IN this reflective post of 4 to 5 paragraphs, you need to consider the animation qualities of your cartoon and the animation qualities of the group as a whole.
Take a look at your own graphs. How well did your data illustrate the principles of constant velocity, horizontal accleration, and vertical acceleration? Would you say that your original hypotheses in the previous posts were confirmed or rejected?
Next, take a look at the class data as a whole. Comment on the skill of the cel animators of the 1950s and use specific data to support your reasoning (statements like "Out of the 8 data sets in class for constant velocity, X were...." )
Do you believe cel animators of the 1950s were more, less, or equally as adept as the animations found in the 1960s and 1970s (Hanna-Barbera, or the Flinstones) or 21st century in shows like King of the Hill, the Simpsons, or the Power Puff girls? Why?
How would a knowledge of physics help if you were to pursue a career in videography or animation? Explain your rationale?
Finally, were there any instances in the cartoon you watched where the normal laws of physics, as you understand them, were suspended? How can animators get away with that?
6 comments:
Reflection
In our group vertical acceleration was off most of the time. It didn’t follow the line well. Our vertical constant was more accurate but still not good. It was still erratic at certain points. Our horizontal acceleration did not curve at all. It was more constant then it was accelerating. Our original hypothesis was wrong we couldn’t actually get data that represented the polynomial well.
Out of the 6 sets of data for horizontal acceleration only one of the graphs was close to being along the line of the polynomial. The others were off by either large or small amounts. Out of the 6 sets of data for constant velocity all but one of the sets was off. One gave a straight velocity the other had erratic moments throughout time but did follow the line. Out of the 6 sets of data on vertical acceleration 2 sets decently followed the line, while the others had some spots that spiked and didn’t follow the line correctly. Animators in the 50’s were not the best.
Compared to the 21st century cartoons the 50’s cartoons don’t seem to move as smooth as the new one. The older cartoons have a more erratic movement to them. The new ones have smooth acceleration and the constant motion doesn’t move quickly at one point and the same at two other points. I think the 21st century cartoons have a better feel for acceleration and constant motion. The newer cartoons do have a problem with vertical acceleration. The computer generated cartoons often move the camera to create the illusion, rather then draw each one out.
Knowledge of physics would help you greatly in an animation carrier. You would know how fast to accelerate certain object or how fast something would fall. It would also help you determine how long before something rolling would reach its maximum speed. It would also help with the walking speed and how they walk. You would know the motion of the human body better and know how it would react to certain instances.
With cartoons there were a lot of instances where the coyote would just be standing on thin air until something happened to him. Or the he would run on air until he realized that he was floating and then would fall. Since the cartoons are just that, cartoons, they can get away with it. The real world physics don’t have to apply to them. If the physics did have to be applied many scenes in popular cartoons would have to be altered. Finally the animators use the physics the way they think it would be used in that situation for the cartoon.
-Ethan Saunders
Personal Analysis
Jordan Mangold
In my analysis of my cartoon of the "Road Runner Beep Beep" I discovered that the laws of physics were provided. In my clip of "Road Runner Beep Beep" the road runner and coyote constant velocity was a good demonstration; while horizontal and vertical were present they were not as accurate as the constant velocity.
When looking at the class data as a whole I realize that skill was not there as much as I had thought. Comparing the vertical velocity I notice that there were 3 poor, 4 that were o.k., and 0 were great. When deciding if physicist had a grasp I decide they don't, all 7 of the demonstrations were average to low and there was not one great one. When looking at the constant velocity I realize that it is more even between the levels of good, average and poor. There are 2 graphs that show an excellent demonstration of constant velocity as they are almost perfect lines. Going down the scale to average there are also 2, the graphs that the students provided have little curves and are not the straightest out of them, there are 3 poor graphs that do not look constant at all. These "poor" graphs show lines going different ways and not in a straight line for more then a couple frames on the clip.
I do not think animators were as in depth with the laws of physics when they were working on cartoons. I do not think they knew to think of it as animation was just getting started on the television. When I look at today’s cartoons such as “The Simpsons” and “King of the Hill” I see more of a demonstration of constant velocity, horizontal and vertical velocity. When I watched a Simpsons clip, in the into alone, I saw a constant velocity just as the clouds are moving out of the picture. While Bart is riding his skate board around he is showing horizontal velocity as people are jumping out of his way so they do not get run over and hurt.
If I wanted to pursue a job in video animation or videography I would like to have a good grasp on physics. Todays shows and movies are so action packed and the demand to make the best is always on the line. With so many movies and shows coming out there is a demand for people to know what they are doing with animation. If I was the one giving out the job to people, I would pick the smarter person in hope that they would be able to make the better show. Physics is a part of a lot of shows out there today that the average person doesn’t even realize but take it for granted.
In the clip I watched there were a couple times I noticed that the laws of physics were suspended. Such as things happening and then slowing down to show effect. For example, the coyote falls down a cliff and right at the last minute it slows when he finally realizes that he is going to fall into the ground making a crater and a big cloud of dust. The animators can easily get away with doing this because the kids watching it don’t realize what’s going on and are watching it for the excitement and entertainment.
Each of our 3 graphs showing constant velocity, vertical acceleration and horizontal acceleration did pretty good at following their theoretical curves. Our horizontal one was the best, it barely deviated from the ideal line. Our constant velocity was the second best because it got away from the perfect curve a few times but not too much. Our vertical was the worst but it was still not bad, it still followed the general direction of the ideal curve.
In out class, the horizontal acceleration graphs: 1 was good, 4 were ok and 1 was bad, so overall they did ok. In the constant velocity graphs: 1 was good, 4 were ok and 1 was bad, so overall it was ok and did the same as the horizontal acceleration. In the vertical acceleration: 3 graphs were ok and 3 were bad, so overall it was the worst of the 3 graphs.
I think the 1950’s animators were better. Since all of our graphs came out pretty good, that means the animators had a good understanding for physics. The animators of today have computers which means they don’t have to have such a good understanding of physics. Animators of today can also use the computers to “cheat” in order to make the animation look ok but not necessarily right.
Knowledge of physics would help an animator because they need a food understanding of horizontal acceleration, vertical acceleration and constant velocity. When an animator does these correctly, the cartoons look better and more life-like.
Yes, there are a lot of ways the cartoons violate the laws of physics. An example would be, a character running off a cliff and just hovering on thin air for a few seconds. Of course, this is not physically possible but it makes the cartoon funnier and more entertaining.
Gretchen Fisher
Reflection
In this Benchmark, we observed and analyzed cartoons. We were looking for Constant Velocity, Horizontal Acceleration, and Vertical Acceleration. From the data we recorded, our Constant Velocity graph resulted in a straight line. Out of the 6 data sets from our class, 5 of them were not accurate; Constant Velocity wasn’t accurately demonstrated. This leads me to conclude that animators from the 1950’s didn’t understand the how to animate Constant Velocity. For the Horizontal Acceleration graph we were looking for a downward line. Our Horizontal graphs results did not resemble perfectly what it should. However, our graph was more accurate compared to the 5 others in the class. This leads me to conclude that animators didn’t understand how to accurately animate Horizontal Acceleration. Our Vertical Acceleration graph needed to form a curve. While observing and recording data, it appeared on the screen to be accurate motion. However, when we plotted the points on the graph, the curve was messed up. Out of the 6 graphs in the class, none of the graphs showed accurate Vertical Acceleration. From this I think animators in the 1950’s didn’t understand vertical acceleration. Overall, the animators from the 1950’s didn’t know how to accurately animate cartoons.
From watching cartoons from the 1960’s and 1970’s, I think the animation was not much different compared to the animators from the 1950’s. As the time progressed in animation, there wasn’t a definite improvement in their cartoons. In the 21st century animation, I think animators have become lazy. They have advanced technology and it makes animation not as difficult. But as technology has developed, the demand for different cartoons is a weekly deal. By using Flash, animators can tell a computer what to do. The computer makes animating go a lot faster. However, Flash animation isn’t accurate when examining Vertical Acceleration. The Horizontal Acceleration is smoother because the computer can slide a same sized object across the screen making it easier than changing its size. But if animators wanted to have seamless and not choppy pictures, they could apply physics. For Vertical Acceleration, they could separate the slides into smaller time increments. Although in doing so, it would take longer. I believe the animation would be smother. The technology we have today helps animators produce cartoons faster. However, the Vertical Acceleration hasn’t improved as technology was developed.
If I wanted to pursue a career in animation, I would try to understand as much as I could about physics. Physics would help me animate cartoons more accurately. Because I could use Constant Velocity, Horizontal Acceleration, and Vertical Acceleration to animate a cartoon. If I was accurate in the animation, the picture would be seamless.
In the Road Runner, the laws of physics were not always applied. For instance when the Road Runner runs off a cliff, he doesn’t start falling after he steps off. He starts falling when he realizes he’s over the edge and can’t do anything about it. The animators added bit s and pieces like that for comedic relief. His realization and hysteria makes the audience laugh
Reflection:
Megan Thomas--
After reviewing our graphs, our data showed that the animation was fairly close, yet still wasn't perfectly represented through the cartoon. For example, in the constant Velocity graph the motion of the object went in an upward direction to the right, however was above and below the line sevral times. In the Horizontal Acceleration graph, it started off unconsistant, but ended very close to where it should be. And in the Vertical Acceleration graph, a similar event occured. I would say our original hypothesis in the previous posts was usually correct, however not all the time.
After looking at the entire classes results, I noticed that the constant velocity graph varied in three main ways. Some went diagonally up, others diagonally down, and another straight across. Only one came out even with the expected outcome. In the horizontal acceleration graph, some went diagonally up or down and another curved up.And in the Vertical Acceleration graph, some went diagonally up and some curved up of down to the right.
I think the animation of the more recent times have greatly improved compared to the days of the 50's. Technology has gotten much better, makeing this easier to do.
Learning this would be important if you were going into this field. Knowing the rules and such would make the animation more interesting and real to watch.
Yes there were instances where they did this. However, since cartoons usually move so quickly most people do not think about it or react to it because they do not even notice it.
Reflections
-Kayla Gibbs-
After viewing our graphs we saw that two of our graphs were fairly close, but one was completely off. Our vertical acceleration was suppose to show a curve but was slightly off at times, it was our second best graph. The constant graph was suppose to be a straight diagonal line and was our most accurate graph which was only off by a bit. However, our horizontal graph was suppose to be a diagonal as well but was our worst graph, it was above the line and then bent and curved back around to the way it started.
In looking at our class, the horizontal acceleration graphs: 1 was ok and 2 were not good, so overall they did ok but certainly not the best. In the constant velocity graphs: 1 was good, 1 was ok and 1 was bad, so overall it was ok and did alot better then the horizontal acceleration and vertical. In the vertical acceleration: all 3 that were shown were either way above the line, bent and not straight, or just completely off, so overall it was the worst of the 3 graphs.
I think the animators in the 1950's were better. All of our graphs came out pretty good, which means the animators had a good understanding for physics. The animators of today have computer and dont really have to know as much about physics because the computers do it all now adays. In the 1950's it actually looked like the accelerations were taking place because the object was getting closer to the edge of the computer, in todays cartoons the cartoons are staying in one spot but the background is just move, which shows that todays animators dont really know as much about physics as they did back then.
A Knowledge of physics would help an animator because they need to know exactly how to show horizontal acceleration, vertical acceleration and constant velocity. It makes things look more real and you could put things together more easily. Knowing how to use physics in animation makes it alot better to watch because it actually looks like the cartoons are life like.
In cartoons there are many instances when the laws of physics are suspended. In our video the road runner "beep beep", the coyote is running and then goes off a cliff and is hanging there in mid air, but then falls after a couple of seconds. They add it to make it funny for the people watching but its also a bad example of physics.
Post a Comment