animation...art or science??
Montana Online User
using 3D Studio, and am now getting to the point where I can start
looking for work. What I have noticed in job postings is that
most empolyers are looking for animators experienced with all sorts of
high-end software.
Then I go and find online resumes on the web, and look at what all
*experienced* animators are doing. Their work history looks great, lots
of high-end package experience. When it comes to their galleries, they
all look so stiff and lifeless, with flying logos abounds.
What's the deal? Are dramatic composition, lighting, and movement
BAD??? I would like to know how other animators out there stand on this.
Any comments will be greatly appreciated!
Darrell Johnson
Walker
Good Point !!!
Jeff Alu
developments in computer animation/graphics, it is sometimes difficult
to master one thing before a new one comes along. I use 3D Studio also.
My animation career started in science, at JPL. I look at animation as
both a science and an art. It take lots of time to master the subtleties
of a given piece of animation software. And patients. Some people
don't have the patients.
--
Jeff Alu, AnimAlu Productions
3-D animation, rendering.
http://www.deltanet.com/animalu/
Minerva Research Ltd.
> I have been learning the art of animation for the last few months
>using 3D Studio, and am now getting to the point where I can start
>looking for work. What I have noticed in job postings is that
>most empolyers are looking for animators experienced with all sorts of
>high-end software.
>
> Then I go and find online resumes on the web, and look at what all
>*experienced* animators are doing. Their work history looks great, lots
>of high-end package experience. When it comes to their galleries, they
>all look so stiff and lifeless, with flying logos abounds.
>
> What's the deal? Are dramatic composition, lighting, and movement
>BAD??? I would like to know how other animators out there stand on this.
>
>Any comments will be greatly appreciated!
>
animation is tedious, hard work, and even animators are prone to overestimate their
importance to a successful project. The single most important ingredient in film, animated or otherwise,
is a good story. Michelangelo animating an inappropriate story would still make for a bad movie. The
second most important ingredient is good storyboarding and direction. The third is a good sound track.
If a story is compelling and well told an audience will put up with crummy imagery, as long as they can
hear the sound track. The reverse is not true. No audience will tolerate bad sound. At last, the animator
gets into the picture (excuse the pun) and performs his or her particular magic. I guess the point is that
too many'animators' make films that only serve to show off their own brand of virtuosity. I don't care
how good someone is - I want there to be some point to the work. Just my $.02
Angus Christian
Peter Gruhn
Po> What's the deal?
The people who are animating the stuff you want to see are too busy animating
the stuff you want to see. The people who are scrambling for work are the
ones who can't do more than flying logos. (The cynical nasty view :-)
... Boku wa hon desu.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: peter...@delta.com (Peter Gruhn)
This message was processed by NetXpress from Merlin Systems Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Lawless
It depends on where you look. The guy's you've checked out earn their
livings from the sort of animations you mention so that's what they
display. To find more artistic work you need to look towards the
underground. There are those of us making art based work but obviously we're
a bit harder to find.
www.ep.cs.nott.ac.uk/~wsl/vault/tv.htm
Art based work is notoriously underpaid unless you get a lucky break and
become flavour of the month. We do all our work to support the activities
of our record company. We make stills for record sleeves etc. as well
as animations for video.
...Matt
po> I have been learning the art of animation for the last few months
po> using 3D Studio, and am now getting to the point where I can start
po> looking for work. What I have noticed in job postings is that
po> most empolyers are looking for animators experienced with all sorts of
po> high-end software.
po> Then I go and find online resumes on the web, and look at what all
po> *experienced* animators are doing. Their work history looks great,
po> lots of high-end package experience. When it comes to their galleries,
po> they all look so stiff and lifeless, with flying logos abounds.
po> What's the deal? Are dramatic composition, lighting, and movement
po> BAD??? I would like to know how other animators out there stand on
po> this.
po> Any comments will be greatly appreciated!
|
| Internet: Matt.L...@raytech.co.uk
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Gated from RAYTECH BBS - free access raytracing support in the UK |
|------------------------- call +44 1862 83 2020 modem - 24 hours ! |
Caitlyn Meeks
company, I would never, ever hire an animator who wasn't thoroughly
trained in traditional art in addition to computer graphics. Just knowing
how to use a 3-D app wouldn't cut it.
Most bad computer art is made by people who do not have an understanding
of the basic visual elements. Composition, color, and other visual
qualities are
just as important in 3-D as they are in traditional art, and unfortunately
most neophyte computer artists do not understand these basics.
-Caitlyn
These are my opinions only, and do not reflect those of my employer..
Regarding:
In article <4feteh$5...@maw.montana.com>, pol...@montana.com wrote:
> I have been learning the art of animation for the last few months
> using 3D Studio, and am now getting to the point where I can start
> looking for work. What I have noticed in job postings is that
> most empolyers are looking for animators experienced with all sorts of
> high-end software.
>
> Then I go and find online resumes on the web, and look at what all
> *experienced* animators are doing. Their work history looks great, lots
> of high-end package experience. When it comes to their galleries, they
> all look so stiff and lifeless, with flying logos abounds.
>
> What's the deal? Are dramatic composition, lighting, and movement
> BAD??? I would like to know how other animators out there stand on this.
>
> Any comments will be greatly appreciated!
>
>
Steph Greenberg
: If I were an art director for an entertainment or multimedia
: trained in traditional art in addition to computer graphics. Just knowing
: how to use a 3-D app wouldn't cut it.
This all goes double for animation. While I wouldn't say you need to be able to
draw to be a good animation, you have to be really familiar with the prior art.
There are over 500 Warner Bros. shorts in circulation, maybe 10 Disney movies,
tons of Japanese animation. If you aren't familiar with a good portion of these
animated entertainments, then you aren't an animator. Period.
: Most bad computer art is made by people who do not have an understanding
: of the basic visual elements. Composition, color, and other visual
: qualities are
: just as important in 3-D as they are in traditional art, and unfortunately
: most neophyte computer artists do not understand these basics.
They are more important than traditional art is now. The art world cuts you
alot of slack.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill."
st...@primenet.com
Copyright 1996. Permission granted for non-commercial electronic republication
only, such as Usenet and Email, and non-commercial educational purposes such
as charge free WWW pages. This article, post or Email letter may not be
reprinted in any book or magazine, CDROM or other electronic media, or read
or reprinted on any broadcast media without express permission from the author,
in writing on paper with a hand written signature.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skellener
No one is willing to do the HARD WORK!!!!! Most of all, many of the big
studios!
STEVE K.
Pat Mannion
otherwise, is a good story. Michelangelo animating an inappropriate
story would still make for a bad movie. The second most important
ingredient is good storyboarding and direction<<
Bingo. You need an IDEA. I'd rather look at an idea with stiff
animtion than a bad idea with good technique. Bad technique can
always be improved. Bad ideas are the plague.
--
People who wander are not always lost ;-)
Pat Mannion
nowadays you get people who go study computer science, throw
together some stuff in 3D Studio, or Lightwave, and all of a suddent
they're "animators". Animation doesn't take months to learn....it
takes years, and it takes a certain level of ability to begin with.
You need to learn to crawl before you can walk (and I don't mean
computers). You must learn the artistic things such as form, light,
perspective etc. Drawing skills are a must, and intense study of the
dynamocs of motion are required.
If you want to do computer animation...I'd suggest you learn how to
draw, then animate traditionally, and then learn the computers.
But you folks want it all *now*. You don't have the patience. This
is why true *animators* will always blow you out of the water
job-wise....Because they have sacraficed many things in life in
order to learn the art of animation...They've invested the time,
blood, sweat, and most of all, they've studied animation...all
aspects. There is much that a computer animator can learn from a cel
animator....and if you can't see that as valid, you may as well quit
now, cuz your work will suck. Study animation...software isn't magic
Steph Greenberg
: nowadays you get people who go study computer science, throw
: they're "animators". Animation doesn't take months to learn....it
: takes years, and it takes a certain level of ability to begin with.
: computers). You must learn the artistic things such as form, light,
: perspective etc. Drawing skills are a must, and intense study of the
: dynamocs of motion are required.
Actually, you don't *need* to learn these things at all, though they are
certainly desirable. An *animator* must know motion, timing (being a
musician helps), acting, how animation had been done in the good old days,
perhaps a little study of two reeler silent comedies, particularly the
physical ones. It also helps to understand pose, balance and composition.
None of this requires you to draw one line. Really. You can do all of
Tony White's exercises in "The Animator's Workbook", or any other
animation training book straight in the computer using CGI.
: If you want to do computer animation...I'd suggest you learn how to
: draw, then animate traditionally, and then learn the computers.
While this is good conventional wisdom, mainly because so many computer
animators don't understand either, it is wrong. Certainly, if you are
hiring someone who's had 15 years of traditional animation experience,
you will get more out of them than a newbie with no experience and no
training in traditional animation techniques who's really an expert on
using a particular program.
And there are plenty of incompetent animators out there with traditional
animation skills. They are incompetent not because they are unskilled,
but because outside of Disney Feature Animation, there are few places
where a traditional animator actually gets practice *animating*.
Everything you see that's done with a pencil on TV is *animated* in
Korea. The most that is done in the US is storyboards and sometimes
character layout, with a timing sheet sent alone for good measure. But
there's no pencil test.
At least when you practice your character animation in the CGI world, you
can preview you animation almost immediately to see how the timing works out.
: But you folks want it all *now*. You don't have the patience. This
: is why true *animators* will always blow you out of the water
: job-wise....Because they have sacraficed many things in life in
: order to learn the art of animation...They've invested the time,
: blood, sweat, and most of all, they've studied animation...all
: aspects. There is much that a computer animator can learn from a cel
I've paid my dues, and sacraficed many things in life to learn the art of
animation and apply it directly to computer animation. And there is
plenty that I learn from cel animators: I have over 500 Warner Bros.
and MGM Tex Avery shorts, 5 or 6 Disney features, a variety of Canadian
and Italian animated shorts. I study them *very* carefully, which of
course means no one wants to watch them with me.
I've backward engineered entire shorts, doing exposure sheets and
sometimes drawing storyboards as simple skeletal representations (like
Robin Steele's "Stick Figure Theatre"). Those stick figures are the only
drawing I do.
: animator....and if you can't see that as valid, you may as well quit
: now, cuz your work will suck. Study animation...software isn't magic
You are probably right for the wrong reasons. I have a hard time getting
CGI people to sit, watch and study a solid hour of "Coyote and Road
Runner" shorts.
While places like Pixar, ILM and maybe R&H will train animators with
traditional skills to use CG, it is because the business had no use for
animators specialized in character that they must resort to that. I
started training myself for CGI character animation 7 or 8 years ago, and
it is only in the last year or two that there has been any sort of demand
for character animators in CGI. Enough to make it a full time job, that
is.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Greenberg "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill."
st...@primenet.com
Copyright 1996. All Rights Reserved. Permission granted for non-commercial
John Tissavary | Luna Cie, Inc
>If you want to do computer animation...I'd suggest you learn how to
>draw, then animate traditionally, and then learn the computers.
>But you folks want it all *now*. You don't have the patience. This
>is why true *animators* will always blow you out of the water
>job-wise....
Not always true. We've been looking to hire a new animator at our
company, and have seen some amazing cel reels with really mediocre 3d
stuff on it. I think the tools are different enough to make the
transition less than "always". I've also seen incredible CGI
animation done by people with relatively poor drawing skills. For one
thing, after the conceptual (character design, storyboards) stage,
there is little 2d art to be done by a CGI animator, short of
textures. And keyframing is, IMHO, a different discipline than
illustration.
But for the most part I'd have to agree with your statement. Cel
animators seem to be the most schooled and practiced in the art of
animating. I'm sure there'll come a time when this is not so
lopsided. I see cel and 3D animtion as distinctively different
branches of the same art. Just like stop-motion.
cheers,
jt
-*- BAST -*-
layout as well as technically execute the animation, so as to have
continuity in artistic style/technique. An Artist/Animator?
Thread on my friends.
-*-BRUCE-*-
FLOW! ANIMATIONS
Under Construction
http://www.panix.com/~fero
Steph Greenberg
: But for the most part I'd have to agree with your statement. Cel
: animators seem to be the most schooled and practiced in the art of
: animating. I'm sure there'll come a time when this is not so
I'd have to agree. Unfortunately, with all of the mo-cap stuff
going on, few CG animators will ever get the opportunity to practice
their character work. As for being schooled, people interested in
CGI character work should be taught the same way as trad animators,
but doing everything in 3D.
This is not happening anywhere in the world, AFAIK.
Steph Greenberg
: Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who could visualize, storyboard,
: continuity in artistic style/technique. An Artist/Animator?
: Thread on my friends.
Sure. And how many people in *traditional* animation do all of those jobs,
well, at the same time. Perhaps in smaller shops, but in production,
each of those is a *specialty*, its own job.
Since my drawing skill is atrophied from disuse, were I in need of
storyboards, I could hire a storyboard artist and work with a character
designer if I needed that. None of these are requirements for the
*animator*, just as they aren't a necessity for the director, though
of course having them don't usually hurt. Though sometimes it does hurt,
because instead of directing, the director sits there doing someone else's
job.
: -*-BRUCE-*-
Hal Hickel
>
> Pat Mannion <72614...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
> >If you want to do computer animation...I'd suggest you learn how to
> >draw, then animate traditionally, and then learn the computers.
>
> >But you folks want it all *now*. You don't have the patience. This
> >is why true *animators* will always blow you out of the water
> >job-wise....
>
> Not always true. We've been looking to hire a new animator at our
> company, and have seen some amazing cel reels with really mediocre 3d
> stuff on it. I think the tools are different enough to make the
> transition less than "always". I've also seen incredible CGI
> animation done by people with relatively poor drawing skills. For one
> there is little 2d art to be done by a CGI animator, short of
> textures. And keyframing is, IMHO, a different discipline than
> illustration.
>
> animators seem to be the most schooled and practiced in the art of
> animating. I'm sure there'll come a time when this is not so
> branches of the same art. Just like stop-motion.
>
> cheers,
I also agree with the basic theme of this thread, though I would add one
more twist, I think that stop-mo animators have skills unique to their
craft which make them excellent candidates for CGI character work. I
have found many more parallels between animating real puppets with their
attendant physical limitations in real space and animating 3D CGI
characters. Of course it becomes a challenge to make CGI look like
something new, rather than merely aping work from the past (classic cel
or stop-mo work) because of our previous experience.
-Hal
typhoto
> People who wander are not always lost ;-)
I agree with the point, however, I would rather not see the animation at all if the poor
animation spoils the enjoyment of the story. Can you imagine how bad the animation could have
been, say in Toy Story? Imagine no textures and boring blocky, monotone characters. Yuck! I'll do
without till the quality is there. Just my opinion.
typhoto
Benfx
>If I were an art director for an entertainment or multimedia
>company, I would never, ever hire an animator who wasn't thoroughly
>trained in traditional art in addition to computer graphics. Just knowing
>how to use a 3-D app wouldn't cut it.
If i were an art director for an entertainment or multimedia
company I would employ someone on the basis of there show-reel /
references verses suibtability for the job.
Often just knowing how to use a 3d-app DOES cut in.
I dont mean to be snotty about it, i just think that we are in danger
of being a bit too full of ourselves and snobby.
Theres plenty of work to go around, MORE than enough, and there
will be even more soon, in games, films, as part of special effects,
and for its own sake.
There is work that traditional animators are incapable of, for
instance, the artificial life forms stuff. gradualy, the techniques
that scientists develop become tools that artists can use.
Do you think that the first person to produce animation (history
anyone ? ) was an artist, or a scientest. I STRONGLY suspect it was a
scientest, and i doubt he / she posted to comp.graphics.animation
complaints about artists getting involved in the MASSIVE industry we
work in.
I dont think animation belongs to anyone. If you are scared that
someone better than you will come along, then maybe its because you
are not good enough.
At then end of the day, people producing second rate animtions will
have second rate jobs. The people who are good at it and deserve good
positions will have them. Simple.
Take care.
Ben FX