One thing that I decided to have in mind when I animated was that I would ask myself- what kind of movement will the character have- based on the fact that he is a gingerbreadman? Also the way we move is depended on the situation we`re in, and how we are feeling.
I asked the question "If the gingerbreadman was not at gingerbreadman..what other creature would he be, if you JUST have MOVEMENT in mind? My answer was: A little child. With his big, heavy head and odd proportions, I think his movement will be very similar to what we see in a two- three year old child. So I`ve tried to keep this in mind for many of his moves- however- several places I have enough with just making the animaion look OK..and the whole "childlike" thing is not easy to implement in every case, because you really need to think.. and have time for it. Also the wife has some childlike movement, especially when she walks.. she turns out to be really cute I think:)
søndag 19. juni 2011
lørdag 18. juni 2011
DO NOT LOOK AT Animation Mentor student videos while animating:
It will rip your self-esteem away.. at least that's how I feel. I frequently look at the 11 second club contest.. Its so inspiring to look at talented animators.. However- now when I looked at my own then- I just felt.. "wow..what a dung of useless crap I've animated today". To produce a short..alone..and to keep the spirit up can be challenging. You want to make the best short in the world right, and
then you realise that you just..cant. All you can do is aim high- and hope to get SOME of the result that you had in mind. I must accept that its going to take YEARS before I am able to animate at the level that I aim for. And I must learn to "let go"..
OK..you know you could just do that "one" little last thing to get that shot perfect.. The problem is; that "one" thing is never "one thing",
and you simply do not have the time. I was unsure of if I was the only one feeling like this. Then I watched an interview with Shawn Kelly (ILM) and Carlos Baena (Pixar)... they said that very often they felt uncomfortable leaving a shot.. "I just want to fix ONE last thing..etc.. The advice they gave was..just let go.
Another funny thing is..I've gotten much better at animating in a short time now..
The shots that looked OK three weeks ago looks like crap now. So I have had to go back and improve "old" animation, or else the difference in quality would
be very noticeable I think. The cool thing though- is that I've obviously had progress. One of the things that I had to improve many places is overlapping, weight and and timing. Also I've been adding more breakdowns- and let the computer to less inbetweening for me. Still- I really must learn to take greater control over the inbetweening- I let the computer have far to much power in that matter. I do not want to continue to be a curve-editor animator, searching for "happy accidents"- as Keith Lango says.
then you realise that you just..cant. All you can do is aim high- and hope to get SOME of the result that you had in mind. I must accept that its going to take YEARS before I am able to animate at the level that I aim for. And I must learn to "let go"..
OK..you know you could just do that "one" little last thing to get that shot perfect.. The problem is; that "one" thing is never "one thing",
and you simply do not have the time. I was unsure of if I was the only one feeling like this. Then I watched an interview with Shawn Kelly (ILM) and Carlos Baena (Pixar)... they said that very often they felt uncomfortable leaving a shot.. "I just want to fix ONE last thing..etc.. The advice they gave was..just let go.
Another funny thing is..I've gotten much better at animating in a short time now..
The shots that looked OK three weeks ago looks like crap now. So I have had to go back and improve "old" animation, or else the difference in quality would
be very noticeable I think. The cool thing though- is that I've obviously had progress. One of the things that I had to improve many places is overlapping, weight and and timing. Also I've been adding more breakdowns- and let the computer to less inbetweening for me. Still- I really must learn to take greater control over the inbetweening- I let the computer have far to much power in that matter. I do not want to continue to be a curve-editor animator, searching for "happy accidents"- as Keith Lango says.
fredag 17. juni 2011
Animation:
Sadly- I think- we haven't done much character animation at Noroff. So the training I had before the project sums up to no more than two months. However- my boyfriend Chris bought me the Keith Lango VTS for Christmas. Its a goldmine- and I've watched hours and hours of them. But still I haven't had much time practising my animation skills.
My previous experience is that I animate about 10 sec animation per week.. With a little math- I soon realised that this would absolutely NOT do if I were to reach the deadline.. Then I was told by Deryck..that his animators on "The Lion of Judah" animated about 5 seconds a day. "WHAT"?! I thought.. Who could do that? What kind of super pro animators did he have?? Actually just TWO "pro" animators he had.. and the
rest of them was pretty fresh from school if I understood him right.. So I decided to think like this: If they could do it, then I can do it. I CAN do it, and I WILL do it. So I started to "compete" with Derycks animators.
At first I had no chance..five seconds a day..no way.. However..very shortly I worked faster..and some days I actually made 5 seconds a day. Keep in mind though..my character has no fingers, feet or advanced facials. Actually this was some of the reason for me to choose this particular story in the first place.. I knew that my characters would look simple, and therefore I would not struggle more than necessary with skinning and animation.
My previous experience is that I animate about 10 sec animation per week.. With a little math- I soon realised that this would absolutely NOT do if I were to reach the deadline.. Then I was told by Deryck..that his animators on "The Lion of Judah" animated about 5 seconds a day. "WHAT"?! I thought.. Who could do that? What kind of super pro animators did he have?? Actually just TWO "pro" animators he had.. and the
rest of them was pretty fresh from school if I understood him right.. So I decided to think like this: If they could do it, then I can do it. I CAN do it, and I WILL do it. So I started to "compete" with Derycks animators.
At first I had no chance..five seconds a day..no way.. However..very shortly I worked faster..and some days I actually made 5 seconds a day. Keep in mind though..my character has no fingers, feet or advanced facials. Actually this was some of the reason for me to choose this particular story in the first place.. I knew that my characters would look simple, and therefore I would not struggle more than necessary with skinning and animation.
Props
Added curtains for the window, made the goblin-couple, shelves for the walls, lamps, flour, and rolling pin.
The wife had some plastic surgery.
I've made the wife more appealing- added hair and some decorations for her dress.
torsdag 16. juni 2011
The shots of the star
As I wrote in my previous post I wondered if the first shots of the twinkling star looked alright. Deryck and I had already talked about these shots: as you can see at o:09 sec from my original previz the first shot of the star was a mid-shot/long-shot.
He advised me to make this shot a close-up of the star instead. I agreed with his suggestion, however I wondered how I could move from the star, to the "magic" opening of the book, and then show the gingerbread man. The star twinkle, the book opening and the characters reaction are three different actions that occurs pretty much at the "same" time. I wanted to show this- fluidly and and with clarity for the audience. At first I just added the close-up of the star, and then made a cut to the long shot that jibs down to the book. It was at this point I wrote the previous blog-post asking "how does it look NOW then"?.
I saw that there was something about it that I just did not like- but I was unsure of what it was. The cut between the at 0:09 sec and the following shot felt wrong, and the whole "operation" with moving the camera from the star to the gingerbread man- it just didn't feel right.
Deryck looked at it, and instantly said- "your close up of the star has much space screen- left. Since your character is placed right of the star, then your screen-space should be screen- RIGHT.
Also you should make your jib-down shot have more of a ease in and out- it moves to fast!". These things I hadn't thought about at all. (I guess that experience with a REAL camera would do me some good- and give me a better instinct/feeling for how a camera could/should move in a 3D software like max actually.)
The third advice he gave me was: "when the camera moves down and shows the book opening, don't stop- let it rotate or move back so that the character is also included in the shot".
I thought about what he said- and realized that these suggestions could solve my "problem"- that I wanted the three actions (star, book, characters reaction) to fluidly appear to happen almost at the same time.
I eagerly made the changes- rendered out- and once more showed Deryck the result.
I was still not happy with the cut at 0:09 though.
Now Deryck said- "much better, but you know what I think would look really cool?
- If you show the characters first reaction to the star twinkle, BEFORE the mid-shot of the star when camera jibs down. So we discussed this for a little while- and agreed that the natural thing would be for the character to first react to the STAR twinkle, then show that the book opens, and show the characters reaction to this.
It is silly that a thing like this can make a person happy- but I actually felt real happiness and excitement at this point, because I realised that the suggestion that Deryck now had would make the shots like I wanted them to look. I would have fluid motion, clarity of actions, and no jumpy cuts of the star- because a shot of the character would occur in the middle of them. We had successfully solved all the issues with the shots that bothered me. En eureka-feeling really.
It now looks like this:
Nice- yeah? :)
He advised me to make this shot a close-up of the star instead. I agreed with his suggestion, however I wondered how I could move from the star, to the "magic" opening of the book, and then show the gingerbread man. The star twinkle, the book opening and the characters reaction are three different actions that occurs pretty much at the "same" time. I wanted to show this- fluidly and and with clarity for the audience. At first I just added the close-up of the star, and then made a cut to the long shot that jibs down to the book. It was at this point I wrote the previous blog-post asking "how does it look NOW then"?.
I saw that there was something about it that I just did not like- but I was unsure of what it was. The cut between the at 0:09 sec and the following shot felt wrong, and the whole "operation" with moving the camera from the star to the gingerbread man- it just didn't feel right.
Deryck looked at it, and instantly said- "your close up of the star has much space screen- left. Since your character is placed right of the star, then your screen-space should be screen- RIGHT.
Also you should make your jib-down shot have more of a ease in and out- it moves to fast!". These things I hadn't thought about at all. (I guess that experience with a REAL camera would do me some good- and give me a better instinct/feeling for how a camera could/should move in a 3D software like max actually.)
The third advice he gave me was: "when the camera moves down and shows the book opening, don't stop- let it rotate or move back so that the character is also included in the shot".
I thought about what he said- and realized that these suggestions could solve my "problem"- that I wanted the three actions (star, book, characters reaction) to fluidly appear to happen almost at the same time.
I eagerly made the changes- rendered out- and once more showed Deryck the result.
I was still not happy with the cut at 0:09 though.
Untitled from Lisa Hvidsten on Vimeo.
Now Deryck said- "much better, but you know what I think would look really cool?
- If you show the characters first reaction to the star twinkle, BEFORE the mid-shot of the star when camera jibs down. So we discussed this for a little while- and agreed that the natural thing would be for the character to first react to the STAR twinkle, then show that the book opens, and show the characters reaction to this.
It is silly that a thing like this can make a person happy- but I actually felt real happiness and excitement at this point, because I realised that the suggestion that Deryck now had would make the shots like I wanted them to look. I would have fluid motion, clarity of actions, and no jumpy cuts of the star- because a shot of the character would occur in the middle of them. We had successfully solved all the issues with the shots that bothered me. En eureka-feeling really.
It now looks like this:
Untitled from Lisa Hvidsten on Vimeo.
Nice- yeah? :)
SHADING ISSUE:
I've always wanted to experiment with toon shading. When people are asked "which animated film is your favourite?" you get answers like "little mermaid", "The jungle book", "Robin Hood", "Lion King" etc... Probably every one of us get a dreamy look in our eyes when we think about such films.. We all agree that shrek is cool right.. And that toy story rocks.. But do we get that warm feeling in our heart? I know I don't...
When I first dreamed of being an animator, I wanted to do puppet animation actually. My second choice was 2D animation, and 3D actually came third. However- since there was no school I could go to and learn puppet or 2D animation, then I was "stuck" with 3D animation. Well, the point is- I've wanted to experiment with toon shading.. I am sick of all those polished CG renderings.. I am sick of glossiness and caustics, sick of perfection, sick of reality. I do not care how well you rendered out that teapot.. It doesn't make me FEEL anything.
So.. I thought- "I`ll show them- I`ll make my film toon shaded".. Not like flat shading no, "real" toon shading- like you see in old Disney movies. I did some research and learned that the technique they used to paint the scenes in the disney classics is called GUACHE. I studied a lot of shorts on YouTube..
What I also discovered was that ink lines are only included on the objects and characters that are animated.. No ink-lines on backgrounds or static objects. Also, the shading on moving characters and objects is simple. No shadows on them. I felt really excited about my deductions.. And when I found a shader called "guace" I was in heaven. My film was definitely going to look like this.. I started to shade my scene..
The fall from heaven- and back to cg-reality:
One thing that I had not thought about was the fact that a toon shader looks like a toon shader because of the limited amount of how it is affected by lights... SO when I applied toon-shading to the big surfaces- like the kitchen bench and the walls-
I lost the night/Christmas/cosy feeling in the scene. Everything looked FLAT! I am sure that this could be solved in some way- but I did not have the time to experiment it for too long.. I realised that in order to stay on the time-schedule I had to make a choice- either keep the toon shading- and not have contrast in lighting, or have keep the lighting- and not have toon shading.
I chose to "kill my darlings" - the toon shading. I felt that the lighting was important, and that to keep the toon shading would be stubborn of me. To have a "cool" toon- shader in a scene that did not make you feel anything- because everything looks flat would be...wrong.
So back to 3D-shaders it was:
Looks all right- she grumbled.. :)
When I first dreamed of being an animator, I wanted to do puppet animation actually. My second choice was 2D animation, and 3D actually came third. However- since there was no school I could go to and learn puppet or 2D animation, then I was "stuck" with 3D animation. Well, the point is- I've wanted to experiment with toon shading.. I am sick of all those polished CG renderings.. I am sick of glossiness and caustics, sick of perfection, sick of reality. I do not care how well you rendered out that teapot.. It doesn't make me FEEL anything.
So.. I thought- "I`ll show them- I`ll make my film toon shaded".. Not like flat shading no, "real" toon shading- like you see in old Disney movies. I did some research and learned that the technique they used to paint the scenes in the disney classics is called GUACHE. I studied a lot of shorts on YouTube..
What I also discovered was that ink lines are only included on the objects and characters that are animated.. No ink-lines on backgrounds or static objects. Also, the shading on moving characters and objects is simple. No shadows on them. I felt really excited about my deductions.. And when I found a shader called "guace" I was in heaven. My film was definitely going to look like this.. I started to shade my scene..
The fall from heaven- and back to cg-reality:
One thing that I had not thought about was the fact that a toon shader looks like a toon shader because of the limited amount of how it is affected by lights... SO when I applied toon-shading to the big surfaces- like the kitchen bench and the walls-
I lost the night/Christmas/cosy feeling in the scene. Everything looked FLAT! I am sure that this could be solved in some way- but I did not have the time to experiment it for too long.. I realised that in order to stay on the time-schedule I had to make a choice- either keep the toon shading- and not have contrast in lighting, or have keep the lighting- and not have toon shading.
I chose to "kill my darlings" - the toon shading. I felt that the lighting was important, and that to keep the toon shading would be stubborn of me. To have a "cool" toon- shader in a scene that did not make you feel anything- because everything looks flat would be...wrong.
So back to 3D-shaders it was:
Looks all right- she grumbled.. :)
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)