![]() ![]() This is not the case of all the animations but for high quality inbetweening it is a required feature at least for me. ![]() I must add that if you don't flip your drawings off pegs you have no assurance that your animation will be really fluid when you have more than 3 inbetweens to draw. I agree this may be a feature that only half of the animators use, or even fewer, but if you want to get more professionals to use the software it's best to give them a simulation close to what you can do with paper. The reason why I need to check the animation off pegs is, first because I do it with paper, and second because if you need to make some very precise in-between this is the best and the fastest method. Moving the frames on a temporary layer is cumbersone and there is some lost of quality anytime you transform your drawings. Still.if for some reason you really do need to see the 'off pegs' animated, you can always actually move your drawings (on a temporary duplicate layer for instance) ZigOtto wrote:I personnally don't miss that, the only thing I need is to flip in-pegs,īecause it's "in-pegs" that I need to check if it works or not. But right now we're still in the stage of adjusting our human gestures and work habits to the needs of a digitally restricted input system. I hope that engineering ingenuity will come up with better solutions. But still I miss the tactile feedback of a brush or a pencil, or the fast way I can align two sheets of paper temporarily, instead of adjusting two images on screen. There's been that famous keyboard by that russian designer which has an LED display on each key, and each key can be programmed to a certain function (still a study, not a working product). ![]() Now technology has advanced to handle a multi-touch-screen, and at least in the musical domain there's a whole bunch of controllers been invented, mostly fitting for just one piece of software. And what we use to increase our expressivity, modifier keys or some external button bank, still isn't as sensitive and flexible as this would be with an instrument. No matter wether we use mouse or pen, it's basically still one and only one cursor we move. When I mentioned the not-so-far evolution of drawing on the computer, I was mainly referring to the computer's restriction to only accept one input at any given time. Inbetweening isn't dull mechanics it has more artfulness to its execution than you give it credit. You seem to be asking for the equivalent of that kind of improvement for the artist's tools, but there is a difference between mechanical skillfulness and creativity. Surgeons today have fantastic computerized laser machines to carve out tumors with better precision than they could have ever achieved with a mere scalpel, even though a successful operation still depends on the surgeon's personal skills. That skill lies in the sphere's of the soul and is a spiritual quest. This is because we tend to admire other people's ways of expressing individuality through art. The success of creativity lies elsewhere than in the mechanics of tools. ![]() If you are thinking only of ways to mechanically improve mundane tasks such as inbetweening than you are looking into the sphere of artificial intelligence and I'm not so sure if that would make for happier works of art. And the fork and knife haven't evolved in any way to make food taste better either. It's like saying the pencil and brush haven't made any progress since the long ago ages when they were invented. The Wacom tablet and its pen have made a huge step away from the mouse and there are many unique ways to draw and paint within computer software as long as everybody stops demanding that all software looks and acts like PhotoShop. We still haven't evolved very far from drawing with the first mouse.I disagree. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |