I am so glad we finally completed the documentary it was quite a challenge but I'm walking away with a lot of new knowledge from this. The end result might not be what I imagined and it seems as if I stayed in the comfort zone with this, but as long as it makes people lough I am happy with it:
Monday 9 May 2016
Finished Animation
So after all these months of blood sweat and tear the FOOD documentary is finished !
I am so glad we finally completed the documentary it was quite a challenge but I'm walking away with a lot of new knowledge from this. The end result might not be what I imagined and it seems as if I stayed in the comfort zone with this, but as long as it makes people lough I am happy with it:
I am so glad we finally completed the documentary it was quite a challenge but I'm walking away with a lot of new knowledge from this. The end result might not be what I imagined and it seems as if I stayed in the comfort zone with this, but as long as it makes people lough I am happy with it:
Applied Animation: Finishing up
So as the animations were almost finished I left it up to Ollie to finish up the Ethan scene and do the titles. I fixed the composition on the surgeon scene because the character seemed to be out of frame so I converted the whole character animation timeline into a graphic symbol and just moved it around the composition until it looked good. We had a bit difficulty deciding on the title but we went for a simple solution: FOOD it is the one common theme among the three interviews so that is what we went with. Ollie decided to put some background sounds in the animations. I thought it was a great idea, but i was mainly beeping sounds- the heart monitor sound effect and the NASSA transmit ion sound effect added up to too much beeping in my opinion, so did not agree with the choice of sounds, but we decided to ask Martin and he said the sound effects seemed to suit the animations and that we should leave them in the animation. Also when the whole animation was rendered out I was not happy that the astronauts interviews were compressed and looked pixelated. Ollie said that was due to me giving him a .mov file instead of an image sequence. So I gave him an image sequence and it was a quick fix.
By the time the video was fixed I finished the DVD cover:
By the time the video was fixed I finished the DVD cover:
Applied Animation: Animating the Surgeon
So for the last critique session I had the surgeon scene key framed and ready to animate. When it came to actually animating I could not find the key frammed version of the scene and I had one file that would not open. So basically whatever I had ready to animate was gone. Thankfully I had the keyframed version exported to a .mov file and could look it up. It was nearing the dead line and I was a bit puzzled as I did not know what to do: if I should try and re animate it and do as much as I could or call it a day turn in whatever I had at this point. I went to Mike for advice and I am really glad I did. Mike suggested I try and finish this project as much as I can without break myself over it, I figured the more I did the more points I would score so I went back to the surgeon scene, re did it according to the .mov file I had. At this point set the key poses and went on animating the face. I though if the face was animated and I did not have time to do the in-betweens of the key poses the animation would still look alright, after all, there are plenty of animations done in this way like Neurotically Yours
At this point the animation was looking alright, not the way I wanted it to be animated but the best I could do under these circumstances.
Applied Animation: Lip Synching
Animating the face of the astronauts was difficult but I ended up having fun with it. We had a whole lecture about lip syncing and we even made quick animations on after effects to test it. We were showed which mouth movements simulate which sounds and how to animate it.
When I was ready to animate the face of the astronauts I thought it would be beneficial to try and sketch the characters talking as well as practice face expressions so I made this sketch:
This made the animating a lot easier, when I was doing the lips I kept looking this sketch up. Also, while animating the face I decided to improvise a little with the facial expressions because there were some pauses and in the interview as well as giggles or weird noises. When it came to animating the male astronaut a.k.a. it was really fun because he was not talking too much so I just worked on the facial expressions and did not have to go through the tedious work of lip syncing, I made quick sketch to practice some facial expressions:
I wanted to make this character to add something to the interview instead of just floating around. And when the animation was done I think i achieved that. I was really happy with this interview being done so I showed it to my parents first. They both got a good laugh out of it which pretty much was all that mattered to me with this interview. Here is the finished scene:
Applied Animation: animating Astronauts
Since the file was set up to animate I have started key framing. As the sound was synched to the timeline and I could stream the sound, that made it really easy to set up the key frames. So first off I have done the tweens for the legs
Then I moved on to the arms. Animating the arms was really easy because I figured instead of having the body as a symbol I would just have it drawn on the stage so colouring it would be a lot easier, as every frame with the arms would would be essentially an extension of the body instead of being animated on a separate layer
After the arms were done I moved on to animating the face.
Wednesday 4 May 2016
Applied Animation: setting up Astronauts
So throughout the pre production stages I felt like the astronauts were a bit niglected because apart from me no one could understand the interview. I did translate it and make titles for the whole interview so Ollie could help and pick what to use and what to lose. I figured that Ollie could not animate it as well especially because he could not understand it so we both agreed both it was up to me to do them. So I used the same methodology for the astronauts, rig them into symbols, tween the symbols I'm not animating frame by frame and then do the rest frame by frame. The first thing I thought was important was neat housekeeping. I named every layer and grouped them according to their function, I took this from the character and narrative module where Matt was constantly going on about keeping everything organised, because it might be annoying at the moment but in the long run it really pays off because if something goes wrong it is so much easier to find it and fix it.
So this is how my scene set up look like. As I was animating I kept my library as neat as possible as well:
So as you can see I rigged my character the same way: body and legs are symbols and the rest is going to be animated frame by frame:
Everything is set up and ready to animate!
Applied Animation: Another crit session!!
Recently we had an interim critique session to show off where we are at with the project and get some feedback on what we are doing right or wrong. We showed off what we had, which was stye key-framed Ethan scene and key-framed doctors scene and some further character development I did. It was not much but it was enough to get some really good feedback. Once again the general reaction seemed to be positive, the one thing I took from it was to every now and then animate the body of the character as well so as to make it a bit dynamic. I thought that was a good suggestion and that we should put it through into the files we have so far. We were also asked if we would work on the animatic, but I thought there was no point in that because every interview sets the timeline and we just worked straight around the audio. All in all it was a benefitial session and we get on with our work straight after.
Applied Animation: key framing pt. 2
After Ethan's scene I moved on to the doctor/meat lover scene. This one was quite long and took a bit more time to do. However I still had the list and reference videos to work from so key framing was a no brainer really. Yet again I rigged the character into body and head (no legs in this case because the character is placed from the waist up) and for the arms again I've put place holders so as to not loose proportions or the positions of the arms. I have also put in the eyes, because they would be very easy to animate and worse comes to worse not even necessary to animate. I was still waiting for the finished backgrounds from Ollie, but they were really easy to place so I did not see the necessity to rush him. So everything was pretty much the same as key framing Ethan, not really complicated, very efficient and I really think I have set it up in a way that it could passed onto any other animator and they would know what to do without me being there to explain it. So I am really satisfied with the work done so far. Here is the key-framed doctor scene:
Applied Animation: key keyframing
After the crit session we moved on to animating (finally!!). Ollie went on making backgrounds and I started key framing. We both agreed that I would set up all the flash files and do the key framing and whatever tweens I could do and Ollie would be in charge of the in-betweens. We agreed this would be the best way because the animations would be more consistent in style and animation. I started with Ethans interview because it was the shortest one and also the most expressive one. What I decided to do was essentially the same as my Sisters animation for responsive, where I rigged the 2d character into separate objects and just moved the rigged limbs with motion tweens. For Ethans character I broke him down into body, head legs and as for the arms, I've put in place holder objects because we wanted to animate them frame by frame. I volunteered to animate the face as well, but Ollie said he wanted to try that as well so I left it up to him. Setting this up did not pose any challenges and I felt very much in my comfort zone, I have managed to explain the basics to Ollie as he was making the background designs on Flash. It was a very efficient session and I feel that it should not pose any problems in later stages of animating. Here is the key-framed file ready to animate:
Monday 2 May 2016
Applied Animation: Persepolis
I have decided to research Persepolis because I came across this movie a while ago, but it was one the first things that popped into my head when we were briefed. From what I have gathered, the the best way to produce a good documentary is to make it personal and pick a topic most interesting to you. Persepolis isn't a documentary but it is an autobiography so I'd still say that is relevant to my research.
Persepolis is the poignant story of a young girl in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. It is through the eyes of the precocious and outspoken 9-year-old Marjane that we see a people's hopes dashed as fundamentalists take power--forcing the veil on women and imprisoning thousands. Clever and fearless, Marjane outsmarts the "social guardians" and discovers punk, ABBA, and Iron Maiden. Yet when her uncle is senselessly executed and as bombs fall around Tehran in the Iran/Iraq war, the daily fear that permeates life in Iran is palpable.
The film is presented in the black-and-white style of the original graphic novels. Satrapi explains in a bonus feature on the DVD that this was so the place and the characters wouldn't look like foreigners in a foreign country but simply people in a country to show how easily a country can become like Iran. The present-day scenes are shown in color, while sections of the historic narrative resemble a shadow theater show. The design was created by art director and executive producer Marc Jousset. The animation is credited to the Perseprod studio and was created by two specialized studios, Je Suis Bien Content and Pumpkin 3D.
“You know, I learned something from Emir Kusturica. Two years ago he told me that everybody’s talking about the movies, about storytelling. But it’s not that, you know. It’s how you sell the story. You can have the most annoying subject, but if you know how to present it, if you have your own language, then it becomes something. And you can have the most incredible story, but if you make it in an annoying way, then it becomes annoying. So it’s really how you make it.” Santrapi M. (2012)
Applied Animation: Documentary research pt.4
B-rolls. In film and television production, B-roll (B roll, or Broll) is supplemental or alternative footage intercut with the main shot. In addition to establishing shots, you'll also want to get secondary footage called "B-roll" - this can be footage of important objects, interesting processes, or stock footage of historical events. B-roll is important for maintaining the visual fluidity of your documentary and ensuring a brisk pace, as it allows you to keep the film visually active even as the audio lingers on one person's speech.
In our documentary, we'd want to collect as much car-related B-roll as possible - glamorous close-ups of shiny car bodies, headlights, etc., as well as footage of the cars in motion.
B-roll is especially important if your documentary will make use of extensive voiceover narration. Since you can't play the narration over interview footage without keeping the audience from hearing what your subject is saying, you'll usually lay the voiceover over short stretches of B-roll. You can also use B-roll to mask the flaws in interviews that didn't go perfectly. For instance, if your subject had a coughing fit in the middle of an otherwise great interview, during the editing process, you can cut the coughing fit out, then set the audio of the interview to B-roll footage, masking the cut.
In our documentary, we'd want to collect as much car-related B-roll as possible - glamorous close-ups of shiny car bodies, headlights, etc., as well as footage of the cars in motion.
B-roll is especially important if your documentary will make use of extensive voiceover narration. Since you can't play the narration over interview footage without keeping the audience from hearing what your subject is saying, you'll usually lay the voiceover over short stretches of B-roll. You can also use B-roll to mask the flaws in interviews that didn't go perfectly. For instance, if your subject had a coughing fit in the middle of an otherwise great interview, during the editing process, you can cut the coughing fit out, then set the audio of the interview to B-roll footage, masking the cut.
Applied Aniation: Documentary research pt.3
We are not documentarians, we are filmmakers." - Michael Moore
During his keynote at the Toronto International Film Festival’s sixth annual Doc Conference, Michael Moore shared his advice to documentary filmmakers, beginning with the notion that they shouldn't be called documentarians at all. "We are not documentarians, we are filmmakers," he told the crowd at the start of his 13-point manifesto:
1. My number one guiding principle in making documentary films is essentially the "Fight Club" Rule.
If you want to make a political speech, you can join a party, you can hold a rally. If you want to give a sermon, you can go to the seminary, you can be a preacher. If you want to give a lecture, you can be a teacher. But you've not chosen any of those professions. You have chosen to be filmmakers and to use the form of Cinema. So make a MOVIE. This word "documentarian" -- I am here today to declare that word dead. That word is never to be used again. We are not documentarians, we are filmmakers. Scorsese does not call himself a "fictionatarian." So why do we make up a word for ourselves? We do not need to ghettoize ourselves. We are already in the ghetto. We do not need to build a bigger ghetto. You are filmmakers. Make a film, make a movie. People love going to the movies. It's a great American/Canadian tradition, going to the movies. Why wouldn't you want to make a *movie*? Because if you made a *movie*, people might actually go see your documentary!
2. Don't tell me sh*t I already know.
I don't go to those kinds of documentaries, the ones that think I'm ignorant. Don't tell me that nuclear power is bad. I know it's bad. I'm not going to give up two hours of my life to have you tell me it's bad. All right? Seriously, I don't want to hear anything I already know. I don't like watching a movie where the filmmakers obviously thinks they're the first people to discover something might be wrong with genetically modified foods. You think that you're the only one who knows that? Your failure to trust that there are actually quite a few smart people out there is the reason people are not going to come see your documentary. Oh, I see -- you made the movie because there are so many people who DON'T know about genetically modified foods. And you're right. There are. And they just can't wait to give up their Saturday to learn about it.
3. The modern documentary sadly has morphed into what looks like a college lecture, the college lecture mode of telling a story.
That has to stop. We have to invent a different way, a different kind of model. I don't know how to say this, because like I said, I only went three semesters to college. And one thing I'm grateful for from that is that I never learned how to write a college essay. I hated school, I always hated school. It was nothing but regurgitation back to the teacher of something the teacher said, and then I have to remember it and write it back down on a piece of paper. The math problem was never a problem. Somebody else had already solved the problem and then put it in the math book. The chemistry experiment was not an experiment. Somebody else already did it, and now they're making me do it, but still calling it an experiment. Nothing is an experiment here. I hated school and the nuns knew it and they felt bad for me. I would just sit there bored and mad and it didn't do me much good -- except I ended up making these movies.
4. I don't like Castor Oil (a foul-tasting medicine from a hundred years ago). Too many of your documentaries feel like medicine.
The people don't want medicine. If they need medicine, they go to the doctor. They don't want medicine in the movie theaters. They want Goobers, they want popcorn, and they want to see a great movie. They just spent a lot of money on getting there, on the babysitter, on the overpriced ticket, on the $9 popcorn. They have spent all this money. And then they want to go home -- it's Friday night. I have a little sign on the bulletin board in my editing room.
5. The Left is boring.
And it's why we've had a hard time convincing people to maybe think about some of the things we're concerned about. Like I said earlier, we've lost our sense of humor and we need to be less boring. We used to be funny. The Left was funny in the 60s, and then we got really too damn serious. I don't think it did us any good.
6. Why don't more of your films go after the real villains -- and I mean the REAL villains?
Why aren't you naming names? Why don't we have more documentaries that are going after corporations by name? Why don't we have more documentaries going after the Koch Brothers and naming them by name? Over the last few years, looking at the short list for the for Best Documentary nominees, something that has really bothered me is that there are usually only two or three, at the most four, where the subject matter is about something in the present, something in the U.S. (something that we are doing as Americans in America right now), and something that is political, really political, and edgy and dangerous.
7. I think it's important to make your films personal.
I don't mean to put yourself necessarily in the film or in front of the camera. Some of you, the camera does not like you. Do not go in front of the camera. And I would count myself as one of those. It was an accident that I ended up in "Roger & Me,"and I won't bore you with that story, but people want to hear the voice of a person. The vast majority of these documentary films that have had the most success are the ones with a personal voice. Morgan Spurlock, Al Gore, Bill Maher, “Gasland,” “Shoah,” etc. I know that most documentary films stay away from that, most don't like narration, they just put up a couple of cards to explain what's going on, but the audience is wondering, who is saying this to me?
8. Point your cameras at the cameras.
Show the people why the mainstream media isn’t telling them what is going on. You've seen this in my films, where I stop filming whatever it is that's going on, and I just turn my camera on the press pool. Oh, that is a pathetic sight, isn't it? They are all lined up with their microphones like the guy in "Bowling for Columbine" who is at the funeral of a 6-year-old, and he's trying to fix his hair out in front of the funeral home and he's yelling at the producer through the earpiece, and all of a sudden he realizes he's going live and, bam -- it's showtime! It really shows you how little they truly care, and how little REAL information you're getting about the issue.
9. Books and TV have nonfiction figured out.
They know the American public loves nonfiction storytelling. But you'd never know that by looking at the list of movies playing down at the multiplex tonight. But open up the book review section of the New York Times this Sunday. There will be three times as many nonfiction books reviewed as fiction books, three times as many. Nonfiction books sell huge. Nonfiction television is huge! Look at the ratings. The top 25 shows every week have a number of nonfiction shows, from the smarter ones like "60 Minutes," to stuff like "Dancing with the Stars." But there's also Stephen Colbert. And Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and John Oliver.These are nonfiction shows and they are hugely popular. They use humor, but they're doing it in order to tell the truth. Night after night after night. And that to me makes it a documentary. That makes it nonfiction. People love to watch Stewart and Colbert. Why don't you make films that come from that same spirit? Why wouldn't you want the same huge audience they have? Why is it that the American audience says, I love nonfiction books and I love nonfiction TV -- but there's no way you're dragging me into a nonfiction movie! Yet, they want the truth AND they want to be entertained. Yes, repeat after me, they want to be entertained! If you can't accept that you are an entertainer with your truth, then please get out of the business. We need teachers. Go be a teacher. Or a preacher. Or manage an eco-friendly Crate and Barrel.
10. As much as possible, try to film only the people who disagree with you.
That is what is really interesting. We learn so much more by you training your camera on the guy from Exxon or General Motors and getting him to just blab on. Talk to that person who disagrees with you. I have always found it much more interesting to try to talk to those in charge. Of course now it's harder for me to get them to talk to me, so I have to use a lot of techniques and methods that probably wouldn't meet the "standards" of most television networks. But they do meet my one ethic, which is, this country, this world, exists for the people, and not the few rich folks who run it. And those rich people in power have some 'splainin' to do.
11. While you are filming a scene for your documentary, are you getting mad at what you are seeing?
Are you crying? Are you cracking up so much that you are afraid that the microphone is going to pick it up? If that is happening while you are filming it, then there is a very good chance that's how the audience is going to respond, too. Trust that. You are the audience, too. I tell my crew that the audience is "on the crew." The audience is part of the film. What is the audience going to think of this film? And so many times when I'm filming, I find myself thinking, Oh man, I already know what is going to happen when people watch this! I can already see it. I am a stand in for that audience. And that's what you need to be, too.
12. Less is more. You already know that one.
Edit. Cut. Make it shorter. Say it with fewer words. Fewer scenes. Don't think your shit smells like perfume. It doesn't. You haven't invented the wheel. People get it. People love that you trust that they have a brain. Even people who aren't that smart, who don't know about the bigger world, they can detect it when you think they are smart and they can also detect when you think they are stupid. And they're not stupid. Not the 220 million. They're just a little ignorant. We live in a country where 80 percent of the citizens do not own a passport. They never leave their homes to see the rest of the world. They don't know what is going out there. We have to have a little empathy for them. They want to come along. They will come along -- if they sense that we respect them for having a brain.
13. Finally... Sound is more important than picture.
Pay your sound woman or sound man the same as you pay the DP, especially now with documentaries. Sound carries the story. It's true in a fiction film, too. You've been in a movie theater where it's been out of focus just a little bit or maybe the frame is spilling over onto the curtain. Nobody gets up, nobody says anything, nobody goes and tells the projectionist. But if the sound goes out, there is a riot in the theater, right? But if the picture sucks, or if you had to run because the police are after you, and the camera is jiggling all over the place, the audience is not going, “Hey, why is that camera jiggling? Hey, stop the camera jiggling!" Let's say you didn't shoot something entirely in focus, you had to shoot it really quickly. The audience doesn't care -- IF the story is strong, AND they can hear it. That's what they're paying attention to. Don't cheat on the sound. Don't be cheap with the sound. It's so important, the sound, when making a documentary.
During his keynote at the Toronto International Film Festival’s sixth annual Doc Conference, Michael Moore shared his advice to documentary filmmakers, beginning with the notion that they shouldn't be called documentarians at all. "We are not documentarians, we are filmmakers," he told the crowd at the start of his 13-point manifesto:
1. My number one guiding principle in making documentary films is essentially the "Fight Club" Rule.
If you want to make a political speech, you can join a party, you can hold a rally. If you want to give a sermon, you can go to the seminary, you can be a preacher. If you want to give a lecture, you can be a teacher. But you've not chosen any of those professions. You have chosen to be filmmakers and to use the form of Cinema. So make a MOVIE. This word "documentarian" -- I am here today to declare that word dead. That word is never to be used again. We are not documentarians, we are filmmakers. Scorsese does not call himself a "fictionatarian." So why do we make up a word for ourselves? We do not need to ghettoize ourselves. We are already in the ghetto. We do not need to build a bigger ghetto. You are filmmakers. Make a film, make a movie. People love going to the movies. It's a great American/Canadian tradition, going to the movies. Why wouldn't you want to make a *movie*? Because if you made a *movie*, people might actually go see your documentary!
2. Don't tell me sh*t I already know.
I don't go to those kinds of documentaries, the ones that think I'm ignorant. Don't tell me that nuclear power is bad. I know it's bad. I'm not going to give up two hours of my life to have you tell me it's bad. All right? Seriously, I don't want to hear anything I already know. I don't like watching a movie where the filmmakers obviously thinks they're the first people to discover something might be wrong with genetically modified foods. You think that you're the only one who knows that? Your failure to trust that there are actually quite a few smart people out there is the reason people are not going to come see your documentary. Oh, I see -- you made the movie because there are so many people who DON'T know about genetically modified foods. And you're right. There are. And they just can't wait to give up their Saturday to learn about it.
3. The modern documentary sadly has morphed into what looks like a college lecture, the college lecture mode of telling a story.
That has to stop. We have to invent a different way, a different kind of model. I don't know how to say this, because like I said, I only went three semesters to college. And one thing I'm grateful for from that is that I never learned how to write a college essay. I hated school, I always hated school. It was nothing but regurgitation back to the teacher of something the teacher said, and then I have to remember it and write it back down on a piece of paper. The math problem was never a problem. Somebody else had already solved the problem and then put it in the math book. The chemistry experiment was not an experiment. Somebody else already did it, and now they're making me do it, but still calling it an experiment. Nothing is an experiment here. I hated school and the nuns knew it and they felt bad for me. I would just sit there bored and mad and it didn't do me much good -- except I ended up making these movies.
4. I don't like Castor Oil (a foul-tasting medicine from a hundred years ago). Too many of your documentaries feel like medicine.
The people don't want medicine. If they need medicine, they go to the doctor. They don't want medicine in the movie theaters. They want Goobers, they want popcorn, and they want to see a great movie. They just spent a lot of money on getting there, on the babysitter, on the overpriced ticket, on the $9 popcorn. They have spent all this money. And then they want to go home -- it's Friday night. I have a little sign on the bulletin board in my editing room.
5. The Left is boring.
And it's why we've had a hard time convincing people to maybe think about some of the things we're concerned about. Like I said earlier, we've lost our sense of humor and we need to be less boring. We used to be funny. The Left was funny in the 60s, and then we got really too damn serious. I don't think it did us any good.
6. Why don't more of your films go after the real villains -- and I mean the REAL villains?
Why aren't you naming names? Why don't we have more documentaries that are going after corporations by name? Why don't we have more documentaries going after the Koch Brothers and naming them by name? Over the last few years, looking at the short list for the for Best Documentary nominees, something that has really bothered me is that there are usually only two or three, at the most four, where the subject matter is about something in the present, something in the U.S. (something that we are doing as Americans in America right now), and something that is political, really political, and edgy and dangerous.
7. I think it's important to make your films personal.
I don't mean to put yourself necessarily in the film or in front of the camera. Some of you, the camera does not like you. Do not go in front of the camera. And I would count myself as one of those. It was an accident that I ended up in "Roger & Me,"and I won't bore you with that story, but people want to hear the voice of a person. The vast majority of these documentary films that have had the most success are the ones with a personal voice. Morgan Spurlock, Al Gore, Bill Maher, “Gasland,” “Shoah,” etc. I know that most documentary films stay away from that, most don't like narration, they just put up a couple of cards to explain what's going on, but the audience is wondering, who is saying this to me?
8. Point your cameras at the cameras.
Show the people why the mainstream media isn’t telling them what is going on. You've seen this in my films, where I stop filming whatever it is that's going on, and I just turn my camera on the press pool. Oh, that is a pathetic sight, isn't it? They are all lined up with their microphones like the guy in "Bowling for Columbine" who is at the funeral of a 6-year-old, and he's trying to fix his hair out in front of the funeral home and he's yelling at the producer through the earpiece, and all of a sudden he realizes he's going live and, bam -- it's showtime! It really shows you how little they truly care, and how little REAL information you're getting about the issue.
9. Books and TV have nonfiction figured out.
They know the American public loves nonfiction storytelling. But you'd never know that by looking at the list of movies playing down at the multiplex tonight. But open up the book review section of the New York Times this Sunday. There will be three times as many nonfiction books reviewed as fiction books, three times as many. Nonfiction books sell huge. Nonfiction television is huge! Look at the ratings. The top 25 shows every week have a number of nonfiction shows, from the smarter ones like "60 Minutes," to stuff like "Dancing with the Stars." But there's also Stephen Colbert. And Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and John Oliver.These are nonfiction shows and they are hugely popular. They use humor, but they're doing it in order to tell the truth. Night after night after night. And that to me makes it a documentary. That makes it nonfiction. People love to watch Stewart and Colbert. Why don't you make films that come from that same spirit? Why wouldn't you want the same huge audience they have? Why is it that the American audience says, I love nonfiction books and I love nonfiction TV -- but there's no way you're dragging me into a nonfiction movie! Yet, they want the truth AND they want to be entertained. Yes, repeat after me, they want to be entertained! If you can't accept that you are an entertainer with your truth, then please get out of the business. We need teachers. Go be a teacher. Or a preacher. Or manage an eco-friendly Crate and Barrel.
10. As much as possible, try to film only the people who disagree with you.
That is what is really interesting. We learn so much more by you training your camera on the guy from Exxon or General Motors and getting him to just blab on. Talk to that person who disagrees with you. I have always found it much more interesting to try to talk to those in charge. Of course now it's harder for me to get them to talk to me, so I have to use a lot of techniques and methods that probably wouldn't meet the "standards" of most television networks. But they do meet my one ethic, which is, this country, this world, exists for the people, and not the few rich folks who run it. And those rich people in power have some 'splainin' to do.
11. While you are filming a scene for your documentary, are you getting mad at what you are seeing?
Are you crying? Are you cracking up so much that you are afraid that the microphone is going to pick it up? If that is happening while you are filming it, then there is a very good chance that's how the audience is going to respond, too. Trust that. You are the audience, too. I tell my crew that the audience is "on the crew." The audience is part of the film. What is the audience going to think of this film? And so many times when I'm filming, I find myself thinking, Oh man, I already know what is going to happen when people watch this! I can already see it. I am a stand in for that audience. And that's what you need to be, too.
12. Less is more. You already know that one.
Edit. Cut. Make it shorter. Say it with fewer words. Fewer scenes. Don't think your shit smells like perfume. It doesn't. You haven't invented the wheel. People get it. People love that you trust that they have a brain. Even people who aren't that smart, who don't know about the bigger world, they can detect it when you think they are smart and they can also detect when you think they are stupid. And they're not stupid. Not the 220 million. They're just a little ignorant. We live in a country where 80 percent of the citizens do not own a passport. They never leave their homes to see the rest of the world. They don't know what is going out there. We have to have a little empathy for them. They want to come along. They will come along -- if they sense that we respect them for having a brain.
13. Finally... Sound is more important than picture.
Pay your sound woman or sound man the same as you pay the DP, especially now with documentaries. Sound carries the story. It's true in a fiction film, too. You've been in a movie theater where it's been out of focus just a little bit or maybe the frame is spilling over onto the curtain. Nobody gets up, nobody says anything, nobody goes and tells the projectionist. But if the sound goes out, there is a riot in the theater, right? But if the picture sucks, or if you had to run because the police are after you, and the camera is jiggling all over the place, the audience is not going, “Hey, why is that camera jiggling? Hey, stop the camera jiggling!" Let's say you didn't shoot something entirely in focus, you had to shoot it really quickly. The audience doesn't care -- IF the story is strong, AND they can hear it. That's what they're paying attention to. Don't cheat on the sound. Don't be cheap with the sound. It's so important, the sound, when making a documentary.
Applie Animation: Video Games: The Movie
Video Games: The Movie takes on a difficult task. As a medium, games haven’t been around that long, but a ton has happened in those 40 years. Their birth, the crash, arcades, online gaming, violence, eSports -- this documentary covers it all with plenty of information and context from industry legends. Unfortunately, at times, it can trip over its own wealth of content, but that’s no reason not to give this one a watch.
The film starts way, way back, with the invention of Space War and the other earliest video games. As time progresses into the '70s and '80s, and Atari and Nintendo come into prominence, we’re treated to original footage of console production and video game commercials. If you lived through those years, the old manufacturing and marketing videos will invoke plenty of nostalgia. If, like me, you weren’t alive yet, Video Games: The Movie offers a fascinating look at how games were produced and sold. Their position in our culture then, contrasted with now, is placed front and center to great effect.
Interviews with game industry luminaries like Atari creator Nolan Bushnell are fascinating and invaluable. Their first-hand experience and knowledge simply has no substitute, and it’s a joy to hear them talk about having a hand in the rise of a brand new medium. Their input carries an authenticity you have to appreciate.
One of the film’s biggest problems lies within the way it’s organized. The earliest moments of the film feel like a public service announcement, with an overload of stats about the kinds of people who play games, how often they play games, and how many billions of dollars the industry brings in annually. It feels like a primer for people who know very little about games.
Later on, there’s an awkward, in-depth discussion about how pixels work. The overlap between the people who care about an introduction to games and gamers, and the people who care about the nitty gritty science between a CRT monitor, probably isn’t that big.
Video Games: The Movie also tries to stick to a chronological timeline, but it constantly jumps back and forth on that timeline, which makes it hard to keep track of what’s going on. Those of us who know about the crash of ‘83 will be confused as the documentary skips right past it. It circles back later and touches on the important failure, and on Nintendo’s revival of the industry, but only after dipping into the present day first. The movie is more interested in jumping from topic to topic, so the decision to present its info in a timeline is confusing.
Applied Animation: Documentary research- Ryan
Larkin was a Canadian animator who had worked at the National Film Board of Canada in the 1960s and 1970s, producing several celebrated works. Best known for his film Walking composed of animated vignettes of people walking, Larkin was considered one of the best animators of his generation. In 1969, the Montreal Gazette referred to him as the "Frank Zappa or George Harrison of animation". In the 1970s, unable to cope with his success and the pressure to develop more works, and facing a creative block, he became addicted to alcohol and cocaine. By 1978, he was broke and no longer working for the NFB. He worked as a commercial animator and painter for the next ten years, but by the late 1980s he was living in the streets of Montreal. He continued to draw and sculpt.
Chris Robinson first learned of Larkin in 2000 after his name was mentioned in a discussion by staff member Lesya Fesiak, who had heard about Larkin panhandling in Montreal from a friend. Fesiak and Robinson, who is the director of the Ottawa International Animation Festival, drove to Montreal to meet Larkin in June 2000, where they found him panhandling near Schwartz's on Saint Laurent Boulevard. At the time, he resided at the Old Brewery Mission and spent his days "wandering around town" visiting art galleries, museums, and libraries. He always had a notepad with him for drawing. They offered him dinner at a nearby bar, where he recounted his life story, which Robinson found "comical and heartbreaking, pathetic and inspiring". Before leaving, Robinson invited Larkin to Ottawa to watch a few entries for that year's film festival.
Landreth met Larkin at the suggestion of Robinson. Landreth had been taking part in the festival's selection committee when a fourth member of the committee dropped out. Robinson asked Larkin to take the missing committee member's place, and personally drove him to Ottawa in July 2000. Committee members Landreth, Pjotr Sapegin, and Andrei Svislotksi, in addition to Larkin, reviewed the commissioned films competition entries. Nobody on the selection committee knew of Larkin's identity at the time, and Landreth found his presence on the committee to be odd. Committee members were only told about Larkin's identity at the end of the viewings, when they screened each other's films. Larkin was last, showing Walking, Street Musique, and Syrinx. Landreth later described his surprise, and stated "I looked at him and wondered, how did this happen?"
Landreth, at the time employed by Alias, was "immediately inspired" to create a film based on Larkin's life, but waited a few months before acting on it. He met Larkin again in September during the Ottawa International Animation Festival, and asked him if he would agree to be the subject of a film. Larkin agreed, and on 13 February 2001, Landreth decided to make the film.
Developement
Landreth spent several years developing the film. Instead of first creating a storyboard on which the animation would be based, he conceived the theme after interviews with Larkin. After the screenplay was developed, the production followed a more typical process of creating a storyboard, character modelling, scene design, animation, and post-production.
In February 2001, Landreth contacted producer Steven Hoban at Copper Heart Entertainment. Hoban liked the concept for the film, and wanted to include it as a 3D rendering in the IMAX film CyberWorld he was producing. A manager rejected the idea, as the subject material was deemed to be inappropriate for CyberWorld's young target audience.
A production team was assembled with Copper Heart Entertainment, and it received a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts. The National Film Board of Canada agreed to be a co-producer. Landreth also secured studio space at the Animation Arts Centre of Seneca College in Toronto, and in 2003 four graduates and fifteen undergraduates from its 3D Animation program were recruited to work on the film. The core development team consisted of one computer graphics supervisor, four animators, one texture mapper, one renderer, two set modellers, and a few character modellers.
In the summer of 2001, he conducted several interviews with Larkin, who gave Landreth carte blanche for the project. Landreth accumulated about 20 hours of audio footage, but did not think it was sufficient material on which to base a story, so in August he interviewed him again, this time asking about his alcoholism. Larkin, who had been drinking throughout the interview, responded angrily, and this would become the "climactic moment in the film". This led Landreth to change the production from a story primarily narrated by Larkin to an interview-style cinéma vérité documentary in which Landreth's character had a larger role.
Landreth acquired a comprehensive set of Larkin's works from the National Film Board of Canada and other reference material. He also conducted interviews with Felicity Fanjoy, who had been Larkin's girlfriend in the past, and Derek Lamb, who directed films at the NFB and was a producer for Larkin in the 1970s. He used the interviews and reference material to create a script, which he completed by December.
The animation used the technique of psychological realism, blending dialogue from interviews with subjective screen characters who are "sometimes fragmented, distorted, or in some way unusual". The representation of the characters was partly inspired by Body Worlds, a travelling exhibition of human bodies preserved by plastination to reveal internal anatomical structures.
Landreth has stated that Larkin's character in the film is a subjective interpretation based on his own ideology and experiences, citing one of his favourite quotations "we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are". He animated Larkin as a beaten character "battered by years of substance abuse and still bearing the scars of his artistic failure". Landreth stated that the visual appearance of the characters "reflect pain, insanity, fear, mercy, shame, and creativity", and that the effect was to show the characters' "souls or mental states or psyches".
Landreth incorporated Larkin's alcoholism as part of the narrative of the film, at first in the background as Larkin sips from a thermos, and later directly as Landreth asks Larkin about his alcoholism. The attention to Larkin's alcoholism also reflects Landreth's mother's troubles with alcohol.
Pre-production and production took about 18 months. Use of the Seneca College computing infrastructure, which was loaned for free for the production, was valued by NFB producer Marcy Page at about C$250,000. Intel donated the use of a render farm for the production. The overall cost to produce Ryan was about C$900,000.
The film was dedicated to Landreth's mother, Barbara.
Animation
The animation consists of three-dimensional avatars representing the interview subjects, each "mutilated and deformed in ways expressive of emotional and artistic trauma". The film uses emotional realism instead of photorealism, using graphic elements to represent the characters' state of mind. There is a shift between techniques throughout the animation, particularly the use of hand-drawn vectors, rotoscoping, and 3D rendering of characters and the environments in which they are set. The setting is a dilapidated cafeteria in which the characters representing Larkin and Landreth are seated across from each other at a table. It was chosen to bring the characters into one setting for interaction, instead of having to deal with multiple settings. It also provides a neutral setting with a relaxed atmosphere to mitigate any initial bias toward the characters. In some scenes, colour correction was used to "achieve a dark mood".
Incorporated into the film in their entirety are two of Larkin's most famous animated shorts, Walking and the 1972 line animation Street Musique. As Larkin's character dances with one of the characters from Street Musique, stroboscoping arms are shown, an homage to Pas de deux by Norman McLaren, Larkin's mentor at the NFB. An animated rendering of Larkin attending the 42nd Academy Awards in 1970 is also included.
Animators were required to present a "continuously varying viewpoint" using distortion effects on a linear perspective camera. Each object in the three-dimensional scene had to be independently specified, and frame composition had to be independent of the projection. Three types of projection systems were used for the production of Ryan: perspective linear projection for lines converging at a common vanishing point, parallel linear projection for objects to maintain "parallel line relationships", and nonlinear projection for curvilinear distortion of nearby objects. The latter was defined by the viewing and projection transformations of the cameras and spatial weight functions applied to each camera. Included in the model was support for independent manipulation of two-dimensional transformations, particularly for changing an object's translation, rotation, and scaling. The model was then incorporated into Maya for animation using scene geometry deformation. This would render "multiple simultaneous projections and camera angles" to a single frame. The nonlinear projections were also used to establish a "cinematic mood" for the setting.
Overall, Ryan is a tremendous film of beauty, ingenuity and of course entertainment. Utilizing surreal and gorgeous CG, Ryan is the unique marriage of documentary and animation, a pairing that is becoming more common in its wake.
Applied Animation: Documentary animation research pt.2
What Is Animation? (2014) - HD version from Martin Pickles on Vimeo.
Veteran British animator Bob Godfrey (1921-2013) answers the question "What Is Animation?" His answer is by turns witty, iconoclastic and insightful and all the while is acted out by a tiny man in a bowler hat.
This hand-drawn film is based upon an interview recorded by Martin Pickles in 2006 at Bob’s Acme Studio in South East London.
An earlier version of the film was made especially for the Bob Godfrey retrospective at the Bradford Animation Festival in November 2013.
Meeting Bob Godfrey at Animafest Zagreb in 2004 inspired Martin to become a full-time animator and to study Animation at the Royal College of Art.
Psychedelic Blues from Drew Christie on Vimeo.
Drew Christie’s second film in the programme is Psychedelic Blues, an animated interview with ‘freak folk band’ Holy Modal Rounders which explores their formation and early days. This is a non-stop, acid- and amphetamine-fuelled celebratory rollercoaster of music and absurdity. The characters move fluidly between their old and young selves, caught up in moments that they’d never forget, if only they could remember. The gonzo glory of the memories is tempered by a twinge of sadness, evoked by the fragility in the voice of the ageing, drug-saturated narrator, allowing an openness in terms of how the film can be received.
BABA from joel kefali on Vimeo.
Baba is a colourful and entertaining short by New Zealand filmmaker Joel Kefali, in which his grandfather describes his experience of arriving in the country as a Turkish immigrant many years before. The film successfully captures the experience and character of an exuberant man, baffled by certain cultural oddities but ultimately filled with humour and joy of life; able to take the world on and adapt to his strange new environment.
Veteran British animator Bob Godfrey (1921-2013) answers the question "What Is Animation?" His answer is by turns witty, iconoclastic and insightful and all the while is acted out by a tiny man in a bowler hat.
This hand-drawn film is based upon an interview recorded by Martin Pickles in 2006 at Bob’s Acme Studio in South East London.
An earlier version of the film was made especially for the Bob Godfrey retrospective at the Bradford Animation Festival in November 2013.
Meeting Bob Godfrey at Animafest Zagreb in 2004 inspired Martin to become a full-time animator and to study Animation at the Royal College of Art.
Waltz with Bashir is a 2008 Israeli animated war documentary film written and directed by Ari Folman. It depicts Folman in search of his lost memories of his experience as a soldier in the 1982 Lebanon War.
This film and $9.99, also released in 2008, are the first Israeli animated feature-length films released theatrically since Alina and Yoram Gross's Ba'al Hahalomot (1962). Waltz with Bashir premiered at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival where it entered the competition for the Palme d'Or, and since then has won and been nominated for many additional important awards while receiving wide acclaim from critics. It won a Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film, an NSFC Award for Best Film, a César Award for Best Foreign Film and an IDA Award for Feature Documentary, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language and an Annie Award for Best Animated Feature. The film is officially banned in Lebanon.
The film took four years to complete. It is unusual in it being a feature-length documentary made almost entirely by the means of animation. It combines classical music, 1980s music, realistic graphics, and surrealistic scenes together with illustrations similar to comics. The entire film is animated, excluding one short segment of news archive footage.
The animation, with its dark hues representing the overall feel of the film, uses a unique style invented by Yoni Goodman at the Bridgit Folman Film Gang studio in Israel. The technique is often confused with rotoscoping, an animation style that uses drawings over live footage, but is actually a combination of Adobe Flash cutouts and classic animation.Each drawing was sliced into hundreds of pieces which were moved in relation to one another, thus creating the illusion of movement. The film was first shot in a sound studio as a 90-minute video and then transferred to a storyboard. From there 2,300 original illustrations were drawn based on the storyboard, which together formed the actual film scenes using Flash animation, classic animation, and 3D technologies.
The original soundtrack was composed by minimalist electronic musician Max Richter while the featured songs are by OMD ("Enola Gay"), PiL ("This is Not a Love Song"), Navadey Haukaf (נוודי האוכף )("Good Morning Lebanon", written for the film), The Clique ("Incubator"), and Zeev Tene (a remake of the Cake song "I Bombed Korea", retitled "Beirut"). Some reviewers have viewed the music as playing an active role as commentator on events instead of simple accompaniment.
The comics medium, in particular Joe Sacco,the novels Catch-22, The Adventures of Wesley Jackson, and Slaughterhouse-Five, and painter Otto Dix were mentioned by Folman and art director David Polonsky as influences on the film. The film itself was adapted into a graphic novel in 2009.
That Dragon, Cancer is a video game created by Ryan and Amy Green, Josh Larson, and a small team under the name Numinous Games. The autobiographical game is based on the Greens' experience of raising their son Joel, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer at twelve months old, and though only given a short time to live, continued to survive for four more years before eventually succumbing to the cancer in March 2014. The game is designed to have the player experience the low and high moments of this period in the style of a point-and-click adventure game, using the medium's interactivity and immersion to relate the tale in ways that a film cannot. The game initially was developed to relate Ryan and Amy's personal experience with Joel when they were uncertain of his health, but following his death, they reworked much of the game to memorialize and personalize their time and interactions with Joel for the player. Alongside the game, a documentary Thank You for Playing, documenting both the last few years of Joel's life and the development of the game, has been filmed to be aired in 2016.
That Dragon, Cancer was initially aimed for release as a time-limited exclusive for the Ouya, who helped to fund the game's development. With expanded funding and a larger scope to the game, the developers engaged in a Kickstarter crowd funding, in association with Ouya, to secure additional funds to complete the game and assuring simultaneous release on other platforms including Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X. The game was released on January 12, 2016, on what would have been Joel's seventh birthday. The game was praised for being a raw autobiographical experience from the parents' view, making the player deal with the difficult emotions and the strength of the Greens' faith.
A documentary about the Greens and their development of That Dragon, Cancer was announced in April 2014, entitled Thank You For Playing. The film was produced by David Osit and Malika Zouhali-Worrall independent of the game's development. The documentary was picked up by PBS as part of their "POV Documentary" series, to air in 2016, while a preview airing was shown in August 2015 at the PAX Expo. Through a successful Kickstarter, the film will also have a limited theatrical run before its digital release in March 2016. That Dragon, Cancer and Ryan Green were also featured in the 2015 documentary GameLoading: Rise of The Indies.
Drew Christie’s second film in the programme is Psychedelic Blues, an animated interview with ‘freak folk band’ Holy Modal Rounders which explores their formation and early days. This is a non-stop, acid- and amphetamine-fuelled celebratory rollercoaster of music and absurdity. The characters move fluidly between their old and young selves, caught up in moments that they’d never forget, if only they could remember. The gonzo glory of the memories is tempered by a twinge of sadness, evoked by the fragility in the voice of the ageing, drug-saturated narrator, allowing an openness in terms of how the film can be received.
BABA from joel kefali on Vimeo.
Baba is a colourful and entertaining short by New Zealand filmmaker Joel Kefali, in which his grandfather describes his experience of arriving in the country as a Turkish immigrant many years before. The film successfully captures the experience and character of an exuberant man, baffled by certain cultural oddities but ultimately filled with humour and joy of life; able to take the world on and adapt to his strange new environment.
Applied Animation: Documentary animation research
The animated documentary is a genre of film which combines animation and documentary. This genre should not be confused with documentaries about movie and TV animation history that feature excerpts.
The first recognized example of this genre is Winsor McCay's 1918 12-minute-long film The Sinking of the Lusitania, which uses animation to portray the 1915 sinking of RMS Lusitania after it was struck by two torpedoes fired from a German U-boat; an event of which no recorded film footage is known to exist.
Since the 1920s, animation has been used in educational and social guidance films, and has often been used to illustrate abstract concepts in mainly live-action examples of these genres. Early examples of fully animated educational films are The Einstein Theory of Relativity (1923) and Evolution (1925) by Max and Dave Fleischer.In 1953, Norman McLaren's "Neighbours" won the Academy Awards for Best Documentary (Short Subject). The award is somewhat considered a mistake, but the fact that it was not only indicated into that category, but also won, shows that, somehow, the animated images spoke to the judges almost like a documentary.
The first recognized example of this genre is Winsor McCay's 1918 12-minute-long film The Sinking of the Lusitania, which uses animation to portray the 1915 sinking of RMS Lusitania after it was struck by two torpedoes fired from a German U-boat; an event of which no recorded film footage is known to exist.
Since the 1920s, animation has been used in educational and social guidance films, and has often been used to illustrate abstract concepts in mainly live-action examples of these genres. Early examples of fully animated educational films are The Einstein Theory of Relativity (1923) and Evolution (1925) by Max and Dave Fleischer.In 1953, Norman McLaren's "Neighbours" won the Academy Awards for Best Documentary (Short Subject). The award is somewhat considered a mistake, but the fact that it was not only indicated into that category, but also won, shows that, somehow, the animated images spoke to the judges almost like a documentary.
Mosaic Films promoted the use of animated documentaries in the United Kingdom in 2003 with the award-winning series Animated Minds. Commissioned by Channel 4 and directed by Andy Glynne, it uses real testimony from survivors of mental illness, combined with engaging visuals, to climb inside the minds of the mentally distressed. The first series won the award for Best Animation at the Banff World Media Festival (2004).
The 2007 International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam featured a programme of "documentaries that partly or completely consist of animation". In the article written to accompany the event, Kees Driessen talked about the "least controversial" form of the genre; the "illustrated radio documentary", citing Aardman Animation's 1987 film Lip Synch: Going Equipped (directed by Peter Lord) as an example. One of the most consistent creators of this form of animated documentary today is Paul Fierlinger. His films from the late 1980s-onward typically feature recordings of people talking about certain topics in their lives (such as alcohol abuse or loneliness), accompanied by Fierlinger's animation which mainly illustrates the stories in a realistic way. This is a contrast from films and series such as Aardman's Creature Comforts, which recontextualise such audio recordings by combining them with more fanciful, non-realistic animated interpretations.
Fierlinger's 1995 animated feature-length autobiography Drawn from Memory, in which he is the main subject as well as the director, voice actor and only animator, was also called a documentary by Driessen.
This technique of animating interviews has also been used by other filmmakers, such as Chris Landreth in his Oscar-winning 2004 short film Ryan (mainly based on an interview done with animator Ryan Larkin)
Critique Session
We were getting on with our pre production work pretty slowly but finally had a critique session. We presented our pre-production work to our peers and received some good feedback. Everyone seemed to respond to the character design very well. Everyone seemed to really like the interviews we chose to animate and overall the whole response was very positive. The main critique we got was to work on the animatic more and and that it was questionable of whether we could pull off the animation because it seemed very difficult. I for one am certain we will pull it off just fine, I am sure we can rig the characters pretty quickly on Flash and then it's just a matter of neatly tracing around the rig. I am glad Ollie agreed in working on Flash so I think we can work very quickly efficiently and he will learn a new piece if software on the way (hopefully). Anyway, we were happy with the session because we felt like we are on the right path so we proceeded on just doing our thing.
Applied Animation: Reference Videos
We decided that we need more research on how the character should act and what kind of body language the should portray. So we went ahead and made some reference videos. We memorized al the interviews by heart and acted them out recorded it. To be honest at first it was really awkward because both of us had no clue how to act, but after an hour of so of trying and failing we warmed up and got into the zone. As funny as it was watching Ollie act out a kids interview we were actually very considerate and serious about what we were doing. For every time we filmed there was at least 5 trial takes. By the end of the session we knew all of the interviews by heart like prayers. It took us a while but we got some great material out of it. For the surgeon, I would imagine mid twenties guy who's a bit really charismatic and well passionate about meat. It really got us thinking more specifically about what to animate. Since we made a big library of reference, we went through them and analysed all of them, second by second and put down a list of behaviors or body language we will use from the videos:
And here's a few of the reference we videos we made:
Applied Animation: Animatic
We finally moved on making the animistic, since the critique session was very near and we had the interviews down but not yet ready for the animation, we made a very rough animatic. We decided to skip storyboard because we did not see much point in it. Since the whole animation is based on the interviews, we diced the animatic would be more important. For the sugar war interview we've put n a place holder because we thought in needed a bit more development, as well as the child scene. We did not animate the scenes just yet because we felt like we needed a bit more research into what body language we'd like to portray.
Applied Animation: Character Color testing
After we went through the character designs with Ollie, I decided to do a color test so it would be easier for Ollie and I to adjust to each others work, my characters to his backgrounds. I decided the astronauts would not really need a color test, there's only so much shades of grey you can through, and it's not like astronaut suits are going to be pink. So here are a couple of tests:
For the surgeon, Ollie already had a distinct idea of what colors he wants to use for the backgrounds so I just made it based on that. However Ollie suggested to put more blood on the character, so did two versions to see which one we would like more. I thought the blood seemed a bit too much, it almost made the surgeon look incompetent and that was not what were going for
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)