Page 1 of 2

Animation length

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:06 am
by lucifer
Hi,

I would like to know what's the longest animation (timewise) that can be achieved using Blender?

Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:15 am
by mr_rob
A very long time, especially if you use a frame rate of 1.

LoL

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:35 am
by suberduber
Well, the maximum number of frames is 18000,

So at 24 frames/sec, that's 12.5 minutes max

Seems pretty short doesn't it? :shock:

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:46 am
by ilac
suberduber wrote:Well, the maximum number of frames is 18000,

So at 24 frames/sec, that's 12.5 minutes max

Seems pretty short doesn't it? :shock:
Not really - Doubt anybody ever needed a continuos shot which lasted anywwhere near 12.5 minutes! :wink:

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:12 am
by Eric
Indeed, that's what the sequence editor is for.

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:26 am
by leinad13
I can never see anyone needing a shot that longer than about 5 minutes. If they do then they are a poor film maker. Use lots of short shots its the best way.

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:56 am
by ilac
leinad13 wrote:I can never see anyone needing a shot that longer than about 5 minutes. If they do then they are a poor film maker. Use lots of short shots its the best way.
That's a foolish thing to say. There is no fixed rule on how long a shot should be. Fair to say that most directors would not need a long(time) shot and few would know how to handle it - but you cannot call a director a poor film maker just because he uses a long continuos shot. It depends on a lot of things but it could work. I'll try to track down the name of an old b&W noir film I saw a couple of years ago that had a long opening done in one shot and you don't even realise he never cuts away. If I recall correctly, he had to limit the length of his shot for purely technical reasons (ie. length of film reel) - but it worked.

ps. This is not a personal attack Just saying you cannot call a film maker a poor film maker just coz he/she tries to do something as unfathomable as a longer-than-5-minutes shot! :wink:

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:21 pm
by LethalSideParting
I'll try to track down the name of an old b&W noir film I saw a couple of years ago that had a long opening done in one shot and you don't even realise he never cuts away
Yeah, I saw that film!! It starts with a guy winding up one of them old-fashioned clock bombs, putting it in a car boot and running off. The camera then tracks the car for the next two / three mintues or so as two people get in it, drive around chatting, stop to talk to another couple, then the camera follows this other couple as they walk away from the car and talk for a moment, and catches their reaction as the bomb goes off from off screen. It's a hell of a shot actually, when you start realising how difficult it must have been to coordinate such a compliated camera rig with all the action going on....

If you think that sounds nasty, a friend told me about a film that was released recently called Timecode that's filmed in one continuous 93-minute take. To make matters worse, the screen is split into 4 areas, each being filmed from a seperate camera, but at the same time as the other areas. Imagine trying to film THAT.....

So, just because your average film only uses shots of about 10-15 seconds each, there's nothing to stop you from breaking this rule and seeing what cool stuff happens along the way (heck, the Matrix broke the rule that time can only ever go at one rate, and look what happened, one of the coolest effects seen in cinema in a very long time)...

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:25 pm
by ilac
LethalSideParting wrote:
I'll try to track down the name of an old b&W noir film I saw a couple of years ago that had a long opening done in one shot and you don't even realise he never cuts away
Yeah, I saw that film!! It starts with a guy winding up one of them old-fashioned clock bombs, putting it in a car boot and running off. The camera then tracks the car for the next two / three mintues or so as two people get in it, drive around chatting, stop to talk to another couple, then the camera follows this other couple as they walk away from the car and talk for a moment, and catches their reaction as the bomb goes off from off screen. It's a hell of a shot actually, when you start realising how difficult it must have been to coordinate such a compliated camera rig with all the action going on....
Yep! that's the one! But still cannot remember what it was called! Stupid faulty memory of mine! :P

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:27 am
by Oso
For those of you to young to remember, Alfred Hitchock's film "Rope" is one long scene from beginning to end.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:45 am
by mr_rob
Still its almost crazy to make a film in one scene. Theres too many things that could go wrong. Imagine 20 minutes of success and one bad screw up. Lots of wasted filming. It's more practical to use shorter shots and actually most of the time shows whats going on much better.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:41 am
by Pablosbrain
Film and Animation... 2 different beasts... You can easily break a long animation up into smaller segments and only have the objects/environment/blahblah necessary for that shot in a scene and the final piece be put together so the viewer has no idea it was done in more than one shot. The ability to stage and shoot a continuous shot in real life however is quite a bit more difficult and if done well shows the directors talent.
But... I am always of the opinion that all of the limitations in blender should be shattered. Why make a limit? Unless there is a real reason for it... maybe the current architecture in blender wouldn't handle it. I also wish we could start an animation at -50 frames instead of 1. Nasty little limits that can throw a wrench into things if they aren't realized and planned for.
:)

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:50 am
by ideasman
Id like to point out that not everybody uses blender to 'make movies' or animations.

Its possible sombody might be working at 60fps and making a simulation of a flight over terrain that lasts say- 30min.
(60fps is needed in simulation)

This is not a perticulaly good example, but blender could be user for visualization, video effects... videoscapes.
to create video files that dont fit into the movie catogry.

I think the less limits the better-

But this limit would probable need to be changed in somthing bigger then just a point release because long animations would not open in the current blender.

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:57 am
by leinad13
I suppose i was bit unfair with what i said before, but like someone else said, u can easilly just keep ur camera poistion and ove the objects / actors in you scene so that you can make it look like the same shot.

Also ideasman who do you know that makes 30 minute fly overs of terrain that use 60fps?

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:40 pm
by Jellybean
At 60fps, it will only takes 5 minutes to run out of frames. ;-)

Even worse, I've tried running video at 120fps. :P Unsuccessfully, I might add. Maybe with a PCI-Express 16x GFX card on an A64... monitor can handle it though: 1280 x 960 @ 120Hz ;-)

Point is, 18000 frames is an arbitrary restriction that, without some technical reason, I think shouldn't be there.

Relying on stitching shots together is a cludge that will rear it head again and again. It is not a clean solution. Consider the various simulation and AI work being done. The MASSIVE clone by harkyman generates IPOs for actor motion. Even if you are doing a scene with multiple camera shots, you may still want to compute the battle in a single run... being limited, of course, by this 18000 max frames limit.
Pablosbrain wrote:You can easily break a long animation up into smaller segments and only have the objects/environment/blahblah necessary for that shot in a scene and the final piece be put together so the viewer has no idea it was done in more than one shot.
That's fine, until you want to animate across the shot boundries, or even worse, change it later. Then you get to have fun trying to get the IPO curves to match so jerky animation does not make it painfully obvious where the shot boundries are. I would think time and effort could be better spent than fighting with something like that.

As such, I argue in favor of removing this limitation. ^__^