I’ve added Show Notes to Show 1: Andreas Deja, Part One. It’s not too much, but there are some links to maps and external sites that provide some more info where applicable (and easy to find online 😉 ). I’ll see how it goes, timewise, to determine if I can continue this with each show. I’ll post the show and then add the Show Notes when I have time, so you don’t have to wait to hear the show.
UPDATE: Show Notes for Show 2 are up.
Hi, really enjoying the show, but as someone who’s interested in animation but has never actually done any can you explain something: in the second podcast you talked about doing stuff in ‘twos and ones’ – what does this mean?
(it’d be handy if you could point to somewhere where you can find out the meanings of some of these animation terms … just to make things easier for us non-animators 😉
-pj
Hi PJ,
Thanks for the question. I want this show to be accessible to everyone so I’m glad you asked. Actually, you aren’t the only person to ask about this.
Film has 24 frames per second. Each frame has a different drawing, or image, and when they are viewed in succession through a projector, the images connect and create the illusion of motion thanks to what is called persistence of vision. That’s all simple enough.
If each drawing is numbered according to which frame it falls on, it would look like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . .
In traditional (hand-drawn) animation, every frame can hold a different image but animators realized long ago that they could get by with only doing a drawing every other frame, saving extra work. The drawings would be “held” on two consecutive frames so that in one second, instead of doing 24 drawings (one every frame) they could do 12 drawings (one every other frame).
The numbered drawings would look like this:
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 9 – 11 . . .
and drawing 1 is repeated in frame 2, drawing 3 repeats in frame 4, etc.
Persistence of vision comes into play again and the action still looks fluid. A drawing held for two frames is called “on twos.” Logically, when each consecutive frame has a new drawing, it is called “on ones.”
It’s up to the animator to decide when to animate on ones and twos. Generally, the determining factor is how it will look in the end. If it is animated on twos (12 drawings per second) and there seem to be gaps in the action, the animator can go in and add new drawings to make it look more fluid.
If this series of drawing doesn’t look smooth enough (between 3 and 7):
1 – 3 – 5 – 7 – 9 – 11 . . .
we can add a drawing where it is needed like this:
1 – 3 4 5 6 7 – 9 – 11 . . .
Something that didn’t make sense to me when I first heard it is that faster action should be animated on ones. I thought, “Well won’t more drawings slow it down?” Not really, since we’re not adding time. The frames stay the same, we’re just putting more images in to connect the action. You may think of it as a strobe light. If it flashes slowly (on twos) and you wave your arms around, it may be hard to follow the motion. If we speed up the flashing (on ones) the action connects visually because there are more images shown in the same amount of time.
This is REALLY hard to get across in words alone, and I know I can tend to be verbose, but I hope this helps. If you pause traditional animation and advance frame by frame, you will be able to see which section are on ones and which are on twos. Of course if you’re looking at some Saturday morning cartoons, they get away with animating on 12s, 24s, or worse.
We commented about The Thief and the Cobbler in Show 2 because Richard Williams prefers to animate nearly everything on ones.
CG is nearly always done on ones. I think in Fantasia 2000 some of the Jack-in-the-Box was animated on twos, but that is a rare instance.
Love love love what you’re doing here. The first Deja interview was a great reminder that passion and determination are unstoppable when one finds their calling.
Maybe it’s just me, but the interviews seem to be mixed really low – I have an extremely hard time hearing the conversation when I’m listening to it on the train on maximum volume. Could you mix them a bit higher? Or is it me.
Thanks!
Jim,
Thanks for the feedback. You’re right, the audio is low. I’m still figuring this out as I go along. Hopefully Show 3 will be better in the volume department. I’ll do my best. Would you please do me the favor of letting me know if it’s an improvement? Look for it sometime this week. Only two shows in and I’ve already gone out and bought some new equipment to make the recordings of the second guest better. I guess I’m in this for the long haul. We’ll all find out soon enough if the lastest upgrade was worth it. Remember to let me know about the volume for Show 3, ok?
Coitenly! 🙂
Current Animation student in Chicago here. Love the podcast. The perfect thing to listen to at my dayjob to remind myself why I’m torturing myself with night classes and an overbooked schedule.
I wanna creator bio though! The man behind the interviews… who is he? An animation insider indeed, is this the James Lipton of the toon world?
I voted at podcast alley.
Lipton – that’s funny. He does way more research than I have the time for, which might make for better listening because I’m finding out this stuff as it is told. And only because you voted (just kidding) I’ll give up some info. Some day I’ll make it a more formal effort, but here’s the short, short version. I am an animator, and I’ve been working at it for about eleven years. You can find my list of credits at http://www.imdb.com
My name is at the bottom of every page of The Animation Podcast.
D’oh!
Thanks Clay. I’ll read just about anything animation these days, consider me a sponge.
Off to IMDB!
Leave a Reply to Paul J Holden Cancel reply