Just uploaded my new short film!
 

Hey all,
I just wanted to post a link to my new animated short film 'Snapshots' for those that might find it interesting. The film is about an alien on a day out running into trouble in an asteroid field. The picture quality isn't the best, but it's pretty decent. Enjoy!
http://www.stopmoshorts.com/gallery/...cat=12&pic=604
and if this doesn't work, here's a link to youTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N_wUonTLh4
The quality is even poorer here though.

Haha, That's awesome. How did you make it?

One frame at a time my friend, lol.
Actually, it's alot of work that took almost 2 years to complete. I've entered it in 3 festivals so far, just waiting on the rejection emails now, lol.

I thought it resembled The Nightmare Before Christmas... That takes some extreme patience. I enjoyed it and applaud your efforts.

Wow Az, that is just beautiful work!

I had to keep reminding myself that it's live animation and NOT CGI!

Speaking of which, what stops you from converting to straight CGI? I have no doubt there's an incredible feeling of accomplishment when you're finally finished with the live animation...But with today's technology where it is, it seems you could potentially get similar results with much less effort and let the computer do all the work?

That's a debate that's raging all over the animation industry. The comparison of man hours versus quality is roughly the same. It was once thought that CG was cheaper to produce the same results as stop motion, but Corpse Bride proved that you could get beautiful animation for half the cost of CG animation. Both approaches are labor intensive. In stop motion, labor is spread across construction of sets and puppets and actual animation time. It's exactly the same in CG animation, except the "building" is done on the computer and the animating is as well. The computer doesn't really do any work for you except fill in some in between frames. You still have to build the models, sets, and props digitally. Then you have to block the scenes with the characters and everything they need in place and then you start animating the digital puppet in keyframes just as you do in traditional 2D animation. The work load is the same across the board, and I would argue that with huge, expensive productions like Pixar's films, the man hour time is higher than traditional animation.
The thing that makes CG better for the animator is that they can endlessly tweak their animated scenes. You can also do this in 2D animation. But, with stop motion, you have one shot at getting the scene right, or you are back to frame one and starting over. This means stop motion animators have to be very good at getting the thing right and life like on the first run through, or they're using more time and money to reshoot. But, again, I think this equals out if you consider how long CG animators tweek their work into shape.
I think the more Pixar, Burton, and Ardman produce amazing films in all forms of animation, the more the industry sees that one method is no better than another. The main concern is that the animation technique, art direction, and story all fit together to make a film that works. Though, there is no argument that CG movie effects have completely replaced stop motion and practical effects. They are just gorgeous and seemless. But, when you are talking animation, the hats are off and you can use lumps of clay like Arrdman, or really high tech puppets like Tim Burton, or even beautifully detailed digital charaters like Pixar.
Now, personally, I love and prefer stop motion to other forms of animation. I have Maya on my computer and I play around with it, but it doesn't have the same satisfaction as building something with my hands. There's also the nice perk of having the puppets and models left over when you are done as a physical representation of the film for years afterward. Arrdman and Tim Burton have Wallace and Grommit, as well as Corpse Bride props and puppets touring the world in museums, but their isn't a single Pixar museum piece.
New approaches and technologies don't need to replace the old ones, particularly when you are talking about art. Photoshop will never replace painters. It's just another tool to create with. It's the same for animators.

Az! you tryin to make me go cross eyed! Break up them paragraphs man! :p

Well stated argument though, I imagine that was hardly the first time you've addressed that question! :)

You brought up Aardman and Tim Burton and I think that really drove the point home for me (vs. Pixar). Even this many years later, there's still new merchandise coming out for Nightmare Before Christmas (I know because I'm ALWAYS watching the different toy sites for anything new). There was just so much cool macabre stuff going on in that movie and being all REAL items/props really lends to the coolness factor.

...Make sure you check me with me first, if you ever think of putting any of your props on ebay! ;)

Absolutely. Not only that, Nightmare Before Xmas introduced the world to a skewed, dark, and highly stylized art direction that is still being copied today. You can see this same art direction in Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice. Though it seems to work at it's best in animated features like NBC and Corpse Bride.
Do you collect this sort of stuff? I have a friend that has a "museum" room in his house where he has props and puppets from all sorts of cool stuff. Chicken Run, The Noid from the old Pizza Hut commercials, Pillsbury Dough Boy, Even one of the Terminator chrome skulls. I can spend hours in their examining all his cool stuff.

sweet vid!

but your never gunna get it with that attitude =D