Always good to post a link to something you reference, as it's often not always known/seen/available to the global users of this forum.
The Scribble filter allows quite extensive control of wiggle/scratchy lines from mask shapes. It won't provide the depth of the look in the Red Bull spot, which looks to me like it's done with more traditional animation, but Scribble is a good start.
Okay, I checked it out: I'm actually looking for something to wiggle the line, however, not to fill the space the line takes up with wiggles or any of the other various options with wiggle. Put in most basic form, if I have a drawing made up of a lot of lines, I want all of those lines to wiggle but still be connected lines, as if they are being drawn on a different frame but slightly off.
Thank you for posting the reference video.
This tutorial here has a description of how to wiggle a line using a wiggler on the brush position:
The problem is that I can't do this for several hundred lines in a drawing at the same time.
Okay cool I'll try tweaking that and see what I can come up with. I've seen displacement maps but they never seem to look very natural since they affect regions not the actual linework of a drawing. Maybe there isn't a good way to mimic hand-drawn unless it's done by hand, but figured someone would have done this somewhere before?
Believe me this is a continuous dilemma that solo animators and production houses often deal with and the bottom of the line is that no technique done on a computer will ever really look analog. The fact is that you're dealing with square pixels when you create something digitally, and when you make animation by hand you're forced to work with the chaotic nature of analog mediums and how they interact with each other. When you do animation on paper for example, you're dealing with random paper texture, naturally occuring line randomness, randomness in color, smudges and differences that occur in the way each drawing was photographed or scanned. The fact that the digital workflow relies solely on pixels, makes any analog look very difficult to achieve.
However, the idea of doing analog animation digitally, and ways of making digital animation look more analog is something that I've always been intrigued by. If you're interested you can check out my new blog which has severel tutorials geared towards doing analog animation in Photoshop and After Effects. Unfortunately, these tutorials do require a small amount of hand drawing with a Wacom tablet and a stylus so they might not be for you, but if you have one, feel to try it.
Although if you're doing character animation, have you thought about doing a very simple After Effects puppet tool animation of your Illustrator line drawing. Then export that line animation as a movie file or image sequence, and bring those frames into Photoshop to render over them by hand with a stylus? At that point it's practically rotoscoping and you don't have to really think about anything accept how you want the animated line quality to look. There is also a very useful new Photoshop panel for CS6 developed by Stephane Baril specifically for doing 2D animation in Photoshop. It allows you to add Frames to video groups use onion skinning, add in-betweens, change the color of the frames on either end of your in-betweens to see them better and yet you still have access to all the Photoshop brushes and Effects. He also created another panel for coloring 2D animation in Photoshop so check these out. They're very useful and can greatly speed up and digital 2D workflow.
- https://vimeo.com/44572211 (CS6 version) — available via the new (in beta) “Adobe Exchange” panel:
- http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&loc=en_us&extid=2720 022 (CS5 Extended)
- http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&loc=en_us&extid=2720 023 (CS4 Extended)
And another panel dedicate to Colorize this kind of animation:
- https://vimeo.com/44586802 (CS6 version) — also available via the “Adobe Exchange” panel
- http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?event=extensionDetail&loc=en_us&extid=2720 024 (CS5 Extended)
Anyhow, this is one surefire way I've thought of for acheiving your effect.
Okay, this is very, very helpful.
I guess in terms of workflow, the reason I was hoping to not have to draw each frame by hand is that the process does not allow changes easiliy. For instance, if I get to the end of the project and decide that some elements don't work, it will be much more difficult to change the sequence that would be possible with puppetted animation. Not to mention that tracing each frame, even once I'm in my groove with the tablet and bumping along is such a long, long process. Even just a black and white line animation can take a week for 30 seconds at the quality I like to see in my work.
The programming is beyond my knowledge and ability, but if someone in the future were to write some sort of code that could preserve "nodes" in a line drawing (and by that I mean places where two lines meet and connect) but vary the nodes positions slightly and randomly, as well as vary the curvatures of lines between nodes, combined with scanned paper changing at the same frame rate could look convincing with the right blending. I was hoping there might be something out there already that built upon adobe's program structure, but I've been searching all over and everything you're telling me confirms my conclusions so far.
I really appreciate you taking the time to help me with this, and if I decide to do a digital frame-by-frame, I will definitely be using Baril's panels.
I also enjoyed seeing how effective the wiggler was on the position of your bouncing ball on the blog. Definitely something for me to keep in mind in the future.
Thank you again.
The reason why you have so many levels of tweaking in the traditional animation process is precisely to eliminate any road-blocks from as early on as possible. Usually, the storyboard gets a huge workout by the client/producers, storyboard artists, director and any other artists on the development team before any animation takes place. Then, an animatic is made from the storyboard to get the timing farely exact. Then the keyframes are made and incorporated into the animatic. Then the in-betweeners fill in the frames and then the drawings are cleaned up, inked and finally colored.
Michael Johnson from Pixar came to talk to us this summer and he showed the animatic from The Incredibles. They made it with scanned pencil drawings that were either altered or hand-drawn with a tablet in Photoshop and then composited and animated in After Effects. I remember being amazing at how detailed the animatic got before any CG modelling, rigging, texture, lighting or animation in Maya ever took place. But, Pixar just used this animatic as a tool to fine tune the storytelling and it looked as good as some of the "finished" student films I've seen recently that were made in AE, Flash or Photoshop. The point is that it may take a long time to do something by hand, but it's worth it in the end and planning will save you so much time.
Part of the reason big-budget special effects movies and CG-animted features cost so much to make and take so long to complete, is because the directors have so much digital control they can go and tweak every last detail until litterally a week before the movie goes to cinemas. Give me stop-motion any day over CGI. It's true stop-motion films have an extremely high overhead, but they always end up being cheaper in the long-run, and in my humble little oppinion, a thousand times nicer to look at because you're dealing with real lights, real characters, real textures and real objects. In a stop-motion production, all the money goes into story/character development, planning, set contstruction and animation. Once that's finished the film practically edits itself and accept for a few small changes you can make digitally to help enhance or fix certain shots, you can't change much. The same goes for traditional 2D animation. It just goes to show you why Fantastic Mr. Fox cost $40 million and Tangled cost $260 million.
A lot of this is beside the point, but if I were you, I would do several tests to see how long it would actually take to do all the animation with the puppet tool and re-render the lines by hand in Photoshop so it looks the way you want it to. That way you know how long one shot will take to finish. Then at that point, you can show your client the final render style to see if they like it, and if so, you can explain to him how the process works. That way he/she'll understand when you're showing all of the "ugly" animation of your simple AE puppeted characters to create a detailed animatic. Then you can tweak the AE puppets as much as you want before taking them into Photoshop for a final render, which I'd do by hand. At that point you want to let your client know that he can't change anything else as far as timing and animation before you start your rendering process. And, make sure you show him the progress of the renders, so you can change the render style as early on as possible if the client doesn't like it.
Eu fiz um trabalho recentemente que foi uma paródia dos spots da Red Bull e consegui um resultado muito parecido com o original, mas usando o Cinema 4D.
Dê uma olhada:
Any idea what kind of software is used to produca RedBull animations?