Victor Navone's Animation Thumbnails

I've been to Victor Navone's blog many times, but somehow I've missed this page, which he recently added to and posted about.

http://www.navone.org/Media/AnimationThumbs/index.htm

Thumbnailing ideas is a skill I'd like to develop further myself. I think video reference is good, but I feel that thumbnails can be a great way to caricature and build better composed, graphic poses. Drawing small is a big advantage, I think because it makes you think more about the pose and less about the drawing itself, but I'm still figuring that out ;)

Navone's drawing are quick and expressive, so I wanted to post and share them in case you've missed them too! I know I've benefited just by seeing how other people sketch their thumbnails.

My 3 Elements of Animation, (subject to change)

Have you ever had information overload? There's so many helpful animation websites, blogs, and various resources out there, many times I feel like I can barely keep up. Then when I do spend a lot of time reading everything I can find, I start to feel like I can't even process it all.

Such is the case with many of the "animation checklists" that people talk and write about. The old Disney animators had their 12 principles of animation, that they used to critique their work, and many animators today have their own checklist that they use to finesse their shots. Many of these checklists talk about the same things, just in different terms that make sense to the animator writing it. A good example is Travis Hathaway's post on Spline Doctors. I think animation checklists are very personal, and you have to find your own vocabulary that makes sense to you. After all, we're not really re-inventing the laws of physics or human emotions that have been around for ages, so unless you're brand new to the animation thing, nothing on these lists usually come as a surprise.

But after reading many different lists, I've kinda wondered what mine is, but have never come up with one. Victor Navone's recent post on Posing and composition inspired me to think about it again, especially since he posted Walt Stanchfield's 28 principles. I don't know about you, but I can't recall 28 principles on command. I need something more elemental, that is easy to remember, and applicable in all situations. Magic number? 3.

So here we go, with my 3 descriptive elements of animation (subject to change)

1. Graphic
Victor Navone's analysis reminded me of how much I want to get that sort of visual element in my animation. Sometimes I'll see a shot that's animated beautifully, very naturally--but almost too natural. There's no spice in it, it's just fluid movement, and straight poses. There's no contrast in them. There's no rhythm in the lines of action. There's no directing of the audience's eye. There's nothing very interesting going on visually. Victor's post, however, reminded me that even in natural poses, there are very extreme lines of action, composition, and graphic elements. (Check out his examples if you haven't yet). So reguardless of if the style is cartoony or naturalistic, you can still bring a very graphic quality to your character's poses and staging. I could put nearly anything visual in this category, but I'll probably dedicate it to composition, staging, design, appeal, silouette...the list could go on and on. It's easier for me to remember "graphic", and then break it down from there.


2. Emotional
This is the human element to the shot. You've heard all of this stuff before too. What is the character feeling? What is the point of the shot in the story? Do I feel for the character? Do I understand or recognize something about it? Does it cause an emotional reaction in me? Not every shot is an "Oscar" shot, but hopefully I can find something emotional, relatable, and entertaining, no matter how small. Even if it's only a setup for what pays off in the next shot that another animator is working on. This is the stuff that people care about, this is what people go to movies for.

Wall-E immediately comes to mind as an example of emotional animation. His character is so appealing, and so emotional! When Eve takes him to the escape pod and is entering in commands on the panel, he looks at her hand, and quietly asks "...Eve?..." You know from seeing him watch Hello Dolly and from his previous actions around her that he wants to hold her hand. It's so simple, yet so powerful! This is the stuff that really gets my animation inspiration going full steam ahead.


3. Physical
Is the movement believable? Are the breakdowns interesting? Am I showing weight and anatomy? Of course, the lines begin to blur between the physical and the graphic, since both play a huge role and affect one another. A great composition can really accent and show off the weight in a character. In this case, I think I'll look at this category when I'm trying to figure out movement, timing, spacing. Of course timing is often affected by emotion too ;)

That's why I chose these 3 things--all of them are extremely important to consider, but general enough to remember. The lines between them are pretty blurred, many things could go into multiple categories, but I think these three concepts together cover the bulk of things I should be checking in my animation. (Did I just say that?...well, I did subtitle this "subject to change".) Like the elements of nature that are present in every living thing, I want to remember these elements of animation.

Take a look at this drawing from "Pecos Bill". Sorry, I don't know who the artist is.


The line of action is incredible, going all the way through Pecos' body, and continuing down through the horse's front legs. Secondary and complimentary to that is the line of action of the horse's spine. It's a very a graphic composition, very rhythmic. Lots of attention to detail in the silouette.

From an emotional standpoint, you can see (and feel) the strain on Pecos' face as he pulls on the reigns, and on the horse's face as the bit pulls on his mouth. There's also emotional tension in this drawing alone--will they stop? Why are they stopping so suddenly and forcefully?

From a physical standpoint, you can tell that they were moving, probably at a good pace, and are coming to a sudden stop. The anatomy of the horse is clear, the bit is pulling at the corners of his mouth, Pecos' shoulders are pulling much of the force along with his arms. This legs have thrust downward into the stirrups as an opposite action to pulling backwards.

That's a pretty short description of a great drawing, but I think it makes my point. If I can get all of those elements working together, then hopefully my work will improve to a clearer, more emotional, entertaining, and visual standard.

Lasseter and Jobs on Charlie Rose

Yeah, I know that's a picture of David Copperfield in the preview still, but the first interview in this episode is in fact of John Lasseter and Steve Jobs.

I stumbled upon this video while searching for Toy Story clips. It's a great glimpse back a few years, as it takes place right after the release of the first Toy Story. Lasseter is a young film director, Jobs has not yet returned to Apple for the iPod Age, and Pixar is still a name that people don't really understand. While that sort of nostalgia is fun to watch, what I find the most interesting is how these 3 different characters, Rose, Lasseter, and Jobs, interact with each other. Each one of them comes from a completely different perspective, and hence uses vocabulary that they are comfortable using.

Charlie Rose is the outsider, the journalist, trying to use what he has learned over the years about businesses and computers and apply it to the making of Toy Story. He asks a lot of questions about how the computer makes the process "easier", "faster", "cheaper". Lasseter is the filmmaker trying to explain his craft, using an explanation that makes sense to him, which is that the computer is an expensive pencil. Steve Jobs is the computer business man, once referring to the story/production process as "beta testing" the film before release.

Charlie Rose is in some ways entertainingly ignorant of "computer" animation, and no matter how much Lasseter tries he just can't seem to get the point across that computers didn't make the movie faster, easier, or cheaper. And even though he gets the point that the ideas come from the artists, I don't think he ever quite gets to the point of full understanding that computers are just a new tool and not creators in the process. I found it very interesting how at around 5:20, when Lasseter is trying to explain the differences between 2D and 3D, Rose seems completely lost and almost tunes out as he starts shuffling his papers and looking at his notes, maybe for the next question. In all fairness, how can he understand? To him, a picture is a picture, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a flat drawing and a virtual 3D environment, he seems to still be stuck in the mindset that somehow the computer can just draw things faster and do them better...somehow...

Steve Jobs is also incredibly interesting to watch, especially if you consider the point at which he is at in his life. I'm not extremely knowledgeable on his business history, but I think the general summary is that at this time he had been fired from Apple, and was working for (or started?) "Next" Computers. This is well before he became one of the top CEO's of the country, well before the iPod and Apple became a status symbol on the streets of SoHo and 5th Avenue, and everywhere else. He seems a little like a broken man, though he tries to hide it, especially when Rose asks him for his thoughts on the fall of Apple. Jobs breaks from his normal catchprases of "We're about (blah blah)" and relevant cultural examples that support his topic, and instead takes a moment to think, and kinda quietly states that the innovation he made at Apple lives on in other forms, even though the Apple Company may not be succeeding, and he might not be a part of it. He seems genuinely proud of that, not in a boasting way, because he has to admit that he failed in other ways. There are many times when he still talks as he does on those Apple Keynote addresses of today, but somehow it's really only the words and his strategies that are similar. I'd have to study it more to see exactly what it is, but he doesn't seem to have the same confidence as he does now when he addresses his theatre of fans waiting with anxiety for him to reveal their new toys. What an interesting comparison between then and now! He's definitely the same person, but his life is changing as he speaks.

Jobs is also interesting to listen to because he seems to be at a point of understanding well past Charlie Rose's (concerning animation), but shares a similar point of view as having been a bit of an outsider to the filmmaking process. Jobs has obviously embraced the filmmaking process, no doubt in part to his view that it will continue to be a success for him, but the way he explains how the product, in business terms, continues to live on (read: is profitable) for decades in contrast to computers that have a very short life span--shows a deeper understanding of the product. He also seems to have an understanding of the inherit value of the creativity of filmmaking. I think that's the paradox of Steve Jobs--he's an incredibly saavy business man and of course his products are results of decisions he thinks will make his business succeed. At the same time, he comes off as someone who understands creativity and innovation. He has a great talent of speaking to both left minded and right minded people, and you've gotta admire his talents.

I was asking myself earlier today why I animate. What is it about animation that draws me to it?
It seems silly to ask that now, but sometimes I wonder. When I look at this, I think I know one reason. I found the juxtaposition of these three guy's distinct personalities very interesting to watch, and I really love analyzing personalities and characters. If you're the same, take a look at the interview. If you have more time, the David Copperfield interview is fun to watch too. He talks a lot about his goals as a performer, and how his inspiration comes from films and stories.

Don Bluth Books

Now, I hope I haven't lost touch with the animation learning material that's out there now, but I'd never even heard of these books by Don Bluth until I went to Barnes & Noble today! Am I crazy? Maybe some (heck maybe I'm the last) of you guys already know about them, but in case you don't or haven't bought them yet, it's worth posting. Seeing that the copyright says 2005, I guess they are relatively recent publications.

Don Bluth's The Art of Animation Drawing and The Art of Storyboard are now a part of my permanent animation library, and as useful and necessary as The Animator's Survival Kit and The Illusion of Life. Books like these don't come along often. More often than not in the animation section of the bookstore you find a giant book that claims to have everything you need to know in one spot, and when you actually look through it you see horribly unappealing characters in Maya screenshots, and pages and pages of information overload. Not so here.

Don Bluth's book reads with the simplicity of Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation, and the personal anecdotes of the Illusion of Life. It takes the complex process and personal feelings of the animator and summarizes them in an easy visual book. Every now and then he adds little bits of advice that have more to do with working on the job than technicalities of animation, and gives a broader picture of what it means to be an animator, an actor. He has stories of his experiences at Disney with Milt Kahl, John Lounsbery, and his own lessons he takes from the lives of Walt Disney and Freddy Moore. He ends the book with an interview of Marc Davis' wife Alice. If you're looking for another Survival Kit, that's not quite what this is, though there is plenty of discussion on analyzing action.

There is no silver bullet to great animation. In fact, even in my few short years of animating, I've figured out that the more I animate, the more I see myself rediscovering what is referred to as "the basics". There is SO much to learn about animation, it is impossible to read a few books, know it all and immediately put it into practice. That's why critique and learning by doing is so important. Don Bluth gives his personal take on the art, acting, storytelling, and job of animation in this book, that I feel is a fantastic blend of the technical and emotional sides of animation (and animators). He covers all the bases, and then some, quickly and easily. After that it's just up to us to practice. And practice. And practice. (And get critique.) And then get the book out again and remind ourselves of what we've forgotten.

**SCAD students will notice a quote by a familiar name on the back of the storyboarding book! Didn't Larry work at Bluth Studios?

A friendly reminder: "I am the Director's tool. It's his project, not mine."

So, today was a particularly tough day. Rather than going into the details, I think it's more appropriate to re-post Shawn Kelly's tips and tricks article, "You Are a Tool" (from Nov 2006). The title makes it seem like a negative topic...upon reading it again, (and having a fresh experience to relate it to), I see that it's a very positive article. It's really all about how to handle unexpected revisions to your shots.

It's nothing that I didn't know before, when I read it last November. But I tell ya what, the day your shot gets unexpected revisions, read this article again. It's one thing to know this stuff when you're not going through the emotional repercussions of the event, at those times you can say "yeah, I know this" and put it away. But keep this article bookmarked, and re-read this at those times you need it the most. I feel a little better already.

ASIFA-East article: "Getting the most from an Animation Education"

Richard Gorey has written this great article in the ASIFA-East newsletter ("aNYmator"), about his experience teaching animation. He has some nice observations about what he sees in his students, and reasons why people study animation in school. His comments are very down to earth, but not negative. With the huge influx of students of animation entering the industry, there are more than a few negative perspectives about younger animators. I will not deny that some of it is deserved, but it's nice to read someone's views who looks into the deeper reasons as to why people act the way they do, (maybe even--*gasp*--relate to them?) instead of just being negative about it and complaining. Sometimes I think we all need to be reminded that for all our differences, people are pretty much the same--we generally want the same things in life, the human condition is present in the best and worst of us. I mean, as animators, if we can't relate to another person's problems, what hope do we have of relating to our characters?

So many of my students are distressed when I see their first tests, then I give notes for the next go-round. "I have to do this again?" they ask, and I answer, "Yes, you do. And again, and again, and as many times as it takes, to get it right. I've been doing this for twenty five years, and I still have to redo scenes several times to get what it is I want."

That shocks them, and it often is the dividing line between those who will continue and those who lose interest I don't think it’s fair to blame the modern generation for not wanting to struggle over such issues. I recall being resentful of this, too, when I saw my first tests (which were heinous, clumsy garbage). We all want our lives and our careers to be easy, as much of the time as possible. But animation, like any career, can be challenging, and obtuse. I tell my students, "any career you choose will have positive aspects and some unattractive ones. If you're going to be a plumber, sooner or later, you're going to have to stick your hand in a toilet. And if you're an animator, sooner or later you're going to have to handle a scene that is drawn from an uncomfortable angle, or do something that requires hours and hours of life study, or you're going to have to manage around a character that has such fussy design that every drawing will be a chore. Sorry, but in this respect, animation is just like every other job."

I think that has been one of the toughest lessons for me to learn, but I've already seen that it does get easier with time. I admire his ability to honestly teach hard lessons like that one, but also be positive:

I never tell my students that "they'll never earn a living," even though the financial rewards in animation can be . . . less than they should be. I prefer to consider the art and the career of animation as a more personal and meaningful method of expression for the people who choose to learn about it.

There's a lot more to the article than these excerpts, it's worth reading. Since I know we all love having tangible lists of advice to follow, Richard ends with 7 bits of advice he gives his students. "#6--Connect and Depend on your fellow students". How incredibly helpful were my friends in school, and still are!

"He can be taught!" Or can I...er, he? (My epiphany on timing)

First off, if you haven't ever checked out Mario Furmanczyk's Cal Arts journal, he's got some great interviews and summaries of the fantastic guest speakers they get at that school. I wandered over there to read his interview with James Baxter, and ended up continuing to read his notes from Pete Doctor and Angus Maclaine's lectures. They're old posts from January, but he took really good notes from all of his sources. Worth a look if you haven't read them.

But that isn't tonight's real post. The real post is about learning, and the sheer amount of things I still need to learn about animation, and working in animation. I was reading The Illusion of Life on the train tonight, cause after the Spline Doctor's post I've been trying to read the entire thing. I started reading Chapter 11: The Disney Sounds, eventually getting to "Timing, Spacing, and the Metronome", and I had an epiphany! Exposure sheets! Why the heck have I not been planning out the action of my shots based on both time and action?

This is a timely lesson for me (no pun intended), because working on Happiness Factory 2 has brought up a ton of timing challenges for me while planning shots. I get these "great" acting ideas, block them out, only to find out that my actions really don't fit in the shot length--and there is a lot of story to put into every one of these shots to begin with. So I spend a lot of time grabbing a frame here and a frame there, all in a vain effort to squeeze the action I want in there, when in the end a lot of it has to be left out (and hence, a lot of the acting I had intended to be in there). It never seems to fail that all of my shots could stand another 24 frames...48 frames...73 frames! Because I want that beat in there, right? That beat that allows the character to live in the moment...the beat that there's not enough frames for! So along come Frank and Ollie telling me how they planned out timing with a metronome, to make sure they have a plan for how long each action will take, and consequently if they have time to do all that action. "Why don't I do that!!" I yelled in my head! I've been griping and complaining to myself, wishing I had 6 more frames to do the action, instead of planning my action based on how much time I have to work with. I'm tellin ya, I haven't had an epiphany like this since I read Keith Lango's Pose to Pose tutorials back at SCAD. Of course I don't have a metronome, or a stopwatch, but I do have an iPod that has a stopwatch function on it!

Think about the headaches I could avoid, if I just acted out the timing of the actions I want to do, so I could decide what acting choices could both fit the shot length and emotional requirements best? Think about the possibilities of keeping the feeling of the action in the shot, because I've planned acting choices that fit completely in the frame range?

I also realized why I never even thought of doing this before. When you don't have shot length requirements, as you don't in school, you really do have all the flexibility you want to take as much time as necessary to communicate your action. It's taken an extremely fast paced edit for me to come to the realization that because I don't have that luxury in production, my planning has to be that much better so I can really take advantage of every frame I'm given. I spent a full day last Friday working on about 5-12 frames of animation...it's never been more clear to me that every frame counts.

Another reason why I've never done this is because computer animation has a distinct lack of X-sheets. I was never really taught how to use them, only was suggested once or twice to use a stopwatch, and never knew the value of planning your timing and being stuck with X number of frames to communicate everything. It's super easy just to block things in, and time it out later, which is exactly how I've been working. The only problem with this is that I block stuff in that I later discover will never fit! When you have really short shots, it's very hard to even have time for 2 or 3 poses, depending on the timing. Even when I thumbnail out poses, I haven't taken the time to figure out if I have the frames to do all of them.

So, my goal now is to use the stopwatch on my iPod (when previously I'd thought "why the heck is there a stopwatch on here?"), to plan out anything from the basic timing of poses and action to timing of gestures--and hopefully get a much better sense of timing in reguards to frames in the process.

So to try to sum up this entire post, in a statement of the obvious...there is SO much to learn about animation, and on top of that, working in animation. I feel like a lot of the past year for me has been learning about production, working with a team, under a director, how to interpret notes, how to make it through crunch time, etc etc etc. There's enough for a young animator like me to learn just about the job, and add to that all the staging, posing, acting, physics, and timing of animation that I'm far from getting a handle on...and you've got one big textbook to read. Luckily The Illusion of Life does cover a lot of the entire spectrum, and I suggest you don't skip Chapter 11.

That's enough for now ;) Time for bed!

Composition in Animation

During my senior year at SCAD, I had the great opportunity to take a class under Glenn Vilppu, on Classical Composition. At the time I was a little disappointed that I couldn't get into his Figure Drawing class, since that's what he's most known for, but more and more I'm so grateful that it was the composition class that I took. Hopefully at some point I can upload a pdf of my class notes, but you can go to AWN (or look for Vilppu's name in my links) and check out some of his general lessons there.

He spent almost every class analyzing some classical painting by drawing lines over top of them in photoshop (or painter or something). He talked about things like using opposites, shapes, and the flow and rhythm of a composition--as opposed to just framing. He always said that he used these principles to compose his figures too, though I didn't really understand how. Now when I study classic Disney animation and even films like The Little Mermaid I see these principles of composition in the poses all the time! My main goal in improving my skills right now is to try to really compose the characters well, with good use of negative space and movement in the pose.

I don't have time to post about it all now, but I wanted to post a link to John Kricfalusi's blog.
John is the creator of Ren and Stimpy, and although I don't share his taste for over the top Clampett style, he is posting some very informative lessons on bringing artistic principles into animation. He has a whole category of posts dedicated to composition, mostly in terms of backgrounds, but as Vilppu said, you can completely apply these to drawing characters in poses. John is pretty negative about the state of animation today, and while he makes very good points I don't quite agree with all of them. He also explains the principles of composition in different terms (I think I still prefer Vilppu's way of teaching), but regardless the ideas are the same.

John's posts on composition

The more I think about, contrasting poses, flow, rhythm and other elements of composition, the more I see that even a lot of great CG animation doesn't have it--mine included. I'm feeling more and more that these elements really push animation to a more entertaining and appealing level, and everything else really falls short of its potential, and just becomes natural movement with good timing. And the thing is, a lot of our principles of animation and design are actually based on composition, but those aren't the terms we think in.

Man...I told myself this would be 'short'. More on this later.