Symbols in TVPaint

[CartoonMonkey]

The dynamic symbol! It revolutionized the world of animation since it's appearance in Macromedia Flash.
Now, it's been adopted in ToonBoom Animate.

Would you like to see symbols added to TVP version 10?

Symbols explanation Here:
http://www.cartoonmonkey.com/TVP/Symbols-part1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cartoonmonkey.com/TVP/Part2/ ... part2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Happy voting!
C

[Mads Juul]

I do agree that some features like the symbol in Flash would improve TVPaint. But what is it. in a way symbols in Flash and the Compositions in Adobe After effect is some of the same. you can animate the position scale, rotation, opacity. without changing the content of the symbol/composition. So what should it be in TVPAint. What about the Clip?. I dont think we need to invent a new item in tvpaint if we already got one that fits. that means a clip in TVPaint should be able the contain another clip. clip should be able to be in different sizes in the same project. that means we need a project library beacause a clip could be used more than one place in a project.

how should TVPaint clip contain another clip
after effects style
- clip is a layer in another clip
- we can animate the position, scale rotation opacity of a layer

Flash style
- a layer can contain more than one clip
- we can animate the symbols different properties but we only got one keyframe

I like the thought of only one keyframe for all properties it workes quite nice in the cut out software cell-action
I like the parenting of layers in after effects...
just some thoughts
-Mads

[NickA]

Hi CartoonMonkey

I still don't see how is this better than using keyframes and/or animbrushes.

Animating with single frame symbols is quick, but the animations usually end up very flat and puppet like.

[slowtiger]

My opinion is that making different software all alike is not a good idea. What's the use of a dozen applications with all the same abilities?

I think it would be beneficial to think about ways to make the use of the existing features as easy as possible. Maybe there's a better way to organize snippets of work and tool settings, some way to make it easier to migrate or share that stuff. Anything in that field will lead to a kind of project management tool, but not in the restricting, "our way is the right way" attitude of the bigger animation systems. What I like most about TVP is its relative openness: I can do nearly anything in nearly any order, just as my whimsy take me (the motto of Lord Peter, BTW).

[CartoonMonkey]

I think you're possibly mistaken here. If we were avoiding making TVP like other software, wouldn't we remove undo, rotate and scale widgets.. even the magic wand or selection tool? Obviously those were taken directly from Photoshop or any number of other programs out there. I know everyone is proud that TVP is unique, but it's uniqueness lies in other things that it does well, not in the multitude of features it's already adopted as standard across the board things that other animation software already has.

The extra abilities for TVP that I'm talking about are more about what the container for a symbol.. can do! (the animbrush, that we already have! )

As we've been speaking about in the beta forum, there is the possibly of having a dynamic timeline for clips or animbrushes, wherein the new rotate/move/scale handle is easily applied to an animated brush. There would be an easy method to keyframe this about the stage, as in using the new easy camera tool. As it stands, if I want to keyframe, scale and rotate an animbrush around the stage, I have to do it with the keyframer, rendering this into the scene. Nudging things around numerically just isn't really quick or intuitive. It's nice to have both options.

If there were a dynamic way of handling a super-animbrush (symbol) in TVP, one could easily rotate, scale, and set keyframes ... while not having to commit the sequence to a render. Dynamic, and useful. I don't see how you could vote this down as possibility for something with the potential to be incredibly, incredibly powerful and useful, unless you're just being cranky and saying "not in my TVP!" for no reason..

With symbol based ( ok, let's call it SUPER-Animbrush ) based animation, one could for example say, have a boat sailing on the water, and it's animation for the sail.. a dynamic SUPER-animbrush. This animbrush isn't committed to the stage, or rendered.. but you can see it play in the timeline along with everything else. It contains several frames of animation, and can be easily scaled/rotated/and re-positioned using and easy widget that surrounds it. If and end to the looping motion is required, a simple keframe is set, and the symb..er.. super-animbrush is told to stop playing after one loop. If you needed a second sail, you could easily duplicate this super-animbrush, and offset it's looping motion, re-scaling it as a 2nd smaller scale. Don't like this animation? Swap the animbrush with an existing animbrush in the bin, and see it update in real time, without rendering. So in short, as I've stated in the beta forum, I'm not suggesting that TVP become flash. Far from it! I'm only suggesting that it adopt an indispensable feature that I believe all modern animation programs will have. (And many already do.) For the simple reason that it's as essential to the ease of moving frames of motion around, as the undo control is to erasing mistakes. ( although I've actually seen arguments out there in other beta forums for other software, that would have eliminated the need for scale / rotate tools because it makes the software less of a 'pure' drawing / painting application. This is astonishing to me.)

Possibly this is a large task for the existing technology, and one that a truly object based vector animation can handle much more easily, but some of that object based power, with those easy transform tools would just be a boon to TVP as it stands, in my opinion. I remember another forum where all of the 'owners' of the software all told some very tall tales about the direction of things, and a few people who were led astray, including myself, about what things were coming, and what was possible.. that never came to fruition. At least with TVP, I have the ability to directly suggest hopefully very very useful features that make it into the final software!

To those who have voted this down, how about identifying yourselves, and explaining your reasons why this would actually be a detriment to the way TVP is used.
I'd be fascinated to learn the answer. It's like saying.. that extra feature of the keyframer.. TVP would be perfect if it was removed entirely! Help me to understand your reasoning.. I'm curious!

Also, watch this very simplified concept demo video I made, if you haven't already seen it:

C

[NickA]

Ok I kinda agree with both of you.

I can see the value in having a more intuitive and workflow friendly way of using the keyframe and animbrush together. It woud be great if more of the keyframer options were editable visually (rather than just numerically). I use keyboard shorcuts to scale and rotate cutbrushes visually all the time (which is great workflow).

I'm not convinced that a dynamic timeline in necessary though (would it kinda act as a animbrush editor?, would it be restrictive?)

I rarely use animbrushes currently.

[slowtiger]

Cartoonmonkey: You have a point here. That's similar to something I mentioned ages ago: that the underlying concept of rendering everything leads to bloated files and eventually affects performance.

The new way of panning backgrounds is nearly exactly what I suggested then. I like the idea of extending this concept to other stuff as well, as with the Xsheet tool already was implemented. But I wasn't aware that TVP seriously considered a change of paradigm, because I know how big a piece of work this would be.

We could agree on this set of rules then:
- render only what really needs to be rendered (aside from the preview rendering, of course, which always is necessary).
- use references as much as possible (like exposures and Xsheet layers already do)
- simplify Animbrush and Keyframer usage (more "grab and do stuff", less numbers - but numbers must always be an option)
and a personal of mine:
- show stuff off-project. The new panning camera project is great. But in the Keyframer I still don't see my source elements while they are outside the project's boundaries, only the yellow rectangle. Especially with animated stuff it would be helpful to actually see some bitmap stuff inside that rectangle.

[BenEcosse]

I find the idea of a SUPER ANIMBRUSH really interesting.

[CartoonMonkey]

So, no one who voted NO will explain exactly why? Ha.. well, "yes" is still winning the poll..

I'll be running another poll over at coldhardflash.com forums, and we'll all get a chance to see what non TVP users think about TVP and the possibility of it having something similar to the nested timeline / superanimbrush (gasp! symbols!) feature..

Stay tuned..
C

[Peter Wassink]

I don't mind explaining why i voted NO.

I guess it was a protest vote against this poll
The formulations of both the Yes and the No options are completely loaded.
You stated it so that every tvp user would naturally have to opt for Yes.... who wouldn't want amazing! incredible! power in TVP.

I am curious what you had hoped to learn from a poll like this.

Also i'm curious what you plan to ask the flash community, why would they care about a software like TVP?

But i'll admit i already regret my 'no' vote, 'no vote' would have been better.
Be honest Chad, the poll, in this form, stinks.

[NickA]

OK if you insist. FTR I also voted no. You can see my thoughts in the above posts.

Now I call upon everyone who voted yes in this anonymous poll to identify and explain themselves (clearly and concisly), you naughty children. /s

I also agree that the poll question has a very biased loading.

[CartoonMonkey]

I agree, no vote would have been better, and would have served not to load the poll toward placing the votes toward what is honestly a great feature, into the negative zone.
Thanks for explaining it. I should have really just put "YES" or "NO" as the poll questions, but unfortunately, I can't change it.

I did this poll to prove a point. It seems that many times in the forum, an idea is stricken down either as unnecessary, infeasible or just plain unwanted.
I had hoped to learn from a wider user base than the limited amount of beta testers, if they think that symbols in TVP would be a good idea. Simply a second opinion!
I think at some point, questions should be open to more than just a select few, even if my question has no direct effect or bearing on the future beta, or direction of TVP.
Hilariously enough, some forum members have the programming skill to just create their own software solutions to features they've suggested that have only seen disparaging comments & disapproving glares, then turned into interested delight.

Aren't we all here to try and positively affect the direction of the software? When I receive, from a few select beta testers, bouts of "No! TVP is unique!" and am generally met with curmudgeonly opposition to every suggested feature, it gets a bit tiresome, and it leaves one to wonder, why should we try and suggest anything new?

About asking the Flash community: First and foremost, I will be introducing a post about what exactly TVP is, what it can do, and this very poll question about symbols inTVPaint. There are a great many Flash users out there who feel orphaned because of the Adobe buyout, and have for years looked for extra features that have been promised, and never delivered. Also, many of these Flash animators are traditional animators, who would really enjoy the bitmap feel and precision of TVP. The question I would pose would be essentially:

"So, now you know about TVP, and the things it can do. Coming from a flash user's perspective, would the addition of symbols or a dynamic timeline and object orientated super-animbrush, excite you about the program and make you more interested in adapting it to your workflow? "

I'm just blown away by the amounts of negativity I've received for suggesting features, and trying to teach a few things about why I believe a certain feature might be.. incredibly powerful and USEFUL! The hardest thing for a few people around here to admit, is that Flash did one thing that revolutionized animation forever, does it incredibly well, and could be actually useful in TVP. There remains some crazy weird bias against Flash, and I'm not entirely sure why. In fact, I have a strong feeling that those voting this down have never really used Flash deeply, or used it in a commercial application where they're using symbols.

I'm really not interested if you personally don't care for my style of debate, or the way I've gone about presenting information to members of the forum. It's not my intent to try and be your friend, or try to pat you on the back when you're not feeling well. But I don't disrespect your comments in the forum, and I don't try and forcibly bring down solutions you've presented to problems that can be solved in the software, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try and rain on my particular parade for no apparent reason other than you disagree with my being here in the first place.

I am really interested in hearing solid reasons on why the addition of the super-animbrush or dynamic symbol would be a big "NO" for those remaining people who voted this down.

NickA, you really didn't explain anything. Let's hear your reasons in your own words. Also, have you used flash? Ever used symbols in flash? Keep in mind, that you're not voting on the "loaded" poll. You're voting on the feature.

Down with the UNDO command! It's cheating!
-C

[Fabrice]

Keep it cool, everybody wants his own feature in the software. We will do our best to make everybody satisfied.

[Elodie]

I've edited your post Chad. No more discussion about this now =)

And I personnally would say : why not. I'm not very fan of animation with symbols, but after all, the main aim of TVP Animation is to be a "Swiss army knife". Everybody can animate as he wants : traditionnal cartoon, artistic animations with traditionnal renderings, full TVP or paper sheets... So why not create an option to make easier animations with puppets or symbols ?

People who don't want to make animations with symbols, won't care about this option (as there are people who don't care about, for example... I don't know, spline tools because they paint or peg-hole registration because they don't animate on sheets ?) and people who would like to have such a feature, will be very delighted to use it.

Now, only depends on our warrior developers team

[slowtiger]

I generally don't vote in senseless polls like this. But I'd like to add a bit to my already explained thoughts.

Whenever I see a suggestion being made to change or add something to a software "just like in Flash", a big red light flashes in my mind. I've used Flash since the days of the very first FutureSplash release, which seems ages ago, and until today the Flash user interface is one of the worst examples of anti-usability in the whole industry, and it hasn't improved in all these years.

That said, I can see the benefits of "symbols" or "library items" or, let's name it, the "Re-use brush", as well as the pitfalls which come with it. I can imagine big complex scenes whith dozens or hundreds of moving characters (actually I've seen quite some in recent animation) which are only possible to do when a system of re-use or "pre-composition" or "symbol" exists. Right now these scenes are done in Flash because this is something it can do really well, and quite comfortably (for Flash). I don't mind to switch programs on a scene-by-scene base, I do that all the time.

The point is: implementing such a function only makes sense when it a) really fits into the overall concepts of TVP and b) is at least as good as in other software, or even better. It doesn't make sense if all to be achieved is only a bad copy of something else, or clumsy and complicated to use.