Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
like it would be the really good CGI stuff, not the cartton stufff that kinda blends in like the CGI transformers?
I'd love to understand your viewpoint better, so here are a few questions on the subject.
1) Given that the work we do is an illusion (animation, even video itself and storytelling), what exactly is it that you dislike about another illusion technique (CGI)? That it is not "real?" Neither is the movement on the screen, the story, the characters, the action, the sound, or the violence in any brickfilm. Do you have a more convincing reason?
2) If I could create CGI that was completely indistinguishable from real footage, would you condemn that as well? What if I did not tell you that it was CG, and you never noticed? What is the difference to you, the person experiencing the illusion?
I think brickfilms.com was a Lego stop-motion community yet it also, sort of, encouraged the other forms of movement. I do not mind the crude digibricks. SR 3D Builder
I think CGI owns
You and me both, chief.
I like CGI films, don't get me wrong, but your films are about 90% CGI though. You need to even it out.
Since when were there rules about the percentage of CGI that a film can have? If I think that the best way to tell a story is without any CGI, I won't use any. If I think that a full-CG film is the best way to go, I'll go that route.
I'm fine with the cartoons. I just feel CG doesn't fit with the medium of Lego.
If the CG was indistinguishable from real Lego I don't think I would mind, but I'm not totally sure on that.
If the CGI was indistinguishable from real LEGO, you wouldn't know that it was CGI, much less care. There are tons of Hollywood digital effects that you never notice because they are done so well. I'd venture to guess that there are some digital effects in brickfilms that you don't notice either. Do they bug you? Nope.
Say you were buying a camera. One is a nice Canon powershot. The other looks similar, and runs exactly the same. Same firmware and all. You can buy the powershot, for $300, or the off brand for $50. Great deal for pretty much the same item, but you want the real deal. The actual brand.
If someone popped out on the market with a camera as good as the PS for fifty bucks, I'd buy it. You would too. That's because we're kids without a ton of money looking to make the best possible films for the lowest possible cost. If the end result is the same, I'll keep my extra two-hundred-fifty dollars and crank out a good, enjoyable film. In fact, (Continuing the metaphor of CGI and stop-motion), if this new, fifty-dollar camera could do some things that the PS couldn't, I'd probably buy two or three of them.
So far, I'm a little disappointed in your answers. Some feel that CGI doesn't "fit" with a LEGO film. That has some truth to it, but it's not really what I'm looking for, especially in the context of unnoticeable effects. To me, fib12345's answer is the least satisfying - that somehow the "real" product is better than the "fake" one.
- Leo
I think there are definitely some things that work better with genuine stop-mo in a brickfilm. In my current project, there's a scene involving a giant creature. It's going to be tough to animate due to the large scale and at first I considered having it be computer-generated. Instead, though, I built it physically so that I can have closeups and more convincing interaction with the set / characters. My hope is that it's going to feel a lot more visceral and life-like this way.
I'm sorry for errors, I partly use a translator to help me.
I like the cgi, but I think that is more creative, more developing for a brickfilm director to use stop motion because the physical limit and the constraints force artistic creativity, proof is that more share of XX th centuries greatest films were carried out with old methods, these works remainders splendid. I'm badly placed to say it, but sometimes rather than show something, maybe it's more interesting to suggest it "thanks to" story or cutting for example.
But I adore look your splendid CGI sequences, continue if it's what you like 
-----------------------(for those which can better translate, here is my original text)--------------------------
Je suis désolé pour les erreurs, j'utilise en partie un traducteur pour me faciliter la tâche.
J'aime bien le CGI, mais je pense qu'il est plus créatif, voir plus valorisant pour un jeune réalisateur de miser sur la stop motion car la limite physique et les contraintes forcent à la créativité artistique, la preuve en est que la plupart des grands films du XX ème siècles ont été réalisé avec des anciennes méthodes, ces œuvres restes magnifiques.
Je suis mal placé pour le dire, mais parfois plutôt que de montrer quelque chose, il peut-être plus intéressant de le suggérer grâce à l'histoire ou au montage par exemple.
Mais j'adore regarder vos magnifiques séquences en CGI, continuez si c'est ce que vous aimez
Last edited by zwan (July 1, 2009 (02:20pm))
No one's pointing a gun at your head and making you watch it.
You don't like CGI? Fine, to err is to be human 
. You love CGI? Great, have a w00tbeer on me.
The argument here is the definition of a brickfilm/lego movie. Does the animation of a computer generated cube with cylinder studs representing a plastic construction toy brick equal the animation of an actual plastic construction toy brick?
Take away the word "stop-motion" in its definition and the CG animators will feel less of a leper. We're still animating, right? It's just that I can copy and paste a walk cycle, not get carpal tunnel from repetitive motion (I'm already getting that from using the mouse and keyboard), and NO SET BUMPS. We still have to set up the lighting. We still have to work on pacing.
Let me just clarify the concept that CG animation takes less time than stop-motion animation to complete:: You guys may spend an average of 10 seconds per frame repositioning a fig for a 1 minute clip and CG animators may spend only a few minutes setting keyframes for a 1 minute clip, but we spend from 1 second to 10 minutes for a single frame to render, depending on the complexity of the scene and the computing power of a single processor, dual core, or quad core. Of course, if the people weren't so demanding for realistic renderings, it wouldn't have to take 10 minutes (1:21-1:29, rendered at HD resolution, took days including re-rendering). So really, there isn't much time difference.
I animate in 3D because I don't have the space to do stop-motion animation, not anymore, especially not for vast wide shots. You go the space? Good for you, I'm envious. You don't? Welcome to the club.
I like computer animation and am actually planning a future project that would be entirely computer animation. However, I can't say I'm partial to 3D "brickfilming," to me I guess the question becomes, why build all the environments and characters as LEGO, when you have freedom to make them whatever you want in computer animation?
Also, I'm not sure you can count rendering time as proof that CG animation takes just as long or longer, because you're not sitting at the computer doing very tedious work to make the rendering happen. I typically spend well over 15 seconds setting up each frame in stop-mo, in many cases more than two minutes per frame, I think even intricate CG animation tends to go faster than this.
They are good arguments, but in the future it will be necessary to dissociate both:
_ stop motion brickfilm
_ CGI brickfilm
because they aren't same techniques.
I like computer animation and am actually planning a future project that would be entirely computer animation. However, I can't say I'm partial to 3D "brickfilming," to me I guess the question becomes, why build all the environments and characters as LEGO, when you have freedom to make them whatever you want in computer animation?
We love LEGO muuvies. Creating a CG LEGO film is also much, much easier than creating custom environments and characters. It is similar to the difference between claymation and brickfilming. Brickfilming is about ten times as easy as claymation when it comes to creating a short film.
Also, I'm not sure you can count rendering time as proof that CG animation takes just as long or longer, because you're not sitting at the computer doing very tedious work to make the rendering happen. I typically spend well over 15 seconds setting up each frame in stop-mo, in many cases more than two minutes per frame, I think even intricate CG animation tends to go faster than this.
How about everything that 3d animators have to do that stop-motion animators don't in stop-motion? Like create every shader, texture, lamp setting, ambient light, render setting, depth of focus compositing setup, and world setting. Preparation for a CG shot takes a lot more time than stop-motion. I just animated a stop-motion shot this morning. I threw together a simple set, two lamps, and a character. CGI isn't that easy. You have to set up shadows and smooth surfaces and modifiers. It's pretty intense stuff.
On a side note, Lech, you rock. Welcome to the club.
I disagree that CG brickfilms and stop-motion brickfilms should be separated. They're not so intrinsically different in the way they're created. We set up lighting, put up backdrops, focus the camera, and time out shots the same way the rest of you do. I was disappointed that STAR requires 50% stop-mo animation. A good CG film requires the exact same skills to create as a good stop-mo film.
- Leo
i like both very much...although there is difinately a home made charm to all stop mo. i love the way some of you can interweave them parfectly to make great cgi/stopmo films, i like em both!
-flip
To clarify, a "CG brickfilm" would qualify for the directory with no issues. But what with the LEGO prizes and such, I didn't really feel like setting a new precedent by allowing an entirely different medium to qualify for the contest.
Leo, in regards to the time it takes I just meant to invalidate the argument about rendering times, but I agree there are other things that CAN make it complicated. Honestly though, a lot of the CG brickfilming I've seen is just MLCad minifigs and sets with a basic, flat, colored texture on everything, and that is infinitely easier than making a CG animation with your own characters, meshes, etc. I personally spend hours setting up some of my shots in stop-mo in many cases, I realize that's not the case for everybody but complex lighting setups can often be pretty trivial to set up in 3D and extremely difficult with a real set. On the other hand, it takes a lot of work to get realism with CG and none with stop-mo.
I say, use whatever it takes to get the affect you want, because in the end, that's all that matters.
I disagree that CG brickfilms and stop-motion brickfilms should be separated. They're not so intrinsically different in the way they're created.
Here's how I see if from a stop-motion purist perspective: CG animators have control of what is basically unlimited resources when it comes to computer animation but what do they use it for? Imitation brick animation. CG animation is like big boy toys compared to stop-motion. It's not fair for CG animators to have their animation compared to a stop-motion animator. It's like they're rubbing it in the stop-motion animator's faces.
How would one define CG animators who make CG brickfilms? It's exactly like Flushed Away. It's all CGI, yet the characters look like plasticine models and they look stop-motion animated. I guess you can call it a style. I'm a brickfilm impressionist who uses computer animation to make a brickfilm.
Won't you let us impressionist play in your sandbox?
In the end, it is the content of that short film, that clip, or that LEGOs MUUVIES that's important. Whether we decided to manipulated a physical model or a mouse and keyboard, that is our choice and it is your choice to watch it or not.
As for allowing CG animation in a brickfilm contest: well, CGI certainly gave contestants in past contest an advantage over traditional stop-motion animators. Of course, having a better plot, music and pacing certainly added to the appeal. But think about it, the majority of contestants just have their collection of plastic construction toys, a camera, and a computer. Few of us actually have access to 3D modeling/animation software. You don't bring a Sidewinder heat seeking missile to a bottle rocket competition.
Here's how I see if from a stop-motion purist perspective: CG animators have control of what is basically unlimited resources when it comes to computer animation ( ... ) You don't bring a Sidewinder heat seeking missile to a bottle rocket competition.
i totally agree, that's what I think. (if I understood)
I get it...
So you all think we're using a technique that is out of your arena. Because we can do things that you can't, you're afraid to let us enter a brickfilm contest because we have some sort of advantage.
- Leo
Personally, I don't see it that way, though I think it is tough and unfair to judge two different mediums against each other in areas like "animation" and "visuals" using a system like the one in our previous contests.
But from an artistic standpoint, I just don't like the idea of CG brickfilming. I guess I'd rather take the trouble to create characters and environments from scratch. For me the "claymation is to brickfilming as creating your own CG characters is to CG brickfilming" comparison doesn't quite work because unlike claymation, creating your own CG characters and environments doesn't necessarily require you to buy lots of expensive equipment, it just takes some more time and effort -- I think the extra work pays off. I can understand for Lech's videogame wanting cutscenes and such to look consistent with the game - the same reason normal video games don't have live-action cutscenes - but for making short films I think you're going to have a more appealing finished product in most cases if you forgo the LEGO characters/environments. Unless of course the story is closely connected to the idea that they're all LEGO people or something.
So you all think we're using a technique that is out of your arena. Because we can do things that you can't, you're afraid to let us enter a brickfilm contest because we have some sort of advantage.
You seem to feel much more persecuted than the responses to this thread indicate you are.
You seem to feel much more persecuted than the responses to this thread indicate you are.
Umm... [Tries to think of way to convince Squash that I don't feel persecuted. Fails]
I care about creating good films. Really good films. To me, CGI is a way to be able to do things in film that I couldn't normally do with stop-motion or live-action. My goal for this thread is not to bemoan the rejection of CGI by many in the brickfilming community, I just want to understand their motives. I don't feel left out of contests or anything else because this is essentially the only place that does that. In the real world of Youtube, film festivals, and film critics, no one really cares if you use CG effects in your films.
So I am very sorry if my responses in this thread seem whiny or self-centered. I honestly don't care very much about entering STAR with a CG film, I only care about understanding why it isn't allowed. Hope that clarifies a bit...
Smeagol's response is helpful, and I can see the difficulties in whichever decision he makes. Allow CG, and you have a tough time judging. Don't allow it, and people like me complain.
- Leo
Last edited by Leonardo812 (July 3, 2009 (01:14pm))
Personally, I don't see it that way, though I think it is tough and unfair to judge two different mediums against each other in areas like "animation" and "visuals" using a system like the one in our previous contests. ( ... ) Unless of course the story is closely connected to the idea that they're all LEGO people or something.
Also it's true, finally maybe they are two complementary techniques.
Posts [ 21 to 40 of 56 ]
