Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Robertas Nevecka

2D rain animation test

Recommended Posts

First, nice compositing! Did you do the BG plate as well? You have created a great tone. Add in some flickering of that light and you are good to go.

 

I think the rain looks good. I also like the addition of the splashes on the bucket. I do think the rain looks flat and could use more dimension. It looks like you are looking at one sliver of rain falling just in that one spot. If you push some rain back in z space I think it will give the scene more depth. Also, the rain could use some variable sizing. It looks like it stays the roughly 1 inch streak the entire time. It could be nice if the rain started say half the size and the droplet stretched out as gravity brings it downward.

 

Very nice work though I really dig it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you need to touch it. You're going for a specific stylized hand-drawn, cel-animated look here, and I think you've done so to the degree that no one will suspect it. The rain, as an element, seems in and of the rest of the scene, carries a specific mood, and has most of the characteristics of the type of animation you're emulating.

 

Joedonaldson has some interesting ideas, but I'd argue that they're generally wrong for this purpose (that being stylized, more traditional-looking animation, not any particular type of realism). 1) Variability in droplet size isn't really something you perceive in this kind of rain, and it isn't something you see coming out of the hand of a traditional animator drawing stylized rain for effect. 2) Unless the rain cloud is hovering one foot above the scene, the drops have already been falling for thousands of feet, and there won't be any perceived acceleration, or stretching. If the camera were under an awning, there might be some foreground droplets coming off of the overhang that would be showing the effects of initial acceleration. 3) Z-depth is something that traditional animators put a lot of work into attaining because they're dealing with flat layers. Their solutions for attaining depth are usually not along the lines of adding a thousand layers with individual elements and animating them all for parallax. You have the technology to create depth much more easily, but it may produce results at odds with your goal. Or it may provide some wow. It's up to you, and all completely dependent on what you're trying to do.

 

But considering what you've made, I gather you know all of this already. Looks great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...