So...
I just wrapped up my Halloween 2007 with a viewing of Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were Rabbit.
In my opinion, the folks at Aardman never cease to knock it out of the park. Everything down to the last detail was stunningly designed. Perhaps it's unbecoming of a grown man to giggle with delight at the sight of little rabbity antics, but uh... well... I did. So there.
Hm...
I think I need to watch Predator or something manly like that to get the old beard growing again.
Another thing that always impresses me about Aardman's (or specifically Nick Park's) work is that they exercise serious restraint and shoot everything on twos. For the couple of non-animators out there who are checking this (you know who you are), twos refers to the number of frames exposed for every one movement. In other words, if I move Wallace's arm once, I would shoot two frames of film. This was a labor saving device developed in the early studio days of animation. In 2D animation, it doesn't show as easily. However, in stop-motion, it is a bit more noticeable. Many stop-motion animators shoot on ones. Shooting on ones, in my opinion, is fine for quick movements or for animation to be merged with live action. But it's a dangerous habit to get into.
I myself have fallen for the lure of the Siren of Ones. When shooting animation, it's natural to experiment with different frame rates. Oh sure, you do twos at first, then you start messing around with threes just for laughs. Then, before you know it, you see this kid in your animation class who's unshowered, unshaven and hasn't slept in ages. In fact, you don't know if she's even in your class.
"She's on the ones, man," someone whispers. At first you think, there's no way I'm gonna turn out like her, but then you catch a glimpse of her pencil tests.
So fluid.
So energetic.
So full of-- life.
You think, I mean, isn't that what animators are supposed to do? Give life to objects? The next thing you know, you're up all night together doing twice the work you were originally doing! And all for what? So that a character's scarf can flap in real-time? Pah!
Then one night she tells you that she's been in school for 8 years, and she's only halfway through her final animation project!!! Student loans are growing, grades in other classes are slipping and all you have to show for it is a very realistic yawn. But it's okay. Just admit you have a problem by saying, "My name is (state your name) and I'm addicted to ONES. I understand now that movement should be believable, but it doesn't have to be realistic. No amount of exclamation points can truly drive home my warning to you, but here goes:
Stay away from ONES!!!
Just kidding. The real lesson is:
Moderation is the key. Always animate responsibly.
Enjoy.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Ones or Twos?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post, and great point!
There's just something about seeing those thumbprints in the models and directional controls in the pupils that tells you this was created by people who have the hands-on skills to make it work without mo-cap or fancy machines. And still the movement is fluid and the timing is perfect.
tell me more about the "siren of the ones" this lovely creature sounds
DEEEELICIOUS
HELP ME, I'M IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST!
Trying to cut my way out, but the Dark One has a strong stomach. I've been here for months, and my fingernails are looking like toenails.
I'm trying hard to get out, but the Holds are keeping me in, teasing me, whispering sweet nothings in my ear. "You can rely on us while staying on 1's and get more work done. You can hold for several seconds if it's a good pose..."
I know I have a problem. I shot the screen test for Barrier on 2's. No problem, even had to delete some frames to make it snappy enough. The Ones are very powerful, though. I've watched many fellow animators fall while trying to maintain the quality that only Ones can provide. I feel that my days are numbered.
Post a Comment