Search form

Should animation impersonate life or film?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Should animation impersonate life or film?

Should animation impersonate life or film?

3D packages often have Lens-Flair effects. You don’t see this. The visual effect is retina-burn. Look at a light (nothing to bright – and not for to long. Try a torch or flashlight) and you will see a coloured splodge over it. This splodge will stay in that area of your view for a few seconds. I have never seen this as an option on 3D packages.

Nor do you really see blurring. Focal length is also an effect only of cameras. The eye’s equivalent of this is double vision. Pre-photography artists used fogging as a method of showing depth - things look successively greyer (or blue-greyer) as they get farther away from the viewer.

We refer to 3D realism as photo-realism and that it is. But less realistic animation styles still use these photographic effects.

yogyog's picture
Mike Futcher - www.yogyog.org

Mike Futcher - www.yogyog.org

artistic license

the reason why these camera-induced 'impersonations'
persist is not only because they are mechanical limitations
but mainly directors have used them for artistic and
creative ways. and the audience has accepted them

focus is a way not only of accentuating depth, but for isolating
the character from the background. creative directors have
used this to further the feeling of loneliness of a character, to
emphasize his alienation to the world.

wide-angle and fish-eye lenses distort perspective. directors use
them to inject a person's growing disorientation of reality.

as long as limitations and state-of-the-art technology is used
with creativity and rationale, it will be appreciated.

others though are more superficial, and do not contribute to the philosophy
of filmmaking. lens flare effects in outer space is acceptable since
there is no way yet for someone to view space but through remote
cameras. and it easily fills the dark voids compositionally.

focal length is considered part of the language of cinematic expression.

Don't worry.  All shall be well.

I'm not telling people NOT to use such effects - just that they should realise that it is an effect of the camera. Yes, you do get a little blurring. I think actually that 'retina burn' is not something I'd use unless I was showing it happening to a charactor.

Mike Futcher - www.yogyog.org

Should animation impersonate life or film?

What an odd, but interesting, question. Of course, if you're just referring to whether or not animation should make use of the visual language of film, I'd have to say, animation should impersonate film.

But I think the real answer is, "Yes."

Animation is an attempt to communicate something, no? Audience have come, over the years, to have an understanding (conscious or no) of the methods of film making. Sometimes the best way to communicate something to your audience is to pull focus. So, since there is a language that has been crafted by all the directors that preceded you, why not use that language to help you communicate your message?

On the other hand, film is typically an impersonation of life to one degree or another. Even if the events depicted therein are far flung, or unrealistic, film attempts to communicate something about the human condition. So good animation should attempt to do the same.

but what i want to know

is animation interpreting literature or replacing it?

is the Aladdin kids now know and keep in their minds
the one by Disney or the one from folklore? Greek Hercules or
Disney Hercules? Mowgli?

Don't worry.  All shall be well.

When I first read your heading I was thinking of acting or character development, but you actually were directing it towards filters and software shortcuts.

Since I am not a traditional animator, I don't usually go there. But my inspiration for stories and character development come from both, because actually that's the way my life goes. Not filters and tricks, but along narrative lines. I tend to dream in cinema terms, because film has played such a big part in life. But working in vector I use very few filter blurs or lens flares.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

I did rely on lens flare pretty heavily in this one intro I did:

http://www.tco.net/~phacker/space/space2.html

It was just for effect, and it was a space thing, so guess I can be excused.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

is animation interpreting literature or replacing it?

is the Aladdin kids now know and keep in their minds
the one by Disney or the one from folklore? Greek Hercules or
Disney Hercules? Mowgli?

Yes, no, yes. That's my guess. What do we win?

Because of two career families and the lack of time adults spend with their kids I'd have to say they relate more to Disney's versions. But I am old enough that I learned most of the tales through books read to us by my mom. So my versions are definitely affected by Grimm's Fairy tales and some of the other really dark things that were out in print fifty years ago. And they were dark and gloomy, I think the point was to shock us into being good. It worked with me, think my brothers thought it was all just in good fun, and it didn't seem to phase them.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

It's possible to see blurring. If an object comes close, really close to my eye, there's blurring. And I can control focus with my eyes, especially clearly with one eye shut.

And afterimages are optical effects for our eyes -and- for cameras. I have only used two different programs, and never missed with render options to get to that kinda point, but I have -seen- it before in CGI...somewhere out there, it's available. Or recreated fantastically by hand =P