I don't remember the aspect ratio, but it's somewhat like 1000x1481 (resolution) I'm too lazy to do the counting, sorry! It's somewhat like 2:3. Just like with the actual movies though, the ratio may differ, there's not exact one ratio.

Well, the movie poster on my wall (ParaNorman), which is of the size to be hung in a theater, is 27 in. wide by 40 in. tall.

Youtube Channel

/

Last edited by Legocloniac477 (April 30, 2021 (03:04pm))

This isn't actually a poster for a brickfilm that I'm making, but it's a poster about brickfilms, so I thought this the best place to put it.

I am, however, in the process of making a detailed camera movement tutorial, explaining how camera movement is done, and how you can pull it off. I will also explain its superiority over post movement.
I'm a little disappointed in the lack of real camera animation in Brickfilms.
It is surprisingly easy when you know how to do it.

I'm hoping to have it done sometime next week or so. I've already animated some new movements for it.

I've still enjoyed many brickfilms with it, I just think that it would usually be better if it were a real movement or have the shot just be left still as it is.
I've seen a few exceptions, but they are quite rare.

Meh. If the film is shot at a high enough resolution to allow for digital camera movements, I don't really mind them. Obviously there is a bit of quality difference when you compare the digital workaround to the real thing, but if it's between an animator spending five hours perfecting a simple dolly shot or recreating the same thing digitally and spending that time actually focusing on character animation, I can't say I would urge them to waste the time on the former. I'm neglecting edge cases where people have an unlimited amount of time to film, but I think for the average person it isn't worth the trade-off if they're capable of doing a digital movement correctly.

Five hours is quite an exaggeration if you are doing is in an efficient manner.
Executing a very smooth dolly shot which lasts 20 seconds takes me only about 22 minutes when I focus purely on the dolly.
So it's really just adding only about only 1.1 extra minutes for every second of animation with whatever else you're animating, which, for the beauty of a dolly shot, is a very decent trade of time.

While I concede that five hours is a great exaggeration for the typical shot, how long does it take you to create and setup the rig you are filming with? And if you mess up the dolly- much easier done than bumping a still camera, you've ruined the whole shot, so we have to factor in the time it takes to reshoot due to more frequent mishaps. I'm not advocating one way or another; if people have the time and will to do things in-camera, more power to them. I'm just refuting an assertion I've seen floating around here fairly frequently that doing things in-camera is somehow "purer" than using VFX. Some camera movements are simpler digitally, others are not. People should be doing things in a manner that fits the shot they are filming, not trying to conform to whatever we've arbitrarily decided is right- at the very least when the final result is similar. I don't see any reason to vehemently argue that people should avoid one technique in favor of another.

I do appreciate that you are making tutorials, of course. I just can't say I agree with your method of plugging them.

Use whatever works.

Seriously, if you're doing a small zoom or pan, you don't need to go the extra mile and move the camera a fraction of a millimeter every frame. Do it digitally. Or don't.

Compare the raw footage of Houdini to the finished version. You'll notice a lot of swooping, real camera movements, and a lot of digital zooms and pans that were added in post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOlOtDjQKSs