View Full Version : Animatics - control of the camera

12 December 2004, 01:00 PM
Since this about directing and cinematography. I think animatics is one the newest and powerful way for a director to hone hos scenes and shots. Is this wrong?
If not, I think animatics should go in here as well. Maybe threads that start with a [animatic] indictation.

12 December 2004, 02:11 PM
excuseme, can do you explain about animatics? i dont know how work the animatics



12 December 2004, 02:23 PM
If you own any CG DVD , then in the making of sections there are bound to be footage of animatics.

At an early stage, animatics are used with rough, untextured scenery to put the 2D sketched storyboard into the 3D world. This helps with the timing of the shots, the lens of the camera etc. It is becoming more and more important, for example, in the film "The Day After Tomorrow" animatics were used for every shot.

12 December 2004, 02:32 PM
Maybe it could be combined with other tools for realtime usage,

A previz forum of some kind, I'm thinking new high end video accelerators and realtime visualisation tools, mocap on set, image modelling, lidar and what have you not. Eventually it's all going to be real time anyway. The sooner we get on this mindset the better.
To the directors it's not going to matter how, the animatics would be only a step on the stairs, even for the previsualitation. But these aniamtics could become a stepping stone for a better workflow in general if enough other tools were brought into it.

Good idea, is what I say.

12 December 2004, 03:33 PM
I tend to see storyboard artist and editors as the best directors. They always seem to convey the vision that others don't see. Also great storyboard artist add in so many of ther own experiences into shots that it may not become thedirector's anymore. Animatics seem the logic step to extend or replace storyboards or at least final storyboards.

12 December 2004, 03:34 PM
actually the use of animatics is pretty old, not new at all. classic 2d animation used it for the last decades, i guess as soon as videocameras were payable. i too believe an animatic forum would be cool, but imagine the bandwidth one would have to have for that. not only would hundereds download these but as animatics undergo a lot of tweaking and redoing you would have to post different stages of it and all would be downloaded several hundert times. thats massive.

12 December 2004, 03:41 PM
When I created the animatic for the film Im working on, I found that creating the storyboard first actually creates the animatic automatically. I just put the frames in a NLE and there it was.

After that I did some mock voice overs from the script and added it to the animatic to see how the timing might work with the shots and I was all set. Dunno if that's the norm, just sharing what I did. :)

12 December 2004, 10:12 PM
When I created the animatic for the film Im working on, I found that creating the storyboard first actually creates the animatic automatically. I just put the frames in a NLE and there it was.

After that I did some mock voice overs from the script and added it to the animatic to see how the timing might work with the shots and I was all set. Dunno if that's the norm, just sharing what I did. :)Yeah that's how I've done animatics in the past. I think either way is useful. I suppose it would be up to the individual.

12 December 2004, 10:33 PM
Good discussion...
indeed storyboarding & editing are all heavily connected to directing. In the real world as you may know, the storyboarders go away and board the script and come back to pitch to the director. Upon approval, the director will send it to editorial for the sequence to be cut together into an animatic.. or Story Reel as it's commonly called. The whole cycle repeats over and over.

But in the world of DIY, we don't have the luxury of an entire team. We're often wearing many hats at the same time. This is when you learn to appreciate what a good storyboarder and editor does for the director. Essentially, they make the director's decisions look good. (what a dirty little secret eh?) :scream: It's one of the reasons that Lee Unkrich of Pixar was promoted from editor to co-director there... and same for Andrew Stanton, from screenwriter/storyboarder to director. The results speak for themselves.

Having said this, I've always admired talented directors who edit (or co-edit) their own films.. like James Cameron and most indie filmmakers. It can sometimes make up for a less-than-stellar triumvirate.

12 December 2004, 06:19 AM
The one thing that drives me crazy about most animators is their insistance on editing within an animation package. It took some work for me to get over this habit, but it really helps. With that said, does anyone have any suggestions for a good (read: tried and true) method for correlating shots in the animation package with an EDL put together by the editor?

12 December 2004, 10:31 PM
Well I think that handdrawn Storyboards express much more the artistic feel of a movie. The story is much better expressed through them. For me the storyboard prooved to be only one step in the right direction, but a very important one. Translating my script to a stb helped me a lot to tidy up the story and get a better understanding and feeling. However, only by doing an animatic I could really optimize the shots to be really round. Timing questions, camera perspectives, the elements shown, all these and more I could only do with an animatic. But I always went back to my stb to recatch the mood and intension I was after, since that is what gets lost when diving to deep into animating even proxies. A sketch is drawn much faster than an animatic shot is done. And having to modell all proxies first and have to set them up takes time and that is what tears me away from my story. So, to conclude, both stb and animatics are vital and I couldn't do without both of them. Maybe, if I had the fantastic drawing skills of some members here, I would think otherwise, but my limited drawing skills demand both.

12 December 2004, 10:43 AM
it is easy to make animatics for timing and editing process in CG. When i was making my short film, first i did a rough storyboard. Then i modeled everything in my film from primitives.
that took a couple of hours. Looking at my storyboard sketches i created my scenes using primitives and i set up my cameras. I was using Maya for my film therefore i got playblasts of my entirefilm made up of primitives.of course animating the primitives with primitive animations just to see the timing and camera. For the gentlemen who is not knowledgeable about Maya, playblasting is like a pencil-test in celluloid animation. You capture the viewports and make an avi of it. Another program was open in my desktop that time. and that was the good old adobe premiere. I took a playblast than i put it in premire timeline and so on. Then i started editing the playblasts.Lots of things changed in the storyboard when i did that.I started to see my film, and that process took only a couple of days. Then i planned real animations and render time. Everything was in place. I am a green editor, because of that the finished product comes out boring and stiff though, even it consisted of very nice animations according to my instructor. But i learned many things. I still think this is one of the best methods. Of course you cannot see photograpy. lights and visual mood; but you can control what really makes a film, editing .

12 December 2004, 04:29 PM

This is a 2003 animatic to recreate the Captain Marvel origin. i wanted something more than the simple "shazam", lightning comes down and the eis. i wanted the scene be more majestic for the 'first time" and powerful.
It would have took me forever and many errors if I would have just went headlong into the project.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 05:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.