Why don't very skilled anime pro users make a feature flim

madrobot · Post by **madrobot** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:23 am

Celtx is fantastic.
We use it heaps for collaboration.

Chuck is getting back to nature in a primitive village,
or else I reckon he'd be singing Celtx's praises also.

(He even has a celtx t shirt from being awarded
Celtx project of the month or something. Bastard.)

jackass · Post by **jackass** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:24 am

Im using Artrage delux to make backgrounds for my movie but will there be any problems from making the backgrounds in a diffrent software. Will the camera just see it as a flat background and I will have make different views of the same background.

synthsin75 · Post by **synthsin75** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:13 am

If you separate your background images by distance and save them as PNGs with transparency, you can lay them out in the 3D space of ASP.

Rhoel · Post by **Rhoel** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:43 am

jackass wrote: I will have make different views of the same background.

Yes and no. If the resolution is high enough and the shot is just a cut close, then no, you can use the same background, zoomed up. If the resolution is too low, then blurring it to create pseudo depth of field is a good work around.

If the camera angle changes, then you are often looking at a new/modified BG.

If you use a multiplane approach (the background layered in sections in the 3D space), then the camera move/offset will change the background alignment, making it "new". Again, enabling the Depth of field (in the Project Settings box) can give very good results when working with Multiplane set-ups.

Rhoel

jackass · Post by **jackass** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:39 pm

I know how to put a body together and add bones to it and make it move. But when ever I bring the head down on the neck the head sinks in. Instead of laying on top like it should did I make a mistake here.

dueyftw · Post by **dueyftw** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:04 pm

Sounds like layer order. Move your layers around. If all is in one layer, use raze layer or lower layer, remember to select the layer first.

Dale

FCSnow · Post by **FCSnow** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:04 pm

Jackass Wrote:

But when ever I bring the head down on the neck the head sinks in. Instead of laying on top like it should did I make a mistake here.

I've had this problem before. It has something to do with bone binding. I don't know why it happens. But, I just remove all the bones and move the offending parts farther away from each other. Then relay the bones, making sure their influence spheres don't intersect. This usually works for me.

FC Snow

chucky · Post by **chucky** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 pm

Go for it Jackass! At your age you will have enough time and energy to get heaps done and learn some of the hurdles and pitfalls yourself in the process. I'm sure mkelley is only warning you against skinning your knees too badly, but I think you will only find your limits by pushing the envelope.
When it gets tough don't give up, but instead re-strategise, you might want to make a short after all when all is said and done.

spoooze! · Post by **spoooze!** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am

I'm working on making my own feature length film and I'd say I'm fairly experienced... I've been using AS since version four and I've made numerous short films, 2 web series, and 7 animated movies ranging from 15 to 30 minutes.
It's a film I'm making with two other people, one who's writing it and one who's helping me animate. We all pitch in gags and ideas.

I won't say any more about it now but what we've got so far is excellent (in my opinion). We've been working on the story since what... February? And I think we've got a strong story.

It'll be all animated in AS Pro and, personally, I like working with the limitations of the program. It forces me to focus on the storytelling.

jackass · Post by **jackass** » Sat May 02, 2009 7:41 am

About the limtations of As. My opinion is As is like a blank paper it depends on the artist whether or not the drawing is good. Look what Parker did in As by using it's frame by frame. As dosn't even speacialize in frame by frame it a small feature. I've look around around the forum and read about people doing more things with As that they ever talk about on box I got. People making animations smother, making effects better and camera shots more intresting. You don't have to except limitations learn to draw better animate better, get insipre to use each animated short as a learing curve instead of doing things you already know how to do. All arts had limitations but people experimented and improve thier mediums. Look at Disney Alice comedies, Plane Crazy and othere black and whites short. Spooze if your looking for Parker animation just go to my post and you'll see it listed there.

realsnake · Post by **realsnake** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:23 pm

yea! i agree wid jackass

spoooze! · Post by **spoooze!** » Sat May 02, 2009 7:44 pm

You don't have to except limitations learn to draw better animate better, get insipre to use each animated short as a learing curve instead of doing things you already know how to do.

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm constantly doing both of these things. I think if you look at my first ever short and then look at the work we're doing now... you'll see that our artwork and animation has improved enormously.

Right now, I'm concentrating on creating a feature using AS, even with it's limitations, and I want to make that film the best that I can make it and have it look good... even though I don't have a huge crew (right now, I have two other people working on it with me) and a $300,000,000 budget.

To do that I am looking at not only TV animation but also classic Disney and Warner Bros shorts, trying to find out what made them tick. I am also reading a lot of books on animation and trying to apply the methods they teach to my own animation (and encouraging my other animator to do the same).

Limitations are not always bad. People constantly are working with limitations and using them to their advantage. Just look at any of the best UPA cartoons, or some of the stuff that's come on TV in the last few years. Spongebob (at least the older ones), Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Flapjack, Chowder, etc. all have limited animation and the artists have to work on a strict budget and timeframe... yet they are constantly pushing what limited animation can do. Flapjack has some of the best design work and and animation work to come out since the first season of Spongebob... yet no one here will say that the animation is full-quality Disney animation... it's TV animation but it looks GOOD.

realsnake · Post by **realsnake** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:47 am

so was that post only made for announcement or are u looking for animators?

dm · Post by dm » Sun May 03, 2009 4:33 am

spoooze! wrote:Right now, I'm concentrating on creating a feature using AS, even with it's limitations, and I want to make that film the best that I can make it and have it look good... even though I don't have a huge crew (right now, I have two other people working on it with me) and a $300,000,000 budget.

Three hundred million dollars sounds like a pretty big budget for an animated feature (2D, no less). Seriously? Am I just out of touch, or is that not a huge sum for 2D? Well, good going. You ought to be able to do something wonderful for that.

spoooze! · Post by **spoooze!** » Sun May 03, 2009 6:46 am

dm wrote:
spoooze! wrote:Right now, I'm concentrating on creating a feature using AS, even with it's limitations, and I want to make that film the best that I can make it and have it look good... even though I don't have a huge crew (right now, I have two other people working on it with me) and a $300,000,000 budget.
Three hundred million dollars sounds like a pretty big budget for an animated feature (2D, no less). Seriously? Am I just out of touch, or is that not a huge sum for 2D? Well, good going. You ought to be able to do something wonderful for that.

I was exaggerating a little bit. Most big budget animated features now a days cost about $100,000,000 minimum. Bolt cost $150 million and Wall-E cost $180 million. Big budget 3D films range in the high $100 mills.

Compare to big budget 2D: Mulan cost $70 million, Treasure Planet cost $140 million, Home on the Range cost $110 million.