the definition of motion graphics

[aspekt 0]

if you could sum it all up what would you say it is?

[laughingcolors 0]

making images move & look as flashy as possible

Edited December 4, 2006 by laughingcolors

[a2visual 0]

making images move & look as flashy as possible

 

like your avatar?

[Beerad 0]

mild superpowers

[mete_shop 0]

irresistable sex appeal

[cgmafia 0]

seeing something moving

[piccachu 0]

provide graphic / effect solution for computer generate animation sequence. Usually utilized by film / commercial / broadcast / exhibition / in and out door (any kind of ) display screen

[Beerad 0]

provide graphic / effect solution for computer generate animation sequence. Usually utilized by film / commercial / broadcast / exhibition / in and out door (any kind of ) display screen

 

I love it A+

[tim.bowman 0]

graphic design + time = mograph

[walk don't run 0]

mo·tion (mō'shən) pronunciation

n.

 

1. The act or process of changing position or place.

 

+

 

graph·ics (grăf'ĭks) pronunciation

n.

 

1. (used with a sing. verb) The making of drawings in accordance with the rules of mathematics, as in engineering or architecture.

Edited December 4, 2006 by walk don't run

[jeffrey 0]

youve achieved superstar status in a board about said topic. shouldnt u know by now?

Edited December 5, 2006 by jeffrey

[alim 0]

provide graphic / effect solution for computer generate animation sequence. Usually utilized by film / commercial / broadcast / exhibition / in and out door (any kind of ) display screen

 

but what about hand animated/stop motion/video? and what about artistic (more on the artistic side rather than mathematical design)? and what about stuff that doesnt happen on screen, but is with motion and design in mind (sky writing as a poor example, long exposure writing as a good example)..

 

i kinda like motion graphics because it is relatively hard to describe. It's a sign that it's flexible and covers a broad range of creative (and scientific) fields, taking initiative on their convergence and overlap to come up with somthing (hopefully) more than the sum of their visual or conceptual parts.

[a2visual 0]

but what about hand animated/stop motion/video? and what about artistic (more on the artistic side rather than mathematical design)? and what about stuff that doesnt happen on screen, but is with motion and design in mind (sky writing as a poor example, long exposure writing as a good example)..

 

i kinda like motion graphics because it is relatively hard to describe. It's a sign that it's flexible and covers a broad range of creative (and scientific) fields, taking initiative on their convergence and overlap to come up with somthing (hopefully) more than the sum of their visual or conceptual parts.

 

There was a thread with a similar question and one respondant declared to make motion graphics just pick up your computer and throw it out the window. That pretty much sums it up.

[jaan 0]

the tv equivalent of junkmail

[yuppster 0]

This seems like a good time to talk about Wikipedia.

 

I've been editing the Motion Graphics pages over at Wikipedia, and problems designating terms...

 

Right now their are two different articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_graphic_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_graphic

 

I think the intent of the authors is for "Motion graphic design" to be concerned with the art and skill, while

"Motion graphic" literally refers to the graphics and is more about technology.

 

One of the contributers said he feared that "motion graphics" will turn into a term like "desktop publishing", as easier and quicker "preset" effects can be achieved by anyone. Thus the move to separate the design skills from the actual end result. The problem with this is at the two articles are very similar. At first, I favored merging the two articles under an umbrella "Motion graphics" article, but now I'm not sure. What do you guys think? I know all of this might seem trifling to some of you, sorry. When you get into Wikipedia, it gets very detailed, annoying, and fun .

 

Also, those pages really need some cleanup and good information. Since Wikipedia is so prevalent, I think it's important to have accurate information for people who might be getting their first real exposure to the world of motion graphics as a career or art form. And don't don't don't add your link to those articles (unless you REALLY belong in any encyclopedia entry about Motion Graphics). You can add yourself to MographWiki instead.

 

As for the definition, Peter Hall tries to define at the start of this article for Eye:

http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature.php?id=131&fid=577

[walk don't run 0]

At first, I favored merging the two articles under an umbrella "Motion graphics" article, but now I'm not sure. What do you guys think?

 

I like the umbrella idea.

I think of motion graphics as a broad term and motion graphics design as a facet of motion graphics.

[Carey 0]

Yeah, that kind of gets at the crux of the organizational problem at mographiwiki. So that's a pretty interesting and important distinction to be able to make.

 

As I understand it, Motion Graphics sees itself as the non-static equivalent of Graphic Design. As a practical matter, it utilizes any and all forms of sequential time-based media (recorded footage, animation, etc.), but its goals and usage remain essentially the same as those of Graphic Design. Graphic Design itself is a form of visual communication that can be found in any other form of art, although its definition is debated.

 

The medium kind of begs for an open ended definition, but there are issues that come along with that, a couple of which are:

1) A lot of people involved in the industry simply understand themselves as "doing motion graphics", with no specificity toward what facets of the creation of motion graphics they may be involved in (like saying, "I do computers"). There's a big difference between someone storyboarding, someone doing direction, someone modelling typography, and someone animating light blooms. In discussion, that can cause a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

2) One of the current trends in the industry is a heavy reliance on compositing, 3D, etc. So much so that in some cases the pieces produced don't have nearly as much to do with graphic design as they do with VFX, traditional filmmaking, pure animation, etc. At some murky point, the stuff that motion graphics studios are producing actually stops being motion graphics and becomes something else, which is a natural evolution, but we have to know when to start calling it something else (even if there's no name yet).

 

 

Aside:

As far as organizing and archiving for the sake of the wiki goes, I'm for taking the art vs science vs industry road. Make a clear delineation (albeit with much cross referencing) between design and technology and the way we work. We may use design and technology both a lot in practice, but they're completely independent in theory, and talking about them interchangeably is going to make that a real muddy wiki. And industry concerns are more like business discussion, so that's its own thing.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Binky

[UNIKFREK 0]

youve achieved superstar status in a board about said topic. shouldnt u know by now?

 

 

dude, Jeffrey, calm down. take a bong rip or sumthin sumthin

Edited December 6, 2006 by UNIKFREK