Difference between revisions of "Doc talk:Overview"
m (moved Talk:Introduction to Doc talk:Introduction: Move page to Doc namespace) |
Ohoservices (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | * get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
* wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | * wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Content Discussion == | ||
| + | this is an excerpt from an email discussion between zelgadis (>>> and >) and oho (>> and last answer): | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | >>> Some content of the page is disputable. I.e.: | ||
| + | >> sure ;-) | ||
| + | >>> ** "Chances are that for several reasons a 3D animations is much more | ||
| + | >>> time-consuming than a comparable 2D animation. " | ||
| + | >> chances are... | ||
| + | >Still, very disputable. ^___^ | ||
| + | I love disputes ;-) | ||
| + | Seriously: it is just what came into my mind in one day, I am open to changes! | ||
| + | I think being a bit inconvenient and insubordinate is a good thing. | ||
| + | Please tell me when I'm getting to exaggerated, ok? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | >>> ** The classification of "Types Of Animation" is weird. I figured out | ||
| + | >>> that it come from Wikipedia article, but they talk about "animation | ||
| + | >>> techniques" - probably there's a little difference. | ||
| + | >> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand. | ||
| + | >> I will rename that to technologies, good point! | ||
| + | >ok. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | >>> ** "Why Do 2D Animation?" Do we really need to motivate choice of 2D | ||
| + | >>> animation over 3D? | ||
| + | >> yes. newbies to animation need some help on where to start. Otherwise they would tend to 3D ("3 is more than 2" kind of reasons). | ||
| + | >> I would have found it very helpful a few years ago to get this kind of short hints on where the differences are. | ||
| + | > They are just different. Choice of technology | ||
| + | >>> depend on expected result. Maybe just point to the differences? | ||
| + | >> tried to do that... what did I miss? Any help appreciated. | ||
| + | > Maybe just rename "Why Do 2D Animation?" to something else? | ||
| + | I like it... it doesn't say 3D is bad, it just answers the question "why should I do 2D when I can do 3D?" | ||
| + | Other ideas? | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
Revision as of 12:52, 14 May 2010
Thoughts
- need to link the tutorials to the "5 samples" --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- maybe a few screenshots or so (just some pictures to make it more colorful ;-) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Content Discussion
this is an excerpt from an email discussion between zelgadis (>>> and >) and oho (>> and last answer): >>> Some content of the page is disputable. I.e.: >> sure ;-) >>> ** "Chances are that for several reasons a 3D animations is much more >>> time-consuming than a comparable 2D animation. " >> chances are... >Still, very disputable. ^___^ I love disputes ;-) Seriously: it is just what came into my mind in one day, I am open to changes! I think being a bit inconvenient and insubordinate is a good thing. Please tell me when I'm getting to exaggerated, ok? >>> ** The classification of "Types Of Animation" is weird. I figured out >>> that it come from Wikipedia article, but they talk about "animation >>> techniques" - probably there's a little difference. >> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand. >> I will rename that to technologies, good point! >ok. >>> ** "Why Do 2D Animation?" Do we really need to motivate choice of 2D >>> animation over 3D? >> yes. newbies to animation need some help on where to start. Otherwise they would tend to 3D ("3 is more than 2" kind of reasons). >> I would have found it very helpful a few years ago to get this kind of short hints on where the differences are. > They are just different. Choice of technology >>> depend on expected result. Maybe just point to the differences? >> tried to do that... what did I miss? Any help appreciated. > Maybe just rename "Why Do 2D Animation?" to something else? I like it... it doesn't say 3D is bad, it just answers the question "why should I do 2D when I can do 3D?" Other ideas?
