WHO WANTS TO WORK?
The CGSociety galleries are a place where you often see incredible artwork. Unfortunately, the attitude around the CGSociety can sometimes be a little cliquish and inclusive. Those who are in are in and those who ren't well... One thing I have personally noticed is that even though there are other galleries that have equally stunning and high quality artwork, at The CGSociety, the tools certainly do matter. They matter so much so that I would venture to guess that if you had two nearly identical images, but one artist used Maya, ZBrush, Photoshop and Deep Paint, while the other used Poser and Vue, the crowd would sing the praises of the former and the latter would be largely ignored. The reason for this, it seems, is that there is an aspect that is more highly valued than the art itself. That aspect is the struggle to get there.
You see, you could create the greatest image in the world, but if it was too easy for you, there are a lot of artists out there who will look down on that work and scoff. I guess they feel you didn't earn it. Those that struggle are met with comments like, "...well deserved 5 stars.. I can see a lot of work there..." Well, I am not of that school. Personally, when I have an image in my head, I wish I could just visualize it on canvas like Isaac Mendez, the guy who could paint the future in the hit TV show Heroes, throw down some paint and it's there.
The reality is that tools like Vue 6, Poser and Daz take away a lot of the monotony, struggle and boring aspects of creating the images you might want to create. Still, they re merely tools like any other. Used unwisely they can just as quickly create horrid results as they can beautiful. It still takes some effort to get great things out fo them. Go to any gallery for these tools and you will see good and bad images like anywhere else. Luckily, the good does come a bit easier when the tool is learned.
And why not? Why would anyone want to struggle and suffer to reach their artistic goal. I think it is a cultural thing in the US. "No pain no gain" and all that. We tend to think that if it comes easy it can't be worth it. That kind of thinking is to our own detriment. That same kind of thinking makes it impossible to do 10 minutes of anime in a month working part time. How could it not?
Until we break the chains that limit ourselves, we can't know just how much one artist can do when the right tools are leveraged. And yes, leverage is what it is really about. If you use a Mirage Nomad and draw directly to your final frames, how much faster is it than drawing on paper, scanning, inking and coloring? If you use Anime Studio, how much faster is it than drawing the same thing frame by frame? If you use Vue, how much faster is it than modeling trees and leaves in a 3D modeling package? The tools must be leveraged to vault the user to the goal. That is what should be respected.
You see, you could create the greatest image in the world, but if it was too easy for you, there are a lot of artists out there who will look down on that work and scoff. I guess they feel you didn't earn it. Those that struggle are met with comments like, "...well deserved 5 stars.. I can see a lot of work there..." Well, I am not of that school. Personally, when I have an image in my head, I wish I could just visualize it on canvas like Isaac Mendez, the guy who could paint the future in the hit TV show Heroes, throw down some paint and it's there.
The reality is that tools like Vue 6, Poser and Daz take away a lot of the monotony, struggle and boring aspects of creating the images you might want to create. Still, they re merely tools like any other. Used unwisely they can just as quickly create horrid results as they can beautiful. It still takes some effort to get great things out fo them. Go to any gallery for these tools and you will see good and bad images like anywhere else. Luckily, the good does come a bit easier when the tool is learned.
And why not? Why would anyone want to struggle and suffer to reach their artistic goal. I think it is a cultural thing in the US. "No pain no gain" and all that. We tend to think that if it comes easy it can't be worth it. That kind of thinking is to our own detriment. That same kind of thinking makes it impossible to do 10 minutes of anime in a month working part time. How could it not?
Until we break the chains that limit ourselves, we can't know just how much one artist can do when the right tools are leveraged. And yes, leverage is what it is really about. If you use a Mirage Nomad and draw directly to your final frames, how much faster is it than drawing on paper, scanning, inking and coloring? If you use Anime Studio, how much faster is it than drawing the same thing frame by frame? If you use Vue, how much faster is it than modeling trees and leaves in a 3D modeling package? The tools must be leveraged to vault the user to the goal. That is what should be respected.
35 Comments:
Bravo, Terrence.
I, too, hail from the school of it being the final result that matters, not the path taken... and I've taken some mighty difficult paths to get to things that are now much simpler to do.
It might be said that if we didn't believe in some measure of progress through improved technology that works on behalf of the end-user, we wouldn't have faster and faster computers (and who complains about that?), improvements and updates in even the more challenging programs (and who doesn't like their software updated... intelligently, of course...), and so on and so forth.
Then again, as CG artists, I suppose we COULD all take the view that the harder it is to get there, the better it is. That being the case, I guess nothing at all that's been done on computers is as good as work done in stone... or oils... or pastels... or acrylics... or even crayolamation. One look at the ZBrush galleries, Vue galleries, Maya galleries, Lightwave galleries, Max galleries, Poser galleries, XSI galleries, Blender galleries tells me that just isn't so anymore.
In the end, we should all compliment each other on the end result... no matter the way it was won.
Joe
I'm with you too T!
I've seen far too many times where an artist showed me a mundane image and they were like all "This was modeled in maya using nurbs then exported to Z-brush then textured in Deep Paint with final touches from blah blah..." but in my head I'm like who cares because it SUX! Far too many people CG people get caught up into the technique... other CG artists may get off on that too but the general audience could care less... It all comes down to who your making work for... If your making a film or anime then your making it for the audience and the technique doesn't matter...all that matters is the final product.... If your making stuff to impress CG geeks and/or to get a job then the technique is probably important... So I say exploit the CG forums for the great how-to and troubleshooting info that is there but ignore the workflow elitism that goes on and do what works best for you and your project... We'll be making and finishing films and anime while they are still arguing whether its possible or not...thats the way its always been...
You know I find it funny that a lot of the "high end" 3d apps are starting to integrate character animation controls and functionality that Poser has had since version 3... and the quality in Vue is just nuts... exciting times!
Mdotstrange,
You are absolutely right. The tools and techniques had to be efficient and feasible for a indie project. And the judge of it's empathizing ability should be judged by the feedback of the audience.
There's a stark difference between the workflow of production studios and indie filmmakers. Indie filmmakers like us will use anything and everything at our disposal which is FEASIBLE to the project and our vision. That's the bottom line.
Whereas the artisans trying to get promoted in their office will try to secure their future by gaining TECHNICAL EDGE over their fellow workers. The end result or the feasibility is not their concern. That's a managerial decision. Buy HEY, we have to manage our project ourselves.
They are from different world that you Mdotstrange. Little boxes.
Visit my website, www.satyajitchakraborty.com to see that I'm using plethora of stuffs from open source to cheap 3D softwares to make my NEXT FILM. Yes, I'm making my next film and it's picked by a distributor too.
It's happening Mdotstrange. I think we won't have to lurk above for a long time and can reach the audience without giving away our filmmaking vision and integrity.
I have an account with CGSociety and after I started reading some of the post, I lost interest. I usually like to support the underdogs, because I was there at one time. My aim has always been, if you have the expensive programs, you're suppose to produce top notch and high quality work; and that really not that impressive. The Underdogs on the other hand always impress, working with at times bare essentials, turn out some amazing things. Long live the starving artist.
I'm with everyone on this one!!
In fact I stopped using a software because I couldn't utilize shortcuts. (Animation Master)
I love the idea of having shortcuts such as Poser and Vue especially for background work.
The program itself has become quite powerful over the years from cloth,hair, physics, to water fx you can do in it. It is powerful!
You look over at the Endorphin forum and they have Poser included in their how to migrate over.
Afterworld.tv uses it extensively and I'm more interested in the story itself.
Yeah I get tired of that elitist attitude that you have to make everything from scratch for it to look good or be art for that matter.
For that matter movies like Polar Express, Beowulf, and Spirits Within could have all been made with Poser models and the audience wouldn't have known the differance.
Using a tool like that can give us a similiar look.
Add Vue to the mix and walla, a full package! ILM doesn't seem to picky to use it.
You know TW this argument has been raging since man began his artistic journey.
It’s funny at one point in time you weren’t considered an artist if you weren’t educated in math, philosophy, history, science and didn’t know how to sketch, paint, and sculpt.
With each new tool came this argument as to what is and can be used and who is or isn’t an artist.
Traditional artist mocked photographers, until traditional artist started using cameras for reference. Traditional artist mocked airbrush artist saying the airbrush dose the work for them where as painters have to work to blend. Now Traditional artist mock Digital artist saying the computer dose it all for them but now traditional artist are incorporating their skills and knowledge in to using the computer but more so in how the programs should work.
End result all benefit.
As far as the 3D debates I’m really so tired of the arrogance, the arguing, the need to perfect the perfect model, texture, whatever. 3D apps are so much alike nowadays that one tutorial works on all. The sad this is I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing, but with all the advancement in apps;
where’s the creativity?
Where’s the originality?
I think the reasons that people dislike Poser are more complex than "no pain, no gain". First, there is the initial "it's too easy" reaction. Any child can open Poser, follow a tutorial, click a few buttons and get a photorealistic result -- a result that would have taken weeks to achieve with more traditional modeling and texturing software, let alone years of prior art experience. But the reason that it is this easy is because someone *has* worked for weeks on that Poser model -- just not the user of the Poser software.
And this is probably what annoys the CGSociety people the most: the bulk of the creative decisions in a Poser piece are not being made by the person who signs their name to the work. You may argue that the Poser user is making the most *important* decisions -- the lighting, camera angle, framing, and pose -- and that all the "boring" decisions are made by someone else. But the CGSociety people probably spend a lot of time modeling and texturing, so they value these decisions more than you do. So when you post a fairly impressive work, and then you reveal that all the "boring" modeling and texturing were done by someone else, you probably look a bit like Milli Vanilli to them. In this case, you'd do better in a filmmaking forum than in a modeling/texturing/rigging forum, where your interests align more with the other members.
So that is why CGSociety dislikes Poser. But, as you point out, their opinions hardly matter to most people. So, if Poser is so much more efficient than other software, why isn't it being used? I can think of several reasons:
* A lot of Poser art looks the same. This is partially because most Poser users are novices, but it's also due to the workflow Poser imposes: "I need an asian female? No problem. (loads up Miki) Two asian females? (loads another Miki, tweaks some parameters) Three?..." Pretty soon you have a world of Miki's, all looking vaguely related, or you need to jump online to download a new archetype. And not only do your characters look similar to each other, but they look similar to those of all other Poser users (which can be a bad thing).
* Poser models are not rigged as realistically as they are modeled. This is a consequence of the fact that Poser is sold by still shots, not animations, so the models only have to be rigged well enough to look good in stills. If you use a realistic model with unrealistic rigging or animation, the result is really creepy (in "the uncanny valley"). You'd be better off using a less realistic (more cartoony or abstract) model, but this is not what most Poser users want to hear.
* You are at the mercy of the visual content creators. The people who make Poser content only make generic things that they can sell to many people. Need a dragon for your production? No problem... just buy one of the many online. Need a flying six-legged water buffalo? Uh-oh. You have to either rewrite your script or find someone with "difficult" software and "boring" skills to make it for you. (And if you already know how to use one of the larger 3D packages yourself, you're probably already using it instead of Poser.)
I'm not going to harp on Anime Studio or Vue because I don't think they suffer from the same content creation issues as Poser and, frankly, I don't think anyone has made the complaints about them that you raise in your post. Anyone who complains about not modeling every leaf in a scene is an idiot; Vue generates foliage in the same manner as any major 3D package.
There are two arguments which are being convoluted into one here. The first is having an elitist attitude to 3d [or even 2d] applications. Should there be? No, of course not. whether you create a model in Maya or the significantly cheaper Blender [or anything in-between], the final product should be judged on it's own merit. That's an easy conclusion to come to, and most comments have backed up this thinking.
The second is the argument that it's the final product that matters, regardless of how it got there. Sure enough anyone can do as they like, I'm not saying they have to do anything in a particular way. But the notion that the end result is the only thing that matters is ridiculous. I hadn't been to cgsociety's 3d gallery so I decided on a look-see and searched for poser stuff. I found some comments like the ones you observed, but I also noticed a lot more where people were quite complimentary. And there was one pic. The poster later revealed that he had stuck some poser models in vue and got some building from the extras cd. That's it. Should he be praised for that? The image was OK. But he created nothing. is that art? Importing from one app to another? He even got one comment complimenting the models. is that deserved? Why should anyone have praised onto them for this type of work? Nothing wrong with doing it, but nothing you couldn't set up in automation. What about going to a friend's for dinner. they offer you food and it goes down a treat. Yummy yummy in your tummy. But then you go to another friend and they offer you equally delicious grub. Except the second one was made by the person and the first was bought from a restaurant. Yes, you can appreciate the gesture of the first, but all the praise for the food will go to the second. What's the point of 'nice food' [compliment] when someone did sweet F A to make it? same thing with artwork. If you didn't make it, what is there to say? 'I like the was you loaded that .obj file'? It's not about making everything from scratch, but where the fuck is the artistry? And I use the word artistry because people love calling themselves artists [more on that to come, you lucky people]
And you wrongly correlate effort with the elite apps. More often than not, the more you pay, the easier it gets. Maya has a rep for the best character animation for the reason is that things are easier to do. Modo is also expensive but makes modelling easier. I got poser 3 [and later poser 5], on a magazine cd. I don't know what tools Mdotstrange refers to which other apps a ripping off, but I certainly couldn't find them. The ironic thing about my poser experience was that it was difficult to pose things. Sure if you want a rough poser you can o it, but I tried something specific and could not get the pose done [copying the figure in the spiderman poster]. I thought it was me. it was disheartening. But then I got a free one years freelance licence of Motionbuilder and realised just how shitty poser was. Things became a lot easier. The point I'm getting to is that you have mistakenly related effort with quality. Zbrush makes detailing a load faster and easier than building all that detail in a conventional polygon or nurbs system. Maya has good organic modelling tools to make it quicker to produce things like figures. Poser has pre-made models. To get those models looking as least like poser models as possible [and you will want to if you have any pride], it takes a heap of effort. Wasted time [in my opinion], when you could build from scratch using blender or something.
I seriously don't get what's wrong with learning your craft and wanting to get some quality in your work. Am I so antiquated in my thinking? Some quotes
"There is no skill in Hollywood today. you look at movies and you can't believe how amateurish they are. Anybody can make a movie nowadays, anybody. Technically, we may be advanced - at least the sound is louder than it used to be"
John Kricfalusi in about 1992, form an article I was reading today, by coincidence. Now what I keep hearing is people going on about ideas. People who think that the only thing that matters is story. Yes, I went to scope out Afterworld on youtube after it was mentioned here. A nightmarish vision indeed - the animation that is! Machima would have been a step of for that [poorly staged] 28 days rip off [nice 'story' guys...]. People go on like others don't have ideas. We all have ideas. I have new ideas all the time. Einstein said something to the effect that genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. For those who want that in a non-science perspective another quote from JohnK from the same article:
It's one thing to have ideas; it's another to have the skill to execute them. Ideas are cheap; ability is expensive."
I'm not trying to be elitists here. Yes, everybody can make good animation, providing that everyone takes time to learn the skills and fundamentals. If you want to be a 'movie producer' that's you're choice, but don't think for a second you're a creative, or as people like to self title themselves, an Artist. You may like the romantic idea of being an Artist, but how can you be an artist with no artistry? How can you not create and claim to be an Artist? Why do you expect an audience to accept your work, when you haven't bothered to learn the fundamentals that will ensure you at least a modicum of quality? Do you hire a plumber that is not qualified? Who doesn't know how to work the pipes? Would you buy furniture from some asshole how just decided one day he'd glue some wood together and offer it to the public? Would you take your favourite girl to an expensive restaurant, knowing that the food is over\under cooked, with some slapdash flavouring like poorchops covered in frozen yogurt, because the chef had a few 'ideas'? you wouldn't, but somehow it's easy to accept poor animation. Motion captured. No craft. Scrappy drawings and animations running at 3 frames per second because people think that just because moho can help with animation, it means they don't have to draw ever again, and sliding cells will do for every situation.
This is a wake up call for you who are applicable, being independent doesn't mean you shouldn't try or shouldn't have to learn methodologies that will in the end only benefit you as they make your work look better. Some of you guys and, others around the world, are in a daze. Are you satisfied with being Justin Timberlake? Wouldn't you rather be Usher? You want to be Spice girls? Okay, fair enough, but I rather be Nina Simone and Billy Holiday. The thing you all don't realise is that once you learn these techniques and fundamentals, it'll become easy for you to produce artwork. I've seen videos going in realtime where someone modelled a head in under an hour. To make something even near the quality the came out with will take hours of fiddling in poser. So why people? Why?!
Your post seems to further support my point, Crsp, and it leads me to ask. Is art ONLY in the models? In the example you mention, you say the Poser image was "OK". What if it was great? What if it was a great pose? What if it had great lighting? What it was a great composition? What if it was a great shot, making great use of depth of field and the like? Is the artist judged only on the models? IS that what makes the image?
I think JCL had it right when he said it would be better judged in a film making forum than a modeling, texturing and rigging forum. And that is what CGSociety seems to have become where 3D is concerned. Is it really all about the models?
This character was done using Miki in Poser. It certainly doesn't look like Miki. I built my own characters for over ten years. It used to take me a month to do a character of this quality. This was far easier than building it from scratch. For me, and maybe it is just me, it is so much easier to load up a great and expensive tool like modo and use the sculpt tools to make morphs for an existing model than to build from scratch. For me, creating great UV's is much harder and takes far longer than making the actual texture maps. And UV's on human characters are almost always done the same, as far back as 1999. Why would I want to do it again and again? I look at the mesh of most Poser figures and the placement of lines and distribution of wires is so close to my own figures and others figures I have seen that I ask, how many different ways will you build a human character? Why should I want to? (I most certainly do not)
JCL seems to think you are limited by the content creators out there. I think it is the biggest mistake to think that way. I have actually come to like modeling again sometimes because I no longer have to "waste my time" (yes that's just my opinion) modeling everything, modeling regular people, regular shirts, regular guns, that stuff all exists. Never in my life did I enjoy modeling something that exists in the real world. Now I don't have to. Now I only model the interesting stuff, the fun stuff, the six legged, flying bison. (or was it a buffalo?)
In the end, I want to make my show, not make 3D models. I use Mirage and Anime Studio as much as I use modo, Vue or Poser. Anime Studio does not mean I don't have to draw anymore. In fact, it makes me want to draw more because I can get so much more out of a single drawing. Why assume that you are stuck with anything?
I wanted to chime in and add my 2 cents worth (can't resist a good debate).
I can see the viewpoint of jcl and speaking strictly from that viewpoint, if I were a painter or sculptor or musician; then, his arguments would have some weight. A single individual using ones' own two hands and brain to create something from nothing; versus, something taking someone else's painting or sculpture or music, changing a few things and saying 'See, what I created.'
Now, I could paint, sculpt or even try and attempt music. But, that is not were my 'artristry' lays. My artistry (in my own humble opinion) lies in the art of storytelling. That is, by creating characters and 'weaving' a story that hopefully is entertaining. But in order to do that, one must know the fine art of storytelling. And since my chosen medium is visual (i.e. film, video, animation), I have to rely on those concepts; i.e., camera angles, lighting, dramatic tension, revealing shots, character development, plot development, etc.
Speilberg, Cameron, Coppolla, Scorcese, etc. don't make the cameras, nor film, nor actors, nor story (in some cases) that they use to create their overall vision of their art or artistry.
I think of the scuplture, The Thinker, and even though the scupltor did not create the image of 'man', it was his choice of posing that man the way he did that makes it a great piece of art.
crsP in this forum we are more about making movies instead of one image.
It is good to learn the fundamentals. In fact everyone should learn, but modelling is not the only thing one should learn or it shouldn't even have to be something you have to learn to make a film.
This is really about creating stories and films not a model or one stand alone picture.
I think of Poser as a prop builder. If you were making a live action movie you would not hire A list actors as extras would you?
Then why would you want to model all the generic background characters from scratch?
If you were making a live action movie would you make all the props?
I mean you think Steven Spielberg made all the cars, buildings and clothes for his movies?
Then why should a CG artist have to do it to tell a story?
I could in essense strap on a mocap suit, get great actors and make a great story using Poser characters and use good old zbrush to change em up.
Look at my little animation on youtube, everything is a Poser character, even the rock head man and the Mothman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_bcR0ghvE
I mean what is wrong if a movie looks like this?
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=10&Index=2814
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=10&Index=2785
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=10&Index=2771
or this
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=8#
Looks almost as good as Beowulf and Spirits Within. Definately not bad for a one man show!
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=day&Index=2818
I'd be happy if it looked like any one of those pictures but in motion.
Point is I can't model very well and use Poser as a help or guide to many things.
It gives me the edge to make things look nice and not some bad models I come up with.
There was an episode of Highlander: The Series which happened to be shooting in one of the same locations as a huge budget epic feature called Restoration which had just wrapped. They were given access to all of the costumes and props and, I think, some of the set pieces for that episode. Since Highlander is built on period flashbacks to tell the story, this made for an episode far bigger and better than anything they could possibly do on that series normally. It was amazing to see. They literally couldn't have built all that stuff from scratch. I don't feel that using someone else's work took away from that episode at all. In fact, it added a lot to it.
In the same vein, while working at UFO we made a movie called Dragon Dynasty, which was directed by Matt Codd, a production designer for Mel Gibson and creator of the dragons on Reign of Fire. Because he was well connected, he got us access to a couple of huge sets from another movie, a big budget movie, that we could never normally do. Being a great production designer, he wasn't stuck with wha was there. He threw up some tapestries, a few banners and Chinese lanterns and created the appearance of something totally new and yet grand, but fitting for the Chinese theme of our movie. This added to our work more than would normally be possible and I would challenge anyone to say he didn't make a kick-ass because he used someone else's sets.
You're only limited by what you can imagine, even if you use pre-built material. Whether you load up a Poser model and leave it "as is" or go into Z-Brush and paint a crazy McFarlane thing out of it, is your choice.
Shawn: That sounds like Ayumi Hamasaki music in your video. Is that new or from an older record?
talking about using same props/sets, the movie/tv company's do this all the time i aways think of Vasquez Rocks they all use this place once in awhile. its funny for me to see this place being used since we used all go out and drink in Vasquez Rocks and to see it in a film makes me laugh.
Terrence,
Wouldn't that principle work just as well if one decided, for example, to use poser models or props in another 3D app of one's choice? Such as animating them in xsi instead of in poser, for example.
I am against the view that the harder it is to get there, the better it is. I was watching "Monster House" the other day because it was criticized on cgsociety for using mocap. I thought the motion looked just fine, and what was going on there is a form of puritanism.
Satyajit, the film "Jin Roh: Wolf Brigade" made brilliant use of the
"little red riding hood" story. It's not for kids, but I recommend it.
I did another longer comment to make my point clearer [which I believe was misinterpreted], But it was growing way out of proportion. So I'll do more of a summary.
I mentioned I used Poser, so I have nothing against using whatever program you want to use to make your film. Poser has a keyframable timeline similar to most animation apps. I don't see 'realistic' as a goal in animation at all. Instead the goal is 'believability' . I have seen more believable hand animated stuff than I have in motion captured, a recent example being the cut scenes for Heavenly Sword. Which looked so badly acted and jerky [a few days later I clicked a link to a video that showed one of the motion captured people was none other that motion capture's golden boy, Andy Sirkis].
On the use of stock models and characters:
You should be creating everything if you choose to do 2d animation. If you want a live action mix, go ahead. But what is the point of stock characters for 2d? Wont you just be limiting your storyboard to shots at that same angle as the stock was created? In 3d you can at least fit those models in your scene at the angle you decided on, not the angle the stock was made in. But it a compromise. And you have to be careful. Buildings and other environmental objects are usually not integral to story or vision, so sure, compromise can be made there. But not always. What if you had a story for a haunted house? You saw the house in your head. Why just slap on something that looks almost the same? A good time to build, methinks. Background characters, or 'extras'. Hmm. More compromise. If they're hanging about as filler, that's not so bad. But as your main characters? Did you really imagine your story played out by those bland Poser and MakeHuman dolls?
It can be done. All with stock if you like, but you move further and further from your original vision that way. There's a lot of comparisons to live action in the comments here. What Spielberg and his gang would do in any given situation. But, even though it may have similar aspects, animation is not live action. There are things that are easier in live action than animation. One being 'realistic' motion, lighting shadows etc. But we want convincing and believable, forget modelling realistic toilets and having characters blandly ambling across the screens with their only mission to get to the next plot device [and seemingly to do it in the most boringly jerky way possible]. Animation has so many advantages over live action, and no one seems to want to use them. People want their creativity as restricted as live action. We can make our characters do EXACTLY as we please. Poor Spielberg has to tell a kid their parents died just to get a believable crying performance. So many live action directors have to sugar coat instructions to their actors, because the assholes still wont do exactly what they are told is required in the scene. We have that power. We can make a 28 stone fat guy do gymnastics. Why lock yourself to live action thoughts?
Shawn said
"I could in essense strap on a mocap suit, get great actors and make a great story using Poser"
Who are these 'great actors'? Only if you're talking about great PHYSICAL actors, such as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaten, Yeun Biao, Jim carrey, etc. Even then, they have their limits. Do an experiment. Watch one of your favourite actors in a movie. Observe them as the scenes play out. Are they doing anything remotely interesting physically? Morgan Freeman is one damned fine actor. Motion capture his performance in Seven. What do you get? The guy is subtle. Subtle and believable. In the context of live action. He can be that way from naturally being a human. Motion capture wont get his emotion. I know you're thinking to put balls on his face [don't you ever put your balls on Morgan's face, YOU HEAR ME!] but what are you going to do for his eyes? Other actors will tell you about the things this guy can do with his stare alone. And there are more. But we don't need to motion capture. We can create. We can make a character walk in a certain way.
In conclusion, what I was hinting at, and I hope some of you got there before I can reveal, is specificity. You want to set your movie on a mountain you keep seeing in a recurring dream? Why compromise and do a random generation of a mountain, or use a model of some mountain that exist somewhere in the world that someone else made? Build it! Be specific as much as you can. You'll be so close to your initial vision that you'll probably wet yourself. Baby. Compromise is sometimes required. In those occasions where we need to, then we do, with heads bowed low in defeat. But then we be specific in other areas! Yay us! Make your character that real drunkard you always envisioned, and not that motion captured douche that couldn't get a decent role in Hollywood. Tee hee hee
This must be the short version...
There is a lot of overanalyzing these days. Art is an expression of oneself. This can be interpretive in many ways. (Realism, perspective, mood, etc ,etc). How that individual gets there doesn't matter.
They can cover paint on their bodies and rub themselves against a canvas. Or write an algorithm that produces the same effect.
What does matter is the cost. Both in the cost to produce and the value of the final product. If that art that is produced and isn't for resale, then all arguments about how it came to be is in the eye of the beholder and support no value.
If an artist produces an animation, print, painting, etc, the more cost efficient one takes to make their vision to reality, the better it is for the artist. Cost could = time, money or both. The more authentic that final product is, the more authentic it becomes in the market for that produce. Reselling a poser model with some attributes applied to it won't support the value as the same model that was sold to poser.
Michelangelo’s David could have been carved with a spoon, chainsaw or even a computerized laser etcher. Either way, the same vision, quality and outcome would be the same all making the value of that statue today, almost priceless. If he put that laser etcher and the program on ebay, well the value of what would be considered a “print” now, wouldn’t hold up to the manual labor and originality of the other. Cost only matters.
A little while ago someone sent me a couple of animations he had done in Poser. Ok there were some rough edges for sure, but overall they were no less in quality than what you might see on a Saturday morning kids' TV show.
I'm neutral on Poser myself, if it helps you tell your story faster I'm all for it. I suppose in some way I've kind of built up my own 'Poser' with content and characters that can be customized and so on as necessary over time, and it's quite fast for me to deploy new characters, at least supporting characters out of all that, central characters are a different ball game.
But some of these people attacking Poser content in a particularly vitriolic way on mainstream forums, what you sometimes find is they are some of the most naive and gullible and vulnerable people for who things like attacking Poser users is a communal self-aggrandizement/feeling better thing, like gossiping old grannies at work. It's frankly pathetic and the joke is more often than not, on them.
Someone said:
"You may like the romantic idea of being an Artist, but how can you be an artist with no artistry? How can you not create and claim to be an Artist?"
Some may mega disagree with what I am about to say, but bear in mind, that none of it is aimed at anyone here or the good people I've known in that world, but I'm not sure there are that many Artists with a capital A working in CG as it may seem at first from a distance and artistry is a slightly different thing to Art.
No need to automatically muddle up 'competent modeler' with 'Artist' as a rule, they are not necessarily always the same thing at all, and sometimes they are two different things.
No need to automatically muddle up people who may have a position somewhere in texturing, or lighting with Artists.
Finally, certainly don't muddle up people who spend their entire lives posting on these CG forums 24/7 who have may some text book reading on art history, or have an opinion about art theory with Artists.
As I recall, studio managers don't hire people who appear to be capital-A 'Artists', and go to some lengths to filter them out, they want people who are special FX, games, TV whatever.
And what I've glimpsed is occasionally those rather rare people with strong capital-A Artist propensities who have tried to make a go at it in that way, have taken one look at it all, realized what was going on, and sometimes duplicitously pretended to turn themselves into the Union Shop Steward (in part) because they know it is a language that industry will better understand (i.e 'I am the world's greatest 'modeler', i know the rules of this game etc'), when privately it's not what they think or care about at all.
Animation, especially 3d animation today, has a great propensity due to several factors, to be quite fiercely anti-Art, and one of those factors is it's often reduced to process, and that's rather unusual in the arts, at least in that way.
Now there is very much a practical side to all of the visual media, a technical side and so on that's true. 3d is a slow, cumbersome, detached and labor-intensive medium, but this thing goes right through both the 'amateur' and 'professional' CG world I don't make a huge distinction there in general on that, it can't be fully explained either by the various necessities of animation, and effectively, at its worst end, especially on a lot of these sites, process rules and who is more or less competent in the Marshall Cavendish How to Paint in 12 Volumes tends to be the winner, stripped of any other factors.
And what you tend to find is a number of people either don't see it, or don't want to see it, or simply can't see it and as a consequence of that it's the one taboo in animation.
Sometimes you even see people misread and misrepresent their own work to try to fit into that thing.
From a practical standpoint though, I would imagine as things like Poser get better and better, as computers get faster and so on, as more practical things, more clever things are weaved into character animation software and made more accessible you are probably heading towards this (almost) technological singularity for computer graphics, where these people on these forums gathering round like the village town-hall women's knitting club to attack Poser content will in the end just be the first victims of that.
That's very interesting, and I suspect very true. I was once half-offered a job as a museum photographer even though I had no education in that field, just because I had had a job taking photos of cars at car dealerships. The curator felt that somebody like me would be better than an "artist" photographer, because the kind of work it entailed was not exactly artistic, in their view. But the opening would not have happened for a few months, and I felt my car just wouldn't be able to deal with the long drive to the museum. So anyway....they would have wanted me to go take photography courses though. Eventually I decided to jump straight to something advanced, and took large format photography right out of the gate. But that's very interesting.
Interesting thread. No doubt there will be an ever increasing tension between the "upper and lower" classes;as it were. It was the same way in the audio industry when digital audio started to take over. There was massive resistance from the traditional engineering crowd. But things change. I am in agreement that things should get easier to produce not harder. I have been working on my own film for years. I absolutely got caught up into the whole technology as bleeding edge / brandname thing. It almost deepsixed my film as well as my desire to do it. What I've found is that hybrid animation: the blend of multiple techniques of doing motion images (my definition) was the way to go. One uses the tools they know and feel comfortable with. I'm a good illustrator due to my cartooning background and a very good modeler from the 3d area. I should not have to forsake one skill set for the other. Because of my mentality at the time, it took the art out of the process and made it hell. But with my recent purchase of CS3 (AE Puppet Tool is simply amazing) and Crazytalk suddenly its not armageddon to do character animation within good narrative shot compositions. And best of all, I still get to reuse assets from my 3dsmax work and implement the compositing and illustration skills I had before. I haven't had this much fun with telling stories since...I was a comic book artist. Now to get that production blog up:-)
There was recently another thread on CGSociety where the actual creator of the work said, "If this was a poser model rendered the same way even in soft light I bet it wouldnt even get noticed."
He dared to do something "different" and many commented that it was nice to see something other than the fairies, orcs, swords, velvet curtains and the like. But another class seemed to penalize him for not doing whatt everyone else does.
Hi Terrence,
The quote you have posted from 'Infinite' doesn't work well without that first half of the paragraph or the recent comments to his work in which he was responding to.
After going through the comments from page one, I finally came across it [on page 8 for those interested. It goes:
"It makes me laugh how heated and frustrated some people can get over some of the images I have done. They are just 3D renders, I dont realy see the big deal. If this was a poser..."
He was responding to the furore cause by what some saw as pornography. From how I read it, he seems to be saying that if it was Poser, then there wouldn't be such controversy. This is backed up by the following quote from him in the same thread:
"I have seen so many awards won for characters in much less interesting backgrounds, black/grey white backgrounds in fact. Even poser models."
This doesn't seem to show much affection for content using Poser models.
But that's something of a tangent. You asked me previously, what if that pic was not merely OK, but great. I will answer that, but first I will reverse the question to you. What if Infinite made this model available for use in Poser [with all the controls set up and whatever else you have to do to import models in Poser]? Then someone buys his model, loads it up in Poser, goes to the library of poses and selects one of the included. Exports that into Vue, Cinema4d, etc. zooms the camera in on the model with the purpose of seeing as much of it as possible, and applies global illumination. What would you think of the render created? it'll probably look ok. The textures will be good, the model fine, and the G.I. will produce nice lighting. Is it comparable? Even Infinite admits he didn't care about good composition and lighting. All he wanted to do was create a realistic as possible image using 3d. That's where he should get his kudos. But what kudos is there for the import\exporter?
My answer to your question is that if it was as skilfully and imaginatively created, then the image could be as successful. The problem being, most of these shortcuts pale in comparison to creator derived content. e.g motion capture compared to specific animation acting.
I don't have prejudice against using Poser for a movie. It has it's limits, but that shouldn't mean you have to limit your creativity. One of those limits is the 'sameness' of the look of Poser figures. But what if you created a story where it's a town populated by clones? It sure can work there. But another story that doesn't require that device will look rather foolish when Suzy and her neighbour Jessica look like sisters. The audience will be assuming this is part of the plot and it's a story about twins separated at birth or something. But as the film goes on and that is not addressed, they'll realise that the visual similarities are not part of the story. By that time you've already lost them, as you have their minds out of the story. So to speak.
Effort isn't necessarily synonymous with skill. In fact, the more skilled you get, the less effort things take. Jack Kirby was bashing out 6 or 7 finished quality comic book pages a DAY. It might take you or me a few days [I'm guessing, but it's probably more like weeks, in my case] to do even one page at a similar standard to his stuff. so it's more effort for me, because I have less skill. If I practice my fundamentals the time it takes for me will get shorter and shorter, and maybe I could be like him [haha, as if!]. Or I could just give up and commission someone to do my drawings. Or google image some people and trace over costumes for them. But as you can imagine, it'll not be as praiseworthy as a Jack Kirby page.
And people seem to think that fundamentals are only valid in drawing and painting. That is not the case. It's required to do well in any skilled task. If you're a chef you need to learn the fundamentals of taste and techniques of different styles of cooking [baking, roasting, bbq, etc.]. A DJ can have his nice playlist machine that most radio DJ's have. Yeah they can use other people's content to not offend the ears. But there's a difference between that DJ and one who learns the fundamentals of using a deck, mixing, scratching, and all the rest. Would you all not agree? The same applies for animation and, yes, perennial favourite, story.
Ernest Skocdopole said...
"My artistry (in my own humble opinion) lies in the art of storytelling. That is, by creating characters and 'weaving' a story that hopefully is entertaining. But in order to do that, one must know the fine art of storytelling. And since my chosen medium is visual (i.e. film, video, animation), I have to rely on those concepts; i.e., camera angles, lighting, dramatic tension, revealing shots, character development, plot development, etc."
Although he later makes a ridiculous analogy with Spielberg [hehe], he at least recognises he needs to learn the fundamentals in order to be a good storyteller. It might take 'effort' to re-write' your story, but if you keep on with the fundamentals and practice your craft, you might find that eventually you only need to do one draft to get to what you want. When I say 'you' I mean anyone who chooses that path, not just Ernest and his weird ideas on directors!
"Coppolla,., Scorcese, etc. don't make the cameras, nor film, nor actors"
Didn't he make his daughter and subsequently had her acting in his films? Tee hee, just messing with you.
Still, Crsp, it seems that a lot of what you are saying are very blanket statements which don't apply to the reality of using any particular tool, and certainly not Poser. Your statements seem to indicate that you do, in fact, have something against Poser, just as you do seem to have something against Mocap.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying you have to like either. Some people like Pixar movies. Some people don't. Some people like Final Fantasy and some people don't. Some people want to see characters designed and animated like The Incredibles. Some people want to see realistic characters done with mocap. I believe there's more than enough room for all types.
As to your question about a Poser image. In my view, if a person loaded up even the best Poser model, loaded a pose from the included library, put it all into Vue and rendered it with global illumination or radiosity, I don't believe that will result in a great image. It may be a fairly realistic render, and it may even look good, but I doubt it would be great. I would love for someone to change my tune on that though.
The best images I see in Poser and Vue are truly creative. But there are two aspects of creativity that need to be considered here. Some see creativity solely as what one creates from scratch. But ask anyone in the success field and they will tell you that another aspect of creativity is combining exiting things in new ways to get something new.
This is the type of creativity I see in minds like Thomad Edison and Steve Jobs. Edison didn't invent the light bulb from scratch, but he combined existing developments in that field in a way that was cheap and mass produceable. Thus he gets the credit for electric light as we know it. As for Jobs, iTunes and the iPod were made from software and hardware that already existed. He licensed them from their creators, seeing a way to combine them into something bigger than they were.
You seem to believe that you are stuck with something by using Poser. I believe you can create absolutely anything with Poser. When people use Maya, they often use Deep Paint, ZBrush, Photoshop and other tools with it. Why should this change because you use Poser? Your examples seem to imply that the user of Poser and Vue must only use Poser and Vue.
Base Poser models don't have hair or clothes. Some don't even have textures. The best images I see in Poser are creative combinations of things which may already exist or may be created. They often do something with the model, as many come with so many morph dials you can literally turn them into millions of completely different combinations. They choose the right costume, the right hair. They choose the best textures or even create and enhance textures. Basically all these elements come together to create something new and I would say it is their creation.
There's so much content out there that I've seen images that combine 15-20 different things, pieces of characters or creatures, parts of costumes, parts of sets, different weapons etc. all from sdifferent sources in order to create some pretty incredible stuff that hasn't been seen before. The idea of sameness in Poser images is a misconception. I think it may appear valid because a lot of people do use the Poser models "as is" and so many images look the same, but did you know that some of the models have nearly a hundred morph dials on the face alone? It's amazing how far you can take them.
Also, why assume that modeling or animation must be a 100% or 0% proposition? I still model. In fact, I enjoy modeling so much more now because I no longer have to model the stuff I don't care about. That is the greatest advantage I see for Poser and Vue. I no longer have to model base human forms, regular shirts, shoes, ties, colt python pistols, trees and all that stuff. I only have to model the cool helmet, the cool sword, sci-fi guns, fantasy hover crafts, the fun stuff. Nothing against anyone who wants to and enjoys modeling generic everyday items. That is cool too. But I hate it. So the fact that these things are already out there, via Poser and Vue is a Godsend to me. I have far fewer limitations thanks to Poser.
As for Infinite's comment, I am not seeing where you are disagreeing with me. You said yourself, "This doesn't seem to show much affection for content using Poser models." That is the common attitude in that forum which was my original point.
Okay, I did think you were trying to say that Infinite was in some way defending Poser. Misread.
I don't have something against the use of poser. But you're correct in saying I have something against Poser - but that something is being a user of Poser. I mentioned I had version 3, but I remembered the other day that I actually started out on version 1 of Poser, also a freebie from a magazine [cheapskate *cough*].
At version one it didn't have any animation, but I saw it's use as a sort of virtual mannequin. As for the other versions, I already outlined my trials and tribulations with posing in that app, and I should add that I got a major headache from trying to do a simple animation which starts off with a guy picking up a briefcase in a cheery fashion. Except when I had him contact with the case, everything went haywire and the animation starts with a moving case that swings about and does a lot of things to make me cry. I think it had something to do with dynamic parenting which Poser did not have at the time, and I was unaware of also. I started quite a few sequences with Poser. Most of which are on frame one as it was so difficult to pose with Poser. And that's what I have against it. Not the use of it by anyone, and I suppose it has got better, but that free number 5 version had no change in the posing, used higher polygon models, and was even unbearably slow with the lower poly models. User experience counts for a lot, trust me.
I agree with you about the not so great image, and that's the point I try to make. The easier it gets for some people, the lazier they get. You defend Poser , and that's fine, I'm not attacking. I see the same issues with Moho, where people think just because it helps with tweening, you don't need to draw more than one frame. Or worse, they do a really quick bad sketch, add bones, and 'move' it about in a chaotic fashion. Alright if that's your first try, but not a good look when it's the eleventh chapter of your 'cartoon' series. Same with Flash, Maya etc. Really doesn't make too much difference except that, when there seems to be a tool that helps, much more percentage of people take that to mean it does everything for you.
And you say you don't want to model the mundane stuff, just the cool stuff. But that's what I was talking about with compromise and specificity. You want a cool looking helmet with lasers? You make, right? It's fun to come up with that stuff. But others might want those cool things, but what they'll do is search for it. If they can't find it, they'll search for something like it. If they can't get that, then they'll use something that's complete not like what they wanted. Anything to avoid creating.
Also I see uses for motion capture, just not as a replacement to animation. It can't beat it, I don't care how realistic someone likes their animation. To me it was a good move on the makers of the original Spiderman movie [er, original of the new trilogy...] to hand animate rather than to motion capture, which they tested out with the goal to use in the final film. some of the sequences are quite believable in their motions. Motion capture would have just shown the flaws in humanity. Unless they motion captured one of those triple jointed monkeys that can turn corners when they swing. Yes, monkey capture is the future.
"Also I see uses for motion capture, just not as a replacement to animation."
I totally agree with you here. I would also say the reverse is true. Animation cannot be a replacement for motion capture. I also agree that Spider Man was best animated by hand. He can do so much more than a human can do and what they did worked for that movie.
On the other hand, if Soul Calibur was hand animated I wouldn't be able to stomach playing it. If Final Fantasy or Roughnecks: The Starship Troopers Chronicles was hand animated, I wouldn't want to watch it. (Aside from the fact that it wouldn't have gotten done.) It would feel so wrong to me I wouldn't be able to get into it. It would detract from the experience for me personally as a viewer. For me, Final Fantasy hand animated would feel as wrong as if The Incredibles was done with motion capture. It just wouldn't work.
I am sure there people who believe it can work, and I am sure there are people who want to watch a show like that. I am not one of them. There's room enough for both methods. For me it goes deeper than that, especially where martial arts are concerned. When I look at the forms (kata) done in Soul Calibur I can tell when they captured a Chinese artists versus a Japanese artist. They move differently, just like if you see a Chinese artist doing a kung fu form vs. a westerner, like an Australian or American doing the same form. (with the possible exception of Cynthia Rothrock) These are tiny things no animator can capture, or likely has the knowledge to capture in hand animation. It's been said that they can, but in all my years watching and working in animation I have never seen in 2D or 3D, this level of martial art captured in hand animation.
If you're doing stylized martial arts like Dragonball or Naruto, by all means hand animate and enjoy. If, however, you're doing realistic 2D characters like Jin Roh or 3D characters like Final Fantasy, then it better be rotoscope or motion capture or I, personally, will be thrown out of the picture so quickly I could never get back in to enjoy the movie.
It's not just martial arts. That's just something I am very picky about. In Final Fantasy X when Yuna the Summoner does the spirit dance on the water, with that character design that is an achievement I just cannot believe can be done by hand animation. That was clearly a professional dancer they captured and someone who was very very good. Perhaps something different and still good in its own way could be done by hand animation. It's just not something that would work for me as a viewer. The same with the concert performances in Final Fantasy X2. Even in Perfect Blue, which is a 2D hand drawn anime, they used rotoscope for the concert scenes and dancing.
As far as Poser, I can understand your experience. Thta was not my experience though. I never touched Poser before version 6. I never saw any reason to before witnessing the quality of the stuff in version 6. Just a few months after messing with it, version 7, which is even more powerful, came out. So I probably see Poser very differently. Many of the images Shawn posted, and images like this one from Vince Bagna, show me that someone could approach or even surpass Final Fantasy X making a movie with Poser, Vue and mocap.
Now I should say I don't lke most of what I see out there with Poser, Moho, Vue or Flash. When I think about these tools, I think about what I can do with them. I see possibility. For my own work I see Poser harkening back to what Poser 1 was used for anyway since I want to do more and more 2D on my Mirage Nomad. If a person uses these tools to avoid creating, then that may not be a good idea. But some people out there cannot create, cannot model on their own. That should never stop them from making their movie. If they have a story to tell, and they can buy the models they need, even with some compromise, and have the lighting and shooting skill to make it look like the work of Fabrice Delage, and they have the mocap to use, I definitely want to see that movie!
You raise a valid point of the use of mocap in games. And that's one of the uses I see with the technology. Having Shun go through the motions of drunken style sure is a treat for any Sega Saturn owner!
But I will disagree with you when you say animation cannot do what motion capture does. I'll try to be brief [for real this time]. Take a look at this Ryan - part1. Ryan - part2
It's by Chris Landreth, and I quote:
"Although the characters and sets have detailed realism, everything in the film has been modelled with CGI tools- there is no live-action footage. All characters in Ryan were animated by hand (there was no 'motion capture' used in the film)."
Pretty subtle stuff he's got going on in there. In his earlier films such as Bingo and The Ende, he used mocap. Ryan stands above those two when it comes to the visual movement. Did using mocap help him with animating on later projects? Most likely, and that's another use I see for mocap. As an analysis tool like video can be studied to pick up how things move.
And I agree with you, you don't see any animation that matches the reality of mocap. But that doesn't mean it's not achievable. It's just that when people do these subtle human animations, the marketing people only see it as artsy fartsy stuff. They don't see the possibilities. And animators on features and commercial shorts seem stuck in only producing 'bouncy' over-the-top 'theatrical' animation derived from Disney. But that's where an independent animator can clean up. That style of animation in Ryan can easily [figure of speech] be put to the story of Starship Troopers or others. It'll just take for someone wanting to do it
By coincidence [?] the subject of Ryan is animator Ryan Larkin. Check out this animation of his Walking
Here is what the Artists says on his method of creating that short [regarding rotoscope]
"I was developing my Oriental brush work with water colours, and the human figures and the way that anatomy works, expressions of human behaviour, how funny they look sometimes when they're trying to impress each other with certain movements. I wasn't doing any rotoscoping, I was doing a lot of self-study. I had mirrors in my little office, and I would go through certain motions with my own body and was just going with pencil, ink and paper."
So it is possible. As you say, your imagination is the limit. And even drunken style could be hand animated if the animator was proficient at kung fu or studied it visually. But the studying would take too long much less the creation, so that's where mocap comes to the fore - assuming you capture someone who has already studied and is well up to the task. I rather see live action kung fu or good animation of kung fu than rotoscope of a good fighter. We differ on that point and I wont try to convince you to change your mind, as it comes down to personal preference.
And finally, sort of on the same subject, I found a film I wanted to show here in reaction to a comment made by a previous poster who wanted a few million to make his film [or should that be get his film made...]. He mentioned he was trying to learn the stuff for ten years and didn't get anywhere, and that is why he wanted to send it off to India to get animated [although he talked about using mocap too], and you need a few hundred thousand to get quality in there, etc. Here is my rebuttal to all that:
Ideality a film by Ian Hubert
Watch this film, and tell me you're not impressed. No? Yes the script could use a bit of help, and the acting is not great. But, get this, He made this film when he was 16! It took him two years to complete. And he used the free Blender3d app for the 3d work. You can make your film. You just need realistic goals and to try your best to get quality into your movie. I'm interested in your opinion of this film especially in the context of being made in 2 years by a kid starting at 16.
I really did try to be brief.
Crsp wrote: " I rather see live action kung fu or good animation of kung fu than rotoscope of a good fighter. We differ on that point and I wont try to convince you to change your mind, as it comes down to personal preference."
I think that is the most important point. It's about what we want to watch, same as what we want to make.
As for the Ryan films, while Landreth may say they have "detailed realism" is does not look even remotely real and is certainly stylized. Maybe not so much as The Incredibles but the look of it, to my view, leans toward something that is best hand animated. It would lose something if it was mocap. But as personal preference goes, it's also not something that could really hold my interest. Outside of the technical aspects of viewing it for this discussion, I would never watch it otherwise.
When I think of realism, I think of The Animatirx: Final Flight of the Osiris level realism and the dojo fight in the beginning of that short film.
Whereas you say you would rather watch live action kung fu or good animation of kung fu, I couldn't watch hand animated kung fu unless it was totally cartoony like Shao Lin Show Down or DragonBall Z.
It works both ways too though. The all CGI anime Appleseed used mocap and I hated it. It didn't look like something that should be mocap. It looked, to me, like something that should be hand animated and so it always felt wrong, which kept me from engaging with it. Lot of people love that movie, though, and they're getting a sequel. I guess different viewers draw that line in a different place,
Again it comes back to cost to the artist. That Ideality by Ian Hubert shows that in 2 years time, he produced that film. Now lets in say that 1.3 years took him to hand animate it. Fine with him. Now in theory what if he was aiming to one of the first indie artists to produced a film of that caliber with interactive CG elements.
Who wins the race.
Someone else with the same script, time and money but instead of rationing his funds towards supporting himself for 1.3 years. He instead used 1.1 years of those funds and hired a puppeteer and rented 2 hours of a mocap studio to capture his action scenes. The did post process for 2 months or Ian Hubert.
The final results could only be noticed by a desperate critic at first but eventually when both animations were played side by side some difference may be identified. If fame or recognition was the cost, then the other guy just won. If it’s for personal goal, then they both did. Who cares if it can or cannot be done to ANOTHERS expectations? The days of Mortal Kombat and T2 where the director said "pretend that something is attacking you" to the days of LOTR and Star Wars 1,2,3 of mocap, digital replaced actors and digital sound stages are two tremendously different things.
WOW!!! The responses to TW's Blog post have been simply amazing.
TW this was forum level dialog.
"Who cares if it can or cannot be done to ANOTHERS expectations?"
A very good point. I was just having this discussion with another filmmaker about all aspects of Machinema, Poser, mocap vs. animation, all in camera vs. compositing etc.
The general consensus was that we as artists will often nitpick over things (details and tech stuff) )the mass audience will never see. Also that good story, good voices and a good score may go much much further than any of our visuals.
He had shown some clips I had done, like this one to a number of people, none of them artists. They loved them, but not one comment was about the art except to say it was good. They wanted to know who Jimmy was, what happened next, they liked the music or the acting etc.
you've hit the nail on the head with that blog!..nice one!
i'm all for easy, simple, fast and good quality....
i prefer to add a 100watt lightbulb to a 3d scene than a point light with a canalence values of 257.4 candelas
ANYTHING that makes life simpler is 'good in my eyes...gee to hear some 'artists' they'd scoff at you using a mouse...surely a ''true artist' would type in the x.y.z co ordinates they had transfered from their graphpaper drawing on their desk...like in TRON days.
i simply look at the result...if it's pleasing to the eye..great, done deal!
everything on a computer is 'cheating'...that's the point isn't it?...to cheat rather than make all the darn stuff in puppet form or out of clay or hire a film crew and actors etc.
some on various forums need a shake and told to have a good sniff of the stuff they're talking about!
comment made by a previous poster who wanted a few million to make his film [or should that be get his film made...]. He mentioned he was trying to learn the stuff for ten years and didn't get anywhere, and that is why he wanted to send it off to India to get animated [although he talked about using mocap too], and you need a few hundred thousand to get quality in there, etc
You don't need a few hundred thousand to have quality. You don't even need 1,000 dollars for that. But money helps bring the production time down. I am that guy looking for funding but you know that is only 1/2 my route to making my film and movies.
I like the part of being a producer and getting together as much as I like making movies.
I like the business aspect, setting up meetings, telling people about my movie and being able to pitch to people!! It's fun for me, part of my own personal joy.
I did have a meeting with folks from DQ and got a quote and having a company like DQ who has animated something as popular as Skyland opens doors.
Many investors want to know who you have in your corner especially for newer producer/directors.
But at the same time while I take that route I'm also looking at all other options to make my movie.
If someone offers me the million dollar budget through my hard work in pitching and research then I am all for it, if not I'm not going to rely solely on that. I am going to make my movie and will use as many shortcuts to get it done and done to look well.
I do need a few thousand to make the movie because I need a few modellers and riggers because a) I suck at modelling B) I hate rigging.
I don't care what people tell you about practice you can only get so good no matter how you practice. You can get better but not always the level of professional!
Whatever route you choose should be up to you. My job is to really tell stories no matter what route I go and I respect anyone taking on this task and who use whatever means necessary to GET The JOB Done! Get er done.
I think we all have our methods but are working toward a similiar goal.
I would like that million though budget and hire out to DQ cause it would look so sweet and I can concentrate on directing, producing and writing and know exactly what I'm going to get when I'm done :)
So far my project has had 2 years of planning but it is a whole business I'm making, not just a movie. A business with merchandise, ip, movies, etc.
I've also fully started to storyboard and get voice talent together and we are going to record the track for 50x3 minute episodes using mocap and whatever shortcut we can use.
okay and I have to share these embarassing files I made several years ago
Please note I was keeping quality down because well it was before flash could really do video and was trying to keep size down. They are silly but was when I was a little newer with the tools, okay enough excuses here is some of my older work
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/146561
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/31099
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/37312
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/146408
Part 1
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/57943
Part 2
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/57942
These are all bits and peices of my various little online movies.
Looking back they are pretty funny. Please be gentle, lol. These were my first animations.
Before this I spent most my time learning Animation Master since 97 but only got to modelling in it never animating (because AM modelling takes for-freaking-ever) I learned poly modelling a little later and worked on that practicing. These works were Poser,Bryce and PHotoshop with a little zbrush. The wolfs and pigs were all poser models I morphed. :)
So yes I want to be a producer, writer and director only but if I have to I will be an animator, actor, modeller and sound guy all in one. Either way works for me.
Hope you have fun laughing at my old videos. I got a kick watching them again!
IMportant point: USE STORYBOARDS and SCRIPT. Don't make as you go!
Yo "Shawn" I love the "Flog" stuff Dude. Give us more "Flog".
This is an issue that has caused me a lot of soul searching. A while back I was a user of Poser. Back then Poser wasn't nearly as good as it is now, but that's beside the point, really. The problem was... I didn't feel like the artwork was really mine. I felt like I was just another generic Poser artist using "canned models with canned clothes and canned textures". At least I did my own posing, but it still felt to me like I was cheating. I wanted to make my own stuff.
Then I gained access to Lightwave by staying after hours at my job. So I started learning to model and do things on my own. It felt gratifying but it was also a very slow process.
Then my job changed. I no longer had access to LW. I couldn't afford to buy my own copy. I ended up buying myself a copy of Animation:Master. It's a powerful program with a lot of great features. Unfortunately, in my case it had some major drawbacks as well.
First off, since A:M is spline-based it doesn't work well with any of the other major 3D programs. That meant all my LW models were now basically useless to me as anything other than simple props.
Secondly, a new program meant I had to relearn everything all over again from scratch... and that takes a LOT of time!
So now here it is several years later and I feel like I haven't accomplished anything. I am still trying to learn A:M and I still have no animation to show for my efforts. Now I find myself wondering if I wouldn't have been better off to have just swallowed my pride and used those "canned models" and concentrated solely on my animation. Animation is what I want to do. I don't really enjoy the tedious processes involved with modelling and rigging. It takes too long to do it well, and would my end result be as good as the Daz characters anyway?
Now I've reached the point where I just want to get something DONE. If it means going back to Poser and using pre-made characters and props, I guess I will have to learn to live with it. Until I do reach the point of being able to model all of my own stuff, I guess the best I can do is try to take a pre-meade character and add my own little touches to it and try to try to make it mine... like a singer does when he's doing a cover song.
I think the people who animated Shrek probably didn't model and rig him, either, and nobody criticized them. :-)
T Dogg
I really feel you on that A:M bit and when I confronted them about spline based modelling and A:Ms lack of being able to work with anyone they got mad or shut up real quick.
I was told to go use Maya! But really they need to get with the times a bit.
Spline modelling is slow! Plain and simple. And there is no shortcuts you can use with A:M. It is a powerful animating program if you can ever get to that point.
I've since ditched the program as many other users have been doing. They are getting caught in the ice age of their own making. They need to buckle down and make a better modeler to keep up with the Silo's, the Zbrush, the Modos and the Mudboxes. Seriously I think they should just make an animation program to compete with Motionbuilder.
Really just think of what you really want to do! Do you want to tell a story and get something done or do you have to have it a certain way?
Also you should try to save up here and there and hire a modeller. Some folks do it on reduced commission as long as you are forthcoming and offer all you can, many folks appreciate the gesture and it sets you apart from the standard collaber guy looking to make a movie!
At the end of the day descide what you want to do! Tell a story or chance never being able to tell it cause you give up.
Hey D !!
I'm going to keep Flog coming but he is going to be so much better and he'll be making his debut in a team up movie with Alienboy!
In my own case I love to create my own content, especially interesting things like humans and animals because they give me a sense of accomplishment. I recently worked on a music video that required a Mercedes ML SUV which unfortunately I did not have in my library. I went to Turbosquid to buy that model to save time but I just couldn't because there was a huge sense guilt nagging at me.
I finally created that model from scratch and it took me a whopping two weeks! this is something I could have accomplished with a few clicks of the mouse (Turbosquid).
Another reason why I strive to create my own content is that I have plans to Include my models in my DVD release as part of the DVD Rom content. I don't think it is appropriate (actually I believe it is illegal) to include models I bought from Turbosquid as part of the DVD ROM content. Creating my own stuff saves me all that copyright hassle and I can dump as much models as I want in the DVD ROM content.
Right now I have a vast library of models that I hardly need to model anything from scratch and I try to create more even when they are not needed. If ever there's a project that requires items not in library, I simply modify old ones...those that can pass through that short cut, I model from scratch.
My advice to those who are struggling with model is buy royalty free models (also download free models) modify them to suit your needs and make your damn film. Just because I model my own stuff doesn't mean everyone should. In the end I will watch your movie, people will watch your movie and would not give a hoot if you modeled every single detail...perhaps CG super geeks will, but hey, they are in the minority...less than 0.01% of people who will actually get to see your movie.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home