I just caught a glimpse of a TV series in which the animation was almost entirely comprised of motion captured data. So....is this really classed as animation? What do you think?
D.K
Discussion: Is Mocap Really Animation?
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
You have to define "animation" first and get everyone to agree with it. If you don't consider "mocap" animation than any computer aided animation, like "tweening" is not "animation".
In the broadest terms live action film or video is "animation". It is a matter of refining the definition from that point. In previous discussions I've seen on this topic it is not a matter of "is it animation?" but rather are technical directors in charge of cleaning up data clouds considered "artists/animators". That is the one thing that really annoys "animators". They feel that some tech guy who couldn't animate drawing one frame at a time in a traditional way in charge of cleaning up data points from motion capture gets credit for being an "animator".
Ignoring all those issues about that kind of thing... I would still consider mocap animation.
-vern
In the broadest terms live action film or video is "animation". It is a matter of refining the definition from that point. In previous discussions I've seen on this topic it is not a matter of "is it animation?" but rather are technical directors in charge of cleaning up data clouds considered "artists/animators". That is the one thing that really annoys "animators". They feel that some tech guy who couldn't animate drawing one frame at a time in a traditional way in charge of cleaning up data points from motion capture gets credit for being an "animator".
Ignoring all those issues about that kind of thing... I would still consider mocap animation.
-vern
Was this topic covered here before? I remember a HUGE... uh... discussion on the Animation Master forum. That's where I learned a lot about "Animation Prejudice". A lot of people feel VERY strongly about who should be qualified to be called an Animator®. 
If you can't produce Disney quality hand drawn animation... then you are just a useless waste of space... this is not a universal belief but some people feel this way.
Many "animators" feel that mocap threatens there livelihood. They get very angry that some computer nerd with no artistic talent AT ALL is called an animator. In that case they shouldn't judge what is "animation" since that bias, although justified, has nothing to do with defining animation.
Mocap may look "dead" now but it will continue to improve. I don't see that as a viable argument against it being defined as "animation".
Keep in mind that if you need to produce a lot of 3D animation quickly and cheaply on a regular schedule, like a TV show, you MUST use mocap. It is still "cheaper" than doing it by hand. 2D animation is another story. I read an article about a sci-fi saturday morning show done in 3D. The people involved said there was absolutely no way it could ever be produced with the budget they had without using mocap.
I am assuming the original post was referring to 3D animation (even if it appears 2D through some type of toon rendering). I don't think mocap is used for 2D animation much.
It's an interesting topic for discussion but I doubt there will ever be agreement on what is animation. Also I don't think it will matter in the long run. Budgets and time dictate what gets produced. If mocap saves time and money then it will continue to be used regardless of the quality.
-vern
If you can't produce Disney quality hand drawn animation... then you are just a useless waste of space... this is not a universal belief but some people feel this way.
Many "animators" feel that mocap threatens there livelihood. They get very angry that some computer nerd with no artistic talent AT ALL is called an animator. In that case they shouldn't judge what is "animation" since that bias, although justified, has nothing to do with defining animation.
Mocap may look "dead" now but it will continue to improve. I don't see that as a viable argument against it being defined as "animation".
Keep in mind that if you need to produce a lot of 3D animation quickly and cheaply on a regular schedule, like a TV show, you MUST use mocap. It is still "cheaper" than doing it by hand. 2D animation is another story. I read an article about a sci-fi saturday morning show done in 3D. The people involved said there was absolutely no way it could ever be produced with the budget they had without using mocap.
I am assuming the original post was referring to 3D animation (even if it appears 2D through some type of toon rendering). I don't think mocap is used for 2D animation much.
It's an interesting topic for discussion but I doubt there will ever be agreement on what is animation. Also I don't think it will matter in the long run. Budgets and time dictate what gets produced. If mocap saves time and money then it will continue to be used regardless of the quality.
-vern
Yes, I remember that discussion on the A:M forum well. I remember because you, Vern, sent emails to those who took 'your view' saying what idiots those were that didn't agree with you. I know this because you accidentally sent me one. Now that's true prejudice.
MoCap is NOT animation. You can get an animated look and I've seen some very good CG series produced using MoCap. The toon rendered ones are often quite pleasant to look at. The so called 'realistic' variety in all cases I've seen look awful...to me that is. Everyone else is free to think what they like.
You say that MoCap "looks dead now" but will improve? So, you will be impressed when it looks exactly like live action? This is something that I just don't understand. Just what is the point of that? Other than CG doubles in films (live action films) I just don't get it?
MoCap is NOT animation. You can get an animated look and I've seen some very good CG series produced using MoCap. The toon rendered ones are often quite pleasant to look at. The so called 'realistic' variety in all cases I've seen look awful...to me that is. Everyone else is free to think what they like.
You say that MoCap "looks dead now" but will improve? So, you will be impressed when it looks exactly like live action? This is something that I just don't understand. Just what is the point of that? Other than CG doubles in films (live action films) I just don't get it?
This is what is often referred to as a battle over semantics.
Quite pointless, because in practice you use what you need. If you need MoCap or its (more or less) predecessor rotoscoping, you just use it. Whatever it takes to get the project done in time and within budget. If that's cheap and not artistic enough, so be it.
Quite pointless, because in practice you use what you need. If you need MoCap or its (more or less) predecessor rotoscoping, you just use it. Whatever it takes to get the project done in time and within budget. If that's cheap and not artistic enough, so be it.
-
synthsin75
- Posts: 10264
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
I think I'd have to say that mocap is technically animation, and while you could get away with calling someone who does it an animator, I don't think you could ever stretch the term artist to fit. Just about anyone could animate Poser models without ever putting pencil to paper.
I'm much more jealous of the term artist than I am animator. There is no art to mocap. Now building a walk cycle or something from scratch, that takes some creativity.
Maybe creation or just manipulation is where I'd draw the line.
I'm much more jealous of the term artist than I am animator. There is no art to mocap. Now building a walk cycle or something from scratch, that takes some creativity.
Maybe creation or just manipulation is where I'd draw the line.
When I hear these kinds of discussions it just makes me realize how much older I am than all of you.
I'm going to guess that most of you weren't alive (or perhaps just way too young) when the same sort of arguments were made about whether what Andy Warhol did was "art" (particularly some of his more way out stuff like simply pointing a camera at the Empire state building for two hours and calling it a movie).
Trying to define "art" or "artist" or "animator" or "animation" is just a waste of time -- but the young have time to waste <bg>. Those of us older folk tend to want to spend what little time we have left actually creating... and leave history to judge the worth of what we've done.
But it's a very slippery slope indeed once you start making pronouncements like "mocap ain't animation", or "poser creators aren't artists" or anything else along those lines. Because anyone can get caught in the same trap (just how many of you "artists" out there would be called artists by the nine old men of Disney? I'm guessing that there isn't a one... and that don't prove anything either).
Now I'm off to spend time creating...
I'm going to guess that most of you weren't alive (or perhaps just way too young) when the same sort of arguments were made about whether what Andy Warhol did was "art" (particularly some of his more way out stuff like simply pointing a camera at the Empire state building for two hours and calling it a movie).
Trying to define "art" or "artist" or "animator" or "animation" is just a waste of time -- but the young have time to waste <bg>. Those of us older folk tend to want to spend what little time we have left actually creating... and leave history to judge the worth of what we've done.
But it's a very slippery slope indeed once you start making pronouncements like "mocap ain't animation", or "poser creators aren't artists" or anything else along those lines. Because anyone can get caught in the same trap (just how many of you "artists" out there would be called artists by the nine old men of Disney? I'm guessing that there isn't a one... and that don't prove anything either).
Now I'm off to spend time creating...
-
synthsin75
- Posts: 10264
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:20 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
- Contact:
Definition: Art is a form of communication. If it doesn't communicate anything to me personally, then I don't consider it art. But this is different for every person. Art for art's sake has never appealed to me.
Like I said, I think the dividing line is whether or not anything is created. Granted, you could say the same of photography, an eye for composition is creative. It's all just a difference of degree. On one hand you have an interior decorator, and on the other you have portrait painter.
I think there must be a line somewhere between these two extremes.
An open mind is only as useful as your ability to make a decision.
AmigaMan wrote:Yes, I remember that discussion on the A:M forum well. I remember because you, Vern, sent emails to those who took 'your view' saying what idiots those were that didn't agree with you. I know this because you accidentally sent me one. Now that's true prejudice.
"Accidentally" sent you an email? If you still have it could you send it to me? I don't think that was me who did that.
-vern
