/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2204492
I can't speak as to how they did it but they weren't the first. There are other studios that have experimented with the style long before pixar got around to using it for the short.

My favorite adaptation are the ones made for the headless studios films.

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

>>2204492
the character animation was done 3d, then they had 2d animators go over it frame by frame and add outlines

>>2204492
There's a behind the scenes video of paperman on YouTube. You'll find it

>>2204492
W A T C H
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY

BIG NEWS! "Persistence of Vision" – the award-winning documentary about master animator Richard Williams and his ill-fated masterpiece, "The Thief and the Cobbler" – is available for a limited time to rent on Vimeo On Demand! Only $4.99 for a 24-hour rental, and available worldwide in all accepted currencies! Click the link to watch the film right now!

Get it while you can boys. Don't let them pull it down before you get a chance to watch it.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/persistenceofvision

quick anim as a placeholder for a vidya running animation, im sort of a beginner in animation and i've been triyng to learn, but i already can get some things done, i guess.

can anyone help me with it though? im going to use this as the base of the final animation but it sorta feels...stiff? i was thinking that i should maybe give him more airtime? maybe make him land harder?

(the original was also 60fps but flash doesnt like exporting in anything other than 30fps so i had to cut frames to show this)

>>2204762
cant believe i forgot to upload the .gif, sorry about that.

>>2204492
kazuma shou is better at doing that stuff

>>2204811
pic not related?

>>2204811
Granted I said Pixar wasn't the first at attempting this sort of thing but the engine they used and the final product was still one of the best I've seen. I sincerely doubt that artist you mentioned has done a better job.

I'm applying for a five-day storyboarding course focused on Storyboard Pro. Anyone ever use it?

>>2204492
Is this the official thread? I swear to god if it isnt

>>2205027
Well it does say animation general. It better be.

>>2204492
Last thread: >>2172555

>Stuff you may find useful, books basic program tutorials etc
https://mega.co.nz/#F!3p8CwQZD!DR2mC-kw0TyQQ8Uw3T6JYg

https://mega.co.nz/#!TdclgBqS!QWLS9f3ogerhJDfxCYPv_yFKRR11tP_IC0eaA4sEwug

>Reference stuff you can find with a simple google search

http://www.referencereference.com/
https://vimeo.com/groups/aniref
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRvspTjApofA2Yg3i10gTdQ
http://www.rhinohouse.com/


>chrome plug in that lets you playback youtube animations frame by frame
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/frame-by-frame-for-youtub/elkadbdicdciddfkdpmaolomehalghio?hl=en-GB

OP is a faggot for not linking, punk bitch

>>2204525
not frame by frame, only on a few keyframes and then the computer did the rest

>>2204492
Faggot.

>>2205070
Thank you.

does anybody have any other good examples of 3D and 2D hybrids. I know there are plenty of videos where they have a 3D character in a 2D environment or vice versa but does anybody have good examples of something similar to that Paperman short where they have the 2D drawing being carried on top of the 3D animation? It's simplistic and beautiful, a nice finishing touch for the animation

>>2205381
No, it's one-of-a-kind.

>>2205178
really? good to know thanks

>>2205401
I think this technique should be used more often. It reminds people of traditional animation whilst also using modern techniques

>>2205381

someone posted this reboard of that let it go frozen song

http://bonkalore.tumblr.com/post/128030868039/whole-first-draft-of-the-let-it-go-revamp

apparently did it with windows movie maker. anyone working on storyboards right now?

Sooo the process is sort of like rotoscoping?

>>2204492
>IC being retarded and hates puppet animation
>still whines about coolness of Paperman
>don't even knows that it was an actual puppet animation with 3D used as puppets and "automatically generated" frames between keyframes

/ic/ never changes.

Paperman and picrelated have more common than you can imagine. Only difference is picrelated is cheaper mobile game animation and paperman is more expensive and big screen animation.

It has more common with picrelated than with your glorified traditional animation.

>>2205381
feast by disney

>>2205688
Don't kid yourself you pathetic lazy sham. This film went through the ringer before it even got to that stage including tradition boards and animatics, 3d animation effects and finally the patented tween ing tool that is (in case you weren't paying attention) more refined than any other version out on the market. And even then it still required an artist that actually knows what 5he fuck they were doing to go back and refine the proportions.

That thing you posted is nothing more than the typical half assed garbage your lazy and untalented generation is known for.

>>2205688
And yes any shitty puppet animation you posted on this sight that got flack was and still is nothing more than hot garbage.

Stay mad

>>2205819
>That thing you posted is nothing more than the typical half assed garbage your lazy and untalented generation is known for.
>your generation

Anyone try the Channel Frederator Network, Im slightly interested in it, you can build a fanbase from there before hopping onto patreon

>>2205819
>>2205821
Delusional faggots.
It's like they denying the whole videogame industry because of their autism.
>Don't kid yourself you pathetic lazy sham.
the fuck are you even talking about?
puppet or not puppet - you still need to be a professional animator to do it correct, make correct keyframes and know about good timing and etc.
>That thing you posted is nothing more than the typical half assed garbage your lazy and untalented generation is known for.
What a faggot.
Sure your "anime stick figure walking cycle" is a masterpiece hahahah.
I never seen any good 2d animation in /ic/ animations thread. The thing i posted >>2205688 is still better than anything that was posted here because it has good timing and nice keyframe position.

>>2205834
>>your generation
this
im 33 and ive done 2d animation and flash animation back in early-mid 00s
Puppet animation with newer and better software is an ultimate choice because it allows you do the most important things without wasting time for drawing every frame (drawing every goddamn frame dont make you a good animator. it make you a chinese labormonkey you delusional piece of amateur shit).
It still requires knowlege about animation fundamentals.
I guess those guys saw some amateur stuff on youtube that looked like crap and gone butthurt.
Or because they understand that their "walk cyckle" that they spent the whole day for is nothing compare to puppet animation of the same quality but with much less time.

>>2205846
damn sorry for mistakes. witing from my phone and being upset about all that skeletal animation bashing

>>2205846
Different anon, but I am interested in seeing a "good" 2d puppet animation.

>>2205853
Lol.
Paperman?

>>2205853
Also picrelated
that griffin image was just a static image and then it was animated with bones

>>2205381
Not film, but King of Fighters XIII used something similar with their pixel art.

http://kofaniv.snkplaymore.co.jp/english/info/15th_anniv/2d_dot/creation/

>>2205857
also this

>>2205853
Dofus/Wakfu, both the games and the series has good puppet animation. The series are mixed with different frames though, but I think having puppet/handdrawn together makes for a good mix.

>>2205856
Wasnt Papperman done in 3d then traced in 2d? Is that the same? It sounds like rotoscoping

>>2205857
>>2205860
They look good, but not as good as I was expecting. There are probably better 2d puppet animations out there that I should be looking for, I guess. Thanks anon, I'll stick with frame by frame for now.

>>2205853
Rick and Morty

>>2205857
That cycle is garbage. It's stiff lifeless and garbage just like every other shitty skeleton animation out there.

>>2205846
Except like every other good idea to save time, that isn't how it is used by the hacks that that use it as a crutch. Just like that example posted the animations created using puppets are nothing more than hot garbage and it's prevented them from learning how to do real animation becuase hey "its so much easier"

>>2205968
>That cycle is garbage. It's stiff lifeless and garbage just like every other shitty skeleton animation out there.
then there is this faggot

>>2205884
>>2205860
>>2205857
My point proven lol.

I don't get why this gets so much praise.

Turning 3D into 2D. Big whoop.

>>2205381
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUnz3crMRcs

The animation is pretty un-fluid but other than that I think it looks good.

>>2204763

you made his torso + hips a very stiff spring and his head have a lot of weight, so that's why it looks (literally) "stiff"

I don't think it's a bad look for that stick figure, but if you want something more anatomical:

- don't constantly speed up the legs throughout the stride -- if you make them slow down before changing direction, they'll appear more weighty

- there's no hips or torso twist on your drawing, but the hips should rotate after hitting the ground, under the force

- I didn't watch it frame by frame, but when his heel strikes, then the hip moves down, bending the knee. the more time delay you have, the 'heavier' the thing will look. the sense of weight comes from the body's momentum, like it's a falling bowling ball and the legs are cushioning it on every impact.

sorry for the wall of text, hope it helps.

>>2205844
>good timing
Hshahaahahahaaaha

There are people in /ic/ right now that actually believe this. Those animations are all garbage anon. I hope you didn't animate them.
Haahahaahahaha

>>2204705
Underated post. He was suprisingly self destructive but I still have nothing but respect for the man.

>>2206055
This was fan-fucking-tastic. One of my favorite animation shorts now, so thanks for sharing. I think the 'choppy' animation works very well for the style.

>>2206055
Those are paintings anon. The animators are just really good draftsman is all. Great animation considering the amount of detail that went into each frame.

>>2205844
>>2206117
Both of you need to calm your autism holy shit.

Does anyone have any torrents for any character design for animation classes? Can't really find any on cgp.

>>2206158
bumping for this. I also need the richard willaims video collection.

>Don't feed the trolls unless you find that sort of thing entertaining.
OP's faggot ass forgot to include this. It's here, now. You can all stop.

The making of Kill La Kill is now up on youtube!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMWM-5yosDs

>>2205853
https://vimeo.com/116031993
https://vimeo.com/101069769
https://vimeo.com/101069770

>>2207199
This is amazing

>>2205381
How about this?

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022031/GuiltyGearXrd-s-Art-Style-The

These guys have pretty much nailed it in terms of reproducing the style of game sprites in a 3D setting.

This video goes pretty in-depth by the way, especially when they discuss the shader. Quite a few tricks involved to get their outcome.

Really good to learn from too.

>>2207354
None of those are puppet animations....

>>2206119
why was he self destructive? you mean like workaholic?
I think richard williams is a prime example of having not so much a talent, but working with an unmatchable passion on his skills. his work seems never playful like it does for example of Milt Kahl.
so yeah he's a hero for me too.

>>2204705
>Don't let them pull it down

You can download the mp4 directly from the page lol, it's 1.4GB.

>>2207735
couldn't find it. where? you mean after you purchased the 24h rent? I would pay for the movie, but not for a rent.
that hieronymus bosch-like battle sequence at the end is one of the most stunning thing I've ever seen in my life.

>>2207755
Yup, after you purchase the 24h rent, even if they don't have the download option enabled.

Once the video page loads, view the page source.
Search for "player.vimeo.com/video/137771911/config?".

Then open the rather long link, it will return a bunch of text.
That text contains video download URLs (even though its not meant to be downloadable!).

Get the first link that you find (it should be 720p), it will start with something like this:
"https://s.vimeocdn.com/vimeo-prod-skyfire-std-us/"

Use a download manager that supports pause/resume (or just use Chrome).
Enjoy!

>>that hieronymus bosch-like battle sequence at the end is one of the most stunning thing I've ever seen in my life

I second this, it's really something special.

>>2207851
I bought the physical copy. 25 with free shipping isn't that bad. I somehow didn't think of renting and downloading it even though I've been downloading shit from New Masters Academy all day

>>2207853
That's actually quite a good price.
Yeah it surprised me when that trick worked so easily...I was expecting something more secure.

first comes keys

very crude, but how's the timing?

>>2208463
Leading foot needs to come down faster, needs to feel more like he's stomping around if he's barbaric.

>>2208463
if you decide to make his stomps more dramatic, then i think you should also make his arms swing with more weight too

>>2208488
>>2208523
thanks for the advice. I focused now on the arms and head.

What should I buy for starting animation traditionnaly ? Is it important to start that way ?

I have done a few walks with TV Paint, however the schools often ask for traditionnal study of movement for the admisions.
How do you think I should start ?

>>2205819
>3d animation effects

it was basically 3d animation, it's not an "effect"
if anything, the 2d look is the "effect" in that short.

>>2207719
>>2204705
Self destructive in that he refused to compromise the quality of his work for anything including friends, family, co workers or even the work itself. The footage they came out with was remarkable and I can only imagine how groundbreaking this film would have been had it actually come out (it may have even set that studio up to dreamworks proportions in terms of size and success). But well never know becuase he refused to settle. A good director knows when to make consetions for the greater good of the studio. I don't care how bad that footage might have turned out had they actually stuck to the plan and maybe even made some cuts, none of that can be as bad as the turd warner brothers put out or the lifelong scar of watching your lifelong passion project be universally criticized by just about everyone after putting in so much effort.

I mean isn't it a normal thing to not accomplish EVERYTHING you want to do in a film? he could have saved some of that for his followup or something. Oh well I digress. I also think it's cool to see what others around him have to say about his personality. It's cool to know that he is just as stern and intimidating as the other masters when he isn't making guide videos haha.

>>2207719
Oh and I respectfully disagree btw. This man has always been a very talented artist, and his animations from middleschool and life drawings from highschool and college are also top notch. There's a doc on youtube where they show them. He has both passion and skill.

As for playfulness I guess not. I mean it's more a matter of personal preference. some peoples life goal is to get a good comedy film out there while others just want to tell the sort of hard hitting dramas that they grew up watching.

>>2208916
lol yeah he looks so sweet when he's talking to those animators on the animator's survival kit dvds.

Noice

>>2208923
Haha I was so shocked to hear these guys speaking about richard williams the same way he spoke about milt kahl and art babbit.

I'm sorry about the jerky motion in the beginning. The passing frame for the last and first frame haven't been animated yet and one of the legs is still the placeholder rough.

>>2209116
Just finished it. The DVD was definitely worth it. The workprint footage is amazing.

I will surpass you one day mr. Williams. Until then...

JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP, FAM.

>>2206055
vids been removed, can you give the name?

Has anyone uploaded Persistence of Vision to mega? I'm tempted to myself, part of me would feel bad but there's so many books that we've stolen I guess this is just another log on the pile.

>>2209348
It was called the damn keeper
http://www.thedamkeeper.com/
>>2209457
I just paid to watch it anon, I mean come on are you really going to miss like 4 dollars?

Also I just realized that Williams never went to art school either; can't believe I never bothered to look into that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Williams_%28animator%29

>alma mater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Secondary_School_%28Toronto%29

Is something like this possible in digital? I love the gritty realistic style

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OALIUJ-yie0

>>2209266
I think I'm ready to clean it up.

>>2209266
I think I'm ready to clean it up.

>>2209464
I'm this guy >>2209116

I watched it twice. Well worth the $25.

>>2209564
You need quite a few more frames man if you're looking to get a convincing result. Yours looks more like a series of keyframes and extremes than a completed animation.

>>2209570
there is literally no point in adding a ton of frames to roughs with no dimension or form. Because guess what, I'll have spent all that time inbetweening and then have to do it all over again from scratch on top of that. But If I just clean the lines and fix the continuity now then The inbetweening stage will not only be easier, it will also only have to be done once.

And yes I know it's literally keyframes at this point.

>>2209564
but why do you keep the head so steady? let it drag.

Hello, anons
I created another retarded story

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

feel free to laugh

>sorry for poor English

>>2209641
With runs the steadier the head the faster the run. The placeholder I have on there is covering the movement that I'm going to use for the real animation that I'm cleaning up now. Added frames should help it read better

>>2209457
I really could if I wanted to.
But it's 1.4GB and I cbf'd doing that, my upload speed is terrible.

>>2209854
If you click the 'hd' button on vimeo and then download it that should cut the shit in half. I have the dvd myself I guess I just don't know what software to use

I am working the lines now and I had such a good working flow, but I need to drop it now and go to my fucking day job.

>>2209564
Update
>>2209874
This is looking great man.

>starting a junior animator job next week

w-wish me luck. i'm so nervous. i hate drawing drawing in front of people.

>>2209973
Good luck, man! Control your breathing to a steady pace and give it your best concentration.

>>2209973
Congrats dude. Where are you working?

What do you guys use to animate?
This was done in Ps.

>>2210050
2/2

has anyone tried out aaron blaise's animation course? I am thinking of buying it. is it any good?

>>2210050
I use Retas

Toon Boom or TVPaint Animation is more common

>>2205846
Low quality bait. Maybe it's the future because it's cheap as fuck but it still looks like shit.

>>2210052
I have it. to be honest I was a little disappointed. It's not that it's bad by any means but a lot of the concepts you can get from AMB animation academy on youtube for free or you should already be familiar with if you have the Williams book.

>>2210067
You seem to have a good grasp on storyboarding, anon, you should really learn to draw (You use mouse if I remember correctly), get a tablet and then use that for animation. I think you have good potential, if you invest some time in drawing. I am a little turned off by the simple/lacking visuals in your stuff, and using a tablet after learning tod raw would make your stuff really worthwhile.

>>2210182
hmm, I can try tablet, but I don't think there's much difference
(pic draw by me)

maybe I'm not good enough at drawing
or I should put more detail next time

>>2207199
I remember watching this when it came out, seeing Yoshinari slave over that OP, and the production manager waking him up was heartbreaking

>>2209905
thanks man

>>2210778
This is really great.

>>2209905
Meh I'm moving on

>>2210778
You got a blog?

>>2210967
http://slothyslothson.tumblr.com/

>>2204492
I don't understand the purpose of this. If you trace everything that was done before hand in smooth CG then it'd just look like CG animation. The whole charm behind traditional 2D is that not everything drawn can exist in 3D plane. I'm not saying CG animation looks bad, but using this gimmick just so you could chime in the word ''2d'' seems a bit of a stretch tbh.

>>2210778
there is an unacceptable amount of jitter and the face is morphing waaaay too much

>>2210981
it's one way of reintroducing 2d into an industry that has strayed away from it a lot in the past few decades

who knows where it'll lead to? you can only hope the people in charge of the disney shorts continue to take it farther and farther and who knows how much of an impact 2d will be making in the next 5 years? 10 years?

>>2210981
I think it looks amazing. It has the depth of CG, but the texture and life of 2D.

>>2210959

>>2211063

>>2209471

He went to art school. Read his book.

>>2211323
Yeah I fucked up hard with that, I'd found another article later that said as much. It didn't say what school (in that article, in the book it's the Ontario College of Art) but the shame is real regardless, I forgot to correct myself. Sorry fam.

>>2211063
The momentum transferred by the large boulder on to the character is too small.
The character looks like it has the mass of about 1/9 ish of the boulder.
If we give the boulder 9 units of mass, then the character would have about 1 unit.

The total momentum of the system should be about 9*v1. 'v1' being the velocity of the boulder beforehand.

After the collision, the character should have a velocity v2 = 9/10*v1

This means that the velocity of the character would initially be traveling at about 91% the velocity of the boulder.

Even with a frictional coefficient of say 0.45(for simplicity and about right for dusty environments), the character and the boulder should accelerate negatively with a force of 49.5N, which would translate to 4.5m/s^2

From the gif, it appears to be that the boulder is initially traveling at about 5m/s (assuming that the character is about 1.8m tall)

This means that the final velocity should be about 4.5m/s and the character should also have a negative acceleration of 4.5m/s^2

This means that the character AND the boulder should come to a stop 1s after the impact. This would also mean that the distance that the character should slide is about 2.25m.

TL:DR,
The boulder should slide a distance of about 0.7ish times it's height(also you have an inconsistently sized boulder) after coming into contact with the character.

>>2211330
>Ontario College of Art

has gone quite downhill in recent years

it's just another hipster art school these days. most of the students can't draw for shit but that's partially due to the fact that there are a lot of design programs offered as well

but even drawing and painting and illustration students at that school can't draw for shit

>>2210781
thanks

>>2210989
yea you're right, the face is way too rubbery.

what's a software good for a beginner.
I just want some basic shite tbh

>>2211644
try PAP - it's free

>>2205853
>2d puppet animation
is this good?

>>2211688
I know this is probably bait but to be honest it's alright. Puppet animation needs traditional volume alterations in spots to not look so mechanical and it looks like this guy pulled it off alright even if there's very few of them in the tail, hair etc.

>>2211183
>>2211388
Hmmm...I concur. But seriously though nice catch. Is this better?

>>2211688
Nope. This is a very rapid motion which tends to cover the fact that the characters are poorly anomated. Actually maybe it's more fair to say that it's more forgiving. But the hair only has two frames and more importantly the cheap lazy animator didn't bother including any acting or timing by (God forbid) adding a pose of rest with heavy breathing.

I have seen good puppet animation and as a rule it can be counted as good if and only if you can't tell that it's a puppet animation. Most hacks don't utilize it properly this way though becuase it means they have to put in the same amount of effort as they would to virtually any other type of animation.

Tldr it's garbage

Is anyone else here returning to/starting animation school in the next few days?

I'm starting a 4-year program tomorrow...

>>2211831
This guy went to animation school and says it was a bunch of left wing ideology and film theory (not like, camera angles and stuff like that either) with like 12 weeks total of actual animation instruction. Hopefully your experience is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCHzD3mzdas

>>2211835
he probably has some valid points, but I know based on my personal traits/habits/experiences I'll do better in a brick and mortar art school environment with peers and profs

>tfw western 2D animation is dead

>>2211868
It will come back. Like 80's music. It will never die. All of these wonderful programs that are making it easier to do animation as a small team or even an individual will create a new 2D renaissance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuWh4TrXeE

>>2211876
This video game kind of gives me hope seeing how much people like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TjUPXAn2Rg

>>2211884
I was skeptical at first, the cutscene looked pretty lame but the actual gameplay animation was fantastic.

>>2211835
I'm not watching an hour-long video, but where the hell did this guy go to school? At my school we started animating from day one; I was surprised, actually.

>>2211966
I can't remember but I know it was in Britain which is ground zero for artistic degeneracy.

alex hirsch gives advice for animation from GF panel : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAoI2dMIzEE


>>2211868
you have a walnut for a brain. you want people to start making 2d movies exactly like they did in the old days? you kill progress. 2d is 100 years old. everything that can be done with it has been done. the only new animation techniques are pouring in from 3d, or using 3d to complement or augment 2d.

>>2212080
You disgust me

>>2212080
There are literally no new animation "techniques" in 3D you turd-burglar. It's purely an aesthetic.choice.

>>2212080
Do you even hear what you're saying? That's like saying "film is dead and the only thing that can save it is CGI because it's new".

>>2212080

>>2212110
>youhaventbeenpayingattention.png

Not him but 3d is the best thing to happen to animation and is a natural evolution. denying that it is in every way if not more innovative and time efficient than the tedious traditional route is just as moronic as saying it's merely an "aesthetic choice"

If ub Iworks or disney or milt kahl or any of the old guys had a choice of learning 2d or 3d back when they were coming up with no experience whatsoever they would ultimately go with the objectively easier and more advanced choice. There are shots that can be relatively easily accomplished with 3d that would take months if not years to accomplish using hand drawn animation.

And before you come spouting your childish, ignorant and downright hilarious agenda to me I invite you to scroll up and watch the persistence of vision doc provided in this very thread.

That's how long it takes to accomplish in 2d what can be done in 3d in a few shorts years or even months. Now go fall on your sword you pretentious fuck.

>>2212119
>>2212115
this is for you as well. That's not "like" what he's saying at all. What you're saying is like why switch to cameras with higher resolutions and at wider aspect ratios when we can just stick with 1:1? See that was an easy generalization

If the technology progresses why upgrade when you can desperately latch on to the mundane old methods AMIRITE?

Count your chickens while you can boys. Not liking something because you don't know how it works wont get you anywhere...except out of work judging from the steady increase of 3d in even the televised sector.

>>2212161
Cool story, bro

>>2212161
But 3D vs 2D is in no way comparable to "High res camera vs low res camera". Now, 2D transitioning from analog capture methods to digital capture methods, that is comparable with your example.

3D animation is not "technologically advanced 2D animation", 3D is simply a different and relatively new form of animation, just like 2D animation and stop motion are two different forms of animation. They are not comparable. They are different methods. One is not inherently better than the other.


>inb4 I was just pretending to be retarded

>>2212154
Again, you idiot, 3D is an aesthetic and a "tool", it's not a "technique", the animation "techniques" are timing, squash, stretch and the like. 3D doesn't bring any unique animation techniques to the table on its own.

Why did the Princess and the Frog which was a wonderfully animated film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY1TlxJORik)) cost only 2/3rds as much to produce as Frozen if the process is so much cheaper and easier?

>Disney didn't exactly strike pay dirt with its new all-computers, all-the-time approach. The studio's first fully computer-animated feature, 2005's "Chicken Little," posted a middling $135 million at the domestic box office, and 2008's "Bolt" earned $114 million domestically.Production costs for films animated by hand or by computer tend to be comparable.

>The decision to use nearly photorealistic computer imagery, instead of the more impressionistic traditional technique, is [mostly a matter of aesthetic calculations]. Executives involved in making "Princess" say it cost slightly less than its original budget, which they declined to disclose. Others in the industry estimated the film's cost at around

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704746304574508552919095862

If Toon Boom existed at the time the Thief and the Cobbler would have been done in 3 years. No one here is a luddite, we're not saying that paper and cells are a better way ffs.

Saying that 3D is "easy" is an insult to 3D animators as well. The learning curve for 3D and its application has its own hurdles. Merida from Brave's hair took six months to produce on its own.

>>2212162
Stay mad faggot. I love being right.
>>2212167
Your statement is almost as retarded as the guy I was responding to. Yes moron all three of the analogies (yes including min) are great generalizations of what is happening from 2d to 3d. You have old tech (in my example dated camera hardware and lenses) being swapped out with new tech.

And if you can't see 3d being more technologically advanced than 2d then I'm going to need your (sorry to say this) stupid ass to go on google and look up what the phrase means. lol

I don't know where you get off catagorizing 3d 2d and stop motion but do whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that 3d is a natural and essential evolution of ANIMATION that is literally rendering literally every other form obsolete including stop motion and yes 2d.

And before I go let me ask you this. Where is the line drawn? The 2d animation that you came up learning is not the same 2d animation that walt disney or warner bros put out when the industry was still virgin so why aren't people up and arms that they still can't draw there sketches, ink them, paint them, line them on cells, paint the cells, and then using a fucking camera snapshot every single frame piece by piece like the old days? Why oh why has everyone up and started to do the same exact thing using fucking photoshop and flash instead lol?

Where is the line drawn? 3d is the answer we were inevitably going to come to get over it.Or shut up.

Again, you ding-dong ass nigga, 3D is an aesthetic and a "tool", it's not a "technique", the animation "techniques" are timing, squash, stretch and the like. 3D doesn't bring any unique animation techniques to the table on its own, these things were all discovered by the 2D animators.

Why did the Princess and the Frog which was a wonderfully animated film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY1TlxJORik)) cost only 2/3rds as much to produce as Frozen if the process is so much cheaper and easier?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704746304574508552919095862

>Disney didn't exactly strike pay dirt with its new all-computers, all-the-time approach. The studio's first fully computer-animated feature, 2005's "Chicken Little," posted a middling $135 million at the domestic box office, and 2008's "Bolt" earned $114 million domestically. Production costs for films animated by hand or by computer _tend to be comparable_.

>The decision to use nearly photorealistic computer imagery, instead of the more impressionistic traditional technique, is _mostly a matter of aesthetic calculations_. Executives involved in making "Princess" say it cost slightly less than its original budget, which they declined to disclose.

If Toon Boom existed at the time the Thief and the Cobbler would have been done in 3 years. No one here is a luddite, we're not saying that paper and cells are a better way for fug's sake. I appreciate that we live in a time when the software available allows us to integrate the two in creative and aesthetically pleasing ways.

Saying that 3D is "easy" is an insult to 3D animators as well. The learning curve for 3D and its application has its own hurdles. I may prefer 2D animation but I know better than to shit in another artist's cornflakes. Merida from Brave's hair took six months to produce on its own.

>>2212188
>And if you can't see 3d being more technologically advanced than 2d then I'm going to need your (sorry to say this) stupid ass to go on google and look up what the phrase means. lol
Yes, 3D is more technologically advanced than 2D, but 3D is NOT "technologically advanced 2D". They're not the same thing. They are different approaches to animating. They are not comparable.

>Where is the line drawn?
what kind of a stupid fucking question is that? Traditional animation means hand drawn animation, how you draw it or how you record it is irrelevant, you could animate with a pencil made out of frozen shit and scan them onto your computer and color it in with microsoft paint, and it would still be traditional animation. 2D animation is animation with drawings, 3D animation is animation with 3D models and stop motion animation is animation with physical objects. How is this a question at all?

Yes, 3d was the "next step" in animation, the new method, but that does not mean that the previous methods (2d and stop motion) are somehow obselete now. 3D, 2D and stop motion all have different aesthetic to them. As of now, 3D cannot provide the same aesthetics as 2D (and vice versa), and this simple fact is what completely undermines your argument of 3D making all other methods obsolete. There is no "end all be all" of animation methods.

>>2212187
Are you fucking retarded? Serious question. I need everyone else that is responding to please tell me this guy didn't just post what I'm looking at lol. Dude by your logic 2d animation doesn't bring anything to the table either. As with any tool all the principles can be applied so long as the medium allows it. There are no categories to animation as far as i'm concerned but do so if you will. There is only animation and the distinctions come from the medium used to produce it.How easily these principles can be applied and to what degree of finess is where the true revolution comes into play.

By your own moronic statements your toonboom animations are the same form of bastardised anomalies as the 3d animations made on the very same computer you idiot. But the technology evolved to a much easier means of producing the work that (guess what) makes the frames look better because they aren't plastic cells on a painted canvas like the old days so every one is using it.

You literally are proving my point for me you fucking moron. but please continue. And have you read my posts genius? I said it was relatively easy to create scenes of mastery that would otherwise take a 2d artist decades or in the case of the thief and the cobbler for example not at all. we don't see too many films like cars or the incredibles in terms of shots and perspective in 2d for a reason mate.

And don't worry. Just like 3d is a natural evolution of 2d the hand drawn textures/filters and lighting that are progressively being used to compliment the 3d are also going to be expanded and made more easy through the years. that new charlie brown movie proves that 2d and 3d can be hybridised commercially to a degree and it can only evolve even further from here.

>>2212203
>there is only animation
The old guys thought computer drawn animation was unnecessary and most of them never bothered. Do you know why? because to them it wasn't 2d animation, it was digital animation. They did the same stupid shit you are doing now because they didn't understand the new way so they built a wall between them and us. But we came along and consolidated both digital and cell based into one big "handrawn" label because we aren't scared old guys like them. But guess what moron there is no 2d or 3d or digital or traditional or stop motion or tween based or any other shitty label to animation. there is only ANIMATION. And in a few years 2d animation as you know it will be seen as just as archaic as the cell based animation from the 40's.

No matter how you idiots try to twist it I am right and you are desperately trying to make yourselves seem less wrong somehow. And though I can't really blame you this is still getting old fast.

>>2212226
>The old guys thought computer drawn animation was unnecessary and most of them never bothered. Do you know why? because to them it wasn't 2d animation, it was digital animation.
[citation needed]
because what I always hear is that they appreciate how much faster the workflow is, but that they are too used to pen and paper that they mostly can't make the switch for professional productions (like with princess and the frog the animators demanded that they can work on pen and paper instead of toonboom). And if that is what "the old guys" (who?), thought, then they were idiots.

>They did the same stupid shit you are doing now because they didn't understand the new way so they built a wall between them and us
It's not the same thing, though. With 2D animation you DRAW the characters, with 3D animation you MODEL the characters. they are completely different. 2D vs 3D is nowhere near the same thing as Pen&Paper vs Digital 2D.

>there is only ANIMATION
Yes, this is true, but you what you fail to understand is that 3D is not the end all be all of animation, at least not yet, maybe in the future computer simulations will be so good that they will allow artists to emulate whatever aesthetic they want, but that time is not now. 3D allows the production of certain kind of aesthetics, while 2D allow the production of other kind of aesthetics. Both have value. 3D is not some superior method, and neither is 2D. Like you said, they're all "just animation".

> And in a few years 2d animation as you know it will be seen as just as archaic as the cell based animation from the 40's.
when will you get it in your head that the thing that makes 40's animation "archaic" is the capture method, NOT the production method (aka the drawings). Good pen&paper animation from the 40's is not "outdated" or "archaic", it can be just as impressive even today. Nobody looks at the pencil tests of Milt Kahl and goes "thank god we live in the digital era of 3D where we don't have to see this".

>>2212226
You keep getting shit on in this thread and claiming the high ground, it's hilarious. Remember that time you said 3D was cheaper and easier to produce and you were proven wrong one post later?

Maybe you should post your animation faggot

>>2212235
{citation needed}
>>2212234
heard it from the cocks mouth itself. one of my instrustors was an animator in the 80/90's that worked at disney and she told me most of the guys she worked with including herself until she got the job never bothered learning how to use a computer.

>>2212242
>never bothered learning how to use a computer.
So, yeah, like I said, they were more comfortable with pen&paper, instead of thinking digital animation wasn't "real animation".

>>2212242

>>2212154
>they would ultimately go with the objectively easier and more advanced choice

>That's how long it takes to accomplish in 2d what can be done in 3d in a few shorts years or even months

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704746304574508552919095862

>Disney didn't exactly strike pay dirt with its new all-computers, all-the-time approach. The studio's first fully computer-animated feature, 2005's "Chicken Little," posted a middling $135 million at the domestic box office, and 2008's "Bolt" earned $114 million domestically. Production costs for films animated by hand or by computer _tend to be comparable_.

>The decision to use nearly photorealistic computer imagery, instead of the more impressionistic traditional technique, is _mostly a matter of aesthetic calculations_. Executives involved in making "Princess" say it cost slightly less than its original budget, which they declined to disclose.

(inb4 my hyperbole makes me "wrong")

Why aren't these 3D guys posting their work if it's so easy? Show us your models and show them moving fam. It's so easy!

>>2212245
I said nothing about them saying it wasn't "real animation". That's what the morons in this thread would have you believe. Stop making up arguments. I said they never bothered to learn digital because they deemed it unnecessary. To them the computer was as much a threat to their idealist view of what animation should be as 3d is to you morons in the thread now. You don't know it so it scares you. It's kinda funny watching it all come full circle now haha.
>>2212234
and yes it literally is the same thing happening all over again. A new easier from of creating the tedious way that you grew up learning and it's seemingly driving guys with my skillset out of work? Lets categorize it and pretend that what we are doing is somehow better.

That's idiotic and should you make this industry your calling you will just find yourself learning it much later in life to catch up when you could have just learned it now and got it over with.

There is NO money in 2d anon, let that sink in for a bit...none

2d didn't allow the production of any kind of aesthetics towards the end though. We have seen the full spectrum of what that medium can produce to date and it just is not worth the investment. when you have burgeoning new medium and market to take advantage of. Again I am speaking in terms of mediums purely. you are replacing literally the exact thing i'm saying but you are misusing the word "aesthetics" to sell it as your idea. Do whatever you want but the sooner you admit that i'm right the better. The 2d medium is time consuming and does not offer the suite of options that 3d offers in the typical time window for a commercial film (and soon to be television) animation.

Just passing by, you animationfags seriously are hostile.

/drivesoff

>>2212262
/makes a U-Turn
oh and btw, 3D is gay.

>>2212262
>>2212264
DAAAAAMN!

>>2212250
meanwhile cars cost 120 mil to produce and rakes in 462 mil at the box office in 2006 just before TPATF and tangled cost the studio 260 mil and raked in 591 mil after toy story 3 and I need not even list how well that one did. The princess and the frog had one of the worst receptions in pixars history though it could have been worse. It still did bad enough that disney decided to unofficially axe every upcoming 2d feature they had planned at the time and that's saying something.

And look at the quality of animation and even the staging and camera work, all of these took a noticeable dive in quality when compared to the 3d productions that came out around the films. It looked dated then and even more dated now. Yup no money or innovation to be had in that medium. The only thing you proved is that I was right lol. Stay mad.

>>2212264
I don't mind if you feel that way anon. The only thing that really speaks to me is money and time. and 3d has both of those things on lock.

>>2212274
TPATF didn't succeed or fail on its medium. That article mentions several 3D films that cost more and ended up bombing even harder, you're cherrypicking.

You said that it was easier and cheaper to produce 3D animation and I'll just remind you were wrong as balls once again.

>>2212278
...And yet here you are on /ic/ spending much of one and earning none of another.

>inb4 you're not only a highly accomplished 3D animator with several blockbuster films under your belt but you're also an investment banker and you were actually making thousands of dollars as you were posting

>>2212299
Can you read? YES IT LITERALLY IS EASIER AND CHEAPER TO PRODUCE 3D ANIMATION lol.

The only 3d animated film that accomplishes the same feats of grandeur that recent 3d films like toy story or up take decades to produce. The closest films to do this are the ghibli films and akira and you can look up for yourself how long it takes to make those. And even when animated backrounds are implemented it is still always limited. If any of these 3d films were to be put out as 2d films they would be heralded as the second coming of christ because of the complex cinematography used in the shots. But A film like that would literally never happen because the director might actually die before that one film were ever to be finished.

2d has outlived its usefulness. any medium that limits creators in any way from creating exactly what they want is a nuisance in my book.

And no i'm not cherrypicking. those are the films that came out around tpatf. They literally just did way better than it did but for other reasons. I'm talking about the finished product. the princess and the frog had no notable advances in animation whatsoever yet I can link 3d animated characters from average joes that wouldn't even work on pencil and paper.
>>2212299
As for your other comment I don't even know 3d animation dude lol. I am trained in 2d and am only scratching the surface of 3d so I can assure you I am speaking objectively even though you anons don't want to hear it. My films have all been 2d and it's fine if all of you want to stick with that but to deny the strides being made in 3d is just plain silly.

>>2212299
>>2212299
Can you read? YES IT LITERALLY IS EASIER AND CHEAPER TO PRODUCE 3D ANIMATION lol.

The only 2d animated film that accomplishes the same feats of grandeur that recent 3d films like toy story or up take decades to produce. The closest films to do this are the ghibli films and akira and you can look up for yourself how long it takes to make those. And even when animated backrounds are implemented it is still always limited. If any of these 3d films were to be put out as 2d films they would be heralded as the second coming of christ because of the complex cinematography used in the shots. But A film like that would literally never happen because the director might actually die before that one film were ever to be finished.

2d has outlived its usefulness. any medium that limits creators in any way from creating exactly what they want is a nuisance in my book.

And no i'm not cherrypicking. those are the films that came out around tpatf. They literally just did way better than it did but for other reasons. I'm talking about the finished product. the princess and the frog had no notable advances in animation whatsoever yet I can link 3d animated characters from average joes that wouldn't even work on pencil and paper.
>>2212299
As for your other comment I don't even know 3d animation dude lol. I am trained in 2d and am only scratching the surface of 3d so I can assure you I am speaking objectively even though you anons don't want to hear it. My films have all been 2d and it's fine if all of you want to stick with that but to deny the strides being made in 3d is just plain silly.

>>2212299
If it's too long all this >>2212326
is saying is that if a 3d feature were to be shot the same way a 2d movie like the pooh movie or the princess and the frog it would have cost much less to make. While the reverse of a film like bolt or inside out would mean a ballooning budget and time spent making the feature.

That is fact.

Retarded thread.

Post good animations.

https://vimeo.com/134832670

>>2212250
Maybe if Disney actually made a serious 2D animation that isn't another faggy princess movie, maybe, just maybe it would have done better.

>>2212336
or another 'fun for the whole family' movie

>>2212336
I mean shit, take Frozen for example, that movie literally did nothing spectacular on the animation front, its success was 100% due to character design, story and personality (which of course everyone has their own opinions on of course). I think it would have been just as successful as a 2D/3D hybrid film akin to TPATF. Of course, there's no way to turn back time so, Disney's 2D swan song being a competent and beautifully animated but otherwise predictable and formulaic princess movie that panders to America's most economically limited demographic is just how it ended up in the end.

>>2210959
this is great if its supposed to be angry stomping, but not so good if you were aiming to make it look like they were running.

>>2212359
If you saw the story boards and animatics for frozen you wouldn't say that. Actually examine the shots used in the films and say that the choreography from both singing and regular shots aren't nothing short of spectacular and then show me something better.

>>2212368
You mean the 2D storyboards?

>>2212363
The stride isn't long enough. I think if I tweaked it it would sell a lot better. Thanks though.

The amount of shitposting in here is unreal.
It needs to be nuked from orbit.

>>2212373
Oh leave us alone, me and 3D anon are cool now (I think), it's natural for people to get worked up over this kind of thing.

>>2212369
sorry man I tried to find it but the animatics for this scene have been pulled from youtube and the fellow that uploaded them seems to have yanked them from his site.

But my point was going to be that animatics for most modern films are littered with 3d these days. They are never exclusively 2d. I was going to link the baords for this sequence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5v2qBBD-gE
Becuase it changed my outlook on 3d alltogether and helped me apreciate the complexity of the shots. This one scene could not be conceived in 2d friend but the bards (even if 2d cutouts looked phenomenal whizzing back and forth in the 3d modeled backrounds.

>>2212373
>>2212374
yeah what he said. It's good to have something to talk about in these threads for once that isn't "what did you guys use to animate this" for once.

>>2212374
>>2212406
Yeah well next time you make a metric fucktonne of text then maybe don't accuse one another of being retarded every other post.

>>2212428
I am simultaneously one of the nicest and at the same time one of the most critical people in these threads. If someone is talking trash then I'll call them out and try to correct them. Harsh? maybe, but can almost always back myself up and only do it because like the rest of you I love animation.

>>2212374
>"men are not allowed to have opinions or care about women because they are pigs"

>>2212402
That was a fun movie

>>2212428
...

>>2210778
it's painfully obvious you've never animated on paper before and it's not a good thing

>>2212442
Nigga that's a great walk cycle post your work fam

>>2212445
do i really need to justify an incredibly valid critique. it's not a great walk cycle. it's not even finished. even if it were it'd be ridden with errors. the timing is off, the movement jittery, the head is all over the place

a walk cycle is really just an exercise to understand the mechanics of a walk. that cycle has some things going for it, like the mood (which could be exaggerated much further) but the core of it is flawed. instead of blindly praising someone just because you think they're better than you why don't you try to post something of value

>>2212442
Nothing is painfully obvious about it. No one on this board is a professional animator so criticizing his work because it stands out is fucking bullshit. Yes it can use some work which have been brought to his attention by others so if you have nothing else constructive to say then kindly fuck off.Or direct your attention to others in the thread that have been overlooked like
>>2209572
>>2204763
if you really want to "help"

>>2212452
that was no "critique" you fuck. lets not lie about this and that to sell our tripe anon. And no one is asking you to blindly praise anyone, but at the same time we aren't asking to blindly fling hate either. Just give the anon a REAL critique and stop being the fuckup your 3rd grade english teacher knew you'd be.

>>2212458
>Nothing is painfully obvious about it
the jittering. which wouldn't have existed if a person learned to animate on paper because they would have to flip the pages to see if the animation worked. and i did give plenty of advice right here >>2212452 it's not my fault you're a fucking idiot

>>2212459

but i did give critiques afterwards. the post you replied to was the critique. what's your issue exactly. i guess saying what i said would clearly go over people's heads in this thread, my bad

>>2212468
So your argument for giving helpful advise in your moronic post is that you provided help in your followup comment to another anon that called you out on your moronic post not advising any help? Typical moron. I take it back, stop being the fuckup that your mother knew you'd be.
>>2212459
I am the same guy and yes that is exactly how someone online would perceive your post. You only gave a valid critique after someone called you out. Giving someone advise or even telling them why you know they are lacking in some areas is fine, but just attacking their self esteem because "why not" is a dickish thing to do and just wastes time that could have just been spent saying what you had to say to start with.

>>2212476
this is 4chan. calm down. i get that i got under your skin but you have to learn to not take things so personally. at the end of the day i gave valid criticisms, regardless of how i went by doing it. you seem to glaze completely over it to attack me, which is fine, just kind of hypocritical

>>2212476
The anon at least tried to be helpful, you just seem to be attacking him because you don't like the way he went by doing it. What have you done exactly to help someone in this thread? Your attacks aren't productive. and isn't that your issue with the way anon went by critiquing?

>>2212479
I met hostility with hostility to prove my point. The first time was a joke but after seeing >not my fault you're a fucking idiot I assumed you wouldn't mind getting a little of what you put out.

>>2212488
>I met hostility with hostility to prove my point.

lol ok there buddy. you clearly took this way too personally. i only said you're a fucking idiot because of the image you posted and your swearing and general belligerence. don't try to make it seem like i instigated it. my comment about it being painfully obvious was snarky at best.

>>2212494
I never said I wasn't a dick too, but that's only when I am correcting, defending, or conditioning new anons in threads. You seem nice so I apologize for the hostility. But it is the only way to defuse some of the /pol/ and /b/ fags that sneak onto /ic/

>>2212503
i genuinely don't believe you. you escalated something minor into a personal attack about my mother among other things and need i remind you you were the one who started with the attacks. there was nothing to defuse. until you started the belligerence. my critiques were valid, you decided to take it into your own hands to attack me for making a relatively tame not to mention accurate comment. if you were genuinely interested in productivity you wouldn't attack someone for giving a critique, regardless of the way they did it. you would approach the negativity in a more positive way. i mean that's kind of common sense.

you'll niggas need jesus

>>2212510
Believe whatever the fuck you want, But this garbage I responded to
>it's painfully obvious you've never animated on paper before and it's not a good thing
Was not a critique. That was the type of trash you can get away with in other boards or even threads in some cases. But not here. When I saw your followup
>>2212452
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and gave you a much more reasonable response. with the spiderman post. You can learn from this and except my apology or you can continue you to try to make me into a bad guy. I honestly don't care. All I know is I said what I needed to say and I don't take it back.

>>2212521
>Was not a critique.
it sounds like you've never animated on paper before. i explained the relevance. if you learn to animate on paper you learn to flip your pages. that makes your work less jittery. why do you think literally all the major schools who teach 2d animation start their students out on paper. i keep telling you why it's a valid critique but like i've said before you're more interested in arguing than productivity.

>You can learn from this

that is rich. i feel like you're the one who needs to do some learning. learn about animation. learn how to deal with abrasive people not by being abrasive yourself. that's not how you come to a resolution. that's how things escalate. which is why we're having this discussion.

>All I know is I said what I needed to say and I don't take it back.

but you did take it back. you apologized. don't get defensive because i pointed out the many flaws in whatever it is you were trying to do. isn't it funny by trying to regulate the posting or whatever you think you're doing you only escalated the situation farther and farther?

>>2212527
Let me explain a few things to you. Read my fucking post, don't just glance at it like a fucking idiot waiting to give some idiotic comeback. In my last post I very clearly laid out the separation of your original and followup posts and which of my comments were directed to which. I'm not going to explain it again so go fucking read it or drop the subject. Your original post was garbage and you second post was not. We established this.

Additionally, we aren't having this discussion becuase of how I deal with "abrasive people" (lol) we are having this discussion becuase you were being an annoying dick, we're called out and then subsequently back tracked to make yourself the victim. We are having this discussion becuase even after you got what you wanted you still can't let it go and are continuing to drag this on. Which is fine by me.

Here's the explanation I promised. An apology and saying you are sorry are to separate things entirely. That's specially why I apologized rather than the latter becuase to say you are sorry is by nature the same as wanting to take back what was said or done. Which I do not. You haven't pointed any flaws out to me. All you did was prove how pathetic Your understanding of the English language was. That and how petty you are. Grow up. It looks like my initial response was valid after all.

>>2212250

What about the fact that the movie was about niggers but set in a location/timeframe that doesn't interest contemporary niggers, alienates white people by default (and theres no dumb black people doing dumb stuff for racist white people to secretly laugh at like tyler perry abominations) and has absolutely no international appeal, especially in Asia.

If you want to make a successful film you appeal to white people and/or asians.

>>2204811
>Literally just that "moving still picture" program with filling in the holes.
Oh gee I guess rubbery and floppy animation is great now. Sure the colouring is nice but from japan thats not something to brag with.

>>2212255
> Lets categorize it and pretend that what we are doing is somehow better.
Ain't nobody saying that 2D is better. It's you who is saying that 3D is better, when it's not inherently better, it's just different. People are calling you a retard because you think that 3D is some end all be all form of animation that is better than all other methods that came before it.

>There is NO money in 2d anon, let that sink in for a bit...none
what does that have to do with anything at all? How is that relevant in any way? Just because 3D is the 'thing' right now in the west does not mean that it's better than all other forms of animation.

>2d didn't allow the production of any kind of aesthetics towards the end though.
Widen your spectrum and stop only watching family friendly feature films.

> it just is not worth the investment. when you have burgeoning new medium and market to take advantage of.
and now suddenly when you have no real fucking arguments you resort to "business talk" as if that has any merit at all. Use your own opinions. What sells and what doesn't is irrelevant because as an animator you can use whatever medium you want. Most 3D animators do a lot of 2D animation on their free time, most are even required to use 2D animation for their 3D work in the layout phase.

>Do whatever you want but the sooner you admit that i'm right the better
But your opinion is fundamentally wrong on the basis that 3D is somehow inherently better than 2D, and your only argument for it seems to be that 3D is easier (its not) and faster to do (which is debatable). That's not the case.

Here's a somewhat loaded question for you that you should be able to answer and rationalize:
You have three animated films in front of you, each telling the same story. One is 2D, one is 3D and one is stop motion. Which one of these is the best? If you think 3D is inherently the best option then surely that would be your pick, but can you rationalize that decision in any way?

>noobs who can't draw think that they can animate
smh

>>2212740
Saying smh, tbh, and fam unironically should be a bannable offense.

>>2212725
I see your argument anon but you are not seeing mine. 3d animation costs the same as 2d becuase directors pay extra for better choreography and more camera work. While 2d animations of the same price are much more stiff in both areas. I challenge you to compare any 2d commercial film to a 3d commercial films shot layout and you will see which one has the better animation and the more interesting shots.

And here's something that you should find interesting. Go to a website called 11 secondclub and looks at the entries. On that website you are given a month to create an animation set to a sound clip that is provided month to month. Now at first 3d animators had there work turned in literally a week into the competition while the 2d and stop motion guys needed the full month. But after a while just being able to animate well in 3d wasn't enough and the 2d animators started using the full month to plan out more elaborate animations and shots for their work. That is the bases for my argument.

I don't care what medium you decide to use and never have. What I care about is the final product. An animator using any medium that isn't 3d is limited to whatever scenes they locked in from day one. And spend the whole month getting that just right. Usually these works are fantastic in their own right but the very best of these take months of planning. While a 3d artist can run a scene in a week tops, alter it, change it,tweak it, add key frames and still have that thing ready in the same time as the 2d guy. That's where that extra money if going and that's why 3d is better. That and the fact that there is not money in 2d anymore.

>>7423716


>>2210778
>>2212442
>>2212445
>>2212452
>>2212459
>>2212468
>>2212476
>>2212479
>>2212486
>>2212488
>>2212494
>>2212503
>>2212510
>>2212521
>>2212527

well this escalated quickly.
I started animating 3 weeks ago and I am giving my best to understand the whole timing and spacing concept. and I think walk cycles are among the toughest things to animate. it's my 4th walkcycle and I think I am making some progress.
>>2212442
I couldn't make out much of this, until you were explaining what's wrong with the walkcycle. so thanks for this. I am open to all advice. yeah I am having difficulties drawing smooth lines on my tablet and it's nothing compared to drawing on paper. last week I sent an email to chromacolour to order a lightbox with a two pin peg bar. they're currently out of stock and there is no animation supply whatsoever here in austria.
I could try out the poor man's lightbox with a ringbinder and copy paper.

in the meantime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN1JoJcRvJg

Cool thread, amateur 3D guy

>>2212759
>I challenge you to compare any 2d commercial film to a 3d commercial films shot layout and you will see which one has the better animation and the more interesting shots.
I actually think most traditionally animated films have more interesting shots purely on the virtue that directors for 3D animations seem to rely too much on the ability to move the camera around, where as with 2D the directors focus more on composition.

>I don't care what medium you decide to use and never have. What I care about is the final product.
Then why are you saying that 3D is better than 2D, when neither is better than the other? A 2D product can be just as good as 3D, and 3D can be just as good as 2D. I don't understand your logic at all. It makes no sense. You seem to value efficiency and expenses, which is why you think 3D is better, but then you say that it doesn't matter as long as the final product is good, it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Seriously, you're all over the place I can't get any kind of a grip what the fuck you're trying to say.

First you say 2D is old and everything has been done with it (which is a moot point, See: live action film or theater). Then you say 2D should be abandoned because 3D is an "upgrade from 2D" (which is wrong, going from traditional to digital was an 'upgrade', 3D is a whole new branch), then you say 40's animation is "archaic" (which it is not) and that the same happens to current 2D animation (which it wont).

Then, after all that, when you have literally no other argument you say that 3D is better because it's more cost effective and faster (which is debatable).

After which you say "oh it doesn't matter what you use all I care about is the product", which literally undermines your whole argument of 3D>the rest.

Do you not see how nonsensical you sound? It's like you're pulling your opinions out of your arse as you go. There's no coherent argument there. It goes from one thing to another.

>>2212872
>directors for 3D animations seem to rely too much on the ability to move the camera around, where as with 2D the directors focus more on composition.
That's a lie. you can scrub the frames in this animation so go ahead and do that. There is nothing in this or in "most good 3d directors" films that relies on anything as generalised an moronic as your statement.
>Then why are you saying that 3D is better than 2D
Read my posts and you'll find this ill informed answer at least two fold. 2d inherently CANNOT be as good as 3d unless the animators effectively spend decades producing what can be done in 3d in 3 years. That or spend a fortune on an army to farm the animation out in less. I'm talking handrawn animated backrounds here. Because That's the only way to get the types of shots that the modern audience is used to these days.

>>2212872
>>2212900
I'm not all over anywhere, you are literally just to stupid to actually sit down and read my comments. You are like a child that just sits there and waits to say his next moronic, haphazard and ill contrived statement without actually reading that all your questions have actually been answered and brought up earlier.
>
First you say 2D is old and everything has been done with it (which is a moot point, See: live action film or theater). Then you say 2D should be abandoned because 3D is an "upgrade from 2D", then you say 40's animation is "archaic" and that the same happens to current 2D animation Then, after all that, when you have literally no other argument you say that 3D is better because it's more cost effective and faster
All of this is true and anyone working in the industry knows this by now dude lol. I'm not making this stuff up you dunce. Why don't you actually try to learn the craft that you are getting yourself into.
>After which you say "oh it doesn't matter what you use all I care about is the product", which literally undermines your whole argument of 3D>the rest.
EECK wrong again. It undermines nothing. I am just telling you like it is whether you want to hear it or not. it's perfectly fine if you want to stick with 2d. I just want you anons to stop deluding yourself into thinking 3d isn't every bit of the innovation that it is, that 2d is any sort of means at making real money, or that a 2d film can have better potential than a 3d film(without decades of time). Because all of those are false. Go ahead and repeat the same thing over again and pretend that your claims haven't been debunked already. Or you know, read what was posted maybe.

>>2212900
>not drawing digitally
I await 2d anon to reply to your claims

>>2212900
http://www.11secondclub.com/competitions/january12/winner
This is the clip I meant to link. There are tons more of the same quality or better by animators of all levels. And like most of them, none rely on moving cameras. Just good work.

>>2210981
I agree. I don't like this short, the shadows and lights look weird 'cause they're clearly hitting 3D models but everything has the line weight of 2D.

Actually I like CG like Pixar and I'm fine with it taking over 2D, I think it's pleasant and very smooth to animate... 2D is about making things 2D. You can break models and do stuff that you can't really do in CG 'cause it would look wrong.

My only gripe is the very high quality 2D animation is going into the sink... all that's left will soon be cartoons and anime, that's sad cause shows always compromise on quality

>>2212910
Another ill informed post. this is a 3d animation with multiple paper textures added and a tween based line added to lend to the production of this particular film. Versions of it were used in the "feast" short that was also put out by pixar thereafter, but aside from that none of there other films will need, or use this method.

It was not a 3d film being "traced" like that moron made it seem because there are tons of those sorts of shorts out there and trust me when I say you will know one when you see one.

>>2212900

>All of this is true and anyone working in the industry knows this by now dude lol. I'm not making this stuff up you dunce
I like your citations. Surely if this is some universal truth held by all big industry people, then it would be easy for you to find quotes of industry people saying that 3D is greater than 2D. In my opinion none of it is true:
>2D is old
Irrelevant point: a method being old does not degrade it (see: film, painting, drawing, music,). That's like saying "analog music is old and busted, EDM is the new and hotness"
>3D is an upgrade from 2D
It's not an upgrade from 2D. 3D is a different branch of animation. They are not the same thing.
>people will look back at current 2D animation and think of it as archaic just like the 40's
a retarded point because people still look back at the 40's thinking how great the animation was.

>EECK wrong again. It undermines nothing.
Saying "no, you're wrong I'm right" is not an argument. You have to say "no, you are wrong because this and that".
You said, that as long as the product is good it doesn't matter what method you use, so does that not imply that 3D is actually not inherently better than 2D because according to you, 2D can create a product as good as 3D? If 3D truly was better than traditional animation, then wouldn't that mean that there is no way for a 2D animation to be better than 3D animation. Do you not see the contradiction you are making?

>I just want you anons to stop deluding yourself into thinking 3d isn't every bit of the innovation that it is
ain't nobody denying this. What I am denying is the idea that 3D animation is better than 2D. It's not. They are not comparable in that regard.

>>2212905
11secondclub has a focus on character animation and the audio clips rarely give room to work with proper composition, after all, it's not a storyboarding competition, it's an animation competition.

>>2212916
I never said it's traced, and I'm very well informed about my own opinions.

I just said I don't like the way it looks because you can tell it's 3D models but they're made to look like 2D. I don't like how the lighting interacts with the drawings.

Actually I dislike cartoon rendering in general

>>2212917
>>2212901

Comparing 2D and 3D animation is like comparing 2D and stopmotion. They're different things.

They're not comparable. They're not the same thing. 3D is not "enhanced 2d". 3D is its own thing. 2D is its own thing. Stop motion is its own thing. Yes, they all share the same principles of animation, but the execution of said principles is different across the board. You can't make a direct comparison between them when it comes to animation. You can say "oh I liked inside out better than The Wind Rises", but you can't say that one is strictly better animated than the other, because they're different. They're both good.

2D and 3D produce different kind of results. You cannot create a 2D feel with 3D methods, and you cannot create 3D feel with 2D methods. Fucking hell how is this such a difficult concept.

>>2212917
>EECK wrong again. It undermines nothing.
Saying "no, you're wrong I'm right" is not an argument. You have to say "no, you are wrong because this and that".
You said, that as long as the product is good it doesn't matter what method you use, so does that not imply that 3D is actually not inherently better than 2D because according to you, 2D can create a product as good as 3D? If 3D truly was better than traditional animation, then wouldn't that mean that there is no way for a 2D animation to be better than 3D animation. Do you not see the contradiction you are making?
Name me one 2d animated film with EXCLUSIVE 2d backrounds. Just one. The only thing like this is richerd williams current "prologue" film that is an amalgamation of everything he has learned in the last 50 years. The 2d film just as good as a 3d film does not exist. Not yet anyway. So yes until it does 3d is still miles better lol.

>11secondclub has a focus on character animation and the audio clips rarely give room to work with proper composition, after all, it's not a storyboarding competition, it's an animation competition.

So you make a false claim, are given tangible proof that your claim is just as retarded as everyone thinks it is, and then deflect it with some bullshit cop out that it isn't a "proper composition"

lol for a second there I forgot where I was having this "debate". Do you think that the movies that have been coming out aren't everybit as good as this one? Have you been under a rock? Serious question

>>2212922
More power to you mate. I thought the visual style was okay but their improvements with the feast short were even better. And The visual development for the charlie brown movie are nothing short of genius. I really like where 3d is going. It's miles better than it was when antz and monsters inc. came out.

>>2212928
>see previous posts for insight into my stance on 2d and 3d
I refuse to explain this to you again. When you figure out what my stance is, come back and repeat what has been said 4 times over as if it hasn't been debunked already. Or actually bring a valid rebuttal...whatever works for you.

The Charlie Brown movie looks mundane as hell, I don't see how the people in this thread are up its butthole. Wreck it Ralph was better

>>2212932
>Name me one 2d animated film with EXCLUSIVE 2d backrounds
what? like, all of them? Or do you mean where each background is hand drawn and animated? Are you implying there is something bad about painted backgrounds?

>The 2d film just as good as a 3d film does not exist
As good in what regard? In terms of animation? If so then that's kind of a stupid thing to say because 2d and 3d are not comparable. You can't say 2d is better animated than 3d, or that 3d is better animated than 2d, they're not the same thing and can't be judged by the same standards.

>So you make a false claim
But it's not a false claim, directors for 3D films rely on moving camera a lot because they can, that's not an inherently bad thing by any means, but like I said, my opinion (you can tell it's an opinion, not a factual statement, because I prefaced it with "I think") is that traditionally animated films have better composition and more interesting shots because they don't have the luxury of a moving camera.

>I refuse to explain this to you again.
your stance is that 3D is better because it's new and has new methods being developed for it, and that people who prefer 2D are somehow killing progress. You also said that everything that can be done has been done with 2D animation, which was a fucking retarded point, like I have proven multiple times now.

And I disagree with all that you have said. 3D being new and having new methods being developed for it does not make it inherently better than 2D, because the two are not the same thing and are not comparable in that regard. You do one thing with 2D animation and another thing with 3D animation. People preferring 2D animation aren't killing progress, that just doesn't make sense. It's like saying people who continued to paint after the invention of a camera were killing progress. makes no sense, there's no connection there.

>>2212956
>>2212939

All your arguments for 3D are about the production itself, that it's better because it's less tedious. Which is stupid because all that really matters is the end result, like you yourself said.

You cannot create a 2D like animation with a 3D method. Therefore 3D cannot be inherently better than 2D. You cannot create 3D like animation with a 2D method, therefore 2D cannot be inherently better than 3D.

Just because one has an "easier" production process does not mean that it's better.

>>2212962
>All your arguments for 3D are about the production itself, that it's better because it's less tedious
ding ding ding we have a winner folks. See where reading can get you mate? And lol at you having the answer right in front of you and still being blind to the truth.
>why is using a forklift to houst heavy materials better than than just picking those heavy materials up like the the guys from the 1900's that had no other choice?

Gee I wonder why 3d is better than 2d? maybe spending triple the time for a lesser result isn't as good after all hahaha. That must be why 3d film studious are being shut down and phased into 2d...oh wait.

>>2212953
lol there are people on /ic/ right now that actually believe this.

>>2212976
Ah, so you were just pretending to be retarded, that's a relief. For a moment I was worried that people like you actually exist.

>A lesser result

Kek. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuyghh9yX_k

I see you just have shit taste and you're blinded by the novelty of something you've only just begun to look into yourself, that's where the contention comes from, you unironically believe that the new charlie brown movie looks impressive from an animation stand point. Holy shit

>>2211723
That looks much better.

Character Animation: 2D > 3D
Scenery/Objects: 3D > 2D
Master Race: 2D supplemented with 3D

>>2213022
>there are people on /ic/ right now that actually believe this...
There are scenes in DreamWorks the croods that put this cg assisted sequence to shame. Let alone the current Pixar films. Lol.

>>2213026
Thanks

>>2213118
When it switched to the next scene, why did he let go of he boulder just to grab a hold of it again? That and he as in a very different pose at the end of the first scene compared to the second one.

>>2213038
No there isn't.

>>2213129
The second grab is him smashing his fingers into the boulders. So far I only have crudely draw Crack marks to illustrate this my bad. And the poses are different becuase I have no idea what I'm doing.

GUYS

FINALLY bought a tablet, intuos pro

What animation program should I download now? Flash? Or is that obsolete

>>2213167
I like easytoon

>>2213167
TVpaint

>>2213167
TVpaint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B8lB3Gf_w Although Aaron Blaise has a bit of an old-man syndrome going on here, you can quicken your workflow more with properly configured key bindings.

Is TVPAINT really better than ToonBoom? Just because old man Blaise uses it doesn't mean it's the best.

>>2213187
line quality.

>>2213187
A lot of animation schools I've checked out seem to use it as well. It seems like TVpaint and Toonboom are the industry standards, though Japanese seem to use Retas.

Disney use toonboom harmony, but they got their own super pimped out version of it I've heard.

>>2213192
I've heard TB has great line quality though, it's Flash that is the odd man out here. I still can't believe that Adobe is still using the same fucking brush for 15 years.

>>2213196
Well it makes sense since Flash wasn't designed to strictly be an animation software.

>>2213202
Not really, they have been updating many of their animation features over the years just not the most important one, it's str8 up ridic, fam.

>>2213187
After using both, I think it's really just personal choice. Toonboom has a lot of animating conveniences you won't find with TvPaint. But TvPaint is practically a full on art program with an excellent animation feature.

>>2213244
Damn, that sounds like a tough choice.

>>2213118

this one gets me everytime.
http://www.11secondclub.com/competitions/may14/winner

>>2213378
You should call the cops

>>2213378
Wow, those suck

>>2213309
It would have more impact if he 'bounced back' a little bit after the boulder stopped.

>>2213482
dude that's such a good idea! thanks working on that now.

Is there an animation software that's tablet friendly? I bave a Surface pro 3 but every animation app I tried has an interface that's way too small on this to work correctly.

>>2213518
I wish i were you. When I get my surface pro 3 i'm going to download rough animator. I'm using it on my phone now and the app is nothing short of genius. Totally recomend it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBW76iyleNs

>>2213527
No Windows version it seems

>>2213540
aren't there android emulators for windows tablets? You can use pc animation software but I ear the surface pros run hot if you are rendering while you are multitasking.

Did this instinctively this day. What you think about it, I mean I know its bad, just asking should I consider going through some tutorials or just drop it.

>>2214080
I don't understand your question. If you like or want to animate more, it's always worth persuing, no matter what someone else thinks.

Check out The Animator's Survival Kit if you haven't already and do the studies from Animator Island http://www.animatorisland.com/51-great-animation-exercises-to-master/

If it ends up that you don't really want to get into it more than some simple stuff nobody is gonna blame you. Have fun!

>>2213167
Don't fall for the TVpaint meme. Its UI and shortcuts are really awful.

>>2214138
these are great. can you give any tips to someone who is looking into animating but is also broke? i dont even know where to start, specific pencils, papers to use for animating, techniques when scanning them in, programs that turn your hand drawn animations into videos, etc...
can someone throw me a bone here?

>>2214196
It's not a meme, the program is a bitch to learn but it is one of the best once you understand it.

>>2214335
Nah, Flash has the same capabilities, the best timeline of any program and works well other adobe software.

>>2212162
>saying this unironically
>on 4chan

roflmao holy shit

>tfw fine arts degree
Do I have a chance?
any artist like this but still qualified to do animation from their skill/connections alone?

>>2214557
Your degree is irrelevant. I thought everyone knew this.

>>2214589
read on /co/ some studios require you to have a animation degree, who knows I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid and didn't think it wouldn't be true

>>2214589
It's not irrelevant, but it's not necessary either.

>>2214593
im guessing the only studios that do that is canadian tv animation studios

TVPaint vs Flash, what are the real differences?
Also is there any good alternative?

>>2214773
ToonBoom have a few good animating programs

really cool, almost 2 minutes of drawings

https://vimeo.com/65683606

What should I change when I redo this storyboard?

>>2214888
First of all learn to draw.

Acctually make a story I can't even tell what this is. Are you even serious?

Animation is supposed to have, oh I don't know, animation. Actually have them do stuff instead of standing still until they teleport away.

It's a storyboard and it's a first draft. I'm going to add more detail after I get the important parts right.

Like poses, acting, story, staging, and other storyboard stuff. Then I'll polish it up. I'm doing it one hop at a time.

>>2214902
You didn't understand their criticism.
Your story board is using very rough, lifeless lines that look more like the technique known as "chicken scratching". There's too much going on in some frames, and that makes it really difficult to interpret them and actually provide critique on the story itself.

Even on the first draft, you need to at least represent poses and perspective using lines that portray life and angles properly. Use a combination of single-stroke lines that are swift/quick. Stick to only simple curves and straight lines, not necessarily anything to do with "adding more detail".

Basically, we can't critique the actual story itself because we have no idea whats going on. The draft is too rough in technique to allow for interpretation.

>>2214902
This anon >>2214961 is right, your storyboard must be solid before diving into the animation! Then again I am unsure if you want it to be good. If its for fun, then go for it, no one cares. Come back when you're capable of receiving crits. Look at some Adventure time storyboards, it'll give you an idea of what you need.

>>2214773
There's a fuckton of differences. Flash is shit while TvPaint is an art program with animation features. Toonboom is practically the halfway point between the two.

>>2215145
>Flash is shit
But why?

>>2214897
>Animation is supposed to have, oh I don't know, animation.
not that anon but it's a storyboard/animatic you twat

>>2215232
horrible brush engine

>still too horrified to animate after that bumblebee animation

Nah, but I'm watching Shirobako right now, it's pretty educational.

>>2214897
Fuck off. Animatics and storyboards are perfectly fine in animation threads. Thete aren't enough animation fags on ic to warrant an animatic thread

>>2215336
ive seen bits and pieces of shirobako, but i wish there was an anime that pandered to animators. like an entire episode about mc trying to do a cut and having to act out how s/he would execute it. plus it lacked goth lolita

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSbkn6mCfXE

VR animation soon lads

>>2215728
Unless we don't have SAO style VR etc etc etc...

>>2215728
Fuck that looks fun.

https://youtu.be/o4jlZoBGQeE

Just how good do you guys plan/hope to get?

>>2215785

The very best, like no one ever was.

>>2215789
Pokemon sounds like a pretty low goal. Appealing to a fanbase isn't as tough as establishing your own IP.

>>2215714
It does have both those things. Watch the show, the entire thing is on crunchyroll if you want to get it legally.

>>2215785
Yoh Yoshinari. Simple cute anime stuff that can get really badass.

gahh animating is way harder than I thought, bouncing balls deceived me. I know the drawings are inconsistent and the body doesn't move enough. Gonna go back to practicing drawing and come back to animation later

>>2215883
That's good motion. If you want to practice drawing finish this. Add line work. Doing just that will be like each frame is another part to practice. So if there are 20 frames that's practice times 20.

>>2215883
tried something else for fun, looks awkward

>>2215884
I would do that but I have a feeling it will look a lot worse once I clean it up, the messy lines hide my poor drawing skills lol

okay this will def be the last one...animating random shit as you go is fun

>>2215785
why no clip of robin hood? next to shere khan it's the best work he delivered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_2yfDbWKJw

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

also check out this trailer of Nova Seed - by Nick DiLiberto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADm0BSHMeA

>>2215807
>It does have both of those things.
No, no it doesnt

>>2215976
Episodes 21 and 8
8 has the little one dress like a goth so she can animate a cut with a cat. Both in one episode.

There's also the "cockpit cut" episode which I can't remember what it is.

Also it's better to concentrate on the director and producers if you really want to make a show.

>>2215327
Kratos angrily stares at dandelions

>>2216490
>Also it's better to concentrate on the director and producers if you really want to make a show
You completely missed what I said.

>little one dress like a goth so she can animate a cut with a cat

She's not the Goth Lolita I was talking about.

Mind you there are a few episodes I enjoy. But Shirobako was for the moe fanbase, none of it pandered to me. Golden boy does a better job, and it was one episode.

>>2212551
it's kind of funny how you lack both the ability to animate well and also conduct yourself in a professional manner when you keep preaching it. at least i know what i'm talking about. at least i was helpful, what do you accomplish exactly by derailing the thread needlessly to satisfy your own ego

i guess it's just for the sake of satisfying your own ego.

>Here's the explanation I promised. An apology and saying you are sorry are to separate things entirely.

see now i just know you're either fucking with me or you're just incredibly dim. i kind of hope it's the former because at least that means you're not as dumb as you conduct yourself
noun, plural apologies.
1.
a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another:

i dont understand the point of splitting hairs on the definition of the word apology. maybe you meant your own personal interpretation of the word. in which case you're still wrong because if you're not looking to make amends by apologizing then it's just a word without meaning behind it. and it WAS about how you deal with abrasive people. because iirc you said something like you acted like a fucking moron to keep people in line or some stupid shit like that. guess what? you only made things exponentially worse.

i guess since you can't animate you get some weird satisfaction bitching at people who know more than you. kind of petty if you ask me.

your posts only dig your hole deeper and deeper. your arguments devolve further with every post. you rely more on cursing and being on your high horse more and more. and then you have the audacity to say that i'm the one with difficulty comprehending.

the bottom line is that you thought you would resolve my questionably abrasive critique with cursing and then you were unsatisfied when i pointed out the fallacy in your logic.

you catch more flies with honey than vinegar etc

>>2216670
Tldr

>>2216670
>who know more than you
lol

>>2216881
>>2216881
>>2216881

New Thread

>>2205819
>your lazy and untalented generation is known for.

Uhhh what grandpa?

The 30 and under generation are immeasurably more talented and hard working than the boomers.

>Muh owned a house at 20 with a 40 hour a week at $40k salary and generous retirement with a high school diploma and connections through my dad in 1970.

Just suck a bag of dicks, just suck so many dicks you entitled geriatric baby.

>>2211416
>but even drawing and painting and illustration students at that school can't draw for shit

>artschooldoesn'tteachdrawinganymore.png

>>2211876
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuWh4TrXeE

>Implying this isn't what is playing unironically in the Dangling Pentium club in 2077 where you are having a drink waiting for Mr Smith.