image layer animation vs. bone animation

[rogermate]

I'm working on a project which will mostly animate scanned images.

I'll need to choose between layer animation and bone animation, or some mixture of both.

Do I have the right pros and cons, and are there any I left out?

layer animation - less upfront work, best with simple characters

bone animation - more upfront work, can constrain joints, possible problems with "broken" joints i.e. elbow, easier to do rotations

both - always easy to move the layer regardless of the bone animation

also

What advantage is there in having a bone control a switch layer as opposed to just clicking on it?

[heyvern]

As a huge fan of bones in AS I would lean towards bones. Using both layer and bone animation is good too. The problem with layer animation is you have to click on each layer... PAIN IN THE ARSE... in my humble opinion. All of those keys are spread out on all of those separate layers. If each body part is a separate layer you be spending a lot of your time clicking on each layer... moving... clicking a layer... rotating... etc etc.

The extra effort of any upfront work with bones is totally mitigated by the time savings during animation. If you come up with a bone "template" this upfront work can be streamlined as well.

-vern

[slowtiger]

It's not an alternative decision between layer and bone animation. I need to use both.

Bone animation: every character movement, every movement of elements inside an array relative to each other (array: something like all body parts of a character).

Layer animation: bolder movements like the transition of a character across the room, or squash&stretch in jumps.

Note that I keep animation of layers inside a character to an absolute minimum. I perform layer animation mostly on the root layer of a character only.

Even if I'd do cutout animation the old-fashioned way (with elements not connected to each other) I'd assign ech element to a bone and then animate on the bone layer only - better overview, faster switching of tools (keyboard shortcuts!), and no hassle to select the correct layer in the list.

[mkelley]

Yeah, what ST said <g>.

[rogermate]

Oh, I left out a major advantage of bones, the actual animating. Glad that I asked, it confirms that I should invest the time in learning bones.
And it seems these ideas apply to both image as well as vector work.

Note that I keep animation of layers inside a character to an absolute minimum. I perform layer animation mostly on the root layer of a character only.

I assume an exception being switch layers for the mouth (and maybe some other elements) ? Actually, the ease of animation now makes me realize why someone might want to use a bone to perform switch layer selection. Had read a post on this forum about it and couldn't figure out why someone would want to do the "extra" work.
Do you recommend using a bone for mouth switch layer selections? I guess one could have a clock like minute_arm and when it's move it switches among the vowel sounds and then also expressions.

Even if I'd do cutout animation the old-fashioned way (with elements not connected to each other) I'd assign ech element to a bone and then animate on the bone layer only - better overview, faster switching of tools (keyboard shortcuts!), and no hassle to select the correct layer in the list.

Even on simple things I've noticed that selecting layers was a surprisingly big change in my attention, limiting the pace of work. Surprised there aren't keystrokes for NextLayer and PriorLayer, NextGroupLayer, PriorGroupLayer.

[slowtiger]

A better approach would be to use the cursor focus over elements in the workspace, making it possible to select the object and its layer right there. This is one real advantage good 3D packages have.

I try to keep my characters as simple as possible, yet separated into useful groups. "Simple" means easily 100 layers ... Often I have more than one bone layer: one for the main body, one for each arm and each leg. It really depends on the design of the character and the movements it should perform.

I do animate all bone layers, of course. After that I go inside the vector layers and adjust points if necessary. Eye movements I do mostly with point animation because eyes are in perspective, and each pupil must be adjusted carefully to avoid odd staring or crossed eyes.

Mouth switch layers I had used as switches so far, no bones involved.

[funksmaname]

a way i look at it is like a hierachy, can be done in the following order;

1) use layers translation to move everything (bold overall moves - done first for overall movement/timing)
2) use bones to move groups/more localised areas (more refined moves matched to timing created above)
3)use point movements for refining further (for the most subtle movements)

although, there are always reasons to do things in other orders...."whatever gets the job done" is my moto!

[fraaaankieee]

although, there are always reasons to do things in other orders...."whatever gets the job done" is my moto!

You have to be creative: do what it takes to get the look you want.

I find bone animation most useful when the character or object will be seen from the same perspective in the scene. That is: if the character will only be seen from front or side view, then most motions can be done with bone movement.

Lip sync is best done with switch layers. It's possible to rig mouth movements, but I find it very complicated.

Switch layers are also bone layers, so you can benefit from both: I have found this useful in some hand motions.

And then, sometimes only the old-fashioned frame-by-frame drawing will do. This is true for me when I need a character whose back is to the camera to turn and face the camera. Sometimes in a scene, I'll have multiple copies of a character: bone rigged for simple movements, and switch layer for really complex motions.

IMHO, each scene will determine what best gets the effect you want. Experiment with different techniques. Of course, any deadlines you may have will also influence how you get it done!

[rogermate]

Switch layers are also bone layers, so you can benefit from both: I have found this useful in some hand motions.

I recall that bone layers were also group layers, but I'm not understanding that "Switch layers are also bone layers".

My understanding is when a switch contains vector layers, they can morph "interpolate" between them.

Could you elaborate?

[heyvern]

Switch layers can "morph" if the points are the same. Bones ON the switch (not bone layers inside) are very handy (forgive the pun) for hands.

Imagine you have two identical layers in a switch for the front/back of a hand. Use the switch layer to switch front to back, use bones on the switch to bend/move the fingers.

The tricky part about switch layers and bones is that the switch layers can be very different and the bones won't always work with each layer. The points on one layer might be so far away from the bones they don't have influence.

Another trick is to use different "sets" of bones ON the SAME switch to control different vector layers IN the switch (Phew! That sounds complex). So if you switch a layer that is in a different position you have a different set of bones on the same switch to effect that layer.

If you understand all of this from my lame explanation... maybe you can figure out how to fix the economy.

-vern

[fraaaankieee]

I recall that bone layers were also group layers, but I'm not understanding that "Switch layers are also bone layers".

Switch layers have the capacity to add and rig bones. The tutorials give an example of using bones to make a character smile while talking by adding bones to a switch layer for the mouth. I found it useful for hand positions: One can make a hand bend at the wrist while making hand motions (switching from a fist to a pointing finger, for example).

My understanding is when a switch contains vector layers, they can morph "interpolate" between them.

If two vector layers within a switch have the same number of points, one can turn on the "interpolate sub layers" in the Layers tab. this is great for smoothing out changes in simple shapes. See the tutorials for examples.

[rogermate]

If you understand all of this from my lame explanation... maybe you can figure out how to fix the economy.

-vern

Actually, the project I'm working on is trying to draw attention to the root cause of our nations financial crisis - which by the way is still only beginning to unfold.

For the most part, the productive portions of our economy are OK, but the financial / banking world is extremely unstable - and the $700 Billion bailout may only be a band-aide compared to the moneys at risk. For many institutions, experts don't even know how much is at stake.

It the same old song. Fraud. Someone wanted to make a quick buck by gambling with other peoples money. Fraud has always been illegal.

Sure, we had a huge real estate bubble along with fraud, and massive fraud, sometimes including incompetence. But the big uncertainty has
to do with staggering amounts of derivatives. Credit default swaps being a big piece, but all sorts of "structured finance" products are the equivalent of toxic waste. We have always had fraud for as long as parties have engaged in commerce. The problem is we had ever greater frauds and the players were taught that "White collar criminals who hire DOJ & SEC alumni will not get punished". So the schemes got bigger and bigger.

The problem is not one of deregulation or needing new laws. We've always had laws against fraud. The problem is not that "noone understands" the derivatives.

The problem is that the regulators don't go after the big bad dogs. After the dot.com bubble burst, we got the new "super" Sarbanes-Oxley law but that law did nothing to prevent Freddie and Fannie from imploding, as well as much of the Street.

The lawyers at the SEC and the DOJ are managing their careers, not doing their jobs. They make $150K a year - a lot for a normal person but a pittance compared to partners at law firms or working for hedge funds. They ignore crime for 10 years or so, then their payback is to land a partnership at a big law firm paying them millions per year or even more at a hedge fund. Sometimes the payoff is made indirectly to a nephew or cousin getting the big job, but it is a very small circle of lawyers and like on Planet of the Apes: "Ape Shall Never Kill Ape".
We have laws against legislators working as lobbyists for x years after leaving Congress, but the BIG money is abusing prosecutorial discretion.
Justice is for sale, prosecutions and investigations just don't happen.

Martha Stewart goes to prison and her public company loses roughly half a billion dollars in market cap due to a stock trade involving $40K. And the DOJ spent millions to get her, and grandstanded the whole thing. In contrast lawyers lie under oath and collect hundreds of millions in fees, and multi-Billion dollar hedge funds hire former DOJ lawyers and escape any punishment for involvment in obvious SEC violations reaching the level of racketeering. You can make practically unlimited amounts of money if you own the government lawyers - just like on The Sopranos and The Godfather.

There is lots to tell, and explaining these concepts with animation may be the only way to help the public understand. OK, I'll get off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant.

[toonertime]

if you could turn this mess into a cartoon
I will make the popcorn

[mkelley]

Well, from an artist in the past to us: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

(Which, by the way, I totally agree with. Why someone hasn't made a TV drama series showing how terrible they are, instead of raising them to the level of doctors and police work, I'll never understand. Oh, you'll see a bad one or two here and there, usually the eneimy of our "hero" lawyer, but where is the truly honest piece showing how awful most of them are? Oh, yeah, it would probably get sued :>).

[toonertime]

lawyers are just the midwives of
the avarice and greed and vanity
of the powerful