[x3d-public] FW: FW: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim MotionCapture -V1.0

John Carlson yottzumm at gmail.com
Sat Jun 27 15:54:32 PDT 2020 

Someone must check tidy output manually.   Can you confirm that tidy is
doing the right thing?   Maybe rerun tidy and see if anything changes?

I have been pretty much zonked for a couple of weeks.   I think Don did
create some kind of mapping table if I read my email correctly.

John
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:24 AM GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tidy has such a big list - overwhelming for a human. So that would be good
> for some of the little things at the end. Getting the list down to human
> size first would help.
> Tidy has suggestions for some. Getting those nuisance / annoying / routine
> substitution things out of the tidy log first by automation would help get
> it closer to human scale.
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:17 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we need some practice manually fixing before automating?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:47 AM GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/HumanoidAnimation/build.X3dSchematronX3dTidy.log.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> If its this tidy stuff, is there a way to automate some of the fixing?
>>> It looks like tidy has some ;guesses' for some of the names. And for other
>>> names a human could probably guess, if it was in a list / lookup table.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's a way to get tidy to put out its complaints into a
>>> form that could be used by a string substitution utility. Or scrape a
>>> lookup table from the tidy log?
>>>
>>> So it could all be done in a day.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:33 AM Joseph D Williams <
>>> joedwil at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Sent: *Friday, June 26, 2020 9:53 PM
>>>> *To: *GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc: *X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>> *Subject: *RE: FW: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim
>>>> MotionCapture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - Getting past blockages in the HAnim project and on to node
>>>>    improvements might help later when harmonizing with glTF skinning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any hanim blockages are just getting some really rather straightforward
>>>> simple updates (names and hierarchies) done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are already harmonized with gltf, because it is the same data in
>>>> json form as we author in x3d human-readable form. Nothing magic or not
>>>> harmonious, just the gltf data is built for hardware instead of humans. If
>>>> you have figured out what the gltf stuff is and how to use it, then you
>>>> will have learned about x3d hanim.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, the reverse is true but it is more difficult because the gltf
>>>>  data is so scattered around. For example, the skin deformation is indexed
>>>> by vertex usually with about 16 (for convenience) joints and weights, and
>>>> one of these for each vertex.  If you look at hanim Joint, the vertices and
>>>> weights associated with each joint are listed in the Joint node. So, what
>>>> would you do with hanim Joint data to create some gltf vertex objects?
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Friday, June 26, 2020 3:46 PM
>>>> *To: *Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Cc: *X3D Graphics public mailing list <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: FW: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim
>>>> MotionCapture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Q. HAnim Examples > What does the to-do list look like?
>>>>
>>>> I ask because I got a sense that no new / modified HANim nodes would be
>>>> considered beyond official HAnim2 until examples cleaned up.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything blocking that? I ask in case someone has
>>>> something that can help.
>>>>
>>>> One thing that popped to mind: is there a problem getting authors
>>>> permission? If so and an example was demonstrating a particular thing,
>>>> perhaps that scene can be dropped and a new one authored or volunteered by
>>>> others reading this who may be sitting on some assets or capabilities that
>>>> can volunteer equivalent scenery.
>>>>
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>> more..
>>>>
>>>> On the horizon: glTF skinning which may have the effect of bypassing
>>>> HAnim, perhaps obsoleting HAnim in practice.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.khronos.org/files/gltf20-reference-guide.pdf
>>>>
>>>> - p.5,6,7
>>>>
>>>> Getting past blockages in the HAnim project and on to node improvements
>>>> might help later when harmonizing with glTF skinning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:52 PM Joseph D Williams <
>>>> joedwil at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - My conceptual model is a bit different.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is OK by me as long as it works. Whatever, Joint hierarchies will
>>>> operate just like practical hierarchies of standard x3d Transform nodes,
>>>> using center of rotation concept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the Humanoid, if there are more joints in the capture than the
>>>> playback, then you “ignore” some sets of values. If there are more joints
>>>> in the playback than the capture, then, if the hierarchy is still ok, you
>>>> don’t send events to the extra joints, or just send the default.
>>>>
>>>> The x3d tool should be able to help an author by first giving a list of
>>>> what joints, segments, sites are available in the playback skeleton defined
>>>> In the Humanoid skeleton. All the author needs to do to use existing x3d
>>>> timer/interpolator/route animations is connect up the animation events to
>>>> the skeleton Joint DEFs. Multiple, selectable animation routines can reside
>>>> inside or outside the Humanoid, and prototype behaviors are very usable and
>>>> very sharable between similar characters. In general, these animations are
>>>> designed for realtime rather than frametime, but of course can be used to
>>>> produce a frame at any time. However, these animations by themselves may
>>>> not directly define the skeleton they apply to, or the initial pose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For x3d HAnim Humanoid Motion style, I think we are trying to access a
>>>> perhaps more public range of animations, by the easiest way possible. From
>>>> what I have seen these mostly use capture intervals related to video or
>>>> film and are typically oversampled for typical realtime needs, and also,
>>>> since mainly using xyz data, are subject to unpredictable animations,
>>>> particularly fast wide motions. However, we want to make it convenient for
>>>> an author, so we want to use the data in the bvh file to help connect the
>>>> skeletons with the data.
>>>>
>>>> Turns out this may be easy because the bvh file contains configuration
>>>> data for the capture skeleton as well as the animation data. Now all we
>>>> must do is connect the skeletons and then the data and events are all
>>>> handled under the covers. In this case, it is possible that a tool could
>>>> for example, display a model of the capture skeleton and the playback
>>>> skeleton to help the author decide how to proceed, or even, if the names
>>>> matched, do it automagically.
>>>>
>>>> A Humanoid Motion animation resides in the Humanoid object and for best
>>>> automation, should include enough information to reconstruct the capture
>>>> skeleton hierarchy. In order to establish this baseline, the existing
>>>> Motion node wants the author to transcribe important bvh data into x3d data
>>>> forms and place it within the Humanoid Motion node. This practice also
>>>> tends to help transportability between various typical capture skeletons
>>>> and x3d hanim ‘standard’ skeletons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - Your loa4 idea makes sense if you don't want to ignore….
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still think the idea behind ‘ignore’ is that if you have more joints
>>>> and data in for the capture skeleton than the playback skeleton can use.
>>>> The author has determined that some of the capture data has to be ignored
>>>> and not sent to playback skeleton, so those joints are labeled with
>>>> ‘ignore’ keyword in order to declare that the related data is not to be
>>>> used. Please tell me if this is not what is intended.
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case then the playback skeleton will never know because
>>>> no events are sent to joints that are not there.
>>>>
>>>> If you have more joints in the playback skeleton, then it is ok and no
>>>> capture data needs to be ignored and playback joints that don’t get data
>>>> don’t care and work as if not there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for thinking about this,
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 24, 2020 4:33 PM
>>>> *To: *Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Cc: *Spec Feedback <spec-comment at web3d.org>; x3d at web3d.org
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim
>>>> Motion Capture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My conceptual model is a bit different.
>>>>
>>>> - skeletal joint asks for joint information from MotionData/MotionClip,
>>>> joint by joint when traversing the skeletal joint hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Your loa4 idea makes sense if you don't want to ignore.And -depending
>>>> on your implementation, like you say you'd get identity transforms -no
>>>> joint motion- for joints MotionClip doesn't have.
>>>>
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:20 PM Joseph D Williams <
>>>> joedwil at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - and they have a brief statement somewhere saying its ignored ie
>>>>    the values field has it, but the humanoid doesn;t.
>>>>    - But they didn't say mathematically what to do about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, so there are Motion values for a joint in from the capture skeleton
>>>> but either they do not apply to a Joint in the playback skeleton, or there
>>>> is no corresponding joint in the playback skeleton. Thus, as an author, you
>>>> just want to ignore that set of values in the Motion values field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For a typical animation routine, if you send events to a node that is
>>>> not there, you get an error.
>>>>
>>>> If there is a Joint in the capture skeleton that does not appear in the
>>>> playback skeleton, then you don’t try to send events to that joint, because
>>>> it is not there. So, if the Joint is actually present, then that Joint will
>>>> remain in its default orientation.
>>>>
>>>> This is OK, and the skeleton does not mind at all, it is like the Joint
>>>> is not there except it is and may have child Joint hierarchy. Of course in
>>>> that case the parent of the ignored joint controls the child hierarchy. If
>>>> whatever animation device is under the covers thinks it must send data to
>>>> that joint, then don’t use the Motion values, just send  0 0 1 0 each cycle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ignore, means Hey, my capture skeleton has a Joint and I have data for
>>>> it but my playback skeleton does not have that joint. I am trying to
>>>> import, for example, some LOA4 animations into my LOA3 playback skeleton.
>>>> As an author you are choosing to refuse to give your loa3 an update and you
>>>> must confess that fact by using IGNORE in your Motion node list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least that has been my experience, when using animations aimed at a
>>>> higher or lower loa than the playback skeleton. For lower loa playback
>>>> skeleton, just comment out the interpolators and routes for the unused
>>>> Joint nodes. If higher loa playback skeleton, then problems because the
>>>> hierarchy does not care about ignoring intermediate joints. Just don’t send
>>>> data or if you must, just send 0 0 1 0 to the ignored joint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is again why you want to just go ahead and start work with the
>>>> loa4 playback skeleton. Because it is ok to ignore it if you don’t have
>>>> data for it. It is always not ok to not send data to something that is not
>>>> there and any browser should tell you and probably should fail if you try
>>>> to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 24, 2020 3:33 PM
>>>> *To: *Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Cc: *Spec Feedback <spec-comment at web3d.org>; x3d at web3d.org
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim
>>>> Motion Capture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IGNORED is in the Motion AnnexD example scene:
>>>>
>>>>  <HAnimMotion frameCount="392" enabled='true' loop='true' frameTime =
>>>> "0.033333" frameDuration=".033333"
>>>>
>>>>              joints="humanoid_root, l_hip, l_knee, l_talocrural, r_hip,
>>>>
>>>>                    r_knee, r_talocrural, vl5, IGNORED, l_shoulder,
>>>>
>>>>                    l_elbow, l_radiocarpal, IGNORED, r_shoulder, r_elbow,
>>>>
>>>>                    r_radiocarpal, IGNORED, skullbase"
>>>>
>>>> and they have a brief statement somewhere saying its ignored ie the
>>>> values field has it, but the humanoid doesn;t.
>>>>
>>>> But they didn't say mathematically what to do about it. My
>>>> interpretation is that you would accumulate the ignored values as you go
>>>> down the bvh limb tree to get the next joint. If you're working
>>>> call-by-call, to make sure the transform fetcher understands what's been
>>>> skipped, you woult tell it the previous joint you asked for when asking for
>>>> the next (and it would look at the bvh and see you are ignoring some joints)
>>>>
>>>> getNextJointTransform(lastJoint,currentJoint,time,&transform)
>>>>
>>>> something like that. I'm not doing that yet, and haven't proven the
>>>> theory of joint transform accumulation.
>>>>
>>>> The likely reason the AnnexD model didn't seem to mind / looked like
>>>> its bvh animation in blender: the IGNORED values were zeros anyway. I was
>>>> lucky,
>>>>
>>>> The nature of matching up free downloaded bvh with any loa hanim
>>>> character I have means we;ll be skipping and some and some joints never
>>>> captured by the mocap system / not in the bvh list. For freewrl users,
>>>> that's OK - doesn't need to be perfect, just needs to get us into the game
>>>> and having fun experimenting. .
>>>>
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:18 PM Joseph D Williams <
>>>> joedwil at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - - IGNORE - the transform fetcher needs to accumulate the ignored
>>>>    transforms to apply to the next non-ignored joint in the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what the transform fetcher does but this is no different than
>>>> having an intermediate joint that is not animated.? In operation, not
>>>> animating a Joint does not cause any problems. That is why it is always
>>>> good to pick the loa4 skeleton for most fun. If a joint is ignored, it is
>>>> just not animated and remains in its default position. Its children may
>>>> still be animated.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, am I missing something? Ignored just means there is no
>>>> animation driving that Joint. The bigger problem is when you have animation
>>>> trying to drive a joint that is not there. Mostly the browser will tell you
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - No need for the software to complain if bvh doesn't match.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think if Motion node cannot find a matching Joint somewhere, then
>>>> failure until you get the list right and all named joints matched up[.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at some sample typical timer/interpolator/route setup and
>>>> you try to drive a joint that is not there or has the different name, then
>>>> it will usually tell you about missing sources or targets. Maybe I don’t
>>>> understand what ignore refers to? What does ignore refer to? A Joint in the
>>>> Humanoid skeleton, a joint in the capture skeleton,  or a set of data for a
>>>> joint in the bvh file?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *GPU Group <gpugroup at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:56 AM
>>>> *To: *Joseph D Williams <joedwil at earthlink.net>
>>>> *Cc: *Spec Feedback <spec-comment at web3d.org>; x3d at web3d.org
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim
>>>> Motion Capture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No need for the software to complain if bvh doesn't match.
>>>>
>>>> Already in the HAnim2 specification for Motion they use the IGNORE
>>>> keyword when when HH is skipping a joint the bvh has. Not shown in the
>>>> spec, but likely to happen is the bvh not having a joint that the HH has,
>>>> what I call NOT_IMPLEMENTED, to keep it separate from IGNORE
>>>>
>>>> - IGNORE - the transform fetcher needs to accumulate the ignored
>>>> transforms to apply to the next non-ignored joint in the limb tree I didn't
>>>> do this yet, but should have it somewhere, so it applies also in in the
>>>> original Motion node if there are IGNOREs.
>>>>
>>>> - NOT_IMPLEMENTED (bvh doesn't have the joint) - the HH would get an
>>>> identity transform back for that joint.
>>>>
>>>> -Doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:36 PM Joseph D Williams <
>>>> joedwil at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - Then one mapping node …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Currently the Humanoid skeleton declares its active Joint nodes by
>>>> naming each Joint node and by including list of used Joints in the Humanoid
>>>> joints field.
>>>>
>>>> I think the Motion node also declares the joints it wants to use by
>>>> listing in the Motion node.
>>>>
>>>> To my knowledge there is no requirement that the Humanoid joints list
>>>> be in any specific order.
>>>>
>>>> I think the Humanoid Motion joints field needs the list in some order
>>>> relating to the data.
>>>>
>>>> The point is that for Motion to work, it must find the appropriate
>>>> Joint name in the Humanoid joints field.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My only big point is that both of those lists should look about the
>>>> same (MF strings). If you want a skeleton that is matched to the bvh data,
>>>> then we change the names in the imported bvh to match the names used in the
>>>> skeleton field and enumerated in the Humanoid joints field. Some help could
>>>> be given to an author helping to match the bvh skeleton nomenclature with
>>>> the Humanoid joints. Or if you are really serious about using bvh data,
>>>> then gather enough examples to suggest a ‘typical standard’ bvh skeleton
>>>> and data, then compose a skeleton in the Humanoid skeleton field to match
>>>> and then you might use a ‘typical standard’ Motion fields.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The main idea of the Humanoid joints field is to list the actual joints
>>>> that are available in the skeleton model. The purpose of the joints list in
>>>> the Motion node is to declare which of those joints will be active in the
>>>> current simulation. In this case, if the capture skeleton is the same as
>>>> the playback skeleton, no problem to just change the data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, the only things the browser needs to figure out is: Do the Motion
>>>> joints match the skeleton joints and complain if not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards and Thanks for thoughts on this.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Spec Feedback <spec-comment at web3d.org>
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 23, 2020 6:02 AM
>>>> *To: *x3d at web3d.org
>>>> *Subject: *[x3d] Spec Comment by dougsanden on 19774-2: HAnim Motion
>>>> Capture -V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Submitter indicates that this comment may be public: *Yes* --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comment on 19774-2: HAnim Motion Capture - V1.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------
>>>>
>>>> Proposed Explicit Name Mapping node
>>>>
>>>> NameMapping
>>>>
>>>> MFString A []
>>>>
>>>> MFString B []
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Esample:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Discussion:
>>>>
>>>> not necessary to have IGNORED or NOT_IMPLEMENTED - that would be the
>>>> default
>>>>
>>>> if not found during lookup.
>>>>
>>>> Then one mapping node can be used for multiple .bvh from various
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>> Putting a mapping node into both HAnimHumanoid HH and
>>>> HAnimMotionClip/Data
>>>>
>>>> HMC would allow a 2-step lookup:
>>>>
>>>> - HH to loa, loa to HMC
>>>>
>>>> - A previous comment shows the math advantage of 2 step
>>>>
>>>> If no mapping nodes present, browser would assume names are same in HH
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> HMC
>>>>
>>>> - if one mapping node in either HH or HMC, then a 1-step lookup is done
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Submitted on Tuesday, 2020,  June 23 - 7:02am
>>>>
>>>> by dougsanden (dougsanden )
>>>>
>>>> IP: 75.159.18.239
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See: https://www.web3d.org/node/1694/submission/4051
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> x3d mailing list
>>>>
>>>> x3d at web3d.org
>>>>
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d_web3d.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x3d mailing list
>>>> x3d at web3d.org
>>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d_web3d.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x3d-public mailing list
>>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20200627/d385e56b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the x3d-public mailing list