Hey all,
Please forgive me if:
A) This isn't posted in the right place.
B) It this type of question is asked 8000 times/day, and I didn't manage to find it somewhere.
If either A or B hold true, I promise to take the flaming like a man- and promise to do a better search of the sight in the future. Okay, that being said, I need some advice from someone smarter than me, and the wife and kids are sleeping, so you guys and gals are my best bet.
I studied, and made a few films in college back in the early 90's, that's right film. Some of you guys know what that is still. I had a passion for stop motion and made that my area of focus in those days.
Since then, I got married, had kids, started a company, etc etc etc, and haven't played around much with animation. The bug never left, and technology has only gotten better and better.
I decided to try some new for me, and I'm attempting drawn 2D animation. I decided to try my version or rotoscoping- what I've done is filmed some live action ( a guy walking) dumped it into my computer, and I'm tracing the every other frame (30 FPS, video), trying to get 15 FPS animation. Tracing right off my LCD screen, then scanning back into the computer, and into my trail version of Stop Motion Pro, for playback. I'm 15 seconds into the project, and LOVE THE RESULTS I'm getting. Right now, it's a fairly rough outline, no backgrounds, no details in the clothes or face. Actually, I kind of like it like this, and may leave well enough alone once it's all said and done.
However, I loose sleep at night wondering what software, or methods are available should I decide to add details. What if I want the pants to blue, and the shirt red? I could, hand color every single image, which I'm sure would look really amazing, but keep in mind I have a job, two kids, and a wife, and only a hour or two a night once everyone else is in bed and the house is quite.
Stop Motion Pro supports Green Screen, so I could easily add a background of my choice, but what about the moving images? Do any of you have any suggestions other than Photoshop? Really, I'm sure Photoshop would do a nice job too, but thought perhaps there may be something else out on the market that won't cost several thousands of dollars to help me with this.
I would appreciate any suggestions, and for the record, I'm soooo glad I found this web site, I think it's really great that many of you seasoned professionals are taking the time to help guide some of the next generation of animators, and maybe even me too!
Thanks for taking the time to read through all this!
Adam
You know, it's kinda the same for any industry or craft that once required one to be more specialized in that craft, then gets opened to the masses. Flash isn't any more responsible for a specific style, or even bad animation, than Microsoft Frontpage is for making crappy Web sites, or cheap digital cameras for taking terrible photos.
Sometimes the tools responsible for the floodgate get pegged for some of these things whether it's right or wrong. It just happens.
Yes I agree with you, in the hand of a true artist any tool could be made to produce great art.
My immediate recommendation for you is Adobe Flash, however, there are more options out there.
You can download a trial version from here. (Requires free registration)
However, the only thing that you may not like about the program (which would be something to consider before buying it) is that it is a Vector base program as opposed to a pixel based one. This leads this program to make everything exceptionally smooth and clean when drawing and gets rid of the traditional effect of paper.
The other alternative program that I know of is a program called ToonBoom. I don't know much about it, but I have seen people play around with it before. It is a primary animation based program too, but is based more from rational artwork and you can scan in hand drawn work and colour it in. (At least, I'm fairly sure it does, I'm very primitive when to comes to that program).
You also have some programs that have animation options, but aren’t primarily for animation (such as Painter, Photoshop), but personally, I would stay away from these for animation purposes.
If you'd like to get started with flash, there is a good tutorial I know called "The Big Fat Tutorial".
And if you would like to buy a copy of flash, just to let you know, that all that you need are available from the previous versions of flash so you don't have to splash out on the newest version.
That should do to get you started.
I've seen "Toon Boom" mentioned in several post 'round here.
I'll check it out. I may download flash at some point, but understand, I'm trying to stay away from that look for this project. I like the subtle nuances of the wrinkles in the paper when it’s scanned, I like the rough edges of the pencil lines. I think it really adds a element of depth, and helps create “soul”.
Thanks for you help!!
~Adam
For coloring raster (pixel) images, check out Digicel Flipbook. It's designed to do specifically what you're looking to do and does it well.
www.digicelinc.com
Thanks for that one too, I'm going to D/L the demo right now, even if I should be working! Thanks my friend! This is what I was looking for!
What sort of look is it you are trying to avoid? Pascal works with Flash, is it the sort of look you are avoiding? One should avoid ill placed generalizations.
http://www.pascalcampion.com/pyramid/six.swf
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Well, like I said, I like the subtle nuances of the wrinkles in the paper when it’s scanned, I like the rough edges of the pencil lines - You don't see this with Flash. Not that I have anything against flash animation, I'm just going for something more "organic". I hate that term, but it fits here. Think Bill Plympton. I really like the slightly jerky, hand drawn, hand colored look of his work. That's the look I'm aiming for.
I'm not familiar with Pascal.
Too be clear, I'm a virgin. I did some stop motion with Super 8 and 16mm about 15 years ago, haven't done anything serious since then. Just easy stop motion stuff with my kids. The world of 2D drawn animation is new to me. I'm no computer "knuckle dragger", but I'm not very well educated on what's out there in the form of animation tools. A google search opens a ton of software packages, some are way more than I need, some way less.
I don't know exactly what I want, but something that would allow me to add some depth to my B&W pencil drawings seems to be in order. I'm trying to avoid coloring every individual frame by hand. I think that look would be killer, I just frankly don't have the time, plus I would like to experiment with some other tools to broaden my skills a bit.
I'm aware of the big name stuff, Flash, Maya, Illistrator, etc. etc.
I'm here to mostly lurk and learn from other post, but thought I should ask this question early on, as what ever I learn may assist me with the rest of my short.
Thanks for the help thus far, agian, this is gold mine!
I think it's pretty clear what he's talking about from his description of the look he's after. Pascal's work is great (and thanks for the link, that was a fun little clip), but his line quality isn't typical of a flash project.
I just checked out your site, groovy.
I like six... a lot - I'm not used to flash having that "hand drawn" look.
Very nice, I'm used to flash looking more like your "Roller Coaster" - Which was cool, but that is the look I want to avoid with this project. Several of your shorts are representive of the look I want, black and white, hand drawn animations, like "boss". The only difference is I'm trying to figure out how to add a splash of color, without filling the entire region, again, like Bill Plympton does. He probably has a team of colorist working with him.
Thanks for sharing that link!
Plympton pretty much works on his own. He may have one or two people helping him paint, but he does the bulk of the work himself.
For pencil or even other traditional looking media I would suggest TVPaint Animation. They have a Standard and Pro version. The Standard would probably suffice for your needs and you would be able to achieve what Bill Plympton has done.
Also, I believe Corel Painter still has onion skinning and animation export capabilities and would be cheaper than TVPaint.
Also if you don't own a Wacom tablet it's really an essential tool. Hope that helps.
Every single post has been helpful, thanks!
Wacom Tablets, I've thought about getting something like this, I went to their web site, and checked Ebay, does anyone have any SIZE recommendations on these? I see they come in a bunch of sizes. I'm thinking 9 X 12 might be a good size, as I'm working with 8 1/2 X 11 paper, so that seems like a reasonable size. As this is my first time, I'm probably not taking something into consideration. Anybody think of any reason why I might want to go bigger, or smaller?
This information as been great! Thanks everyone!
ADam
I've used a 6x8 for years and find it to be just the right size - big enough to work on but small enough so that you don't overextend your hand or arm. The 9x12 takes up too much desk space.
Also, think about the amount of that 8 1/2 x 11 paper that you're filling with drawing. Chances are you aren't going all the way to the edge every time.
Yes, I would agree with Big Hache that TVPaint has the tools to simulate traditional drawing media , similar to Bill Plympton's style if that's the sort of look one is trying to get .
However, this raised a question in my mind: does anyone know if Bill Plympton uses digital programs or a Wacom tablet ? Last I heard he animates his films on paper and still going strong . (he may scan the drawings for digital paint , but I think everything else is traditional pencil and paper) . Has Plympton ever made the switch to using a digital tablet ? (not that he needs to ; I'm just curious.) I don't think so.
Another very successful independent animator I can think of who still draws on paper is Joanna Quinn. And I just recently saw Mark Kausler's brilliant short "It's The Cat" on CartoonBrew Films. Mark animated it on paper and even the coloring was done with traditional hand-inked cels (hardly ever used anymore). Patrick Smith is another independent animator with an aggressively hand-drawn style and happy to be that way ; Smith scans his drawings to be digitally colored, but other than that it's traditional pencil and paper.
I guess my point is: if you want a truly hand-drawn look ("sketchy" line quality or not) for your animation , a la Plympton or others, the best technology to use may be good ol' pencil on paper.
"EustaceScrubb" has left the building
I've learned more in the past 24 hours from all of you, then in the last 2 weeks of searching the net!
TVpaint - I've been looking on-line, it seems that this is an old Amiga software, that has been used, and updated for years, and is now available for free? Problem is, I'm not finding a way/where to download it?
I found something at this link:
http://www.amigau.com/c-graphics/tvpaint.htm
But the file is a compressed LHA file, and I can't find anything to uncompress it!
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Adam
BTW, Your all so helpful, thanks. If you ever get to Colorado, I'll fire up the grill, and mix the martinis!
Adam,
I think a long time ago Herve Adam first developed what became TVPaint for the Amiga , but since then the Amiga has come and gone and TVPaint has moved on . It was called Aura for a while, then Mirage ,
now back to TVPaint
http://www.tvpaint.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVPaint
"EustaceScrubb" has left the building
TVPaint.com
Who-woulda-thunk?
No wonder I couldn't find it, way to easy!
Thanks!
Holy Cow, that program is AMAZING - thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Looks involved, but it also looks like it's just what I need! I hope the user guide is a good one, because I'm gonna need it!
Now, I'm going to go check the couch to see if I can find $758.00 worth of loose change kicking around in the cushins, I always loose money there, wish me luck!!
Wow, I haven't opened one of those since I had an Amiga 1000. Those were the days...
atomic68, since TVPaint is priced in euros you can monitor the exchange rate and depending on that ebb and flow you might be able to get it a little cheaper. 450 euros is about $632 at the time of this posting, based on xe.com.
Pascal isn't the only artist who put's Flash through it's paces in a more traditional manner. The Brothers McLeod also can show you that Flash isn't responsible for shoddy work or a single limited type look.
http://www.brothersmcleod.co.uk/themman/
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Your right, but lets not forget tax, which I assume I'll need to pay (19.6%) for a total of 568.10 Euros, or $757.567 USD - I'll play with the demo for a while, and see how I like it -
How the learning curve on this one? REMEMBER- I'm new with this stuff!
This software does indeed look killer.
Hey PAT (phacker) Thanks for that link, very funny, very well done stuff, thanks for passing that along!
http://www.brothersmcleod.co.uk/themman/
I just get tired of people translating Flash to bad animation. It's all about the skills that you have and use with the software that makes the difference. No software is ever going to make you an animator. And no software will ever confine you if you don't wish it to. After Effects and Photoshop filters aren't ever going to make you a great animator. Only skill can do that.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I understand what you're saying Phacker, but I think you made a huge jump to a conclusion, based on what was said. Adam mentioned a look, not an animation style, good or bad. And while the examples you provided do prove your point, you have to admit that they are the exception when it comes to the look of a Flash project, not the rule.
We all have our axes to grind, but we should also be sure to keep the whetstone still unless it's truly called for.
Thanks again for the examples. The M Man has been on my iPod via Channel Frederator for some time now...
Flash is not responsible for the animation made with it. And I could give links to many more examples of fine animation developed with it. I've seen just as much poor animation developed in other software as I have in Flash, yet everyone, and mainly a lot of the new folks here attribute poor animation to the software of Flash, when it is not at fault, rather the skills of those using it are the worst offenders.
Lately I've been seeing so much over worked over weight crap put out with After Effects, that I'd like to block all content compiled with it...but I realize the fault lies with the artist not the software.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Flash has no single look, it is a tool that can be applied to frames to create animation...any sort you wish to develop. Rely to much on tweens or software shortcuts and yes your work will end up looking like everyone elses, but that holds for all software and shortcuts.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Maybe you've never viewed the Goober.nu folks stuff:
http://www.goober.nu/nim/high.html
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I don't think phacker was beating up on me, and I hope he (or anyone else) didn't think I was picking on flash. To be honest, since joining this forum, just a few days ago, I've seen some pretty amazing flash animation.
The internet being what it is, and the tools being so available, and affordable, there is a lot junk flash animation out there. A lot of it, as crappy as it is, is also pretty damn funny. I wouldn't call it art. It is what it is.
I thank all of you who have posted the links through out this thread, I have visited each and every link, and explored the corresponding web site, and found some pretty cool stuff.
Phacker is correct. It’s not about the tools it’s about skill, but if I may expend on that even more I think it’s also about:
1- Creativity
2- Passion
3- Desire
4- Talent
And maybe not even #4 so much. I attend The Sundance Film Festival every year, and always manage to catch at least one of the animation showcase showings. Every year there is at least one film by somebody who really had no idea what the hell they were doing. But they had the creativity, passion, desire, and drive. Talent? Not so much. I would say driven. The films had soul. They made it to Sundance, which says something. Without the ability to make your audience smile, laugh, cry, cheer, think, or somehow ENGAGE them with a point, no software, or tools are going to do anybody, any good, I think we can agree on that point.
The film I’m making is an insight to my soul. It’s about looking at my youth in the rearview mirror, and seeing the sign for “mid-life, next exit”
It’s very personal, and that being said, hand drawn, and naked fits. I’m a little shaky and hand drawn myself. You could see why I’m staying away from the more refined look of any 3D or computer generated anything, it’s not that I’m not interested, it’s the topic, and finding a medium that compliments the topic.
I started this thread because I’m happy with the effects I’ve achieved thus far, and wanted some ideas as to what is available before I get too much further. I may want to add a splash of color, or a few details, I wanted to know what tools existed to that. I learned the answer to that question, and much more. If I’m able to pull this off, and I will, I may try playing with something more light hearted, and I think flash would be an interesting to for me to try. I’m encouraged seeing all the work that has been done with flash, that looks, VERY NICE.
I’ll close by continuing to thank you all for all your input, suggestions, and the links!
Most of what you said is true, but you're rebutting an argument that no one has made, especially in this thread.
I do have to disagree with you regarding "everyone" attributing poor Flash animation to the software. I'm part of "everyone", and I agree with you that what comes out of Flash is a direct result of the skill of the artist using it. Just as desktop publishing in the 80's allowed anyone to write and publish a book, most of which weren't worth reading, Flash has lowered the barrier to entry to those who want to experiment in animation. There was more bad Flash than good a few years back, but that's changed now. The perception lingers though, and that'll change in time.
I also have to disagree about "new folks here" denigrating Flash, especially in this thread. It just didn't happen. But this is obviously a hot button issue for you, and I can appreciate that.
Adam, looking forward to seeing some of your work.
Thanks DSB, I promise I'll have something by Christmas! That's my finish date I've set for myself! I'm sure I'll have one or two more questions along the way!
~A
I didn't find the learning curve too difficult for TVPaint. There are some nuances with things like layers that you just need to pay attention to. Nothing like jumping into FinalCut by any means.
I only responded the way I did because there had recently been a similiar statement made in like within a day of this thread.
These type of statements are made without fully exploring the software. I am all for trying out new software. I just want to make it plain that there is no one look for Flash. That's media hype.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Pat,
Please try not to quote me out of context, what I said was:
"I'll check it out. I may download flash at some point, but understand, I'm trying to stay away from that look for this project."
and also said:
"...I like the subtle nuances of the wrinkles in the paper when it’s scanned, I like the rough edges of the pencil lines - You don't see this with Flash. Not that I have anything against flash animation, I'm just going for something more "organic"."
If you only see the part you quoted, that's a very different statement, and I wasn't bashing Flash. Though I said "Flash" (as that was what the previous poster had mentioned) that statement holds true with all computer generated animation, and not just Flash. Yes, Flash has many looks, and does *ANY* technique, I'm just trying to start with the basics.
Any previous post in any other thread about the matter, were not made by me.
Perhaps that would have been the place to make your rebuttal, as I'm on your side! I agree with everything you said with respect to talent, not tools.
You support your argument well, however I'm not sure who your arguing with?!
Your right, I haven't fully explored the software, in fact, not even a little bit.
Let me explain why:
I want to learn to draw, and learn the steps of traditional animation with good ol' pencil and paper before trying to do anything too advanced with ANY software package. I'm new to this world Pat, and I would like to learn a little at a time, by starting with the fundamentals, and then work my way up to other areas, including Flash, but again, the project I'm working on begs to be drawn by hand. I will most likely do some line clean up and coloring with some software, but that will be minimal in the over all scope of things. Once I learn the basics, and they become second nature, then, I can engage myself in learning other tools.
I owe you a thank you for showing me some very wonderful links to some very well done Flash animation - nice stuff indeed, just not what I'm looking for right now. I joined this forum after lurking for a while, and realizing that there is a some talented guys running around, and came here seeking their (your) knowledge, not to impose my ideas or misconceptions about any form of animation. There have been a lot of great ideas, and wonderful people to help get my mind thinking about different things, including Flash. My mind is open to all areas of technique. My comfortably level, and interest lies with pencil, paper, scanner, and minimal computer effects. If you re-read through my post, I'm not sure how one could interrupt any distain for any kind of technique from my postings. When I said I was going for a different look, I meant ANY computer generated look, not just flash. Sorry if I managed to push some buttons somehow, as that was not my intent.
So, are we good? Do you understand where I'm coming from? I hope I have made myself clear that I do not have a chip on my shoulder about Flash, or anything else. I can't afford to have opinions about matters I know little about! ;)