How Long Does It Take To Finish A Clean Up? #1

An anonymous comment was posted to my blog entry: "1st Pass Roughs, Semi-Roughs & Clean-ups: Hank the Spider Monkey & Batman." The person asked the question: "How long does it take to finish the clean up? For example that Batman. How long did the clean up artist (take) to finish the inking, painting and shading for every 1 frame?"

The answer to that question is not a simple one. It's not just a combination of how talented and fast the clean up artist is, how much pencil mileage (complication) there is to the design, and how much work the animator left for the clean up artist to correct/adjust. This question also suggests that the clean up, inking, painting and shading, etc of that drawing is going to be handled by the same person. Given what computer animation programs can do today, I know that painting a cleaned up drawing is very fast, but I am not on the production line and don't know how long a complicated color scheme (several different colored lines, multiple colors for costume, hair, etc.) takes to paint. The fastest I can paint one of our studio's Avenging Apes characters (using a bucket dump tool) in about five minutes. But I wouldn't want to be painting at that rate all day long.

Regarding cleaning up a rough drawing, again it depends on how much work the animator left for the clean up artist to correct/adjust. I spend 30 minutes to draw a semi-clean pose like the Batman drawings in question. It would take me another 30 minutes to clean it up on a new sheet of paper. This includes some rest time for my hand as these drawings need very tight pencil control. At other times, like drawing a fast action, I don't have to be as precise and can finish a clean-up in ten minutes.

Then comes the shading, which I consider to be a special effect, which needs to be done by an artist who understands how to handle that. It may be done by the same animator who animated the action, but that stage needs time to think out and accomplish.

This brings up (what is to me) an injustice. I consider the dumping of several stages of production onto the shoulders of one artist, but not scheduling the time to do it properly, to be unfair. Animation programs that can combine layout, key posing, and even create animatics into the storyboard stage, may seem to be wonderful to The Suits and Bean Counters, but it's a prime cause of burnout for the artist.

It's not just about the physical time it takes to do a particular stage of production, it is also about the reasonable amount of thinking/analysis time these stages need before a line is drawn. Someone who has the talent to visualize a script onto a storyboard doesn't necessarily have the makings of a layout person, who can block out the on-model poses for the animators, create solid backgrounds, etc. Nor should that storyboard artist also be expected to time the scenes as they are to appear in the story reel.

What infuriates me about today's animation industry is the race to the bottom regarding cost of production. I, myself, am a Suit and I know it has always been "Faster! Faster! Cheaper! Cheaper!" But at what cost? If the final product (however economically produced) does not interest its potential audience, than The Suits are to blame...not the medium itself for the lack of viewership.

As I said in one of my first posts on this blog: "As long as animation is treated purely as a manufactured product, the art of animation will never develop past what it has been in the past."

Good Old-Fashioned Cartoon Violence!

There's nothing as satisfying to animate as an old-fashioned cartoon-violent gag! It can be very cathartic emotionally ;-)

I don't want to get into a debate here about violence being a bad influence on our children. There's cartoon violence and there's graphic wanton violence. I'm of the very first generation of TV viewers growing up on continual reruns of the classic, unedited, unadulterated 1940s cartoons, and I knew the difference between real and cartoon at a very young age. Don't tell me that today's children can't tell the difference. For those who can't, there is something psychologically wrong with them that goes far deeper than just being influenced by a classic Bugs Bunny cartoon.


But I will say there is a time and place for cartoon violence. Sometimes, the best place to use it is as a way of showing interaction between two characters...especially if the characters are siblings...and half-human and half-ape at that.

I'll use this type of gag to show how to plan out the interaction between two characters on your x-sheet.

Here's a scene involving two of our studio's Avenging Apes characters: Zaire (left) and Algeria (right). They look alike because they are two-thirds of a set of fraternal triplets. Personality-wise, the triplets are very much like "Three Stooges": Zaire is Moe, and Algeria is an assertive Larry. (The third triplet, named Angola, is very Curly-like with a touch of Stan Laurel. He is very heavyset and doesn't look at all like his two brothers.)


Following the video clip are scene grabs. While watching the video, note how there is enough time for the characters to react to each other, and not "step" on the other's visual "business".

In a future post, I will show the x-sheets and explain my reasons for timing the scene the way I did.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

 

New York Institute of Technology + Popeye and Mighty Mouse Animators = Start of Computer Animation

From the 1920s through to the early 1960s the New York area was home to two major animation studios: The Fleischer Studios (which later became Paramount Pictures' Famous Studios) and Terrytoons.

The Fleischer Studios produced the Betty Boop, Popeye, and Superman cartoons; while Terrytoons had Mighty Mouse, Heckle & Jeckle, and Tom Terrific.


These studios were no longer in existence when I started my career in animation in the mid-1970s. However, my first job at New York Institute of Technology landed me right in the middle of the most talented group of animators who had worked at Fleischer/Famous and Terrytoons. It was from these animators (Johnny Gentilella, Marty Taras, Dante Barbetta and Earl James) that I received my on-the-job training in the basics and mechanics of animation.


A few years earlier, Dr. Alexander Schure, the founder of (and who basically owned and ran) New York Institute of Technology, had started working towards developing a computer graphics program. With this as a goal, he had put into production "Tubby the Tuba" as full-length animated feature. The basic purpose was to have a team of computer engineers study the process of putting together an animated feature and see what technical problems needed to be surmounted by a computer.

In March of 1975, I wound up being hired as the studio's first full-time inbetweener. (I worked at the studio and developed into an assistant animator, leaving in May of 1976 to work on the animated feature "Raggedy Ann & Andy".)


The animation studio was on the NY Tech campus in Long Island. As Tubby was being produced by a crew of animators headed by Chuck Harriton and Johnny Gentilella, a separate crew on the far side of the campus (headed by a young Edwin Catmull) was busy experimenting with ways to draw and color pictures on a computer screen.


This is the same Edwin Catmull who is the current president of Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios.


There were times when Johnny Gentilella and some of the other animators would work with the computer crew. The animators' task was to draw and animate simple objects with the tools the computer crew was developing, and explain to them what difficulties they had using these tools.


The eventual direct result of all this experimentation was the development of both Disney's CAPS system and Pixar's CGI systems.

I have posted two sets of documents. The first is from a 1997 interview given by Edwin Catmull, where he gives some of his background history, explaining how he became involved with Dr. Schure and how he left to go work with George Lucas.


The second set of documents is Catmull's analysis of the problems facing computer-assisted animation. This analysis was finished circa 1977. It is very informative, giving a clear and concise step-by-step outline of all the phases of producing an animated cartoon.

Wearing Two Hats #2: The Artist and Businessman Existing Under One Roof

A comment was made regarding my previous post on this topic. The comment was:

"Some where I read that an artist can not be a good business(man) and a business(man) can not be (a) good artist at (the same) time. Artists are passionate people for art and business man balanced sheet for profit."

The opposite extremes of anything (whether it be animation or politics) are constantly at each others' throats, trying to dominate a common territory. It's the constant straining against each other that keeps progress at a minimum, if not a standstill.


A businessman/woman who doesn't understand the need to be creative in order to bring something new to the marketplace is doomed to see their customers grow tired of what is being offered for sale. This will eventually result in a drop of sales and profit... and eventually enough so that the business may fail. This is why it is necessary to budget for creatives/artists searching for and developing new products/programming/etc, without an eye totally on the balance sheet.


The artist who wants to make a living with his/her artistic abilities, must understand that there must be buyers for these abilities/creations. Passion is wonderful when it helps you do your very best, but not when it keeps you from completing a job and getting paid. Artists must know where to draw the line between personal and professional works. Passion alone doesn't pay the bills...give your best for what you're being paid to do...and save your passion for your bedroom.

An example of a person with equal amounts of passion/creativity and sense of business: Steve Jobs

Your additional comments are welcomed.

Wearing Two Hats: Artist and Businessman

Animation has always been a business, but that's not the reason most people get into it. Usually, it is because a young person wants to tell a story or because of the need/enjoyment of creating a world full of characters.

As an artist, I always wish for unlimited budgets and unlimited time to craft my work. But as a businessman I have to squeeze every dollar I get. You only have so much money in your budget. The funds have to be spread out. Where do you put your money?

For me the important elements are: story, design, and the planning of key animation scenes. So, I look at everything I do with an eye on getting the most out of every drawing I make.

This affects my decision regarding animation choices such as:
1) Putting an action on one frame exposure or two frames.
2) Do I level the body as a held cel or trace it continually for several drawings? Or do I run a cycle of three traced back bodies to maintain a flicker of "life"?
3) Can I reuse a strong action several times in different scenes by changing the fielding and/or flopping the drawings to move in the opposite direction? And so on.

It doesn't hurt the artist in me to be creative in searching for solutions that will help the businessman in me to pay the bills. In fact, I believe it forces the artist to focus on what is important in the scene.

The following is a short "Rant"

For me, creating an animated film is like baking a cake and icing it. There are so many elements that go into the process that, if the baker doesn't use the right ingredients and proportions, the cake can easily be ruined. For me, the most important part is the body of the cake, not the icing. A simple layer of icing on a tasty cake is a wonderful touch, but it isn't the most important element.


However, now that film producers have the computer technology to put up on the screen almost anything one can imagine, they spend fortunes on making beautiful icing, but insist on using it to cover very substandard cake.

In fact, for me the vast majority of today's animated features (and live action films) are all icing and no cake.

Boba Fett & The Star Wars Holiday Special!

In mid-1978, the animation staff at Nelvana finished up on "The Devil and Daniel Mouse", and was put on George Lucas' "Secret Project". Remember, Star Wars had just come out the previous summer and was THE mega hit! So, it was exciting to see the initial designs for the sequel.

George had decided to introduce the new villain (Boba Fett) in an animated comic book format in "The Star Wars Holiday Special" that was going to air on TV in December of 1978. Nelvana was selected to produce the completed animation based on our "A Cosmic Christmas", which George liked very much.


At that time, Heavy Metal (Magazine) was the graphic cutting edge for Science Fiction/Fantasy. The decision was made to go with a graphic style based on the artist Moebius (pseudonym for Jean Giraud) whose art was appearing in the French magazine Metal Hurlant (published in the United States under the title Heavy Metal).

Here are the model sheets for Boba Fett (by Frank Nissen, who designed the show), some of my rough first pass poses, and thumbnail sketches. It was a challenge to animate a performance with a character that had no facial features to work with. I had to use hand gestures, head tilts, and body language.

Following the artwork is the animated comic book that introduced Boba Fett. The entire show was animated in 6 to 8 weeks. When viewing this material, remember that in 1978 full animation industry-wide was pretty much dead except at Disney's.

  Click here if you have a problem viewing the video