Quote from Spazz

1. "Smooth animations are a milestone people should get to before they move on to their own style of animating, because without being able to be smooth, then the animation would wobble, be choppy, and lack the ability to convey force."

I never said anything about beginning animators nor supposed to animate smoothly. If you had read my post (which you obviously haden't if you're saying that), I had said that beginning animators should try to work at different frame rates to expand their skill until they get to the point where they can take on more professional work. But this thread isn't addressing beginning animators. The question is asking if you're a good animator for animating at a high fps for your animations. If you've been animating for years and you're under the mindstate that "smoother = better", then you're obviously one of those people who makes the same mediocre crap that everyone's seen already and will eventually get bored and quit animating altogether.

2. "if somebody was an amazing animator but didn't have a smooth animating style, the animations would have choppy, wobbly, and ugly, which, proving my point, would mean that they weren't a good animator."

"yeah, that was my point, that somebody can't be an amazing high fps animator without being able to draw smoothly, whether or not they do so."

So what you're basically saying is is that someons who has a style of animation that doesn't look best in a higher frame rate with smoother movements is automatically a crap animation? So which point are you proving exactly? That animations are only good if their movements are smooth? And whose standards are you basing that off of? You? Unless everyone else in the world uses the exact same standards as you do. And wouldn't that mean you just contradicted yourself? Because earlier in your post, you claimed that smooth animations aren't the pinnacle of greatness, but now they're the only animations that are good. Do you know why certain animators call for certain voice actors (don't go and say any crap about how that sentence is of topic, read on and you'll see why it's related)? It's because of their style, their voice. You wouldn't put a geeky, prepubescent adolescent to voice the role as a hulking, ruggid Rambo-type because it wouldn't fit the character and would turn the audience off. The same applies to animation. You wouldn't animate a more skethcy style of animation at a higher frame rate with more smoothness added. Why? Because it doesn't fit. Certain rates of smoothness don't fit certain styles. Just because something is scary smooth that doesn't right it off as an expert animation, as you seem to think but constantly deny that you think as such.

3. "Conveying an animation isn't being creative, it's actually animating it. you can't animate soley with creativity, you have to actually draw it, and with higher frame rate, you can show people what you want them to see more than having their eyes fill it in."

Do you even know what the word "convey" means? I means to carry something out, to transport it, or to express something. I suppose you'd be leaning toward the third option, but in doing so you would then void your entire argument because in order to "express" an animation, creativity is involved. Don't use a word in your argument if you don't know what it means. Just because it sounds right it doesn't mean it will make your argument look any more sound..

And you have it all wrong. Making an animation is supposed to be creative. That's how it is in entertainment animation. The best animators are the ones with their own style of animation, just like how the best painters in history are the ones who've found their own style. You're supposed to animate with creativity. Basically, you're telling animators to be uninspired and to not use any creativity at all when animating. Do you even know where the word "Creative" comes from? Create. When you're making an animation, are you not creating something? And in order to create something, should there not be some level of creativity?

4. "Alright, once again, JCamelo isn't a good example of a high fps animator. This thread is about how high fps or low fps animation effects the skill level of an animator, and just putting him at the end of your post to say how he spams the blurr filter isn't at all relevant to the thread. you went completely off topic to talk about JCamelo's style"

You are a collosal idiot. Just shut up. If you're not going to read past the word "Jcamelo" then don't reply to the post. Or if you're just going to reply for the sake of defending him, don't reply either. Once again--maybe I should make the words bigger for you so that you understand:

[SIZE="5"]I KNOW THAT JCAMELO IS NOT THE ONLY ANIMATOR WHO USES A HIGH FRAME RATE. I USED HIM AS AN EXAMPLE TO REPRESENT ANIMATORS WHO MAY HAVE SOME SKILL BUT USE A HIGH FRAME RATE AS AN EXCUSE TO SHOW OFF THEIR SKILL. I USED JCAMELO AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH HIM AND WILL KNOW THE REFERENCE.[/SIZE]

If you need me to use smaller words for you so that you understand, then I will. If you haven't gotten it already, I'm referencing at the part where animators who think that people who use a higher frame rate for their animations are more skilled, thus being related to this thread. I see not how that is going off topic, let alone completely off topic especially since it's discussing the thread's topic, you braindead monkey. In fact, by your standards, you were going off topic too. By discussing to me how Jcamelo isn't a proper reference to this thread and telling me how off topic I am by doing so, you went off topic by not sticking with every literal phrase this thread has set up.

If you're next post is just going to include an attack at me for using Jcamelo as a reference because you still misinterpret the meaning of even the simplest of words, do us all a favor and don't even respond to that part of the post. Because obviously you aren't ready to see the word "Jcamelo" in someone's post with out assuming it's some sort of attack towards him since you're so attached to him.



Just from that bit I have to assume you're retarded.


This further confirms my suspicions.


Yeah, because the only animations one can make are animation involving stick figures shooting lazer beams out of their hands like some sort of Dragonball Z clone. And animators who use a low frame rate for one animation must use the same frame rate for every single animation they produce. Brilliant deduction, Watson.


And that just right there writes you off to sign up for an special education class. So what you're saying is if I were to make an animation where a ball tweens across the screen, then I would be an expert animator? Or better yet, if I were to take THIS ANIMATION and animate it at a higher frame rate, that would make it expert material, huh? I really hope you're being sarcastic with that statement, Fizzle.

Yeah I know guys, going after Fizzle was way to easy of a target, but I was surprised no one but Kitsune took care of him. So, yeah.

Quote from drocksta

Ok, i think you just misunderstood what i was trying to say, and jesus christ, calm down. this is just a friendly argument over whether if you animate at high fps your better than if you animate at low fps.

First of all, i'd just like to say that I like how whenever I debate with a noob, they see a wall of text and then tell me to calm down. I don't know about you, but I'm as calm as can be. So instead of wasting time and giving yourself carpal tunnel telling me to calm down when I don't need it, just don't even bother. ZWOMG U TOLD ME 2 CALAM DOWN DATS BEING OFF TOPIC!

I'm saying that smoothness is the foundation to all of those other HIGH FPS styles. Not low fps, which i think can be used to great effect, but cannot go as far technically as high fps animating.
That's where you're wrong. If you read Tention's post instead of sifting through all the other posts you find useless just to find mine, you might have seen that. Certain frame rates have different to achieve different effects. The amount of things you can do at a higher frame rate does not outweight the amount of things you can do at a lower frame rate. They're made like that for a reason.

once HIGH FPS animators have mastered the smoothness aspect of animating needed in high fps animating, they move on to other styles, which can be supported by the smoothness so they don't turn out unintentionally wobbly.

And just who are you basing these facts on? Or are you just pulling these facts, as Pirate would say, out of your ass?

Now on your creativity point, the animator, however creative, needs animating skill. you can't build an entire animation out of creativity, just like you can't build a house with just a blueprint; you need to actually do the work.

That's a horrible analogy.

So what you're basically saying is is that someons who has a style of animation that doesn't look best in a higher frame rate with smoother movements is automatically a crap animation? So which point are you proving exactly? That animations are only good if their movements are smooth? And whose standards are you basing that off of? You? Unless everyone else in the world uses the exact same standards as you do. And wouldn't that mean you just contradicted yourself? Because earlier in your post, you claimed that smooth animations aren't the pinnacle of greatness, but now they're the only animations that are good. Do you know why certain animators call for certain voice actors (don't go and say any crap about how that sentence is of topic, read on and you'll see why it's related)? It's because of their style, their voice. You wouldn't put a geeky, prepubescent adolescent to voice the role as a hulking, ruggid Rambo-type because it wouldn't fit the character and would turn the audience off. The same applies to animation. You wouldn't animate a more skethcy style of animation at a higher frame rate with more smoothness added. Why? Because it doesn't fit. Certain rates of smoothness don't fit certain styles. Just because something is scary smooth that doesn't right it off as an expert animation, as you seem to think but constantly deny that you think as such. [SIZE="1"]( i put all your errors in red, which is little compared to your wall of text about my one word placement error.)[/SIZE]

I don't see how a couple small spelling errors measures up to the misuse of a definition. Why don't I go through your post and highlight your numerous spelling and grammatical errors and we'll see who's more at fault :)

Now since you were all wound up insulting me every other sentence in your post, you didn't notice the last part of the sentence you were talking about, and made a whole rant about how i said people had to always animate smoothly, while the text that disproved it stood right next to your tirade the whole time: "yeah, that was my point, that somebody can't be an amazing high fps animator without being able to draw smoothly, whether or not they do so." WHETHER OR NOT THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO. i never said that they had to always be smooth in their animating styles, just that unless the person is trying to have a wobbly and choppy style, then having a grasp of the smooth animating style would keep the animation from being choppy and wobbly.

"unless the person is trying to have a wobbly and choppy style, then having a grasp of the smooth animating style would keep the animation from being choppy and wobbly"

Right there that writes it off that you do think people's animations should be smooth. That's why I left it out. because I figured you'd say something like that. Some "tirade", huh?

It's like drawing. Even if somebody doesn't use perfect facial and body anatomy, they still probably know it so that they can start with a good anatomy and then make a more exaggerated and cartoony style.


I'll use myself as a reference, although the moment i post you'll probably just flame me to death about it and call me a noob that doesn't know anything about animating:

What a great way to debate: Making assumptions pulled out of, yes, your ass in order to make yourself look like you're being attacked and further justify your statements. How useful to the debate.

right now, i'm currently animating around 18-22 fps. My animating styles can be exaggerated, and i can easily use the styles at lower fps, but high fps has a better appeal to make things less choppy and closer to getting to the professional fps of 28, where the eyes won't detect any choppiness.

And just how many people does a higher fps appeal too? Just you? And who determined that 28 frames per second is the professional frame rate?

I fail at animating smoothly, so 22 is my current limit. If i tried to animate an exaggerated style at, say 25 fps, i would get screwed because all of the movements would wobble and not connect. Before i use an exaggerated style, i need to learn the conservative one.
You do realize that you're basing all these facts off of yourself, right? And that all humans weren't exactly made equal in terms of talents, right?

as for low fps, it is easier at first,
Easier for you? But I thought you said it was harder.

but one should progress up the fps to make more complex animations and effects.
That doesn't sound like the abridged version of what you said earlier. According to you, styles using a low frame rate are choppy, wobbly and unappealing because people have to fill in frames with their eyes.

i don't want to repeat my whole first post before i got caught up in this
You might need to so that you can see for yourself which side you were on in the first place.

snafu.
CURSE YOU X'S!

Quote from drocksta

ugh, this is getting tiresome going over this over and over again, so i'll just end it right here.
Middle age affecting you? Not as strong and energetic as you used to be?
In case you won't notice, that's a joke

You have a different opinion than me, mine being that high fps animating has more capabilities than low fps animating,
That's where you keep faltering. Name all the capabilities of high frame rate animation that isn't based off of stick figure fighting.

and that the exaggerated styles are branched off of the smooth animating style, which is the standard style of high fps animating,
I thought your opinion was that in order to do exaggerated styles, you need to use a high frame rate to progress towards that point, not that exaggerated styles derived from high frame rate styles.

and yours being (correct me if I'm wrong) that smooth animating is not necessary for high fps animating
Your wrong and therefore I will correct you, as commanded of you. Now if you're going to completely misunderstand what I've said, then why bother? The only reason you find this pointless is because you didn't understand my points.

If you could read, you'd know that I never tried to disprove the fact that animations run smoother at a high frame rate. My point was, not everyone is under the same notion that you are being "smoother = better". And don't try to deny that you think that, which you have previously done. Anyone who thinks that high fps animating has "more capabilities" obviously thinks it's better than the latter.

and that low fps animating is just as good as high fps.
Well at least you got that part right.

Say you won, whatever, you haven't poked any wholes in my point, nor mine yours,
Stop making character assumptions.

therefore making this whole snafu ( that's right, snafu) pointless.
How is it a "snafu" if we are discussing the topic of this thread: "Are people who animate at a higher FPS better than those who animate at a lower FPS?" You don't have to stay on topic to a thread, word for word, if what you're discussing is still in the ballpark of the topic, which it was. Making remarks about how pointless and off topic this is is pointless and off topic.

Alright, carry on people without page long posts interrupting the discussion
Then what the hell have we been doing this past page and a half?

Quote from drocksta

your right, i do think high fps is better than low fps.

high fps animating makes particle and explosion effects work better as well as motion paths. lets say you have to draw something curving up abruptly, like, lets say, a car on a road that suddenly tilts up. with high fps animating, you can fill in a frame with a blur filter in between the car going horizontal and vertical, while with low fps, you would have to blur before the car hits the ramp or ignore the frame altogether and have the car suddenly be vertical. high fps is good for fast movements.

here's another example: something awesome just happened in the movie you're making and you do that generic rewind thing that's in every collab like 50 times. when you do the footage in slow mo, you can just double frame it and it still passes as a good animating speed. with low fps, it turns into a sort of slide show, and each frame is dragged wayyyyyyy on.

although a cool idea would be to animate at 24 fps and switch between double framing to do each style when they work best. i wonder how that would turn out...

Quote from drocksta

I'm basically saying that high fps is good for fast movements and changes in direction, which are used in many different animations. fr0zen was right about the overall skill of the animator, because you cannot compare a high fps and low fps animator because they are using two different animation styles.
Sure wasn't the standpoint you were representing just two posts ago.

"your right, i do think high fps is better than low fps."

I'm talking about the benefit of using high fps over low fps. Here are a few more common examples of when high fps is better for animating:
based off of one type of animation, no doubt.

fast changes in direction, momentum, or the speed of something
Since when are low frame rates unable to show that?

easing (if it's that much faster of a framerate, then the sudden effect will be that much more sudden)
Because low frame rate animations can't achieve that either.

smoothness (objects have more movement filled in, so there is no gap between movements)
1. I know what smoothness is. If I didn't before I would've picked it up by now from your biased arguments.

2. So now smoothness = better, apparently?

tweens (the easing effects on them work much better at high fps)
transfer of force (if a hand flicks a marble at low fps, one frame will be the hand in a clenched position, and then next will be in an open position, with the marble moving, while at high fps, you can make the marble resist at first and then move, which adds new elements into the animation that add realism.)
You do realize that tweens are pretty much unheard of in animation and are actually looked down upon, right?

realism (see transfer of force)
1. Once again, I know what the word means. I like how you spend so much time in one of your posts to come down on me for insulting you so much, and yet you insult my intelligence by giving a definition for some of the most elementary of terms.

2. So appently the only appreciated animations are the photorealistic ones that often leave no room for much other imaginative and creative effects due to the fact that the animator spent all his time getting it to look like the real thing?

all of these are common enough occurrences when animating that they have a visible positive difference in higher fps.