Category: Advanced and Experimental 3D Computer Animation Techniques
This interactive immersive installation explores the invisible processes through which artificial intelligence observes, records, and transforms human behaviour into data. By placing the participant at the centre of the experience, the project visualises the journey from a physical presence to a machine-readable profile, revealing how AI systems perceive people as collections of measurable information.
The experience begins with a simple act of person detection. As the participant enters the space, the system identifies their presence and establishes them as a subject within its field of observation. This minimal interface reflects the first stage of computer vision, where an individual is recognised not as a person but as an object to be tracked.
The second stage introduces real-time line graphs generated through hand and pose tracking. Every movement is translated into numerical values and live visualisations, exposing how gestures and body language become quantifiable parameters that can be measured and stored. Next, a heatmap and motion feedback system accumulates the participant’s movements over time. Rather than representing a single action, the visualisation builds a behavioural footprint, revealing patterns and frequencies that are invisible to the human eye but valuable to machine
learning systems.
The final processing stage shifts from data collection to computation. The immersive space fills with floating numbers, calculations, and fragmented datasets that surround the participant, visualising the hidden analytical processes performed by AI. This stage represents the organisation and processing of collected information before it is transformed into a usable model.
Once the computation is complete, the interface displays “100% Complete”, followed by “Subject Categorized.” After an extensive process of observation and analysis, the participant is reduced to a simplified numerical identity and assigned a predefined category.
Rather than criticising artificial intelligence itself, the project invites audiences to reflect on the mechanisms of contemporary data-driven technologies. It questions how everyday interactions are continuously converted into datasets for machine learning and training, and how these systems inevitably reshape human experience by treating people as collections of measurable variables rather than complex individuals.
Charlotte Juliens – Ekin Ayca Demirli – Inioluwa Adeyiga
During the final week, we focused on editing all of our footage together in After Effects. We brought the different visual stages of the project into one complete sequence, making sure the transitions between the detection, data visualisation, heatmap, calculation process and final classification felt clear and connected.
We also wrote the final project statement, which helped us explain the concept, aim and meaning behind the work more clearly. The statement allowed us to reflect on what the project is about and how it questions the way technology can collect, analyse and categorise human behaviour.
We also added a voice-over to explain the project throughout the video. The voice-over helped guide the viewer through each stage and made the process easier to understand. It explained how the system detects the subject, collects movement data, transforms it into graphs and heatmaps, and finally categorises the person based on the information it has gathered.
This final editing stage helped bring the whole project together. By combining the visuals, text, effects, project statement and voice-over, the project felt more complete and communicated our idea more clearly. The final outcome shows how data can be used to analyse human movement, while also questioning how technology can turn people into measurable information.
This week I had a short conversation with Nigel to clarify a few final questions before submitting my thesis proposal. Most of my questions were about Harvard referencing, page numbers, PDF sources, secondary citations and the structure of my chapters.
One of my main questions was about using PDFs that I had found online. Some of these PDFs did not have visible page numbers, so I asked whether it was acceptable to use the PDF page numbers instead. Nigel explained that this depends on the type of source. Books usually have page numbers, but journals or online PDFs do not always include them. He said that if proper page numbers are not available, it is not a major problem.
Nigel also explained that the bibliography should include the full source information, while the in-text citation only needs the author and date, and page numbers when relevant. This helped me understand the difference between what needs to appear in the main text and what needs to appear at the end in the bibliography.
I also asked about a source that quoted Paul Wells, because I found it difficult to access the original book and page. Nigel advised me that it is always better to use the primary source when possible, because another writer may have interpreted or quoted it incorrectly. However, if the original source cannot be accessed, it is acceptable to use the secondary source, as long as I am careful and accurate. This reassured me, because I had found a PhD thesis that cited Wells and included the page numbers.
Another question I asked was whether the citations in the document needed to be clickable, so that clicking on an author’s name would take the reader directly to the bibliography. Nigel said that this was not necessary and advised me not to make the academic paper interactive in that way, because it could disturb the marker while reading.
Finally, I asked about the chapter structure. I wanted to know whether each chapter should be labelled as “Chapter One”, “Chapter Two”, etc., followed by the topic title. Nigel confirmed that this was a good way to structure it, for example: “Chapter One: [Title]”, “Chapter Two: [Title]”, and “Chapter Three: [Title]”.
Overall, this conversation helped me feel more confident about the final referencing and formatting of my thesis proposal. Nigel reassured me that small referencing issues can be corrected through feedback, but that I should make sure to submit the work through Turnitin so that any problems can be checked properly. After this conversation, I felt more prepared to reread my proposal, make the final adjustments and submit it.
This week, we continued working on the Advanced Animation Shot and focused on polishing the animation. The goal was to make the shot feel more finished by improving the acting, timing and small details in the performance. At this stage, the main movement was already there, so the focus shifted more towards making the character feel alive and less robotic.
I focused on cleaning up the animation and making the performance more readable. For the polish stage, I also received extra feedback for if I wanted to continue improving the shot further. The feedback was mainly about adding more detail in the face and eyes. I was told to work more on the eyebrows, eye darts, making the eyes closer, adding blinks, and having the character look away. A useful note was that the eyes should move first, and then the head should follow after. The last blink also needed to be slower, so the moment feels more natural and less sudden.
On Friday, we had a workshop about Studio Library, Animation Layers and AnimBot. This was useful because these tools can help speed up the animation workflow and make it easier to organise poses, test changes and adjust parts of the animation without destroying the original movement. Studio Library is helpful for saving and reusing poses, while animation layers make it possible to add extra polish or corrections on top of an existing animation. AnimBot also seemed useful for making the animation process smoother, especially when working with timing, spacing and small adjustments.
Overall, this week helped me understand that polishing is not only about making the big movements cleaner, but also about adding small acting details. Things like blinks, eye direction, eyebrow movement and the delay between the eyes and head can make a big difference in how believable the character feels.
This week’s class included also an industry talk about preparing for our first job or internship in animation. We discussed what it is like to enter a professional studio environment, including production pipelines, teamwork, feedback cycles and how industry workflows are different from student projects.
The session was very useful because it gave us a clearer understanding of what employers may expect from us, both technically and professionally. It also made me think more about the responsibilities that come with working in a studio, such as communicating well with a team, responding to feedback and being able to adapt to a structured production process.
In this week, we reserved the 270° room because our project was designed as an installation. We wanted to test how the visuals would work in a larger immersive space, rather than only viewing them on a computer screen. This was an important step because the scale of the room changed how the project felt and made the data visualisation appear more like a real system surrounding the viewer.
Throughout the project, one of the biggest challenges was working with different versions of TouchDesigner. Some computers were using the 2023 version, while others had the 2025 version. This caused problems because certain operators and functions were different or missing depending on the version. For example, some TOPs and setups that worked in the newer version did not work properly in the older one.
When we arrived in the 270° room, we realised that the computer there did not have the newest version of TouchDesigner. This created a problem at first because our project was built using tools from the newer version. To solve this, we rendered the project from a different computer that had the correct version installed. This allowed us to continue testing the installation in the room without having to rebuild the whole project.
Even though this was stressful, it helped us understand how important it is to check software versions before presenting or installing a project. In the end, we were still able to test the work in the 270° room and see how our visuals, heatmaps, data, and completion screen functioned in an immersive environment.
This week’s theory session focused on understanding the formal requirements for the thesis proposal and how to prepare the written submission correctly. We looked at the main proposal structure, including the research title or question, draft introduction, keywords searched, research design methods, draft literature review, chapter outline, draft chapter, and indicative bibliography.
The session helped me understand that the proposal needs to clearly explain what the research will investigate and how it will be developed. For my own FMP, this means refining my idea around doomscrolling, desensitisation, media overload, political performance, and the way violence becomes part of an endless digital feed. Instead of only describing the story visually, I need to connect the project to a clear research question and explain how the practical animation will support the written investigation.
We also discussed the importance of academic writing and referencing. The guidelines explained that the thesis should use peer-reviewed books and scholarly articles where possible, rather than relying on personal blogs, reviews, or YouTube videos. This is important for my project because I need to support my ideas about media, war, animation, and desensitisation with reliable academic sources.
Another important part of the session was learning how to use Harvard referencing correctly. Any quotation, paraphrase, film, television programme, image, or online source needs to be referenced clearly in the text and included in the final bibliography. This helped me realise that I need to keep track of every source I use from the beginning, especially visual references, films, academic texts, and online assets that may influence the project.
Outside of class, I started thinking more about which sources could support my proposal. I looked at key books related to film theory and animation, including texts on animation history, animation authorship, and film theory through the senses. These sources could help me connect my practical animation choices to academic ideas about visual storytelling, spectatorship, emotion, and the relationship between media and the viewer.
At this stage, my next step is to continue refining my research question and begin organising the proposal into the required sections. I also need to expand my bibliography, collect stronger academic sources, and think carefully about how my practical work in Blender can become part of the research design. This week made the proposal feel more structured and helped me understand what needs to be prepared before submission.
This week, we worked on the Advanced Animation Shot (Blocking Plus) assignment. The focus was on improving the blocking and making the acting choices clearer before going into the polish stage. We had to make sure the main poses, timing and movement of the character were readable, so the shot already made sense even without all the final details.
For this version, I focused on pushing the body mechanics and making the performance feel less stiff. I tried to make the important poses clearer and worked more on the timing between the different actions. The goal was not to fully polish the animation yet, but to make sure the base of the shot was strong enough to continue working on.
During the week, we also had a workshop about AnimBot. This was useful because AnimBot gives extra tools inside Maya that can help with animation workflow. It can make it easier to adjust timing, copy poses, mirror poses and clean up animation faster. This workshop helped me understand how these tools can support the animation process, especially when going from blocking plus to polish.
Overall, Week 17 was mainly about strengthening the shot before the final polish. It helped me see that blocking plus is an important stage, because the big acting choices and movement need to work first before adding smaller details like blinks, eye darts and facial animation.
This week, we continued developing the next stage of our project by adding heatmaps to our MediaPipe setup. After successfully connecting the hand and body detection, we wanted to create a stronger visual representation of the subject’s movement and activity.
The heatmap allowed us to show where the subject was moving the most on screen. This added another layer to the project, because the body was no longer only being tracked through points and lines, but also through areas of intensity. The more movement happened in one area, the stronger the visual effect became.
After this, we focused on how to connect our data and numbers into a clear and effective visualisation. We already had tracking values and movement data, but we needed to find a way to make this information look visually interesting and understandable. To help with this, we watched multiple videos and references about data visualisation, motion tracking, and digital interface design.
These references helped us think about how numbers, graphs, heatmaps, and labels could work together on screen. We wanted the final result to feel like an advanced system analysing the subject in real time. This stage was important because it helped us move from a basic technical setup into a more designed and believable visual experience.
We especially liked the final video we looked at, as it showed a strong and clear representation of numerical data. Inspired by this, we recreated a similar visual style in our own project and then replaced the example values with our own tracked data. This helped us turn the raw numbers from our system into a more polished and readable visual output that fit the overall concept of data extraction.
To move towards the final stage of our project, we started working on the completion screen. At this point, we wanted to create a strong visual ending that would clearly communicate that the system had finished analysing the subject. For this, we needed a visually effective way to show messages such as “100% Complete” and “Subject Categorized.”
We looked at different video references to explore how this kind of final screen could be presented in a clear and engaging way. One of the videos stood out to us because of its strong visual style, especially the glowing text and repeated screen-based effect. We all liked this reference, so we decided to base our own completion screen on it.
Using this as inspiration, we recreated a similar visual approach in TouchDesigner and adapted it to fit our project. This helped us design a completion screen that felt more polished and believable, while also matching the overall aesthetic of our data extraction concept. The result created a clear transition into the final stage of the system, making the project feel more complete and visually cohesive.