Why Traditional Training Matters
 |
This was a controversial position when I was in animation school between the computer animation students and the traditional animation students. In that time, CG artists have gotten very sophisticated, working with more and more realistic human beings, objects, etc. But for me, it always falls apart in one significant area, movement. In school, there was a remarkable difference between traditionally trained animators and those who worked solely on the computer. And it wasn’t just in the final product. It was in the process and the approach.
When it came time to a walk cycle, the computer guys would strain at their monitors, trying to imagine in their heads how the feet move from one place to another, how the body moves up and down. The traditional guys would actually get up out of their chairs and walk around the room, sketch friends walking, and shooting video reference.
I think times have changed a little, with computers becoming more and more viable as actual training tools, and computer animators understanding the importance of analogue techniques, but my personal opinion as of now is that traditionally trained animators will out animate those trained solely on the computer. I think that traditional animators can more easily make the transition to the computer than vice versa.
And when the power goes out, we will always have our pencil and paper.
Do I sound like an 80-year-old man? Am I out of touch? Any thoughts?
March 15th, 2007 at 2:54 pm e
Don’t worry Tom the computer geeks invented motion capture so they don’t have to worry about having talent! Geez! I saw the stuff on the animwatch website about that “animated” short film “Smile” It wasn’t animated at all. They had mocap for the movement. They even used a digital scanner to scan in a smiley face character that they could have modelled in max in less than a day. All the “animator did was import the data attached it to the character studio biped and alakazam animated movie.
Sorry Thomas , just continuing my previous rant against the evils of mocap
Neil
March 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm e
I think mo-cap is an interesting solution to an inability (or lack of time) to animate via keyframe. It’s like rotoscoping for CG. There is a place for that kind of thing (which I defending in Monster House), but how do you apply mo-cap to a car in Cars or a toy dinosaur in Toy Story?
And what if you didn’t have computer technology at all? Pixar would still be able to make The Incredibles, which was conceived as a 2d film anyway. That, IMO, is the importance of traditional training.
March 15th, 2007 at 6:13 pm e
Traditional training is extremely important. I think it mainly has to do with developing a critical eye for nature and people, movement etc. I came to animation late and I did not have any formal training until I went to film school ( by which time I had already made my first film) , however I always had an artistic frame of mind with my own drawings and sculpture.
I devoured lots of books on animation ( The Animators Handbook by Richard Wiliams is my bible) . In the early days computer animators were just computer science guys who dabbled in animation. Now it is more art focused but some newcomers are still expecting the computer to do the work for them, they are the ones who struggle. I am not against computer technology, heck the film I’m working on now would be impossible in any other technique.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:09 pm e
The “critical eye” for movement that you refer to is exactly what I mean. It’s not like these guys were incapable of getting out of their chairs to look at how people walk or how a ball bounced. It just didn’t occur to them to do this, whereas it seemed like the first thing the traditional guys would do when animating a scene.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm e
Traditional training is the core for good animation.
I started as a very technical guy but it was only when I began to study traditional animation that I was able to see some improvement in my work.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm e
Keep it up, yen3d. I’ve been looking at your site. The sketches are really nice.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:43 am e
Yep, I agree that a traditional background is vital. It’s all about being able to see what is there, not what you think is there.
Mo-cap is generally used (or should be), I’d say, for that which would be too difficult for animators to produce. Some uber-realistic movement (rotoscoping counts there, too), the dancing in Happy Feet (imagine trying to animate certain dances…some may be possible to animate, but others might see too much happening and overwhelm the animator).
April 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm e
You make a great point, kaidonni, about animating what you see and not what you know. I think this is a hangup for many, many would-be artists. You don’t realize how important training is to understanding how you translate what you see onto paper (or a screen) until you do it.
April 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am e
Hi Thomas — Great to hear you share these thoughts. As you may have gathered by now, you’re far from alone in your observations. I’ve been an animator for 20 years now and I made the transition from classical to 3D very easily 12 years ago, thanks to my training.
For the last 4 years, I’ve developed and taught the 4th year post-grad 3D Animation & Production Program at Max The Mutt Animation School. I made sure that the students had no contact with the computer before then (other than for line testing and research, of course). What a difference! The transition is SO much smoother for the students. Perhaps the most gratifying part is that the industry has noticed - the endorsements for this philosophy of training have been overwhelming.
As for mo-cap, I believe it has its place - no doubt. For the classically trained animator, however, I believe it’s just another tool in their arsenal. The best results from mo-cap - in my experience - has been when it’s been used as initial performance information and then modified by the keyframe animator. You needn’t look too far past the LOTR films to see the truth in this.
Having said all that, I also believe that the best animators take information from whatever sources at their disposal, without being hindered by their egos. Being closed-minded to new methods and technologies has never furthered the art & craft as much as being adventurous.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am e
I totally agree with you about animators using all of the tools at their disposal, including mo-cap. I have an article on this site defending Monster House and its use of the technique. At the very least, its the most interesting voice performances I’ve ever seen in an animated film.
That’s great to hear about your experience with the students. It’s nice to see these thoughts of ours manifested in reality!
July 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm e
mexitil…
mexitil withdrawal…