Woot, *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by mintbbb.

pretty weak CG and comp work, imo. unless this was done 20 years ago or by 15 year olds.

Your expectations are unfair. This is a low/no budget film with almost everything done by two people, not a billion dollar James Cameron film.

>> ^kir_mokum:

pretty weak CG and comp work, imo. unless this was done 20 years ago or by 15 year olds.

Very well said, notarobot.
"Your expectations are unfair. This is a low/no budget film with almost everything done by two people, not a billion dollar James Cameron film."

it's totally fair. it has less polys than a current gen. video game, bad models, bad lighting, bad animation, bad textures, bad renders, and no comp. these people would not get hired at a studio as a jr.

you don't need 300 mil and a team of hundreds to do decent work.

Kir_M, it sounds like you are a digital animator youself. Please post of link to your latest completed film or solo project to show us what decent work looks like if this is not it.

>> ^kir_mokum:

it's totally fair. it has less polys than a current gen. video game, bad models, bad lighting, bad animation, bad textures, bad renders, and no comp. these people would not get hired at a studio as a jr.
you don't need 300 mil and a team of hundreds to do decent work.

i'm a jr. comp artist. it's a day job, not a passion, so i've had no need or interest in doing a pro bono project of any kind. the last film i did comp work on was the new karate kid (i did some roto for clash of the titans, but that doesn't really count). i'm currently working on eureka, which is a silly show, but lots of fun to work on.

comping all CG shots is usually easier as you (generally) don't have to roto, pull green screens, camera tracking, regraining, etc.

this is a whole other league, but it was done by one person and effectively no budget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHD8Xf5Rnvo

Is picking on other people's work on a video posting site your hobby, then?

lol. is hi-fiving people for trying your hobby? 'cause if it is, that's kind of patronizing, letting people go through life thinking they're good at something when they're not.

i don't see how my slightly educated opinion is less valid than yours. i'm not "picking" on it for the sake of shitting on it. i'm calling a spade a spade. i'm not even fronting like i know everything about VFX. i'm a jr. and i don't do 3D work, but i do know this is well below average for any serious artist, unless it's 20 years old or done by a 15 year old.

Of course you are welcome to an opinion, but the desire to insult (which is much different from a critique) a fellow artists' hard work on a site like this is pointless and rude. Especially when that person can't defend or discuss their work. I posted this video for the simple reason that I personally enjoyed watching it and wanted to share it.
Not because I am "hi-fiving" artists I don't have any sort of relationship with.
And that is that.

I'm not saying that this vid has the kind of graphics that would entice me to pay full price at the box office, nor am I throwing down high-fives for sup-par work or uncool people. I'm sure 110 days of rendering time could have helped to give it the kind of polish that could be up to today's standards, and yours.

I enjoyed this piece because I appreciated the story told by this animation. Better graphics wouldn't hurt, but it was good enough to carry that story.

There are countless examples off great storytelling and enjoyable animations that don't rely on billion polygon counts or dynamic lighting. Whether that's Don Hertzfeldt or Dottie Goes to School or Groundbreaking Music Videos.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and welcome to focus on what you like in videos and animations. I just wanted to share where I was coming from too.

Also, good for you for getting your name out there and getting work in your field. I know a lot of creative-types and I know it ain't the easiest line of work to get into.

peace
~N
>> ^kir_mokum:

i'm a jr. comp artist. it's a day job, not a passion, so i've had no need or interest in doing a pro bono project of any kind. the last film i did comp work on was the new karate kid (i did some roto for clash of the titans, but that doesn't really count). i'm currently working on eureka, which is a silly show, but lots of fun to work on.
comping all CG shots is usually easier as you (generally) don't have to roto, pull green screens, camera tracking, regraining, etc.
this is a whole other league, but it was done by one person and effectively no budget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHD8Xf5Rnvo

this can obviously turn into a long conversation but i think there's a difference between don hurtzfeldt (i'm unfamiliar with the second one and the 3rd one gives me a 404) and this video. his work is stylized to look rough whereas this video is simply poorly executed (from a technical standpoint). hurtzfeldt cartoons are actually brilliant from a technical standpoint and he uses the inherent flaws in the medium to his advantage. i don't think this video does anything like that.

i get what you're saying and i totally agree that storytelling doesn't require things to be shiny. my only point is that the work done on this is sub par when compared to equal projects. not sub par when compared to feature length films by major studios. as far as my "insults", they aren't baseless and i would argue that i'm not insulting the artist either. i used accurate comparison and i didn't use any pejoratives.

[i just read they worked on it for 8 months at what i would assume was effectively full time as it was their final year project for school.]

anyway, i'm not trying to argue that people would be wrong to like this i'm just defending my point. thank you for the high five for getting into VFX. it's a crazy tough industry to get your foot in the door. personally, i have good friends in good places, a decent eye, and a horseshoe up my ass.