomparrot

Re: Posters! [large images]

And you cant animate for a full 24 hours.

the cake is a lie...


but the bagel is another story

Roger

Re: Posters! [large images]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/kliges/SCW94_ekl0I/AAAAAAAAABk/qhlanWF6nsM/orangeposter.png?imgmax=512

Last edited by Roger (2008-05-10 15:23:40)

hold the line
Orange •• Coming Soo- well, don't hold your breath

jimmybob

Re: Posters! [large images]

Thats awesome; can`t wait for the film.

Leonardo812

Re: Posters! [large images]

I'm with jimmybob. That's actually the film I'm most looking forward to at the moment.

Ok. That was a lie. I'm looking forward to "Worthless" finally being released.

-Leonardo

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/2348/sigod9.png

LegoMasterProductions

Re: Posters! [large images]

Leonardo812 wrote:

I actually have no idea. Frankenstein was pretty scary. You have to admit, it's hard to get little plastic men with painted-on faces to be scary, but it's been done.

-Leonardo

Please, Pinkins looks way scarier tongue

Check out my website!!1!!1111!1 With a forum!!!!!!!111!!!!!!1!