EBsynth a powerfull texturising (rotoscope)tool

[Peter Wassink]

The free powerfull mapping tool EBsynth
has a new much faster beta version out:

This powerfull app was created by some of the same people that worked on TVPaints CTG layer.
It can effortlessly do what the texturizer tries to do.

it can be a great tool when you are into rotoscoping.

https://ebsynth.com/

[D.T. Nethery]

Thanks for posting this. I had not heard of it before.

I haven't had time to even open it yet , but do you use it by animating a sequence in TVPaint , then export drawings as PNG sequence and then
import to EBSynth to add texture to the images . (then they can come back to TVPaint as PNGs ?)
I suppose I'll find out , but was just curious how you had used it .

[slowtiger]

This exists for some time already, right? I remember the examples in the video, have seen some years ago. Hm. To me it looks more like domesticated video compression artefacts, but maybe someone can utilize this style.

[Peter Wassink]

Yes, the app itself not new, but a new beta was just released that is much faster.
And it is definitely worth checking out, if you are doing anything with textures in animation.

We are using it in our current rotoscoping production.
It helps us add painted brushstrokes on otherwise flat colored roto animation.
Admittedly it seems to works best with lifeaction material for input.

I have not yet experimented with how this tool can be utilized with a normal flat 2D animation as a source
But i think it could serve to apply textures or shading and save a lot of work that way.

This guy is demonstrating what happens if you apply it to some motion graphics, its not yet convincing to me.
but i think if you do this in layers, and put in a bit more preparation it will be possible to achieve great results. :
https://youtu.be/a83dFjJMhXg?t=692

[Peter Wassink]

Thanks for posting this. I had not heard of it before.

I haven't had time to even open it yet , but do you use it by animating a sequence in TVPaint , then export drawings as PNG sequence and then
import to EBSynth to add texture to the images . (then they can come back to TVPaint as PNGs ?)
I suppose I'll find out , but was just curious how you had used it .

you a need a source sequence of png's (referred to as video)
and a texture (keyframe) which framenumber matches one of the frames of that sequence, if you run it it will create a folder with the render output which you then can load back into tvpaint.

its a similar process as the texturizer built into TVPaints Colo&Texture layer

[slowtiger]

The examples use a complete image as source, I think it will work much better once you can separate background from characters.

[Peter Wassink]

Yes i think so.

here is another example of someone texturizing a simpsons scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fILG1J6gMBs

[slowtiger]

Doesn't convince me. OK; I'm not their target customer.

[VGmaster9]

I see much potential in this software for 2d animation. It's very similar to the tool used for texturing in the film Klaus. This could be used with not just TVPaint, but also Flash, Toon Boom, Opentoonz, etc. Here's an example of it being used for classic animations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6079FCimn3c

Follow up tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QEbnTWBqC8&t

[Peter Wassink]

To be fair though, i much prefer the way the flat colored Robin Hood looks when compared to the highlighted EBsynth version...

I still think it could be a usefull tool, but in this case i'm kind of put off by the results.

[D.T. Nethery]

I see much potential in this software for 2d animation. It's very similar to the tool used for texturing in the film Klaus. This could be used with not just TVPaint, but also Flash, Toon Boom, Opentoonz, etc. Here's an example of it being used for classic animation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6079FCimn3c

Follow up tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QEbnTWBqC8&t

To be fair though, i much prefer the way the flat colored Robin Hood looks when compared to the highlighted EBsynth version...

I still think it could be a usefull tool, but in this case i'm kind of put off by the results.

I agree with you, Peter. The original scenes look better. Just throwing a bunch of random tones and highlights on top of it doesn't make it look better. It's like an art student who first discovers airbrush , suddenly all their art has airbrush over-applied , with no good taste or discretion used (and no understanding of light sources and how light & shadow are applied to objects). Bleh .


Here is an image from the tutorial . Honestly, this looks like one of those ugly plastic toys that are included in a McDonald's Happy Meal™ .

Does anyone really see this as an improvement on the original ?

I still think it could be a usefull tool, but in this case i'm kind of put off by the results.

Yes, I think it could be useful in the hands of an art director with some good taste and who has a real understanding of how light sources work, and how light
is reflected on objects.


.

[VGmaster9]

I agree with you, Peter. The original scenes look better. Just throwing a bunch of random tones and highlights on top of it doesn't make it look better. It's like an art student who first discovers airbrush , suddenly all their art has airbrush over-applied , with no good taste or discretion used (and no understanding of light sources and how light & shadow are applied to objects). Bleh .


Here is an image from the tutorial . Honestly, this looks like one of those ugly plastic toys that are included in a McDonald's Happy Meal™ .

Thumper_toonerooned.jpg


Does anyone really see this as an improvement on the original ?


Thumper_original.jpg

I still think it could be a usefull tool, but in this case i'm kind of put off by the results.

Yes, I think it could be useful in the hands of an art director with some good taste and who has a real understanding of how light sources work, and how light
is reflected on objects.


.

I could argue that the Thumper one could've been done better. The way it should be used is to make the characters blend in with the painted backgrounds. Here are a few more examples.

Here EBsynth is used to make Bambi's eyes shinier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlmLlqMJJ4

Here it is used for a scene in The Iron Giant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRqJKpOdqKQ

Here it is used for a couple frames of animation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29OwO8_2mYg

[D.T. Nethery]

I think part of the problem I'm having with most of these examples is that they are parasitic , by appropriating someone else's animation (which was already art directed and colored in a specific , intentional way) and altering it with no consideration for the integrity of the original art or the artists who made it. I would say to people doing this: make your own animation and light it this way if it pleases you. Don't presume to "improve" on someone else's work. (and in my eyes, the examples shown definitely do not improve on the originals. The tones and highlights mostly look arbitrary in the way they are placed on the characters , there does not seem to be a consistent light source, the colors look muddy , it's a big mess.)

I'm not against using tones and highlights. Sometimes they work , it depends on the style of the film, the effect you're trying to achieve on screen. Most of the time a little goes a long way. It's important that the effects animator doing the tones and highlights really understands how the light source will influence the placement of the tones and highlights , and how light affects objects in the real world depending on the source of the light , the type of light (soft or hard light , natural sunlight or artificial light) , and the material the light is reflecting on (for example: soft fur or cloth , or a person's skin will react to light differently than a hard plastic or metal surface.

So , I still agree that the EBsynth tool has potential. I just think it needs to be used with some good taste and a thorough understanding of light sources and how different types of light react to different surfaces. However, I would like to see examples of it applied to animation specifically designed to use this technique , rather than superimposing tones & highlights on existing animation that was not designed to look like that.

[slowtiger]

(lots of agreement here)

I was just about to mention the latest Peanuts feature, which was done in 3D, and very successfully so, IMO. Of course it's different from Schultz' drawings. But that were the Bill Melendez TV specials already as well. I had a chance to see the director explain some of the trickery they had to pull off to make 2D comic exaggeration work in 3D. "Simple" stuff like: where do Snoopy's eyes go in a head turn? How do you show legs moving very fast if not with motion blur?

So these folks were not falling for that naïve approach you see a lot elsewhere. They concentrated on getting character and movement right, and only then decided about looks (textures and lighting).

There's a lot of stories which could be told with actors in life action as well as with animation, even more so nowadays where it's not prohibitively expensive anymore to include some CGI for the monsters. I don't blame Hollywood for using the most effective technique to animate these: rig a bunch of nice 3D puppets, animate the rigs or use motion capture, release the movie. Some of these are actually pretty nice. I'm tempted too to use 3D puppets, but as long as they can't be rendered like what I draw in 2D I'm safe (and you as well).

IMO there's not much knowledge around about why a certain style fits a certain story. About 80% of animation is done in the safe but brackish waters of either Pixar-mimicking CGI or Disney/anime cel animation look. It's done this way because production pipelines are set up that way and studios have invested in software which does this best. There's still variations in the design, but only within the limits of the pipeline (luckily people like Tomm Moore are expanding that range constantly). This is why I like watching shorts: there's so many different ways to fill a frame. Some of them work perfectly, a lot don't, but at least they try to find their own voice, in terms of design.

EBsynth is a tool, right, but only in a way as any other Photoshop filter works: not much finesse there. Try to do dramatic lighting with this, or a backlight shot: nope.

(What was the point? I think I just ramble. Sorry.)

About posters: Yes, they're ugly, but I think they can be excused because they have to fight for attention amongst all other movie posters done in day-glo neon.

[D.T. Nethery]

About posters: Yes, they're ugly, but I think they can be excused because they have to fight for attention amongst all other movie posters done in day-glo neon.

Oh, sorry about that ... I deleted the ugly marketing art examples in my previous post, because I felt like I was going too far astray from the original point.