10 ms·

Frame timing is an integral, creative aspect of the medium, not something to be fixed. 1. https://www.idtech.com/blog/what-does-animating-on-ones-twos-and-thre

by tehnub 4y ago

Frame timing is an integral, creative aspect of the medium, not something to be fixed. 1. https://www.idtech.com/blog/what-does-animating-on-ones-twos-and-threes-mean https://www.idtech.com/blog/what-does-animating-on-ones-twos... 2. https://www.awn.com/tooninstitute/lessonplan/timing.htm#:~:text=In%20film%20animation%20there%20are,)%20%2D%20it%20is%20called%20one's https://www.awn.com/tooninstitute/lessonplan/timing.htm#:~:t.... 3. Search for "A good example would be this cut, and especially the first four shots." in https://animetudes.com/2021/03/06/the-kanada-style-in-context/ https://animetudes.com/2021/03/06/the-kanada-style-in-contex...

modeless 4y ago
> Frame timing is an integral, creative aspect of the medium > not something to be fixed. The first does not imply the second in every case. There are many, many instances where a creator with unlimited resources would have chosen to drawn more frames. And now we can. We don't have to indiscriminately interpolate everything to 120 Hz, but I think it's clearly possible to make huge improvements to a whole lot of hand drawn animation.
- tehnub 4y ago
  Sure, maybe a creator can utilize AI interpolation as a tool. I understood your comment to be about applying AI interpolation to works already completed.
  - modeless 4y ago
    Both.
satvikpendem 4y ago
As someone who already interpolates media with SVP4, I remain unconvinced by those arguments. My media looks amazing running at 120 hz, I don't get headaches by jarring panning shots that look closer to a slideshow than a movie. I recently watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D with 48 FPS, and it looked incredible. If only all media in the future could let go of the arbitrary 24 frame limit, which was made a hundred years ago because filmmakers wanted to conserve their film usage.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Avatar 2 was shot for 48 fps. It’s very different to interpolating animation to a higher frame rate. Most animation is shot for 24 fps on twos, so 12ish frames (we usually go between 8fps and 24fps) The difference is that we design poses to read at a given frame rate and have performance characteristics at those rates. If you were to interpolate it, you’d change a fundamental characteristic of the acting. How long a ball makes contact with a surface is important and interpolation struggles to understand something that should stick to a surface for an extra frame versus something that should be blended. Yes you’ll potentially get lower strobing but you’re also now getting a different performance. Maybe you don’t care, but it’s fundamentally changing things away from the intention. This is a different discussion than just simply what frame rate video is shot at.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Yeah you're right, I don't actually care about the difference in performance, I can't tell it apart honestly speaking, I just notice the extra fluidity which I'll continue to use.
    - dagmx 4y ago
      That’s fair, and that’s always a viewers choice to make , especially with home viewings. > I remain unconvinced by those arguments Though hopefully that does go some of the way to convince you that the arguments are legitimate. But personal subjective preference can override intention of the author.
    - numpad0 4y ago
      After giving it a day, I think I understood the problem. That extra fluidity isn't expected to be necessary by most animators, as well as audiences. This might be the realms of assistive technologies, like subtitles fundamentally is.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Also consider that real videos and CGs are "shot" by 24 fps, but 2D animations aren't shot but drawn by human. Animator decides what picture should be an inter frame.
bcraven 4y ago
The animator Noodle recently put this video on YouTube that explains why he despises the idea of interpolated video: https://youtu.be/_KRb_qV9P4g https://youtu.be/_KRb_qV9P4g
rowanG077 4y ago
I agree that it is part of the creative process right now. But it is nothing but an artifact of it's time, where it would exorbitantly expensive to create 60 animation frames. Just like 30fps video and and black and white television and games back in the day. 60FPS animation as the default is superior to the choppyness we have nowadays. But the industry has to adjust their process, and upscale animation may never look right.
maeln 4y ago
It is also true that a lot of time, the "low" framerate in Animation is also due to budget. But it is then seen has a artistic limitation and therefore is part of the final art. I think having good interpolation technology *in the hands of the artists* is awesome: You can make buttery smooth animation for a much lower cost when you want. But you get to keep your full creative control over the timing and framing whenever you want it.

by tehnub 4y ago

modeless 4y ago

> Frame timing is an integral, creative aspect of the medium > not something to be fixed. The first does not imply the second in every case. There are many, many instances where a creator with unlimited resources would have chosen to drawn more frames. And now we can. We don't have to indiscriminately interpolate everything to 120 Hz, but I think it's clearly possible to make huge improvements to a whole lot of hand drawn animation.

tehnub 4y ago
Sure, maybe a creator can utilize AI interpolation as a tool. I understood your comment to be about applying AI interpolation to works already completed.
- modeless 4y ago
  Both.

satvikpendem 4y ago

As someone who already interpolates media with SVP4, I remain unconvinced by those arguments. My media looks amazing running at 120 hz, I don't get headaches by jarring panning shots that look closer to a slideshow than a movie. I recently watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D with 48 FPS, and it looked incredible. If only all media in the future could let go of the arbitrary 24 frame limit, which was made a hundred years ago because filmmakers wanted to conserve their film usage.

dagmx 4y ago
Avatar 2 was shot for 48 fps. It’s very different to interpolating animation to a higher frame rate. Most animation is shot for 24 fps on twos, so 12ish frames (we usually go between 8fps and 24fps) The difference is that we design poses to read at a given frame rate and have performance characteristics at those rates. If you were to interpolate it, you’d change a fundamental characteristic of the acting. How long a ball makes contact with a surface is important and interpolation struggles to understand something that should stick to a surface for an extra frame versus something that should be blended. Yes you’ll potentially get lower strobing but you’re also now getting a different performance. Maybe you don’t care, but it’s fundamentally changing things away from the intention. This is a different discussion than just simply what frame rate video is shot at.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Yeah you're right, I don't actually care about the difference in performance, I can't tell it apart honestly speaking, I just notice the extra fluidity which I'll continue to use.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    That’s fair, and that’s always a viewers choice to make , especially with home viewings. > I remain unconvinced by those arguments Though hopefully that does go some of the way to convince you that the arguments are legitimate. But personal subjective preference can override intention of the author.
  - numpad0 4y ago
    After giving it a day, I think I understood the problem. That extra fluidity isn't expected to be necessary by most animators, as well as audiences. This might be the realms of assistive technologies, like subtitles fundamentally is.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Also consider that real videos and CGs are "shot" by 24 fps, but 2D animations aren't shot but drawn by human. Animator decides what picture should be an inter frame.

bcraven 4y ago

The animator Noodle recently put this video on YouTube that explains why he despises the idea of interpolated video: https://youtu.be/_KRb_qV9P4g https://youtu.be/_KRb_qV9P4g

rowanG077 4y ago

I agree that it is part of the creative process right now. But it is nothing but an artifact of it's time, where it would exorbitantly expensive to create 60 animation frames. Just like 30fps video and and black and white television and games back in the day. 60FPS animation as the default is superior to the choppyness we have nowadays. But the industry has to adjust their process, and upscale animation may never look right.

maeln 4y ago

It is also true that a lot of time, the "low" framerate in Animation is also due to budget. But it is then seen has a artistic limitation and therefore is part of the final art. I think having good interpolation technology *in the hands of the artists* is awesome: You can make buttery smooth animation for a much lower cost when you want. But you get to keep your full creative control over the timing and framing whenever you want it.