Animating a walk cycle

[toushinu]

So I'm in the process of learning how to animate a walk cycle, but I'm also doing it as a kind of fan project for something so i stay interested, so I have a question on frames.

Since it is me trying to learn a walk cycle, I probably want to maybe animate it on two's I suppose. But because it is my first walk cycle and a little fan project I wanted to maybe keep it on fours as it is now since there are more things that I want to do within the cycle like having the character move his head and arms around doing extra little things. Also because I don't want to spend too too much time on this one animation (probably something really stupid to think when it comes to animation in general ha). On the other hand because I am learning I probably want to get the most out of this and do it on two's and if it's good include it in my portfolio for the time being.

So I'm torn between these two thoughts. What should I stick to?

TL;DR : Should I animate my first walk cycle in two's or four's?

[KhanhCPham]

I tend to animate in 2s or 3s depending on a scene. Slow motion shots or wide shots I tend to animate in 3s because it saves me a lot of time. Mid to close shots I tend animate in 2s. Whenever I roughly animate, I set in 4s or 3s just to check the timing of my animaton. I than rise to 2s when I do the in-betweening. This is just my preference and its up to you on how to want to direct a scene.

[Mabelma]

At 4/1/14 12:29 AM, toushinu wrote: So I'm in the process of learning how to animate a walk cycle, but I'm also doing it as a kind of fan project for something so i stay interested, so I have a question on frames.

Since it is me trying to learn a walk cycle, I probably want to maybe animate it on two's I suppose. But because it is my first walk cycle and a little fan project I wanted to maybe keep it on fours as it is now since there are more things that I want to do within the cycle like having the character move his head and arms around doing extra little things. Also because I don't want to spend too too much time on this one animation (probably something really stupid to think when it comes to animation in general ha). On the other hand because I am learning I probably want to get the most out of this and do it on two's and if it's good include it in my portfolio for the time being.

So I'm torn between these two thoughts. What should I stick to?

TL;DR : Should I animate my first walk cycle in two's or four's?

Personally I think you should sketch it all out in 4 and then if it seem unpolished or smooth, then use the 2 extras frames you had as inbetweens, and turn the 4 into 2's. And since you are using those 2 as inbetweens you don't have too spend too much time on them, like if you were making the whole thing in 2's.

[toushinu]

Okay so basically sketch in fours and work up to twos as you see fit, then. That makes sense. Then its almost mindless work doing the inbetweens and smooth sailing from there. Thanks guys c:

[JKR]

A walk cycle on 12s (12 frames per step) is really only six drawings on 2s. SIX DRAWINGS! Do you really not have enough time to do six drawings? :)

Granted for a full cycle you'll need the other half, which makes 12 drawings, but the second 6 are really only copies of the first with the opposite arm and leg.

So go for doing it on 2s! It's worth your time, and honestly if you're putting something in your reel it should never be on 4s. It would have to be absolute animated genius to get away with 4s. And even then, directors are going to wonder "Why didn't he just finish the in betweens?"

Hope to see you post it when you're done!

[dylan]

At 4/4/14 11:24 AM, JKR wrote: if you're putting something in your reel it should never be on 4s. It would have to be absolute animated genius to get away with 4s. And even then, directors are going to wonder "Why didn't he just finish the in betweens?"

I agree with everything else you've posted here 100%, but those three sentences simply aren't true. Fours, just like ones and twos, have their place in animation. It all comes down to stylistic choice in the end. Of course, fours shouldn't just be tossed around for no reason, but they, along with fives, sixes, eights, etc., all have uses.

I mean, take a look at these animations that all make great use of threes and up:
Everything I Can See From Here
Blown Minded
Wolfsong
Swelter
The Reward

Unless your life goal is to be an inbetweener, you shouldn't impose upon yourself standards from an era of animation that simply isn't relevant anymore. No director will toss out your reel just because it's got a lot of fours, and no director is going to hire you just because you've got a lot of ones.

Inbetweening everything to ones/twos just because it's some archaic standard is like using dramatic lighting for every single shot of your movie just because you've got the lighting crew on hand. It's not necessary for every scene, and overuse takes away its power/emphasis on scenes where it should be used (of course, working solely on fours will have that same effect).

As with everything else in animation, the decision of what pacing to work at should be consciously made, not arbitrarily chosen.

@toushinu - do the cycle on twos. It's good practice and it's hardly any drawings.

[JKR]

At 4/9/14 04:21 AM, dylan wrote:
Fours, just like ones and twos, have their place in animation.

We shall agree to disagree, then, good sir. I don't believe fours have any place in animation at all. The videos you posted are gorgeous works of art. What they lack is the professionalism that would come if they animated on 2s. As they are now they are choppy and not as nice as they'd be if they were complete and finished to the highest standard. Online you can get away with it, but do we really want to do animation "you can get away with" or do we want to do great, complete animation? Set those clips next to brilliant animation done on 2s and there's just no contest which is better.

http://vimeo.com/6873432#at=0
http://vimeo.com/24270906
http://vimeo.com/8611712
http://vimeo.com/29411830

[dylan]

At 4/9/14 07:29 AM, JKR wrote: I don't believe fours have any place in animation at all. The videos you posted are gorgeous works of art. What they lack is the professionalism that would come if they animated on 2s. As they are now they are choppy and not as nice as they'd be if they were complete and finished to the highest standard.

Lotta Crawford on your list. When someone hires Crawford, they aren't hiring him for his ability to hand-boil lines when the movement slows like he's done in the 11 second club piece and the Subway one, they’re hiring him for his ability to put emotion into drawings. That emotion comes through at the most raw movement of the characters. Emotion, that's what directors want, and any good director will hire the guy who captures that emotion over the guy who's pointlessly inbetweening just because that’s “the highest standard.”

Sure, Andreas Deja's work looks great on twos, but that's not why he's hired. Deja gets work because the emotion of Scar reads during the 1:33-1:41 segment, not because he inbetweens nicely with the 1:43-1:48 segment. If you can’t do great work on fours, your twos won’t look any better, and if your work on fours is reading nicely, it’s a safe bet for a director to make that you can work in twos as well.

I’m not going to sit and argue that fours are just as valid a style as twos for the final render of a piece any more than I would argue that impressionism is just as valid a style as realism. They’re both stylistic choices, and if you think one looks bad, that’s your deal. However, as far as demo reels go, unless you solely want to be an inbetweener, fours and up absolutely, unobjectionably have a place. Just ask Crawford.

[JKR]

Lotta Crawford on your list. When someone hires Crawford, they aren't hiring him for his ability to hand-boil lines when the movement slows like he's done in the 11 second club piece and the Subway one, they’re hiring him for his ability to put emotion into drawings. That emotion comes through at the most raw movement of the characters. Emotion, that's what directors want, and any good director will hire the guy who captures that emotion over the guy who's pointlessly inbetweening just because that’s “the highest standard.”

Sure, Andreas Deja's work looks great on twos, but that's not why he's hired. Deja gets work because the emotion of Scar reads during the 1:33-1:41 segment, not because he inbetweens nicely with the 1:43-1:48 segment. If you can’t do great work on fours, your twos won’t look any better, and if your work on fours is reading nicely, it’s a safe bet for a director to make that you can work in twos as well.

Totally fair. What I'm saying is what you mentioned in the last sentence there. If your work reads on 4s, the director can probably assume you can work on 2s as well. And WILL, because 2s are going to give you a better end result than 4s, every single time. Every time. Now, a case can (and often is) made that 1s will give you a better result than 2's, but I think that's a whole different story than 2s vs. 4s.

Can you achieve emotion on 4s? Yes. Can you achieve emotion on 78s? Sure, probably. I'm not denying that 4s can't WORK, I'm saying why stop there when 2s are just a better end product. You can regard it as a style choice, and that's fine. But objectively an animation on 2s looks better than the same animation on 4s. And in my opinion life is too short to cut corners and put things on 4s, especially if you are going for quality work.

(By the way, just as an aside, I had two pieces by B.J. because while he IS one of my favorite animators of today, more than that quality 2D just isn't being done much anymore, so I went to where I knew it existed. Sadly more and more animators are producing inferior work that people accept because quality levels have plummeted so severely in the past few decades. I don't think we should sit back and accept that, though. I feel striving to do better is the way to go.)

[JKR]

Do want to say, though, it's refreshing to chat with an animator who clearly knows their stuff. Usually that sort of discussion is regulated to higher end animation forums, like the 11 Second Club (in places) or just personal contacts within the industry. So thanks for being both civil and enlightening. It's appreciated. :)

[KhanhCPham]

I agree its an interesting chat that provides a lot of information while keeping it civil. Personally I animate in 2s, 3s, and rarely in 1s (takes too much time), 4s (I always get choppy results). I do use 4s in some cases though. An example in 4s is a slow motion scene where I did it in 2s but it moved so slow I didnt notice it was moving at all. My mind automatically registers the animation as "not moving." It was like a really slow morph. I changed to 4s and it looked much better because I was noticing the changes instantly.

Again it’s just a preference I use. Several animators have their own style and I enjoy a world where I can witness and learn these styles.

I guess if I summarize Dylan's comment is while the studio has a standard to keep, the animator also has a standard to keep. A lot of today's anime also have this standard where the studio allows a professional animator have their own take animating a specific scene.

Personally I enjoy when a studio allows the animator to have free reign because it makes the animation more surprising. If an animation has the same one direction throughout, the novelty seems to wear out.

I agree with Dylan comments with simply in-betweening don’t really provide emotion. It comes out looking like puppet moving in strings in my opinion.

An anime sakuga panel here discussed the difference between “in-betweener” while having an experience animator having there own take.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvx7p6-lABw

Again this is my own opinion and animation itself is subjective

[francisyfl]

Online you can get away with it

Also on film festivals and on feature films ... stop talking out of your ass

[francisyfl]

At 4/9/14 09:25 PM, francisyfl wrote:

Online you can get away with it

Also on film festivals and on feature films ... stop talking out of your ass

Actually, people online mostly animate on 1s and 2s cause they think more frames means better animation haha

[dylan]

I just want to throw this out there real quick: I’m a Picasso fanboy, his cubism is beautiful. Braque wasn't half-bad either. I love that their works don’t try to capture life in a 100% accurate way, rather that they actively go against how life works, throwing hard edges and jagged corners on natural objects. I love that art doesn’t need to be a perfect rendering of life. That’s one of the larger reasons I chose animation over strictly working in traditional film, because it doesn’t need to follow the rules of life. Now that that’s out of the way:

At 4/9/14 04:10 PM, JKR wrote: 2s are going to give you a better end result than 4s, every single time. Every time. Now, a case can (and often is) made that 1s will give you a better result than 2's, but I think that's a whole different story than 2s vs. 4s.

I'm saying why stop there when 2s are just a better end product.

objectively an animation on 2s looks better than the same animation on 4s. And in my opinion life is too short to cut corners and put things on 4s, especially if you are going for quality work.

Sadly more and more animators are producing inferior work that people accept because quality levels have plummeted so severely in the past few decades. I don't think we should sit back and accept that, though. I feel striving to do better is the way to go.

At that point though, why stop at twos? Twos were essentially invented by people at Disney saying, “Hey, we can do half the work, pay people half the money, get twice the work out, and people won’t care all that much! Why don’t we do that?” Twos were simply Disney’s “you can get away with it.” If your argument is that more frames is equivalent to better quality, then you need to be arguing for work done entirely on ones, as anything else would be cutting corners in a short life.

Hell, Peter Jackson shot The Hobbit at 48fps. If we take your argument that more frames is equivalent to higher quality, we should all start working at that frame rate, make 24fps be the new twos. I mean, anything less would be cutting corners, right?

Of course, there’s also the argument that 48fps just doesn’t look good, though. Plenty of people just hate the way it looks with a passion. But, wait, that would mean that, all else being equal, more frames is not inherently equivalent to higher quality. Which means that twos are simply a stylistic choice of yours, rather than something that is “objectively better.” In the end, it again comes down to a stylistic choice when you’re working at anything other than the highest framerate that a projector can display, which was exactly my case for fours, a stylistic choice on how to depict life.

However if you think Picasso's Cubism would be better if the jagged corners were smoothed out and he painted it more like real life, far be it from me to convince you otherwise.

[JKR]

At 4/9/14 09:25 PM, francisyfl wrote: Also on film festivals and on feature films ...

My apologies, I don't know the feature films that have been shot on 4s. Which ones?

[JKR]

At 4/10/14 02:52 AM, dylan wrote:
Of course, there’s also the argument that 48fps just doesn’t look good, though. Plenty of people just hate the way it looks with a passion. But, wait, that would mean that, all else being equal, more frames is not inherently equivalent to higher quality. Which means that twos are simply a stylistic choice of yours, rather than something that is “objectively better.” In the end, it again comes down to a stylistic choice when you’re working at anything other than the highest framerate that a projector can display, which was exactly my case for fours, a stylistic choice on how to depict life.

That's a great example. So, you have the Hobbit which is shot at 48fps and the version at 24fps. You can compare the two next to each other. Some people like the 48fps version, and some like the 24.

On the flip side, I've never seen or heard of anyone, or any argument, in any studio outside of the "anything goes" world of the internet, that has someone do an animation on 2's and had anyone, anywhere, say "That would look a lot better on 4's." Ever. That's not to say someone might consider something on 2's improperly TIMED, of course. Just a few posts above someone mentioned that. On 2's the timing didn't work, but on 4's it did. That's a totally different thing. That's a shortcut to change planning instead of going back and making the motion work on 2's. That isn't that 4s are a better choice, that is that 4s fix the timing issue of it on 2s. The timing PROBLEM.

I have come across plenty of people who, like the Peter Jackson thing, feel 1's make things too "creamy" for lack of a better word. I've seen that discussion between 1's and 2's happen all the time. Never, ever ever, have I seen any animator say to put something on 4's instead of 2's. And never, ever ever, have I seen an animation in the real world that would not be improved by being on 2s instead of the choppy framerate it was at.

I like your Picasso comparison, but I don't think it's the same thing at all. You're talking artistic style in line quality and emotion vs. physiological reaction of the human eye. One is subjective, based on what we LIKE, and the other is objective, based on human anatomy and the way the brain functions when viewing still images played in succession.

It's a fun discussion, but I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree. You're not convincing me any differently with examples of 24fps vs. 48fps, and I don't have any examples of 2s vs 4s to convince you. I think the videos you posted earlier would look vastly superior if they were timed out on 2s and you don't. That's what it boils down to.

Good talk anyway!

[dylan]

At 4/10/14 10:33 AM, JKR wrote:

At 4/9/14 09:25 PM, francisyfl wrote: Also on film festivals and on feature films ...

My apologies, I don't know the feature films that have been shot on 4s. Which ones?

Ernest and Celestine, an oscar nominated feature and quite arguably one of the most beautiful films of 2012/13, pops into mind as a film that uses threes and fours all the time.

The Wind Rises, the Studio Ghibli film also nominated for an Oscar, works on threes and fours quite often as well.

That's right, the only 2D animated feature nominees make extensive use of 3s and 4s. Neither of those movies could ever be considered to have a "lack of professionalism" that you claim comes with working on anything other than twos.

You're opinion may be that 3s and up are unprofessional, but, when the entire professional world disagrees with you so much as to place these works on a universally lauded pedestal, your opinion is simply wrong.

[francisyfl]

At 4/10/14 02:09 PM, dylan wrote:

Your opinion may be that 3s and up are unprofessional, but, when the entire professional world disagrees with you so much as to place these works on a universally lauded pedestal, your opinion is simply wrong.

Headshot

[dylan]

At 4/10/14 04:50 PM, KameStudios wrote: Where are you getting these "3's" and "4's" data on these feature films? I'm not trying to argue or anything, I'm just intrigued by how these professional level studios use them in their films.

Well the first thing to realize is that it's all relative. Working on threes, unless otherwise noted, refers to one keyframe every three frames at 24fps. Working on ones at 8fps and working on 6s at 48fps are both equivalent to what is referred to as "threes." In the same way, working on threes at 8fps would be like working on nines at 24fps. So when I say Ernest and Celestine has a lot of threes, I mean that relative to 24fps. For all I know, E and C was shot at 480fps and they were actually working on 60s, I'm just assuming the standard 24fps for the sake of conversation.

with that out of the way, ones, twos, fours, and sixes all have a very distinct look to them. Above that, you can still tell when a hold is longer, but you'd be hard pressed to guess how many frames it actually is. Threes and fives can kinda look like their surrounding rates, but after a while you can tell them apart, or at least get better at guessing them.

Outside of looking at the films' source files, you probably won't find much hard data on their rates, but you can still tell by sight. For the films I mentioned, I could tell by looking that they weren't playing solely on twos. It's hard to describe, but the frames feel like they're hanging for a small, extra moment. Just something you pick up on after animating a bunch.

You can also always download clips and go for a quick frame-by-frame scrub through on them to check on their actual numbers.

[KhanhCPham]

I remember analyzing an anime film doing a frame by frame snapshot of a 24fps anime and it’s timed using all 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s in one scene. It was overwhelming to analyze. Heck I'd say they just placed drawings to see if it looks right without thinking whether to use 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s.

Then again where JKR argument of animation that is strictly working with 4s is going to get unpleasant choppy results is understandable and a lot of people do criticized the look of an animation that is working strictly in 4s. Personally I wouldn’t work strictly on 4s myself.

By observation on specific well done scenes, it uses mostly 1s, 2s, and uses of 3s, 4s is used minimal. I find these break away of making the scenes looking systematical. Point is they use ALL frame types.

Another thought just came up to me is how to judge an animation. It’s the idea of judging the overall film as a whole or just one specific scene.

I know that in Studio Ghibli calls for a specific animator to do keyscene to bring out a specific emotion. There can be another scene where the studio called another specific animator to bring a different emotion. With great direction, the film can be amazing while working with a lot of different type of animators. This bring variety to the film.

Would it hurt if it is done in one specific way?

What happens if the studio uses an animator that provides a great visual scene but just simply doesnt work for the direction of the film but that same scene worked great in another film where it is directed differently.

Should we blame the direction? the animator?

Because of this, it is hard for me on how to judge an animation as it can vary.

Again this is just my opinion I admit I may have a bias toward anime so it may retract some people.

This is a place to share ideas and if someone has an opinion, I cant deny him/her to having an opinion. Its great to gather information.

So if I rate on what frame types to use in ONE scene, it would be:
Using all 1s-4s= awesome
Using just 1s=awesome
Using just 2s=awesome
Using just 3s=okay
Using just 4s=meh

[JKR]

At 4/10/14 02:09 PM, dylan wrote:
You're opinion may be that 3s and up are unprofessional, but, when the entire professional world disagrees with you so much as to place these works on a universally lauded pedestal, your opinion is simply wrong.

I'm not really voicing an opinion here. (And if I were, "what is popular" hardly counts as proof of an opinion being wrong. By that token South Park has great animation.) My entire point has been, and continues to be, that 2s look better. Not because of style, but because the human eye requires a certain speed to put together moving pictures. I'm thrilled those films created beautiful artwork at a lesser framerate. Kudos to them. Wish they hadn't been commercial failures, but that's the audiences of today for you. I stand by my statement of the superiority of 2s to 4s, and I do so not because of my personal opinion, but because it is technically superior. If you like 4s more, bravo, more power to you. No harm in liking something that is technically inferior, THAT is where opinion comes into play. I enjoyed Great Mouse Detective way more than Pocahontas, despite Pocahontas being the better crafted film. As I said above, that's pretty much that. (By the by, Ernest and Celestine is a mix of 1s - 4s, with the vast majority of scenes being done on 2s. And I stand by the fact that it looks no where near as good as the likes of Pinocchio, Aladdin, Lion King, Iron Giant, take your pick, from a strictly animation standpoint, art aside. I'm not talking about art here, I'm talking about movement. AND the films above lost to a film that was done on 1s to boot.)

In the end KhanhCPham makes the best point, which is that contrast is really the key. That's why the best animations ever created use a mix of 1's and 2's, with holds (and moving holds) that take things outside of just constantly moving 1's and 2's.

[dylan]

At 4/11/14 02:51 PM, JKR wrote: I'm not really voicing an opinion here. (And if I were, "what is popular" hardly counts as proof of an opinion being wrong. By that token South Park has great animation.)

An unfair comparison. South Park is praised for the content of its writing, not its art. Any positive review of the show will mention something along the lines of “great in spite of its god-awful animation.” In addition, much of South Park is on twos, and I certainly wouldn’t say that those parts are animated better than any low-rate shot in Ernest and Celestine. More frames ≠ better animation.

My entire point has been, and continues to be, that 2s look better. Not because of style, but because the human eye requires a certain speed to put together moving pictures.

That’s simply not true. You give the human brain far too little credit. The brain can make a face out of an electrical outlet, a body out of a stick figure, and it’s entirely capable of interpreting movement from still images played at one frame per .125 seconds. That’s what kept humans from being killed by the thing standing almost perfectly still out of the corner of the eye, that we are hardwired assume movement. This is why animation works, because the human brain is capable of misinterpreting movement from the sequential playing of still images, and there’s no limitation on the human brain that says .08 seconds is aways movement while .125 seconds is always two still images.

I stand by my statement of the superiority of 2s to 4s, and I do so not because of my personal opinion, but because it is technically superior.

The only inherent technically superior aspect of ones/twos is that they take more processing power to display. Technically better, when referring to animation itself, is not a part of the technology used to craft a piece, but of the skill of the animators behind the piece, or else South Park scenes shot on twos would be considered just as well animated as Lion King simply because they both move a bunch.

a strictly animation standpoint, art aside. I'm not talking about art here, I'm talking about movement.

Animation is art. There is no distinction to be made, in the same way that a certain camera lens is chosen for its specific vantage of a scene, that a lighting technician chooses to light a stage in a way that evokes the mood of a scene, that a microphone is chosen for its specific pickup pattern. It's all part of the art, one and the same. Flat lighting is not technically superior to cinematic lighting simply because there is more visual data recorded by the camera, the widest lens is not always the best choice, and an omnidirectional mic is rarely the best answer despite its wide pickup range. In the same way, twos are not always the best choice for animation simply because there is more movement.

the films above lost to a film that was done on 1s to boot.

Completely irrelevant. What's important to note is that pieces featuring plenty of work at a rate you claim has "no place in animation at all" were nominated as the best animated feature of the year by professionals. If threes+ had no place in animation at all, these pieces would be laughed out of any film festival worth noting instead of being praised for their beauty.

In the end KhanhCPham makes the best point, which is that contrast is really the key. That's why the best animations ever created use a mix of 1's and 2's, with holds (and moving holds) that take things outside of just constantly moving 1's and 2's.

I seem to recall someone saying that anything other than ones and twos had absolutely no place in professional animation at all. If I'm not mistaken, that means never. My point is that threes and up are completely valid in the proper circumstances, and if you’re agreeing to that, then this conversation is over. You may disagree with me on how often they may be used, but my point was simply that they have their place. Beyond that, you can have your own opinion on the subject.

[JKR]

At 4/11/14 05:01 PM, dylan wrote:
It's all part of the art, one and the same.

I politely disagree. I think you can judge the parts of a whole separately. Which is exactly what I'm talking about here. One can have beautiful animation and terrible artwork. One can have beautiful artwork, and mediocre animation (as is much more often the case). You can also, of course, judge it as a whole. It doesn't ONLY have to be the whole, though. My opinion on it, feel free to disagree.

My point is that threes and up are completely valid in the proper circumstances, and if you’re agreeing to that, then this conversation is over. You may disagree with me on how often they may be used, but my point was simply that they have their place.

My opinion is it isn't "valid" if the option to do it on 2s and make it look better is available. (Which is kind of incorrect, because who am I to say what is "valid?" I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying it could be technically better.) That opinion is based on the evidence I've seen that no animation looks better on 4s than properly timed on 2s. I just haven't seen anything that supports that argument. "But some people still do it" isn't any proof to me. Ernest and Celestine looks fantastic from an artistic standpoint, and they did a bang up job. It would have looked even better on 2s throughout with a blend of 1s where necessary. If you want to believe that's my opinion, cool beans. It is my opinion because I see no evidence otherwise.

And with that, I shall stop trying to argue otherwise! I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, if I come across something that is better on 4's than on 2's. I look forward to seeing if that ever happens, and if it does I'll be sure to come back to this thread and be like "Wow! It was true all along, I was wrong." :) In the meantime, have a good day and I hope to talk to you more in other threads about other awesome animation stuff. Like how nice the run cycles of your Pine game that you have on your tumblr are. Really great job there. Cheers!

[Rational-Delirium]

At 4/1/14 12:29 AM, toinu wrote: So I'm in the process of learning how to animate a walk cycle, but I'm also doing it as a kind of fan project for something so i stay interested, so I have a question on frames.

I don't want to spend too too much time on this one animation (probably something really stupid to think when it comes to animation in general ha). On the other hand because I am learning I probably want to get the most out of this and do it on two's and if it's good include it in my portfolio for the time being.

I think this is the question that you guys should've stuck to. Things to consider are who you are, who you're making it for, and what's your goal.

Variables for who you are:
- Aspiring animator
- Hobbyist

Variables for who you're making it for:
- Potential employers
- Yourself, and no one but yourself

Variables for what's your goal:
- To impress Walt Disney, to win an oscar
- To make a fan animation to stay interested

Since those three variables can be infinitely variable, anything is valid. The only invalid answer is the one that says that any one method is invalid.

So guys, who are you making your animations for? And what are your goals? I'm sure they're all different.

[JKR]

At 4/11/14 07:50 PM, Rational-Delirium wrote:

:Things to consider are who you are, who you're making it for, and what's your goal.

Variables for who you are:
- Aspiring animator
- Hobbyist

Variables for who you're making it for:
- Potential employers
- Yourself, and no one but yourself

Variables for what's your goal:
- To impress Walt Disney, to win an oscar
- To make a fan animation to stay interested

Those are awesome questions, I totally agree. :)

You're probably going to want to make several different reels depending on where you're sending it and for what position, too. Some places will put more emphasis on one area, while others look more at another. Lots to consider!

[dylan]

At 4/11/14 07:50 PM, Rational-Delirium wrote: I think this is the question that you guys should've stuck to. Things to consider are who you are, who you're making it for, and what's your goal.

I think the general consensus was that toushinu should aim for twos for the walk cycle, as that's simply the best animation practice for a beginner despite any other personal goals or aspirations. You can't drive before learning how the steering wheel works, and you can't make art before you know how to draw a sphere.

The rest of this thread stemmed from "if you're putting something in your reel it should never be on 4s," which is under the assumption that someone is looking for professional work.

[Rational-Delirium]

At 4/12/14 12:07 AM, dylan wrote:
I think the general consensus was that toushinu should aim for twos for the walk cycle, as that's simply the best animation practice for a beginner despite any other personal goals or aspirations. You can't drive before learning how the steering wheel works, and you can't make art before you know how to draw a sphere.

The rest of this thread stemmed from "if you're putting something in your reel it should never be on 4s," which is under the assumption that someone is looking for professional work.

Yep, I realized later that there were two parts of the thread because toushinu already decided to do 4s and then inbetweens on 2s, my bad. My personal opinion is that 4s for a walk cycle is a bit crazy. When I looked at good anime frame-by-frame, it was either 3s and 2s or 2s and 1s, depending on the show. 4s might be for average anime, but I'm not even sure about that.

[JKR]

At 4/12/14 10:32 AM, Rational-Delirium wrote:

4s might be for average anime, but I'm not even sure about that.

Probably depends on the anime. I know a lot of the older stuff was actually done pretty darn well, and while still a bit limited overall, the moving bits were animated traditionally just in the anime style. Anime is a really interesting sub-sect of animation that has a lot to learn from. They do a great job keeping things alive without actually moving a ton (and their ability to re-use animation over and over is pretty amazing!).

[EvilRaccoon]

At 4/10/14 02:52 AM, dylan wrote: Twos were essentially invented by people at Disney saying, “Hey, we can do half the work, pay people half the money, get twice the work out, and people won’t care all that much! Why don’t we do that?” Twos were simply Disney’s “you can get away with it.” If your argument is that more frames is equivalent to better quality, then you need to be arguing for work done entirely on ones, as anything else would be cutting corners in a short life.

Sorry, but what a lot of horse shit. Seriously.

Disney did not just work on two's because it was "half the work, and you would pay "half the money". You need to read more about the production history and work in it before making crackpot claims. Disney worked when movement was concerned on ones and two's and the reasons they stated are simple. Production was quick, as time was a massive factor in traditional animation that was demand by the financers. This didn't mean Walt payed his employees less, because they did "half the work". It was common practice already before Disney came about to work mostly on two's then add that one frame in when needed. I repeat Disney DID NOT only work on twos. If you studied animation or even simply still framed one of their animations you'll see that Disney worked on both 2's and 1's and whatever was necessary to show the motion. Meaning, like everyone else, held frames, shot on ones when it was a fast movement or a clean movement had to be perceived more fluently. The main reason why companies EVEN TODAY work on two's and put that one in whenever needed is that boiling occurs. Any traditional animator will tell you that when drawing on paper or creating on cell or digital if the characters is making extremely slight and tight movements and you do it on 1's boiling occurs.

So before you go about claiming Walt chose that Disney should work on 2's do some research, because even in the 30's if you watch the likes of Snow White you can see frames are on ones, twos, and more. They did what looked good! You make out that Disney Studios was built on an empire which butchered animation because of your irrational claim of working on twos. You're completely clueless, and when Walt did push where every single frame had to be a "work of art" in Sleeping beauty it damn near bankrupted the studio resulting to cuts, loss of jobs and nearly the end of Disney!

The techniques of "what should I work on? 1's 2's" etc is a falsehood amongst young digital animators. The technique to use is simple. You draw your keys on the framerate you are outputing to 23.976/24/29.976/30 - whatever, and get the timing of those key's right. Then it's up to the inbetweens to go in there. While still using the principles of animation to maintain arcs, mass, easing etc. If you have enough in-betweens using spacing and timing well your animation will look smooth. If it looks stuttered and jittery then you need an additional frame to smooth it out. That was what Disney did. And that in production is still what we do today!

[Otto]

My advice to people here would be not to get too bogged down in 4s, 2s and 1s, but to play around and experiment with timing. Plan your movement and test it in a rough stage.