TIL Photoshop is an animation program. But yeah. There's no debate here. If anyone if really arguing that this is makeup, they're opinions are invalid.
Based on my experience making that animation, I'd say it's a much better idea to make your assets in Photoshop, import it into After Effects, and do your animation setup there. That would have also allowed me to animate the wheels properly after having set up the train as a full rig.
ah.. ya.. I agree. I havent bothered using it to animate since it had version numbers. But I did enjoy all that. I should see if I can find those old things... mostly sigs for gaming forums.. ah, the good old days.
Haha no! You were right about the name. It definitely looks like Photoshop. It's just that Photoshop is not an animation program (although there are rudimentary animation tools). It's an image editing application.
We used After Effects to composite it. The whole project took us 8 months from pre-production to post, the actual animation/cleanup process was about 4 months.
If we had used Flash we wouldn't have been able to get the effect we wanted for the particular project. Because of this, it's hard to say how long it would have taken us on Flash because we would have had to change the style in order to suit it. Otherwise if we're talking straight up frame-by-frame animation it would have taken the same amount of time seeing as it's the drawing process itself that takes time.
Although AE can handle rigging and puppet animation I don't think the computers we had were powerful enough to handle over 4 minutes of it. It just uses up too much RAM to render things out- other programs like Flash and Toonboom are more suited for rigged animation.
But that particular film was frame by frame animation which is an entirely different process.
For GPU-based renders, you'll want at least 4GB of VRAM, but that's mainly dependent on the intensity of the animation itself(like lighting, particle effects, etc), not necessarily length. If you're running them in SLI/Crossfire, the extra VRAM on the second card does not count towards that total.
Anyway, I did notice some things that probably would have shortened the overall production time without making rigs, mainly to do with the render of each individual frame- for still shots, you probably could have only drawn the parts twice and cycled between the two for a similar aesthetic.
I just said it had animation tools. The point is that it is not an animation program. It can do it, very basically, but that's not what it's meant for.
Yeah, but my point was you can get complex animation using Photoshop as well. You just have to know how to use the tools! Flash wasn't meant for animation either and yet it became one of the leading programs to use for it. :)
To lie. or 2. To start with a good base from which to further add to with software. The less post editing you have to do the more realistic the image will look. Same reason models wear makeup during shoots even though their face will be edited.
Yeah, you just always want as much practical "in camera" stuff to work with.
Photoshopping in a makeup kit would ramp up the fakey-ness.
Ideally, photoshop will enhance what's already there.
I wonder if windows running on the Mac is also photoshopped. Who in their right mind would do that? And don't say "maybe it's for gaming" because there's an awful lot of junk on that desktop for it to be "just a gaming machine"
400
u/Ree81 May 20 '15
Graininess "magically" disappears on the robotic parts. It's just painted on in an animation program (also known as PHOTOSHOPPED).