I've been thinking about the quality of the current stop animation videos going around at the moment, and wonder why people still use it. With 3D tools becoming increasingly powerful, I have to wonder why someone would spend the time to agonisingly shoot a stop animation film. For Example: The software consultancy company I work for recently ran a competition for the staff members to create youtube videos about the company (Not really an advert, but most of the entrants missed the point). One of the entrants created a short Stop Animation film, which I found hilarious. However, when I asked the guy who made it why they chose to do Stop Animation instead of 3D, he stated that even though he could have got the film done in half the time if it were 3D, he just really liked the style. I disagree.

">You can find the stop animation film here. Personally, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference if it were 3D instead of stop animation. I can understand why shows like Robot Chicken would do stop animation, as it's the point of the show to re-use action figures found in toy stores. But in my opinion there's no reason to go with stop animation anymore, unless it's the artist 'point' of the film. I think I just find stop animation/claymation ugly... but maybe that's just me.

Quote:Original post by Programmer One
Yep.

TL;DR

Not to mention that stop motion animation is still easier to do well than 3D animation for many people. A clay model is something you can pick up and hold, mold in your hands, it is a REAL thing. A 3D model is not real, no matter how real it might look when rendered. Why? When was the last time you picked up your 3D model in your hand, turned it around, nudged some bump of it into exactly where you wanted it?

You can't. Claymation will still be a loved style for years to come, and in my mind will only be replaced when someone comes up with interactive 'digital clay' that you can shape and mold in your hand, then go to the computer and shape and mold there and have it impact the real physical clay.

Quote:Original post by Mr Explody
I've been thinking about the quality of the current stop animation videos going around at the moment, and wonder why people still use it. With 3D tools becoming increasingly powerful, I have to wonder why someone would spend the time to agonisingly shoot a stop animation film.

Nick Park and Aardman Animations tried using CGI for "Flushed Away" -- they'd originally planned to shoot it using their normal stop-motion techniques, but the need to have water in so many scenes made it unfeasible.

Unfortunately, it never quite works. You can see their stop-motion techniques fighting the CGI techniques, and neither wins. As a film, it's okay, but the charm of stop-motion was lost.

Quote:
I can understand why shows like Robot Chicken would do stop animation, as it's the point of the show to re-use action figures found in toy stores. But in my opinion there's no reason to go with stop animation anymore, unless it's the artist 'point' of the film.

Animation is used *solely* for artistic purposes: why else go to all that effort? Arguably Pixar's their best film to date, "Monsters, Inc.", is ideally suited to the medium of animation.

(While I do like most of their later movies -- particularly WALL-E -- I do feel they've yet to reach the heights of "Monsters, Inc.". "The Incredibles" would have worked just as well as a live-action effects-heavy blockbuster. Hell, it'd probably have done better than most of the superhero movies doing the rounds at the time.)

Quote:
I think I just find stop animation/claymation ugly... but maybe that's just me.

It's you.

I take it you've never seen any of Nick Park's (Oscar-winning) animations?

That Tetris animation involved whole orders of magnitude more "developers", than the original game. That's art, that is.

(Animators, eh? Can't live with 'em; can't replace 'em with a plugin for Visual Studio.)

Quote:Original post by Mr Explody
However, when I asked the guy who made it why they chose to do Stop Animation instead of 3D, he stated that even though he could have got the film done in half the time if it were 3D, he just really liked the style. I disagree.

How can you disagree with someone's personal opinion on taste? I would think he would know.

I guess I should assume you meant you have conflicting opinions in which case who cares what either one of you thinks? There is nothing inherently wrong with having either opinion as to what to prefer. However, suggesting someone's taste is wrong because you disagree with it is somewhat wrong.

It is, in all fairness, an incredibly tedious process( and I can see your point). But then maybe that's part of the charm. Its hard work that maybe one can be proud of. Plus mentally it's easier to understand, so anyone can do it. It also doesn't have to be perfect to not look weird as clay bypasses that whole uncanny valley thing in a way crude low budget 3D can't.

I guess I don't see the problem. If someone wants to do things the hard way then why not? Its their time after all. Its also "art" and you can't say claymation doesn't have a distinct visual quality to it.