FA+
Shop
1730
Views
Views
94
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 600 x 412
File Size 7.46 MB
Report this content
★
More from SalKitten
Okay, so, my teacher was kinda a butthead and even though I got really sick from the contest he was hosting he wouldn't be lenient with me on the due date for this (thursday) or let me do it digitally.... so 70+ pieces of paper hunched over a piece of plexiglass holding a lamp with my feet, here we are.
It should be inked and I should have fixed the placement/shape of the toy, but fuck it. I have time to complete it because he wants it digitally rendered through toonboom. This is just for the landmark 'have it mostly done' part due date tomorrow.
I did the best I could with the time stuck at home without a lightbox.. -^-
The 'bouncing ball' is both the kitty and the toy.
please no critique. I'm just through.
It should be inked and I should have fixed the placement/shape of the toy, but fuck it. I have time to complete it because he wants it digitally rendered through toonboom. This is just for the landmark 'have it mostly done' part due date tomorrow.
I did the best I could with the time stuck at home without a lightbox.. -^-
The 'bouncing ball' is both the kitty and the toy.
please no critique. I'm just through.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 600 x 412px
File Size 7.46 MB
Disney still animates in 24 frames per second. And no, the computer does not, and CAN NOT animate for them. They still have to do every single frame manually, and it takes about the same amount of time today to make a movie like Wreck it Ralph or Frozen, as it would have to make films like Peter Pan or Cinderella. :) Same goes for all other major studios. Disney isn't the only one out there ;P
Woah dude. You really don't know how animated films get made if you assume that they're not drawing by hand. Unless you're talking about 3D (which is still a huge undertaking to model), there is a shit-ton of hand-drawing that still happens.
Please don't be one of those people who thinks working on a computer= push a button and pretty art comes out.
Please don't be one of those people who thinks working on a computer= push a button and pretty art comes out.
No, but I am going to be the one who says it's definitely not as hard as it used to be when people were doing every frame by hand. The only reason things went as fast as they did back then is because Disney hired huge numbers of animators and artists. Most of these films coming from Disney and Pixar are rendered frame by frame by a computer. They design the characters, work on the backgrounds and all the details... Then they write the code and generate the frames, which accelerates the process.
I really hate it when people assume I'm saying it's the push of the button and flip out at me like I'm belittling how much work has to go into the movies just because I say it's not as difficult as when they had to have people hand drawing every single frame. So really, if you're going to go putting words in my mouth I think I'm through here.
I really hate it when people assume I'm saying it's the push of the button and flip out at me like I'm belittling how much work has to go into the movies just because I say it's not as difficult as when they had to have people hand drawing every single frame. So really, if you're going to go putting words in my mouth I think I'm through here.
I'm sorry, they're not drawing them by hand. were the only words IN your mouth, at least in the comment I was replying to.
Maybe you should alter your statement to They don't draw ALL the frames by hand to avoid offending future digital artists.
Yes, things take a little less time in some areas, but digital animation creates fuckton more work in other areas.
If you really hate people assuming what you mean, perhaps add more content to a statement I'm sure you thought might be taken the wrong way when you pressed 'add reply'.
Maybe you should alter your statement to They don't draw ALL the frames by hand to avoid offending future digital artists.
Yes, things take a little less time in some areas, but digital animation creates fuckton more work in other areas.
If you really hate people assuming what you mean, perhaps add more content to a statement I'm sure you thought might be taken the wrong way when you pressed 'add reply'.
Well, that almost started one because honestly there's context there. It's like showing up in the middle of a conversation and assuming you could interpret me literally when I wasn't initially talking to you. So that last comment kinda pissed me off. I don't really care if I tick someone off as long as I'm not intentionally insulting someone or causing trouble, and context is integral to any communication. It's why politicians have to be really careful all the time, vultures love to jump in and take things out of context to insult them. :|
You're probably just grumpy and tired and I'm a little tired from my CS major at UCSD myself anyway.
You're probably just grumpy and tired and I'm a little tired from my CS major at UCSD myself anyway.
No fighting, just facts. :) All of my professors are current and former Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks etc. employees. I regularly get to chat with current industry professionals who use both the computer and the traditional form of animation. I'm not just making shit up out of my ass I promise you that. Animation is what I do for a living, and have been trained to do for the last 3.5 years, and I do both traditional and digital animation.
While you are correct in that the computer is capable of rendering and in-betweeing each frame on its own, it is RARELY if at all ever ANIMATED on its own. The computer cannot compensate for things like weight, gravity, and physics in general. All it can do is connect two points in the most logical, straight line. Usually when the computer takes over, you get mushy floating shit that you can't even really call animation at all. Thus, IT IS MANDATORY that EVERY frame in digital media animation is checked, checked again, and re-checked over and over until the CG animated version looks identical to what would be its 2D Traditional counterpart. THE COMPUTER CANNOT DO THIS. It is INCAPABLE of it.
Additionally, it is in fact MORE difficult to do things via computer than by hand. BUTTONS. Every program has a ridiculous amount of buttons that are constantly updating and moving and doing things you didn't even know they could do until way too late to use them. Pencils will NEVER change. You work in a team that is less than a quarter the size that a traditional team would have, meaning you have EVEN MORE animating to do (because you have one person making the model and rigging it, and another coloring, another animating, and so on). The computer allows for one person to animate the same amount as it would have taken say, 3 people in the traditional filmmaking world. This does not mean it is less work, or that it is any easier. It merely means it is more efficient in terms of MATERIALS and PAYCHECKS for the company. Beyond this, I know for a fact that Disney animators are DOUBLE CHECKED with traditional drawings overlaid on their 3D test animation. Glen Keane himself has made this mandatory, and is often the one who monitors this process. My last point: You are 75% less likely to be hired by an animation studio if you CANNOT animate traditionally and HAVE NOT come from a game-developement background. In regards to time: computers crash. Paper doesn't. Files get corrupted. The program can freeze and shut down. You can literally lose ALL of your work in the blink of an eye and would be incapable of doing SHIT about it. Paper wouldn't do that (unless there was a fire, which has happened.) The rendering time alone for a CG work is almost 60% of the entire craft-time of the ENTIRE film! So really, its not any faster. Its not any easier. Its just newer.
Traditional animation is still in use. Its just not on the screen. Its still valid, and functional, and VERY important. You just don't see it because its not "in fashion" right now.
WEW! Rant done :)
While you are correct in that the computer is capable of rendering and in-betweeing each frame on its own, it is RARELY if at all ever ANIMATED on its own. The computer cannot compensate for things like weight, gravity, and physics in general. All it can do is connect two points in the most logical, straight line. Usually when the computer takes over, you get mushy floating shit that you can't even really call animation at all. Thus, IT IS MANDATORY that EVERY frame in digital media animation is checked, checked again, and re-checked over and over until the CG animated version looks identical to what would be its 2D Traditional counterpart. THE COMPUTER CANNOT DO THIS. It is INCAPABLE of it.
Additionally, it is in fact MORE difficult to do things via computer than by hand. BUTTONS. Every program has a ridiculous amount of buttons that are constantly updating and moving and doing things you didn't even know they could do until way too late to use them. Pencils will NEVER change. You work in a team that is less than a quarter the size that a traditional team would have, meaning you have EVEN MORE animating to do (because you have one person making the model and rigging it, and another coloring, another animating, and so on). The computer allows for one person to animate the same amount as it would have taken say, 3 people in the traditional filmmaking world. This does not mean it is less work, or that it is any easier. It merely means it is more efficient in terms of MATERIALS and PAYCHECKS for the company. Beyond this, I know for a fact that Disney animators are DOUBLE CHECKED with traditional drawings overlaid on their 3D test animation. Glen Keane himself has made this mandatory, and is often the one who monitors this process. My last point: You are 75% less likely to be hired by an animation studio if you CANNOT animate traditionally and HAVE NOT come from a game-developement background. In regards to time: computers crash. Paper doesn't. Files get corrupted. The program can freeze and shut down. You can literally lose ALL of your work in the blink of an eye and would be incapable of doing SHIT about it. Paper wouldn't do that (unless there was a fire, which has happened.) The rendering time alone for a CG work is almost 60% of the entire craft-time of the ENTIRE film! So really, its not any faster. Its not any easier. Its just newer.
Traditional animation is still in use. Its just not on the screen. Its still valid, and functional, and VERY important. You just don't see it because its not "in fashion" right now.
WEW! Rant done :)
Yeaaah, I'm just going to let this one go and leave. But you're not going to change my mind on it being less difficult and time consuming than having a bunch of traditional artists doing every frame by hand and performing the same checks and the same do-overs every time they screw up. :|
loloolol 70. I have 240 frames traditional due on Tuesday x.x AND a dialogue test! WOAHWOAHWOAH you guys have ToonBoom at your school?! The eff is this?! My school doesn't have ToonBoom! >:T Unfair i says! *shakes fist at schools puny student budget*
Ranting
Anyways! This looks fairly good for not having had a field guide or a light box! Way to improvise! The only critique I have (should you want it), besides the obvious tech/materials related junk you already know about, is to watch your bouncing ball's "mushyness". This may be attributed to the ball having too many frames with it in the "stretch" position directly after the point of impact. Your stretch will likely not be THAT stretched when it is not bouncing very far or very high. Also, remember to reduce your distance by almost half per bounce (both vertically and horizontally). Gravity yo. :) Other than that it looks great! Especially your diving-board reverb when the ball is still attached. Good job Salem!
PS the cat is fantastic. It reminds me of Simon's Cat.
Ranting
Anyways! This looks fairly good for not having had a field guide or a light box! Way to improvise! The only critique I have (should you want it), besides the obvious tech/materials related junk you already know about, is to watch your bouncing ball's "mushyness". This may be attributed to the ball having too many frames with it in the "stretch" position directly after the point of impact. Your stretch will likely not be THAT stretched when it is not bouncing very far or very high. Also, remember to reduce your distance by almost half per bounce (both vertically and horizontally). Gravity yo. :) Other than that it looks great! Especially your diving-board reverb when the ball is still attached. Good job Salem!
PS the cat is fantastic. It reminds me of Simon's Cat.
thanks for the halp. ;w; Mostly my 'do not want critique' is that I'm going to make some slight edits and that's about it. some more keyframes and then a huge wave of 'nothnku' to my teacher. It was a cool project but I literally had two days where I was well enough to work on it. XD
Sadly, no extra credit. ;n; I'm not liking this teacher one bit. He overworks us so much. I spend more time on this class even though I don't need it and it's not my major, but I'm bound by scholarships to keep it. I'm learning a lot but I'm really worn down by how fast his deadlines are.
I really want a light table as well. Or maybe just a whole ream of tracing paper. That would be fantastic.
But yeah, I JUST got done with a 66 frame animation of three balls bouncing. But I layered the balls differently so I actually had over 100 frames.
Then I was told that only needed to do two balls. So I can see where you're coming from.
But yeah, I JUST got done with a 66 frame animation of three balls bouncing. But I layered the balls differently so I actually had over 100 frames.
Then I was told that only needed to do two balls. So I can see where you're coming from.
Comments