As part of our project we were to explore the possibility of implementing an animation in our model. In the end we decided to not implement the animation as we felt it did not add to the experience. This will be explored in the blog post as well as our original plans for an animation. The church itself does not have any mechanical parts or mechanisms which could be animated apart from possibly the door. The inside of the church is not detailed however so having the door open would not add to the experience. We decided if we were to add an animation it would be one implementing the camera. We took two approaches when thinking of a camera animations. Did we want a free moving floating camera? or a more grounded dolly camera which would give a ground level prospective. We decided that a ground level approach might be the most beneficial as it will show the scale of the church and most of the detail can be seen from a ground perspective. The free floating flying camera would not show any extra detail and would not give the same impression of scale. The camera would follow a spline path around the church starting from the front
We would have set a focal point towards the center of the church so that as the camera moves along the path the focus remains on the church. The focal point would be higher than the height og the camera position aswell. From researching online it appears to create a slow walking pace you need a second for every 3 feet of distance. In NTSC format, that translates into 10 frames for every 3 feet. We would measure the length of the spline and set the ending of the animation to the corresponding number of frames. This would ensure a smooth easy movement along the path. We would use the Walkthrough Assistant to create our camera and set it to the path we would also set the height of the camera to be around 5,7 feet. For the lens options we would use the Lens spinner to adjust the focal length of the lens to around 50mm which would be to mimic human perspective. The FOV value, as well as the aspect ratio of the camera’s cone would be affected as a result. For other lens options we had the choice to add lens effects. Most of these involve playing with light in some way. A lot of the effects involve the introduction of steaks of light or lens flares. We might need more experience in relation to these effects but we felt that these would not add much to the experience especially since the daylight is set to a clear sunny day rather than noon or clouded cover where some steaks of light or different lighting effects might take effect. Having this effects may add to the realism of the scene but also may take away from the viewing experience and as or model exists in a museum context I feel the spectacle should take a back seat to the displaying of the model’s geometry. Lastly at the end of the spline path on the viewing point we had the idea to remove some of the stave planks. In this way the inner architecture of the square posts and sill would be exposed. This could give a better insight into how these types of wooden churches were built and explain why there is not much physical evidence of them left due to the lack of ground interference and the way they were designed.
Finally we decided against the camera animation as we felt it would not add to the overall experience. This is especially due to the fact that we used a camera matching method for the background and environment surrounding the model. As this is a 2d image it can only appear realistic when used in one prospective. We did not want the experience of walking around the church from a visual prospective if it was floating and disconnected in space without an environment around it. We feel the static view of the church gives a good impression and we may use cameras similar to human vision when doing the final renderings to give the sense of scale.