Search form

Art of animation = no motion capture..what do u think??

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Art of animation = no motion capture..what do u think??

If we use mo-cap so no need to animators, just go on,bring some actors and do a real movie...right??...an animator is an artist...so where is the art of animation???...i don't agree with mo-cap..but of course u can have references from acting, expressions, moving in general (as pictures,movies,or anything) and u exaggerate and animate them with your own way...what do u think??...did PIXAR,PDI,ILM use mo-cap???

tough call

Hey Ramimator, I agree, there isn't much room for artistic creativity when it comes to mocap. But I don't think it's as easy as getting some actors together and making a movie per say... there are always people that have to fix mocap data since it hardly ever gets captured perfectly, but there is a fine line between 'animator' and 'cleanup artist' in that situation.

If mocap data was used as a template, and animators then took that and enhanced it with movements that maybe couldn't be captured in a suit, I think there is "art of animation" in that. ('Gollum' comes to mind.) Using strict mocap data and only fixing pops and wrist flips, I don't consider that to be all that artistic. Tough call though... 'art' is a broad term.

As an animator, I always like the look of key frame animated characters.

"...did PIXAR,PDI,ILM use mo-cap???" I am not sure if that was a rhetorical question, but I know for a fact that Pixar and PDI do not, and I don't think ILM does either.

Well, those are my thoughts.

"i love the graph editor"
[ChrisMagovern.com]
and visit me on myspace...

Your question brings the answer. Motion capture is not animation, and vice versa.

But just because motion capture is not animation it doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just another way of doing things move on the screen.

Your question brings the answer. Motion capture is not animation, and vice versa.

Good call, I suppose that's a good way of thinking about it, but 'animation' is also a broad term. I do like your more concise answer though. :D

"i love the graph editor"
[ChrisMagovern.com]
and visit me on myspace...

If we check the dictionary, "animation" comes from the greek anima, which means soul. So animation can be translated as "to give soul to".

But then again, if we keep strictly attached to this meaning, if by one hand mocap doesn't fit (i.e. it doesn't add soul to the models), puppetry can be considered animation, even tho it's not created frame by frame or on film.

This can go on forever... :)

ILM uses plenty of mocap. Pixar and PDI don't because the type of animation they do calls for keyframe.
Mocap is a technique, not a style; and as an animator I'll use any technique that gives me the final result I want. Mocap isn't animation, it is data containing motion; the animator is the one who adds to the performance and changes that data into animation. A lot of it is experimenting and tweaking it untill it comes out looking the way you want -which sometimes means blowing it away and keyframing the whole thing; but usually it means keeping whatever you like and adding layers of keyframed onto it. Plenty of room for creativity when it's done right.

I never quite understood the hostility with some animators towards anything that is new. What's the alternative? Just stick to doing what has already been done forever and a day? I'd rather experiment with something new -even if the danger is that it'll end up not working- than never try anything unless it has proven its worth already. Where's the fun in that? ;)

cheers,
~D

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy [i]-Tom Waits
[/i]

Depends what you're doing. If you need a digital double for a FX shot in a movie, then mocap is the way to go, as you don't geet (well I've never seen) anyone who can hand animate to that level of subtle inticacy. If you're doing the cartoon thing though, it's totally inappropriate as the performance will come off too static, and will need so much keyframed clean up that it may as well be done that way from scratch. To me, both are forms of animation (in cgi terms), just under different guises, for different uses. You either have a set of cameras and ping pong balls judging motion, and converting it into frames in a 3D program, which is an equipment set up, or you have an "animator" who's brain witnesses motion, redesigns it, and copies it into the computer. Effectively just a different piece of equipment, looked at from a certain angle.

You may say that the mocap set up can't dream up motion though, it has no imagination, but somewhere, there's got to be an actor on a stage giving a performace.
I wonder what would you all think if an animator got into a mocap stage, did his moves, and then his own cleanup, which side of the line would the puritans place that on I wonder???

yes Mo-Cap is a technique...

Hi everybody,I agree with you Mr.Dave "Mo-cap is a technique, not a style"...MR. Ken Davis convinced me that mo-cap still art but not a style,i found he is right,cause as he said:"the animator provides aditional timing and slight exagerations to the action that the human body and Mo-cap software cannot account for"
"knowing when to remove a frame or two, or three from an action and replace it with something that a human actor can not achieve, because of physical limits is still an animators job"
"if you move your hand in a circle--the mo-cap can capture the movement in your wrist, but what about your fingers?If you turn your head in a mo-cap shot, what about the hair? Long hair? beards?what about Clothing.........this is what else an animator can add to mo-cap stuff"
"M-o cap is just a tool to an end result like a wide brush is to a painting......"
so this is the point it's just technical....motion capture r just doing the first step and the animator doing the rest...so....

Cheers

Rami

Before the digital era, I believe the rotoscoping of filmed live-action was employed in feature animation-isn't this the same argument as using Motion Capture? I believe if a technique helps solve a PARTICULAR PROBLEM, it's usefull. I've heard masters like Vemeer and Bacon used camera obscura (with a lens over hole) to trace figures for their paintings! :eek: Bird

the way disney used live films to teach animators how to give more life and feeling to thier characters was a brilliant move untill today.

using a motion capture is like cheating.
just let a tech-man press the 'rec' button and it is all done.

using MotionCapture / rotoscope in 3D is really something that I my self don't like, but companies wants results in less time.

in 2D animation i found live references as a good thing since its a tool for teaching and self learning, not cheating and fast acomplished.

3D Studios, learn from the masters :)

Visit my site http://www.animdesk.com