Welcome back to Spring, kind of

The last thing I needed to see what one more snowfall this weekend, but as it melts away, I'm glad to see this winter pass us. Good lord was it bad.

I really liked lip syncing and the theory behind specific mouth movements for words and phrases. Without the jar app it'd likely take me another week to get close to done.

I'm not happy with lacking the proper off time to have gotten more work done out of class. Usually I can at least get something significant done with, but not for this week I suppose.

Learning timing certainly helped me. When you get down to the individual frames of audio that Flash divides, sometimes you gotta make a change.

At this point I just want to learn how to more efficiently draw in Flash. It gets tedious when I need to whip out the brush for every new scene, and they usually take more time than the actual animation.

So, time again for some good old video goodies.
Something that involves lip sync, AND references Ghostbusters? Double score.

What're the Specs on your Eyeballs?

The human eye is infinitely fascinating considering it allows us to see light, darkness, color, depth, shape, and texture. But our eyes are really just tools that feed the message to our brains. Like a camera to our own eyes. So we've done some studies, and it turns out, the eye isn't all too different from how a camera works, but also completely different. It's just organic and automatic.

-Shutter speed? Nah. Video cameras work by taking many pictures over time and then replaying them at a high enough speed to trick our eyes into thinking it's real time. Comparatively, the human eye has a true constant feed. What we see can not be divided into separate units. It's one continuous flow of multiple images combined to produce our vision. On top of that, the way we see things isn't necessarily how they really are.

-Speaking of seeing things in our own way, eyes are definitely unlike cameras in that respect. Still images are not a real time stare. A picture is one moment in time, however our eyes see through time, and if it were to stop, we'd basically be blind. We are always experiencing changes, even when we can't see them. A picture can't change, but because our eyes don't see through multiple pictures, everything is always changing.

-Resolution usually comes factory preset. Computers and cameras have limited resolutions, that's a given of course. However, we do too. The whole vision grading scale with the best being 20/20 and color testing determine your eye quality. "Joel we know this, why are you being redundant?" Because even though a person's vision may be worse comparatively to another's, we still see incredibly complex details. A screen or camera resolution will always be mathematically limited, but due to our eyes being of organic structure, we can see beyond pixels.

Eyes are the most incredible part of the body to me. Their ability to sense kind of pales every other sense we have when you think about it. We do kind of take seeing for granted, and definitely color.

It would be pretty cool if we could figure out how to make cameras function like human eyes, but at that point we'd reach the surreal zone, and probably lose sight of what's real.

Will we ever reach a point of tech where we can have camera resolutions parallel eyes? It doesn't sound very possible to me, but humans are pretty stubborn animals when it comes to making things.

Words From a Master: Making a good film

As far as animators go, I'm pretty unfamiliar with the anime scene. I've watched a few of the notable works, like Ghost in the Shell, Akira, and Berserk, but the name Hayao Miyazaki is foreign to me... Okay I guess literally too. 

A little studying though, and it turns out this guy is quite the name in the field of animation, and is responsible for a good number of the most popular anime films known today. Considering every big movie he's done has scored beyond seven starts with IMDb, I guess he knows a thing or two about how to put out quality work. 

-Give a message with deeper meaning, and practice in film making what you preach. Miyazaki has some strong opinions on society, and through his works they can be understood to variable degrees. His general idea is right: When you make a statement, make one that really means something. Not constricted by our current culture and habits and technology. Something that can transcend ages of understanding. And once you have that statement, be sure to make it present in your story. It doesn't need to be the main focus. In fact a hinted undertone is all you really need. 

-Don't do what you can't do. Simple enough right? If you're not comfortable with playing guitar in front of a live audience, playing an entire show will likely not turn out pretty. Same with movies. Every artist has their limits and ultimate points to where their skillsets can take them. Animation isn't exactly a forgiving medium, and won't become any easier as you get older. This is why teamwork is also an important element to focus on. If you can't work with others, good luck trying to get any animation out within a reasonable amount of time, let alone look good. 

-Old methods don't go away. We love using the latest of anything. It's our nature. If something is better and improved, it's time to toss away the old. Not so in making movies. This kind of art requires a balance of understanding if you want to make some good work. Now, hand drawing and coloring every single frame is probably not the most efficient task, so use of software and tools to help the process is of course a helpful alternative. However, it's not a good idea to entirely rely on new tech as a crutch. When you have skill in either method, your work will benefit from it, and a good blend can produce incredibly attractive results. 

I find all of Miyazaki's points agreeable more or less, although I personally don't find a strong message lying under the main plot as important as stressed. Just my way of thinking though, I always like to focus on what's going on at the moment. 

Once again though, we've got more testimony here that animation is one serious medium of film, and really does deserve a bit more attention and respect, which is seriously lacking in the United States. Hopefully we'll see some change in that. 

So, are there any other big name animators to hear from in their experience? I'm sure there's quite a few more tips to learn. 

Weekly Ramblings

Ah geez, another week gone? March is already halfway done. I can't wait till I'm 18 already!

This week was pretty great to say in the least. I've really enjoyed animating in 3D, and it's far, far more easy to move on in compared to Flash.

I have had quite a few technical issues with fingers rotating when they should be curling, but nothing a more key frames couldn't solve. Just wish I knew a better fix!

I learned quite a bit with better managing my decisions in Maya, and how to be more efficient when working with a limited time frame.

This is really out there, but I would love to learn how to hook a rig up to a motion capture system.

So, want to see some really freaking cool real world animation effects? I found this short film a few days back and was just plain impressed with what they pulled off. Kind of creepy, but nothing explicit. I'd also recommend stopping at 6:45 because the story really goes bad afterwards.

Stare into the Abyss

This is important stuff for me since I'm gonna be working on making music videos with my band in the very near future. Backgrounds are one of the most annoying things to get right in media, but luckily we have cool people to give us cheap alternatives.

-Get something black. You know, black black. Dark. Like a good backing. Now you don't need something professional either, some fabric at your local crafts store will do just fine.

-Get that stuff on the wall. You need to make it large enough to fit the camera's frame. Otherwise, well, it's not so infinite anymore, and you lose a lot of the cool factor.

-Lighting lighting lighting. This is pretty hard to do well, but fear not! You don't have to break the bank to make it look good. Although you will have to experiment on where to place your lights and what to do about natural light sources. You'll get it right eventually.

More filming effects to know are always fun, and it really motivates me to do some film making. I feel inspired by these little life hacks.

It's always a good idea to be prepared to spend some money though. It's not like any of this can get done well for dirt cheap. But if you're making a cool music video a short movie, chances are the end product will be well worth the value.

So does this technique work as well with white?

Creativity Personified

Creative people are hard to pinpoint. Granted we're all creative to some degree, but some just more than others. Significantly so for that matter. And here's where we see that they're set a bit apart from the average, kind-of creative person. 

-Different thought processes, different perceptions. Creative people have some seriously active imaginations, which is kind of a given in that regard, which would probably cause you to say "of course Joel, what do you think only idiots read your blog", to which I'd say, "no, but that is my target audience." Anyways, we've got daydreaming. You know daydreaming can accomplish? According to many, nothing, but this is a good root where creativity flows from. Daydreams are simply very advanced stages of thought, involving the emulation of ideas in some kind of world based environment. That's like straight up rendering creativity there!

-Sound body, sound mind. Creative people don't just daydream all day of course. They tend to be very aware of their surroundings and other people, and objects, and everything else. Analyzing what's around you and picking up actions and behaviors from other people is important in developing creations of your own. Not making the connection? How about when people attempt to create convincing, yet unique characters in various  mediums. What, you think people like Jack Sparrow just come out of nowhere? Sure, Johnny Depp does the role well, but he must have had influential experiences with others beforehand to develop the mannerisms and behaviors. 

-The hard road is usually better. You will always get more experience from trying something different, and doing it first hand. Sure, the easy way saves mileage and fuel, but that's nothing compared to what you yourself can learn. New experiences and exposures are needed to be creative. If you live the exact same experience every single day, nothing will change. Breaking boundaries is vital, and creative people just happen to understand that. 

How we understand it, I don't think people are all simply born naturally creative or not. Anyone is really capable of it with the proper actions being taken place. Sure some may have a different thought process that doesn't employ as much originality, but that won't stop a person if they can do the other steps right. 

Another deal is that I believe creativity isn't inherent only from originality. Especially considering most technologies we use today are simply modified and improved versions of very old designs. It's all about making something different, even if it's like something before it. 

So what exactly are the defining characteristics of uncreative people? 

The Oscars: Where Hopes In Cinema Go to Die

I never watch award shows. Not the Emmy's, Oscars, and especially not the Grammy's (really, when the hell do they ever have musicians people haven't seen there the previous five years in a row?).
For animation, the Oscars originally hired a panel of chimpanzees to vote on which animated feature they enjoyed. Unfortunately due to not being able to determine which were voted for (and the high amount of thrown feces), they decided to go a peg down and use Academy members.

-"I know nothing about animated movies, yet am somehow in the position to judge movies in general." There were 7 total academy members who were in position to vote. Three voted, four abstained. There's another topic from this I'll cover next, but let's focus on the voters first. A big excuse was that the voter simply did not watch all the nominees. Why is it then that they have the time to watch every live action nominee for their respective genres? Do they believe that animated features are not up to their maturity levels, or simply lacking in complexities that you'd get in a traditional film? I obviously can't analyze the mentality of these anonymous voters, but it certainly makes one wonder as to what divides the two mediums in one's head.

-Vote for the popular one! What does one do when you can't decide on what's the best? Just chose which has gained most popularity and best track record! Take Disney for example, they never really do poorly in the animation world. Sure a movie may not stack up, but box office earnings don't care. So here we have the three that voted, and all for Frozen. Why? Well I wouldn't say Frozen was a bad movie, not by a long shot. However it also happens to be the most popular of animated features released last year. That kind of gives hint of a connection, doesn't it?

-Excuses excuses. I can't say much for this other than that they were short. Nothing of true justification came down to it. More of "I just didn't watch them all", or "seen it before" resounded. It's a shame really, and likely due to visual reasons over story and acting.

It hurts a lot to see animation thrown down like this. People put enormous amounts of work into their craft, and with worldwide exposure at the Oscars, they're just stepped on, because no one really cares. That's a painful thing to know as an animator, and really makes me think about where I want to aim with my work.

I think the biggest problem is that this problem won't change. Animation is just too different for these people. Maybe a separate awards show will solve something, I don't know. But what I do know is that minds won't change much at this point.

Will animation ever really be accepted as an equal to classic film making? I don't bank on it, but let's hope so.

Game Tech in Movies: Makes More Sense Than You Think

I'm one of those people who like's their games nice and saturated with some good characterization and plot. Snappy, sophisticated dialogue, long lasting impact, and leaves you sitting there mesmerized. Essentially playable movies in a sense.
Minecraft and the Sims do not do this for me. They're not my types of games, and don't really have elements that I find enjoyable for long periods. But hey, just because I have an opinion doesn't mean the games have no value.

-Generating worlds is much less a hassle now. You know that movie James Cameron made using blue cat people in place of Native Americans? Something about a kid who could control the elements too I think, but anyway, that movie had some serious natural features and landscape to be built, and you really can't bang that stuff out in a small time frame. Enter the technology behind Minecraft, in which the game generates a randomized environment for you to explore. Features like rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, grasslands, all there in a randomized fashion. Granted the basic information like what trees look like and how physics work is programmed in, you've got a world. They basically did that with Avatar. But hard mode, with lots of hand designed trees, but the end result followed the same principle, and well, the audiences bought it.

-Large crowd generators. Let's be real here, who is gonna be able to motion capture 300 odd people at once in spandex and dots on their faces all doing some odd thing? Yeah it's not gonna happen. So we have game engine techniques to push us forward. With this method, you can generate a mass of characters and give them simple collective AI controls. You have the crowd taken care of, and the main guys focused on. Cool deal!

-Virtual reality is useful for once! Working with computer generated stuff is great and all, and makes production far easier, but what about the actors who have to deal with things that aren't there. How do you react to a object or organism that you know isn't real? Virtual reality can help with that. The Oclulus Rift, a device you wear on your eyes, brings the fictional into reality. That terrifying monster you were pretending back away from? Well now you've got a bit more encouragement with it being in front of your eyes.

Considering how movie-like video games have started to become, I'm not all too surprised we've started adopting ideas from the medium into making movies. Motion capture alone is used highly with both movies and games, so that says a lot about where we may be headed in the future. I think the barrier might merge at some point.

The thing is, more technology doesn't exactly mean better output. Sometimes it is better to stick to older techniques and harder methods for a more appealing final product, but hopefully we'll take our usage of upcoming tech in some moderation. Hopefully.

Really though, how much further do we go before the line between movies and video games has been totally blurred? It looks like it won't be too long.