Are Vectors good for traditional animation? Here's my attempt in toon boom studio

I had this same issue with Toon Boom losing the "quality" of the line in my drawings.

I'd say that Digicel Flipbook might be a better option for what you're trying to do. I'm having to put together some numbers for a TV pilot and that's the software we're leaning towards.

Although, if anyone has any better suggestions, I'm all ears.

The thing I see missing from your drawing is thick and thin line variation, which can be tricky to get in a vector program. You can get close by using a tablet and turning on the pressure option, but since that generates more data per line, your file sizes will increase.

Vector fills (like in your shadows) are either one solid color with a defined edge or gradients that transition from one color to another. Using a gradient can give you the softer look you're looking for, but it'll take a little work on your part and may come back to bite you when the drawings start to move. Take another look at the shadows in the anime you're watching - you'll probably find they are single-color with defined edges.

As for the eyes, it's up to you to put in the "more detailed and glowy" aspects. The software can't do that for you.

what i need is one for more traditional based animation, which is going to be hand drawn digitally with a tablet.

You should take a look at TVPaint .

What program did you use to create your avatar?

Smudged and blurred effects in any software are going to be difficult to animate.

You can achieve soft shadows and blurred effects, but you'll need the right tools. I can't say that Toon Boom would be ideal for that. You'd need something like RETAS, Toonz, or Animo.

RETAS for example, has an airbrush effect which you can apply to your color breaks to soften them.

These were created in Flash with Flash's tools.

The first is easily animated I wouldn't even attempt to animate the second. You have to decide which is more important animation or blurring and smudging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EustaceScrubb
You should take a look at TVPaint .

I allready did , but it just seems to make things harder when it comes to animation.

Sorry, about that . You did say that you had already tried it in one of your earlier posts. I guess what I meant to say was : "Give TVPaint another look." and I'll say it again now. It is rather a complicated program and the learning curve is steep , but I'd say it's worth it , however, in the end "your results may vary".

You say you're looking for something that is more like traditional animation drawing, by which I understand you are looking for something that can simulate natural media (i.e. a pencil and/or pens, markers, watercolors ) and can do effects like soft shadows. TVPaint or Mirage can do that . The limited pen tools in ToonBoom just aren't all that versatile to me . The only area where I think ToonBoom excels over TVPaint or Mirage is that the Exposure Sheet function in ToonBoom is better . Of course, this isn't a ToonBoom vs. TVPaint thread and I'm not trying to turn it into one , but based on what you say you're looking for I think you'd be more likely to find it in something like TVPaint .

Have you considered simply drawing your animation on paper with a pencil, scan into Photoshop (since you said you like PS) , do your coloring in Photoshop , then composite in AfterEffects ? (I've read about people using that Photoshop to AfterEffects method ) .

I will say that I've heard of at least one animator , Shawn McInerney, using TVPaint to rough out his animation (because it feels more like using a real pencil , especially with a Cintiq tablet) , then he imports to ToonBoom to do his final line clean ups in vector. Shawn may have posted about that here on AWN forums . Search around.

Vakis,

I just noticed you amended your earlier post with this comment :

I don't seem to be able to composite my material in tv paint due to the lack of a 3d camera

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What are you trying to composite ? TVPaint has a system of layers , which can be considered analagous to the old cel system , with the background painting on the bottom layer and artwork painted on clear layers (cels) stacked in progressive levels on top of the background , the camera pointed down and as each frame is recorded the various cel levels combine into a single image . The difference is in TVPaint the "cel layers" are all digital , so you can resize them, skew them, add effects , etc. to each individual layer before compositing the final image for output to digital video . One of the advantages of TVPaint or Mirage (more or less the same programs) is that it contains very powerful FX Stack, Keyframing (for camera moves) , and compositing capabilities.

May I suggest you post your questions at the TVPaint forum or on the Mirage side of things at the Mirage Forum . You'll find a very helpful user group at both places.

Can you even automate layer position and size to simulate camera properties?

Yes. That's what the Keyframer module in the FX Stack is for. Look up in TVPaint Help for FX Stack, KeyFramer , camera moves, pans. Or post questions on TVPaint user forum. Or look at the Bauhaus Software Mirage tutorials posted on the Bauhaus site. (Bauhaus definitely has a better set of tutorials posted online. Some small details may vary from the TVPaint interface , but overall anything that works in Mirage will be the same in TVPaint.)

TVPaint/Mirage is part animation program, part EFX program, part compositing program. Animating in TVPaint and then taking it into AfterEffects for camera moves and compositing would be overkill , unless you already understand AfterEffects better and it's part of your production pipeline that you don't want to give up. But not necessary if you have TVPaint/Mirage.

Animating in TVPaint and then taking it into AfterEffects for camera moves and compositing would be overkill , unless you already understand AfterEffects better and it's part of your production pipeline that you don't want to give up. But not necessary if you have TVPaint/Mirage.

Not overkill if you want authentic 3D camera moves. This is one of the limitations of Mirage that I think may be addressed in the next version, but for now, even panning a background is kind of limited--I know you can use the Keyframer, but it's a much more practical and intuitive thing to do in AE.

That said, I think Mirage is a great animating tool and I much prefer it to Flash or ToonBoon--mainly because I prefer bitmap to vector.

I've been going back and forth myself for some time whether or not to draw my frames in system, vs. on paper. I'm leaning towards paper for roughs at least.

If you're going to do character animation or anything fairly complicated like that with vector, it might be a good procedure to have a sketch layer, then lock that down and trace your clean ups over it. That's essentially the digital version of what's done on paper.

I've been going back and forth myself for some time whether or not to draw my frames in system, vs. on paper. I'm leaning towards paper for roughs at least.

If you're going to do character animation or anything fairly complicated like that with vector, it might be a good procedure to have a sketch layer, then lock that down and trace your clean ups over it. That's essentially the digital version of what's done on paper.

Right on.

I love my digital programs like TVPaint. I love my Cintiq.

BUT

The thing to remember about traditional animation , done on pencil and paper , is that the traditional system as developed at Disney's , Fleischer's , Warner Bros., MGM, UPA, etc. is solid. It's not broken. It doesn't need to be "fixed" . It doesn't necessarily need to be "improved". Digital doesn't automatically make it better. We can animate great things on paper and scan them to digital for ink & paint for finishing. As an example: Look at any 1940's or 1950's Chuck Jones cartoon, animated on paper, inked & painted on cels ,shot frame-by-frame on an Acme camera stand .... and ask yourself : are modern "Flash" style cartoons any better ? Does the digital technology actually add anything of value ?

How about a recent short like Mark Kausler's brilliant "It's The Cat" .... Mark animated it all hand-drawn on paper and it was hand-inked & painted on cels . It's great . It wouldn't be the same in Flash or ToonBoom , or cel-shaded in Maya or whatever .

I think it's a given that the technology doesn't add anything of value to the 2d animation world, it just makes it much cheaper and easier to produce.

It wouldn't be the same in Flash or ToonBoom , or cel-shaded in Maya or whatever .

No it wouldn't. The technology has changed the style and qualities of what cartoons look like. I've seen Japanese anime for example that had some scenes done on traditional cels and the next scene was painted digitally. There was a stark difference in what they looked like. The style is the same but there are qualities that are quite different, like an overall sharpness and highly saturated colors of digital vs. something shot on film.

I've been gathering some acetate cels for study reference, and no matter what cartoon a cel is from it's amazing. Anyone that does animation today should hold a real cel and take it in and study it. Not the sericel prints either, but a real, hand-painted cel.

After Effects' rendering engine is pretty complex. It also depends on the resolution of your composition and the complexity of your scene as to how quickly it will render.

After Effects does not have an X-sheet. That's a feature specific to 2D animation programs, and you'd probably be better off compositing 2D animation in something like Toon Boom over After Effects.

You can import a TGA sequence, for example, into After Effects that will show up as a single entity in the project. That image sequence can then be easily composited over a background image, but since there's no X-sheet you won't be able to control the timing.

What type of effects are you looking to do that would require After Effects?

I think you're going to spin your wheels a lot with '3D' perspective transforms on 2D planes, work really hard to get not a lot out of it. I say that compared to a true 3D application and the results it can produce.

You can also cheat a lot of 3D looking camera moves with well planned and composited 2D, but there is a limit to what can be achieved.

One of the best examples I've seen of a 2D character in a rendered 3D environment is the "Beyond" segment of "The Animatrix." It's worth checking out for reference.

Moho Pro is vector based and is less familiar to paper animators but is a lot deeper than even the documentation will tell you. 
I like Moho as an alternative to TBH. But mostly because I like to work/draw/animate with vectors as opposed to paperless, tradigital methods. I hear that OpenToonz is an open source alternative to TBH as well.
TVPaint is great traditional animation workflow on a computer. Wacom Cintiq recommended ...so pricey. I have used it with the regular XP-Pen  Deco Pro digital art tablet and it works well. Great drawing tools. Their website has nice tutorials and galleries.