Stereotypical Use of CG vs. What is Entertaining

[brucegregory]

Animation Master has always favored the development of entertaining media over that which is simply "realistic".

 

I think that CG creators have, over the years, equated their technologies and their realistic employment of them as Entertainment.

 

This is an error of judgement, in my opinion.

 

Why do CG producers attempt to grow closer and closer to "the real"? Why do they think that "real" constitutes successful entertainment?

 

Visual entertainment, in the past, has not been dependent on realism to obtain the quality and category of "entertainment". More abstract and stylistic means of delivery have, many times, out-weighed those that were more "real" or even, surreal.

 

It seems that technology has developed based on the erroneous presumption that "real" does, indeed, constitute that which is entertaining. I would enter an exclamation that, NO!, realism does not equate to that which entertains.

 

In my own experience, that which tends towards "stylistic", "impressionistic" and even "abstract" tend to entertain - even enlighten.

 

 

Greg Smith

[robcat2075]

I don't think it's as simple as that.

 

Visual Effects strives for realism because they have to fit into real filmed images.

 

On the other hand, Pixar is making movies with characters that don't even have nostrils or ear holes.

 

But my basic theory is that realism sells. Audiences (I mean the 30 million theater ticket buyers) don't like to be challenged with artistic interpretations of things they know. They like a tree to look like a tree and not an impressionist painting. Most audiences want simple and obvious.

[brucegregory]

If that were the case, then Warner Bros would never have promoted the works of Chuck Jones. Anything but realistic. And, back then, audiences were much less sophisticated than now.

 

I believe the eyes and sensibilities of viewers have become tired of faked CG realism. They want a break from it.

 

Splines reside in the realm of CG expressionism. If you want realism, you better follow the pack of polygonal artists and Zbrush.

 

 

Greg Smith

[Rodney]

I believe the eyes and sensibilities of viewers have become tired of faked CG realism. They want a break from it.

 

The folks over at the Don Bluth forum are eagerly anticipating that reaction and see current criticism in the media as a signal that the winds are changing.

They are hoping for a return to classical hand drawn animation and most recently, many see the success of 'Lion King 3D' as a harbinger of that.

 

I understand their eagerness (I love traditional animation) but you must recall that the most vocal of these proponents are also the very same folks who too quickly suggested that 2D animation was dead.

 

Realism can certainly be problematic; too much of a good thing.

When I go to the theater I don't want to get too cerebral... I can do that after the movie... I prefer to be entertained.

[brucegregory]

I don't think there will be an overwhelming return to 2D hand drawn animation. It's too laborious and requires a team to accomplish anything major or even minor.

 

But, that doesn't mean there will not be a revival of 2D style animation. If 3D stuff can be made to be as expressive and fluid as 2D stuff - and be performed by an individual - or a very small group - then a revival of the style is in the bag.

 

I think Animation Master holds the key for this methodology. It's approach is simpler and lends itself to the stylistic.

 

The problem, so far, is that making 3D stuff that looks like old style 2D stuff requires very complicated rigging done by (here we go again) - a team.

 

There has got to be a better and easier way.

 

 

Greg Smith

[robcat2075]

Your answer will be in the box office. There's still at least one or two hand drawn features every year. When they see the audiences flocking to them, they'll make more. All they want is money, they dont' care how they make it.

[Paul Forwood]

Greg, your posts are more than a little disturbing. They sound more like desperate wailing for a messiah than someone interested in creating entertainment. You seem to have everything blown out of proportion and I hope that you can come down to earth, buy yourself a subscription to A:M and start honing your entertainment skills.

 

Use your imagination and skills to tell your stories in whatever style you choose. A:M is flexible enough to allow you to choose just about any style. Realism doesn't have to be your artistic goal but reality has to govern your workflow. A:M is ideal for creating entertainment of many, many styles. Just check out the examples here in the forums. You will find a very wide range of styles where the artists have pushed the software to it's limits in all directions.

 

I don't understand your wailing for Martin!

 

Do you have a portfolio or examples of your work from the past decade?

[Vertexspline]

I took greg's opinion as just saying --realism in itself does not guaranty a good story or entertainment. In which I would agree and the proof is shown here so often. Sometimes the most simple animation nowhere near realistic has made me laugh or chuckle or in some way has captivated my spirit for the few seconds that it ran. Would they be any better done photorealistically ? Nope. No need to the exisiting visuals told the story well enough.

[mouseman]

The real goal is to make some kind of connection with the audience. How to do that is the question. No two individuals are exactly alike. Each person is receptive to different things, including different media, and the mix changes over time.

 

Hand-drawn and 3D animation both share the ability of being able of taking advantage of not being real. That is part of their appeal, for both kids and adults. Within both styles, there is an incredibly huge amount of variety possible.

 

The three questions a filmmaker needs to ask are:

 

1. What do I want to say? (What is my story?)

2. How do I want my audience to feel. (What effect do I want my story to have on those that experience it?)

3. What medium (or media) would best fulfill #1 and #2.

 

There is a mistake in saying that a particular medium is better than another across the board. It is valid to say that you find it easier to achieve #1 and/or #2 with a particular medium. Perhaps it is fair to say that audiences are becoming more receptive to a particular medium and less with another.

 

The other important note is that the medium does not save a bad story. #1 and #2 still have to come first.

[brucegregory]

Mouseman:

 

I think you make a valid point: with what ease can you obtain a positive audience response? How difficult is that process from the standpoint of economy, (monetarily and time-wise)?

 

The modern push that has lasted for over 20 years - toward achieving photorealism came about more as a result of a challenge placed before software developers. It also solved the problem of meeting the need of declining movie budgets.

 

Most of the involvement in producing photo-real content came from the large studios who already had very large teams. And, the software developed to fill the need of those large teams. This carried over into use by smaller studios - not just VFX studios, but animation studios, as well.

 

Then came Pixar and Toy Story. They had the definite motive of showcasing their Renderman software. The nature of the rendering output guided the development of the content itself - since Renderman was so capable at rendering plastics with photo-real lighting, the environment of the film had to be plastic - Toys.

 

Because of the novelty displayed in Toy Story (novelty of look as well as novelty of story), all the studios began to copy their "photo-real" plastic look. The style is still prevalent in animation - right up to the present day. Just look at Saturday morning cartoons.

 

I just think that after 20 years of saturation, people have become satiated with the plastic, photo-real genre - and the novelty has worn off. Besides, I don't think very much of the content is really very entertaining.

 

The other aspect of the development of photo-real content that has pervaded all media comes from its over-use in video games. That is another subject, though.

 

Anyway, I think Animation Master has always had the ideal tool set for producing stylized animation - that which I find entertaining - emulating the styles of the 30's, 40's and 50's cartoons. Surprisingly little of that style has yet to be produced using the software, however.

 

I'm testing the waters, here, to see how many might agree with me about these premises. I could be wrong.

 

I didn't mean to disturb anyone - just wanted to make a few observations and hope to have some more stimulating conversations with the man who had the foresight to invent a product designed for individuals who wished to create stylistic, animated entertainment. I'm surprised that more users do not share this desire.

 

 

Greg Smith

[mtpeak2]

Hmm, so I'm guessing the work I do in A:M is crap to you, since I lean towards realism. And, you must really hate Stian, Marcos and Rodger's work.

 

That's very discouraging!

[Fuchur]

Hmm, so I'm guessing the work I do in A:M is crap to you, since I lean towards realism. And, you must really hate Stian, Marcos and Rodger's work.

 

I doubt he meant that with that.

 

It is just another approach... like there is not only drawing but although music, modeling, etc.

He may like the approaches using more unrealistic stuff more, but that doesnt mean that there is no high value in your great images and animations.

 

All just a matter of taste, if you ask me. I like both approaches and I think that your work and of course the work of Stian, Marcos and Rodger is very cool, aspiring and very well done.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Vertexspline]

mtpeak--- I actually think he is favoring AM things in general as a way to his ideal and that should be including your things. Certainly --who would not like your stuff ---its awesome man!

[Bill White]

animation hardware? frame rendering speed? software? project collaboration? Would someone please answer those questions for me?

 

hardware: I have read a bit from the forums here the last few weeks (and followed links) about gpu acceleration for rendering polys. Is this a serious benefit for something like rendering times? (e.g. Can it turn frame rendering times from hours to mins, or mins to secs sort of thing?) Can it help us spliners in any way?

 

software: Does something like netrender allow us to put our machines at each others disposal for large rendering projects? (How was TWO or SO handled in this regard, assuming tons of rendering required? Did anyone ever add up the rendering time required for those massive projects? ) I watched TWO on youtube and it was great to see. Fine job TWO'ers!

 

projects and collaboration: Something worth having the abilities to model and render for in the first place. Mouseman phrased it well yesterday a few posts back about story being the first thing. I would enjoy a conversation about ideas for different collaborative projects and how they might be accomplished, technically and artistically.

 

(Just kicking the can around here.. As a newbie I may be useless on all fronts.

 

A regular realtime chat would be cool also. Anyone doing that anywhere?

 

tanks fer yer time.

 

Bill....

[Fuchur]

hardware: I have read a bit from the forums here the last few weeks (and followed links) about gpu acceleration for rendering polys. Is this a serious benefit for something like rendering times? (e.g. Can it turn frame rendering times from hours to mins, or mins to secs sort of thing?) Can it help us spliners in any way?

 

Steffen is thinking and trying to implement it, so it is not very easy to do and he had a few problems with it... we will see if it can be added.

 

software: Does something like netrender allow us to put our machines at each others disposal for large rendering projects? (How was TWO or SO handled in this regard, assuming tons of rendering required? Did anyone ever add up the rendering time required for those massive projects? ) I watched TWO on youtube and it was great to see. Fine job TWO'ers!

 

In TWO the WebRenderer (based on netrenderer) was used. It used computers all over the world to render things out. Netrenderer can not do that. It is "only" for local area networks (LANs) but it is still very very helpful!

This is not available to the public and was hard to set up, if I remember correctly, so the technology should still be available...

 

A regular realtime chat would be cool also. Anyone doing that anywhere?

 

A realtime chat is already included in A:M. Have a look at the Community-window in A:M and you will find it...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Rodney]

I'm testing the waters, here, to see how many might agree with me about these premises. I could be wrong.

 

It's not a matter of being right or wrong.

The value of entertainment is entirely subjective.

 

Your topic title is going to confuse people as you are placing at odds things that are not in balance enough to be contrasted or compared (CG vs Entertainment).

 

Computer Graphics is a technical method... and a style of animation.

Entertainment is an personal assessment.

 

Entertainment:

1. The action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment.

2. An event, performance, or activity designed to entertain others.

 

versus

 

Computer Graphics

The pictorial representation and manipulation of data by a computer.

 

As there is no conflict between these two things I can only assume that conflict is imagined.

 

Reading in between the lines we begin to understand that your current preference is for stylistic over realism.

You prefer your imagery and entertainment to be more abstracted.

 

When critiquing realism most people trot out the (useful) saying, "If you want realism then use a camera!."

There is a problem with this way of thinking however: not all things real and imagined can be captured with a 'real' camera.

But they can if seen with a virtual camera in CG.

 

 

"Over the years CG creators have equated their technologies and the realistic employment of them as entertainment."

"That which tends towards "stylistic", "impressionistic" and even "abstract" tend to entertain - even enlighten."

"It seems that technology has developed based on the erroneous presumption that "real" does, indeed, constitute that which is entertaining. I would enter an exclamation that, NO!, realism does not equate to that which entertains."

 

The first two statements are true but the third is your postulation.

 

I believe it can be shown that technology was developed to fill in gaps...obstacles if you will... that prevented films from being entertaining (specifically, the errors that crept into films that caused audiences to let go of their temporary suspension of disbelief in the unreal. I believe it can be further demonstrated that technology has not developed on the erroneous presumption that realism constitutes that which is entertaining. I would suggest that the erroneous assumption may be present in that original postulation.

 

In framing this I understand the focus is on CG but given that CG is such a broad category (from utterly simple flying logos to the complexity of the lasted film effects) it may help to narrow the field. Frankly, I don't see how this will be possible when they all fall under the broader category of CG. I don't think you are saying that all entertainment should be flying logos on the screen. How much is too much reality?

[Rodney]

A regular realtime chat would be cool also. Anyone doing that anywhere?

 

There seems to be support for restarting our weekly chats (I believe they were usually held on Wednesdays) but as Fuchur notes... you can chat any day just by logging in to A:M Community.

[Vertexspline]

Rodney--a weekly chat would be fun community activity---maybe linked to a small project or discussion of a small element of AM ----and thinking more ..also would be fun to have a weekly forum modeling project , or pic , or action challenge to keep folks ever improving their skills and for the more skilled to help show how to do it.

[Rodney]

Rodney--a weekly chat would be fun community activity---maybe linked to a small project or discussion of a small element of AM ----and thinking more ..also would be fun to have a weekly forum modeling project , or pic , or action challenge to keep folks ever improving their skills and for the more skilled to help show how to do it.

 

I think the weekly chat will be a blast!

 

But.. rather than shift Greg's topic we'll have to start another one on the Weekly Chat.

[brucegregory]

I probably used the term "CG" a bit loosely - but, if the overabundance of photo-realistic attempts and showcasing enters into the current definition of what most people discern to be "CG", I think the title can stand - it's a "popular" use of the term.

 

I'm really not trying to engage in a doctoral debate on the subject.

 

I actually only want to get a feel about what people in this community prefer. Whether they, like me, are tired of the current CG trends (there's that term, again) - and, more specifically, whether they see the AM tool set as ideal for the production of the more stylistic forms of animated entertainment.

 

Maybe, I'm mostly alone in the preference and there does not exist, in the Hash community, enough interest in emulating those earlier forms of entertainment (cartoons from the 30's, 40's and 50's) to merit any more comment on the subject.

 

 

Greg Smith

[Fuchur]

I probably used the term "CG" a bit loosely - but, if the overabundance of photo-realistic attempts and showcasing enters into the current definition of what most people discern to be "CG", I think the title can stand - it's a "popular" use of the term.

 

I'm really not trying to engage in a doctoral debate on the subject.

 

I actually only want to get a feel about what people in this community prefer. Whether they, like me, are tired of the current CG trends (there's that term, again) - and, more specifically, whether they see the AM tool set as ideal for the production of the more stylistic forms of animated entertainment.

 

Maybe, I'm mostly alone in the preference and there does not exist, in the Hash community, enough interest in emulating those earlier forms of entertainment (cartoons from the 30's, 40's and 50's) to merit any more comment on the subject.

 

 

Greg Smith

 

Nope u r not alone... as many here i like both styles and see the future of A:M in both directions... often real animation has less restrictions in non-realistic forms than realistic images so i admire anybody who can do very realistic types of animation and great toony animation...

 

everybody has his/her place in the A:M community...

 

see u

*Fuchur*

[NancyGormezano]

I actually only want to get a feel about what people in this community prefer. Whether they, like me, are tired of the current CG trends (there's that term, again) - and, more specifically, whether they see the AM tool set as ideal for the production of the more stylistic forms of animated entertainment.

 

Maybe, I'm mostly alone in the preference and there does not exist, in the Hash community, enough interest in emulating those earlier forms of entertainment (cartoons from the 30's, 40's and 50's) to merit any more comment on the subject.

 

I prefer styles that break new ground, and still engage me emotionally. Surprise me with something I've never seen before, and that I can still relate. I can appreciate abstract styles, as a curiosity, but it usually has limited appeal. I love & appreciate recognizing an individual/artists/studios unique style.

 

I can also appreciate the craftsmanship & technology of recreating realism, for it's illusionary value. "Love it" if it can fool me, "hate it" if it can't.

 

I love some of the cartoon styles of yesteryear, mainly for studying how, why something works or doesn't. And emotionally there's a lot of nostalgia, warmth, humor, relatablity that makes for "fuzzy feelings". Admire primitive and/or simple line work with great story ("Simon's cat" comes to mind).

 

But I get bored REALLY quickly with any style if that's all there is and everyone is copying/doing it. eg. Hate fan art.

 

It's mainly about the story most of the time for me.

[MJL]

We are all explorers in the world of computer generated imagery. Some head one direction in search of prefect realism. Some just want to have fun, create, invent and see what can be done.

A large number have taken the polygon vehicle, using large teams and piles of money, with the exploration controlled by the source of said money. The destination being, of course, more money.

Martin's vision, (Thank God!), one man, one computer, one movie, has opened up exploration to a more personal path. (And I am sure that money has been made by individuals as well) The individual is free to wander as the direction calls him. If someone wants to head a particular direction, they need only to find someone who hears the calling of the same wild geese. (Gene & myself would actually be a good example here)

Like the prospectors of old, we load up our grubstake (PC or Mac) and head to the unknown. Each in a different direction, mumbling various versions of the same phrase: "There's gold in them thar hills."

[brucegregory]

Nancy:

 

It can't be denied that Chuck Jones and others from that period and before had the best writers in the business. Yes, story embodies pretty much 90% of the success of a short.

 

Greg Smith

[MJL]

It IS difficult to tell a story if you don't have one.

[NancyGormezano]

It can't be denied that Chuck Jones and others from that period and before had the best writers in the business. Yes, story embodies pretty much 90% of the success of a short.

 

I could watch Coyote & Roadrunner over & over & over. My absolute favorites. Never got tired of the formula (she said "Meep Meeping" outloud uncontrollably).

[brucegregory]

Nancy:

 

This is precisely at the heart of the point I was trying to make: that stuff is Entertaining! That is why we CAN watch it over an over and over. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe those who did not grow up with Looney Tunes as their surrogate families cannot relate. I'm not trying to guess your age, either.

 

And, other than sight gag after sight gag - there really is not a lot of Story going on - maybe backstory - but not Story.

 

 

Greg Smith

[Darkwing]

I think the innate problem in all of this (and I think Rodney hit on it earlier) is that entertainment has variable definitions and variable degrees and meanings to everyone. Using your example of Looney Tunes, I shall illustrate. I love Looney Tunes and I can watch them over and over to a degree. Actually, I don't watch them that much and therefore when I do, I love them more. I am almost exactly 21 years old, definitely not from the heyday of Looney Tunes. Now the thing is, as much as I love Looney Tunes, it would get boring if I watched it too much because as you two just mentioned, next to nothing for story, all gags and fluff. That's light and fun entertainment that I enjoy when I simply want to be relaxed or non-involved.

Now take a movie like Shawshank Redemption. That movie is hard core character and story, very little fluff and not very relaxing. It's highly engrossing, from the opening to the ending, it has you absorbed, captivated and I also find that entertaining. Without either one though, I would become very bored of entertainment. Both are needed as a balance.

Now on the terms of animation, I see both equally. I have as much desire to make photorealistic as I do stylish. However, I lack the time to do both and though I can't exactly do Photorealistic, it's not quite stylish, at least not how you mean it to be. I believe the skill to do photorealistic is needed as much to do stylized, as stylized is needed to do photorealistic.

Now you kind of talk about two contrasting things. The masses and us. The masses will always be led blindly and it is no good to get into a fit and try to launch some crusade of judgement on them. The film producers and animators cater to the masses because that's where the money is.

 

G2g for class, have more, will talk later

[brucegregory]

Realistically, it's not practical or probable for an individual to complete anything more than a short "Short" in a frame of time that is anything but indicative of an obsession needing treatment.

 

Maybe Martin stumbled upon this and made AM have the capabilities and tools it has by intention - or by accident. I prefer the former - it's more romantic and heroic.

 

But, since he's not here, nor likely to be to make a comment - I'm only guessing - either way.

 

But given the element of realistic timeframe - most of us will only ever be able to create short - very short subjects. If you throw in the element of trying to make a thing like that photo-realistic - it becomes an even larger endeavor.

 

There must be something in the act of using AM that is entertaining, as well as the content being produced having entertainment value to it, as well.

 

How much time do you want to spend on a thing to get a given audience response? AM CG is currently, for the individual, capable of producing something more akin to a Vaudeville sketch than a "Gone With The Wind" masterpiece.

 

 

Greg Smith

[Rodney]

I actually only want to get a feel about what people in this community prefer. Whether they, like me, are tired of the current CG trends (there's that term, again) - and, more specifically, whether they see the AM tool set as ideal for the production of the more stylistic forms of animated entertainment.

 

Maybe, I'm mostly alone in the preference and there does not exist, in the Hash community, enough interest in emulating those earlier forms of entertainment (cartoons from the 30's, 40's and 50's) to merit any more comment on the subject.

 

The A:M Community provides a good glimpse at the preferences of society as a whole. Many (most?) prefer stylistic rendering (for a number of reason which we can explore) while a few (mostly those that have the patience and skill for it) excel at refining detail even to the point where comparisons with the real world fail because they are so close.

 

I'm really not trying to engage in a doctoral debate on the subject.

 

Others surely will... and do.

I'm thinking particularly of the studies that have been done about Appeal and studies of why we tend to prefer exaggerated proportions (i.e theories of nurturing instinct relative to cute babies with big eyes etc.)

 

One reason A:M Users may tend toward the more abstract is that modeling, rigging and animating is hard enough with simple forms. Complicate that with multiple layers of textures, lighting and other complexities and the creative mind can overload.

 

I do not think you are mostly alone in this. I think your views are the norm.

Even outside of the A:M Community the CG films (and outside of special effects work mostly used with live action) I've seen suggest that 'stereotypical use of CG" is not so much about realism but focuses on highly abstracted forms.

 

I could watch Coyote & Roadrunner over & over & over. My absolute favorites. Never got tired of the formula (she said "Meep Meeping" outloud uncontrollably).

 

I got to speak with one of the guys who contributed a few shots in one of the new Roadrunner shorts (Keith Osborn) and he showed me the episodes and explained some of the difficulties they faced translating the classic look to CG. I'd say the main (positive) difference being that once the model is created it's a lot easier to keep the character on model. His best work in my opinion was a shot where Coyote had a half dozen hands flying around frantically in a blur.

[HomeSlice]

As far as *Watching Animation*, for me, it's all about the story. If I get pulled into the story, it doesn't matter if it is Southpark or Avatar.

 

That said, I love watching Pixar's stuff, not only because the stories are usually really good, but also because the level of expertise that goes into every element is just mind blowing. Dialog, Lighting, TD, Rendering, Direction, Animation, Art Direction .... its all just mind blowing.

 

As far as *Doing Animation*, I much prefer simple shapes, minimalist sets, clean lines and stylized textures. It is much easier and faster for a single person or small team. And you can spend less time on the visual style and more time animating!

[brucegregory]

The topic of 3D CG emulating the Chuck Jones style has been taking place at CGSociety:

 

Can CG Obtain the Flexibility of Traditional . . .

 

And, here is one of the most revolutionary rigs for doing this kind of thing:

 

Meindbender Studios Rig

 

Realize that those who have succeeded, in this particular way, have done so at GREAT expense in time and human resources and money.

 

 

Greg Smith

[Darkwing]

How much time do you want to spend on a thing to get a given audience response? AM CG is currently, for the individual, capable of producing something more akin to a Vaudeville sketch than a "Gone With The Wind" masterpiece.

 

 

Greg Smith

 

 

Why do I feel overtones of the ideals that AM can only do organic modeling and isn't very good at mech modeling. Seems like the same types of arguments. In fact, reading up some and your saying that you're not trying to start a debate or anything, basically equates to you thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong, even if it's their preference to do photorealistic. Excuse me, who are you again?

[brucegregory]

I am definitely not an AM expert - really a novice. But, for those who have contemplated these possibilities:

 

1) Why 3D? - can AM be used efficiently as a 2D, spline based animation platform (with bones), and/or

 

2) What about "rig-less" animation (no bones) and the use of Pose Sliders to define fluid 2D or 3D, re-usable poses which translate, over time, into convincing, exaggerated movement?

 

I'm thinking, as an example, of the frog in "One Froggy Evening", by Chuck Jones. At times the frog is a limp and stretchy, wet noodle - and at other times he has all the rigidness of any believable biped (with much flexibility, of course).

 

 

Greg Smith

[Rodney]

Good thing I looked at that second link first because later when I went to the first I read it until I got to the post by someone we know very well around here... Raf Anzovin! (What he says is profound enough that I haven't had much of a desire to read anything else)

 

He's a smart guy and knows what he's got to do to pull off the look of classic cartoons... and he's pressing into it. What I think is most interesting though is that he was creating this same basic effect what... five years ago in A:M.

 

I highly recommend reading what he has to say on this (he has more than one post in the topic) and letting it sink in. Raf has lived animation from when he was what... five years old? Having made his way through CG... where he makes his living... he now seems willing to admit he has a preference for hand drawn animation.

 

One thing he highlights is something we don't take enough advantage of in A:M; Onion Skinning!

It's an incredibly useful tool and no animator should dive into Pose to Pose animation without it.

 

He says:

I very much agree with this. One of the things I realized is that it's completely impossible to animate frame-by-frame like this without really good onion skinning tools. We ended up having to write our own in Maya, but it's still pretty awkward because Maya is obviously not designed to do this. It's really designed around the idea that you're going to do a lot of your animation with the graph editor, and tweaking a bunch of graphs is a really frustrating way to try to animate a character.

 

When we finally got a decent onion skin toolkit working, the first thing I noticed is that my posing actually got better. It seems like such a simple idea, being able to see what's happening on other frames while you're posing this one, but somehow we've been largely working without it for two decades!

 

We've got that handy Onionskinning already in A:M but get this... Raf Anzovin is admitting that for two decades CG animators cared little for using it. That should make everyone wonder what else can be learned from digging even deeper into traditionally hand drawn animation techniques. (Credit where credit is due: Mark Skodecek was the one that really helped me see the power hidden in A:M's Onionskin)

 

Here's a link to Raf's 2D-like animation test (compare that with Anzovin's short film 'Duel' which admittedly has more of a flat Flash-style effect):

http://anzovinstudio.blogspot.com/2011/09/...ation-test.html

 

Raf is a child prodigy turned genius and I wish we still had him with us but even geniuses have to make a living.

[brucegregory]

Darkwing:

 

I'm saying the things I do for similar reasons that you have placed, beneath your avatar, the words, "Producer of Things Not Finished".

 

 

Greg Smith

[Rodney]

1) Why 3D? - can AM be used efficiently as a 2D, spline based animation platform (with bones), and/or

 

Doesn't even have to be splines based... I've used A:M to re-time (scanned in) hand drawn animation.

It's not optimized for that but it sure works in a pinch.

 

Have I contemplated the possibilities... oh yes!

[Darkwing]

Darkwing:

 

I'm saying the things I do for similar reasons that you have placed, beneath your avatar, the words, "Producer of Things Not Finished".

 

 

Greg Smith

 

I doubt it, considering you take Producer of things not finished to mean a certain way. Is anybody here a producer of anything finished? Is anything ever finished? As an artist, I would say no. I would not consider a single piece of work I've ever done, finished. I could go back my entire life and continually tweak, add/remove etc.

 

I'm having a very difficult time deciphering what the purpose of this thread is. In my analysis of it, I keep coming back to certain fundamentals which put this thread in a negative light and has my, I'll be honest, somewhat insulted. Why? Because I'm striving for "photorealistic" (usually) and you're telling me that's wrong. And then you go on some elaborate testimonials to some ambiguous audience, are you talking to us who already use AM and don't need convincing to use it because we obviously do, or are you talking to "the world" to try and convince them to buy AM? I don't get it. All I keep getting is this constant bashing of anything that isn't Looney Tunes and I personally feel insulted, because I'm very proud of the accomplishments I've achieved in the last 12 months alone towards my goal, which has been in the direction of as photorealistic as I can make things. Obviously they fall short of that mark, but it's a good mark to try and judge yourself on, it gives you a reasonable grounding of where you were, where you are and where you're going. And I don't think I'm the only one feeling this, Mark jumped in there a while back before I even did and I assume he's done the smart thing and started ignoring this thread, because it really keeps sounding like you're saying we're all wrong because we "haven't imagined the possibilities," which apparently are limited to 2D animation (which I have nothing against, would love to do some when I have the time). So again, who are you talking to? Are you talking to us? We don't need to be convinced, we already use AM, it convinces us to keep using it year after year. Or are you talking to the world and this would better be suited to some personal blog of yours and not the AM forum? I don't know, you are unclear and I can't help but feel almost a little personal about this.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to rant really or seem like some immature kid on the internet, but I'm seriously confused and this confusion is aiding in it looking like you are saying that whatever work I do, if it's in the name of photorealism, is unvalued and not worth it because it's not a stylized 2D thing.

[brucegregory]

Darkwing:

 

The things I've said in this thread have nothing to do with "bashing" anything - just expressing my personal opinion - which is a strong one. Never did I mean to insult you or anyone else by expressing my opinion.

 

Having worked in CG since 1985, I can tell you that my opinion has been formed over all these years from a lot of trial and error experience. I spent a considerable amount of paid time trying to achieve the photo-realistic, (since the clients wanted this), and, it is somewhat unreachable, from a practical standpoint - no matter which software you use.

 

Now, the goal of photo-realism exists kind of like expeditions to Mt. Everest exist - as a daunting challenge. And, EVERYBODY is doing it. So, why waste your valuable time? Like trying to become the next Heavyweight Champion of the world.

 

Then, there is this matter of "entertainment". What is it? Who is being entertained? Are the mega portions of the current faire really entertaining? Can a thing be overdone, overworked, over-used, crammed down the throats of an eager to be entertained public? I think the obvious answer to all these questions is an overwhelming "YES !

 

Having used nearly every 3D and many 2D CG animation programs, sincerely trying to find workable methods to achieve what I feel are entertaining results, and having done a considerable amount of experimentation with AM, I think it is worthwhile discussing how and why AM is a very good solution, currently, for 30's, 40's and 50's style classic animation.

 

I voiced these opinions in this thread to "test the waters", as I mentioned. I wanted to see if anyone agreed with me. Is this O.K? I humble myself before you.

 

 

Greg Smith

[NancyGormezano]

Then, there is this matter of "entertainment". What is it? Who is being entertained? Are the mega portions of the current faire really entertaining? Can a thing be overdone, overworked, over-used, crammed down the throats of an eager to be entertained public? I think the obvious answer to all these questions is an overwhelming "YES !

 

I will state the obvious: Different age groups appreciate different genres, and within those age groups, there are different preferences between the sexes. If one is interested in making a living at it, know your audience and give 'em what they want. The more obtuse the style, the smaller the audience. People love to be surprised as well.

 

More important (also obvious): Enjoy one's self, and do whatever style one prefers that will keep ya jazzed.

Edited October 8, 2011 by NancyGormezano

[robcat2075]

There's a limit to what talk will do for animation.

 

You don't like what's out there? Fine, ticket-buying is voluntary.

 

You don't like that other people like it? A:M forum is the wrong place to change them, the mass of ticket buyers don't visit here.

 

You want to do something different? Have at it! We can answer technical questions here. Taste questions... not so much.

 

You want people to join you? Show something compelling that makes people think "I want to be part of that!"

[brucegregory]

There's a limit to what talk will do for animation.

 

You don't like what's out there? Fine, ticket-buying is voluntary.

 

You don't like that other people like it? A:M forum is the wrong place to change them, the mass of ticket buyers don't visit here.

 

You want to do something different? Have at it! We can answer technical questions here. Taste questions... not so much.

 

You want people to join you? Show something compelling that makes people think "I want to be part of that!"

 

So, you don't like to talk about anything but technical problems and constraints? That seems very dull, to me.

 

Entertainment, and the producing of it should include something of "a good time" - or all you will convey to your audience is your technical prowess.

 

Watch some of those early "Disney Documentary" pieces of footage - guys working out gags - it might convey to you something more than the technical side of animation.

 

I think I have touched on something relevant regarding the state of CG and the production of entertainment. Mostly, among the CG masses (producers of it) - there exists an unbalanced number of technicians - strictly technicians - very little content produced by such people is anything more than a technical display of agility.

 

This is what I see, anyway.

 

In the discussion mentioned above, on another forum - there are at least 2 good examples of work made by guys that see beyond the technical: The pirate and parrot intro made for Cartoon Network and the several entries (Roadrunner & Coyote) for a kind of "Warner Bros" emulation competition.

 

One example is very "photo-real" in its texturing and lighting - but really cartoonish in style and movement. The other is much more stylistic in animation and rendering - and is an outstanding example of Warner Bros. animation, at its best.

 

Are these not worthy things to discuss on an animation forum, like this one?

 

 

Greg Smith

[mtpeak2]

Greg, your best bet is to discuss how to create such entertainment, rather than debate how it is more entertaining than photo-real cg.

[itsjustme]

Mostly, among the CG masses (producers of it) - there exists an unbalanced number of technicians - strictly technicians - very little content produced by such people is anything more than a technical display of agility.

 

Even hand drawn animation requires a person to be a technician as well as an artist.

 

Anyone can talk, most people talk, very few actually do anything. I have yet to see anything you have produced in A:M, Greg...not even a "technical display of agility". Educate by showing the work you've done so that others might learn from it.

 

This thread should really be in the "Off Topic" section.

[mouseman]

We are all here for different reasons. Some people are here to make art. Others for the technical challenge. Others have stories to tell. Regardless, each person chooses the style based on their own preferences and abilities, whether that style is realistic or more stylistic.

 

It is important to remain respectful of people who have different preferences. Due to both differing abilities and sensibilities, I will never make things like (for two random examples) Nancy or Splenegeen, but that does not prevent me from truly and honestly appreciating their works, and giving them positive constructive feedback on what I think they could do to make their stuff work even better within their chosen style. But my goal is to give them options to make them a better them, not a better me.

 

Frequently, it's all in how you present your ideas. There is sometimes a tendency to present opinion as fact ('canon'). Then value judgements are made against people who do not share those opinions ('heretics'). Then someone appoints their duty to correct others with opposing opinions ('savior'). That is sometimes referred to as "religion" (which in this context I do not mean to imply any kind of faith or belief in deity or morality, but rather as adoption of opinion as fact and imposing those on other people).

 

Once you bring religion into a conversation (X technique/technology/approach is better, all others are crap), there is little chance for meaningful conversation, and you are only a few posts away from one person calling the other Hitler or racist or some other derogatory term. That's how public discourse (including the internet) all too often works, like it or not. The only way to recover from such a situation is to retrench to points of common understanding, and build from there.

 

A more productive way of going about it is to say that "I feel that X is very important. In my project, I'm doing Y and Z. How do you work your projects to promote X, or do you have any ideas or examples that would help me do X?"

 

You will find that people here are very excited about helping you reach your goals, and enjoy hearing about your vision for what you would like to do. But remember that we are all at different stages in our struggles with what we each want to accomplish; please respect what others are doing, and return their kindness. That is what makes a strong community.

[itsjustme]

A more productive way of going about it is to say that "I feel that X is very important. In my project, I'm doing Y and Z. How do you work your projects to promote X, or do you have any ideas or examples that would help me do X?"

 

You will find that people here are very excited about helping you reach your goals, and enjoy hearing about your vision for what you would like to do. But remember that we are all at different stages in our struggles with what we each want to accomplish; please respect what others are doing, and return their kindness. That is what makes a strong community.

 

Well said, Chris. I think you nailed it.

 

I'm going to avoid this conversation now.

[NancyGormezano]

Having used nearly every 3D and many 2D CG animation programs, sincerely trying to find workable methods to achieve what I feel are entertaining results, and having done a considerable amount of experimentation with AM, I think it is worthwhile discussing how and why AM is a very good solution, currently, for 30's, 40's and 50's style classic animation.

 

Maybe this is an off-topic thread, maybe it isn't.

 

I have to say I don't necessarily prefer the original look/style of 30's, 40's, 50's cartoons, but I absolutely love the creative, humorous gags.

 

More appealing to me, is the amazing CG works of Meindbender studios (pirate). They have developed a style for Cartoon Networks that builds on the old proven techniques, and creates something totally new with fabulously realistic rendered style, with inventive character design, technically amazing rigs, superb skillful animation, and outstanding humor, writing and gags. Obviously this took a team that was both technically and creatively proficient. This is a winning combo for entertaining me.

 

But if it were to become common place, as in "everyone was copying/doing it", it would quickly become boring and tedious to me.

 

Could the Meindbenders Duplicator character series be done in A:M ? Probably, with skillful animators, riggers, writers, etc (or one individual with all those talents). Would it look exactly the same? No. It would be great to have a discussion on the rig alone (the models themselves seem easy-peasy).

[brucegregory]

For me, at my stage in the game, I rate entertainment value as that which, at least, has a chance to become popular - and, thus, render some monies to me.

 

This is my primary reason for "testing the waters". If there is no "popular" interest in those styles which I find entertaining - I'm not going to spend even one more minute pursuing the "rendering out" of my preferences.

 

And, if photo-realistic styles are the only thing currently "selling" - I also won't spend my time trying to "give 'em what they want".

 

There has been enough feedback in this thread to give me a real good idea of what the AM community is really interested in pursuing. Thank you for your input. Especially, thank you, Nancy, for your honest evaluation of these issues, and for telling me, specifically, what you like.

 

 

Greg Smith

[brucegregory]

Now, I know that it is not allowed to speak about competing products - and I don't think this IS one, since it is only a sculpting and texturing program (more like a BIG plug-in for major polygonal applications).

 

But, people keep saying they haven't seen anything I've done (to merit them listening to my babble) - so, in all good faith, I post a link to my latest work:

 

Sculpting "The Rat"

 

I am on the staff of Pilgway's 3D-Coat. My strength is in presenting complex procedures in a simple way (so everyone can comprehend).

 

The above example is just a simple example of the kind of characterization I am speaking of. A cartoon rat.

 

Now, how to rig and animate this thing in a convincing way that is faithful to its genre?

 

 

Greg Smith

[Rodney]

people keep saying they haven't seen anything I've done (to merit them listening to my babble) - so, in all good faith, I post a link to my latest work:

 

Thanks for posting that Greg. That should clear up a lot of misconception.

From what I've seen 3D Coat is a great product.

 

I want to state this for the record as we have a lot of people with opinion here in the forum.

While credentials are important no one should feel their opinion is less valid simply because they lack a title, degree or accreditation. They can be just as wrong, have all of those things and be just as firmly convinced in their errors.

 

Having said that, credentials are important! They establish a referential framework that helps gauge current levels of expertise and the focus of that expertise; knowing the extent of a persons knowledge cuts to the chase of what is known and commonly acceptable within a given field. Expert opinion should (in theory if not in practice) carry more weight.

 

Now, how to rig and animate this thing in a convincing way that is faithful to its genre?

 

I've only watched your first video at this point but I assume you already have an idea on how to move forward on this?