Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Looks like it was made (partly?) with TVP, though I am not 100% certain...: blog
And on the Wacom it looks like the TVP interface...?

Hahaha, David Nethery PM me last week concerning this video.

Animation Workshop gets many TVP licenses and I recognize TVP on the Cintiq so... =)

Maybe Mads Juul could know ? I know he keeps in touch with Animation Workshop =)

Elodie wrote:
Maybe Mads Juul could know ? I know he keeps in touch with Animation Workshop =)

I just asked a student from the same year and Yes it is completey Animated in TV Paint.(I think the Backgrounds and Compositing is made in another software)

really wonderfull work !
-Mads

Wonderful execution, particularly if it was made as a student project (not clear to me) or even a first post-graduate film. I have one major quibble, and I am sure mine will be a lonely voice, which is I don't see the need to use 2 1/2 D tricks in the camera moves. What purpose does it serve? I think it devalues all the real drawing work that went into the film because it gives the false impression to the public that the film was made mostly by computers. Besides, this layering of flat props accentuates the flatness of the 2D world in more ways than is necessary -- for me, it just gets in the way.

I think this film is a good example of adopting the design to the realities of production, by which I mean the characters are easy to animate, they mostly just bounce or fly and crash which is enhanced by extreme fast editing which makes work easier since only a few scenes have to be entirely completed. A particularly useful approach when a whole team of people are working within a tough deadline while nothing looks cheated.

At this pace you can get away with a lot of simplified animation while nothing ever really stops. It's not new but it's done well and with good purposefulness. This is a film I'd like to have every one of my students watch and study (I start teaching again this coming fall).

Paul Fierlinger wrote:Wonderful execution, particularly if it was made as a student project (not clear to me) or even a first post-graduate film. I have one major quibble, and I am sure mine will be a lonely voice, which is I don't see the need to use 2 1/2 D tricks in the camera moves. What purpose does it serve? I think it devalues all the real drawing work that went into the film because it gives the false impression to the public that the film was made mostly by computers. Besides, this layering of flat props accentuates the flatness of the 2D world in more ways than is necessary -- for me, it just gets in the way.

I think this film is a good example of adopting the design to the realities of production, by which I mean the characters are easy to animate, they mostly just bounce or fly and crash which is enhanced by extreme fast editing which makes work easier since only a few scenes have to be entirely completed. A particularly useful approach when a whole team of people are working within a tough deadline while nothing looks cheated.

At this pace you can get away with a lot of simplified animation while nothing ever really stops. It's not new but it's done well and with good purposefulness. This is a film I'd like to have every one of my students watch and study (I start teaching again this coming fall).

Just a personal opinion, but students like 2 1/2 D, it makes things look like big superproductions. That could be the reason they are used

Elodie wrote:Hahaha, David Nethery PM me last week concerning this video.

Animation Workshop gets many TVP licenses and I recognize TVP on the Cintiq so... =)

Maybe Mads Juul could know ? I know he keeps in touch with Animation Workshop =)

Confirmed by one of the film maker's on their Vimeo page :
http://vimeo.com/9349225


------------

Thanks David =)

*am going to contact this guy to have a copy of Vegeterrible *