making of duet

[Elodie]

sorry for the off-topic messages and comparison with someone else animation.

Don't be so hard on Glen Keane, though

I didn't want to be : I like "Duet", but I don't think the way it's shown in the making of is the good one.

Neither do I. Actually, as Glen Keane is not a TVPaint user, it allows us (for once) to give a real and sincere opinion

I also appreciated the short. As I said above, it's cute and well animated.
What "bothers" me is just all explanations around the film and the words they have, while, IMHO it's not so impressive.
Ok, they needed to imagine 2D characters' moves in a 3D environment to allow a "camera tracking" with your phone.
One again, I find this idea really fun. But all the explanation around (interview, tech conference, etc...) are a little too... pretentious. :/

[D.T. Nethery]

Don't be so hard on Glen Keane, though

I didn't want to be : I like "Duet", but I don't think the way it's shown in the making of is the good one.
- - -

Yes, I don't think I quite get it ... I am having difficulty trying to visualize how this little film DUET would be made better if it is viewed through a phone screen with the phone functioning as a "virtual camera" that is used to follow the animation around in 3D space ? I liked the animation and am satisfied to view it in the "normal" way on a screen. But I expect I am not part of the target demographic for this device. I still think of viewing films in terms of linear stories , exhibited in a theater or via television , not as an immersive , interactive "game-like" experience. When I view a film I don't want to be the "director" , moving the camera around randomly ; I want to watch what the director has created , letting the director's vision move me to laughter or tears , etc.


.

[furushil]

Hmmm. What is the "progress in arts" ? it's no easy to define, but it's often said in various making-of (especially in the US, but not only : there are exemples in Europe and Japan).

Everyone has to decide for themselves what progress is, when it comes to art. It is very individual as you have to ask yourself: "How can I make better art and be a better artist?"
I don't believe that technology makes your art better. It can help you to get things done faster or easier but not better.
You can create better art when you gain experience and sharpen your skills.

Fabrice, in which making-of did you hear it? Could you name an example?
I often hear that people say: "We could have never done this before, because now we have this technology". I am thinking of Disney's Tarzan for example, where they could add painted brush strokes to a moving 3D branch. Sure, it is amazing but you are not suppose to remember the movie because of this new technology. It is not a progress artistically. You could also tell the story without Tarzan flying through 3D space.
I understand that those productions are highly commercial and that there are a lot of risks to it, so they have to invent new things to attract people.
But for me the most important thing is what is going on emotionally in a picture.
For some reason people are concentrating to much on the technological part.

I love TVpaint because with TVpaint it is just me and the digital paper. There are no "walls" between us. I don't have to push many button or adjust filters/effects.
Some months ago, I made a small loop scene, where I made the animation in TVpaint and then tried to "glue it all together" in After Effects. I didn't like that process because it was to technical for me.

I wonder how it was when Ub Iwerks invented the multiplane camera. Did they also presented it as a groundbreaking new technology?
I can imagine that they concentrated on other more important things.

[Fabrice]

Fabrice, in which making-of did you hear it? Could you name an example?

I'm not in a good position to give examples : mostly because people will use my words against me and TVPaint in general.

Anyway I'm glad some people point this out. It should be rule #1 of any film maker :

But for me the most important thing is what is going on emotionally in a picture.

The rule #2 would be to find the most convenient tool to do so.

[kariP]

For some reason people are concentrating to much on the technological part.

It could be that it's easier to understand technological advancement. If you start talking about emotion and how to evoke it, you go into very personal, uncharted and insecure space. And it might not be as easy to communicate about it than about technology. Technology is hard, concrete and out there. Usb, hdmi, wacom, you name it, tools that we all know. Emotion or expressivity on the other hand, well, what is it? Always changing, always to be defined on the spot.

When you see a film and start talking about it with somebody, it's easier to start talking about how it was made, right? It's just like talking about the weather, to get the conversation going and see where it takes. Easier to start from the shallow end.

[Elodie]

You're right, but subjectivity is art's core