Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carey

  1. I wasn't thinking it would take THAT long! Like a whole generation would be weaned on rental software with their work happily held for ransom before we collectively got our shit together? It's gonna take some serious face-slapping to get people to realize what a bind we're all getting ourselves into here. Cheers to Maxon, btw!
  2. In all seriousness, they care about money. Which makes sense, of course, and they should, but their decision-making in the last few years indicates that the business people are fully in charge and that business priorities rule over all, which is what tends to happen in corporations. If money is the blind and deaf king of the land, its rule and mandate won't change until we the people fully revolt and the rental business plans become unprofitable. In this case, that means we'll have to wait until everyone starts to realize that their photoshop files become worthless if they stop paying Adobe the monthly rental fee. When that happens, the public shitstorm will slowly build to threaten Adobe's business goals, and they'll have a "creative" epiphany along the lines of a software ownership option. And that will inevitably happen, given the current trajectory. I mean, most everyone is locked into the rental plan now, and can't back out without effectively losing access to all of their work. And as that dawns on everyone, and the added frustration of constantly broken working tools piles up, the rental system will come under heavy scrutiny. Hopefully, some upstart underling at Adobe will issue a brilliant memo to this effect and some dullard multi-millionaire executive will see the passable logic in it and start aiming the lumbering corporate train down a different track.
  3. Options! That's what I'm talkin about! If Adobe could wrap their head around it too, that'd be great. Draw 'em in with cheap low-risk payments and give them the security of ownership options when they're in deep. It's win-win! How is this not intensely obvious? Am I an idiot?
  4. I'll try to be there. Traffic is a real piece of shit.
  5. Hey man, yeah, most larger studios are going to hire specialists because they have large scale projects that need specific development pipelines and need people to fit well into those pipelines, for the most part. So unless you're, for example, the king of fluid dynamics sims for smoke and explosions in some specific software, that's not really the environment for you. You would do better to be talking to smaller studios where artists have to take on a wider range of responsibilities, and find out what it is that those kinds of studios are really looking for. Whether these studios are "badass" or not is up to you because most people look at Psyop like they look at Ferrari, like they don't really even understand what makes a Ferrari good, or how, or what to do with it, they're just wowed and want to own or be a part of "the best". Ferraris are real good at a few things, and real bad a lots of other things. You wouldn't take one to the arctic, or underwater, or haul a camper with it, or go cross country and live out of it, etc. What you have to figure out is if you're actually interested in what psyop does and how they do it, or if you're merely starry-eyed by their admittedly inspiring image. Your reel is mainly demonstrating 2D work in an environmental context, and then has some commercial application-type stuff peppered in. So, I might be tempted to interpret that as a collection of work from someone whose experience is primarily in environmental installations, but who hasn't found enough work in that niche to put together a reel exclusive to that. And I think you're intuiting that already, which is why you're here asking whether that's the case. The question for you is: what sort of work do you want to do, and with whom, and how are you going to present yourself as an attractive and valuable option to them? That said, if you're in the freelance pool, here's what happens... A studio is invited to pitch, or gets hired to do a job, and it occurs to them that the requirements of the project outstrip their resources or their talent in some way(s). So they go looking to fill in the gaps, usually with relatively specific talent sets in mind. So now you've got someone (a producer, usually) in a bind, skimming the talent pools very quickly for someone who meets the need. They're looking for, say, someone who "knows C4D", whatever that might mean. Or for a "designer". Sometimes they aren't informed well enough to know what they need and they're just trying to fill seats with "motion graphics people". The first two situations are why you'd want to present yourself with a specific skillset, and why you'd need to demonstrate mastery of that skillset. The third is why you might want to present yourself as a jack of all trades, however a studio that doesn't know what it needs and has producers who don't know the difference between a designer and an animator are more likely to be all around shitstorms of mediocrity and frustration, and I'll let you guess why. This is all to say that there are challenges with whichever strategy you take. But in the end, if you can get experience with enough studios, you should be able to much more easily figure out what sort of work you do and don't like, what sort of environments you favor, and how to appeal to the people who seem to have that. As to the question of "what makes a body of work stand out", hopefully it's apparent at this point that the context of an employer's need is extremely important. Beyond that, that's a pretty big question of talent, aesthetic, visual communication skills, inspiration, etc., and what you're really asking is "how do I get really fucking good at this?" And I don't know if there's a straightforward answer for that one.
  6. Behance has its own site-builder that you can buy into and is relatively easy, and has that sort of functionality. But it's not really that hard to take the jpegs and vimeo links you're using for your wordpress site and slam them into behance projects. What a lot of the web designers and app developers do to make more engaging and personalized presentations is nicer though.
  7. Yeah, I get people finding me that way sometimes. But you have to be really good about editing what you present, and then presenting it well because you typically have to attract someone's attention with a slightly-larger-than-thumbnail sized image which will be floating amongst hundreds or thousands of other images they're rifling through. And the site puts forward what seems to be popular, so there's a steep curve of added viewership from what people perceive to be "pretty good" to what they perceive to be "great". You can have pretty good work that gets no attention, and is effectively invisible. As in many things, you have to be just that much more compelling. But the upside is that when you are, you become really visible. I'm no master at this, but people find me. https://www.behance.net/division05
  8. I'm down. You might grab a bigger crowd if it's not shoved all the way over to the beach and it's after traffic. Maybe move it a little east, culver city-ish like 8:30 or even 9.
  9. Survey inputted! For me, renting this kind of software is a direct threat to my business, partly because the fractional update process is so unreliable in its introduction of work-stopping bugs, but much moreso because all of my files, and therefore all of my valuable work, becomes effectively inaccessible should I be unable to pay the rental fee each month. That's less like renting a tool, and more like paying a monthly ransom for the safety and well-being of my work. Work which, by all rights, I should own and control in its entirety. I realize this is an argument that will slide lightly off the side of the mountains of profit that this rental system generates for Adobe, but it remains true nonetheless. Just wanted this reminder out here, or to be corrected if I somehow have it wrong.
  10. Haha, reading. You're funny. In all honesty, none for me really. I like pictures. Show me pictures. I have a twitter account, which is dumb, cuz I just post pictures. I mentioned the thing about the pictures, right?
  11. Assuming you're presenting these styleframes, storyboards, moodboards, etc. for some kind of film or video application (y'know, mograph related), you're really misrepresenting by not presenting on a monitor of some kind. If it's imagery that's going to be executed as print media, then print it, and if it's going to be executed as video media, then show it on a monitor. I worked with someone in the past, on projects made for tv, who demanded they see everything printed and not only is it inefficient, it logically makes no sense, and just never looks the same as the intended imagery, nor the final imagery. And almost always by way of looking considerably worse. Print is just altogether the wrong medium to present this stuff in and you're doing yourself and your clients a disservice by trying to shoehorn your stuff into the print pipeline for no reason other than probably "that's how we've always done it". You may think you have some unique reason why it has to be this way, but I guarantee you can figure out how to present it as it should be and no one will die in the process. If you have to, spend $1000 on a big beautiful monitor or calibrated TV and show them what they'll ACTUALLY be getting.
  12. You can see in the first one, that the texture isn't animated, it's just sitting there in the background, probably a black and white image multiplied over a solid color with just a slight vignette, and the animated graphics are run over the top. The second one is really great, and almost all of its texture comes from actual illustration, which is drawn in layers (probably in photoshop with customized brushes) and then animated over one another. There are a few well-placed usages of 3d, and those brushstroke textures have been applied to the materials of the 3d objects in smart ways. There's also a subtle bit of film grain over the top of the whole thing to help it feel even less computery. In the third, if you look closely, the animated texture is just a loop of 3 or 4 different textures, or more likely, 1 or 2 that have been flipped, rotated, and/or moved to a few different positions. The loop is the same throughout the entire piece.
  13. People seem to be slowly addressing the hold system now. I decided a long time ago that I didn't want to work constantly, so I was in an ok position to experiment with new approaches to the hold system. I take the "hit me up when you want to book me" approach, but it's currently not for people who are trying to fill all of their days. I get fewer requests from studios that function like pump-and-dump factories, and still work with clients for whom I have mutual respect, which is real nice. I make less money this way, but I'm more energized when projects come along, and I have time to engage in my own ventures. You can design your business however you want, to suit your lifestyle. Dumping the hold system increases client loyalty and quality of time spent, and likely decreases income. Kill fees, first booking system, etc., are all viable middle grounds. You really have to test some stuff out to see if you like where it lands you.
  14. That's a pretty good reel, Kevin! It works! A note that might be of value to you is that, as a viewer, I understand that something is happening in your intro... that there's some kind of narrative happening. A cause and effect relationship of some sort is being shown to me. So I assume that I'm being shown this for a reason, and that I should understand something about it when it's finished. But I don't. There's a wall built of small units, and a butterfly fairy is flying around and it goes into the wall, and as a result, the wall is powered up maybe? And then more butterflies fly into the wall, but instead this time it's a tunnel? Abstraction is totally fine. Valuable, even. But you seem to use the first few seconds to establish a scene and to suggest some rules, and then you immediately break them, and as a viewer, I'm kind of left going "I don't know what i'm looking at, or why". If you're going to tell me a story, I'm with you while you lay the groundwork for that story. But if you lay groundwork, and then immediately contradict it and fail to pay that contradiction off, you lose my trust and then my interest shortly thereafter. So in this case, it seems like you either have to stick with the plan of conveying a narrative, however abstract it may be, or remove the intentional display of cause-effect storytelling and simply show us some lovely things. Personally, I tend toward providing beauty and meaning for the audience, because that's a more valuable and memorable experience for them, but it's your call. Also, I'm not sure what this icon in the hexagon is supposed to be. Is it an off-center "13"? That's what I read, and I don't know what it means, or what it has to do with anything. You're treating it like a logo by using it as a watermark, but I don't get the relation of it to your name, artibite. The work looks really good, and your edit is bringing disparate projects together in a way that feels like it means something. That's pretty great. The last shot before your end card is a little weird because it seems to imply a short pause before we get going again, but then the reel ends. Not a deal-breaker, although it does feel a little awkward. But overall, pretty great!
  15. I love this stuff. If you're into more sci-fi or fantasy based stuff... concept design for movies and games, you might like this guy too, who is kind of a legend, and has a shit ton of videos. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbdyjrrJAjDIACjCsjAGFAA
  16. We're probably just talking in circles here. I think your board was actually a really good foundation for the discussion. Like, you keep making this boxing poster comparison, and you're showing your frame next to a boxing poster (albeit an admittedly fake one). But look at the two together and tell me what about your image communicates boxing poster. The answer is: barely anything. Your image has so few of the signifiers of "boxing poster" that I imagine most viewers would have a difficult time recalling anything remotely related with boxing posters. It's unrelated on, in fact, most levels. The colors are saturated, there's no texture, no dot pattern, the layout is radically dissimilar, and it bears no graphic or typographic resemblance. The thing it does have is this idea of photographic imagery run through a process which reduces it to flat ungraded shapes, but it's not even a process similar to what you end up with in a boxing poster, so it doesn't jog a viewer's associations toward that. Now, in a lot of cases, you can abstract and use minimal signifiers of a thing to subtly reference that thing without going to a fully literal representation. For example, adding a slight digital distortion effect to an image to reference the downsides of technology can be effective, and you don't have to include an RGB split and pixels and monitor vignetting and cursors and glitching and so on until you've literally crafted an image of a broken display. But that's not really the issue here, and it's not in line with what you were doing. You have an image that fails to go so far as to signify anything to your audience. There is effectively no boxing poster reference in your image. Not that there needed to be, but it seems you're suggesting that it's there. It's not, to any degree that would affect a viewer's perception. And I point this out because one of the differences between what you've done and what probably constitutes "killer boards" is that you've stopped well short of where you might have, both in the ideating and in the polishing. This probably sounds like a rant when it shouldn't, but I'm really just trying to highlight how a designer gets from where you stopped to where everyone goes "ooooooooh fuck that's good". Because at some very early stage in the project, that designer is probably thinking at the same level of lacking sophistication before they push through and develop it into punishing and inspiring awesomeness. I don't particularly want to equate my own work with any of this talk, but it so happens I've got a set of boards that are literally based, in part, on a specific realm of boxing posters. And it might help illuminate some of what i'm trying to explain. https://www.behance.net/gallery/18881677/UFC (not the first set... you'll have to scroll down a little) This was a project for UFC on Fox. The creative direction was real loose, which is why I came up with two radically different boards, but we'll pay attention to the 2nd set. Same as your project, it had to be modular to accomodate different matchups over the season. I wanted to make a boxing poster reference. So I did. But I took it farther to suggest a couple of specific subcategories of boxing poster that have a less "silly kitsch" appeal. And then I took it farther to suggest that this was really more of a narrative about the posters being printed and stacked in prep for an upcoming fight. And furthermore that the printing was late night, quick and dirty and flawed, as a visual metaphor for the nature of cage fighting. And I took it farther to suggest that this would be conceived as a kind of simple short film, which isn't as representative here because i've excluded a few frames from the pitch. Again, this is a much more literal strategy, in terms of the reference to boxing posters, but I hope it highlights some of the thinking when you look at this and then go back and look at your ESPN example. This is sort of the point I'm trying to make. A designer will hit the same wall you'll hit, and keep hitting it until it completely crumbles to reveal the next wall, which they'll hit like a fucking tank to reveal the next. And they'll keep ramming through until either they reach the promised land, or someone begs them to stop.
  17. So, your initial curiosity/concern was that "the ability to really polish frames or ideas for frames eludes me." Informatively enough, mostly everything about your response highlights why this is. Making "killer boards", as it were, is oftentimes exactly about digging further. Doing the thinking and doing the work, and doing it under creative constraints, format constraints, and time constraints. You dig further, and when you find something interesting, you dig further than that, and then you dig some more. When you look at the frames that the best designers are making, you go "wow" because they started with a pile of shit and they moulded and sculpted and polished until they started to see gold. And they kept sculpting and massaging until it was 90% gold. And still they kept pushing and pulling, sometimes on small details, until it was 98% gold. And you might have looked at it then and said "cool, that's better than i can do", which is wrong, and they'd keep sculpting. And they'd get it to 99.8% and keep working. 99.9%. 99.95%. And maybe the frames were ripped out of their hands at that point because time was up, but they damn well knew the deadline and pushed right up to it. Sometimes through it, if that could be justified. And over many projects and many iterations of this process, they learned what tends to work and what tends not to within all of those constraints so that they could more often get to 99.95%. Typically, clients give designers a pile of shit to work with. If the clients could turn that shit to gold for themselves, they wouldn't pay creatives to do it. But that's what defines that skill, and that's why it's so valuable (it's vastly undervalued, in truth). Designers are given shit, and asked to turn it to gold. You were given shit, as ever expected. You looked at it sidelong, and you smelled it and poked at it with an outstretched finger and said "This is shit! I can't do anything with this!" You gave back nearly exactly what you were given. Experience and visual literacy aside, this is all that's separating you or me from baller designers. Because they fucking bring it, and they bring it hard. And when you think they've gone as hard as one can, they go harder. And harder still. And they suck for years, just like everyone else, but they goddam bring it until they start turning to gold. We can talk about nuke vs after effects, and how smart objects are convenient and whether cgtextures.com has more stuff than mayang. You do need tools to build things, but the tools don't build them. Tools can't even get up by themselves. Everyone thinks if they can just get the same brush pack as the best illustrators, or use the same glow plugin as the best animators, that they'll unlock greatness as if the trick was in the tools. We all think that if we can just drive the same car that the cool guy does, we'll be the cool guy, as if that's what makes him cool. It's not. The things that drive compelling "holyfuck-are-you-serious" imagery are visual literacy and fuck tons of effort. Understanding composition is going to put 100x more power in your hands than understanding gradient meshes. You can build a tract house with cranes and power tools and laser levellers. But an artisan can do it with hammer, nails, saws and chisels, and they can do it with unutterable beauty. And still we'll say "yeah but if I could just get that laser leveller..."
  18. Totally. Artistic license being what it is, that's totally valid. It just seems like you're fighting an uphill battle here already because you're trying to convince the audience of something. Namely that there's this sign on a brick wall. And you're going as far as to show that it has power cords because it needs power, and it's mounted on a scaffold stuck to the wall because gravity is real, and it needs these fasteners to hold it here and here, and so forth. You're already making a plea to the audience to look at it as a real object. You're asking them to scrutinize it as such. And if you're going to take that tack, it seems like the best usage of your effort is to keep taking that tack. And yeah, when it comes to the actual lighting, you're on the right track with the object buffer. You can read about how it works by doing a search, and when you get it set up, you'll be able to save a simple b/w matte in the shape of your neon parts, and you can take that into AE and use it as a luma matte to create layers in that same shape that you can colorize and glow and whatever else for your lighting effect.
  19. Ooooh, I'm planning on doing a video more related to these topics after I get done with the gargantuan one I'm working on now. One thing that's apparent in the way you're talking about your design decisions here is that they're focused entirely on the practical delivery of textual information and the viability of the layout as a system. And those are important constraints that need to be adhered to in whatever the final execution is. Because this has to be used for practical purposes. But you're sort of sweeping the intent of the imagery under the rug, along with potentially helpful aesthetic concerns like composition. What I mean is: if you're going to use imagery, you should make it mean something, and it should probably be appealing to look at in some way. And to do that, starting from the vague direction you were given, you can start with the question "why?" Why screenprinting? What does screenprinting imply? When you see something screenprinted, and it's obvious that it's screenprinted, what kinds of things does that convey to you? Well, screenprinting is sort of ubiquitous, so it might be hard to pin down, but it doesn't really say "clean" or "high tech". It doesn't say "technology". It doesn't usually say "sophisticated" or "high end". Screenprinting is what you see when you go to Ross and look at branded t-shirts for teenagers. It's also on the crap that people buy on boardwalks because it says "Vote for Pedro" or "I'm WiTh StUpid". And it's semi-ironically used and worn by hipsters because it's slightly low-culture, low sophistication. It's low technology. It's DIY. Because of its ubiquity, it can be used for all kinds of references, because it's been used on everything from psychedelic posters to worn out Alf t-shirts from 20 years ago. But regardless, understanding it in terms of its cultural signifiers is really important if you want to wield it as imagery to some effect. Because it's going to inherently mean things to people, even if those things are kinda vague to them. Screenprinting is NOT going to mean futuristic, for example. It's NOT going to appeal to people in the same way that ESPN's normal shitshow of flying 3d chrome cogs does, and that's why they gave you that direction. And it's unknown whether their direction was really precise and they knew exactly what reference(s) they wanted to get out of screenprinting, or whether someone just threw that out there as the first thing to come to mind as antithetical to the whirring underlit 3d metal bullshit. But either way, you have that direction and you have that wide set of cultural references to play in and you have to use them to convey something potent to the audience. Because otherwise, your imagery is impotent and irrelevant. Or even worse, it confuses and misconstrues and actually hurts more than it helps. Secondly, when you start wrapping your head around the specific reasons as to why screenprinting specifically, and that leads you to focus on some of the specific and unique qualities that screenprinting has, for the sake of conveying specific things to the audience, then you have to craft your images very deliberately in order draw those qualities out and highlight them if necessary. For instance, the image you've shown, with the posterized players cropped off the edges... it bears very little resemblance to screenprinting. It makes very little visual reference to it. And if you're going to reference screenprinting, you need to craft the imagery such that it conveys screenprinting. Crushing levels, posterizing, and filling with an rgb color is, as you can guess, not really giving the audience a specific enough visual reference for them to think either screenprinting, or any of the cultural references that come along with it. So how do you push the imagery so that it starts to convey those things? What are some of the visual signifiers of screenprints, or of that kind of low tech printing process? Is the texture of the ink important? Is the substrate, like the paper or cloth it's printed on? How about the imperfections of a process that literally involves dropping a screen that's stopped up with emulsion onto a semi-irregular surface and squeegeeing glops of paint through the mesh and hoping it sticks instead of bleeds when you pull the screen up? And the overlap of printing that occurs when you try to add a second color by doing that whole process again with a new screen lined up by eye? Which of these, if not all, are important in getting the audience to subconsciously register that thing they've seen before and automatically bringing up associations they have to it? And can you get more specific to narrow down the associations your audience will have with it? What you have now does this to the weakest possible degree. And that can be ok, because references can more or less vague, and imagery more or less abstract. But by failing to realize that you're dealing with imagery that signifies things, you've gone the default route of basically computer-generated imagery, and in a subtle sense it's conveying sterile computer-generated stuff to the viewer. That's a problem, and it's close to the case where it's misconstruing and hurting more than helping. "Why" can be a really hard question, but you have to ask it constantly. And I mean constantly. There's room for the arbitrary in design-oriented imagemaking, but not much. The more specificity and intention you can go into an image with, the better off you are.
  20. I realize that you're asking a specific technical question, but it occurs to me that you might get more bang for your photorealism buck by looking at standard neon sign setups to understand the logic behind how they're built. For instance, there are no sharp corners in neon signs because they're made of hollow glass tubes that are manually bent while hot and pliable. You can make a neon sign other ways, but 99.9% of the time, it's bent glass tubes, which are pretty much a standard thickness because there's electrically-reactive gas inside and yadda yadda. Also, the way they're constructed is usually of as few tubes as possible, meaning that one tube will typically be formed to create several letters or shapes, and to make it look like those letters/shapes are disconnected, the part of the tube that's not meant to be seen to glow will be painted opaque. Then there's an electrical input at the start and end of each tube, and each individual tube is held in place by clasps or glass rods that extend back to the surface it's to be hung on. You can kind of see here how it typically works... There are certain embellishments that work with neon, like metal backings, and so forth, but the process of molding a frame or cutting a backing is necessarily different than of bending glass, so the shapes never really match perfectly, and as a result, they're usually offset from each other so the imperfections are less apparent. The point of all of this is that if you're trying to make an image that conveys "neon sign" to your audience, you're going to get a lot more mileage for your efforts if you build it like a neon sign, before you start worrying about whether your global illumination settings are on point. That's kind of missing the forest for the trees, y'know?
  21. Holy smacks, that second one is really beautiful! I might be a little jealous. I think it would be hard to pull off all of the finer details that make this so nice in another package like AE. To get an authentic handmade feel, you really need to go and do it by hand, and animating frame by frame by painting in photoshop is really only one step away from that. Although, my suspicion is that if you're capable of doing this in photoshop, you're likely capable of making it by hand, off of the computer. And there may be some additional charisma from doing it on paper. Regardless, I think this is pretty phenomenal. This isn't to say that the Butchers animation isn't also super well done, but it seems like the animation is slightly more arbitrary. I'm assuming that Moka Clube is some kind of coffee-related thing, and in that case, the animation really evokes something about that topic, in a surprising and compelling way. The Butchers animation doesn't tell me anything in particular. It's not informative, y'know? It's charismatic, but not in a way that's relevant to the topic. Definitely great stuff, any way you cut it. Congrats!
  22. I agree here. This cut works a little better in terms of showing us interesting bits, but remember the pacing. There are going to be moments of explosiveness and moments of calm. This is neither a sprint nor a marathon. It's a movie. Where is the action and where is the calm? Where are the emotional swells? You could have a swell right at the beginning, but the music isn't really playing along with that idea, so maybe you start out a little different. The Labour reel reference takes a different tack because its content is much different, and therefore the way it tells its story is much different. Your content probably wouldn't work very well as a long string of even cuts like that, but it's still a good reference for some perspective. And I can never be sure with vimeo whether the sound is synced correctly or not, but with a track like this it's going to be really important that your cuts are frame accurate to the different aspects of the beat. The audio and video are going to dance together, and it'll be a lot more compelling to watch if their moves are really on it. This is definitely an improvement. If you have the energy to play with this some more, make another version and try some bigger moves.
  23. Right on! Five years is a lot of new raw material to work with. And I like your logo. It's well done and has character, and I doubt that you need to do anything that would take a full 8 seconds to kick this off. When you get to that stage, continue thinking "sophisticated" and "authentic" as opposed to something wizzy and AfterEffects-y and you'll be golden. The audio is always a pretty subjective thing, and hopefully you've chosen it to represent you for some reason. But I don't know that the character of your work and the character of this track have any chemistry, and your edit isn't indicating that that's intentional, so I'm guessing it's not. Out of the gate, you've got this like high tech video game thingamabob appearing at the same time the vocal "dung dadung dung" kicks in, and it just seems all uncoordinated. The imagery you're showing is, for the most part, very saturated, clean, digital. You might even characterize it as sterile. And while the audio feels kind of constructed and produced, the quality of the sounds is strangely organic. Usually, for a disconnect between audio and visual, I'd make suggestions about rethinking editing, but I think maybe it's too hard a sell for this particular combo and maybe the audio needs to go. If anything, I'll argue that the outro is off-putting. It just seems to fart on itself as it exits. Where editing IS concerned, I see you're trying to follow the whole "cut on the action, not on the pause" strategy, but you're riding that line pretty tight and being real precious with work you could be treating like raw material. "Cut on the action" isn't some mandate that makes things work as long as you're technically following it. The point is that you want interesting things happening on screen all the time. If it's not interesting anymore, it shouldn't be on screen. Even for a few frames. Not even close. I don't need to read the Killzone whatever logo. I don't need to watch all of the MLB 13 pieces drift into place. I don't need to read "refresh". I don't need to see the second shot of the UI Update ball shattering because it's redundant. I don't need to see the whole Adobe software tree diagram come together. It's just not interesting enough, either as something to watch, or in terms of understanding your skillset. Showing me that you faded some text on while it slid into place tells me, what exactly? As an employer, it tells me you can do very basic AE moves, which isn't compelling. But what's worse is that showing me that in your reel implies that you think it's something compelling, when it most clearly is not, and that now brings into question a whole host of concerns like: does this guy have any taste? Does he have any voice of his own? Does he go above and beyond, and is he capable of creative visual problem solving? Will he bring something to the table? You're suggesting, in this very simple decision that you've made, that the answer to all of these questions is "no". Obviously, that's not what you're trying to convey in a reel, and you and I both know it's not true. But you're doing yourself a real disservice with the lazy editing, both in shot choice and in cutting. (FYI, the two subsequent shots suffer from the same disease and you're shooting yourself in the face there) So how do you fix that? First, you've got some nice moments happening already, where you're not being overly precious with the work, and you're taking us on a fun journey through it. I think the car stuff near the front is doing that fairly well. But your very first shot explodes on screen for a few frames and then just sits there, before moving and sitting again. So there may either be a different way to cut that to highlight the interesting parts of that piece, or you may want to find something else to take that top spot altogether. And I think if you find an audio track that has better pacing, it'll guide you to cutting with better pacing to suit it. And by pacing, I don't mean a steady rhythm. I'll make an analogy to writing: Gary Provost gives a short lesson on simply varying sentence length to create rhythm and flow... Right? You can do this as much in your work as he does in this paragraph. Use the right shot at the right moment for the right amount of time, and your reel can be a roller coaster of emotion, or a lake boat ride of calm relaxation. Whatever, just let us feel something. Shit I haven't even eaten dinner! Gotta go!
  24. Carey

    DMA LA

    Holy smacks, I didn't even realize people had to buy tickets. Thankfully it's only $5. I'll try to make it worth your fiver. Maybe you'll get a lap dance.
  25. Carey

    DMA LA

    I'm gonna go and be a part of a reel critiquing session as part of this monthly meeting next week. Just wondering if anyone goes to this, and if I might see you there. I used to go, but I don't know what the scene is like anymore.
  • Create New...