Cost of Anime Studio in Production

Whatever...

Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger

User avatar
uddhava
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: American back in Hungary

Post by uddhava »

Thanks for the interesting information.
Does ASP 7 have any better asset management or have you looked at it? I'm curious if there has been any improvements.

udd
User avatar
ingie01
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: Kingston, New York USA
Contact:

Now we're talking..........

Post by ingie01 »

One of the most interesting topics in a long time. As a teacher I appreciate the direct application description. By describing real world problems gives a better perspective and understanding to students of animation. Thanks for your expertise.
You'll know when you get there! My Dad
User avatar
Rai López
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:41 pm
Location: Spain
Contact:

Post by Rai López »

Yeah, that was a good robot! :) To let mo know too... Hm, so I wonder if they won't be starting to be more desirable fellows :roll:
...
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6067
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

Thx for this report. It fits my own experience with a mixed workflow.

One point I'm wondering about: you don't mention anything about frame-by-frame / puppet / cutout animation. In deciding which software to use this question is always the most important to me. I analyse each scene about its movements, then decide which software will do it fastest or best.

Animation style and software abilities determine each other. I learnt the first Animo version (the purely vector one) which was like AS - it took as long as in AS to build and rig some character. It was clear from the very beginning that setting up different views or versions of characters only pay in the long run, when done for a series or such. Only once this was done the software could show its merits, especially of the production management system.

From all I know there is no ideal animation software. Each package has its own set of restrictions. It would be very nice to at least be able to combine software more reliably, like through a common API, but this is not going to happen.
dm
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dm »

ASP 7 does not seem to improve on the issues mentioned originally.

I guess you could consider that job cutout/puppet for the most part.

Earlier this year, I put TV Paint to a group-setting test that ended with similar issues and results (using Fabrice/Elodie's recommended workflow (which seemed reasonable)). That was for an animated TV show. We decided to go with Harmony for the show.

Current release of Harmony includes a number of things from Animo (since Toon Boom bought Animo and melded it into Harmony). I'm liking the direction that Harmony/Animate are going.

I like to give the 'underdogs' and innovators support (and a chance)-but in the end, the animation is business and it needs to get done effectively. I use the 'small' packages for my work. Because they're functional, and within my cost vs. profit realm. They just aren't functional for a daily production environment with a group of people.
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6067
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

I just had visited a friend of mine in his studio (about 10 employees). They are in the slow process to go digital, and they test several software packages. Their options are:
- Animo (because they had bought it years ago), but this will not be supported anymore.
- ToonBoom
- TVPaint.
They still prefer animating on paper, but even their scanner is so old that they have to run an ancient Windows PC just for the scanner software.

The biggest complain about the "smaller" animation packages seems to be the lack of production management tools. I wonder if any version control system would help that?
dm
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dm »

Don't know about the viability of version control software. It didn't seem to be a functional solution for us. For a long term thing maybe so. Prior jobs with Smart Team (? Star Team? I don't know) seemed pretty psychotic. That had a lot to do with whoever set up the system in the first place. It's also a chore to force the software and people into fitting into a reasonable system.

What sort of work does your friend's studio do? I'm sure that will impose its own limitations.
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6067
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

Over the years I've worked on every type of project now, from feature animation to series episodes to short films and TV spots, both in big studios as well as single-handedly, and in every combination of analog and digital. I think I can derive some rules from my observation (and no, there not new to any professional):

- The more people involved, the more planning you need, the more time is needed just for preparation and communication. "More" means "more than one".

- Creating and managing need two completely different mindsets. It's a good idea to split these jobs among separate people, because rarely an animator is a good manager. Think of checkers, controllers, production managers. They have to be of the nitpicking kind, otherwise they're not worth the money.

- The bigger the crowd involved, the more rigid the workflow will be. Big production systems encourage that, with a system of different roles for users, check-in and appoval procedures, version tracking, and a decent backup regime.

- Smaller groups may work somewhat anarchically, but this needs more responsibility by everyone, and every member must spend more time for administration.

- Production systems force users to do things in sequence, to make sure that no work gets lost and all work gets done. This "discipline by software design" can be replaced by self-discipline in a smaller team, but mistakes will happen ("I forgot to backuop that file", "I accidentially erased..." and so on.)

- Using different software packages within one project multiplies the problems and possible failures.

I feel confident that I could integrate any type of software in a bigger project, but I definitely would hire a seasoned production manager then.
dm
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dm »

slowtiger wrote:I feel confident that I could integrate any type of software in a bigger project, but I definitely would hire a seasoned production manager then.
I don't doubt it. But, would it be worth doing?

agreed to all of your points.

Unfortunately, our TV Paint test highlighted how much it's lacking. Similarly for the ASP experience of last year. They're great for what they are, and they have a good cost to performance ratio. But, those extra bits that are lacking take time and effort to work around.

We went in thinking "We've got nice tools, and we can get a good look-this will be great." We finished with "There's no way we can do this show and hit the deadlines within budget".

It's the deadlines and budget part that killed the tool. All of the idiosyncrasies of TVP added up, then the extra effort of dealing with it in a group setting finished it.

With Harmony, they gave up some of the 'look', but the show will get done.
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6067
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

With Harmony, they gave up some of the 'look', but the show will get done.
Unfortunately that will be the result of any cost-dictated evaluation, and is the reason why "all shows look alike". It is OK to do one show in a certain look - but to be forced to do the next one in the same look just because the software doesn't allow anything else really sucks big way.

I feel that animation in general gets really handicapped through the dominance of studio software packages. I'm much more at ease with experimental and independent filmmakers.
dm
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by dm »

slowtiger wrote:... and is the reason why "all shows look alike". It is OK to do one show in a certain look - but to be forced to do the next one in the same look just because the software doesn't allow anything else really sucks big way.

I feel that animation in general gets really handicapped through the dominance of studio software packages. I'm much more at ease with experimental and independent filmmakers.
Yes

It's important for everything to be the same. We should all be eating McFood, watching McShows, and living our same, safe McLives. Don't you want to be "one of US"? Sure, it's OK to be different, but only if you're the same different as everyone else. As long as people are happy consuming McShows, there's no reason to feed them anything else. They don't even seem to want anything else. It is a Brave New World, after all.

It's sad that software imposes limitations, but it does. I'm glad your friends are still using paper. I do. Cels too. It's sad that economics pushes us into using a computer at all. You're still using that archaic paper, aren't you?
Paul Mesken
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Netherlands

Post by Paul Mesken »

dm wrote:It's important for everything to be the same. We should all be eating McFood, watching McShows, and living our same, safe McLives. Don't you want to be "one of US"? Sure, it's OK to be different, but only if you're the same different as everyone else. As long as people are happy consuming McShows, there's no reason to feed them anything else. They don't even seem to want anything else. It is a Brave New World, after all.
Don't overexaggerate. There's always room for people who want something different : McAlternative :wink:
User avatar
jwlane
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Contact:

Management Tools

Post by jwlane »

What about dedicated project tracking software? I think the first time I saw something like this was at a developer conference in LA, in 1994. SGI was the main sponsor (back in the day). I recently saw another such product at the CGSociety site:

http://www.southpawtech.com/features.html

I don't know how much this stuff costs now, but providing it's within reach (and it works as advertised), would not this type of product allow more flexibility in the choice of tools?
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 6067
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger »

Yes - theoretically. In real life you'll have the problem of missing interfaces, means the different software packages won't talk to each other. That's why I see a file server with a version tracking software as the only option right now if you stay away from the big production packages.

Anyway, I'm a one man show and don't need bloated management software ...
User avatar
jwlane
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Contact:

Post by jwlane »

True, SlowTiger, individuals like us can more than manage with a spread sheet or a form document of our own making (if we're neat).

My point of view is still attempting to empathize with DM. Suppose, however, we are sub-contracting for a large company. The lead production house might feel better using out of house sub-contractors with a system like this in effect. Whether in-house or at our own studios, we log in online and update/upload via the project management application.
Post Reply