Talk:Stop motion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Wording
Changed the wording a little just because the original confused me on first reading--sounded like someone taking individual snapshots and then somehow transferring them to a strip of film. Maybe it's just me.
I put in the bit about Willis O'Brien just because I like the guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amt (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 June 2001.
Not to be contentious, but your revision (while better) is still not as precise as it might be: every camera does in fact "expose single frames," but continuously, at the rate of 24 frames per second. I'd change it to "can expose a single frame at a time, at command rather than continuously," or something to that effect--but I'm not sure that that is in fact the way it works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KoyaanisQatsi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2001.
Wasn't go-motion pioneered by the team on the Empire Strikes Back with the Taun Tauns? ESB was 1980, Dragonslayer 1981, both involved EMI as I recall, so I guess it might have been itterative, but I think ESB is worth a mention, and perhaps EMI too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.112.96.46 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 1 October 2003.
I haven't seen any consumer video cameras that can record single frames. Am I missing something? Phr 02:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)Phr
I elaborated on the history of stop motion --previously a bit thin. --OldCommentator 19:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Most important year in stop-motion
One of the most important years in the history of stop-motion would have to be 1993. Two important movies came out this year; Jurassic Park and Nightmare before Christmas. These were the two movies that separated stop-motion and live action permanently and made stop-motion into its own animation genre for real.
Jurassic Park are important because this was the first movie where stop-motion as a special effect was replaced with CGI, and from that moment no one was interested in stop-motion in live action movies any more. As a special effect and as an attempt to be as realistic as possible to interact with live action actors, stop-motion is dead. With a technology as CGI, that becomes more and more realistic and advanced for each year, film makers will never go back to the old stop-motion technique.
Nightmare before Christmas was not the first stop-motion feature, but it was the one with the biggest impact on the world and the first to have a world wide distribution. It showed animators it was possible to make a successful and full length stop-motion feature that the audience would love to see. No longer just a clumsy special effect in live action movies, and no longer needing to be as realistic as possible, the animators were free to make pure stop-motion movies with a more cartoon-ish look, following in the footsteps of more traditional cell animators that used hand-drawn animation to create amazing adventures and strange worlds separated from the real world. Like mentioned, this had been done some times earlier, but with the impact of Nightmare before Christmas and the end of stop-motion as a "cheap" special effect and transformation into a more accepted and respected animation genre, stop-motion was given new life and was brought back into the light again. Before Jurassic Park, the stop-motion in live action movies would had been compared with the stop-motion in purely animated movies. And if it looked cheap in live action, that could have had a negative effect on the animated features. Since this is no longer going to happen, the audience will focus on the features only, and see the special style and weird worlds this kind of animation actually can offer.
It didn't die with Jurassic Park (could it be called an irony that this movie is about dinosaurs?) as so many had feared, and is now more popular than one could ever imagine only some years ago. Even Ray Harryhausen is starting to become more popular again. And before 1993, no one could have guessed how or what the whole thing would evolve into. So there is no doubt 1993 is one of the most important years in its history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.36.84 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 October 2005.
Interesting observations, I quite agree...stop-motion is alive and well. But don't forget to sign your comments. --OldCommentator 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stacatto
I was just wondering...Why does stop-motion produce staccato-motion, while cartoon animation and computer animation produce a fluid motion? Scorpionman 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- The "staccato" effect is a function of the frame rate. Many (if not most) stop-motion shows shoot what are known as "doubles" i.e., the animator takes two shots of each pose before moving the puppet. He/she shoots 15 (or 12) of these, thus producing 30 (or 24) frames per second. This gives stop-motion it's particular "look." It would be possible (theoritically) to achieve the fluidity of live action if the animator did not shoot doubles, and was a very skillful animator.--OldCommentator 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I was playing King Kong in slow motion and it seemed to be going at a normal rate, although it looked like it was going "doubles" in places. Why do most shows have doubles? Why don't they just do one shot of each pose and move the puppet? Scorpionman 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Good question. The main reason for shooting doubles is economic: it obviously takes twice as long to shoot twice as many frames and oftentimes it makes no appreciable visual difference. Given that stop-motion is agonizingly slow (and hence expensive) to produce in the first place, producers and film-makers are always looking for ways to make their projects more viable.
-
-
-
- Also, for many shows (e.g., Poko, Bob the builder), shooting doubles gives the show a particular "look" that the film-makers are trying to achieve.--OldCommentator 13:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Bury the Axis
I don't believe that Bury the Axis was first shown 1939. The short is showing how Hitler attacks not only Europe but also Russia. It also shows Japan and the USA as part of the war. That happened after 1939. On the DVD Cartoons for Victory the short is dated with 1943 - that sounds more believable. So where was this information from?
[edit] YouTube
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam
I have reduced the amount of external links, and left a warning about the distributors. Please do not insert links just because they are related with the article; if the link does add nothing to the article, don't do it. Someone else should finish purging the spam from this page, and then remove the warning. If not, someone else who does not know about the topic will do it (most likely, removing everything instead of being selective). -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now it is better. If many come complaining that we have removed their sites but not the ones left, remove them all and leave the Dmoz site, which has plenty of them already. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, maybe MyStopMo might be a good site to keep considering that it provides a usefull free service as well as the paid services. What do you think? Esn 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know nothing about Stop motion, so I will trust the judgment of editors of this article. As long as adding one does not open the door to add 10 other sites, I have no problem. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, maybe MyStopMo might be a good site to keep considering that it provides a usefull free service as well as the paid services. What do you think? Esn 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Present technology
Why not mention all the modern tools used in stop motion these days, like the advanced puppers and digital shooting, among other things? 193.217.196.183 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
