I just finished a corporate video (to make the major stockholders feel good about their investment in these hard economic times, blah blah blah)
32 minutes of animation total. About 12 came from ASPro. 15 from TB Animate/Digital pro, the rest from 3D (Houdini, Maya, C4d).
Oh, about 30 sec. of hand drawn too (paper, which went on an animation stand then to film)
In about two and a half months of actual production time, the ASP animation ended up costing about $700 per minute of animation MORE than did any of the other animation processes used. This is per the Production manager's report.
From what I can see, a big part of the extra cost was related to asset management.
I have no doubt that a certain joyous person from Oklahoma can be absolutely certain that he could have done the job better, etc., for less money. We didn't manage to attain that level of 'enlightenment'.
There's more about this job to share. I'll try to elaborate when I get more time.
Keep in mind that this cost is based on Los Angeles freelance rates (probably the highest prices in the world)
I"m bringing this up because I [still] don't think ASP was designed to be used in a larger production environment. 10 or 12 people using it is way different from one. The cost of the software is nothing compared to everything else involved.
Cost of Anime Studio in Production
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
It wasn't a 'bogging down' of animation. It was having to have a person deal with managing the 'library'. It just took a guy attached to the AS unit organizing, updating, maintaining, and communicating with the animators. All those things happened with the other software as well. It's just that the other software used has a lot of that functionality built in.
Most of the other animation ended up being a little over $9,300 per minute of animation. 3D vs 2D costs were pretty similar. (that's about 8% more expensive for ASP, by the way). That includes the software cost.
Rigging went fastest in Maya (MotionBuilder). Close behind was Houdini. Animate and Anime Studio were pretty similar, Cinema 4 D was slower.
Modeling/Drawing went fastest in Animate, Then ASP, Houdini, C4d, with Maya being slowest.
Some of the character stuff that started in ASP got shifted over to Animate, since it was evident that it was more efficient to do that way (fewer 'work arounds' for joint tears and morphs and such).
We ended up using ASP for a lot of things that we could use the magnet tool, and 'shear' and such on. Substantially faster to do this in ASP than anything else.
It was definitely more of a 'bother' to use ASP in a group setting. I'm hoping that Freakish Kid (aka Greykid) is pushing through some extra functionality in this realm.
2D- we did character animation, graphs, charts, assorted illustrations, and 'supporting graphics'. There was some overlap between Toon Boom and Anime Studio tasks. Generally, Toon Boom 'flowed' easier. Sound was dealt with more effectively there. There were fewer work arounds. Lip sync was easier in TB. Really, considering the software cost differential, ASP performed quite well. Unfortunately, that cost differential went the other way pretty rapidly. I don't think they are comparable pieces of software. I don't even think TB studio is comparable. They do different things. It's like comparing a spoon to a shovel A spoon costs less than a shovel, but they both dig dirt-one better than the other. The spoon is a better screwdriver though.
The things we used ASP for went reasonably well. Probably worth the bother and cost. I'm sure it would have been more bother to do our 'crushes' and 'crumples' in some other software.
more to come on this.
Most of the other animation ended up being a little over $9,300 per minute of animation. 3D vs 2D costs were pretty similar. (that's about 8% more expensive for ASP, by the way). That includes the software cost.
Rigging went fastest in Maya (MotionBuilder). Close behind was Houdini. Animate and Anime Studio were pretty similar, Cinema 4 D was slower.
Modeling/Drawing went fastest in Animate, Then ASP, Houdini, C4d, with Maya being slowest.
Some of the character stuff that started in ASP got shifted over to Animate, since it was evident that it was more efficient to do that way (fewer 'work arounds' for joint tears and morphs and such).
We ended up using ASP for a lot of things that we could use the magnet tool, and 'shear' and such on. Substantially faster to do this in ASP than anything else.
It was definitely more of a 'bother' to use ASP in a group setting. I'm hoping that Freakish Kid (aka Greykid) is pushing through some extra functionality in this realm.
2D- we did character animation, graphs, charts, assorted illustrations, and 'supporting graphics'. There was some overlap between Toon Boom and Anime Studio tasks. Generally, Toon Boom 'flowed' easier. Sound was dealt with more effectively there. There were fewer work arounds. Lip sync was easier in TB. Really, considering the software cost differential, ASP performed quite well. Unfortunately, that cost differential went the other way pretty rapidly. I don't think they are comparable pieces of software. I don't even think TB studio is comparable. They do different things. It's like comparing a spoon to a shovel A spoon costs less than a shovel, but they both dig dirt-one better than the other. The spoon is a better screwdriver though.
The things we used ASP for went reasonably well. Probably worth the bother and cost. I'm sure it would have been more bother to do our 'crushes' and 'crumples' in some other software.
more to come on this.
Very very interesting 
thanks for the info. I can imagine how AS could be a mission in a group setting for sure. It doesn't really have any asset management. v6 has some sort of library though. Thanks for the post I look forward to reading more. I haven't delved into TBS properly so I'd like to know more about the pros and cons, some of which you've already mentioned.
thanks for the info. I can imagine how AS could be a mission in a group setting for sure. It doesn't really have any asset management. v6 has some sort of library though. Thanks for the post I look forward to reading more. I haven't delved into TBS properly so I'd like to know more about the pros and cons, some of which you've already mentioned.
the [long] story:
A few months ago, an ad agency contacted me to be the animation supervisor on this hour long promo thing to be shown at a stockholder's meeting, and distributed on DVD to major stockholders. No budget problems to worry about. There was about 45 minutes of live action, with a lot of it having animation composited in as well. This project was to make people feel good about this company, to entice them to hold on to their stock. An animated spokesperson was chosen to make it 'friendlier', and light hearted.
We spent about a month developing characters, storyboards, etc. All of the pre-production design and boards were done on paper. Organization and flowcharts were done with a magnet board. At the same time, the script was being ironed out, live action photography began. We started animation on charts and supporting graphics. Once the live action was shot, and editing started, we finalized the script and started character animation. Live action: 35mm 3 perf 24 fps transferred to hi-def and 4K scans. Most animation was done at 3840x2160 to give the compositors some room to play/scale, etc. Compositing was mostly done in Shake (a little bit in the animation software too). Did about a week of recording studio time (voice and foley work). Music tweaks were minimal. Click tracks were supplied early on. I did bar sheets for the bits of music that needed it.
Early production commentary started here: "Anime Studio Quality" viewtopic.php?t=12463&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 The production manager had to do his official fussing, but got me what I asked for without too much bother. In reading the wrap production reports, he was quite eloquent in his descriptions of where money went and why. To his credit, he knows a lot about the process, and 'what and how and why' of the software. His concerns about problems with assorted software were all accurate, and addressed with some ease. The additional cost of Anime Studio in production was explained or buried fairly well, and easily. Production manager was not an idiot. It was interesting to see how he phrased things (this had to go to accountants-and who knows what they know or not about anything involved in film production).
Backgrounds were either live action composited, or some of a variety of different other artwork. Most of the drawn backgrounds were done in Photoshop or Illustrator. We did low-res versions for reference in animation software, and hi-res versions for later compositing. Output PNG's (sometimes .tga's) from animation software. Mostly added grain, noise, and softening in Shake. Compositing and effects look better that way, by the way-goes faster too. Editorial was done in Avid, then finished in Smoke.
3D was mostly used for a 'slick' look on some graphics, and product renders. 2D was intentionally 'cartoony'. A lot of the 2D animation was rendered at 12 FPS to add to that effect. The director had no practical animation experience. Fortunately, he was 'removed' during the animating phase. His input was ignored after the first week. He wanted to change everything, constantly. "It's in the computer, just click a button". Originally, we were going to do the composting in Inferno (so the director could put in his two cents), but decided Shake was better for excluding him (also works better for our sort of compositing anyway).
For 2D, I think we could have done everything in ASP (or Animate), but it would have taken longer (probably another week or two) to get it done. So, 'work arounds' would have ended up costing a fair amount.
Everyone was freelance. Staff scaled up and down according to workload. I think we peaked at eight animators on ASP, and ten on Animate.
The way we did this job worked out well. Everyone seems to be happy with the results.
A few months ago, an ad agency contacted me to be the animation supervisor on this hour long promo thing to be shown at a stockholder's meeting, and distributed on DVD to major stockholders. No budget problems to worry about. There was about 45 minutes of live action, with a lot of it having animation composited in as well. This project was to make people feel good about this company, to entice them to hold on to their stock. An animated spokesperson was chosen to make it 'friendlier', and light hearted.
We spent about a month developing characters, storyboards, etc. All of the pre-production design and boards were done on paper. Organization and flowcharts were done with a magnet board. At the same time, the script was being ironed out, live action photography began. We started animation on charts and supporting graphics. Once the live action was shot, and editing started, we finalized the script and started character animation. Live action: 35mm 3 perf 24 fps transferred to hi-def and 4K scans. Most animation was done at 3840x2160 to give the compositors some room to play/scale, etc. Compositing was mostly done in Shake (a little bit in the animation software too). Did about a week of recording studio time (voice and foley work). Music tweaks were minimal. Click tracks were supplied early on. I did bar sheets for the bits of music that needed it.
Early production commentary started here: "Anime Studio Quality" viewtopic.php?t=12463&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30 The production manager had to do his official fussing, but got me what I asked for without too much bother. In reading the wrap production reports, he was quite eloquent in his descriptions of where money went and why. To his credit, he knows a lot about the process, and 'what and how and why' of the software. His concerns about problems with assorted software were all accurate, and addressed with some ease. The additional cost of Anime Studio in production was explained or buried fairly well, and easily. Production manager was not an idiot. It was interesting to see how he phrased things (this had to go to accountants-and who knows what they know or not about anything involved in film production).
Backgrounds were either live action composited, or some of a variety of different other artwork. Most of the drawn backgrounds were done in Photoshop or Illustrator. We did low-res versions for reference in animation software, and hi-res versions for later compositing. Output PNG's (sometimes .tga's) from animation software. Mostly added grain, noise, and softening in Shake. Compositing and effects look better that way, by the way-goes faster too. Editorial was done in Avid, then finished in Smoke.
3D was mostly used for a 'slick' look on some graphics, and product renders. 2D was intentionally 'cartoony'. A lot of the 2D animation was rendered at 12 FPS to add to that effect. The director had no practical animation experience. Fortunately, he was 'removed' during the animating phase. His input was ignored after the first week. He wanted to change everything, constantly. "It's in the computer, just click a button". Originally, we were going to do the composting in Inferno (so the director could put in his two cents), but decided Shake was better for excluding him (also works better for our sort of compositing anyway).
For 2D, I think we could have done everything in ASP (or Animate), but it would have taken longer (probably another week or two) to get it done. So, 'work arounds' would have ended up costing a fair amount.
Everyone was freelance. Staff scaled up and down according to workload. I think we peaked at eight animators on ASP, and ten on Animate.
The way we did this job worked out well. Everyone seems to be happy with the results.
I got a request for info on how I chose which software for what.
Normally, I don't care about software at all. If we can get the desired result out of an abacus, that's fine with me. The dynamics of this job required some cohesive software choices. For 3D, it didn't matter. The 3D guys went with what they were comfortable with. FBX worked for most of the interchange that was needed. We had a small render farm that took care of most of the 3D renders. Houdini, Maya, and C4D were animator's choices.
For 2D it mattered a little more. There were things that needed to work together, and standardized software for those things made it work a lot better. Once we had boards going, I talked to the key animators I had lined up for the job, and we decided amongst ourselves that Toon Boom and Anime Studio were the most effective choices. Flash, Toonz, and 3D 'cel shaded' were also discussed, and decided against.
Anime Studio was a strong contender because of some of the effects that I wanted to do. Magnet tool alone cinched that one. Started out wanting to do more character animation in ASP, but-as noted above, it worked better in Toon Boom. Didn't really matter, it was an easy adjustment.
Unfortunately, software imposes limitations. I tend toward whatever will be least annoying for me. Some of the animators are very opinionated about hardware and software, while others just make the best of what they've got. Many of the animators I've worked with started out (and still do) animation on paper and cels. They're supplemented by 'software jocks'.
Normally, I don't care about software at all. If we can get the desired result out of an abacus, that's fine with me. The dynamics of this job required some cohesive software choices. For 3D, it didn't matter. The 3D guys went with what they were comfortable with. FBX worked for most of the interchange that was needed. We had a small render farm that took care of most of the 3D renders. Houdini, Maya, and C4D were animator's choices.
For 2D it mattered a little more. There were things that needed to work together, and standardized software for those things made it work a lot better. Once we had boards going, I talked to the key animators I had lined up for the job, and we decided amongst ourselves that Toon Boom and Anime Studio were the most effective choices. Flash, Toonz, and 3D 'cel shaded' were also discussed, and decided against.
Anime Studio was a strong contender because of some of the effects that I wanted to do. Magnet tool alone cinched that one. Started out wanting to do more character animation in ASP, but-as noted above, it worked better in Toon Boom. Didn't really matter, it was an easy adjustment.
Unfortunately, software imposes limitations. I tend toward whatever will be least annoying for me. Some of the animators are very opinionated about hardware and software, while others just make the best of what they've got. Many of the animators I've worked with started out (and still do) animation on paper and cels. They're supplemented by 'software jocks'.
Strange Animal
Thanks for the production details. I can see the issues. Trying to integrate ASP with traditional paper animation could be tough, especially when ToonBoom is built specifically for this. As I've said before, I bought ASP just for the strength of animating props and scenery.
I have arrived at a method for longer form ASP characters, but it's not all that intuitive. I gleaned more technique by making adaptations to rigs from other animators I've subcontracted for. I go through all the storyboards and create body parts as separate files, per the function needed for the different actions. For me, the biggest difference in the rig is not the starting pose, it's how the points are joined; will the switch layers interpolate or match positions when they change, etc.
If you have some personnel that can afford to develop a history with ASP and larger projects, I'm sure you'll find some unique economies. But, it of course would be hard to attach a burden rate to this during a project. I imagine someone would most likely have to spend some of their 'own' time developing a method for parts inventories, as it were.
I have arrived at a method for longer form ASP characters, but it's not all that intuitive. I gleaned more technique by making adaptations to rigs from other animators I've subcontracted for. I go through all the storyboards and create body parts as separate files, per the function needed for the different actions. For me, the biggest difference in the rig is not the starting pose, it's how the points are joined; will the switch layers interpolate or match positions when they change, etc.
If you have some personnel that can afford to develop a history with ASP and larger projects, I'm sure you'll find some unique economies. But, it of course would be hard to attach a burden rate to this during a project. I imagine someone would most likely have to spend some of their 'own' time developing a method for parts inventories, as it were.
My feeling is that the only way Anime Studio (in it's current form) would be functional on a larger [multi-person] project is to have worked where they're already using it in that fashion, and 'borrow' their workflow. What we did do, seemed to work out fine. I'm sure it could be improved upon, but it really is a constant work-around.
I've been part of productions that were based on Harmony and on Animo. They're made for lots of people working to make the final product, and they work really well. I'm sure ASP would be fine for a long form project with just a few people working on it. From my experience with it, it wouldn't be worth the effort required to keep it a 'main' tool. There's not much that can't be done more efficiently in the 'bigger' packages. And, from this experience, the cost would be break even or better in the first year to purchase the expensive software anyway.
Incidentally, this job was pretty much done the 'computer way'-not really on paper. Everything to be animated was drawn in software. Reference was on paper, but that's about it.
I've been part of productions that were based on Harmony and on Animo. They're made for lots of people working to make the final product, and they work really well. I'm sure ASP would be fine for a long form project with just a few people working on it. From my experience with it, it wouldn't be worth the effort required to keep it a 'main' tool. There's not much that can't be done more efficiently in the 'bigger' packages. And, from this experience, the cost would be break even or better in the first year to purchase the expensive software anyway.
Incidentally, this job was pretty much done the 'computer way'-not really on paper. Everything to be animated was drawn in software. Reference was on paper, but that's about it.
They're made for lots of people working to make the final product, and they work really well.
What enhancements do Harmony and Animo have that allow them to work better for team projects?
What enhancements do Harmony and Animo have that allow them to work more efficiently?There's not much that can't be done more efficiently in the 'bigger' packages.
At first glance the questioning might come across as sarcasm, but I'm genuinely interested in what makes the other wares work better for teams and what makes them efficient. I haven't had a chance to use them.
joelstoryboards.com - (WinXP SP3, ASP 6.1)
Library, database, management, administrator tools, dynamic file updates (multiple people can be working with same elements, and they update as changed). Render farm-stuff like that.
Tool set in Harmony/Animate covers most of what ASP has, plus some enhancements (like morphs). Lacks a few things as well (mentioned in earlier post).
Animo is more linear as to how you have to use it than is Harmony. It's also bitmapped. Different approach, but still made for a pile of people.
Harmony can have workstations configured to specific jobs. Same, but different with Animo. So there aren't 'extra' tools to deal with that aren't needed (like a background artist doesn't need to have bones-that sort of thing). Animate lacks some of the management features of Harmony, but has pretty much the full tool set. It integrates well with the Harmony system.
Does that cover it?
Tool set in Harmony/Animate covers most of what ASP has, plus some enhancements (like morphs). Lacks a few things as well (mentioned in earlier post).
Animo is more linear as to how you have to use it than is Harmony. It's also bitmapped. Different approach, but still made for a pile of people.
Harmony can have workstations configured to specific jobs. Same, but different with Animo. So there aren't 'extra' tools to deal with that aren't needed (like a background artist doesn't need to have bones-that sort of thing). Animate lacks some of the management features of Harmony, but has pretty much the full tool set. It integrates well with the Harmony system.
Does that cover it?
-
smithlanger
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:03 am
Updates
Since this interesting thread began, I've started using Pencil Check Pro (just the scanning, drawing and basic X-sheet part of what I guess is now ToonBoom Animate). There were some action sequences that before I made all the necessary parts in ASP, I could draw the shot in PCP. For slow, subtle gestures, I'm still using ASP. I can quite image that parsing things out to freelancers, and trying to make these kind of divisions, coupled with the pressure of a layered management, it could be a real challenge.
If it were up to me to make general guidelines for a group, I'd give ASP animators props, animated background elements and background characters. I'd give the main action to the Harmony/Animate Pro crew. The ToonBoom software is not always faster, but it is more straight forward for complicated action.
I guess the director would have to use a spreadsheet for ASP, until the shot was finished. Then maybe it could be incorporated and tracked as a 'layer' in Harmony scenes? This positions ASP as a more 'upstream' tool, but maybe that would negate the lack of cataloging functions.
If it were up to me to make general guidelines for a group, I'd give ASP animators props, animated background elements and background characters. I'd give the main action to the Harmony/Animate Pro crew. The ToonBoom software is not always faster, but it is more straight forward for complicated action.
I guess the director would have to use a spreadsheet for ASP, until the shot was finished. Then maybe it could be incorporated and tracked as a 'layer' in Harmony scenes? This positions ASP as a more 'upstream' tool, but maybe that would negate the lack of cataloging functions.
