"you are a colossal idiot. Just shut up"
"A visible positive difference as opposed to what? Another generic stick figure fighting animation, maybe?"
"I would've picked it up by now from your biased arguments."
I don't see how that justifies your actions any bit. Maybe if people like you weren't so busy comparing their actions to someone else's, then they wouldn't be in the position in the first place. Even if I insulted you first (even though the last two aren't even insults) that doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite.
it seems you need to take that advice too. you can't just flip flop back and fourth between insulting me, then when i insult you back, you take refuge behind the advice i gave you which you then ignored.
Read the above statement.
and what goal was that? getting me to flip out on you? i thought it was to convince me that your opinion is more credible than mine. that is a debate anyways. but it seems all you wanted to do was try to make me look like an idiot?
Well not exactly make you look like an idiot, but a hypocrite. Because as good of a debater as you are, you looked like just the kind of person who would flip out when rubbed the wrong way, even if it wasn't as vigorous of a rubbing as you set it out to be (no one laugh at that).
And going back to the creativity part of animating, which was the stem of this particular debate, creativity isn't effected by frame rate.
It's funny how you come down on me for "ignoring your advice" and yet you completely ignore my point made earlier. My point wasn't that "creativity is based on frame rate". And if that's all you got out of my posts then you might as well have not posted at all. My point was that people who who have animated for a long time and are still under the mind state that "smoother = better" and are too busy delving into that instead of trying to find their own style are the same people producing uninspired animations left to right.
What this thread is about is if two animators, one high fps, and one low fps, were given an identical script to animate, which one would turn out better?
I know what this thread is about. You can stop plastering that into every single post you make in this thread. And that's not essentially what this thread is even about. If you're going to provide an explanation, at least provide an accurate one. If you had read the first post, it asks whether someone who uses a high frame rate in all their animations is essentially a better animator than someone who doesn't. Or basically, what Fizzleman said, "Does the fps make the animator?"
Let's assume that both animators are at the pinnacle of what their fps allows. personally, i think the high fps animation would turn out better, because of what i've already talked about: movement, smoothness when needed, easing, and tweening.
Not exactly. If you use a high frame rate for every animation you've made to date, then you aren't going to grasp the essentials of making a lower frame rate animation because you've had so much time adding in between frames and whatnot, you don't know which frames to omit. Or at least you wouldn't right off the bat. And tweening isn't a staple of animation, so that's not really something that a high frame rate would teach you that you'd want to come away with. The best it's used for is text effects and v-cam movements, not the actual animation itself.
Of course, this is based off of the assumption that a better animator will make a better animations so i'm thinking about this thread as "high fps, better animation?".
More like based off the assumption that the animator who uses a high frame rate all the time automatically understands animation in all aspects from high frame rates to low.
