I'm looking at the differecnce between traditional (incl. cel and stopmotion etc.) and CG at school, and want other people's opinions.
Traditional or CG - What do you think?
Any animation shot a frame at a time is valid, IMO. I don't think it's valid if the computer does the animation FOR you, but if you animate a frame at a time on a computer, it's valid.
I don't think you can qualtify validity as "more, most," etc.
Which form of animation is the best? The one with good writing and sense of timing.
Or are you trying to decide what to study? Depends on what you want to do after you graduate. 3D is growing quickly, but 2D is far from dead. Take courses in what you want to do along with strong drawing classes (in particular figure drawing), some acting classes, and if you want to eventually make your own animations, some script writing, editing, and film classes. A school with a decent art history (that includes more than one class on film and animation) is a plus.
I used to be worried that 3d was killing 2d, but i think (even though Disney have done something truly awful to some great animators) that it is giving 2d a chance to reinvent itself.
Almost all "traditional" films these days use some CG, right?
But do CG films use 2d?
I think you're right. Any instituted art form will only go so far. Either unwilling to take risks or wanting to capitalize on a current trend, you see dozens of imitators and few innovators, or significantly slowed innovation. While quality may improve, the style will, with little variation remain unchanged.
It isn't until someone breaks free (there are exceptions) and reinvents the medium. This usually can only happen from outside the system. Lucas spun off and rather than working in Hollywood. From him came ILM and Skywalker Sound. Within ILM, the computer branch was seen as unworthy of their current work (that's right, Lucas didn't see much of a future in computer technology at the time and gave Ed Catmull the opportunity to spin it off into another company, think about that when they say he's the father of digital image making. Ironically enough Lucas has now became part of the established system. Ed Catmul spun off and created Pixar. John Lasseter saw something in it, left Disney and went on to reinvent animation again. Now CG is seeing the same stagnation that 2D saw in the '70's and '80's. Pixar continues to thrive through good story telling and quality in their work. Very little could be considered ground breaking compared to Toy Story (all their dynamics, hair, liquids, all amount to 'minor' tech achievements, not a reinvention, IMHO).
The quesiton is will there be enough 2D animators trying to do something new now that the "boot of opression" has been lifted, or will traditional work continue to limp along trying to do the same old thing that made audiences stop paying to see them and producers lean towards CG? I'm leaning towards a reinvention of it. Cartoon Network has done very well using the techniques of limited animation first pioneered by the likes of Hannah and Barbera and the fine folks on Rocky and Bullwinkle (good gags, inexpensive animation techniques). Not ground breaking in their technique, but certainly noteworthy in that they rely on solid scripts and talented animators to make up for the lack of 'Disney' quality. With the big guys out of the way, there's more room for the little guy.
Sorry, I've been listening to Noam Chomsky (sp?) at work...
3d came be the same,but thats mainly in the modelling stages.Lets say...
2d Art and Creativity
3d Technicality (sp?) and creativity.
I'm personally more into 2d because each frame is an art form in itself,where as 3d ,once ur character is modelled and rigged,its really all up the computer *not in the sense that u don't do anything*...lol jeez,its hard to explain.
plus i didn't spend 8 years trying to perfect my drawing skill to be a 3d animator lol.
I'm guessing you're talking from what you think of the 3d industry and not actual experience. Perhaps you're opinion is true on an indy level, but when you end up someplace with the tech guys keeping the tools working for you, you'd be surprised at how creative the artists using 3D are (and how many of them don't know the first thing about rendering, rigging, lighting, etc.). Of all the places I worked, the best animators in 3d were also fantastic artists as well. You can't be a good 3d animator if you don't know how to make a strong pose with a character, something that usually comes from loads of drawing experience. That's why companies like Pixar, ILM, PDI all have life drawing classes on and off throughout the year. 3D animation can be pretty well described as Stop Motion with a computer puppet. Are stop motion artists not artistic, letting the rig do the work?
But yeah, Maya is significantly more complex than the pencil and paper. If you don't like computers, 3D probably isn't the way to go, although I imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find a 2d animation studio that doesn't do a majority of its work in a computer. Just remember a computer is just a tool. A very, very expensive pencil. Nothing more.
and u misunderstood what i said which i expected,nevermind.ignore my post.
edit:actually don't ignore it lol,i'm trying to figure out how to put it,2d is just more artsy and that sense
*sigh* u'd know what i'd mean if ur from a fine arts background,this is hella hard to explain haha.
edit 2 : Lets just say if u love to draw, 2d is for you,if your more into technical things like building/sculpting ,maybe some maths,3d is for you,thats essentially all i ment.
:D the are both as productive as each other,just in different ways.
I understand. Using a computer requires a different mind set from using a paint brush. It's definitely not nearly as free flowing as most of the traditional arts and it can be much more technically complex. And it's kind of obvious, if you love to draw then do 2d, not stop motion or 3d. I get what you're saying but you're being a tad insulting with the comparison. Why imply that I don't have an art background? Whether I do or not is irrelevant and totally unnessecary to the conversation. Although, looking back I apologize for implying that you aren't in the industry. That is neither relevant or polite. I apologize.
Sorry, but you've hit a bit of a sore point with me. Bear with me as I explain (I'm really not as upset with you as it may sound). It drives me nuts when people think you have to separate mathematicians and artists. Just because someone understands calculus doesn't mean that they did don't understand art or that they don't have some background in studio art. Some people can only do one or the other well. Others can do both. I've seen brilliant mathematicians, incredible artists, and people that defy categorization, all working out in the industry.
Perhaps better (not insulting) way to say it is that the computer is a very, very expensive and complex pencil. It can be used for math and it can be used for art. It's a lot more technical to use than a pencil, but like the pencil, it's only really limited by the skills of the user (whether it's a mathematician or an artist or both).
That being said. I'll take a deep breath. Get a good night sleep. And dream of wacky little characters running amuck. I won't be so touchy tomorrow...
:o
Sorry, just edited my previous post. I apologize. I'm up past my bedtime by about an hour.
You keep saying artistic. You aren't getting me. If all you want to do is draw, yes, I agree, then you'll probably find 3D or any non-drawing type of animation frustrating. But please stop saying artistic. I'll repeat, the best animators I know are incredible artists (many of them with illustration and fine art backgrounds). And quite a few of them did very poorly in math (from what they've told me). You're going off of a bunch of stereotypes that as far as I've seen just don't hold up.
Yes, if you don't like the computer, then you won't like 3D. But if you aren't artistic, your work will be dull and lifeless, even in 3D.
Shoot. I've got to go to bed. I bet I wake up tomorrow and find we've been saying the same thing to each other. :o
...obviously if you prefer math and technical *more computer based stuff* ur gunna prefer 3d right?
Well, don't want to brag or anything, but I had to take algebra 3 times before I passed it, and I love 3D animation. :p
First off, welcome to the AWN Forums Figgy. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking this because you are trying to decide what type of school to go to? Or are you just wondering about which one is more artistic?
In any case, I'll weigh in on both :p
For school, you are going to have to learn 2D to really learn animation. This is whether you want to go in to 2D or 3D. It is the fastest way to teach the animation principles in the typical art school set up. If you wait to learn your animation in the 3D at school you probably more than likely not learn the basic princples of animation. They are usually to conserned with teaching the students the programs to really focus on what needs to be taught animation wise. Pluss quite a few of the students tend to caught up in all the bells and whistles of the programs, like lighting, texturing, camera moves and FX, and forget about the character animation.
If you're just wondering, well it's like any art type of art. You have people that thing modern art is amazing, and there are others that just don't get it. I for one love all types of animation. Ray Harryhousand, Aardman, Wil Vinton, and Phil Tippit's stop motion animation is amazing. The amount of character acting they can get from clay and little puppets are mind blowing. I'm still in awe over the subtle acting PIXAR was able to achive in "Monsters Inc." and "The Incredibles." One of the all time saddest moments is till the "Baby Mine" sequence from "Dumbo" where Mrs. Jumbo is locked away and is rocking little Dumbo back and forth with her trunk. All this is the work of amazing artists not the medium. For every great peice of animation there are 10 aweful ones. It's not the medium, but the artists that make animation so great.
Aloha,
the Ape
—
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
AMEN ape. What is the most valid? Is what conveys the message. Read some Joseph Campbell, and stop asking others to validate your views. Humans want to share the life experience, and what works the best at the time is the right medium.
One could say that the animation that is most successful is the most valid. If a particular animation is more appealing to a particular person, that person can call it "valid," whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
In the public arena, the most "valid" animated movies are those that make the most money: so Pixar's and Dreamworks' 3D movies are the most "valid."
The most "valid" animated television shows are those that have been around the longest. 2D animation is more "valid" on television, especially those shows that have good acting and writing and are about suburban families: the Simpsons, South Park, King of the Hill.
"Valid" just means that it's successful, so if an animated project is good enough to warrant another movie or an additional TV season, it's valid.
Sorry, Noob! I wasn't trying to imply that you hate 3d, and yes I realize that you use. What I'm trying to say is that your responses have been .... misleading? You keep separating art from CG and math from 2D. MC Escher was a gifted and precise mathematician and used it in his art. Getting into CG has more to do with whether someone enjoys and is willing to use a computer or not than their skills as an artist or with math.
Back on topic. As Ape and the others have said, I've seen way more bad animation than good. And it had nothing to do with the type of animation. It had everything to do with the quality of acting, the timing of the action/editing, the way the artist(s) used the style to its full potential, and especially the quality of the writing.
its not a problem kdiddy,i've never been too good with forum conversations,i tend to bring in arguements without even knowing and getting myself in trouble,heh.i really don't mean to though.
has figgy returned yet,i'm curious to know what he is gunna do now.
its not a problem kdiddy,i've never been too good with forum conversations,i tend to bring in arguements without even knowing and getting myself in trouble,heh.i really don't mean to though.
has figgy returned yet,i'm curious to know what he is gunna do now.
Ha! I know what you mean. I tend to sound more argumentative than actually actively discussing a subject (which I'm usually trying to do). That and I should never read forums after 11pm. Being tired doesn't help matters. In other words, don't sweat it, you weren't the only one in the argument. :)
Did Figgy get what he/she was looking for in all this?
Both disciplines are fun/frustrating/worthwhile/rewarding. Do either/both well and you'll be a happy camper for the rest of your working life.
K
PS. If I hear one more time that I am less creative than my 2D peers because I use a computer to animate then I may just explode in a squishy mess of bits.
PS. If I hear one more time that I am less creative than my 2D peers because I use a computer to animate then I may just explode in a squishy mess of bits.
Boom!
: )
QUICK! Someone hide mr-mankind's first post to the forum! We can't loose another animator to spontaneous, justifiable explosion. :eek:
Any animation shot a frame at a time is valid, IMO. I don't think it's valid if the computer does the animation FOR you, but if you animate a frame at a time on a computer, it's valid.
I don't think you can qualtify validity as "more, most," etc.
Which form of animation is the best? The one with good writing and sense of timing.
Or are you trying to decide what to study? Depends on what you want to do after you graduate. 3D is growing quickly, but 2D is far from dead. Take courses in what you want to do along with strong drawing classes (in particular figure drawing), some acting classes, and if you want to eventually make your own animations, some script writing, editing, and film classes. A school with a decent art history (that includes more than one class on film and animation) is a plus.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
I used to be worried that 3d was killing 2d, but i think (even though Disney have done something truly awful to some great animators) that it is giving 2d a chance to reinvent itself.
Almost all "traditional" films these days use some CG, right?
But do CG films use 2d?
I think you're right. Any instituted art form will only go so far. Either unwilling to take risks or wanting to capitalize on a current trend, you see dozens of imitators and few innovators, or significantly slowed innovation. While quality may improve, the style will, with little variation remain unchanged.
It isn't until someone breaks free (there are exceptions) and reinvents the medium. This usually can only happen from outside the system. Lucas spun off and rather than working in Hollywood. From him came ILM and Skywalker Sound. Within ILM, the computer branch was seen as unworthy of their current work (that's right, Lucas didn't see much of a future in computer technology at the time and gave Ed Catmull the opportunity to spin it off into another company, think about that when they say he's the father of digital image making. Ironically enough Lucas has now became part of the established system. Ed Catmul spun off and created Pixar. John Lasseter saw something in it, left Disney and went on to reinvent animation again. Now CG is seeing the same stagnation that 2D saw in the '70's and '80's. Pixar continues to thrive through good story telling and quality in their work. Very little could be considered ground breaking compared to Toy Story (all their dynamics, hair, liquids, all amount to 'minor' tech achievements, not a reinvention, IMHO).
The quesiton is will there be enough 2D animators trying to do something new now that the "boot of opression" has been lifted, or will traditional work continue to limp along trying to do the same old thing that made audiences stop paying to see them and producers lean towards CG? I'm leaning towards a reinvention of it. Cartoon Network has done very well using the techniques of limited animation first pioneered by the likes of Hannah and Barbera and the fine folks on Rocky and Bullwinkle (good gags, inexpensive animation techniques). Not ground breaking in their technique, but certainly noteworthy in that they rely on solid scripts and talented animators to make up for the lack of 'Disney' quality. With the big guys out of the way, there's more room for the little guy.
Sorry, I've been listening to Noam Chomsky (sp?) at work...
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
2d is more for u if your into art and creativity
3d came be the same,but thats mainly in the modelling stages.Lets say...
2d Art and Creativity
3d Technicality (sp?) and creativity.
I'm personally more into 2d because each frame is an art form in itself,where as 3d ,once ur character is modelled and rigged,its really all up the computer *not in the sense that u don't do anything*...lol jeez,its hard to explain.
plus i didn't spend 8 years trying to perfect my drawing skill to be a 3d animator lol.
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
I'm guessing you're talking from what you think of the 3d industry and not actual experience. Perhaps you're opinion is true on an indy level, but when you end up someplace with the tech guys keeping the tools working for you, you'd be surprised at how creative the artists using 3D are (and how many of them don't know the first thing about rendering, rigging, lighting, etc.). Of all the places I worked, the best animators in 3d were also fantastic artists as well. You can't be a good 3d animator if you don't know how to make a strong pose with a character, something that usually comes from loads of drawing experience. That's why companies like Pixar, ILM, PDI all have life drawing classes on and off throughout the year. 3D animation can be pretty well described as Stop Motion with a computer puppet. Are stop motion artists not artistic, letting the rig do the work?
But yeah, Maya is significantly more complex than the pencil and paper. If you don't like computers, 3D probably isn't the way to go, although I imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find a 2d animation studio that doesn't do a majority of its work in a computer. Just remember a computer is just a tool. A very, very expensive pencil. Nothing more.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
dude,i do both 3d and 2d.
and u misunderstood what i said which i expected,nevermind.ignore my post.
edit:actually don't ignore it lol,i'm trying to figure out how to put it,2d is just more artsy and that sense
*sigh* u'd know what i'd mean if ur from a fine arts background,this is hella hard to explain haha.
edit 2 : Lets just say if u love to draw, 2d is for you,if your more into technical things like building/sculpting ,maybe some maths,3d is for you,thats essentially all i ment.
:D the are both as productive as each other,just in different ways.
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
I understand. Using a computer requires a different mind set from using a paint brush. It's definitely not nearly as free flowing as most of the traditional arts and it can be much more technically complex. And it's kind of obvious, if you love to draw then do 2d, not stop motion or 3d. I get what you're saying but you're being a tad insulting with the comparison. Why imply that I don't have an art background? Whether I do or not is irrelevant and totally unnessecary to the conversation. Although, looking back I apologize for implying that you aren't in the industry. That is neither relevant or polite. I apologize.
Sorry, but you've hit a bit of a sore point with me. Bear with me as I explain (I'm really not as upset with you as it may sound). It drives me nuts when people think you have to separate mathematicians and artists. Just because someone understands calculus doesn't mean that they did don't understand art or that they don't have some background in studio art. Some people can only do one or the other well. Others can do both. I've seen brilliant mathematicians, incredible artists, and people that defy categorization, all working out in the industry.
Perhaps better (not insulting) way to say it is that the computer is a very, very expensive and complex pencil. It can be used for math and it can be used for art. It's a lot more technical to use than a pencil, but like the pencil, it's only really limited by the skills of the user (whether it's a mathematician or an artist or both).
That being said. I'll take a deep breath. Get a good night sleep. And dream of wacky little characters running amuck. I won't be so touchy tomorrow...
:o
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
i don't understand where i insulted anyone,cos i really didn't mean to if i did.
who seperated art and maths? obviously if you prefer math and technical *more computer based stuff* ur gunna prefer 3d right?
and if u come from a more artistic and illustrative background,your going to prefer 2d.
thats all i meant hahah
i think ur over emphasising my words there kdiddy lol,sounds like u've been up all night :D
i think figgy just wants to direct now haha
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
Sorry, just edited my previous post. I apologize. I'm up past my bedtime by about an hour.
You keep saying artistic. You aren't getting me. If all you want to do is draw, yes, I agree, then you'll probably find 3D or any non-drawing type of animation frustrating. But please stop saying artistic. I'll repeat, the best animators I know are incredible artists (many of them with illustration and fine art backgrounds). And quite a few of them did very poorly in math (from what they've told me). You're going off of a bunch of stereotypes that as far as I've seen just don't hold up.
Yes, if you don't like the computer, then you won't like 3D. But if you aren't artistic, your work will be dull and lifeless, even in 3D.
Shoot. I've got to go to bed. I bet I wake up tomorrow and find we've been saying the same thing to each other. :o
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
when i say artistic,i mean in a traditional sense. :D ok? lol i really can't think of any other word.
and why are u making it seem that i hate 3d?
do u know that i do both? lol
stereotype? ......i guess that means i'm stereo typing myself then lol.
i gives up.
figgy,are u still around? lol
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
considering you have doubts.
i think it is safe to say though,
that both are valid forms of entertainment.
choosing which is the more valid form of entertainment, though,
requires another thread.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
Well, don't want to brag or anything, but I had to take algebra 3 times before I passed it, and I love 3D animation. :p
First off, welcome to the AWN Forums Figgy. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking this because you are trying to decide what type of school to go to? Or are you just wondering about which one is more artistic?
In any case, I'll weigh in on both :p
For school, you are going to have to learn 2D to really learn animation. This is whether you want to go in to 2D or 3D. It is the fastest way to teach the animation principles in the typical art school set up. If you wait to learn your animation in the 3D at school you probably more than likely not learn the basic princples of animation. They are usually to conserned with teaching the students the programs to really focus on what needs to be taught animation wise. Pluss quite a few of the students tend to caught up in all the bells and whistles of the programs, like lighting, texturing, camera moves and FX, and forget about the character animation.
If you're just wondering, well it's like any art type of art. You have people that thing modern art is amazing, and there are others that just don't get it. I for one love all types of animation. Ray Harryhousand, Aardman, Wil Vinton, and Phil Tippit's stop motion animation is amazing. The amount of character acting they can get from clay and little puppets are mind blowing. I'm still in awe over the subtle acting PIXAR was able to achive in "Monsters Inc." and "The Incredibles." One of the all time saddest moments is till the "Baby Mine" sequence from "Dumbo" where Mrs. Jumbo is locked away and is rocking little Dumbo back and forth with her trunk. All this is the work of amazing artists not the medium. For every great peice of animation there are 10 aweful ones. It's not the medium, but the artists that make animation so great.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
AMEN ape. What is the most valid? Is what conveys the message. Read some Joseph Campbell, and stop asking others to validate your views. Humans want to share the life experience, and what works the best at the time is the right medium.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
One could say that the animation that is most successful is the most valid. If a particular animation is more appealing to a particular person, that person can call it "valid," whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
In the public arena, the most "valid" animated movies are those that make the most money: so Pixar's and Dreamworks' 3D movies are the most "valid."
The most "valid" animated television shows are those that have been around the longest. 2D animation is more "valid" on television, especially those shows that have good acting and writing and are about suburban families: the Simpsons, South Park, King of the Hill.
"Valid" just means that it's successful, so if an animated project is good enough to warrant another movie or an additional TV season, it's valid.
i dunno,a combination of both seems *valid* in the cinema too these days,tough decision eh?
u can always study one officially at college,and do the other as a hobby.
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
Sorry, Noob! I wasn't trying to imply that you hate 3d, and yes I realize that you use. What I'm trying to say is that your responses have been .... misleading? You keep separating art from CG and math from 2D. MC Escher was a gifted and precise mathematician and used it in his art. Getting into CG has more to do with whether someone enjoys and is willing to use a computer or not than their skills as an artist or with math.
Back on topic. As Ape and the others have said, I've seen way more bad animation than good. And it had nothing to do with the type of animation. It had everything to do with the quality of acting, the timing of the action/editing, the way the artist(s) used the style to its full potential, and especially the quality of the writing.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
its not a problem kdiddy,i've never been too good with forum conversations,i tend to bring in arguements without even knowing and getting myself in trouble,heh.i really don't mean to though.
has figgy returned yet,i'm curious to know what he is gunna do now.
ANIMATION FORUM
Production Blog
Ha! I know what you mean. I tend to sound more argumentative than actually actively discussing a subject (which I'm usually trying to do). That and I should never read forums after 11pm. Being tired doesn't help matters. In other words, don't sweat it, you weren't the only one in the argument. :)
Did Figgy get what he/she was looking for in all this?
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight
Both disciplines are fun/frustrating/worthwhile/rewarding. Do either/both well and you'll be a happy camper for the rest of your working life.
K
PS. If I hear one more time that I am less creative than my 2D peers because I use a computer to animate then I may just explode in a squishy mess of bits.
Boom!
: )
QUICK! Someone hide mr-mankind's first post to the forum! We can't loose another animator to spontaneous, justifiable explosion. :eek:
http://forums.awn.com/showthread.php?t=3635
.
Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com
Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight