Story boarding in Flash

Unless you've got a good computer set-up ( Cintiq monitor, good processing speeds etc) digital boards are a pain in the ass.

I'm currently pencil 'boarding on a show that is being animated in FLASH and its been frustrating.
Part of it is due to the fact that I'm working on paper, part of it is due to the nature of the show( action-adventure), its scripts and the restrictions put in place by using FLASH.

FLASH essentially uses a "catalogue" of set images and component parts of figures and manipulates them like paper cut-outs--at least that's the common appearance.

That means the 'board artists are technically limited as to what kinds of poses and gestures they can use.
In some respects, its like working on the old H&B or Filmation limited animation shows, with a lot of their "stock" re-use.
But the problem lies in that the board artists ideally need to know what poses and set-up are available, and have access to them.
Additionally, the situation is further vexed because scripts often call for different situations, characters and expressions from show to show.
The current series I'm on often introduces all-new characters and environments with each episode.

If Hero-guys uses his Maxi-thunder-punch in one episode, and his atomic-kick-in-the-balls the next, that's two different set-ups--esspecially considering what comes before and after.
I HATE just jumping to a stock action pose as a cue for animation because I think it impedes the flow of storytelling and is overly gimmicky.
To use FLASH economically in this sense, you have to RELY on that kind of trick.

My honest impression is that Flash is being used because its cheap. My heartfelt opinion is that FLASH cripples, or at least severely restricts storytelling opportunities by imposing limitations based on "what can be done".

Granted, 2D has limitations too, but simple things like "no down angle shots"--tends to really squelch storytelling options. I've observed over time that most FLASH series, outside of the comedy genre, really resort to a lot more cinematic gimmicks like sudden split and widescreen shots to convey actions.
Staging in perspective becomes less a consideration, and ever shot seems to be eye-level, or near eye-level. About the only grace here is that the camera can still be placed at any distance from the subject.
The ability to rotate objects, or more objects 3/4 to/from camera is harder to do in FLASH--and sadly, continues to elude a lot of out-sourced 2D shops too.

Now, herein lies the real problem............its a matter of planning.

Flash can, imo, easily pull off something like a Jonny Quest type action series--as the animated in there was very limited. FLASH could do pure anime for the same reasons.
FLASH cartoons though, predominantly, animate like shit, again imo--looking like moving paper cut-outs.
The show I'm on doesn't have the time in the schedule for a lot of thinking on the 'boards.
To take a script, translate the writer's intentions into a visual, re- ( or DE-) construct that visual into something that FLASH can handle and then stage/compose/'board accordingly takes time.
I've given myself monster head-aches and bad stomach-aches trying to second-guess just what can be done with that vile software. Its gotten so bad that in trying to find out what's possible, my queries to the directors have been responded with:" just do what comes natural to you and we'll figure out how to make it work at our end".

BLOOOOODDDYYY-EEEFFFFIIINNNN-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem.

Okay, that makes things easier at my end, but part of my job is to problem-solve so things are easier at THEIR end. Otherwise, why use the junk?

I've just started scratching the surface as to things like how extreme a push-in or pull-out you can go to before the software craps out the lines of the character/image. I suppose IN THEORY, the software can be atuned to compensate for such cameral travel, but I'd like to know if there is a limit.
Things like a complex compound camera move ARE easier done digitally--moving the shot in a "L" shaped pan is now do-able.
That's great capability--but again, its limited by things like a staged camera angle--or so they say.

The other problems I have are pretty basic, some that there's just no "work-around" to. I feel that digital boards have a bad Achilles Heel, in that they are hardware dependant.
If the computer goes down, the server crashes, the power goes out--you are royally fooked--especially if the client is on the phone screaming for that 'board.

Paper boards only need a sharp pencil and work 100% of the time.
Heck, recently we had some several hours-long blackouts up here in the Interior, and I just moved my drawing space to the kitchen table by a big window, attached my old wind-up sharpener to the table and kept working at my 'board until it got too dark.
I couldn't upload to the FTP until the power came back on, but could still get pages out.

Now, my hands skills are confident, my computers skills not-as, and my trust of computers is very low. The tweak-time on a paper drawing is minutes--the effects I want to achieve are intuitive and quick because I know what i want and can get those results almost via reflex.
On a computer, unless you really know the tools you could spend hours trying to figure out a technique that takes far less time by hand.
On the computer, if something goes wrong the entire days work can go "blink". I shudder to think about that.

And then there's staring at the bloody screen all day...........

So, yea, I resist the embrace of the machine.
I've got a wacom tablet now and have fiddled with it, but not in any depth.
I don't like the interface as is( indirect drawing), and I'm contemplating getting a Cintiq, simply because direct drawing IS more intuitive.
Thing is, I'd have to fork out $3000 to get the thing, and I'd rather spend that coin on a 50+ inch TV screen instead.

$3000 would keep me in pencils and paper for the rest of my life, too LOL.

My last argument is that I don't think digital boards look as good, nor can they be given the same deadlines that a paper board has.

Given time, given skills, given trust I DO think that digital boards CAN indeed turn in better and more useful 'boards than done on paper. You can work right in colour, paint BG's or use detailed stock shots as is, you can go right to editing a animatic and even mostly forgo the layout stage of animation.

Its granting those three wishes that's the key to it all.

The symbols catalogue for something like Being Ian scares me.

I can see the head-ache of sorting through all that imagery looking for the one ( or two, three) images that "say" what you want the pose/expression to say.
Man, I eat up enough time flipping through my model-packs looking for a character design as it is.

From a practising 'board artist's perspective, that kind of thing is counter-intuitive because you spend so much clerical time sorting references to use that it disrupts the creative tempo of actually 'boarding.
Maybe the 'board guys would need two or three screen set-ups at their stations to help manage all that info, but again, the expense of all that equipment...........

If cost is no object, yea........its all good. Using a computer makes things easier because you just click on a file name from a list or thumbnail and you got your image--rather than spending 15 minutes flipping thru a couple 3 ring binders, or worse..........a piles of loose pages.

I dunno.......my instincts fight the change. In all thoeretical terms and given the array of immediate tools-at-hand the computer offers the idea of digital 'boarding makes complete sense. Yet I feel in my gut that we are abandoning something intrinsically simple for something needlessly complex and limiting ourselves in doing so.

Call me a dinosaur, I'll be over there at the table playing cards with the Brontosaurus and the Triceratops...