Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Who hasn't wondered what a test of animating in singles compared to two's would come out looking like? I have an example here; the first one is drawn in 2's with a following scene placed there just for continuity and separation between the two test scenes of the man running across the scene. I'm curious to find out what people here think of it.
EDIT: I don't know why I can't upload a simple wmv, so you can find it here:
http://www.video.paulfierlinger.com/2lip/
It's the clip, called SlocumSpeedTest.

stay in two's*, and avoid the double-work !
to go in one's won't bring any advantage in your style,
your peculiar loose-slack-wavy lines will become too jerky at 24 drawings/s,
but work splendidly in two's, or even in three's ...

*(unless you hire a very accurate/perfectionist inbetweener who love dogs, heurh... boat now !)

Hm hm ... I'd like to see the 2's variant in colour. "Colour slows down everything." In this scene the character moves fast across the screen, so there's just minimum overlap from frame to frame. Further, I assume it's a dark character against a bright BG. If I imagine this on a big screen, it might appear as "shatter".

Could'nt you colour it just with 2 plain colours, the suit and the main BG colour, so the test would really say something? (and with sound, if possible - just the steps)

The only reason for 1's should be the avoidance of flickering/shattering, or some really fast momement. Other than that, I agree with Otto.

I completely agree with you, Z.O.. I believe that even the Disney animators of old often thought that animating in two's looked better to them.

But back to this, more modern style of drawing, which I believe many people here are close to in concept too, such as Klaus or Asaf, it looks better in two's because it brings out the nature of the pen or pencil lines and anchors the individual drawings into the motion. It's as if we were looking at a collection of individual drawings that form motion, rather than the first drawing brought into motion.

Markus, Sandra and I contemplated for a short moment doing and testing out exactly what you have described but we decided that it would be wasted time since we will never switch to singles drawing anyway. The reason why I made this pencil test was that I felt that since the man is running so fast, here is a case where the scene would benefit from single animation. I don't believe it has, for exactly the reasons Z.O. has pointed out; the shaky, wavy, thin pen and ink drawing style -- if anything, it makes it worse, so I don't think coloring would change much at all.

I agree that 1's are not necessary in this scene to make it more fluent. The movement is still in the "normal speed" range, IMO. But I was really worrying about the effect of not enough overlap from frame to frame, combined with a high contrast image. Oh well. I guess if testing on screen shows that more inbetweens are necessary, you could quite easily add them (or shift this job to one of your numerous assistants ...)

Another thing dawned to me this morning. In all films taking place on boats, there's this very small but perceptable movement of the boat and/or the horizon. In your example the first scene would have the camera outside of the boat, having a visible boat movement as well as the horizon, the second has the camera inside the same boat, so only the horizon would be moving. Did you already plan for that, maybe with working in a slightly bigger profect size?

Did you already plan for that, maybe with working in a slightly bigger profect size?I

I don't know how I'm going to tackle the ever-presence of water; it's a challenge I've always been aware of and frankly, even one of the reasons I selected this story.

I am thinking more in terms of staying away from the expected tricks. Having spent many years around boats myself, I think the common expectation of always seeing motion is exaggerated. It's like that comical notion of years ago when actors pretended that they were driving while being filmed in front of a moving backdrop and they always tended to overdo the wiggling of the steering wheel to and fro.

A Heavy wooden boat can sit in still water as solidly as a house on ground. But it's more than that. Have you noticed how many animated films will leave out crowds on streets through which a character moves? Empty streetcars he rides? Bars void of customers other than himself? And no one seems to notice or at least care. There's the direction I want to explore. Long distance sailing seems to most who have undertaken it (not me) to be a constant exchange of moments of sheer panic or stupefying boredom.

This movie will make use of many instances of stage-like settings; deliberately naive and over simplified but heavily dependent on clever dialogue full of wit, which will be written by an accomplished New York playwright. But then there will be those contrasts of life at sea too; highly animated scenes of horrendous storms at sea that might take me weeks to create (opposed to days or mere hours). One technique will make up for the other over time so that I will still be able to deliver under three years.

Animated films should be made full of surprises and less of expected cliches.

I always like the look of ones as oppposed to two's, maybe it's because I have done a lot of theatre, acting, puppeteering, mime and even body work, so my sense of movement is very much tuned in on perceiving it rather consecutively, and getting all the subtleties in there - even though I love two's, ones just makes more compulsive viewing for me, and I guess that's one of the main reasons i like it so . In my experience it's about getting your timing, spacing and arcs in the right place, if you don't succeed with that, you are going to end up with a very mushy sense of movement. Also in my experience if you take a scene made on two's, and simply inbetween the whole thing just to make it on ones, that doesn't necesarilly get you a more justified difference, since the the perception of speed has been altered, and I believe that there is something in that accomodation that is relevant.

To me the reason why I don't think the sailor man on ones works so well is because the spacing and the arcs are very mushy and vaguely defined, the emotional intention in the character however is there, and that is half the battle. I definitley think that the sailor man style lends itself much better on two's. For me working on ones means that you have to work with solid drawing, because the eye/brain is fed with a lot of image information. As opposed to two's where you are literally fed with half that information. Imagine a live action movie (on 24fps ofcourse) where the actors physicalities consists of shaky outlines and wobbly movement, I guess that one could fairly quickly get pretty darn tired of watching 100 minutes or so of this. I know that live action and 2D animation is two different things, but put in perspective I think that the perception of movement has many nuances and questions that we maybe not all the time are aware of.

What about this one : I know some 2D animators who keeps yelling out that two's is the only truth, and that ones looks just way to wrong. But then you start to get a bit underneath it all, then it goes to show that some of those with that conviction, sees 2D as a way to just get by - not much passion, and if there's too much of a workload, or it doesn't quite unfold itself as they had planned, then they start to bitch about this and that. One could get the impression (purely subjective ofcourse) that the reason they think two's are more "right" is because that's how they justify it in relation to themselves, they actually dislike the work, and so they are not honest about what they really see. But it isn't always like that ofcourse, I'm merely pointing out that besides the craft with its numerous styles and design, there lies an emotional reality in there too - meaning what you see is what you got.

But what about placing an example, the great unfinished masterpiece Richard Williams' Thief and The Cobbler, is made using ones, and if you look at the rich and versatile display of movement especially with the character Zig Zag, you can't blame ones for always making animation look wavery or wobbly, maybe one isn't good enough at timing and spacing or even drawing, but that can clearly be dealt with. And in my experience - if you get it right on ones it works.

You would obviously notice if the latest Pixar 3D movie was made using two's - right? "But 2D and 3D aint' the same!" - right, but you are still portraying masses and movement, in 2D you create the shapes by lines, as opposed to virtual models in 3D. 3D doesn't have to deal with drawn proportions, perpective etc. in the same manner as 2D where you have to start from scratch with almost every frame, so in 3D you have the luxury of being able to create supersmooth movement and then some... And you don't question that - right? So just because one isn't good enough, or doesn't like the look of smooth clear 2D animation on ones, should 2D just be this niche kinda thing, by showing movement at half the speed we are used to watch?. I see great possibilities (especially with TVP) in 2D animation, where the quality and quantity of 2D really can burst because one has much more freedom, feedback and improvisation abilities, as opposed to the traditional way of animating. And maybe people will get more interested in the principles of the craft, and thus creating images and animation that can put 2D back on the surface, now that we are so accustomed to perceive motion on 24fps. But ofcourse it's double the workload, there is clearly difference between 12 and 24, but instead of seeing the huge gap, why not turn it around and say - "Well, what's the double of say two drawings - four drawings, not that much." If one tried to stay in the moment, instead of taking in the stressful load all at once, and appreeciate the fluidity in the result - In the long run I think it would do one good, actually whether it's on ones or two's.

But I believe in both ways, and I use ones and two's whenever i feel it to be relevant, many of you know that many fast action is on ones and acting and walks is on two's, and then combining those in various ways and styles can get you some very interesting results.

Jesoped, where can we see some of your work?

Definitely much more interesting in two's.
The good pace is there, the bouncing, the rhythm. The one in one's doesn't breathe.

Thanks for sharing the example.

david

There's no One True Way here. One's and Two's (and Three's sometimes) all have their place in animation. But there's a common misconception that "one's" are always better. They're not. I'd even say there are movements you can do on two's but not on one's... because on two's the viewer will interpolate what's "misssing" and complete the movement much better than you could animate it. (I think I saw an example once with a walk by Goofy, where the movement was completely impossible because the foot at one point would have to go through the other leg for one frame - impossible to draw on one's, completely convincing on two's.)

Not that I climb up to this level of animated delicacy often. But I've seen great scenes on two's which were given to an inbetweener who completely ruined it just by adding standard inbetweens on every frame. The trick seems to be that an animator needs to know from the start if his scene ends up on one's or on two's, thus placing the poses differently. And of course it makes a difference how good the inbetweener is.

2's is better. Paul, how much have you drawn on 1's over your career? I'm guessing not a lot (which also might have something to do with how it looks. Maybe if you draw 24 fps for about 10 years, it would look better somehow? Though probably not).

I think enough ocean motion might end up with a number of ill audience members (like me, I get motion sickness rapidly). I don't see any problem with avoiding that-probably be distracting anyway.

Jesoped,

What about early silent films (16 fps0? Would you prefer that they had done those films at a higher frame rate? They seem to work fine. DW Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Fritz Lang, Buster Keaton (and many more) made some very good, and important live action films at lower frame rates.

All this technical minutia. Who cares what frame rate, or tools or whatever else goes into the final product, as long as it works? On the rare occasion that I show someone a test, I don't tell the viewer anything about it. "Watch this, which do you prefer?" Tell us after we watch and comment-no preconceptions to fit to the test that way.

Sometimes there can be more valid reasons for upgrading than aesthetics. 16 fps had to be sped up to 24 fps to accommodate a sound track which requires that speed to sound properly.

Jesoped,

What about early silent films (16 fps0? Would you prefer that they had done those films at a higher frame rate? They seem to work fine. DW Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Fritz Lang, Buster Keaton (and many more) made some very good, and important live action films at lower frame rates.

User 767,
I was talking about the perception of movement in motion pictures in the last 80 years or so, silent movies are great for what they are - or were .

All this technical minutia. Who cares what frame rate, or tools or whatever else goes into the final product, as long as it works? On the rare occasion that I show someone a test, I don't tell the viewer anything about it. "Watch this, which do you prefer?" Tell us after we watch and comment-no preconceptions to fit to the test that way.

I can't see myself invovled in an animated project where frame rate, the tools or whatever else didn't mean something for the final product, call it technical minutia, for me it's a part of the craft. Even working traditionally, the quality of the pen and paper meant something to me (I once had to reclean-up a long scene, because the paper was insufficient at absorbing the pen-line, it didn't look like that at first, but the scanner couldn't register the line properly) now with digital it means even more - the drawing/animation software, graphics tablet, quality of the LCD screen, computer capacity etc. Sometimes the projects demands to be very specific, and then I have to adapt to that. But yes, it's all about if it works or not, and one shouldn't dwell on technical issues.

Paul Fierlinger wrote:Jesoped, where can we see some of your work?

I currently don't have a website or a blog - in that way I am still old fashioned, but I am working on it, and I would someday love to share with you some of my work - stay tuned . Paul, I have to say that you are the Ingemar Bergman of the TVP Forum and beyond - the sailor animated scenes in colour, is filled with a sense of earthness and believability - it's quite clear that you have a passion for boats and the ocean. And it's inspiring to see just how natural TVP animation can be.