Imageready Vs Flash

W
Posted By
worldsatwa
Sep 20, 2003
Views
3687
Replies
63
Status
Closed
Why is Macromedia Flash preferable over Adobe Imageready? As a graphics artist I can do just as well with imageready. I notice Adobe’s homepage has a Flash animation. Its TERRIBLE ! I could do one 1000 times better with Imageready. Adobe should pay me to do it. These days with fast connections the GIF’s are just as good??? What format are Flash docs. and why with fast connections does it matter? I think I can do just as good if not better animations with Imageready. Should I buy Flash for my graphics company???
Tom

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

DM
dave milbut
Sep 20, 2003
there’s a level of control and encapsulation in flash that’s not available in html w/images. look up the spec for SWF (flash’s format) files if you’re interested.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 20, 2003
Thanks!
I still don’t see a better image as an end result though(Trained artists eye), and Flash is not user friendly.
But I guess I’ll have to buy it.
Thanks again
RH
r_harvey
Sep 20, 2003
Flash is more like Adobe LiveMotion than ImageReady. LiveMotion has an interface similar to other Adobe products, while Macromedia’s interface is quite… er… different.

hese days with fast connections the GIF’s are just as good???

Not all of us have fast connections. Not all of us want to sit through long GIF or Flash intros. I presume your prospective audience is not in this group.
N
ninjasavant
Sep 20, 2003
I actually just finished two projects, one I did mostly in ImageReady, one mostly in flash. So now I’ve got a pretty good handle on the pros and cons of each. First, the animated gif ended up being 30MB, didn’t have any sound, and the project was vastly more difficult to manage. Flash has the ability to create scenes, add scripting, add sound and a host of other benefits. Further, that file only ended up being 3MB.

Now, I’m not here to extoll the virtues of a Macromedia product over an Adobe one. I’ll be the first to admit that the Flash interface is maddening. In fact I do most of the graphics in Photoshop or Illustrator and import into Flash. The real difference has to do with using the right tool for the job. So many people see Photoshop as the be all end all of graphics production when many jobs are better served in Illustrator or InDesign. The point is making an animated gif is like using a spoon to chisel marble. It might work, but thats not what the tool is for. Thats just my two cents.

ninja
DM
dave milbut
Sep 20, 2003
The point is making an animated gif [for those purposes] is like using a spoon to chisel marble. It might work, but thats not what the tool is for.

Excellent analogy.
L
LenHewitt
Sep 20, 2003
Answered in the ImageReady sub-forum
DM
Don McCahill
Sep 20, 2003
Why Flash?

Flash uses vectors … files can be 20 to 50 times smaller than a similar GIF from IR.

Flash can incorporate video and audio (although the files won’t be small anymore).

Flash can be made interactive. You can make it wait for the user to do something. Try making a game with IR.

Flash has true tweening. The tweening in IR is only in the file creation … the output is a series of images. In Flash one image is all that is needed for a tween.

Flash has a complete programming language that allows you to do things IR can’t do. Yeah, if you want to do it, you need to learn the language.

(Live Motion can do most, if not all the above … I think it is still trailing in programming abilities.)
P
Phosphor
Sep 20, 2003
" These days with fast connections the GIF’s are just as good???"Even though broadband is making inroads, the last figures I saw claimed only about 5% of the population of the US with internet access were using broadband (defined as DSL, Cable, T-1, or better).

I’ve cobbled together GIF animations over 100 MB, but I wouldn’t inflict them on anyone even via broadband; it was just for my stupid fun.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 20, 2003
Thanks to All.
I’m thinking if small gif’s only about 500×500 pixels.
Looks like I’ll have to learn Flash though….oh bother !

Thanks to Don also, this is very helpful.
TYour right, the tweening in IR sucks, but you don’t need tweening if your a good animator anyway. (I won’t be learning another programming language, though)
I’ve still yet to see a decent Flash animation 4 or 5 inches square that I couldn’t do in imageready, except I don’t think I can add sound. (I think I can find a way to add sound though?)
I’ve seen a million VERY bad Flash animations, take the one on the Adobe homepage, how embarrassing for them. They could have done a much better one in IR.

Seems I’ll have to learn Flash though…yabadabadooo!
W
worldsatwa
Sep 20, 2003
Hi Ninja:
<<In fact I do most of the graphics in Photoshop or Illustrator and import into Flash. >>

Do you import the layers in photoshop to Flash and then give them sequence and timing? It would be GREAT if I could do most of the images in photoshop layers, then simply import them into Flash, then just animate the layers, and tweek things in Flash (like I do in IR),…Can I do this? What should I look for in Flash to do it?
This would solve alot for me. Thanks.
DM
dave milbut
Sep 20, 2003
won’t be learning another programming language, though

If you "know" programming, language doesn’t matter. there’s always a programmers refrence to translate.
RH
r_harvey
Sep 20, 2003
then simply import them into Flash, then just animate the layers, and tweek things in Flash

Metaphors, conventions, standards, vary. Investigate the workflow options before committing to it.

If you "know" programming, language doesn’t matter.

I’ll resist the urge to say: That’s why programmers move so seamlessly among Visual Basic, Forth, C++, Perl, Fortran, Java, Haskell, Macro Assembler…

I guess I didn’t. Oops.
DM
dave milbut
Sep 20, 2003
That’s why programmers move so seamlessly among Visual Basic, Forth, C++, Perl, Fortran, Java, Haskell, Macro Assembler…

some of us do. 🙂
N
ninjasavant
Sep 22, 2003
What I do is I create the individual vector illustrations in illustrator, export as flash and import into my flash file. As for the photoshop elements I use, I create individual elements I would use as symbols and export as .gif files with transparent backgrounds, import and convert to symbol. It’s better to use Illustrator since you can put all your illustrations in one file and use the release to layers command and such. Only use photoshop when the desired effect cannot be achieved in vector.

ninja.
PH
Photo Help
Sep 22, 2003
You all seem to be comparing large animations. keep in mind that the small ones can still be much smaller as GIF’s than as SWF’s. The other problem with you comparison is this…

Consider a web site with 10 Animated buttons correctly configured using one animated GIF. Now imagine someone using the newest version of flash and not making it backwards compatible. Now you have a web site that requires the download of the flash plug-in and the swf file as well. Not to mention the additional processing power if they are using a 5 year old computer with 32 MB of ram.

There are still times for each format and SWF is great when you need it. Unfortunately way too many people that don’t know what they are doing try to do everything with it and end up with huge files, bad animations and a site no one wants to look at. I have made raw HTML pages with animated GIF’s that require less bandwidth and are far more compatible than a flash page. Just because you need animation doesn’t mean you need a 3 minute intro with sounds and video. Sometimes you just need the users to be able to get around the site.

You still can’t use flash for your main interface and expect more than 80% of viewers to be able to see it unless you have a very targeted audience. It works fine for secondary animations, Anything that would be considered an extra feature of the site. If it is an essential part you shouldn’t use flash if you want every visitor to be able to see your web site.

It’s like giving someone racing fuel for the family car. It’s true that racing fuel makes some cars go faster but the ones that don’t blow up and don’t get anywhere.
Z
zippy2000
Sep 22, 2003
I quickly read through this topic and appolgize if this has been mentioned.

ImageReady and Flash work awesome together. If you are proficient in the use of ImageReady and you are going to start using Flash, then you are about to enter a world of animation that holds many new possibilities. While combining the two technologies can create big files, this can be overcome by making a proper preloader. This idea may not be practical for web but for video presentations, the skies the limit.

If you know how to do 3D animations, combining Flash and ImageReady almost becomes neccesary. Just watch those file sizes if you are working in web.

FYI: I use image ready to create animated gifs and import them into Flash. Upon import, you end up with all the frames you created in ImageReady and you can manipulate the frames in numerous ways.

IMO: The Flash interface, allbeit clunky at times, is something you get use to. It is the actionscript that ultimately becomes tricky, but for animation purposes, you hardly need any actionscript knowledge.

There is my 2bits.

ZIP

PS> The one thing Flash has over ImageReady is the ability to convert to video by multiple means(ie. export AVI and use an MPEG encoder app to make an mpeg-you can even make DVD’s!). ImageReady, by itself can’t do this.

PPS> This is not an ad for Macromedia 😉
PH
Photo Help
Sep 22, 2003
Zip,

If you know how to do 3D animations, combining Flash and ImageReady almost becomes necessary.

I am not sure what you meant by that comment.

Use This <http://www.swift3d.com/> for 3D.
Z
zippy2000
Sep 22, 2003
Hey Photo,

That’s cool. I never knew about that app.

I am not sure what you meant by that comment.

Generally, what I mean is this: When I was dabbling with 3D animation using Lightwave, I would create a 3D animation (usually a spinning logo or something) then render RGB frames of that animation. I would then import those RGB frames into Photoshop then to Image Ready and then to Flash. It sounds complicated and it is. I like your alternative. I havn’t been incorporating 3D into my work recently because I only had access to Lightwave when I was in school (four years ago). I havn’t been able to afford Lightwave so I have put 3D off since then. Your alternative may have given me a new avenue for creativity. Thanks so much!

ZIP
PH
Photo Help
Sep 22, 2003
Zip,

Glad I could help. There is nothing wrong with your way, I have resorted to doing key frame animations in 3DS Max and importing them into Image ready for short animated GIF’s. I like to keep most of my animated GIF files in the 10K area but I have done a few product animations that are a little larger and end up being about 50K.

I just like knowing that ALL browsers can display the pages I make. Not that it means a whole lot these days. There are so many plug-ins and people will download anything their browser tells them to, no matter how bad it messes up their system. I always have the fun job of fixing their computers after whatever it was they downloaded screws everything up. Between the spy-ware and the viruses though there are still some cautious users that won’t install anything.

I see systems all the time that still have IE 3 or 4 and have never had flash installed. They end up thinking something is wrong with the links they are being sent. It never occurs to them that their software is out of date. After-all their 10 year old VCR still plays new movies why shouldn’t their 10 year old computer show new web sites.

I only do complex flash animations when clients force me to or if I am just doing something for fun on one of my sites. When I design interactive tools I prefer to have more control over what the user sees so I prefer Director over Flash.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 23, 2003
Hi Guys:
I have to say this.
3D animations are a myth.
There is no such thing as a 3d animation…only 1960’s movies where you had to wear silly glasses. EVERYTHING you EVER see on a computer screen or TV screen is 2 dimensional. Most so called ‘3d animations’ suck, because they take so long and are not artisitic. An artist can make any frame look like ‘3d’, and with probably less work, can make every frame look ‘3d’, which in the artworld is just call superreal, or photoreal, sculptural modelling.
I will make one soon in imageready that will make most other so called 3d animations look like dogs doo doo.
Any animation you see in movies, were made by a bunch of geeks, staying up all night for months on end to create a short part for a movie…they got paid well but are now looking to go into the real estate business and get some sleep.
If the same amount of artists put the same amount of time into a traditional animation, with sculptural modelling effects, the results would be 10 times better.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 23, 2003
Thanks Zippy
this is a big help
…satwa
W
worldsatwa
Sep 23, 2003
Thanks Ninja this is a huge help.
Satwa
W
worldsatwa
Sep 23, 2003
Thanks Photo Help,
at last someone who sees it like I do.
Gifs are just as good, and I hate all those Flash intro’s to websites, and all those stupid flashing jumping images. A nice gif on the side can be 10 times more appealing.
PH
Photo Help
Sep 23, 2003
Satwa,

It can be, but I disagree with your views on file size. When I make a site I also take into consideration that there are still people accessing my site from Dial-up connections. Flash can be a great tool for interactive tutorials, Demos, Animation. Anything you would normally use a video clip for but can’t because the file size of a streaming video would be too large.

Keep in mind a VCD quality MPG1 video is about 10 MB/min. at a resolution of 352×240 where a flash file could be 10 Minutes/MB using vector images capable of resizing (without loss) to 1024×768. Granted you can resize the MPG, but try reading a text document within the presentation.

As for your views on 3D it is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. As someone with extensive knowledge of 3D modeling and animation I can say that it is an most definitely art ,Photo-realistic in many cases, but you probably thought it was real so I won’t hold that against you :).It is no more simulated 3D than a photograph of your house.

3D modelers work with XYZ coordinates in 3D space within the computer. We then render to 2D the same way a video camera converts the actions of an actor to film. The movies from the 1960’s you are talking about were created by filming with 2 cameras offset a specific distance from each-other. They still make 3D movies, film and CG, that use polarized glasses to make 3D jump from the screen. Go to Universal Studios sometime… (T3 < http://themeparks.universalstudios.com/orlando/website/usf_a ttraction_terminator.html>, Shrek 4D < http://themeparks.universalstudios.com/orlando/website/usf_a ttraction_shrek.html>, Spiderman, The Birds, etc…). You can buy software to create them and a monitor with a special filter that allows you to view them with polarized glasses using 3D software. I could animate and render a 2 Camera 3D video in a few minutes That would take you months to do by hand, Assuming you could do it at all.

I would advise you to go to Siggraph <http://www.siggraph.org/s2004/> next year. You might just learn something.
Z
zippy2000
Sep 23, 2003
Hey Photo,

You are absolutely correct on all fronts. I have alot of respect for the folks who bring us animated films such as Shrek, Ice Age, Titan AE among many others. These people have gone through a meat grinder to get where they are today. In Canada, we have Sheraton College, a very respectable animation school. Generally, those who have gone to Sheraton are extremely talented, have been in school for a number of years before even going to Sheraton. Most who apply don’t even get accepted. When they graduate, many are hired by such industry big wigs like George Lucas and Pixar Entertainment.

As for the movies and today’s special effects, watch Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Carribean. Those ships are almost all CG except for the close-ups (the skeleton pirates are cool too) and Saruman’s Uruk Kai Army (I love how they did the trolls and ents. Gollum was a feat in itself) is also very sophisticated CG.

As for Flash, and it’s plug-in. I agree that this is it’s weekest point. I have tried to stay away from using any swf’s for that reason. Besides, if you want a more flash-like animation, you can always do your animation in Flash and export it as a gif sequence and then back into ImageReady.

Recently, most of my flash work has centered around doing "full blown" presentations (ie. sound, music and animation). I think the days of Powerpoint are numbered. Flash presentations go far beyond simple Powerpoint presentations. I feel a debate coming on.

ZIP
PH
Photo Help
Sep 23, 2003
Zip,

No debate but I will tell you the one reason Power Point won’t be going away any time soon…

Marketing and sales people use it 🙂

If you have ever worked with the stereotypical marketeer you know there is no way they are ever going to take the time to learn a program like Flash. Power point comes with MS Office Pro (Which they all have anyway). To them flash is just an expensive piece of software they don’t understand.

Keep in mid Director has been around a lot longer than flash and it still hasn’t slowed Power point sales any.

What it comes down to if you want to do anything professionally is knowing how to use several good tools to get the desired results depending on the situation.
Z
zippy2000
Sep 23, 2003
Photo,

100% agree. I already had an experience with those "marketeers" and their will to use powerpoint. I was asked to make a simple powerpoint presentation but they wanted something more than just transitions and moving text. It was at that point that I recommended using Flash, and this just went right over their head. They insisted on powerpoint so I brought them some of my past Flash work and their eyes glowed with anticipation. The final project was done using Flash.

ZIP
PH
Photo Help
Sep 23, 2003
Zip,

Just wait till they want to change it and can’t figure out why it won’t open in power point!

I just hope for your sake it was a contract job.
Z
zippy2000
Sep 23, 2003
I just hope for your sake it was a contract job.

Good Point but it wasn’t on contract. It was a demo project. They do understand that it is Flash file and any changes would go to me. I did this project about 6 months ago, and as of yet, they have not required changes. I wouldn’t even think they need changes due to the fact that all content is pretty well written in stone.

We did discuss the possiblity of future changes and agreed (powerpoint or not), the changes would come to me. I wasn’t concerned with contracts as the job was for a long-time collegue of mine (this doesn’t mean I don’t believe in them – this is just one of those exceptions).

ZIP
JP
Jay Porter
Sep 23, 2003
Satwa,

Before you jump to conclusions regarding program capabilities, learn more about what it can and cannot do. I haven’t seen the Flash animation on the Adobe website that you are referring to, but the fact that one individual may not know how to use Flash doesn’t limit its inherent capabilities.

IMO: Actionscript is what puts Flash in a field of its own. You can use it for simple animations and timeline tweens, but until you truly understand how to use Actionscript, the interface, price, and challenge of learning a new program may make you question its value.

I’m not familiar with Director, but I know for sure that Flash can do things ImageReady was never designed to handle.
P
Phosphor
Sep 23, 2003
Well said Jay. Bring the two together and the possibilities are endless.

ZIP
W
worldsatwa
Sep 24, 2003
Hi Photo:
A couple of points.
I will learn Flash as it is obviously the way to go…. no doubt it will improve also. Thanks for the advice.
I’m an artist and have been creating photo-real and super-real images since before Bill Gates et al were walking.
I’m not impressed with Shrek and all. I’m sure its a great movie, but the images are ordinary. I’ve seen sigraph work and have yet to see something impressive.
However I think the 3d modelling animation has come a long way and will improve alot. But I’m afraid Wallace and Grommit beats it hands down. If as many people spent as much time with traditional animation there would be stuff much better than the computer ‘3d’ stuff.
The guy that makes wallace and grommit has his style, but someone else with just as much enthusiasm could make superreal claymation if they put their mind to it.
Its just no-one is interseted because they are under the illusion that computers will make them artists, by the click of some buttons….’fraid not. In fact Shrek and Toy story etc, though GREAT entertainment, are NOT great animation.
I will make an animation soon using simply photoshop painttools that will look as 3d as anything. And it won’t just be a bunch spheres sphering around in space, or a pre-made baby, dancing. 🙂

But I DO appreciate your knowledge and info on Flash and your advice. I’m going to learn it soon. I’m really only interested in short figurative animations, though I suppose I better make a flashy website intro. or something in case people want that sort of thing…how boring…and easy.
Thanks again though!
PH
Photo Help
Sep 24, 2003
Satwa,

No problem. I respect the abilities of anyone that can draw realistic images by hand but it is a skill to be used for matte paintings and compositing not full frame animations.

I think you would be surprised how many animations are done in 3D that you think are still done traditionally. Disney has been using 3D for years intermixed with hand painted cells.

As for Photo-realistic I am talking about movies like Jurassic Park, The perfect storm, Mouse hunt, The sum of all fears, Hollow man, etc… not toy story and Shrek. If you think you can match that level of realism without 3D for a few hundred frames at a time tell us what you are on so we can all get some.

It takes a lot of work to output movie frames the caliber you will find in those movies. Millions of polygons, Hundreds of layers for texturing, Lighting, Compositing, The list goes on. I doubt very much that you could match a single frame let alone track the camera correctly while maintaining the detail necessary to be in the same ballpark as someone using 3D.

As for not being impressed with the electronic theater at siggraph I think you missed a lot of the show. There are scientific demonstrations and student work, but they showcase the work of the major studios as well. I was talking about the technology anyway.

As for your animation… Good luck, you will need it. If were really as good as you claim to be you would have no problem posting a single frame for all of us to see. After-all you will be hand drawing roughly 1800 frames per minute of animation!
JP
Jay Porter
Sep 24, 2003
Satwa,

We would all love to see some of your work! I thought the animation in Shrek and Toy Story were great. Of course, I’m not an animator or judge of animation quality, but I would LOVE to see something that makes Shrek, Toy Story, etc. look like child’s play. Post something.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 24, 2003
Photo:
Your not getting it.
Jurassic park and all those other movies had only short parts of computer animation, and some computer graphics people spent a couple of years of late nights and long days to get there.
If the same number of photo real artists who were also using simple frame animations, on computers to do accurate tweening, spent the same amount of time… the animation would be just as good.
The perfect storm was a tiny part of the movie, and the computer graphics geeks no doubt had alot of late nights and burned out and age fast. The comp. animate part didn’t look that great, but alot of people don’t seem to see that. Most disney use only small sections. You can see them when they come on screen…but most people don’t…. I have to point them out to my wife to see them.
Oh….no… I can’t make a scene like Jurassic park using frames….but BABY, give me 100 bucks and hour, and the 2 years it took 5 or 10 of those guys to do it, and I guarentee you, I, or any photo real artist with animation savvy, could do it. Most clips in the movies are only short sections…that take a very long time to make.
Don’t get me wrong though, the computer animation is awesome, and I hope it keeps progressing. When you look at a clip you have to know how many people spent how much time on it, and how much money, to really put it in perspective.
PH
Photo Help
Sep 25, 2003
Satwa,

I get it just fine. Friends I went to college with now work for several major effects studios.

Jurassic park was done a decade ago. It doesn’t take 2 years for anything now (unless you are George Lucas). Also keep in mind the shooting and editing don’t happen overnight either.

If you had a contests between a traditional artist and a 3D modeler\Animator it would go something like this…

Start with something simple a single complex Fame with no Mesh libraries or textures- At first the traditional artist appears to win, but at the last minute they change the camera angle, the traditional artist has to start over now. While in 3D you simply open the file, move the camera, and render. That was just one frame! Imagine if it was a 30 second commercial.

These companies don’t do 3D work just for fun! They do it because it is faster which makes it more cost effective. Even with the high salaries and equipment costs that are much higher than they would be for computers that only need to deal with 2D graphics. As expensive as computers are CPU Rendering hours are much cheaper than man hours. Each hour those computers spend spitting out frames is an hour a traditional artist would need to be drawing and painting.

For something like a TV commercial you might have One Animator work 20-40 hours modeling and animating. Then you send the project to a render farm and wait a few days to get it back. You spend about $5\CPU Render hour (if you render in house it is much cheaper).

A traditional artist would need to work a month to do the same thing. After the first 20-40 hours you are paying an artist instead of letting a computer do the dirty work.

I haven’t even gotten into fluid dynamics. I could give you a 30 second animation of Photo-realistic fire (starting from scratch) in under 5 minutes. It would take you a week!

I have to ask. Do you even know how to do anything in 3D? It sounds to me like you are basing everything on limited knowledge gained through the extras on DVDs.

Again. Good luck. I think you are a little out of touch with the industry. You might want to go back to college and freshen up before a 20 year old kid puts you out of a job 🙂

There are several instances where 2D compositing is done in movies, but to try and compete with 3D for realistic CG animations would serve no practical purpose.
DM
dave milbut
Sep 25, 2003
I’m reminded of a recent quote from Linus Torvalds when asked about SCO’s claims about UNIX copyrighted code in Linux and their chances of beating IBM in their 3 billion dollar court case. He said, "They must be smoking crack."
W
worldsatwa
Sep 25, 2003
Photo

<>

People I know at the top of the field are now looking to get out of the industry because its not all its cracked up to be. Better off in real estate.

TV advertising mostly looks like crap, except when they use actual video footage. I saw better stuff in the 70’s (seriously) and I gaurentee you they were not paying more for the ads.

<<<Jurassic park was done a decade ago. It doesn’t take 2 years for anything now (unless you are George Lucas).>>>

Why did you mention Jurassic park then?
Name a scene from another movie like the scenes in Jurassic park that are comparable, and did not take long, including making the model.
Why are ALL computerized 3d animations that win animation prizes so short…just like traditional prize winning animations are all short.??? Because it takes a hell of a long time to do a prize winning animation, with or without a computer.

Nobody is going to put me out of a job because I don’t exaggerate the possibilites, and I’m not trying to make a photo real animation of a person, when you can just go and film an actor !
Those companies you spoke of ARE spending vast sums on computer animation…sure its faster, but is is better? No.

If its so great why can’t I find one good 10 to 20 second animation on the internet that I feel is way above my head. (Reall, I think this is the main reason I made this post…I really want to see some good stuff) Sure there are plenty I couldn’t do in a hurry, but I’m mostly in it for fun (print graphics is more my thing, but people ask me for animation from time to time, so I just do gifs, and they are perfectly happy with them)

Can you actually direct me to a photo real animation made from scratch, of say a realistic human or something that looks good.
I really have looked and though I found good stuff, nothing to make me take up basket weaving instead.

By the way, just when did I say I was an expert in 3d modelling animation? I don’t recall that.

Realistic fire in 5 minutes??? A good animator could do it with the right equipment…but like I said before, they would need good computerized tweening capability….
…but there is alot of stuff that people think looks realistic, but doesn’t.

How about some humans, faces, hands, that sort of thing?
PH
Photo Help
Sep 25, 2003
Satwa,

Photo-realistic Humans…

Hmmm lets see.

Star wars, Spiderman, Spawn, The Mummy, Hollow Man, The One, T3, The patriot, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean…

You are missing the point. You said and I quote.

"3D animations are a myth. There is no such thing as a 3d animation…only 1960’s movies where you had to wear silly glasses."

We all said you are dreaming. It isn’t called 3D animation because it looks 3D it is called that because you create it in a virtual 3D space.

"Most so called ‘3d animations’ suck, because they take so long and are not artisitic. An artist can make any frame look like ‘3d’, and with probably less work, can make every frame look ‘3d’, which in the artworld is just call superreal, or photoreal, sculptural modelling."

That is your opinion. I think the reason you don’t like movies like Shrek and Final Fantasy is because they are so much MORE realistic than traditional animation. People are not used to seeing natural lighting and accurate shadows in cartoons. Everyone is used to a surreal animated comic strip. I have seen photo-realistic people at siggraph side by side with actors and industry professionals couldn’t tell the difference.

Photorealistic isn’t impossible it is just too expensive for feature length movies. And when I say too expensive I mean too expensive to do with ANYTHING other than live action.

"I will make one soon in imageready that will make most other so called 3d animations look like dogs doo doo."

Sur e you will. You can’t even show us a still image of something you have done.

"Any animation you see in movies, were made by a bunch of geeks, staying up all night for months on end to create a short part for a movie."

Those short parts are getting longer and longer. They are making movies now with 300 or more effects shots now and it doesn’t take as long as you think.

"If the same amount of artists put the same amount of time into a traditional animation, with sculptural modelling effects, the results would be 10 times better."

No. If they could it would have been done by now.

I have wasted enough time on your ignorance of movie special effects and animation in general.

Studios use any means necessary to do the effects they need. Everything from traditional paintings to full body 3D scans. 3D is not always better but it is used extensively and is an integral part of the process.
P
Phosphor
Sep 25, 2003
Satwa,
I can tell you don’t much care for contemporary animation. That is quite obvious. I neither agree or disagree with you. It is a matter of opinion. Everything nowadays is subjective.

As for photoreal animation. I am not sure where you are going to be in 10 – 20 years. The direction animation is going will one day put actors out of a job (at least in body). 3DAnimation will one day be able to produce photoreal animation (ie. long after Arnold has become govener of California and has passed away years after that, he is still going to be still making movies – brought to future moviegoers by the power of future animation technology. I am hoping it will happen sooner than later ’cause I would like to see a new John Wayne flick 🙂 that would be cool). This is where animation is going. Final Fantasy was made to exercise this point – kind of a progress report. (BTW- they spent more time animating than they did with the storyline. Where was the big sword anyway?)

3D animations are a myth. There is no such thing as a 3d animation…only 1960’s movies where you had to wear silly glasses.

I think thats the only point I disagree with. Well sure animation created in Maya or Lightwave does not exist in three dimensions – the presentation is two dimensional – but so is any video TV show, movie or advertisement. When a video is shot, it becomes 2 dimensional. It is our brains that tell us it is 3D. This being said, anything created with a XYZ axis is three dimensional. If I create a sphere in 3D Studio MAX, the display is 2D, but the process is 3 Dimensional (due to the X Y Z axis). This is reinforced in programs such as Autocad that are able to create 3Dimensional drawings that are used with a milling machine to fabricate a machine part.

These are my 2bits. And yes, I’ve watched alot of documentries, read lots of books and trade magazines – but my passion still lies in print/web design. 3D is more like a tool to me. If I was to get serious about it, I would have to quite print/web in order to polish my 3D skills (not to mention having to go back to school for a number years. ZIPPY SAYS: He ain’t going to be working at Pixar anytime soon 🙂

cheers,
ZIP

PS: If I ever saw traditional animation in a video game, I’d take it back to WALMART.
PH
Photo Help
Sep 25, 2003
Zip,

Good point about C&C milling. When I am done I can send my mesh to a 3D printer <http://www.zcorp.com/>, try that with 2D 🙂
P
Phosphor
Sep 25, 2003
Hey Photo,

Trick question right? My guess is all of them. I like the nude rendering best :p

Good point about C&C milling. When I am done I can send my mesh to a 3D printer, try that with 2D

Exactly.

ZIP
PH
Photo Help
Sep 25, 2003
Zip,

lol. Just a few links I found on google. They aren’t as good as what I have seen at Siggraph, but they are all respectable images.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 25, 2003
Photo:

Your right…like I said twice before… comp. graph. animation is great! but it takes a long time and alot of sore backs sitting down too long.

===Photo-realistic Humans…
Star wars, Spiderman, Spawn, The Mummy, Hollow Man, The One, T3, The patriot, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean…===

There were no photo real humans in spidereman. Only from a distance…and when it got close up you could see on a big screen, someone had gone in there and touched up the close-up frames…laboriously. Many of the swingning scenes were the same animation tweaked here and there over another background…Its GREAT STUFF THOUGH…I was IMPRESSED.
Pirates was good but not hugely better than has been done in the past, also they were meticulously based on the actors acting out the scene. Also they were NOT photo-real in many places…just real good animation, which I just turn a blind eye to the crappy stuff, in order to enjoy. Its GREAT stuff…I’m not compalining !
Gollum in Lord of the Rings I admit wass brilliant ! ! ! Your right.
However, some scenes of him looked pretty dorky, some looked like cut outs, and out of place…alot of scenes are repeats of the same animation changed slightly, over another background.
The facial close-ups were clever, and GREAT, but took a long meticulous work. You said it yourself Star wars sequels took forever to make. Shrek is great too, but not ‘realistic’.

You may be right about people not used to seeing ‘natural shading on a cartoon, but I still don’t call 75% of it natural. ITS GREAT STUFF THOUGH

I didn’t say I didn’t like these movies…I LOVE them all!

===Photorealistic isn’t impossible it is just too expensive for feature length movies. And when I say too expensive I mean too expensive to do with ANYTHING other than live action.===

THATS WHAT I SAID!….So is traditional animation if you try to make it somewhat photo realistic.

====Studios use any means necessary to do the effects they need. Everything from traditional paintings to full body 3D scans. 3D is not always better but it is used extensively and is an integral part of the process.====

Exactly !
Alot of the stuff your looking at that you think is 3d frame modelling or whtever you call it, is NOT…alot of touch up…especially when it comes to the frames that show close ups of humans…also alot of large models that look almost identical to their computer counterpart (Jurassic Park, Star Wars etc)
Plus alot of traditional scene making and background paintings with an animated figure overlaid..(Lord of the Rings, etc.)

BUT how many times do I have to say it…I love all that stuff…its just not what people think it is.

My first point was that there is no such thing as 3d animation…its ALL 2d (except if you wear funny glasses).
Wallace and Grommit is CLAYMATION and is as much 3d as anything else…it is cartoon chracters of course, but SO IS SHREK ! etc.
In fact Wallace and Grommitt ARE original REAL 3d objects…with REAL lighting…Clay ! Thats what your looking at when you watch it.

Wallace and Grommit is soon to be a full length motion picture. And he has nothing of the same resources as the people who made Toy story etc.

Again..I love all that stuff. I think ‘3d’ computer modelling animation is GREAT!…its just not what people think it is.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 25, 2003
Hi Zippy:
I read all your posts with interest. And your right.
Please see my reply to Photo for some thoughts on your discussion. I just can’t do both.:)

I thought Arnold Swarzennegar WAS an animation….Is he a real person?

Hey we should have an animation for governer….what about Gandalf or Nobby in Harry Potter.
P
Phosphor
Sep 25, 2003
Hey Satwa,

I thought Arnold Swarzennegar WAS an animation….Is he a real person?

LOL. That was a good one.

I agree with you about Gollum, there where some bright points and some dull points. His best moment is when he tries stealing the ring from Frodo (scene at the beginning of movie – background has clouds and crescent moon). During the Battle for Helms Deep, there were some major goof-ups however. When Aragorn and Theodon w/his guards ride out to meet Gandalf, the animation looks horrible. You can totally see a flaw in the layering. The horses look like they are floating through the Orcs. Maybe they’ll fix that in the Special Edition.

Hey we should have an animation for governer….what about Gandalf or Nobby in Harry Potter.

Those would be good, but I think Gollum would be cool cause he is kinda reminds me of Gray Davis.

Dunno how Star Wars even made it into the discussion. After I saw the second one, I was a Star Wars fan no more. There are so many flaws in the animation I don’t know where to begin (no wonder G.L. is taking his sweet time for the third). If he has learned anything from the first two, he will go back to his roots. There was way to much CG in the sequels. This is where I would stand behind some of your previous threads. The Star Wars from the 70’s and 80’s had more punch than anything G.L. did with the prequels. If G.L. is smart hey will leave Jar Jar out of the script completely.

ZIP
PH
Photo Help
Sep 25, 2003
Satwa,

Wallace and Grommit is soon to be a full length motion picture. And he has nothing of the same resources as the people who made Toy story etc.

The Wallace and Gromit movie is slated for fall 2005 and it is being done by Dreamworks (Same people that did Shrek) which means it will be entirely CG.

You are right stop motion was replaced by 3D software just as painted cells have been replaced by Photoshop. Yes a few people do it the old fashioned way, but that number goes down everyday.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
Photo

===Wallace and Grommit is soon to be a full length motion picture. And he has nothing of the same resources as the people who made Toy story etc.===

Doe !

(how do you spell Homers favorite word anyway? – hey there’s a trad cartoon more popular than ANY computer stuff, also what about South Park…too high tek for success eh?)

You win, but its not 3d, and it takes a hell of alot of work to make a Dobby or a Gollum, and they don’t look much better than clayamation dinosaurs of the 1960’s or some old Sinbad movies, and those you had to cringe to enjoy them.
The difference is that the artistic side is much more daring and gothic, dark, and not afraid to show real grunge….the animation is better, but not as much as people think….All the movies you mentioned before had MANY flaws in the animated images, but I just ignore and enjoy the good stuff. There were walking skeletons in an old sinbad movie that looked just as good as the ones in Pirates of Caribb….actually they looked better, and moved better.

ITS GREAT STUFF ANYWAY !!!
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
Zip:
Your right there were ALOT of goofy animation in Lord of the Rings…I make a deliberate effort to ignore it for the enjoyment of the movie. The new star wars animations have some awful unrealistic stuff, and spider man had some swinging sessions that looked worse than trad. animation…but I was still really impressed with the comp. animation.

I can’t wait till someone makes a serious computer graphics movie of the caliber of ‘The Man who Planted Trees’…a traditional feature movie of astounding artistic beauty. The shorter flick ‘The Snowman’ was also breathtaking.
Nothing of that level of Soul from the computer animation yet, at least not that I’ve seen, but I’m sure it will come and I can’t wait to see it.

Anyway, gotta go learn Flash !…….Doe ! ! !
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
Photo,
woops I cut and pasted the wrong thing…it was supposed to say:

===The Wallace and Gromit movie is slated for fall 2005 and it is being done by Dreamworks (Same people that did Shrek) which means it will be entirely CG. ===

Doe ! ! !

You win…
….gotta go learn Flash….oh crud !
DM
dave milbut
Sep 26, 2003
Doh!

Wasn’t Gollum live action overlaid w/cgi? In fact i’m sure it was. Not exactly free form animation.

Where’s the samples?
SM
sam m brown
Sep 26, 2003
Gollums movements were tracked (prob not the right term) off a real actor wired up – but the entire body was a 3d model so I guess thats right dave…
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
Photo:

One more thing:
You said:
===The Wallace and Gromit movie is slated for fall 2005 and it is being done by Dreamworks (Same people that did Shrek) which means it will be entirely CG. ===

If computer animation is so fast as you claim….why is it going to take so long ????
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
Dave,
I need about 3 or 4 days to finish a good sample…but I don’t have the time right now…When I get one done I’ll post a message in the Imageready Forum folder and call it something like ‘Animation sample’ with a link…
….well….ok it might not come out completely photo real but close enough for an unpaid guy. I have a bunch of other ideas but they will only come out slowly. Finding any time to work on it is hard right now, but I will get one done soon, give it a 10 days to two weeks.
DM
dave milbut
Sep 26, 2003
I (and others) were kinda thinking you had something done. Don’t let me make more work for you! How about a link to something you’ve already finished?
PH
Photo Help
Sep 26, 2003
Satwa,

I am not sure how long Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas took, but I am sure it was a while. If I recall correctly there was one scene in the original fantasia that took 7 years!

3D animation is faster or at least the same speed as 2D and they both take a long time if you want a good movie.

"too high tek for success eh?"

I am not sure what you were saying about South Park. South Park is the epitome of a good story with intentionally bad animation (it is made to look like construction paper). As basic as those characters are you would think they would be done by hand but they are 3D CG characters done with Alias.

I also think you need to watch some of the older movies like sinbad again. Those skeletons aren’t even close to the ones in pirates.

Sam,

The term you are looking for is motion capture. Based on the progression I have seen with motion capture we will continue to see much cleaner movement needing fewer manual corrections. They now have rigs on the market that can track multiple targets (actors) in much larger spaces. The original mocap suits required the actor to be tethered by wires to a computer. Now they only need to wear little silver balls attached to a spandex suit.

Who knows maybe in a few years they will make football players wear motion tracking points. Have a 3D scan of each player so that they can broadcast in 3D as well. You could watch the game from ANY angle.

It sounds hard to believe, but I am sure it is much closer than we all think.
P
Phosphor
Sep 26, 2003
Morning All,

This turning into an very interesting forum. There are alot of interesting points here.

I just wanted to mention the technology that was used to create Gollum is very similar to that skeletons of Pirates of the Caribbean. The difference is they didn’t use the suit the Gollum actor had to use. For the most part, the skeletons are CG and IMO, a little too rigid. The similarity I am talking about is when one of the cursed pirates is exposed to moonlight and there is a transition from flesh to rotting bone (ewwww). They used a combination of real actors and 3d rendered actors then combined the two. Very cool. I think this is a step above the Gollum technique and is a testament to how fast this technology is moving. These examples show how far animation has gone when it comes to merging real video with animation. (ie. look at Who Framed Roger Rabbit and look at Pirates of the Caribbean – worlds apart).

Another point I would like to make deals with Lord of the Rings. I find the battle scenes (first 5 minutes of Fellowship and Helms Deep). The armies (except for the closeups) are all CG. But thats not what I find impressive. These fighting warriors have brains of their own. Some super tech wrote some software that actually lets the 3d models think for themselves and fight whoever they want. I beleive they talked about it on the DVD. This boggles the mind. 3D animation with AI. The people behind this have real talent and real genius.

I am looking forward to seeing what Peter Jackson is going to do with his new King Kong movie. It better not look like a cave troll or feel too much like Godzilla. But after his success in LOTR, I know it will be great!

🙂 ZIP
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
The stuff i made was not trying to be photo real and now I’ll have to do that because the critcs here will be TOUGH !
Anyway, it won’t be photo real, Photo Advice is right, it takes to long, but I could probably do something like toy story or a bugs life, style.

Ok, Its not going to be photo real…not without alot of time. You win.
W
worldsatwa
Sep 26, 2003
That last message was for dave…
no animations worth looking at yet.
DM
dave milbut
Sep 26, 2003
no problem.

here’s some gollum motion cap info:
<http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/18/gollum/>

I also have a good link to the AI (artificial intellegence) tech. behind the armies at helms deep. i’ll get it monday as it’s on my work system.

wait here’s one:

< http://www.freshangles.com/fastforward/technobuzz/articles/5 5.html>

ah. here’s the one i have at work. google’s great!

< http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,390918- 2,00.html>
N
ninjasavant
Sep 28, 2003
and lets be honest, none of this could have been done in flash or imageready. here’s a product to throw into the frenzy, softimage toonz. <http://www.softimage.com/Products/Other/Toonz/>. 2d animation software. im pretty sure south park uses it.

ninja
PH
Photo Help
Sep 28, 2003
Ninja,

"lets be honest, none of this could have been done in flash or imageready."

True.

"im pretty sure south park uses it"

As far as I know South Park is still done in 3D using Maya.

< http://www.mayaassociation.fsbusiness.co.uk/bro-southpark.ht m>

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections