You guys didn't seem as enthusiastic when this thread got posted:
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1217190&p=37976409&viewfull=1#post37976409[/url]
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;44274640]You guys didn't seem as enthusiastic when this thread got posted:
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1217190&p=37976409&viewfull=1#post37976409[/url][/QUOTE]
This one has pictures, and I keep poking it. The best way to get more clicks is to have more posts, after all.
That, and we're just luckier than you.
it's not even like 360 pans are impossible in animation, they're just difficult enough that you won't want to put them in every goddamn scene like some sort of michael bay movie
which is a good thing because that much camera movement is awful and ugly
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=woolio1;44274611]On the topic of 24fps nonsense, it's nonsensical. Movies can actually get away with 24fps, especially animated films. Right now, it's also easier to do 24fps than anything else, because of render times. Unless you're filming an action movie with really fast scenes, there's not a lot of point in going above 30ish. Especially with the way cameras work, where they introduce quite a bit of motion blur that you don't get with higher frame rates. That's what causes the soap opera effect in 48fps films.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, action scenes in live action work better at 48 fps because you're dealing with tracking human motion. Real life has all sorts of details that get in way of people grasping what's going on.
In animation, literally every single frame is hand crafted for audience consumption. If something is confusing in animation, that is a fault of the artists, not the medium. There is nothing you can do in 48 FPS that should not be equally legible in 24 FPS in animation.
[QUOTE=woolio1;44274611]
On the topic of 24fps nonsense, it's nonsensical. Movies can actually get away with 24fps, especially animated films. Right now, it's also easier to do 24fps than anything else, because of render times. Unless you're filming an action movie with really fast scenes, there's not a lot of point in going above 30ish. Especially with the way cameras work, where they introduce quite a bit of motion blur that you don't get with higher frame rates. That's what causes the soap opera effect in 48fps films.[/QUOTE]
Dunno about other things, but the last movie I watched in a theatre, The Hobbit part two, was a blurry mess that was annoying to look at. I'd like a higher framerate.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44274664]it's not even like 360 pans are impossible in animation, they're just difficult enough that you won't want to put them in every goddamn scene like some sort of michael bay movie
which is a good thing because that much camera movement is awful and ugly
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
The thing is, action scenes in live action work better at 48 fps because you're dealing with tracking human motion. Real life has all sorts of details that get in way of people grasping what's going on.
In animation, literally every single frame is hand crafted for audience consumption. If something is confusing in animation, that is a fault of the artists, not the medium. There is nothing you can do in 48 FPS that should not be equally legible in 24 FPS in animation.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I'd like to start seeing more action movies in 48fps, where it actually makes sense. The downside, however, is outside those action scenes the whole thing goes all "made for television," and nobody wants that. If there were a way to dynamically switch depending on scenes, I think you could do a lot with that.
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Reds;44274719]Dunno about other things, but the last movie I watched in a theatre, The Hobbit part two, was a blurry mess that was annoying to look at. I'd like a higher framerate.[/QUOTE]
That's partially the fault of the filmmaker. It was supposed to be 48fps, but they crushed it to 24 in editing. Hobbit p1 was 48, and it flopped in 48. (Very few theaters support that technology.)
[QUOTE=woolio1;44274721]Right, and I'd like to start seeing more action movies in 48fps, where it actually makes sense. The downside, however, is outside those action scenes the whole thing goes all "made for television," and nobody wants that. If there were a way to dynamically switch depending on scenes, I think you could do a lot with that.[/QUOTE]
want to guess what medium already dynamically switches framerate for effect based on the pacing of the scene
hint: it comes from japan and it rhymes with fannie may
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44274734]want to guess what medium already dynamically switches framerate for effect based on the pacing of the scene
hint: it comes from japan and it rhymes with fannie may[/QUOTE]
Which is why I've found my lost childhood in Eastern animation.
(Also, Gurren Lagann is really, really good.)
[QUOTE=ze spy;44273606]At first I thought it was really weird it was going to be CG, and I still think it kinda is, but I really like the art style. It's a lot better than I expected.[/QUOTE]
Might look good in stills, BUT another important factor is how they move. You could have the most amazing looking models ever and poor animation could let it down.
But they'll probably do a good job on the animation anyways.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44274431]It's the future of 2D films that aspire to have animation that is more than 24 FPS tops.
It's the future of 2D films that want actual camera movement on the Y axis that doesn't look awkward as shit or cost a fuckton to produce.[/QUOTE]
Eastern animated films deviate from the "broadway"/stage influence of Disney films. I recommend watching them if you want innovation. They contain several good animators in the industry who handle layout; a single key animator handles camera, multiple objects, figures, and effects as opposed to doing a single aspect.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8WcoaYMT70[/media]
[QUOTE=Krooms;44273737]cgi art styles looks like such shit 99% of the time[/QUOTE]
I feel like cgi looks really great, it's just when something goes from 2D to 3D is when it doesn't work for some reason. The transition is just never that great
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;44276797][video=youtube;cpm30QblDDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpm30QblDDs[/video][/QUOTE]
Oh of course it's going to be in 3D!
Because boy, whenever I used to watch the Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show I always thought to myself "Wheeze, you know what would make this even better? It being in 3D!"
[QUOTE=Chrisordie;44276854]Oh of course it's going to be in 3D!
Because boy, whenever I used to watch the Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show I always thought to myself "Wheeze, you know what would make this even better? It being in 3D!"[/QUOTE]
Okay, so watch it in 2D.
I thought this was just going to be another bad CG adaptation of another series this year.
But no. This has got it just right.
I took the article as kind of a somewhat satirical angle of people who get needlessly angry at remakes of classics. Not that the author himself was angry.
Wow this actually looks a lot better than I expected. I'm really impressed.
Here's the world-famous animator ready to immortalize his life experiences on the small screen.
That was pretty damn good looking. I was afraid it was gonna be all wishy-washy.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;44276797][video=youtube;cpm30QblDDs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpm30QblDDs[/video][/QUOTE]
they really nailed the animation style, the thing I don't like about 3D -> 2D is it often looks too smooth but this looks good
[QUOTE=woolio1;44273798]You can, however, compare the time it takes to make them.
Walt Disney himself was known for allotting three to five years for an animated film, and the team of animators would do absolutely nothing aside from that film. For three to five years. Technological advances, such as keyframe animation, have drastically sped up the process of 3D film creation.
Now, you see that sort of attention to detail today. Pixar still does it, and that's why they're known for their 3D films. It's why Toy Story was such a great movie. But then you look at the Walt Disney Animation Studios today, and you see they're running two or three movies at a time, and they're pushing them out once or twice a year. Doesn't lend much credence to 3D movies being more difficult if a 300 man studio can do four or five times the work of a 100 man studio drawing everything by hand. (And that's just one of the many Disney Animation Studios. There are four, I think.)[/QUOTE]
Doesn't lend much credence to 3D movies being more difficult??
ok sure, maybe 3d movies arent as difficult to produce as 2d animation (which is bullshit because 3d movies have their own unique set of problems and difficulties that have to be worked around and problem solved), but you think just because they push one or two out a year means that they're taking less time to make? frozen has literally been in production since around [I]1943[/I] (tiny bit of exaggeration but the idea of it has been around since then) but the frozen you see now was first conceptualized in 2008, and started active production in 2011. so that's almost 2 years of actual production, and another 4 of pre-production. Wreck-It Ralph's concept first came into existence in the late 80s, and was in active production for 3 years prior to release. Brave was announced in 2008 and was in active development for 3 years before entering post, Tangled was announced in 2007 and didnt come out of development until 2010, bolt was in development for at least 3 years prior to release.
These movies may all be coming out closer to each other rather than later, but keep in mind that Disney has at [I]least[/I] 800 employees that are all divided up between different projects at any given time. It's not like it's just a bunch of dudes just sitting at computers pressing buttons and getting a result. The reason they make these so fast is because they're [I]good at it.[/I] If their 2D animation department was still going today they'd more than likely be producing movies as fast as their 3D animation projects.
This is a prime example of how to turn an originally 2D film into 3D
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;44276329]Eastern animated films deviate from the "broadway"/stage influence of Disney films. I recommend watching them if you want innovation. They contain several good animators in the industry who handle layout; a single key animator handles camera, multiple objects, figures, and effects as opposed to doing a single aspect.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8WcoaYMT70[/media][/QUOTE]
Eastern/japanese animators are seriously good at what they do. 2D animation is much more respected there and I'm pretty convinced that some of the best 2D animation out there comes from Japan and we'll start seeing some seriously mindblowing traditional animation in the future from them.
I.e.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sonTXTZqE-Q[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdM7athAem0[/media]
When the west started getting into CG animation, much of eastern animation still stuck with 2D. As a result we've seen some seriously phenomenal 2D animation come out from the east since then. The top animators over at japan are incredible in what they can do with 2D.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;44276329]Eastern animated films deviate from the "broadway"/stage influence of Disney films. I recommend watching them if you want innovation. They contain several good animators in the industry who handle layout; a single key animator handles camera, multiple objects, figures, and effects as opposed to doing a single aspect.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8WcoaYMT70[/media][/QUOTE]
Which is funny in itself, because modern Anime was heavily inspired by Walt Disney's approach to animation.
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44277302]Doesn't lend much credence to 3D movies being more difficult??
ok sure, maybe 3d movies arent as difficult to produce as 2d animation (which is bullshit because 3d movies have their own unique set of problems and difficulties that have to be worked around and problem solved), but you think just because they push one or two out a year means that they're taking less time to make? frozen has literally been in production since around [I]1943[/I] (tiny bit of exaggeration but the idea of it has been around since then) but the frozen you see now was first conceptualized in 2008, and started active production in 2011. so that's almost 2 years of actual production, and another 4 of pre-production. Wreck-It Ralph's concept first came into existence in the late 80s, and was in active production for 3 years prior to release. Brave was announced in 2008 and was in active development for 3 years before entering post, Tangled was announced in 2007 and didnt come out of development until 2010, bolt was in development for at least 3 years prior to release.
These movies may all be coming out closer to each other rather than later, but keep in mind that Disney has at [I]least[/I] 800 employees that are all divided up between different projects at any given time. It's not like it's just a bunch of dudes just sitting at computers pressing buttons and getting a result. The reason they make these so fast is because they're [I]good at it.[/I] If their 2D animation department was still going today they'd more than likely be producing movies as fast as their 3D animation projects.[/QUOTE]
You sound angry. Don't sound so angry.
Anyway, if we're arguing concepting as a part of development, Disney's Fantasia was in concepting for twenty years. However, it took the greater part of a decade to animate.
Honestly, though, I don't think you're giving the Disney company enough credit! They've consistently innovated past every problem they've had, from the multi-plane camera onward. Everything they've done, they've done to make quality animation easier to deliver. Heck, they were one of the first companies to make a children's channel consisting entirely of 3D animation.
While making a 3D film may be difficult, they've managed to drastically cut down the time it actually takes to produce by years. That's an accomplishment. You couldn't push films out the door quite so quickly before, and they're still light years ahead of the competition. Considering the Disney company's main strength is in its storyboarding, if you can get well-written stories out, animation is secondary.
The thing is, though, 2D animation just takes more time. It takes more time because each cel has to be individually animated, then either staged in the multi plane (which they used up through the 80s), or compiled in their in-house animation software. It's a labor-intensive process, more so than making a 3D film.
[QUOTE=KorJax;44277658]Eastern/japanese animators are seriously good at what they do. 2D animation is much more respected there and I'm pretty convinced that some of the best 2D animation out there comes from Japan and we'll start seeing some seriously mindblowing traditional animation in the future from them.
I.e.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sonTXTZqE-Q[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdM7athAem0[/media]
When the west started getting into CG animation, much of eastern animation still stuck with 2D. As a result we've seen some seriously phenomenal 2D animation come out from the east since then. The top animators over at japan are incredible in what they can do with 2D.[/QUOTE]
japan has so many goddamn amazing animators and directors
like, seriously, check this shit out
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhgDSsEexLc&list=PLfAJejn6XT6dVtvloV8jiBlUT8QMACzRb[/media]
the only country that even comes close is france
[QUOTE=woolio1;44277754]
You sound angry. Don't sound so angry.
Anyway, if we're arguing concepting as a part of development, Disney's Fantasia was in concepting for twenty years. However, it took the greater part of a decade to animate.
Honestly, though, I don't think you're giving the Disney company enough credit! They've consistently innovated past every problem they've had, from the multi-plane camera onward. Everything they've done, they've done to make quality animation easier to deliver. Heck, they were one of the first companies to make a children's channel consisting entirely of 3D animation.
While making a 3D film may be difficult, they've managed to drastically cut down the time it actually takes to produce by years. That's an accomplishment. You couldn't push films out the door quite so quickly before, and they're still light years ahead of the competition. Considering the Disney company's main strength is in its storyboarding, if you can get well-written stories out, animation is secondary.
The thing is, though, 2D animation just takes more time. It takes more time because each cel has to be individually animated, then either staged in the multi plane (which they used up through the 80s), or compiled in their in-house animation software. It's a labor-intensive process, more so than making a 3D film.[/QUOTE]
I'm not angry, but i am more than a bit upset. This industry is going to be my career in not very long, and it just makes me so mad when people say that it doesn't take as much time or effort as 2D animation.
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, while it's impossible to say without seeing it in motion, the stills do hark back quite well to the original style.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44278785]I'm not angry, but i am more than a bit upset. This industry is going to be my career in not very long, and it just makes me so mad when people say that it doesn't take as much time or effort as 2D animation.[/QUOTE]
Imho it's because people don't understand the workflow is quite different. So they feel the frame based creation on hand animated stuff is more complex. When it really isn't.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44278785]I'm not angry, but i am more than a bit upset. This industry is going to be my career in not very long, and it just makes me so mad when people say that it doesn't take as much time or effort as 2D animation.[/QUOTE]
it really doesn't though
I mean, seriously that's not a knock against 3D, that's just a statement of fact. You're dealing with a far more segmented and streamlined production process with a wider margin of error.
That doesn't mean 3D is worse than 2D or vis versa. They're different mediums. Acrylic painting is faster than oil painting, that doesn't mean it's inherently worse or better either.
What's your background and where do you want to end up working, if you don't mind me asking?
And just to be clear, efficiency and speed changes depending on the style of the work. I'm referring more to Disney's 24 fps always on model approach, which is pretty insanely time consuming
if you cut corners and strip things down to brass tacks, 2D movies can be made insanely quickly. The greatest example I can think of is Castle of Cagliostro, which Miyazaki and his team put together in four goddamn months.
New video since first one is down
[video=youtube;N1FNL_iIp5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1FNL_iIp5c[/video]
At least it isn't another "CG version of old cartoon/comic character brought into THE REAL WORLD" deal.
Not to rag on it, but if the creator really wanted to honor Charles Schultz, this would have never even been thought of. Only because I swear I recall seeing on the news when he passed that one of his dying wishes was for Peanuts to end and not have anything new released.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44278785]I'm not angry, but i am more than a bit upset. This industry is going to be my career in not very long, and it just makes me so mad when people say that it doesn't take as much time or effort as 2D animation.[/QUOTE]
But it doesn't. It literally just doesn't. Because of technological advances from the big players, they're now able to put out films faster than before.
That doesn't change the amount of effort put into them, they're still just as much a labor of love as they've always been. It's just not as time-consuming. Nobody has to spend ten years drawing frames for a film anymore, and that's a good thing.
If you want this field to be your career, you might want to dispel your delusions about it being as slow and inefficient as it used to be.
I'm not saying this just to say it, either. I used to do a lot of 3D work. It's faster than drawing, if only because you don't have to completely redraw the scene every frame. Being able to have models that you can manipulate has drastically sped up the animation workflow.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
