At midnight on Saturday, I was struck with inspiration. I grabbed this rig and this audio (how these two fitted together in my head, I'm unsure) and heres the result I have always wanted to so a lipsync with this particular character.
Right now, given that I have little more sophisticated as a webcam for making tests (I physically can't tape a pegbar to the scanner I'm using), I'm at that stage where I move things as little as possible. My normal style is a little like Emery Hawkins, with the crinkly limbs, constant posing, and sheer modernism of design - and I want to be as talented as I can in all the basics before I continue. Hence why my tests are things like abstract shapes rotating in three dimensions, and several shots that would be described as 'bloated' if I had the paper to make the inbetweens for. I am desperately reaching for subtlety and minimum motion.
Subtlety? God, it's tough. I am terrible at drawing realistic eyes with any sort of consistency or recognizable expression - and in a field like this, where 1/16 of an inch can make the eyes go from pensive to worried -
It's in the pipeline. I have to learn how to mix a soundtrack - all my experience is with live performance.
Live performance is great, and much needed experience to have as an animator. Animators are, after all, performers Ultimately it all comes down to practice I think. Tho, talent would be a big help too lol. If we keep at it, eventually we will nail subtlety.
Live performance? I suppose I'll start getting in that mindset again. (just saw 'Avenue Q' 2 hours ago, so carrying off the live theatre vibe as I'm writing.)
After six months of practice and endless failed attempts, tonight I finally got a passable quad animation cycle... I find fault with everything I do. So subtlety is something that I envy you CGI types for. (Your model will naturally stay static, and all you need is many, many teeny motions.)
Its true, in 3D its easy to have a static model, but that also makes it hard to make it feel natural instead of robotic, since nothing living should be static. A common problem is also having 'floaty' animation, when adding teeny motions. Both 2D and 3D have their pros and cons. Congrats on the quad animation cycle!
Heres to learning, and becoming awesome animators one day
I don't want to make it seem as if it's a pain to move something statically, but what I love is that it takes human errors out of the process (even if it does introduce its own). Characters can change perspective perfectly, they never grow or shrink unless you tell them, et ceterae. The teeny motions can somewhat affect gravity and somewhat affect muscles. I can imagine, though, that it's probably unbearably hard in practice. (And the fact that all my CGI experience has been with programs that I had to calculate foot positions and movement by hand. Cheapassitude.) thanks.
Here's to learning, man. ^^ I don't think I have the right attitude for it, given that my lightbox has a post-it on the side saying (as a reminder to myself) 'If you don't learn to animate, your films will suck and people will hate you.' I write small. That's actually one of my problems, that the characters shrink during their scenes. Even pose-to-pose.