CompuServe Thread

The fact you know 3DS well and have minimum background in Acad could be seen as an advantage<G>. Each program is very different, as you know, and students should concentrate on 3DS in a 3DS class. DXF import and a discussion of face normals/vertex welding is about all I ever have time for. You're probably right about many students not having computers at home and won't be able to do the tutorials after the class is over. In that case, they probably won't remember anything you teach them a week after the class. I'm presuming the class is being offered by the school as training or an introductory overview of 3DS, in 9 weeks it can't be seen as education? If it's professional training, then it's up to the students to follow through and apply what they've learned. If it's an overview, then they've gotten a good one. My training sessions are in two very good Authorized Training Centers, Wentworth Institute in Boston, and University of New Hampshire in Durham, NH and both labs are exceptional with high quality 3 beam projection systems. For small groups at some private training, I use either a 35" monitor or a high quality overhead projection LCD plate. The 35" monitor is best and can be rented at a video house. The students have to be able to see you work on screen, otherwise too much time is spent moving around. Hope that helps some. Good luck -Ted Boardman !^NavFont01F0007MGHHK6092A2

<< One point, however, is that I think Paul is really getting ready to do some training as opposed to education. Major difference, because of the time constraints and if someone comes in for training and you show them Nightmare before Christmas, you're apt to be in trouble<g>. About 30 seconds of N B C, again and again. I agree on the difference between training and education. Education enables us to train ourselves or make much better use of training. It sounds like, in this situation, the time constraints and the expectations of the school dictate a tools based approach. My general point is that students mistake what tools can do for them. At one end of the scale theyve seen commercials and shows where one keystroke produces a moving 3d animation ( which key IS that ) and imagine that buying the software will solve their problems. At the other end they may be expert at software and systems but fail to note that the goal is communication of an idea rather than the display of techinical virtuosity. Even if a course must be tools oriented and focused on technical solutions I would still make students aware of the limits of that approach and suggest ways for the motivated among them to gain a deeper understanding of effective communication with light, sound and time. Ive told more than a few students who were expert with photoshop, but know little about what makes images work, that just because youve got a nail gun instead of a hammer dosnt mean you know how to frame a house. << How would you approach training in the thinking process if it were compressed into a 16-24 hr session? Its definitly difficult. I have the luxury of 68 hour semesters with lots of home work on top of that. Heres my approach to thinking in any studio class. Grossly simplified but effective. Divide thinking into two kinds: Analysis and Idea Production. Analysis is based on learning a specific vocabulary ( which would be different for cooking, film, still images etc ) and using that vocabulary to describe the mechanics of a piece, why it works or why it dosnt. For example I can use the vocabulary of color ( color contrasts, value, saturation, atmospheric perspective etc ) to explain why some of the architectual examples in the R3 manual and Inside 3ds look so lame and why others ( most of them ) are so effective. I described some of the practice for analysis of film in the previous message. Idea Production or Design Thinking training is based on a simple flow chart: Definition (what are you trying to do, get across). Visualization of alternatives ( different solutions) and variations on each alternative. Test the solutions (tests are economic, time, tech constraints; does this solution communicate the definition effectivly etc.) and focus on a solution for the project or some aspect of the project. We all do this process in an intuitive way if we are effective designers. Students however tend to settle for the first solution they devise so explicit practice helps them a lot. Heres an example of this process embodied in a drawing project. Most drawing students dont pay much attention to composition, they dont control the compositions of their drawings but just end up with something. 1) They do 9 thumnail sketches of a stuffed eagle from different positions ( the eagle is rotated every 5 min ) these are alternatives. 2) using L shaped pieces of paper they define 3 compositions, close up, far, etc for each sketch (after the composition lecture).These are variations. They test the 27 choices for effectiveness of composition in discussion using composition vocab learned in the analysis section. Focus on the solution and execute a finished full sized drawing. Students do both kinds of thinking as well as learning several specific drawing techniques. To answer your question how would I teach thinking in a limited time, I would try to come up with projects that, like the above, teach both technique and thinking in a compact efficient manner. Unfortunatly this is a difficult creative process in itself that may not be worth it or possible unless one is teaching on a fairly regular basis. << One thing I always do is have students watch videos (at home) and count the number of seconds any scene stays up before a cut. They are usually very surprised. Good idea. Students are usually very bad at pacing. You are forcing them to pay attention to the form rather than the content which is the basis of analysis. << Where do you teach, Ed. Im fine arts dept chair at Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria CA. My love is the animation program which is traditional (cel and clay etc) because we are poor ( my home stuff is way better than the schools ) Ive had a lot of success getting students into the Cal Arts character program and now lots of them are at Disney, Hanna B ,Turner ,games outfits etc. I would like to set up a 3ds program and I do teach independent projects computer animation for students with their own setups. To me the big challenge is to get the same fluid vital character movement thats possible with drawing in computer animation. Although motion capture works for many tasks it has the same limitations as old style rotoscoping in cel animation. Thanks for listening Ed