Motion capture?

Do u guys think that 343 will incorporate motion capture in2 Halo 4 like how Bungie did w/ Halo: Reach?

Yes, its so much easier to create a performance.

It will also probably be in the game some way too, that’s what a kinect does.

> Do u guys think that 343 will incorporate motion capture in2 Halo 4 like how Bungie did w/ Halo: Reach?

Undoubtedly. Motion capture has become a standard animation tool, and is used for just about everything it can be used for.

> Yes, its so much easier to create a performance.

No it’s not. Motion Capture gives a more realistic performance if used correctly, but it always results in significantly more work for the animators.

^ so it’s easier to create a realistic performance which is getting to be par for most industries, nuff said.

> ^ so it’s easier to create a realistic performance which is getting to be par for most industries, nuff said.

No, it’s not easier. Motion capture requires a lot of work (I’ve done it before). While it can result in a more realistic performance, it is a lot more work and costly.

I don’t think 343i is worried about the amount of work or costliness of the project. It’s their first Halo game, they’re trying to make it the best one ever. I don’t think funding is anywhere near short either. Halo is a multi-billion dollar franchise.

> I don’t think 343i is worried about the amount of work or costliness of the project. It’s their first Halo game, they’re trying to make it the best one ever. I don’t think funding is anywhere near short either. Halo is a multi-billion dollar franchise.

I’m not saying they won’t use it, I’m trying to make a point that motion capture in not a simple task.

> ]No, it’s not easier. Motion capture requires a lot of work (I’ve done it before). While it can result in a more realistic performance, it is a lot more work and costly.

Sorry mocap trumps paying a room full of animators to pull off an equivalent product, if it didn’t mocap would not be as widely used as it is. Advances today in mocap even sit in our living rooms in the form of a kinect.

Here let me quote wiki, notice the savings part in the advantages.

> AdvantagesMotion capture offers several advantages over traditional computer animation of a 3D model:More rapid, even real time results can be obtained. In entertainment applications this can reduce the costs of keyframe-based animation. For example: Hand Over.The amount of work does not vary with the complexity or length of the performance to the same degree as when using traditional techniques. This allows many tests to be done with different styles or deliveries.Complex movement and realistic physical interactions such as secondary motions, weight and exchange of forces can be easily recreated in a physically accurate manner.The amount of animation data that can be produced within a given time is extremely large when compared to traditional animation techniques. This contributes to both cost effectiveness and meeting production deadlines.Potential for free software and third party solutions reducing its costs.[edit]DisadvantagesSpecific hardware and special programs are required to obtain and process the data.The cost of the software, equipment and personnel required can potentially be prohibitive for small productions.The capture system may have specific requirements for the space it is operated in, depending on camera field of view or magnetic distortion.When problems occur, it is easier to reshoot the scene rather than trying to manipulate the data. Only a few systems allow real time viewing of the data to decide if the take needs to be redone.The initial results are limited to what can be performed within the capture volume without extra editing of the data.Movement that does not follow the laws of physics generally cannot be captured.Traditional animation techniques, such as added emphasis on anticipation and follow through, secondary motion or manipulating the shape of the character, as with squash and stretch animation techniques, must be added later.If the computer model has different proportions from the capture subject, artifacts may occur. For example, if a cartoon character has large, over-sized hands, these may intersect the character’s body if the human performer is not careful with their physical motion.

> > ]No, it’s not easier. Motion capture requires a lot of work (I’ve done it before). While it can result in a more realistic performance, it is a lot more work and costly.
>
> Sorry mocap trumps paying a room full of animators to pull off an equivalent product, if it didn’t mocap would not be as widely used as it is. Advances today in mocap even sit in our living rooms in the form of a kinect.

Let me ask you: Have you ever done mo-cap? There is more work involved in the capture, clean up, and implementation of the system than with manual animation. In addition, the amount of money required for the systems is much greater than the cost to hire a group of animators.

Yes I’m a graphic artist and have had limited experience with video and animation including mocap. If it was cheaper to produce a high quality animation with a room full of animators rather than a mocap system, movies and video game companies wouldn’t be using mocap at all. Mocap provides a fiscal advantage when producing high quality animation, especially in human movements.

Costs of systems is negligible , there are many mocap facilities and sub contractors. A company doesn’t need to buy a system, they can rent and lease if needed for an extended time. The technology and software is only getting cheaper and better by the moment.