Scale and translate, how?

[Lythis]

You have to know TVP Animation is not Photoshop, it's normal if there some differences between the both softwares

Photoshop is only made for illustration and modify images. It's not the case of TVP animation.

Overmore, the action you wanna do with Photoshop can exactly be done on TVP Animation, but differently. TVPaint is not Adobe Photoshop Animation and they don't want to copy Adobe, so don't be surprised if shortcuts or functions are differents... You can't compare a piano with a guitar. Both of these instruments are for music, but you can't play them similary.

And Photoshop haven't got rotative workspace, panels space on the right and on the left, a time line with superposed layers and frame code, no possibility to export into avi whithout use Image Ready... TVPaint is not so bad after all

[pigbelly]

Thank you for pointing out that TVP is not Photoshop.

Well so TVP is TVP and we should NOT try to make this software better? or it is maybe already perfect??

You must understand that I like TVP, just that there is some details in the software that I dont like, as there is stuff in Photoshop that I don't like. I'm just trying to point out one thing that I think needs to be fixed in TVP. Of course I could be wrong, but "shutting up" about it wont help anyone


cheers
/Tommie

[Fabrice]

Well so TVP is TVP and we should NOT try to make this software better? or it is maybe already perfect??

Just read the previous posts (f.i. about instances), some features requests use to become real options a few months later.
We use to take all feedbacks into account. I'm sure some people here would agree on this point

[pigbelly]

Fabrice.
I would ask no more, and really like this forum, I love the fact that TVP staff is monitoring the forum and are answering topics, hat's of to you guys!!

cheers
/Tommie

[Fabrice]

I like your illustrations btw.

Can't wait to see the ones you will make with TVP

[pigbelly]

Ohh Thanks!!!
well those illustrations was done in photoshop so.......sorry I couldn't help myself ))

Yes I'm really hooked on TVP right now, but I have to say that animating in 2D is very different than doing it in 3D. I would argue that its easier going from 2D to 3D than 3D to 2D

cheers
/Tommie

[Paul Fierlinger]

I would argue that its easier going from 2D to 3D than 3D to 2D

3D animation is all about gadgetry. When you migrate to 2D you bring with you the lazy mindset that comes from the over reliance on gadgets........sorry I couldn't help myself ))

[Klaus Hoefs]

Well sometimes it goes side by side (or hand in hand in a pipeline) as seen here:
http://www.tvpaint.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2959

[Paul Fierlinger]

Well sometimes it goes side by side (or hand in hand in a pipeline) as seen here:
http://www.tvpaint.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2959

Klaus, I don't get it.... Could you explain just a little more

[Klaus Hoefs]

I thought of Ben's "Wishes" from that mentioned thread using Cinema3D and Bodypaint.

There is a lot of 3D and 2D going together like Chomet described for Belleville; Aardman is also using a similar pipeline see for a making of:http://www.pearcesisters.co.uk/

I think they are going with Maya looks like that.

I heard that it is a time saver (?)
here's what it looks like after rotoscoping:

[BenEcosse]

There is a real big 'trend' for commercials and tv graphics at the moment to look handmade or handdrawn. And clients see it and all want the same look.
I suspect there aren't many animators in facilites who are as confident creating something to a tight deadline solely in 2D as they are in 3D?
I'm sure this is where the workaround of creating the basic structure in 3D then rotoscoping over it comes from.
But if you are an experienced 2D animator, I can't see it being any slower working without this 3D workflow first. Isn't it just like acting it out first yourself and making sketches? Maybe I'm wrong.

Working with 3D first then 2D painted elements over it is creating a look in itself but in my opinion can sometimes lacks the 'magic' that a completely handdrawn animation has.
It's kind of like half rotoscoping. The smoothness and accuracy that the 3D part plays shines through especially on camera moves and pans - no matter how distessed it is with handdrawn elements.

I guess as with most things, if the end image works then it doesn't matter how or what apps are used to create it.
I work this way at the moment because I've come into animation a certain route and learn applications in a certain order and had jobs that require certain things.
It's exciting that there is a blurring between techniques and roles at this current time but I suspect the more I personally get into TVP and drawn animation the less likely I will be to open up C4D

[pigbelly]

Aardman is also using a similar pipeline see for a making of:http://www.pearcesisters.co.uk/

I actually sat next to the dudes and dudetts(:-)) that made that Aardman short when I worked there. Watching how they worked, copying, rotoscoping, tracing every single line, really made me avoid 2D for a long time....It just looked like to much work )
well thats not entirely true, 3D has its special challenges to, so I wouldn't say that one is harder than the other one, but I do think you need to have patients of steel to do 2D

cheers
/Tommie

[Paul Fierlinger]

but I do think you need to have patients of steel to do 2D

If you do, you'll never get much done. You should be impatient and learn to draw fast and well -- then there isn't anything but fun ahead. To be too patient is akin to giving up.

[malcooning]

but I do think you need to have patients of steel to do 2D

If you do, you'll never get much done. You should be impatient and learn to draw fast and well -- then there isn't anything but fun ahead. To be too patient is akin to giving up.

wisely put Paul.

[Paul Fierlinger]

Thanks, Asaf. Notice how a vast amount of time all of us spend on deleting, erasing, correcting, redrawing so many frames. Only the inbetweens give relief and time to reflect; but also, I like to carefully watch myself when inbetweening because somewhere in there is the key to the trick of drawing fast and well. I think that in the last three years I've been spending more time than in any previous years, studying where and why I go wrong when I have to fix something, and thank God I don't have the impulse to fix every mistaken line I draw because I become impatient and have to move on to the next one. But I do try to remember what I didn't like and concentrate for the next ten minutes on not repeating the mistake in the following drawings. When I do, I don't fix it because I become impatient and have to stop thinking about mistakes.

If I could be the War Lord of all animators for a day, I'd write out a decree to forbid the use of blue pencil drawing. People who get into that rut are using their impatience in a non productive way. I'd make everyone concentrate on visualizing the character as vividly as possible in their brains while drawing the character as quickly as possible on the screen, and if it doesn't come out right, don't erase anything, just draw a better one using the light table. After a day of having to draw like this, every blue pencil animator would learn why it's good to be impatient and they would hate the blue pencil as much as I do and there would be peace in my Sand Box

You see, the blue pencil allows your brain to take a nap, while these blue shapes have the run of the screen, searching, searching for a pose. It atrophies your visualization muscles in your brain, allowing a dumb, mechanical process of the wrist find the pose in the stupidest, least productive way. You have to wonder about their patience when they search and wait for the Madonna to appear in those scribbles, and when they spot her, because you can always spot a Madonna in a mess of anything -- like toast or a wet wall -- you draw her out with a black pencil and lean back, admire her and watch some YouTube because the next drawing can wait. What I just described is the pride of having patience.