Don't judge me for the title, I've had that song stuck in my head all day.
There's only one week of classes left so now it's time to look back on my semester in Digital Media and discuss its different aspects.
What Worked Well?
I really enjoyed all the creative energy that was put into Lori's lectures. You could tell she was interested in the material and didn't want to present it in a monotone boring way. Having all the tutorials for the labs online was handy in case we were expanding on a previous week's lesson and forget a step or two. It also came in handy when I was working on my flash since I was able to work ahead and learn stuff before we did it in class. It was neat in the labs when Jeff would go beyond the tutorial and show us how to do some other cool things with the programs that we might not have learned otherwise. It added more to the experience.
What Needs To Be Changed Or Improved?
For me, it's more the structure of the classes that needs to be changed. To me it always seemed like we were stretching it to make it to the full two hours in the labs, and the class was organized in a way to fill time rather than to get the most work done. Since the class is arranged in a way that when you're sitting at computers you can see the projector screen, I would have rather worked along in the tutorials at the same time as Jeff was doing them on the screen. It always seemed like the demonstrations went on way too long and had most of us shifting in our seats. Giving us more time in class to actually work on them could have provided us with more time to do our assignments if we completed the tutorials in good time.
Also in terms of communication between the lectures and the labs, I think each teacher emphasizes things differently. Which wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't more than one teacher for the class. I think the Web Test took so many of us by surprise because all the Web 2.0 information was getting emphasized in lecture and the different lab teachers were emphasizing different things about (X)HTML, CSS and Dreamweaver. Also I heard from more than one lab teacher that they didn't see the test until after we'd all taken it, so maybe having the lab teachers see what's going to be on the test say a week ahead of time so they could give a sort of sum up to the students about what they should be studying.
How Has The Course Changed Me?
This course has opened my eyes to a lot of different concepts and technologies that I might not have thought about or had the patience to try on my own. I always thought using programs like Fireworks (Photoshop) and Flash would be insanely difficult for someone like me (not so visual artistically inclined) but having the basic beginner tutorials really helped me branch out and try new things with these programs. I was really excited to get to do a Flash animation because I never thought I'd be able to do that, and I got to do kinetic typography, which I've always wanted to do.
I've been told I have a "Designer's Eye" but now it's even more honed than before. I can spot things and say "Hey - there's a CRAP theory at work!" and be able to explain why something visual works or doesn't in my mind. It's also given me a greater appreciation for the work my boyfriend does as a Graphic Designer, knowing what kind of things you have to think about to do that. I don't envy him but I am impressed by his skill and abilities since I know how much work he has to do.
What's The Most Important Thing I'm Taking Away From This Course?
I would have to say awareness. Awareness of design, motion graphics, animation, the web, everything. Now when I look at things I'm analysizing just what kind of font they might have used, why they picked that colour scheme, how they might have designed it, what their concept was. It really adds to your experience of life to be able to break things down and think about how they were made or how they work. The fact that it satisfied even a tiny bit of my insatiable curiosity has left me feeling pretty good about this course.
Thanks Jeff and Lori for all your enthusiasm and passion, I'm really glad I had you as my profs.
It's been a good semester.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Week Eleven: Internet Heaven? Or Hell?
There's no assigned topic for this week so I'm gonna write to you about what types of things I like and dislike about any given webpage. Figured since we've been talking about the web in class and what features make it *THE* web, I'd talk about what works for personally and what doesn't. (ETA: So I actually ended up ranting quite a bit, but I do sort of briefly mention things I like!)
Like: Social networking profiles.
Dislike: Aspects of or applications added to user-profiles for no apparent purpose.
Hey I'm a slave to social networking just as much as the next person who grew up in the 90s, but that doesn't mean I want to see all these fake internet gifts somebody gave you or have my retinas burned out upon visiting your flashy neon profile of DOOM. If a site is going to give people the option to modify the layout/colours/design etc, why is it always the most design-deficient people who decide to utilize this opportunity far beyond the grasp of human decency? I like being able to go on a social networking site, find someone I haven't talked to in a while and see what they're doing now, what school they're at, where they're working, who they're dating, maybe connect with other friends through that. Do I really need to know your favourite colour is hot pink and you looooove unicorns by plastering them all over your site? No. I didn't.
Like: Comments.
Dislike: That most sites do not have a filtering system on them.
One of the main reason I visit some sites is to read the comments in reply to a post and hear what different people have to say about any given topic. My one problem is people who spam, troll or just post inane pointless replies like "I agree" or "thats dumb". I don't want to advocate censorship, but what's the harm in having a moderator screen comments on a post that might generate more pointless or rude replies? There are tons of people on the internet at any given time so I know there can't be a shortage of moderators out there. Besides, how many people would love to watch a youtube video and actually discuss the content of it in the comment? Because I know that you'd be hard-pressed to find anything on-topic in a youtube comment these days.
Like: Being able to do things online that I would normally have to actually leave the house or call someone for (ex. banking, pay my phone bill, submit an assignment).
Dislike: When sites try this avenue and it JUST. DOESN'T. WORK.
I'm looking at you Rogers! Every time I visit this site to pay my bill or change my five unlimited numbers it's like playing the slots to see if I can even get to the right page! They advertise the site as more convenient for customers but I'd almost rather sit through the banality that is the Rogers Customer Service phone line than put up with this nonsense. This is in conjunction with sites not being accesible on every browser, or at LEAST the more popular ones. For the most part I think the entire world knows that Internet Explorer is on it's way out, or just that less and less people appreciate being asked permission before you can even load a site. (Can you imagine?) But time and time again I'll find myself on a site that isn't Firefox compatible or my friends with Macs won't be able to submit an assignment because they're using Safari. Even I, a lowly undergraduate student know that these three browsers are the most commonly used. So what is it? Does Bill Gates have a stranglehold on the web as we know it? Why is IE god on the net? I don't mind Windows as an operating system, but for the internet... just admit defeat!
Like: Sites that will give you something for free that you would normally have to pay for. (I'm a pirate, I know)
Dislike: WHEN THIS IS A LIE!
I cannot tell you how many times I've clicked on something while researching on Google Scholar , excited that I'm going to get a really good article to cite for my assignment only to find... an abstract and a link saying "To see the rest of this article, pay $xx.xx"... wut? Some sites will blatantly advertise "free soandso software!" then when you get to the site you are met with the fateful words "Please enter your credit card information". I know you want to draw in people, but is there not some kind of internet law of decency (since I know it's against the law to actually give it to us for free) that states you shouldn't advertise stuff for free if it's not? If I want to download WinZip and you say it's free, why do you then go and say AFTER I downloaded it that it's only a 30-day free TRIAL? Is there some fine-print clause I'm not aware of? I cannot tell you how many times I've been disappointed by this. I'm a poor student, I like free stuff! Give me free stuff!
Like: When sites will offer you a preview, recap, special feature or full feature of their product (think TV network sites like NBC offering full episodes online).
Dislike: That the fact that I don't live in the states means I'm not allowed to have access to any of this.
I like webisodes from my favourite TV shows like The Office, they add a little extra something to my experience of the show. It's too bad when I miss an episode I can't catch up because I don't live in the states and my IP address is giving NBC.com a hate-on for me. Then the webisodes aren't so fun anymore because I have no frame of reference cause I missed an episode. It's not like these are heavil guarded government secrets guys, it's just a TV show! If you can broadcast it in Canada, why can't you offer me the same privileges of watching it online? I really don't understand what difference it makes. I'm sure there's some kind of magical law behind this one, but it truly baffles me to be honest.
Like: Tags.
Dislike: People abusing them.
A tag is a very useful tool, it's like when you're researching, putting a little sticky-note on each page related to your thesis (I've been writing a lot of essays, sue me!) only it's on the internet and it's for wasting time purposes rather than actual work. Problem is, some people don't know what to put in their tags, or don't really grasp the purpose of them. Say if I was tagging entries in this blog and I put "school" as one. Well that would be pretty pointless right? Because every entry is related to school in some way. So that wouldn't help the filtering process for my readers anyway. It's like highlighting all the text in a book - the point, you missed it. Again, gotta go back to YouTube being one of the worst offenders. Some people will put "cool" or "awesome" as tags. Why? I'm almost positive we will not entirely agree on what we think is cool or awesome, and therefore no one will search through tags based on those perameters. I could put up a video of my boyfriend clipping his toenails and write "COOL" as a tag because hey, that nail clipper is effing huge, but would anybody really think that's cool? No. They wouldn't. It's gross.
I think that's a good little ramble for a no-topic week, don't you? Out of curiosity, what would you tag this entry with?
Like: Social networking profiles.
Dislike: Aspects of or applications added to user-profiles for no apparent purpose.
Hey I'm a slave to social networking just as much as the next person who grew up in the 90s, but that doesn't mean I want to see all these fake internet gifts somebody gave you or have my retinas burned out upon visiting your flashy neon profile of DOOM. If a site is going to give people the option to modify the layout/colours/design etc, why is it always the most design-deficient people who decide to utilize this opportunity far beyond the grasp of human decency? I like being able to go on a social networking site, find someone I haven't talked to in a while and see what they're doing now, what school they're at, where they're working, who they're dating, maybe connect with other friends through that. Do I really need to know your favourite colour is hot pink and you looooove unicorns by plastering them all over your site? No. I didn't.
Like: Comments.
Dislike: That most sites do not have a filtering system on them.
One of the main reason I visit some sites is to read the comments in reply to a post and hear what different people have to say about any given topic. My one problem is people who spam, troll or just post inane pointless replies like "I agree" or "thats dumb". I don't want to advocate censorship, but what's the harm in having a moderator screen comments on a post that might generate more pointless or rude replies? There are tons of people on the internet at any given time so I know there can't be a shortage of moderators out there. Besides, how many people would love to watch a youtube video and actually discuss the content of it in the comment? Because I know that you'd be hard-pressed to find anything on-topic in a youtube comment these days.
Like: Being able to do things online that I would normally have to actually leave the house or call someone for (ex. banking, pay my phone bill, submit an assignment).
Dislike: When sites try this avenue and it JUST. DOESN'T. WORK.
I'm looking at you Rogers! Every time I visit this site to pay my bill or change my five unlimited numbers it's like playing the slots to see if I can even get to the right page! They advertise the site as more convenient for customers but I'd almost rather sit through the banality that is the Rogers Customer Service phone line than put up with this nonsense. This is in conjunction with sites not being accesible on every browser, or at LEAST the more popular ones. For the most part I think the entire world knows that Internet Explorer is on it's way out, or just that less and less people appreciate being asked permission before you can even load a site. (Can you imagine?) But time and time again I'll find myself on a site that isn't Firefox compatible or my friends with Macs won't be able to submit an assignment because they're using Safari. Even I, a lowly undergraduate student know that these three browsers are the most commonly used. So what is it? Does Bill Gates have a stranglehold on the web as we know it? Why is IE god on the net? I don't mind Windows as an operating system, but for the internet... just admit defeat!
Like: Sites that will give you something for free that you would normally have to pay for. (I'm a pirate, I know)
Dislike: WHEN THIS IS A LIE!
I cannot tell you how many times I've clicked on something while researching on Google Scholar , excited that I'm going to get a really good article to cite for my assignment only to find... an abstract and a link saying "To see the rest of this article, pay $xx.xx"... wut? Some sites will blatantly advertise "free soandso software!" then when you get to the site you are met with the fateful words "Please enter your credit card information". I know you want to draw in people, but is there not some kind of internet law of decency (since I know it's against the law to actually give it to us for free) that states you shouldn't advertise stuff for free if it's not? If I want to download WinZip and you say it's free, why do you then go and say AFTER I downloaded it that it's only a 30-day free TRIAL? Is there some fine-print clause I'm not aware of? I cannot tell you how many times I've been disappointed by this. I'm a poor student, I like free stuff! Give me free stuff!
Like: When sites will offer you a preview, recap, special feature or full feature of their product (think TV network sites like NBC offering full episodes online).
Dislike: That the fact that I don't live in the states means I'm not allowed to have access to any of this.
I like webisodes from my favourite TV shows like The Office, they add a little extra something to my experience of the show. It's too bad when I miss an episode I can't catch up because I don't live in the states and my IP address is giving NBC.com a hate-on for me. Then the webisodes aren't so fun anymore because I have no frame of reference cause I missed an episode. It's not like these are heavil guarded government secrets guys, it's just a TV show! If you can broadcast it in Canada, why can't you offer me the same privileges of watching it online? I really don't understand what difference it makes. I'm sure there's some kind of magical law behind this one, but it truly baffles me to be honest.
Like: Tags.
Dislike: People abusing them.
A tag is a very useful tool, it's like when you're researching, putting a little sticky-note on each page related to your thesis (I've been writing a lot of essays, sue me!) only it's on the internet and it's for wasting time purposes rather than actual work. Problem is, some people don't know what to put in their tags, or don't really grasp the purpose of them. Say if I was tagging entries in this blog and I put "school" as one. Well that would be pretty pointless right? Because every entry is related to school in some way. So that wouldn't help the filtering process for my readers anyway. It's like highlighting all the text in a book - the point, you missed it. Again, gotta go back to YouTube being one of the worst offenders. Some people will put "cool" or "awesome" as tags. Why? I'm almost positive we will not entirely agree on what we think is cool or awesome, and therefore no one will search through tags based on those perameters. I could put up a video of my boyfriend clipping his toenails and write "COOL" as a tag because hey, that nail clipper is effing huge, but would anybody really think that's cool? No. They wouldn't. It's gross.
I think that's a good little ramble for a no-topic week, don't you? Out of curiosity, what would you tag this entry with?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Week Ten: I Put The "Oh!" in Web 2.0
Lately in DM, we've been learning the nitty-gritty about how the interwebs works. The internet we're used to using, with more fancy stuff like social networking and applications is called Web 2.0. For my blog post this week I'm supposed to discuss featured of Web 2.0 and linkify you to examples of these features in action! I've compiled a little list of sites that don't necessarily reflect my taste in sites (unless I say otherwise) but do reflect the concepts well.
Web 2.0
Feature Numero Uno: Dynamic content viewable on multiple platforms. One type of website that demonstrates this is called a mashup, where features from different websites are combined into one to utilize both features for a particular goal. I actually went to a mashup database website to find an example and came across Early Miser. This site combines the databases of amazon, ebay, yahoo shopping and amazon marketplace to provide the user with price comparisons over a variety of websites as well as the feature of "price triggering" (setting a budget for a particular item so that they are notified when it becomes available for that price). This is the perfect example of a mashup because it is utilizing the services of many different shopping websites and combining them into one for more efficient searching. Rather than having to check the availability of a product on all these different websites individually, they are organized in one place. On top of that, the feature of "price triggering" is unique to Early Miser itself, making it so that a user doesn't have to continually check back for price changes and can instead be notified.
Feature Numero Dos: User contribution, user generated content and user generated value. Since the basis for this feature is that users are creating what is being put on the website and also offered the abilitiy to voice their opinions on what is being put up, there are endless amounts of websites to choose from. One of the more well-known ones is the animation version of YouTube: Newgrounds. The site's motto is "Everything, By Everyone" and is a spot-on advertisement for what the site is all about. Everything on the site is created by normal people who know how to animate, and there is the option to comment on and rate everything. There are many different forums (pardon the pun) for users to provide feedback such as.. well, forums, blogs, and an on-site chatroom. All the content of the site is free since it is created by normal people and some are more talented than others. It's a way for game-designers or animators to get their work out there, have fun, and be provided with feedback on how to improve.
Feature Numero Tres: Social Media. This is a pretty straight-forward definition since I'm sure anyone reading this has at least HEARD of sites like Myspace or Facebook. These sites were made primarily for social networking, but a site doesn't necessarily JUST have to be about finding and making friends to be considered Social Media. I offer I'mInLikeWithYou as an example of just such a site. While the primary focus of the site is on playing silly games, the idea behind it is that you can create a user profile and create games based on yourself that people have to bet on the answers to to win points. There's also little yes/no questions that pop up randomly while surfing the site for you to answer and add to your profile. You can also obtain points from adding pictures to your profile or making friends. So despite the fact that it's very game oriented, the games are about getting to know people and socializing.
Feature Numero Quatros: Online applications traditionally thought of as software bought and installed. For this one I opted to pick something related to RTA, Jam Studio. It's a very simplistic but still creative version of music creating software like Sony Vegas or Sound Forge. The application allows you to choose instruments and pick chords, keys and rhythms to create mini songs. Since it is online it can't be as complicated as a full sound editing program but it does offer basic features that can be entertaining for someone who just wants to play around with sounds and hear what they can create. Because software of this variety that is traditionally bought is SO expensive and SO complicated, offering a free online basic version can satisfy the curiosity of someone who may not necessarily be interested in all the complicated features, but still wants to be able to make music and have fun.
Feature Numero Cinqo: harnessing collective intelligence using a system like tagging. To exemplify this it was no question to talk about one of my favourite sites/applications on the web: StumbleUpon. Because the web is so vast and harder and harder to explore without having to make very specific (and filtered) google searches, having a site like Stumble is a godsend for people like me. All you have to do to explore random sites is sign up and specify sort of general interests, then once you're ready, hit the stumble button and go all across the internet. You are sent to sites that have been given thumbs-up from users who have similar interests to you and you can decide whether to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down after you've looked around. Once you rate the site your interests become more specified, making it easier for the searches to come up with pages you'll like. You can also send pages to friends with Stumble and specify your channels so only certain types of sites will come up when you search (like video, image or news sites). It's a great resource for getting to know the net and for when you're really bored!
You better check out all these websites to see what I mean. Cheers!
Web 2.0
Feature Numero Uno: Dynamic content viewable on multiple platforms. One type of website that demonstrates this is called a mashup, where features from different websites are combined into one to utilize both features for a particular goal. I actually went to a mashup database website to find an example and came across Early Miser. This site combines the databases of amazon, ebay, yahoo shopping and amazon marketplace to provide the user with price comparisons over a variety of websites as well as the feature of "price triggering" (setting a budget for a particular item so that they are notified when it becomes available for that price). This is the perfect example of a mashup because it is utilizing the services of many different shopping websites and combining them into one for more efficient searching. Rather than having to check the availability of a product on all these different websites individually, they are organized in one place. On top of that, the feature of "price triggering" is unique to Early Miser itself, making it so that a user doesn't have to continually check back for price changes and can instead be notified.
Feature Numero Dos: User contribution, user generated content and user generated value. Since the basis for this feature is that users are creating what is being put on the website and also offered the abilitiy to voice their opinions on what is being put up, there are endless amounts of websites to choose from. One of the more well-known ones is the animation version of YouTube: Newgrounds. The site's motto is "Everything, By Everyone" and is a spot-on advertisement for what the site is all about. Everything on the site is created by normal people who know how to animate, and there is the option to comment on and rate everything. There are many different forums (pardon the pun) for users to provide feedback such as.. well, forums, blogs, and an on-site chatroom. All the content of the site is free since it is created by normal people and some are more talented than others. It's a way for game-designers or animators to get their work out there, have fun, and be provided with feedback on how to improve.
Feature Numero Tres: Social Media. This is a pretty straight-forward definition since I'm sure anyone reading this has at least HEARD of sites like Myspace or Facebook. These sites were made primarily for social networking, but a site doesn't necessarily JUST have to be about finding and making friends to be considered Social Media. I offer I'mInLikeWithYou as an example of just such a site. While the primary focus of the site is on playing silly games, the idea behind it is that you can create a user profile and create games based on yourself that people have to bet on the answers to to win points. There's also little yes/no questions that pop up randomly while surfing the site for you to answer and add to your profile. You can also obtain points from adding pictures to your profile or making friends. So despite the fact that it's very game oriented, the games are about getting to know people and socializing.
Feature Numero Quatros: Online applications traditionally thought of as software bought and installed. For this one I opted to pick something related to RTA, Jam Studio. It's a very simplistic but still creative version of music creating software like Sony Vegas or Sound Forge. The application allows you to choose instruments and pick chords, keys and rhythms to create mini songs. Since it is online it can't be as complicated as a full sound editing program but it does offer basic features that can be entertaining for someone who just wants to play around with sounds and hear what they can create. Because software of this variety that is traditionally bought is SO expensive and SO complicated, offering a free online basic version can satisfy the curiosity of someone who may not necessarily be interested in all the complicated features, but still wants to be able to make music and have fun.
Feature Numero Cinqo: harnessing collective intelligence using a system like tagging. To exemplify this it was no question to talk about one of my favourite sites/applications on the web: StumbleUpon. Because the web is so vast and harder and harder to explore without having to make very specific (and filtered) google searches, having a site like Stumble is a godsend for people like me. All you have to do to explore random sites is sign up and specify sort of general interests, then once you're ready, hit the stumble button and go all across the internet. You are sent to sites that have been given thumbs-up from users who have similar interests to you and you can decide whether to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down after you've looked around. Once you rate the site your interests become more specified, making it easier for the searches to come up with pages you'll like. You can also send pages to friends with Stumble and specify your channels so only certain types of sites will come up when you search (like video, image or news sites). It's a great resource for getting to know the net and for when you're really bored!
You better check out all these websites to see what I mean. Cheers!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Week Nine: Animation Station!
Finally! The animation is done! I got my boyfriend to host it on his website so I could have a good quality version of it on the net. Click here to witness its awesomeness. And here's my Artist Statement:
"Ever since I learned what Kinetic Typography was, I wanted to try my hand at creating it. I chose a more simplistic cartoony style of presenting my animation because that style appeals to me and I thought it would be something I might actually be able to do (having no experience in Flash), versus very detailed work. The content came to me when I realized that there are things I both like and dislike about Toronto but still consider it home. My goal was to outline this in a kinetic typography animation so I might remember how I felt only a few months of living here and show other people my perspective.
My target audience is anyone interested in living in Toronto or who already lives here and wants a different perspective of the city. I tried to mention as many different aspects of the city as possible so the animation wouldn’t portray itself as a student perspective. Besides the mention of Ryerson, I think the different factors could apply to anyone. I made the script somewhat humorous so people wouldn’t take my words entirely seriously; reminding them that everyone has different opinions.
I had to really hone my Flash skills with this animation. I had at least made sure to write and record my script ahead of time, plus draw storyboards, so I could get straight to work on the animation. I ended up making a ton of movie clips inside movie clips because I wanted different elements to move and repeat while other things were going on on stage. Motion tweens and action script were used heavily throughout. I used masks as part of some of my movie clips to make words appear/disappear. I had to employ my Fireworks pen skills once more to trace the Toronto city hall logo, a maple leaf and ram horns. I even used a guide to move broken apart letters in a word to make it look like they were blown in the air. All this was done while using my typographic knowledge of fonts and my awareness of design concepts like repetition in certain movie clips, contrast between good and bad elements, alignment of my text and drawn images, and proximity, mostly in how many words I put on the stage at one time.
When I found out some of the things I wanted to put in my assignment weren’t as easy to animate as they were to storyboard, I really had to get to know Flash to accomplish my goals. I anticipated a lot of work, but I was still surprised with how much time I had to put into the assignment to achieve what I wanted. I actually made my button screens last so I had to make a new scene for my opening frames. I also realized to make an existing movie clip a button with different elements; you need to make a duplicate of said movie clip. I had a lot of problems with certain movie clips within movie clips looping which made me realize I had to put action script to make the movie clips stop after one run-through. I debated over having background music and background images, and decided to go with music but not images, because both would be too distracting, but the music would add a new layer of mood to the piece whereas I thought imagery would be too busy or confusing.
It was really application of knowledge from the tutorials and expanding on it that accomplished this project. Without the basic knowledge I never would have known where to start, but without the gall to move forward and experiment I wouldn’t have gotten the result I was looking for. In the end, I’m proud that I managed to turn out a product that is similar to and improves upon my storyboard models. I even ended up with animations where I hadn’t planned them originally! I worked really hard on this animation and I think it paid off."
I scanned in my storyboards so you can see what my initial ideas were. Here they are:
(Click to see them close up)
"Ever since I learned what Kinetic Typography was, I wanted to try my hand at creating it. I chose a more simplistic cartoony style of presenting my animation because that style appeals to me and I thought it would be something I might actually be able to do (having no experience in Flash), versus very detailed work. The content came to me when I realized that there are things I both like and dislike about Toronto but still consider it home. My goal was to outline this in a kinetic typography animation so I might remember how I felt only a few months of living here and show other people my perspective.
My target audience is anyone interested in living in Toronto or who already lives here and wants a different perspective of the city. I tried to mention as many different aspects of the city as possible so the animation wouldn’t portray itself as a student perspective. Besides the mention of Ryerson, I think the different factors could apply to anyone. I made the script somewhat humorous so people wouldn’t take my words entirely seriously; reminding them that everyone has different opinions.
I had to really hone my Flash skills with this animation. I had at least made sure to write and record my script ahead of time, plus draw storyboards, so I could get straight to work on the animation. I ended up making a ton of movie clips inside movie clips because I wanted different elements to move and repeat while other things were going on on stage. Motion tweens and action script were used heavily throughout. I used masks as part of some of my movie clips to make words appear/disappear. I had to employ my Fireworks pen skills once more to trace the Toronto city hall logo, a maple leaf and ram horns. I even used a guide to move broken apart letters in a word to make it look like they were blown in the air. All this was done while using my typographic knowledge of fonts and my awareness of design concepts like repetition in certain movie clips, contrast between good and bad elements, alignment of my text and drawn images, and proximity, mostly in how many words I put on the stage at one time.
When I found out some of the things I wanted to put in my assignment weren’t as easy to animate as they were to storyboard, I really had to get to know Flash to accomplish my goals. I anticipated a lot of work, but I was still surprised with how much time I had to put into the assignment to achieve what I wanted. I actually made my button screens last so I had to make a new scene for my opening frames. I also realized to make an existing movie clip a button with different elements; you need to make a duplicate of said movie clip. I had a lot of problems with certain movie clips within movie clips looping which made me realize I had to put action script to make the movie clips stop after one run-through. I debated over having background music and background images, and decided to go with music but not images, because both would be too distracting, but the music would add a new layer of mood to the piece whereas I thought imagery would be too busy or confusing.
It was really application of knowledge from the tutorials and expanding on it that accomplished this project. Without the basic knowledge I never would have known where to start, but without the gall to move forward and experiment I wouldn’t have gotten the result I was looking for. In the end, I’m proud that I managed to turn out a product that is similar to and improves upon my storyboard models. I even ended up with animations where I hadn’t planned them originally! I worked really hard on this animation and I think it paid off."
I scanned in my storyboards so you can see what my initial ideas were. Here they are:
(Click to see them close up)Monday, October 27, 2008
Week Eight: Please don't stop the music... videos.
We got to choose between one of three topics to discuss this week.
But since I didn't particularly feel like discussing and linking you to scopitone videos (reeeally cheesy early music videos, in case you're curious), and I'm not exactly a big... purchaser of CDs, therefore not knowing a lot of album covers (I know, I'm horrible), I thought this week I'd talk about music videos and why costs and styles have changed over time.
If you look at early music videos like Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody:
The production quality was nothing to write home about. In fact, in the early days, music videos were virtually unheard of, so when they started off of course things were a little rocky. Mostly just band members singing the songs and miming playing their instruments. Boring by today's standards, but probably why they were relatively inexpensive to produce. All you needed were the band members, their instruments and a few fancy light effects to get the early music video audience excited.
Let's look at the first video that played on MTV:
Video Killed the Radio Star. Here we're starting to see a lot more of visual effects (the lighting on the singer, the explosion of the radio), more elaborate costumes and settings, hiring actors other than the artist's themselves to be in the video. I don't know how much this cost to make, but I'm guessing it was the most expensive video ever at that time. Without even the actual production costs, hiring the people responsible for them probably cost more than a pretty penny, that's for sure. It's fitting with MTV's style of fast paced quick-editing energetic motion.
As music videos became more mainstream in the 90s we saw the beginning of music videos with actual plots in them and outrageous production quality. As an example, here's a classic from my pre-teenhood N Sync with Bye Bye Bye (embedding diabled by request on all of them, weird!). Right off the bat we can see how much money was spent on this just by looking at the marionette effect they used on the band. The video then proceeds into flashing through about five different sets with lots of different things going on like choreographed dance sequences, dangerous stunts, weird lighting effects, and driving fast cars. All while telling a story of a guy escaping a girl who plays games with him. Videos still continue in this strain of flashy expensive looking story-telling but with the advent of YouTube, home-made looking videos are getting more popular.
We go to OKGo as an example of one of the first big hits using this style of video with Here it Goes Again (they did one before this, but I like this song better):
While their dance sequence is choreographed, it was apparently done by one of the band member's sisters and they filmed it themselves. This cut all costs down to zero, still with an original (if not tongue-and-cheek) approach to music video production. Up and coming bands have a hard time footing the bill for outrageous costs of videos like N sync's we just saw, so YouTube is a great way to get themselves out there. This of course, brings up the issue of whether it's more important to have publicity or to make money, which has been a question since people started sharing files on the internet.
It's been largely because of advances in technology and interest in the medium that music videos have progressed the way that they have. Video may not have killed the radio star if things hadn't progressed the way they had.
On that cheesy note, check back in a few days when I post my animation assignment!
But since I didn't particularly feel like discussing and linking you to scopitone videos (reeeally cheesy early music videos, in case you're curious), and I'm not exactly a big... purchaser of CDs, therefore not knowing a lot of album covers (I know, I'm horrible), I thought this week I'd talk about music videos and why costs and styles have changed over time.
If you look at early music videos like Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody:
The production quality was nothing to write home about. In fact, in the early days, music videos were virtually unheard of, so when they started off of course things were a little rocky. Mostly just band members singing the songs and miming playing their instruments. Boring by today's standards, but probably why they were relatively inexpensive to produce. All you needed were the band members, their instruments and a few fancy light effects to get the early music video audience excited.
Let's look at the first video that played on MTV:
Video Killed the Radio Star. Here we're starting to see a lot more of visual effects (the lighting on the singer, the explosion of the radio), more elaborate costumes and settings, hiring actors other than the artist's themselves to be in the video. I don't know how much this cost to make, but I'm guessing it was the most expensive video ever at that time. Without even the actual production costs, hiring the people responsible for them probably cost more than a pretty penny, that's for sure. It's fitting with MTV's style of fast paced quick-editing energetic motion.
As music videos became more mainstream in the 90s we saw the beginning of music videos with actual plots in them and outrageous production quality. As an example, here's a classic from my pre-teenhood N Sync with Bye Bye Bye (embedding diabled by request on all of them, weird!). Right off the bat we can see how much money was spent on this just by looking at the marionette effect they used on the band. The video then proceeds into flashing through about five different sets with lots of different things going on like choreographed dance sequences, dangerous stunts, weird lighting effects, and driving fast cars. All while telling a story of a guy escaping a girl who plays games with him. Videos still continue in this strain of flashy expensive looking story-telling but with the advent of YouTube, home-made looking videos are getting more popular.
We go to OKGo as an example of one of the first big hits using this style of video with Here it Goes Again (they did one before this, but I like this song better):
While their dance sequence is choreographed, it was apparently done by one of the band member's sisters and they filmed it themselves. This cut all costs down to zero, still with an original (if not tongue-and-cheek) approach to music video production. Up and coming bands have a hard time footing the bill for outrageous costs of videos like N sync's we just saw, so YouTube is a great way to get themselves out there. This of course, brings up the issue of whether it's more important to have publicity or to make money, which has been a question since people started sharing files on the internet.
It's been largely because of advances in technology and interest in the medium that music videos have progressed the way that they have. Video may not have killed the radio star if things hadn't progressed the way they had.
On that cheesy note, check back in a few days when I post my animation assignment!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Week Seven: Feel the Motion of the Ocean!
Okay, so I stole my title from a Hairspray song, sue me... Please don't actually.. I just didn't know how to go about introducing Motion Graphics, the topic I decided to discuss further this week.
Motion Graphics is a bit tricky to discuss overall so I decided to focus in more on movie/TV show branding and title sequences, which is mostly what we talked about in class.
Movies and TV shows are very brand-oriented. You wouldn't think it to watch them on their own, but if you've anticipated the release of a new season or flick, you've probably taken in more movie brand marketing than you'd think! The idea behind a movie or TV show brand is to make the audience associate an identity with your show/movie through repeating imagery and sound related to it.
Why is branding important to a movie or TV show? Think about it, how many movies have you been to where you haven't had a pre-conceived notion of how it was going to be? I can't even remember, it's been so few. A number of factors affect how you think of a movie/TV show: who's acting in it, who's directing it, who wrote it, what genre it is (or is marketed as, because they're not always the same!) and what other people say about it. And this is before you've even seen it! A filmmaker can choose to market their film by showing you exactly what it's about to try to appeal to a specific target audience, or they can tease you (hence coining the term 'teaser' for initial movie trailers) into going to the movie/watching the show to find out more.
Title sequences are the the last influential factor on your perception of a movie/TV show before the show itself. It's usually the time the filmmaker either sets the record straight or leaves you wondering and wanting more. In the case of a series of films, it's the time when the filmmaker is trying to reiterate and emphasize the brand so you continue to associate with it. Just look at opening sequences from movie series like James Bond:
or any Guy Ritchie:
film where the design elements and music style (sometimes tune) are repeated to the point of being almost identical per movie, so that there's no possible way you *couldn't* associate them (do you think all the different Bonds had to practice that walk?). You'll know in the first minute of the movie if it's a James Bond or Guy Ritchie film if you'd ever seen one before. The repetitive elements (Hey! A CRAP theory!) are a big part of sustaining brand identity in series.
This works the same way in TV series, even moreso because you'll be seeing the same title sequence every week, waiting for your show to start. This has posed a particular problem for the people who make these shows, because they either have to come up with something entertaining and memorable, change it enough (but not too much!) to keep it entertaining each week or simply choose not to do it at all. Because attention spans are getting shorter these days, more and more shows are opting out of the title sequence so they can get straight to the action (Heroes for example). It almost seems like we're reverting back to the days before Saul Bass (one of the first title sequence creators, see: Psycho) to a time where we don't need title sequences.
Personally, I loved rocking out to the Third Watch credits
back when this show was on, and I'm sad to see so many titles going extinct. That's not to say that the "straight-to-the-action" openers are bad See: Dark Knight,
I know it's bad quality, but you should have seen it by now anyway), just different. Some TV shows like ER switched from having full-fledged credits
to Heroes-esque openings; making me feel like I lost something in the process. You don't realize how much the credits of a show affect your enjoyment of it until you have to go without.
What exactly do title credits do for a show/movie, besides reinforce a brand identity? They can set the tone of the flick, like this Dawn of the Dead one does. I love this title sequence because it takes a lot of existing stock footage mixed with fabricated footage adding a touch of typographic elements and putting it all to a Johnny Cash tune to create an eerie feel for the film. Horror/thriller movies usually have great title sequences to produce this exact effect; they want to give you a certain feeling (usually creepy-crawly) before the movie's even started. Title sequences can also provide a backstory or foreshadowing. In the case of Se7en it does both!
I don't want to give too much away, but the imagery you're seeing is of a person you don't meet until the last quarter of the film, and the backstory to some of his character. On that note, another thing title sequences can do is introduce you to the characters. In Guy Ritchie's films, this is essential since he always has at least 10 major characters you need to try to remember throughout the movie. They can also just confuse the hell out of you like Fight Club.
I've given you a lot to chew over in this blog post, so let me summarize. Branding in movies/TV shows is important to develop an audience relationship with a film. It can be achieved in many ways, but a large part is in opening title sequences. Title sequences can be repetative in terms of movie series and TV shows, or they can not exist at all, to better serve the attention deficit audience. Title sequences do more than just provide a brand for a type of film/show, they can also set the tone, provide backstory or foreshadowing, introduce characters, or just be mind-bendingly confusing.
I bet you won't be able to watch a movie/show without noticing its title sequences (or lack thereof) now!
Till next time!
Motion Graphics is a bit tricky to discuss overall so I decided to focus in more on movie/TV show branding and title sequences, which is mostly what we talked about in class.
Movies and TV shows are very brand-oriented. You wouldn't think it to watch them on their own, but if you've anticipated the release of a new season or flick, you've probably taken in more movie brand marketing than you'd think! The idea behind a movie or TV show brand is to make the audience associate an identity with your show/movie through repeating imagery and sound related to it.
Why is branding important to a movie or TV show? Think about it, how many movies have you been to where you haven't had a pre-conceived notion of how it was going to be? I can't even remember, it's been so few. A number of factors affect how you think of a movie/TV show: who's acting in it, who's directing it, who wrote it, what genre it is (or is marketed as, because they're not always the same!) and what other people say about it. And this is before you've even seen it! A filmmaker can choose to market their film by showing you exactly what it's about to try to appeal to a specific target audience, or they can tease you (hence coining the term 'teaser' for initial movie trailers) into going to the movie/watching the show to find out more.
Title sequences are the the last influential factor on your perception of a movie/TV show before the show itself. It's usually the time the filmmaker either sets the record straight or leaves you wondering and wanting more. In the case of a series of films, it's the time when the filmmaker is trying to reiterate and emphasize the brand so you continue to associate with it. Just look at opening sequences from movie series like James Bond:
or any Guy Ritchie:
film where the design elements and music style (sometimes tune) are repeated to the point of being almost identical per movie, so that there's no possible way you *couldn't* associate them (do you think all the different Bonds had to practice that walk?). You'll know in the first minute of the movie if it's a James Bond or Guy Ritchie film if you'd ever seen one before. The repetitive elements (Hey! A CRAP theory!) are a big part of sustaining brand identity in series.
This works the same way in TV series, even moreso because you'll be seeing the same title sequence every week, waiting for your show to start. This has posed a particular problem for the people who make these shows, because they either have to come up with something entertaining and memorable, change it enough (but not too much!) to keep it entertaining each week or simply choose not to do it at all. Because attention spans are getting shorter these days, more and more shows are opting out of the title sequence so they can get straight to the action (Heroes for example). It almost seems like we're reverting back to the days before Saul Bass (one of the first title sequence creators, see: Psycho) to a time where we don't need title sequences.
Personally, I loved rocking out to the Third Watch credits
back when this show was on, and I'm sad to see so many titles going extinct. That's not to say that the "straight-to-the-action" openers are bad See: Dark Knight,
I know it's bad quality, but you should have seen it by now anyway), just different. Some TV shows like ER switched from having full-fledged credits
to Heroes-esque openings; making me feel like I lost something in the process. You don't realize how much the credits of a show affect your enjoyment of it until you have to go without.
What exactly do title credits do for a show/movie, besides reinforce a brand identity? They can set the tone of the flick, like this Dawn of the Dead one does. I love this title sequence because it takes a lot of existing stock footage mixed with fabricated footage adding a touch of typographic elements and putting it all to a Johnny Cash tune to create an eerie feel for the film. Horror/thriller movies usually have great title sequences to produce this exact effect; they want to give you a certain feeling (usually creepy-crawly) before the movie's even started. Title sequences can also provide a backstory or foreshadowing. In the case of Se7en it does both!
I don't want to give too much away, but the imagery you're seeing is of a person you don't meet until the last quarter of the film, and the backstory to some of his character. On that note, another thing title sequences can do is introduce you to the characters. In Guy Ritchie's films, this is essential since he always has at least 10 major characters you need to try to remember throughout the movie. They can also just confuse the hell out of you like Fight Club.
I've given you a lot to chew over in this blog post, so let me summarize. Branding in movies/TV shows is important to develop an audience relationship with a film. It can be achieved in many ways, but a large part is in opening title sequences. Title sequences can be repetative in terms of movie series and TV shows, or they can not exist at all, to better serve the attention deficit audience. Title sequences do more than just provide a brand for a type of film/show, they can also set the tone, provide backstory or foreshadowing, introduce characters, or just be mind-bendingly confusing.
I bet you won't be able to watch a movie/show without noticing its title sequences (or lack thereof) now!
Till next time!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Week Six: To Put It In My Own Words...
My next assignment in this class is an animation/interactivity project using Adobe Flash (you know, the one that makes all the fun cartoons and games you play on the internet). I ended up changing my idea a lot, but the basic style remained the same.
I'm planning to do Kinetic Typography. Remember the Superbad animation from Week Four? That's the type of thing I'm going to do. I have some more examples if you want to check out what I mean: (Disclaimer: some contain profane language)
I'm planning to do Kinetic Typography. Remember the Superbad animation from Week Four? That's the type of thing I'm going to do. I have some more examples if you want to check out what I mean: (Disclaimer: some contain profane language)
A lot of those are probably done by full-time animation students who are super pro at Flash, so don't expect the same level of skill out of me in a few weeks. I'll do my best though.
There was an example of kinetic typography shown in class when we talked about the animation assignment. This kind of bothered me because I wanted to do kinetic typography before I was even in RTA. My inspiration was my boyfriend's kinetic typography he did to a song by Slipknot (you can find it here). He showed me everything I know about typography until this class so I owe a lot of influential credit to him.
I've done lots of research on it, mainly through YouTube videos and watching my boyfriend make them. He uses After Effects mostly, but he says it's relatively straight forward (once you have the know-how) to do it in Flash. I'm going to have to master the shape and motion tweens to make it as effective as I want. There's no question that I'm going to be asking a lot of questions to make sure I do everything properly.
Since the content has to be my own, I decided to write a monologue about moving to Toronto and my impressions of the city. I wrote out a script and drew some storyboards of my keyframes over the long weekend, and while I think it'll take a lot of work, I have faith that I can get this done.
Check back in a few weeks to see how I did!
There was an example of kinetic typography shown in class when we talked about the animation assignment. This kind of bothered me because I wanted to do kinetic typography before I was even in RTA. My inspiration was my boyfriend's kinetic typography he did to a song by Slipknot (you can find it here). He showed me everything I know about typography until this class so I owe a lot of influential credit to him.
I've done lots of research on it, mainly through YouTube videos and watching my boyfriend make them. He uses After Effects mostly, but he says it's relatively straight forward (once you have the know-how) to do it in Flash. I'm going to have to master the shape and motion tweens to make it as effective as I want. There's no question that I'm going to be asking a lot of questions to make sure I do everything properly.
Since the content has to be my own, I decided to write a monologue about moving to Toronto and my impressions of the city. I wrote out a script and drew some storyboards of my keyframes over the long weekend, and while I think it'll take a lot of work, I have faith that I can get this done.
Check back in a few weeks to see how I did!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)