|
Post by Ola Schubert on Jul 5, 2005 7:12:27 GMT -5
I have been working on some different things this month. Apart from Nim's Journey I also have to earn my living Anyway, there are some progress, I have continued with the storyboarding, been working on the background image, and finally also been thinking about how I could solve animating the girl. Apart from that I have been sketching on some environments that they will visit during their journey. Animating the little girl will be quite tricky as I have decided she will wear dress, so I have to know how she moves under the dress so that I can understand how the dress moves... Hopefully I will be able to make some filming this month, I have a potential victim. I have not yet decided the girls name yet, I have received a bunch of proposals, so if you have any ideas, please go ahead… maybe I shall just start a new thread. See you around.
|
|
|
Post by Esn on Jul 7, 2005 4:49:38 GMT -5
There's a possible problem I see with the "changed" background; the tree in the center is what draws the viewer's eye, yet this doesn't seem right somehow as it is clearly not meant to be the focus in this version of the background. Naturally the viewer's eye should be drawn to follow the brook, and the tree arrests that motion. It might even be better if you removed it from that spot entirely. In the old background it was perfectly natural where it was, but here it breaks up the symmetry; there's a clash of two symmetries; one that makes the eye look into the background on the right and another that tries to make the image more flat and centrally-balanced (the tree does this by dividing the background in two). For the record, I must say I liked the previous background better; despite it being more "flat", it also looks more complete - less like the various objects in it are "pasted in" in different layers... some objects here look somewhat bigger than they should be for the distance they're supposed to be at, and vice versa. Somehow this didn't seem so noticeable before. I also think that you were on to something good with your imitation of the water rapids before, although the brook in this version also looks very good. Couldn't you use both backgrounds somewhere? Remove the central tree in the new one and change a few things around and nobody will be able to recognize it as being similar to the old one! Perhaps you could have a shot of her first as you originally intended it, then as she walks further on the rapids quieten down and it becomes a gentle brook? Of course, I realize that you're not yet finished with this "new" background & it's a work in progress, but I'm just giving some thoughts. I think that what you're doing with movement animation is an excellent idea - it's the same thing that Disney did when they made Bambi (they brought in live deer, I believe, for the animators to watch). Are you planning to have the body proportions stylized, though? (eg. the girl's head is bigger than it would be in life. I'm not saying that this is bad) P.S. If you start a thread for the girl's name, be sure to mention all of the ones that you've already received... I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by Mario on Jul 7, 2005 8:11:57 GMT -5
I just had a look at the updates, very nice work. I agree a bit with Esn on the new background, but in diffrent ways. For me it has no real focus, my eyes dont get draw to a certian point, but i am not sure how it will look when the girl makes her way through the scene, i guess it might be very good then that the compsition is not drawing they viewers eyes to one point only. Hope that made sense ;D I like the big tree in the middle, it somehow shows that woods as a huge place with also some added awareness, because the tree is so huge and a bit darker, wich fits the mood of this scene good. Am i right that the water is where the girl later on steps in? It could maybe use some specularity, at the moment it looks more like a swamp, but i think it fits very nice with the scene. I didnt have the impression that the background was layerd together and was all pieces, it looks natural to me. About the animation tests: i thought the first one looked a bit weird, is she really (in the movie) waving her arms around like that? Second one was very good, loved what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by Ola Schubert on Jul 8, 2005 2:23:26 GMT -5
Thanks for your input, it really helps. I can see now how the tree divides the background. And I agree with Esn on the symmetry thing. This will not be the only background for this scene, but one out of many.
The water looks dead right now, as I have not added any effects to it yet, but the brook will be animated later on.
The puppet will be proportioned before I go ahead; I just used a cartoon puppet to match that of a real life character. The results were a bit odd.
And, yes, she does wave her arms like this, and I think we all do, much more than we think. I have not really thought of it before, but it is true. Try to run up a high slope yourself without using your arms to a great extent.
|
|
|
Post by Esn on Jul 8, 2005 3:20:31 GMT -5
Well, that IS what I was saying. The symmetry is all screwed up in the new one, so your eyes sort-of wander around. I really like the tree as well, but only how it's used in the old background. Ola, why don't you animate the film the way you animated your other flashes? Frame-by-frame may be necessary at times but you'll get a much better frame rate if you do whatever it is you normally do (I'm not quite sure myself ). Plus, you're charting new territory with your technique so you shouldn't listen to people who say that professionals only use frame-by-frame; you may well be the most proficient user of your own method and you seem to know how to use it quite well. Some of the animations already on display are awesome, such as the water nymph and the dragon, as well as Nim on your flash website. Am I wrong in saying that the method you use allows you to create a model and from then on moving it into different positions is not that hard? In any case, what I'd suggest doing is create several models/drawings of your characters from all different angles (or at least the ones you think you'll need). It'll help finalize the design for your characters and I think it'll also help you a lot in the long run, even though initially it'll be quite hard... you'll have to make sure that there aren't any characters that look good only from a certain angle (though if you only see them briefly it doesn't matter, of course). Another thing I'd suggest to learn how to move bodies is to watch The Triplets of Belleville. Really, I'm not kidding. I know you said before after somebody mentioned that your films are like Myazaki's that you don't want to see any of his films precisely for that reason so you don't get influenced, but I don't think you have that to fear with "Triplets" because aside from some similarity in the large noses the style is nothing like yours. It really IS the best animation I've ever seen, though, and it's a great tutorial whether you like the movie or not. (There's a trailer over here)
|
|
|
Post by Mario on Jul 8, 2005 10:11:13 GMT -5
Well, my point was that the background, as it is now, has no focus and that that might be a good thing. If the girls walks through the whole thing the eyes will be drawn to the movement of her, wich is i think the way it should be. Maybe some lightning will do the trick? i mean to add more focus to points you would like to emphasis certain things, i think it would be a blast to see some kind of sunrays wich move and twinkle, a bit like a spotlight maybe but more natural... if you get what i mean Maybe the waving arms were a bit to the fact that she moved with another person along there (is that the scene, i saw the movie some time ago, dont know exactly now) Its hard to say if this movement would look good in the end, it might, but i tend to disagree and think that a more stylized look for the movement would be better. But that depends, if you want to have a hasty, nervous escape, the first animation thing would be fine...
|
|