FA+
Shop
6260
Views
Views
116
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Fox (Other)
Size 800 x 1881
File Size 1.62 MB
Report this content
★
More from Feretta
Listed in Folders
Space Vixen - Episode 9-2
Part 2 of episode 9 is now available over on https://www.webtoons.com/en/challen.....itle_no=207049
I also made one'a them good ol' fashioned timelapse vidyas of it, complete with custom music by
Nightfirex and 
loopingfeedback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlkf1vMYPUg
I also made one'a them good ol' fashioned timelapse vidyas of it, complete with custom music by
Nightfirex and 
loopingfeedbackhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlkf1vMYPUg
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Fox (Other)
Size 800 x 1881px
File Size 1.62 MB
Listed in Folders
Look on the bright side, Vix. This is still not as bad as the time Tony's suit's upgraded AI came alive and tried to contain Tony in the suit forever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d06YvQIFtLg
I mean... yeesh!
I mean... yeesh!
Easier in what way? It may be less labor intensive and has gotten cheaper, yet I think it's fair to say it comes with its own pros and cons.
The thing with 2D animation is that everything does exactly what you draw. If your animating or drawing skills suck, then the animation will suffer. But you can improve with time and practice. 3D streamlines it in a sense by creating a virtual object, thus only requiring a virtual camera to capture things from the right angles. But you've first got to get those virtual objects to behave the way you want to. And from my friend's experience in rigging stuff for games, I can tell you second-hand that weird stuff can happen. Even Pixar, as demonstrated in The Incredibles blooper reel, have run into these problems. And it can be a headache to track down just what went wrong and what object is misbehaving. At least in 2D the drawings will do what you want, although modern animating programs still have their quirks due to using technology to cut and paste.
There's also the fact that 2D usually doesn't have that Uncanny Valley effect. Even the more realistic styles of 2D (which don't seem to be too common) tend to at least not suffer from the janky movements of 3D. A 3D model can sometimes move in ways that break immersion or don't look right. The professionals have blended a bit of traditional 2D techniques sometimes, though some other styles simply find a way to convey motion that looks natural enough without using motion capture. I don't know if I can recall any 2D animation that had unnatural motion to it. If it's out there, it's probably obscure for a reason: it was bad and no one liked it. I think the human brain interprets 3D models on screen a little differently than a 2D figure, so that might factor in as well. Movement that might seem somewhat natural or appealing in 2D may be disliked by audiences if used in a 3D animation. The human brain can be fickle and there's no accounting for taste. You just have to figure out what went wrong and try to fix it.
So, that's my small rant. =P I know very little about animation, and have no hands-on experience. Yet the assertion that 3D is "easier" sets off alarm bells in my head. Because sometimes a certain medium involves a different kind of work to get something good out of it. 3D may not require you to draw a thousand different drawings, but it has its own quirks and problems, which may make some people envious of a 2D artist who can get things to move right the first time.
Anyway, sorry if any of this came off as harsh or argumentative. I just wanted to add my two cents. Which may have been cast in a super-dense alloy. Whoops. Hope I didn't break the table. <.<;;
The thing with 2D animation is that everything does exactly what you draw. If your animating or drawing skills suck, then the animation will suffer. But you can improve with time and practice. 3D streamlines it in a sense by creating a virtual object, thus only requiring a virtual camera to capture things from the right angles. But you've first got to get those virtual objects to behave the way you want to. And from my friend's experience in rigging stuff for games, I can tell you second-hand that weird stuff can happen. Even Pixar, as demonstrated in The Incredibles blooper reel, have run into these problems. And it can be a headache to track down just what went wrong and what object is misbehaving. At least in 2D the drawings will do what you want, although modern animating programs still have their quirks due to using technology to cut and paste.
There's also the fact that 2D usually doesn't have that Uncanny Valley effect. Even the more realistic styles of 2D (which don't seem to be too common) tend to at least not suffer from the janky movements of 3D. A 3D model can sometimes move in ways that break immersion or don't look right. The professionals have blended a bit of traditional 2D techniques sometimes, though some other styles simply find a way to convey motion that looks natural enough without using motion capture. I don't know if I can recall any 2D animation that had unnatural motion to it. If it's out there, it's probably obscure for a reason: it was bad and no one liked it. I think the human brain interprets 3D models on screen a little differently than a 2D figure, so that might factor in as well. Movement that might seem somewhat natural or appealing in 2D may be disliked by audiences if used in a 3D animation. The human brain can be fickle and there's no accounting for taste. You just have to figure out what went wrong and try to fix it.
So, that's my small rant. =P I know very little about animation, and have no hands-on experience. Yet the assertion that 3D is "easier" sets off alarm bells in my head. Because sometimes a certain medium involves a different kind of work to get something good out of it. 3D may not require you to draw a thousand different drawings, but it has its own quirks and problems, which may make some people envious of a 2D artist who can get things to move right the first time.
Anyway, sorry if any of this came off as harsh or argumentative. I just wanted to add my two cents. Which may have been cast in a super-dense alloy. Whoops. Hope I didn't break the table. <.<;;
Easier in that you can do a lot more animation in a lot less time, and your consistency will almost always be perfect because you're working with a system that doesn't change based on position, all your proportions and anatomy and perspective remains consistent.
The PROBLEM is that when people who don't know the basic fundamentals of animation go straight into 3D animation without trying to learn how people actually move and how to make it look natural, you get floaty, stiff, awkward animation that looks on par with paperdoll-style Flash animations. In this case it's equal parts an issue with the animation itself and the director not doing their job. Any half-decent director with at least a basic understanding of animation would look at that and go "Not good enough, get some weight into it, force a few ease-ins and ease-outs, add a few bounce-backs so it looks a little less like a crappy cardboard cutout."
Watching that leaves me with a feeling of "Okay, if I had the models here, I could rig up and animate the same scene with way higher quality in a matter of hours". And I'm one guy, they're a fucking animation studio :p
Also, this is far from a unique problem, a ton of professional studios have this issue.
The PROBLEM is that when people who don't know the basic fundamentals of animation go straight into 3D animation without trying to learn how people actually move and how to make it look natural, you get floaty, stiff, awkward animation that looks on par with paperdoll-style Flash animations. In this case it's equal parts an issue with the animation itself and the director not doing their job. Any half-decent director with at least a basic understanding of animation would look at that and go "Not good enough, get some weight into it, force a few ease-ins and ease-outs, add a few bounce-backs so it looks a little less like a crappy cardboard cutout."
Watching that leaves me with a feeling of "Okay, if I had the models here, I could rig up and animate the same scene with way higher quality in a matter of hours". And I'm one guy, they're a fucking animation studio :p
Also, this is far from a unique problem, a ton of professional studios have this issue.
Yeah, I suppose so. And I make no excuses for people being lazy or not doing their work, especially if they're a studio with a whole team of animators. =P Even if it's not a large team, you'd think someone would go, "Uh, guys... that doesn't look right..."
Kinda what I meant earlier about getting the movement right. The part where the girl bangs on the door doesn't feel weighty enough to me. I think you're right about how it needs to be fixed. Probably similar problems in the rest of the video I didn't notice. And if people don't know better - or just don't care - that stuff won't get fixed. Which is a shame, because as much as I'm a fan of 2D, 3D stuff can be pretty cool. But some people want more of a quick profit than to make a quality product, so we get crap like this. Even if it's not creepy, it lands on the edge of the Uncanny Valley, and people notice.
I will give you the point about consistency though. I imagine an artist like yourself struggles with it a lot, or has in the past, so you know more about it than I do. Or at least your knowledge is more hands on while mine is book smarts. It's definitely a downside to 2D, and I think inconsistency was one of the bigger criticisms of Steven Universe. I think fans and critics alike pointed out how the characters kept changing sizes and heights. Stuff like that breaks the immersion and only gives ammunition to those who think your work is terrible and should be scoured from existence.
The only solution I can think of is to vote with your money. And if you can't afford to do that, vote with your time. Bad products deserve neither, and it's the quickest way to tell the profit-focused idiots that yes, their shit stinks, and we don't want another helping, thank you. =P
I usually make time for your comics. =) I consider them worth my attention. You've yet to make me regret it.
Kinda what I meant earlier about getting the movement right. The part where the girl bangs on the door doesn't feel weighty enough to me. I think you're right about how it needs to be fixed. Probably similar problems in the rest of the video I didn't notice. And if people don't know better - or just don't care - that stuff won't get fixed. Which is a shame, because as much as I'm a fan of 2D, 3D stuff can be pretty cool. But some people want more of a quick profit than to make a quality product, so we get crap like this. Even if it's not creepy, it lands on the edge of the Uncanny Valley, and people notice.
I will give you the point about consistency though. I imagine an artist like yourself struggles with it a lot, or has in the past, so you know more about it than I do. Or at least your knowledge is more hands on while mine is book smarts. It's definitely a downside to 2D, and I think inconsistency was one of the bigger criticisms of Steven Universe. I think fans and critics alike pointed out how the characters kept changing sizes and heights. Stuff like that breaks the immersion and only gives ammunition to those who think your work is terrible and should be scoured from existence.
The only solution I can think of is to vote with your money. And if you can't afford to do that, vote with your time. Bad products deserve neither, and it's the quickest way to tell the profit-focused idiots that yes, their shit stinks, and we don't want another helping, thank you. =P
I usually make time for your comics. =) I consider them worth my attention. You've yet to make me regret it.
So Red can outright control their wearer if it chooses to? That's pretty worrying - although it seems amicable enough that it generally chooses not to do so.
I can't say I can argue with their logic that killing them would probably have been a good option at the time, but Vix is also perfectly justified in her anger; as she said (/as you wrote in there), Red had no right to use Vix's body to do something against her will, whether killing them would have been justified or not.
There is some potential philosophy there, regarding the importance of an individual's agency.
I can't say I can argue with their logic that killing them would probably have been a good option at the time, but Vix is also perfectly justified in her anger; as she said (/as you wrote in there), Red had no right to use Vix's body to do something against her will, whether killing them would have been justified or not.
There is some potential philosophy there, regarding the importance of an individual's agency.
Comments