Professor walking

[robotacon]

I'm working on a set of characters and this is supposed to be a teenager at the arcade academy.

I think the run cycle is pretty clear but it's like he/she's moving too slow in-game.
Do I have too many frames or is it that I need to bump up the frame rate (I've got 25 fps right now)

Something is wrong with the animation but I can't see it myself.



(shown here at reduced speed for easy reviewing)

[infinity+1]

what's sticking out to me is the head...and how it's not moving at all.

[robotacon]

Sounds reasonable. Here's an edit:

[Helm]

You're doing too many in-betweens that are weakening your keyframes. The end motion is too linear, not enough pendulum motion.

Here's an edit with drastically fewer frames but more smoothness (hopefully)



Also color edit and various ambient animation bits

[robotacon]

First of all I have to thank you Helm for pointing out that the character needs shoulders. You're also totally right about the pendulum motion. I took a run on a treadmill today and it was almost impossible to extend one arm straight forward and not have the other arm wave back and forth like crazy to make up for the movement of the rest of the body. I think I had some kind of ninja-running in mind at the beginning but for that to work you would have to have a completely different step length and... it was just a mess.

I don't understand what you mean when you say the number of in-betweens weaken the key frames.

I like the color edits and I'm going to add highlights later on when I've got a solid palette.



In this edit I added the arm pendulum and a shoulder. the belt is following the body better and the leg is not kicking back as much which I think was the thing that was out of synch that I couldn't see. The extreme position of the two legs should happen in the same frame (or frames since it happends twice in per cycle) but the leg kept kicking backwards which made the whole run look sloppy. On a side note the child characters run at 3 pixels per frame and the older characters run at 4 pixels per frame.

I tried this edit in-game and it looks much better.

I also bumped up the speed since I don't think I should drop any frames. I've got this rule (that may of may not be a good thing) that characters have 10 (children) or 12 (teens and grown-ups) frames in their run depending on how tall they are. If I make a really tall boss that guy will have to have even more frames to his run which will result in a slower cycle but not necessarily a slower run.

[Helm]

The arm motion is superb.

I still think the legs are gliding. Your frames are too evenly distributed to give any sense of 'suspended in air' mid-run motion.

[robotacon]

Thanks Helm. But the frames need to be evenly distributed for the feet not to slide when this character is put in the game. I've tested it and anything but constant foot speed on the ground looks aweful. Perhaps you mean that the foot in the air needs to travel at a less even speed that I might agree with. I think it has the right amount of snap as it is though.

I've started working on the professor character now. This one is much harder because he's only moving one pixel per frame which actually makes it much harder to animate at this scale.



I think I might need to start using sub-pixel movement to a much higher extent.

Also does anyone have a better idea of what to do with the arms? The character is moving slowly but can use a bunch of gizmos like a defense energy field and other tech that I haven't figured out the game mechanics for yet. Perhaps I can put some kind of remote control in his hand or something like that?

[PypeBros]

first, impressive work done on the previous guy.

My impression is that your professor is too rigid.
For an old guy like this, he stands too perfectly right, and moves too perfectly his feets. If i was in the school, i'm sure i'd be plotting to see whether he's hiding a robotic walking prothese ...

I suggest you work on giving him more character by bending him, make his walk irregular. When getting old, it's hard to stay on a single foot during the walk, so the "passing" phase of the walk tends to be faster, but at the same times, knees hurt and won't let you move your leg smoothly.

[ndchristie]

I think the arm is coming way too far forward.  He'd throw off his aim as well as his balance.  Don't try things out on a treadmill, try them out on real ground.  You can't train for a boxing match just by hitting a bag all day, and if I can run around a bed-stuy block with one arm out without getting jumped, you can too .

If he is going to flail like a madman, he can't keep his aim up like that.  when one shoulder comes forward the other hangs back.  that's not just a fact - it's the whole point of moving your upper body while running.  It builds momentum and it keeps the body moving in a straighter line.

For the gliding issue, i see 2 things : there's no weight, and everything is completely even.  I agree that you can't change the placement of the foot on the ground during contact, but you haven't attempted to change the placement of the body over the foot.  Even Olympic sprinters who spend 99% of their time in the air still don't float.

The same goes for the doctor - he's a floating torso with the leg motion just for show.  I get the feeling that you're animating these all as separate pieces and then wondering why they don't work as a unit.  He's not only rigid, he's stunningly stable - more than is humanly possible.  what's worse is that when you start this way, now when you try to animate the body to compensate, it will only look bad, because the animation wasn't part of the action considered from the beginning.

It's all a matter of process.  Bad process leads to bad results no matter how much work is done and no matter how many problems are addressed.  Always start, work, and finish with the whole advancing in front of the parts.

[robotacon]

first, impressive work done on the previous guy.

My impression is that your professor is too rigid.
For an old guy like this, he stands too perfectly right, and moves too perfectly his feets. If i was in the school, i'm sure i'd be plotting to see whether he's hiding a robotic walking prothese ...

I suggest you work on giving him more character by bending him, make his walk irregular. When getting old, it's hard to stay on a single foot during the walk, so the "passing" phase of the walk tends to be faster, but at the same times, knees hurt and won't let you move your leg smoothly.

Yeah the professor is too rigid I can see that. The problem is that it's much harder to animated something moving slow than something at high speed at this size. He only picks his foot up one pixel over the ground but it still looks like he's standing too much on one foot. I'm going to try making it look like he's walking in slippers but I'm afraid it will look like he's skating but it might work. I'm going to drop the arms straight down too since it currently looks like he's dancing the twist.

I like you're idea of adding more character. Perhaps adding a cane might do the trick. Another might be to make him younger so the age fits the walk better.

I think the arm is coming way too far forward.  He'd throw off his aim as well as his balance.  Don't try things out on a treadmill, try them out on real ground.  You can't train for a boxing match just by hitting a bag all day, and if I can run around a bed-stuy block with one arm out without getting jumped, you can too .

If he is going to flail like a madman, he can't keep his aim up like that.  when one shoulder comes forward the other hangs back.  that's not just a fact - it's the whole point of moving your upper body while running.  It builds momentum and it keeps the body moving in a straighter line.

For the gliding issue, i see 2 things : there's no weight, and everything is completely even.  I agree that you can't change the placement of the foot on the ground during contact, but you haven't attempted to change the placement of the body over the foot.  Even Olympic sprinters who spend 99% of their time in the air still don't float.

The same goes for the doctor - he's a floating torso with the leg motion just for show.  I get the feeling that you're animating these all as separate pieces and then wondering why they don't work as a unit.  He's not only rigid, he's stunningly stable - more than is humanly possible.  what's worse is that when you start this way, now when you try to animate the body to compensate, it will only look bad, because the animation wasn't part of the action considered from the beginning.

It's all a matter of process.  Bad process leads to bad results no matter how much work is done and no matter how many problems are addressed.  Always start, work, and finish with the whole advancing in front of the parts.

No need to add insult to injury. Somehow you managed to review my methods instead of the "pixelart". The biggest flaw in my process is posting unfinished material here for people to review but to me that's a good way to get feed-back and it's usually fun both to post and review and make edits. When you say I'm not doing it right I take offense.

The one thing I felt I could take with me is the guy running and aiming at the same time. I might consider adding a pure running animation and only aim when shooting and drop the aim a couple of frames after each shot. I've tried that in the past and it looks good if you add a sufficient amount of time between the shot and the dropping of the aim so that the character don't wave their arm up and down like crazy during a fire fight.

I'll return when I've got edits.

[ndchristie]

I made no insults.  There's no need to get offended, the proof is in the pudding.  You've presented your process and it's flawed.  That you animate in a segmented, piecemeal fashion is obvious from the work here and elsewhere and working like that produces bad results.  This kind of thing is what you need to hear from critique - if i simply address the piece at hand, what problems are present etc, it's not going to solve the greater problem and your process will continue to harm your work.

You don't have to listen to my advice but I hope you can see that it is directed at bettering your work.

[Dusty]

When you say I'm not doing it right I take offense.

Why?

[TrevoriuS]

Don't be offended when people say your workflow is wrong. Your current results are flawed, and that can be partially caused by the workflow. Others share their workflow and you learn by taking the most logical and easy parts and combining them into your own. Just your logics in how you set up a workflow are not enough, with the opinions of a thousand people your workflow can be so much better because they all stack up good arguments you can't just come up with all by yourself. This is the way pipelines develop, through the ages by the speculation of people that talk about their difficulties and methodologies together. SO no need to take offense, we're all here to help

ndchristie is however correct in the fact that it's best to work out key poses entirely, and creating inbetweens and blending frames after, rather than animating a limb entirely and then animating the next limb to match it. Posing starts with placing the hips and then the rest of the torso in a balanced way, then adding feet positions and natural legs from that in a stable non gravity defying position, and the arms are the final detail, creating the actual expression. Then you of course need to tweak and improve, but after that, you've got a single keypose done. Then you go on to the next one, and can start thinking about the inbetween motion and blending of animation.

If you just start animating the legs you won't know how the torso will fit on in a balanced way, if you then animate the arms before you do the torso it'll mismatch even worse. And I think that's what you've been doing, forgetting about the torso, while it is the conjunction of all the limbs, the most important subject to work out properly. Of course any process can be justified and workable, and it's good to be skeptic about things people suggest you, but you should try them before you can say they don't work. I may be completely wrong about your workflow however, so that's for you to work out for yourself

Now on the professor, he just lacks a natural feel and weight. His legs raise and lower at the same speed, but lowering is due to gravity, and lifting due to muscles. Now gravity is much stronger than a muscle, so convey that difference in speed and weight. The current animation is too linear at the arms and legs, and too stiff in the overall. Why don't you rotate his shoulders while moving, and make that coat move alot more due to the body movement underneath?

[Gil]

There is no "wrong workflow". You can suggest better workflows, show errors that are due to specific workflow, etc..., but you can't call one workflow "wrong".

I have a workflow similar to robotacon, but I've managed to work out some flaws and devised some shortcuts. I notice some new shortcuts in his work that could benefit mine, etc. It's what I'd like to call the "breath life in" method. Start by animating one part and then slowly mold and add stuff until it looks right. The workflow is much more creative that way and it allows me to work faster.

That said, I still tackle difficult animations differently with more construction as needed.

[TrevoriuS]

I myself prefer more overview, this so called 'breath life in' method tends to take more time on tweaking then I'd want it to take, because parts become inconsistent as you can't plan your animation in your brain perfectly, you have to plan it out before polishing and blending it. Or so is my experience. Animating a single limb may give you a better grasp on the weight, though you can plan timing after making keyframes quite well, as there are not many frames in 2D art generally. In 3D CG animations you have even more control making use of keyframes and key poses and I'd lose software functionality there with your methods. But it's true that there is no wrong workflow, I'm just stating that I've found to experience alot of flaws taking away alot of efficiency in the one I think I see used here.

[robotacon]

Here's an edit of Professor Alpha, discoverer of the channel with the same name.


The reason I posted the Professor in the first place was to discuss how hard it is to animate someone moving at a slow pace.
I feel bad for posting him at the state he was in, I know I won't do that again.

One way of slowing things down is to have different parts of the body move at different speeds like how the head now moves only in two different positions and the arm pendulum moves on 3's.

[Joe]

Something that's bothering me is his head sticks out before his foot does.  I don't think it looks natural.  I do, however, think it's a major improvement.

[robotacon]

Is this better?  =>

Here's an alternative run for the Rubin character with some added weight.

[ndchristie]

There is no "wrong workflow". You can suggest better workflows, show errors that are due to specific workflow, etc..., but you can't call one workflow "wrong".

OK, I'll take that.  But when you get down to it, working general to specific with considerations for all parts at all times leads to more cohesive, unified results.  This is not always the best plan, say for a large painting, sometimes it's better to work up the focal points with only a vague consideration for subordinate elements (not how i work but ok).  Certainly in the finishing these important parts get more attention in most cases.

In an animation though, this is not generally the case.
You could take the best flower, the best milk, the best spices, and the best chicken, but if you don't follow a recipe you're only going to get a pile of food and not a meal.
Nobody will ever look at something and say "well it seems disjointed as a whole, but how good is that left leg movement!"
Not even that, but you can't even have good left leg movement unless it's relating to good body movement!  Even if you are successful at first, when you work on the rest, any and every change will affect the movement you had until it no longer looks good with what you've got.
Animating by pieces only works in select cases, particularly (as you mentioned) easy things, and things you've done a thousand times, or when you grind grind grind away blindly and like all blind methods get lucky sometimes, and this can be more creative as Gil mentioned, but is unsuccessful 99% of the time.  I recommend this aimless, searching method as a way to expand your mind beyond traditionally safe ideas - ideas you should still know because they work and they are fundamental.

Is success always important?  No, of course not.  I fail all the time and am better for it.  Challenge alone can spur growth.  But failure should generally lead to successful practices.  That is (generally) the goal of critique and it's the goal I hope to help you towards.

The reason I posted the Professor in the first place was to discuss how hard it is to animate someone moving at a slow pace.

The point of critique, which this board is partly responsible for showing me, is that you shouldn't have a preconceived agenda for your critics, but be open to their suggestions.  I benefit the most when I don't direct the conversation.

I feel bad for posting him at the state he was in, I know I won't do that again.

Sorry to have discouraged you.  But really, I think you should have posted it earlier, so that we could have helped with the overall movement.  Continuing with your current methods is not producing results.


Why does his neck move like that?  Can he magically stretch it without shifting his shoulders?  Why is one arm so much faster than the other, particularly if it is carrying some weight?

He's just dropping a lightweight motion by a pixel, which isn't going to make it a heavier animation.  In both of these cases you're moving solid, highly-polished blocks of work around and hoping they fit together better if you push and squeeze.  It doesn't work that way.

What I'm asking, if you REALLY want these animations to wok out, and what's better than tweaking and adding to two animations that already have broken systems of motion and trying to make them a system, is to start from the beginning with a more comprehensive method that is proven to work.  Is that a tall order?  Yes, it's hard to dump a lot of good work, and this is very good work.  But it's work that isn't working out, and the fact that all that effort and polish and great stuff isn't working out is, I think, a great argument for nailing down the greater movement first before investing each piece with such attention, so that when you get around to those efforts, you know they are going to work properly together.

[Helm]

yeah robotacon don't feel insulted, I mean what the people after me said is what I wanted to say and I thought 'oh well.. perhaps he's not ready for major revisions to his methods yet' and decided to leave you alone heh. I applaud that others didn't leave you alone, though, this is what Pixelation is here for. Actually threads with this sort of turnout give me hope that the Pixelation spirit will self-sustain even if the current modship happens to collectively be abducted by aliens or something.

[robotacon]

About reviewing:

I love Pixelation because of the reviewing system. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for it. I can't stand 15min at Pixel Joint with their judging system.
You owe me nothing, you can review me any way you see fit. I will however answer back to what I think is bad advice.
I'm not searching blindly after good results. If you look at my history I follow advice and post edits. I don't agree that working iterative is wrong.

About process :

In your edit, Helm, you lost the contact points and you disregarded the running speed but I still felt that it was advice I could use because I could see around what I felt was bad practice and listen to the essence of what you said.
From ndchristie I learned nothing and TrevoriuS is promoting some of the worst animation advice I've heard.
You say that I've got the wrong workflow... which gives bad results... so you don't like my results? Perhaps you don't even like my style.

The artwork for this project is very different from what I've done in the past and it's not like any other game I've seen. It might look like pixel art but it isn't.
I haven't got a fixed palette yet but I've been using Arnes 16 colors until just recently when I made a new development palette.
If you want reasons to attack my process I can give to a handful more things like that which you might think is part of an insane process.
I haven't talked much about it at Pixelation because I want to get honest feedback without people asking why I do things backwards.

I don't think it's wrong to animate one limb at a time. I do it in this project more than any other animation project I've done but even for pen and paper animation I think straight (not even or linear) animation between two key frames one limb at a time is perfectly fine.
I think it's useful to be able to go back and make edits. Seriously... my final artwork is about as simplistic as your, ndchristie, animation sketches that you do before going into full rendering. I can afford doing several edits without it hurting me.
I look at the animation as a whole and I am not afraid to redraw things from scratch but I also aim for a unified style. You ndchristie is working on a game where everyone looks exactly the same with different clothes. That's your design decision that works for you but I think i need different types of character models so I work on them all as a whole. You think I stare at one limb at a time when I'm looking at the whole family of characters at a time.

About the art:

I think you've all been right about stiffness of characters but I think you're wrong about weight of characters.
A lot of the time I have only one pixel to play with and I want to use as little sub pixel animation on key features like the head, gun, shoes and other features.
I also want to not use that much anti-aliasing or dithering at this point because the game engine takes care of that.
I'm sure the style has more to do with voxel graphics than with pixelart.
I hate myself for giving this secret away but I'm using projection to color the characters and all the characters have their own skin that can be edited which transforms the entire spritesheet.

The challange:

Make your own original old person walk cycle no bigger than 27x27 pixels.

[Helm]

You learned nothing from ndchristie?

He told you that you can't aim while flailing your secondary arm around. I actually preffered your version with the expansive movement in the off-hand until he mentioned it. PRACTICALITY. I enjoyed the flowing animation in the off hand because it added some life to it but if it's at the expense of the animation making some sense then you should go without it. Here's one thing you can learn from his post.

Another thing: weightlessness. I have to concur with him that they don't feel like they have weight because there is no vertical movement of their centers of mass, their torsos and pelvises. The images look like they're gliding not only because they're over-smooth and without any pendulum motion, but linear motion, but also because the limbs support centers of mass that are totally static. Here's another thing you can learn from his post.

Trevorious gives the worst animation critique you've ever heard? What? His urging to you to start with keyframes? That's animation 101. It's really amazing to me that you'd think otherwise. He tells you to make keyframes and not work one limb at a time and then think about inbetweens when the movement is solid with the keyframes only. What's bad about that?

Also, people are critiquing your process because animation IS PROCESS, it's not pixel art. We can't fix the problems with your animations by nitpicking about pixel placements, antialias, dithering, color usage, you see? This is why I don't critique animation a lot of the time because I am not an expert in animation, I am in pixel art. But people here know more than I do about animation and often they post, and you should listen, instead of telling them you learned nothing from them or that they're talking nonsense.

Regardless of whether you are willing to alter your process due to the critique you get, THIS is the critique you'll get because that's what is hurting your art. If your workflow is going to be unaltered because your project is going to be how it's going to be now, then... well that's a risk/reward issue for you. The problems aren't going to go away. Buttery smooth animation has no PUNCH and to have PUNCH you need anticipation for movement, more violence in the snaps and certainly gravity forces applied to mass, that's how animation is.

so you don't like my results? Perhaps you don't even like my style.

I actually adore the style! But I don't like the animation results. Don't deflect the critique you're getting here, it's amazingly valid.

A lot of the time I have only one pixel to play with and I want to use as little sub pixel animation on key features like the head, gun, shoes and other features.

First of all you don't have one pixel to play with necessarily, creative animation could get you to work in a lot of different ways. Second, why no subpixel animation? I see binary jumps of the grandpa head or gun in the boy, up and down. If you'd subpixel it would actually look much better. I think I might try it on the grandpa later.


If your method (with projection and that stuff) precludes using the strengths of pixel art animation to benefit your animation... then work with bigger models and do proper vector smooth animation and use that as a base. We know how to make pixel art animation to look good, and if your process doesn't allow for that, it's self-defeating.

[robotacon]

I didn't say I didn't get any useful feedback from ndchristie in relation to the artwork, I said I didn't learn anything from ndchristie about the process. That's why I put headlines on the different parts of the post to separate what I was talking about. The same thing goes for the valid discussion about weight. It's a talk about the animation right and not the method I use? See... you didn't learn anything from ndchristie either. All he did was say I'm doing it wrong but there was no lesson to be learned, no tips on how to think or anything that I myself haven't considered and processed myself.

If I was practical about animating I would draw ten times less frames than what I've got now. The number of frames needed for each character grows like crazy only because I want smooth animations. I'm not lazy when it comes to animating but with a lot of frames to be drawn I like a simple style. That's why I've got so little rendering and so on.

*facepalm* How can you say I'm trying to deflect the critique I'm getting on my results when that is what I'm fighting for at the moment. YOU deflect from the discussion on the results to a discussion about method. If we are going to talk method for gods sake post some examples or references or anything for me to bite into. Talk is cheap.

Using key frames is animation 101... Am I not using key frames? I've got two mirror key contact frames on frame 1 and two 7 with matching passing positions on frame 4 and 10 plus two extra key frames that double for jumping frames. That's an animation technique I haven't seen anyone use in gaming before. When jumping I keep running the cycle until I hit the jump-frame and then I freeze until I land when I continue the run cycle. That makes for really smooth jumping action. Also I'm currently working on easing in and out of running using different running speeds so I have a loop for 4 pixel running, 2 pixel jogging and 1 pixel walking that I can switch between seamlessly. All that would be impossible without using key frames. I also animate by doing the key frames first and then doing passing frames and adding the in-betweens after that.

Now TrevoriuS is telling me I should draw the hip first and work from there to the torso and onward which I think is terrible advice. He says you should finish your key frames entirely before working on and not animate limb by limb. I on the other hand think it's justified to animate limb by limb. You seem to think that I don't consider the animation as a whole but I do. I plan and project how things should move and then I do straight animations which might need some touch up at the end but that is not as big of an issue at the size I'm working at. It's not the same as some people do when they draw everything but the head and say they are going to add it later on which I think is really bad practice It's not the same as drawing everything but the arms and say that you want to finish the legs first. I iterate through the entire body but I don't work one frame at a time. I work similar to what Richard Williams suggests in the Animator's Survival Kit where he discusses Straight Ahead animation and Pose to Pose animation and how you easily can combine the two different techniques first getting the general movement and then do separate runs on different body parts.

You think you know how I work and then you tell me I have a bad method when in fact I just did a crappy animation because it's not easy to animate things moving slowly. Try for yourself, it's much harder doing a slow walk than doing a fast run.   If you point out errors I've made I will most likely change them because I listen to advice. If you tell me I should change my method then you have to showing me your way of working and then I might adapt some of that but without showing any examples it's all talk.

You say you don't know that much about animation but you defend ndchristie and TrevoriuS over me so you have confidence enough to trust that they know what they are talking about and that I don't.

I think my method rules! There's not a problem that I can't fix, because I do it in the mix!

[Helm]

Your keyframes are washed in with the tweens because you don't designate priority to them with punch and with anticipation. It's all a linear fluid mush of movement. If you like it, that's great. If you put it up for critique, expect people that don't like it to point it out and suggest ways to ameliorate. The reason your animation technique is not common in gaming is because it looks lifeless.

You say you consider the animation on the whole and people tell you your artwork doesn't look like you do. Your retort to this critique is meaningless because it will not be stapled to the end game, will it? ATTENTION PEOPLE: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ANIMATIONS ON THE WHOLE, in the title screen. People go by what they see, not whatever process restricted you to shape your ambition around. The end result doesn't look holistic, it looks like legs moving, arms moving, stable torso. Instead of telling us BUT I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.... address it. More. Different ways. Think outside the box you've put yourself in. If you think this advice is useless because I'm not telling you in exactly WHAT ways to think outside the box then you misunderstand the theme of this critique.

I think your game will be great because it's clear there is vision and commitment involved. But if there's too much vision and too much commitment to it then you don't need critique from third parties, it's clear it's distressing you and you're stepping out of line in your responses. Your game would be greater if you were willing to try different processes.

You're being quite rude to people by dismissing their help that they offer out of kindness and in their free time. You're telling me what I did and didn't learn by another user? Being told there is an error in your work is learning something, being told avenues of approach on how to fix it is another, and you've been given both in many posts in your thread. Stop telling me 'talk is cheap'. What this board is here for is talk. We don't have to do better than you to tell you that there's something wrong with your animations.

Here's a grandpa animation I did, anyway:

[hsn2555]

o.o robotacon ,chill man

the old man is holding a stick, so his knee is probably supposed to bend.
there :

[robotacon]

Helm:
What do you mean my key frames are washed in with the tweens?

What kind of anticipation is it you're looking for? I'd say that the contact frame I call the heel-strike where the heel is just about to touch the ground is an anticipation frame.

You say it's all too linear and in your edit you removed frames to make it less linear but by doing that you totally destroyed the step length. I'm aiming for linear movement of the feet on the ground. Anything else would need me to move the character at an irregular speed in-game. Now for the Professor that might actually be a good idea because then you could make it look like he had a limp but for the running guy it's out of the question.

You and the others say the torso is too stable and I'll look into it. How much does the torso move when you run and so on. From my experience the head does not move that much when you run/walk and the head is mounted on the torso so it shouldn't move that much either but I'm willing to try it out. There's definitely some twisting motion that I might put in there. It was an error to add vertical head movement to the old Professor. I was going to something cartoony and it failed.

hsn2555:
Thats a great idea. It breaks the monotony of the upper body elegantly.
I thought it was going to look too wild but it looks great. I'll see what I can do.
I think I know how to use the bending of the knee to delay the step and then take back the loss in speed later on so that the overall speed is constant. Nope it doesn't work but I might add an irregular walking speed.
Thanks!

[hsn2555]

but i still think you should redo the shading,
follow helm's shading

[robotacon]

I apologuise for being rude, especially to TrevoriuS. Sorry.

[ndchristie]

I didn't say I didn't get any useful feedback from ndchristie in relation to the artwork, I said I didn't learn anything from ndchristie about the process.

Sorry, I thought I was being clear.  The traditional animation process involves beginning with simple wireframes, scribble- or block-men and animating though the keyframes to the tweens until you have a set motion. 
I generally begin with the spine and two axes for the hips and shoulders (whose motion will always oppose each other, because they are connected), followed by 'leading' parts such as two-part stick arms and legs and a block for the head and chest.  then come the following parts which often include hands, feet, hair, tails, etc - things that flow behind, but in some animations (say a character is dead, or being dragged) this can include any limb, and in some animations (attacks and other determined motion) things like the hands and feet can be leading.  I also tend to plot on paper a spacing*. I also like recently to pull out a basic music-writing program and set beats out for frames to see if it "sounds like a ______," because when planning frames you can never engage too many senses.

*A spacing might look something like this:
.1_.2_.3_.4_.5_.6_.7
x | - - | - o - - | - | x | - - | - o - - | - | x
the numbers above are evenly spaced frames, the x is the start of the cycle and o's are other key frames, with |'s being tweens.  I and most others use a static frame length so this is actually not a timing chart, but a sense of where in the animation the frames are.  This example shows a cluster of frames around the step with fewer around a slightly advanced passing.

Even if that wasn't clear though, I made a number of direct references to the animation that I think were quite clear.  He can't move his head forward without moving his shoulders or having an elastic spine - you should, if your goal is believability, move the body with its parts or you'll end up breaking it.  He can't move one shoulder without moving the other, which would throw off aim - either lose the motion on the off-arm or sacrifice aim by moving them against each other the way our skeletons demand--- I didn't leave a prescription here because that choice is left to you.  I would LOVE to play a game that only allowed you to fire accurately by timing your shots to when his aim is true - that sort of S&M game design has a huge following.

Talk is cheap.

No, that reply is cheap.  Everyone here owes you nothing and is making a commitment of time to your growth.  That's not cheap.  What also isn't cheap is listening to others and being respectful.

Using key frames is animation 101... Am I not using key frames? I've got two mirror key contact frames on frame 1 and two 7 with matching passing positions on frame 4 and 10 plus two extra key frames that double for jumping frames. That's an animation technique I haven't seen anyone use in gaming before. When jumping I keep running the cycle until I hit the jump-frame and then I freeze until I land when I continue the run cycle. That makes for really smooth jumping action.

This is a fantastic trick I'll admit but you should also know that it is pretty common.  Since you're an expert on my project, you should know that I did the same thing about a year and a half ago.  Squaresoft did it a decade and a half ago.  I'm sure there are dozens of other examples.  I'm not trying to bash you, you've hit on a good trick - I'm just trying to point out the benefits of looking around include not laying claim to discovering common practices.

Now TrevoriuS is telling me [...] Richard Williams suggests [...]

What you're doing is actually worse than leaving the pieces off, you've got them there, static, interacting with the other parts of the animation in ways that they will not later.  Moreover the pieces you leave static, like the spine, are central to and defining of all the body's motion.  And Richard Williams would never suggest neglecting motion in favor of the parts; that's something that needs re-reading.  What he's talking about in that section (...things that have to be there, like anticipations...) is a highly developed framework before he gets anywhere near working on the different sections, and by then he has so many guides and hit-points that he KNOWS the motion is going to work.  He even references watching a video of just his essentials.  He moves into the straight-ahead when he hasn't got any room left for error, if he's been watching himself.  You on the other hand have posted more than one piece that has nearly finished motion on the legs without a moving torso.  That's not what Williams is getting at.

You think you know how I work and then you tell me I have a bad method when in fact I just did a crappy animation because it's not easy to animate things moving slowly.

You have plenty of examples here of your process.  Internet forum is unique form of time-based media which allows actually for great insight into a person's process on a piece.  That's what most of us are actually here to study.

Try for yourself, it's much harder doing a slow walk than doing a fast run.   If you point out errors I've made I will most likely change them because I listen to advice. If you tell me I should change my method then you have to showing me your way of working and then I might adapt some of that but without showing any examples it's all talk.

I don't remember pixelation as ever being the place for some sort of fantasy showdown, winner-take-art, nor is issuing double-dare challenges the way to learn anything, but if you're asking for an example of the methods I'm proposing as further explanation of technique, I'll be happy to provide one.

Good advice also does not need to come from your betters or even necessarily from a skilled mouth.  Someone who speaks from experience, training, or with regard to fundamentals will have a better chance of offering good advice, but this isn't final fantasy, you don't get double experience points just for battling a higher-level animator.  Good advice must be judged on its truth and perceptiveness alone and not the speaker's ability to implement it.  Find me someone who always does exactly what they know is best, flawlessly, and I will show you a fake.  Show me someone who is inexperienced but whose advice should still be valued and I'll show you 6,000,000,000 others just like him.

What kind of anticipation is it you're looking for? I'd say that the contact frame I call the heel-strike where the heel is just about to touch the ground is an anticipation frame.

Anticipation is self-evident, you can't just call something anticipatory and have that become truth.  As it is, you're about half-right with the contact frame; you've got some interesting stuff on that frame but it doesn't define the motion of the piece in any notable way (and it should).  For the record too you're including two frames in your description - one where the foot is off the ground and one that is contact.  These are distinct and both very important.

Now for the Professor that might actually be a good idea because then you could make it look like he had a limp but for the running guy it's out of the question.

Sometimes characters have different needs, as you've stated yourself:

I think i need different types of character models

A lot of the time I have only one pixel to play with and I want to use as little sub pixel animation on key features like the head, gun, shoes and other features.

I think you misunderstood me.  My criticism was that you just grabbed a whole chunk of animation and dropped it a pixel without other consideration and called that adding weight.  that's not the same as animating a sinking, weighty motion.  I don't think you should move that chunk of animation more than a single pixel, i think you should animate that section properly with an integrated and anticipated sink of, perhaps, a single pixel.



As for what you've referenced in my work, you're right, I had specific design reasons (evolving tactics job class system - very common) which demanded I keep the characters of a uniform model type.  Beyond that, I'm not pretending to be a genius, nor am I saying that work I've done in the past, particularly what you're looking at (stuff that's over a year old in a young career) is perfect or relevant to what pixels you should move.  There's a lot of problems with that stuff, that's why it was posted for critique.  If anything I like to look at that stuff and enjoy how I've grown in such a short time since because I have been open to the advice of those around me in the weeks and months since.

[Helm]

Helm:
What do you mean my key frames are washed in with the tweens?

Again, I am not an animation expert, but if you allow me to extrapolate from what my eyes see the thing is this: keyframes need more screen-time than in-betweens. That doesn't just mean that the actual keyframe needs to be on screen more, it means that it, and all the tweens that are very close to it, if grouped, make up a lot of screen time. To explain, imagine a pendulum motion. Wait, I can actually draw this real fast.



This is what you're doing. You might have started with the drawing the extreme frames, which you at that time called keyframes. But then you evenly distributed frames between the keyframes because you think that's the best way to do even movement for terms of gameplay.


(watch this in your animation program, firefox doesn't like 10mlsec frame animations for some reason)

Here I introduce timing to the same loop. See how there is some 'grouping' around the stress frames? This pendulum motion makes the keyframes get more screen time, and it enforces how human beings understand fast motion, which is a matter of survival. We don't look for something that goes evenly fast, linearly  in our horison line, we look for something that goes fast, STOPS AT A POSE WE CAN DISCERN, then moves fast again. This is how hunting movement is, this is what signals the eye to follow. We don't follow every bird in the sky with our eyes instinctively, but it's a point of survival to follow birds of prey that make their killing dives or the cougar that will stop on a dime and lounge.

However personally I find this still has too much inbetween 'fluff' that muddles the pendulum motion. More frames doesn't mean better animation. I suggest this:



Yes I am aware that in gameplay terms this will create a bit of 'glide'. So what? The gameplay expense is minimal and what you gain is more lifelike motion that convinces the eye and suspends disbelief. With your animation style I am wondering if there's even GRAVITY in effect in your gameworld... isn't this a bigger gameplay problem than a few pixels worth of glide? Have you checked to see if the glide is even visible in fast movement?

What kind of anticipation is it you're looking for? I'd say that the contact frame I call the heel-strike where the heel is just about to touch the ground is an anticipation frame.

Anticipation isn't just a name you give to the few frames before your stress frame. They have to feel as if they're anticipatory movement, to clue the brain in about what's going to happen. That's what makes animation exciting.

hsn2555's edit is really great.

[Ben2theEdge]

Keyframes shouldn't generally be visible. They are a foundational element. Chuck Jones popularized the whole visible keyframes thing with his dramatic poses, which became very popular because you can save frames on low budget cartoons that way and consequently save time and money. But it is a stylistic choice. It's definitely not a rule. (In fact Chuck Jones' contemporaries criticized him for having such abrupt 'tweens. If you look at Bob Clampett by comparison he has beautiful smooth motion on EVERYTHING and most agree he is a superior animator. And then you have Richard Williams who goes to painstaking lengths to hide his keys). Variation in speed is important but it needn't always be a pendulum motion from one keyframe to the next. Keyframes should be thought of less like the start and end of a motion and more like vertibrae in a backbone, stringing the animation along.

hsn's edit is actually a very nice example of speed variation. That little lurch in the step adds a lot of excitement, like a punctuation mark to each step.

Here's a good example of the whole timing/pendulum motion thing put to proper use: http://www.cartoonthrills.org/blog/spumco/RenStimpy/1BHB/BobImAlive.mov The running motion in the second half of this clip has 4 keyframes, but only one of them is eased in and out of. The others flash by unnoticed but they still add important structure to the motion.

[ndchristie]

Heh...Bob Clampett...one of the most talented people ever to stereotype, degrade and demonize african americans.  I partly disagree with your diagnosis though, he has fluid, but not even distribution of frames.  His keys also are pretty noticeable - he leads up to them quite well.  Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett are two sides of the same coin, each relies supremely on the structure of the keys, just in different ways.  As for Richard Williams, he hides his like a cloth hides a table.  All of his flow is still utterly dependent on the structure and that's the lesson that should be taken away.  When keyframes don't succeed in defining anything, that's a very different story.

That's a great example of distribution for effect, btw .

[robotacon]

Running is not a pendulum movement. The arms can and often move like a pendulum but the feet don't.
I don't like your idea of easing in and out off your key frames and I don't agree with the logic you give for it.

The logic that the viewer needs to be able to easily follow the animation and how you convince the viewer with anticipation I agree on but we have very different views on how this is archived.
I don't think I do "even" or "linear" animations. The Professor has linear foot movement because I can't pick his foot up any higher but the running woman (tom boy) picks up her foot slowly and lands it quickly.

I know what anticipation is in animation and I could add extra anticipation to the step of the run but I see no need for it because there is no need to convince the viewer that the the runner will take another set of steps forward every cycle.

With your animation style I am wondering if there's even GRAVITY in effect in your gameworld... isn't this a bigger gameplay problem than a few pixels worth of glide? Have you checked to see if the glide is even visible in fast movement?

Yes I have and it's highly noticeable and increasingly annoying the slower the character moves. I also run the game at twice the size it's shown here which makes it even more visible.

[ndchristie]

You have an unmoving torso on a sprite, the bounding box for which moves an even pixel distance every frame.  The Core of your movement then is necessarily even.  More than even, it's static.  No thinking involved, that's a fact.

The dropping helps break things out a little but suffers as I mentioned earlier from being a cheap fix.  Your thinking about the motion was on the right track there but the process was flawed, which is why he still didn't look right.

Range/scope of motion does not effect type of motion.  The fundamentals governing an olds man's walk are the same as those governing a young man's run are the same as a tree in the breeze.  That's why fundamentals are worth studying over case-by-pixel crits.

Not all anticipation is visual que for the audience, a lot of it has to do with how movement works.  The body is an extremely sophisticated machine, but locomotion is locomotion.  Moving without proper anticipation is actually something that the viewer can see more clearly than if you had done it perfectly, especially in a cycle where the eye knows what to expect and you're skipping it.

[robotacon]

Yours: followed by mine which is ridiculously similar.

EDIT: I added two pixels of neck and shoulder movement after Jads comment addressing his points. Now it doesn't look like his neck grows as much.

[Jad]

Well, what can I say? I don't see where your process is FLAWED per se, but I do see room for improvement. I don't see how you should 'learn' the fundamentals since you already know them somewhat, but you're not UTILIZING them to their fullest. Any talk about your workflow without having proof of you you work has been moot up until now, it seems.

I see you have a good workflow that would allow you to incorporate more design choices while animating - so why not try to help you do it a bit better?

I'd also like to say that I enjoy some of the stiffness of the animations, since not moving things too much will preserve symbolic value (on the most rudimentary level) in sillhouettes while things are moving around on screen. This does have good points, I don't see why it's suddenly such a sin to animate like that. With that said I still think some movement here and there should be in order. Moving pixels around is good stuff.

There is something that differs between pixel art and traditional animation and that's how easy it is to move things around and repixel, clean up, fix things, etc. Having a static torso when the limbs still move doesn't have to be horrible, you can just erase it, make the shoulders and hips work and then repixel it. Seriously. You can. And no, it doesn't mess up your workflow horribly. And yeah, if the legs and arms are awfully animated you've gotta redo stuff. Luckily robotacon doesn't seem to have messed up horribly here since the animations generally work except for some movement details we expect to see that aren't there. Or am I missing something? Are these sprites awful beyond repair? I don't see it.

Anyways, enough whiteknighting, Robotacon, since your rendering tech doesn't allow for subpixelling in a good way and you want things to still move smoothly, know this: Exaggeration is good (hi, I'm obvious) and it's better than you seem to think it is since your animations don't have a load of it. Old man for example, hsn2555 did that radical thing with the up-down bob and if you see it like I do, it added smoothness to the animation even though it made it move lots more. At the same time when things move at least one pixel per frame, that creates smoothness, as opposed to the clicking stuttery motion that appears when things stand still for several frames, that catches the eye MORE than if things move more vigorously.

So the critique I have? Elaborate on hsn2555's edit's ideas. Add weight in a logical sense, make him weigh DOWN on that cane, with this body, with his back. Add more shoulder movement. Maybe add some wobble to the cane-arm? There are things you can do within these frames that will squeeze more ANIMATION out of this old man. Take a stick and use it as a cane, walk around. Feel around and look for characteristic movements, find circular motion, pendulum motion, introduce it to the character. Try to move things more that you'd usually do - since you can't use subpixel animation, just MOVE things. Move them more than they should move logically - that's my suggestion.

Grah, this is just a miserable little pile of opinions, but I hope it's more than just empty talk.

Also, robotacon, drop the defensiveness. I do see your point, but when you manage to come off as defensive, the people giving you critique will just restate their original points ad infinitum until you 'get them' instead of elaborating. And this thread is already heartbreaking (for a sissy fellow like me). So try to bear with it. And good luck!

EDIT: I saw your new version now. Err. Quick points: Legs feel very snappy when they leave ground, like they POP off the ground. any way to fix that? Also his head LOOKS like it moves on its own, so I believe you should work more on extending that movement to the whole spine. That's all for now!

[ndchristie]

Jad - don't worry, you're the first person to set up a valid counterpoint using logic and good articulation, and that is far from empty talk.

Nobody is arguing for crazy or illogical movement.  What you say about things which don't move much is completely valid.  However, would you say that this works on something that is not moving period, while at the same time being very much attached to a system that moves dramatically?  The point the whole time has been that the movements of one section are connected to and demand movement from the rest.  would you argue with that?

As for does this ruin things, no.  It doesn't.  Most of this is passable.  How long is it healthy to argue about what's passable though, when one could be spending that time working towards something great?

You talk about redrawing, erasing, replacing, and you're right, all of these things work.  They are valid ways to address issues that arise from poor planning.  That solutions doesn't mean that the best way to solve those problems isn't good planning.  Further, they haven't been the solutions pursued, the solutions pursued have been to push and poke at things without any real redrawing and those sorts of revisions will fail.

Beyond that, it comes down to purpose.  Are we talking about doing this for a job?  This workflow wouldn't be favorable for any supervisor or client and unless you like being treated with probational skepticism, I recommend a clearer, more direct approach.  Are we doing this for fun or as an exercise?  Then why waste time developing habits which themselves waste even more time, when you'll have to break to accomplish anything, anyway?  This sounds like a legitimate project, and those require good planning of all aspects to succeed.  In the end, a method that demands constant revision and redrawing jeopardizes a lot.  If you don't care about finishing, or succeeding, or developing good habits, and you're just interested in immediate, non-transferable spot fixes, where is the potential for growth?

[Tourist]

I think the timing is wrong on the limbs of the old man.  A person with a cane has three points of support, and generally would not lift two of them at the same time. 

You've got the cane and one foot hitting at the same time.  This would work for a crutch where the purpose is to reduce the weight on a an injured limb, but a cane is for general support and balance.

Here's a video of a real person with a cane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lb-ifffIjs

I don't know if you have enough frames to have a third motion in the animation (leg, leg, cane) but three motions with slightly different timing would break things up nicely.  Having  different points of support at different frames can help guide how the hips and shoulders would move too.

Hope this helps.
Tourist

[Ben2theEdge]

Here's my shot at an edit. I included the steps I took, if you find them useful that's great, if not that's fine too.


He's walking a little faster than yours... that could be pretty easily adjusted by just moving his feet closer together. There's some other little nagging jumps and glitches but I was being lazy and didn't do much in the way of cleanup.

[Dr D]

That's a nice looking edit, Ben. But it's almost like he doesn't need the cane at all, his mobility doesn't seem to be impaired. It looks like he has a lot of energy and is walking quite powerfully. It could work, but it's not what I'd expect to see from an old professor. Well, I guess that's for Robotacon to decide.

[lollige]

That's a nice looking edit, Ben. But it's almost like he doesn't need the cane at all, his mobility doesn't seem to be impaired. It looks like he has a lot of energy and is walking quite powerfully. It could work, but it's not what I'd expect to see from an old professor. Well, I guess that's for Robotacon to decide.

Canes arn't there because one needs 'm, they are a symbol of power. His walking symbolizes the same here, so thats all fine

[robotacon]

Great job Ben2theEdge, you have such an eye for volume. At this point I haven't made up my mind on whether he needs the cane or if it's for show like lollige say so any way you use it is OK. Normally when you walk with a bad leg you hold the cane with the opposite hand, it's a bit counterintuitive but I learned that from my mother who was a nurse and I double checked that so is the case. I don't know what it's called but the "pass-walking" moving both arm and leg on the same side at the same time is a result of this as well but at the same time I kind of like it. It definitely gives character to the walk and the animation as a whole is very convincing.

Now, the movement of the legs. By now you might know that I'm pretty strict with the speed. Like you say he's moving almost twice as fast as I wanted.  I think you work similar to how ndchristie wants me to work, looking at the entire shape and building from there but I'm going to suggest that you have to map out the path on the ground first and then you can do the silloetto. If you look at the cane it's moving way too fast. It's put in the ground ahead of the foot and then it's  sliding past the foot before it's picked off the ground like he is cross country skiing.

I made an edit of your version where the feet move at 1px per frame and the cane moves at the same speed.

Yours: <= Edit for speed

[ptoing]

This animation might actually benefit and get more character if you give him more frames on the leg on the side of the cane, so that he has kinda a limp. 2 or so frames more would be fine.

[robotacon]

I added some twisting motion to the lab coat, like Ben2theEdge did, and tried to even out things that were too snappy and ease into the step and not lift the shoes as high as before. In my edit of Ben2theEdge's version I picked up the foot way too high.

=>

I tried to do what you suggested ptoing but I couldn't figure out how to do it.

A side note about running with one immobile arm and how the torso move and all that:

Check out around 7:40 of this clip. You'll see a side view back lit stiletto running with a guy talking in a cellphone I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8UtZR6Z4E
All I can say is that he's waving like crazy and his torso is not moving much at all.

This clip is golden for all kinds of moves, I'm happy I found it today.

[Ben2theEdge]

I guess what I was hoping you'd take from mine (and I guess I should have talked about more) Was the more dynamic nature of the movement. The reason for the rough beforehand (be it a sillohuette or a sketch or whatever) is to find an aesthetically pleasing motion before doing anything else. You probably won't notice much difference between step 2 and step 4 in terms of actual motion - I refined it a little bit as I layered on top of it, and I layered in new motions like his arm and his hair movement, but the foundation doesn't really change.

(as a side note, speed is something I usually adjust last because I may change the speed when I see it in-game. whether that is the best way to do it or not, I have no opinion)

Anyway this animation seems "timid" still... you're clinging too closely to your original model so the coat looks hard and stiff, the shoulders are rigid, and the back doesn't arch convincingly with the step. Adjusting these foundational things in the beginning when you're only using 1 color and no detail takes seconds. Making these structural changes with a fully rendered model is painstaking and could take hours. The version I did took me maybe 45 minutes while also watching TV and stalking people on facebook. I'm not saying your workflow sucks or your style sucks or anything like that (because I quite like your style), I'm saying that the absence of one little step in your process is holding you back and you should at least just give this a try - experiment with it, prove whether or not it's better for you.

[ndchristie]

I considered suggesting steps on the cane earlier and i think that you can do it without actually changing the speed the sprite moves if you have the whole body slide backwards on the frames when just the cane advances.  I'd edit to demonstrate but I'm pressed for time.  Reply if clarity is lacking.

Some people use a cane who are perfectly capable of walking without it.  Some people need it only for stairs or bending over.  Some people advance the cane with the step (leg+cane, leg, leg+cane), while others must wait and advance the cane alone (leg, leg, cane).  Some people must advance the cane on every step (leg, cane, leg, cane).  The level of mobility will impact the way the character is perceived.

Ben gives a brilliant edit on the spine movement.  There's a tremendous difference between not moving much and not moving at all.  Also look at the way he's animating less active portions like the head position, utilizing circular motion paths (a fairly advanced skill) brilliantly in that they allow him to move tiny distances in more frames, smoothing out motion without significantly increasing the range and also without increasing the jerkiness.  It also presents a great method for finding movement.  Also look closely at what he's doing with his smaller motions - the significance of the head movement on the 'limp' step allows him to put greater movement on the 'steady' step while having it still appear understated and level because of the comparison.  That is a prime example of how one aspect considers the whole in a way that can't be figured when working in tiny modulars, not just across space but across time.

That video is a great find because it's an example of someone putting incredible, visible effort into keeping his body stable at high speed.  You'll notice that he's waving mostly with his lower arm, reducing at the elbow and locking the shoulder action into a tight rotation, minimizing lateral shift.  It's a little funny actually since stopping his shoulder action (which actually robs him of all the momentum built by pumping one's arms... his body is begging to move more and he's not allowing it.  Still, his torso and shoulders are moving a lot within a small space, and that's still very different from not moving.

In general, when running the shoulders move in circles, which oppose each other.  The shoulder opposite the stepping leg would be swinging up with the arm, generating forward power, while the other shoulder falls back high and then scoops in to advance and swing up next.  Shoulders also tend to rotate around the y axis.  Good shoulder movement is important because it does a number of things.  The pumping directly generates momentum forward on the shoulders which pull the spine and the hips and gives greater movement during suspension, the most important time of the run because the body is not able to apply force to the ground in order to maintain or increase speed.  The twist also works against the hips to make both actions - pumping and stepping - springier and stronger.  Torsion is among the strongest and most violent natural forces.  Last, it actually compresses the diaphragm, which facilitates deep breathing.  If you relax your core, work your arms properly and open your airways, you should actually find yourself taking shallow, unconscious breaths.
As for the spine, top-speed is achieved when the spine is able to hop forward and then straighten as though it was a jumping stick.  This further builds momentum and is assisted by the movement of the shoulders.  At the moment of passing (or really just after), the spine should be almost perfectly straight down the receding leg.
If you have all these motions, even fast and small, your run will gain life, smoothness and believability.  Unfortunately because they are small and interconnected, they are terribly terribly difficult to add into a finished run.  Moving around chunks of finished animation a piece at a time can't reflect such subtleties, it demands close attention no matter when you address it.  This means either planning it the fist time, or doing as much or more work later when you go back, and that's a direct, practical reason that for this thread in particular I urge the methods I've discussed.

[robotacon]

Having the Professor stand still while the cane advances might look great. I considered it but didn't think I had enough frames for it but I'm going to try it with extra frames.

I think we're generally pretty much on the same page when it comes to theory of physics and dynamics. If you move this there's a reverse movement to that and so on. I don't agree that everything has to move. I think the opposite, that a lot of the time something looks better if it doesn't move especially in sprite animation of the size I'm working with. I think you can hide a lot of things in the animation by simply making sure everything moves and you get a very dynamic animation but the really hard thing is to have something move slowly.

I think you both have valid points of how to make the movement more dynamic. I like Ben2theEdge's version of the old man a lot but I think he has a quality to him that is too brusque personality-wise. He has a kind of Scrooge Mc Duck thing going on when I had a vision of someone like Professor Calculus. That may all be due to retroactive continuity, me thinking I thought that because it came out the way it did, but what the heck?

I'm going to go back and look at all the characters I have and see if I need to rework the dynamics of their movement. The last time I did that I thought I had a good blend of different dynamics.

Thanx for all the feedback, the edits and the "heated discussion".

[Pixelfish]

I would like to say as an observer looking in that you have been very rude to very skilled people who were just trying to help. I am particularly surprised at the persistence of these people in attempting to help you with your work, as I personally would not have bothered. If anyone ever gives you advice on your art you should take it. I've been where you are, I know it's hard, but you are not in a position to be arguing about animation with helm or christie, and your work shows it. Take that with a grain of salt if you like, which you obviously do. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, but you have much to learn, as we all do.

[Gil]

I really like your latest professor actually, it looks fine.

I find that everyone in this thread is ignoring the source material. Robotacon's arcade game has always had this feel of weightlessness coupled to a space theme with black backgrounds. I personally find it very appealing.

While Ben2theEdge's edit looks very nice, it's so far removed from the docile cane-wielding professor Robotacon is portraying, that it's basically just a whole different character. I find the newest edit from Robotacon to be a nice edit that takes the correct elements from Ben's cycle and applies it to the established character. I'll make an edit later to show some points I think are still throwing it off a little.

Pixelfish: Here at Pixelation, people are expected to be able to take a little punch. That counts for both sides IMO. Robotacon has every right to deflect some criticism if he doesn't find it to be step towards the visual style in his head. He is not ignoring the comments either, because we definately see an influence of the comments on his work.

you are not in a position to be arguing about animation with helm or christie, and your work shows it.

Isn't this rather rude and uncalled for? Helm is not the best animator himself, nor is christie. What they both are very good at is deconstructing animation to achieve a better result. They are trying to show Robotacon how to establish a similar ethic and as far as I can see, it's showing already in his animations

[Ben2theEdge]

While Ben2theEdge's edit looks very nice, it's so far removed from the docile cane-wielding professor Robotacon is portraying, that it's basically just a whole different character. I find the newest edit from Robotacon to be a nice edit that takes the correct elements from Ben's cycle and applies it to the established character. I'll make an edit later to show some points I think are still throwing it off a little.

The personality of the character is really just superficial... I portrayed him as a cantankerous old man late for a lecture, as opposed to a more feeble kindly old man... six of one, half dozen of the other. I really hope that's not the only thing anyone noticed from my edit. The point I was making was in the construction and consequently the much better sense of volume and weight, that is of far greater relevance to this particular thread than the character's personality. One could animate him with any attitude you deem appropriate as long as they are properly conveying form and motion, which I think could still be improved in this piece.

If anyone ever gives you advice on your art you should take it. I've been where you are, I know it's hard, but you are not in a position to be arguing about animation with helm or christie, and your work shows it. Take that with a grain of salt if you like, which you obviously do. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, but you have much to learn, as we all do.

Considering some of the bizarre advice that has been given over the course of this thread, and since I doubt anyone here would claim to be a master guru of animation, I think robotacon has every right to question and test the advice he is getting. If his goal is to get better at his craft, all is well. If he just wanted some ass-pats and congratulations then that's a different story, but I personally do not believe this to be the case at all.

[Gil]

Considering some of the bizarre advice that has been given over the course of this thread, and since I doubt anyone here would claim to be a master guru of animation, I think robotacon has every right to question and test the advice he is getting. But if something good comes out of all this dialoguing, then it's worth it.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at . I liked the way this thread was going with meaningful discussion going back and forth. Pixelfish makes it sound like Robotacon doesn't takes critique to heart, which I KNOW he does.

I really hope that's not the only thing anyone noticed from my edit.

Of course not . Your edit shows a lot of valid criticism. It looks great. What I see from Robotacon's new edit is him struggling to get your points to apply to his character.

[Pixelfish]

Not trying to attack anyone's work or say that nothing has changed, but it bothers me to see someone argue with critiquers. The work in this thread has improved, without a doubt, obviously robotacon has a desire to move forward with his work, but what I mean to say was that you should not necessarily make the changes advised in all critique, but to take all of it to heart, or at least appreciate the intention, which was to help. Helm and Christie are not perfect or professional necessarily, but they are far more experienced, and I think that shows. His work is definitely good, but I know that no one thinks it is perfect, or really anywhere near that, despite all of the claims about "style." Referring to the problems in your work as your "style" is the ultimate crutch, and will never help you as an artist. I've done it, and I've seen so many pixelartists do the same thing.

I agree, though, at this forum people are constantly throwing around really oddball suggestings, and good suggestions are constantly being shotdown in really oddball manners, and I don't think you should take all of these to heart, but there's no place for a feeling of pride and stubbornness around making big strides, revising one's methods. That's the healthiest thing you can do as an artist is to force yourself to leap forward; your comfort zone will always ruin your work.

[ndchristie]

I have no grudge against anyone who defends their work respectfully and intelligently, nor with anyone who critiques others' work in likewise fashion, and aside from a few snips that's been true here.  Stubbornness when founded in theory or practice is not a crime, although it can impede some aspects learning.  Long story short though if any of us felt rbtc was not listening or responding to critique, no more would have been offered.

I would not throw out ben's edit simply because it shows a different attitude.  Many of the techniques, particularly circling motion paths and constant tiny movement can be used regardless of what is being shown.  I also think that you can borrow his idea of a second, smaller motion on the head on the smoother step.  In yours, a lot of his pieces also are still moving fairly independently of the bodyparts they are quite rigidly connected to, for instance, the shoulder compared to the neck.  there's a collarbone there that really can't shrink and expand.  This would benefit from a quick reconstruction of the Core, the curve of the spine and shoulder axis and making sure that they remain attached where they need to.  One of the things that watching all of this does is that it demands a large number of very small tweaks that will add life to the character.

Again, nobody would argue to move things that don't have any reason to move.  If a character was lying on her side twirling a finger in her hair, I wouldn't say to rotate the shoulder.  However, if it was just the one finger that was moving, especially if it was changing length, I'd say to consider moving the hand to make up for that movement and I'd also probably think about whether the forearm would have to move back and forth because of the muscles used to rotate the wrist (the issue being that is does force the arm to move several inches but whether or not that's worth showing).  It's about pieces of a machine, the body, that connect .

[Dr D]

I'd love to make an edit, however I can't seem to find a way to edit the frames.

I'm using GIF Movie Gear Trial, and when I load the GIF, all but the first frame are completely screwed up.



(Is that supposed to happen?)

[Helm]

I would like to say as an observer looking in that you have been very rude to very skilled people who were just trying to help. I am particularly surprised at the persistence of these people in attempting to help you with your work, as I personally would not have bothered. If anyone ever gives you advice on your art you should take it. I've been where you are, I know it's hard, but you are not in a position to be arguing about animation with helm or christie, and your work shows it. Take that with a grain of salt if you like, which you obviously do. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, but you have much to learn, as we all do.

I'd like to say that animation is a lot about patience, and robotacon seems to have spades of it while I notoriously don't. Therefore he's a better animator than me, definitely.

Generally although I found a few posts by robotacon to be a bit rude, I did raise the point with him and he has apologized and we're moving on with constructive critique again, so I don't think we need to dwell on negativity here. It's the case sometimes that you think you'd stand up for someone that's being mistreated and that makes things worse, heh.

[ndchristie]

Dr. D - in the dropdown menu titled animation, select "unoptimize."

When optimized, each frame is reduced only to the pixels that are different from the frame before it.

[Gil]

=>

Here's the edit. Basically, shifted the legs back one pixel because it seems to fit the posture. Additional edit to the head to smooth out the curve the head is making. I placed it before the drop, but you might try to place it after the drop for extra snap.

The differences are subtle, but I felt the leg one was needed as it seems like the feet are always in front of the body instead of catching the body weight.

[robotacon]

Thanks Gil, it looks better. I'll move the legs back.

I'm looking now at all the characters in the game and they are not looking good at all.
It's pretty much the feed-back I've gotten from you guys in the past but I haven't really seen it until now.

The thing is I don't want to throw everything out and start again but I will go back to working with silhouettes to make things work.

[ndchristie]

The thing is I don't want to throw everything out and start again but I will go back to working with silhouettes to make things work.

This sounds like a good plan; get a working silhouette and then repixel based on the work you've done.  saves time, maintains style, moves forward. 

[PypeBros]

=>

Though i'm amazed by this level of pixel art animation i'm uncapable to reach right now, i can spot that the hand is moving purely horizontally, which imho makes the move more unnatural and "robotic". Having it moving as an arc would be more realistic.

[Gil]

=>

Small edit that shows how to use a 1 pixel movement in the arm for extra weight. Pypebros might have a point with the arc, but I tried it and a pixel really does a lot to the animation. The full arc might not be feasible, hence why I did this halfway there thing where the arm just pulls some extra weight on the animation.

It does seem to affect the limp a lot, so it depends on what you want for this character.

[robotacon]

Gil:   : Me trying to address the arm and the head, new colors, reduced speed etc

[Gil]

As an observation, the limp is a little slower. It looks very smooth now, huge progression from the first one