Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

I am developing a new character, Joshua Slocum, for our current (new) feature film. While constructing a small animation sequence to figure him out I decided to opaque him with one of TVP's new custom brushes, namely Asaf's Wet Brush. I am floored by the qualities of this brush and want everyone to see what it does.

I like the watercolor look that does not come out either too streaky or two pen-brush like, just watercolor brush-like which fits perfectly the kind of loose lines I like to draw with. Perhaps the area around the man's chest came out a bit too unevenly painted but I just wanted to try a little bit of extreme in a small area. It would be no problem at all to use the brush more evenly. Actually everything was done in a rushed, test-like manner.

What's even more amazing is that after painting each jacket with a series of strokes, I tried using the combination of painting a closed outline first and then filling the middle with the paint bucket on his trousers, just like we've been doing with the pen-brush and it works! Painting this way doesn't take more time than if I had painted it with those flat, bucket fill colors that so resemble old acetate cel paints, which I detest but have been using for expediency.

Those days are over for me. To show what I'm salivating over so much, I uploaded a 720p QT file here so you can look at it frame by frame:
www.video.paulfierlinger.com/tvp/
It's only 5.53 MB

Asaf, you are a genius and many thanks!

Yes, I love how it allows the light to play through the movement. It's a winner all right. I have played with it a bit but have been concentrating on drawing lately and haven't explored it as much as I want to. Thanks for the demo...it opens a wonderful door to painting. And my salute to Asaf too.

Just one caveat; the colors are always transparent and this is why it emulates watercolor brushes so well. To make the character opaque I have to make a copy of the coloring anim layer, which I then turn into a mat of the same color as the background I use as a base for painting; in this case the off white tan. I have streamlined this last step with CP buttons into two clicks... with a little more experimenting I might be able to do this in one click.

Yes, I have discovered that trick too....making an opaque layer of my background color so transparencies become solid.

Looking at your demo again, I just love the texture of the cloth.

The trick in Asaf's brush is that it has a paper base but it shows only in certain areas where you push harder on the pen. This is what gives the surfaces texture but not too much of it. I think this is the nature of Asaf's beast; he uses everything that has been available to us for a long time (plus a couple of new ones) but he uses all these functions with moderation.

Paul Fierlinger wrote: Asaf, you are a genius and many thanks!

I don't get THAT every day! Thanks. My pleasure

The water brushes set the paper at 25% hardness. When I want to apply a slightly thicker "coat" of "paint" (i can go on with the quote marks forever. it's paperless domain after all...) i toggle the paper off (I have a key assigned to the toggle) and paint. Then I can soften it back again by toggling the paper on again and going over the paint lightly. When I want to have real thickness, I switch to "Color" drawing mode, then beck to "Alpha Diff". And when I want the paper texture to show through more, I raise the hardness level, or change to a coarser paper. but mind you, with the Luma brushes, the harder the paper is, the lighter the applied paint will be. (as well, the level of hardness will reset to 25% every time you click on the water color brushes from the ones I posted - unless you changed them of course).

I use the system of opaqueing a layer behind an object/character. But the more I do it the more it makes me want to just practice drawing everything on the same layer, and use only the project background as the real opaque, which is more classical in approach.
Digital abilities to promote classical approaches. nice

Those are helpful hints. I hope it becomes a permanent part of TVP's Tool Bin. BTW, do you have an answer to the question I posed on the beta sight about your brush taking over the use of the CutBrush for any other purposes? The only way I could figure how to uncouple the two was by closing and reopening TVP.

Paul Fierlinger wrote:Those are helpful hints. I hope it becomes a permanent part of TVP's Tool Bin. BTW, do you have an answer to the question I posed on the beta sight about your brush taking over the use of the CutBrush for any other purposes? The only way I could figure how to uncouple the two was by closing and reopening TVP.

I didn't come across such problem (CutBrush switches to WetBrush) on my TVP so I have no idea what causes it.

Yes, CutBrush switches to WetBrush, but does it do the opposite. Try using the cut brush to cut from the project window. When I do that it opens WetBrush and turns the cut out into a tiny WetBrush.

I found my problem. I had KEEP checked in the CutBrush.

Beside techniques, coming back to your development of Joshua Slocum.
Considering that this is a very early step in your development and also knowing that you put "in animation the character comes from his motions, not from the patterns of his neck tie" as a flag (- and btw I agree), but imo there are some issues with Slocum:
1. For me Slocum is taking here a rather weak shape (as a character, non-athletic-type), although his action looks contradistinctive to me (he is picking up his blown-off hat = taking his life in his own hands )
But maybe you wanted this conflict and/or you are pointing to a younger and different episode of Slocum's life far away from starting his famous journey. Indeed, there are different incarnations of Slocum all through his life ( the salaried sailor, the family-man, the dauntless adventurerer, the serious Captain, the party-man, the lonesome sailor on his own, the unsuccessful farmer ....to name a few )

2. To be honest, your Slocum looks like most of your male characters are looking ( small head, small upper body, loosy big trousers, small (rather child-) hand and feet.)
OK this is your style (and a very sympathic one), but in the case of JS I am not so sure with it.

You make valid points which I am working on working out of my system (baggy pants is one of those hard ones to drop, unlike in real life). When studying the limited number of photographs that exist, he appears to be stiff and expressionless almost to appear dim witted. Yet he has been described by his peers and adult children as nimble (I can see that) but also sloppy, strong, a raconteur and animated lecturer who makes crowds roll with laughter, dirty, careless, charismatic, charming -- but I don't see this in his dour, almost ascetic expressionless face.

I haven't yet decided to what degree I should depart from who he really was (but who remembers so who can tell me?). The 150 years since his death has done its tole on his persona already. Yacht Club sailors have mythologized him nearly beyond recognition -- I am ready to do my part on distorting the most repeated tales. Why adhere so strictly to his photographs? At least half of my story will be entirely made up by me and new to anyone who has read his books.

If I am departing considerably from the man in the photographs, I might as well be careless about sticking to his anatomy in the photographs. Coming to think of it, it would be a more honest approach if I wouldn't; Milos Forman's Amadeus in a blue wig versus the historical Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Did the historical Jesus really look like a 1970's member of the Main Line Cricket Club coming out of the steam room?

So as much as I try to tighten his trousers and tuck in his belly, I know that I am not hell bent on adhering to history; not even making a history lesson, so I might as well stay with what comes out of my stylus the easiest -- the film has to be done in about 3 years from now.

Paul, can you tell a bit about your new film?

It's based on the book Sailing Alone Around the World, by Joshua Slocum, the first man to circumnavigate the globe solo in a sailboat. It was in the late eighteen hundreds when he did this and steam was taking over sails. He wrote a book, which didn't become as popular as he thought it deserved to have been, which turned him from a likable, amicable and humble man into a half deranged, scurrilous individual self consumed with hubris.

When steamships killed his profession of commanding huge square rigged merchant freighters he found himself desperately in need of money and a new way to make it with his sailing skills. He received a dubious gift of a dilapidated, rotted, one hundred year old oyster smack, which he rebuilt plank by plank back into a fishing boat to earn some money to buy a small farm.

But along the way he decided for something grander; to solo sail this little boat around the world, something no one had ever done and everyone thought impossible, thus gain enough fame to sell a book and make the money he needed so desperately.

Closer to the truth, he had 7 children and a second wife he didn't care for and just wanted to get away from the desperation of it all. Three years alone at sea was heaven to his mind. But it was fear of poverty that drove him the most. There are many parallels to modern times here; workers skilled in professions made obsolete by computer technology dream of get rich quick schemes to conquer their inadequacies, compounded by the pitfalls of hubris otherwise perfectly decent people fall into when pursuing these pipe dreams. Hubris is described as an overconfident, inflated view of one's abilities that leads to self destruction.

In the end (there is much more to the story after his return -- most of which will be fictional) he decides to go on another sea adventure to write another book (this part is true) and no one ever saw him since. By all accounts, he most likely was run down at night by a steamship.

Just wanted to say that I'm amazed by this way of colouring.

As to characters: I always wondered how difficult it would be to define an animated character without giving him only one set of clothing for an entire film or series. As you know, nearly all series characters never change their wardrobe, aside from adding a coat or a scuba diving suit occasionally.

I can think of using Slocum's clothing as a means to show his emotional state: formal dress during his good times, more and more deranged when out of money, and totally neglected when at sea.