Hey! It’s been a while since I’ve posted--I was working on a frankly unreasonable number of projects these last two months, some of which I hope to be able to show you soon, but it left me with very little time to add to this blog. A couple of days ago, I was reminded I have to get back to this when I saw a comment come up on my last post “Action is his reward.” With permission, I’m reproducing it here: I am rewarded by your enthusiasm and I can relate to most of the content that you produced for this blog post. However, this project may not the best case for the perspective you are presenting, as it stands with today's technology trends and capabilities (perhaps limitations as well). I hope some day, doing this style of work proves to be more cost effective, as I would love to see more of this style in hopefully even more ambitious productions. Let me elaborate some other perspective that may explain my point better and hopefully have more people appreciate lesser understood details about what is presented in that teaser. If you think about a team of people creating this whole thing from scratch and let's say during the process they might be using some techniques uniquely advantageous and otherwise impossible when not animating using computer aided techniques, you can appreciate making those techniques work as they work in traditional animation medium will pose its own challenges. It is only fair if I gave two examples as well... For example computer simulation of any kind is hard if not impossible with non-continuous representations of motion when they don't interpolate in a relatively plausible way. Another example would be re-creating a traditional "looking" style, let alone being attempted at a scale like this, will just be a huge technical undertaking. Now, I have a consistent problem where I open my mouth intending to add just a sentence to a conversation and a nine-volume encyclopedia pops out instead. Accordingly, my attempt to answer the poster succinctly turned into a post-long response that I decided might as well just be a post, so here it is! Thanks for your comment! You may be right that Spider-verse isn’t the best example, and certainly I wouldn’t hold it up as an example of the kind of production I intend to create--just as a very good example of stylized CG. I suspect that rendering in a stylized way, and making this style work with their existing methods, was quite expensive for SPI! I recall an artist who worked on Paper Man describing it as twice the work of ordinary CG. That's certainly a danger with stylized approaches--but I think it's an avoidable one. The problem, it seems to me, is that you really can't approach this sort of production as if it were conventional CG, with a conventional methodology and pipeline, and expect to reap the cost benefits I think are potentially realizable with it. You'd have to treat this kind of production very differently. For instance, you mention simulation as something that would be difficult with non-continuous motion, and you're quite correct. So simulation itself would be the first thing on the chopping block for the production, outside of the occasional FX shot. It's one of the many steps that gums up the works of CG production and prevents us from getting to that an-artist-can-sit-down-and-just-make-something state. Plus I generally don't like its results on an artistic basis (at least in this stylized context). When traditional animators animate clothed characters, the clothing takes part in the character's silhouette and becomes a part of the performance. They never had any difficulty animating cloth by hand. Yes, I am actually claiming that hand-animating cloth would be faster then simulating it, and I know how insane that sounds from a conventional CG perspective. But stylization completely changes the game. Consider the monkey test I posted a few months back. The monkey is unclothed, of course, but there definitely parts of his body that require secondary animation, notably his hair tufts and ears. The hair tufts at least would most likely be simulated if this shot were approached in a conventional manner. The way I approached the shot was not only to animate them by hand, but to animate them from the very beginning--the very first key poses I put down already included the ears and hair tufts as an inherent aspect of those poses, already contributing to silhouettes and arcs. It’s pretty difficult to get an accurate idea of exactly what percentage of my time animating the shot was devoted to them, but I’m going to guess it was only a few percent. This is only possible because the stylized look allowed me to ignore the “higher frequency” details that would be required for a fully rendered character, and I expect these same details would also be unnecessary for character clothing. I’m much more interested in character silhouettes then I am in wrinkles and clothing detail, so some simple secondary that’s really just part of the character’s pose would actually be more effective. The idea here is that this isn’t just any form of stylization--it’s a specifically chosen set of stylizations that support each other in the goal of massively reducing the amount of work involved. And that means choosing subjects that work with the grain of those stylistic choices. For instance, you may be wondering how I’d approach a long flowing cape or a long coat. The answer is...I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t generally put characters in long coats or capes. There are about a million stories you could tell that don’t require anyone to wear a cape. Creating low-cost CG in this manner would be about making the design choices that let you get the most bang for your buck production-value wise while maintaining the essentials of character animation, a very different goal then that which I suspect drives companies like SPI and Disney to create stylized CG. This also applies to the NPR rendering. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem, and some may be very time consuming! The two-tone methods I’m using here aren’t, though. I was able, as an individual with some understanding of the problem but no custom tools, to sit down and do the shading for the Monkey test without much trouble. Partly this is again choosing the most direct path to something that both looks good and is efficient to create. The simple two-tone present in the monkey test carries far less detail then the more painterly frames from Spider-verse, but I think it wouldn’t have any difficulty supporting emotionally engaging characters or exciting action scenes. That said, the efficiency of this process could be improved a lot, and there’s a lot of room for R&D here--there’s still a required level of manual tweaking that I’d like to get rid of, and the two tone shapes could be improved. I’m hoping to tackle some of those problems this year. There’s still the question of how that process, however reasonable on a small scale, would scale up to a large production like a feature film. In many ways, it may help to think of the look development for such a production as being less like a conventional film production pipeline, and more like a game. Ideally, except for certain FX shots, such a production would not even have a rendering/compositing stage--what you would see working on the shot would simply be the shot. It might be quite literally “in-engine” if using a game engine as the hub of production turns out to be the right way to approach it (this is something I’m getting more and more interested in). While this doesn’t remove all potential issues with scaling the approach to feature film size, I think it does drastically simplify the problem. Of course, we haven’t actually produced a long-form project using these techniques, and I’m sure there are going to be unforeseen roadblocks, so we shall see! In any case, thanks again for your comment! I hope this illuminates how I envision this production process being different from the way I imagine that Spider-verse is being done, and why I think that the immense cost gains I’m claiming here are achievable.Grasses belong to one of the largest and most economically and ecologically important families of plants: the Poaceae, formerly called the Gramineae. There are over nine thousand species of grasses recognized by botanists. Grasses can be found on every continent and in a wide variety of habitats, both as the dominant plant type (in prairies and tundra) or as minor components of the plant community. Collectively, grasses domesticated as crops represent the world's most important source of food. Grasses share a number of characteristics that differentiate them from other plant species. They typically have long, narrow leaves. The stems may be either flattened or round, and they are often hollow. Grasses can grow very tall (tropical bamboos can reach up to 100 meters [328 feet]) or they can grow prostrate along the ground. The root systems of grasses are highly branched (fibrous) and do not have a well-defined central taproot. Many grasses spread horizontally through the production of underground stems known as rhizomes, or prostrate stems aboveground known as stolons. New grass shoots can emerge from either rhizomes or stolons. Grasses have evolved in environments where drought, grazing by large herbivores, and fires were common. Unlike many plants, the growing points (or meristems)
HOWD YOU KNOW MY FATHER LEFT ME IN 2014
YOOO
Bemmy u still alive
I am your father
we know.
I’m sorry son,I miss you,give me 1 trillion dollars I will come back
11:02 Bemmy: You used me and u still lost? Arkey: SHUT UP BEMMY
Lol
Ha fr funny lol as its funny as hell
@@BaconPlayzRoblox_Official04MM2 ayyy we have the same comment
2:24
11:02 Fat Duk: YOU USED ME, AND STILL LOST!? Arkey: SHUT UP BEMMY!!
Doodle-hey man you need a dad
Arkey-Exactly…Yoooooo 2:39
2:43 not 2:39
11:02 "You Used me and you still lost?" *SHUT UP BEMMY -Arkey*
that part was funny😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
no you shut but i am sorry
@@adamvlcek6204 it's fine
Wait a min some of the units talk when you lose or win?
WE BE GETTING OUR PARTNER REMOVED WITH THIS ONE 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯
FR 🔥🔥💯 🗣
Fr🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯
FR🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯💯💯
FR🔥🔥🔥🤑🤑🥶🥶🗣️🗣️🗣️
😅
8:09 Arkey turns blue
2:44 bro just roasted his dad
Damn that is crazy
Boring IDC
😅 no 2:43
@deilabarboza6717 it's 2:44
2:42 hey man you need a dad. Exactly……. YOOOOOOOO!!!
arkey ill be your dad :D
Under one hour gang! (W doodle W arkey)
5min
26 min
38 min
40mins
Me
BEMMYBLOX BANGED ON ARKEY POOOOOOO 9:34
11:02 you used me and you still lost
Arkey:SHUT UP BEMMY
😅
If you want to skip to the next video here 11:32
Doodle: you are both missing a father's.
Arkey: WOW !!!.😅
When that
Arlen the helicopters 😂😂😂 0:51
yo
ARLEN? ITS ARKEY!!
L shut up
You smell
Yup@@Lyoto-c4m
2:51 😂 when arkey realizes
That part was funny🤣 9:03
Telanthric is so messed up bro. You play ONE other game and your partner is gone! At this point, he just wants money…
He doesnt want robux he doesnt wants an rival
2:19 noooo there getting through!!!!!!!!
Nice bro
You cool dude
Only real Doodle fans can like this comment...
Blud commented 2 times I see bot behavior
no doodle cheats i do not like him
Bot
Ok then click off the video simple@@williamgamer8296
Bot
I can’t believe he just agreed💀💀 2:43
11:02 you used me and you still lost? SHUT UP BEMMY!
2:40 you need a dad 😂😂😂😂😂
The first second in the vid and im already losing my braincells
RIP DODDLE AND ARKEY’S PARTNER
👇
4:09 ❤❤
You are so gay
Ebi ebi ebi ebi ebi
WE BE LOSING PARTNER WITH THIS ONE 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥
Fr
The day always gets better when Doodle uploads! ❤
Bro these 2 gotta say goodbye forever toilet tower defense partner ship
Keep up the work doodle
Doodle's is the burping king and arkey is the window breaking king
Say goodbye to your partner
7:14 yo
Yes I'm like your video ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Under 15 min team
👇
BROOOO BEMMY IS MOVING IN TOILET TOWER DEFENCE OMG
This sound made me laugh 😂😂😂😂 1:35
Maccaronis
1:37 arkey being a gentlemen
11:02 bemmy is mad
Say goodbye to your partner.
Nice profile
Rip doodle and arkey partner
Tru man
True
Tru
FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR FR RIP 🪦
I like that doodle and Arky change colors when they make a nosie
Doodle and Arkey Best YT
Rip your guys partner
Stole my comment why
Hey! It’s been a while since I’ve posted--I was working on a frankly unreasonable number of projects these last two months, some of which I hope to be able to show you soon, but it left me with very little time to add to this blog.
A couple of days ago, I was reminded I have to get back to this when I saw a comment come up on my last post “Action is his reward.” With permission, I’m reproducing it here:
I am rewarded by your enthusiasm and I can relate to most of the content that you produced for this blog post.
However, this project may not the best case for the perspective you are presenting, as it stands with today's technology trends and capabilities (perhaps limitations as well).
I hope some day, doing this style of work proves to be more cost effective, as I would love to see more of this style in hopefully even more ambitious productions.
Let me elaborate some other perspective that may explain my point better and hopefully have more people appreciate lesser understood details about what is presented in that teaser.
If you think about a team of people creating this whole thing from scratch and let's say during the process they might be using some techniques uniquely advantageous and otherwise impossible when not animating using computer aided techniques, you can appreciate making those techniques work as they work in traditional animation medium will pose its own challenges.
It is only fair if I gave two examples as well...
For example computer simulation of any kind is hard if not impossible with non-continuous representations of motion when they don't interpolate in a relatively plausible way.
Another example would be re-creating a traditional "looking" style, let alone being attempted at a scale like this, will just be a huge technical undertaking.
Now, I have a consistent problem where I open my mouth intending to add just a sentence to a conversation and a nine-volume encyclopedia pops out instead. Accordingly, my attempt to answer the poster succinctly turned into a post-long response that I decided might as well just be a post, so here it is!
Thanks for your comment! You may be right that Spider-verse isn’t the best example, and certainly I wouldn’t hold it up as an example of the kind of production I intend to create--just as a very good example of stylized CG. I suspect that rendering in a stylized way, and making this style work with their existing methods, was quite expensive for SPI! I recall an artist who worked on Paper Man describing it as twice the work of ordinary CG. That's certainly a danger with stylized approaches--but I think it's an avoidable one.
The problem, it seems to me, is that you really can't approach this sort of production as if it were conventional CG, with a conventional methodology and pipeline, and expect to reap the cost benefits I think are potentially realizable with it. You'd have to treat this kind of production very differently.
For instance, you mention simulation as something that would be difficult with non-continuous motion, and you're quite correct. So simulation itself would be the first thing on the chopping block for the production, outside of the occasional FX shot. It's one of the many steps that gums up the works of CG production and prevents us from getting to that an-artist-can-sit-down-and-just-make-something state. Plus I generally don't like its results on an artistic basis (at least in this stylized context). When traditional animators animate clothed characters, the clothing takes part in the character's silhouette and becomes a part of the performance. They never had any difficulty animating cloth by hand.
Yes, I am actually claiming that hand-animating cloth would be faster then simulating it, and I know how insane that sounds from a conventional CG perspective. But stylization completely changes the game. Consider the monkey test I posted a few months back.
The monkey is unclothed, of course, but there definitely parts of his body that require secondary animation, notably his hair tufts and ears. The hair tufts at least would most likely be simulated if this shot were approached in a conventional manner. The way I approached the shot was not only to animate them by hand, but to animate them from the very beginning--the very first key poses I put down already included the ears and hair tufts as an inherent aspect of those poses, already contributing to silhouettes and arcs. It’s pretty difficult to get an accurate idea of exactly what percentage of my time animating the shot was devoted to them, but I’m going to guess it was only a few percent.
This is only possible because the stylized look allowed me to ignore the “higher frequency” details that would be required for a fully rendered character, and I expect these same details would also be unnecessary for character clothing. I’m much more interested in character silhouettes then I am in wrinkles and clothing detail, so some simple secondary that’s really just part of the character’s pose would actually be more effective.
The idea here is that this isn’t just any form of stylization--it’s a specifically chosen set of stylizations that support each other in the goal of massively reducing the amount of work involved. And that means choosing subjects that work with the grain of those stylistic choices. For instance, you may be wondering how I’d approach a long flowing cape or a long coat. The answer is...I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t generally put characters in long coats or capes. There are about a million stories you could tell that don’t require anyone to wear a cape. Creating low-cost CG in this manner would be about making the design choices that let you get the most bang for your buck production-value wise while maintaining the essentials of character animation, a very different goal then that which I suspect drives companies like SPI and Disney to create stylized CG.
This also applies to the NPR rendering. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem, and some may be very time consuming! The two-tone methods I’m using here aren’t, though. I was able, as an individual with some understanding of the problem but no custom tools, to sit down and do the shading for the Monkey test without much trouble. Partly this is again choosing the most direct path to something that both looks good and is efficient to create. The simple two-tone present in the monkey test carries far less detail then the more painterly frames from Spider-verse, but I think it wouldn’t have any difficulty supporting emotionally engaging characters or exciting action scenes.
That said, the efficiency of this process could be improved a lot, and there’s a lot of room for R&D here--there’s still a required level of manual tweaking that I’d like to get rid of, and the two tone shapes could be improved. I’m hoping to tackle some of those problems this year.
There’s still the question of how that process, however reasonable on a small scale, would scale up to a large production like a feature film. In many ways, it may help to think of the look development for such a production as being less like a conventional film production pipeline, and more like a game. Ideally, except for certain FX shots, such a production would not even have a rendering/compositing stage--what you would see working on the shot would simply be the shot. It might be quite literally “in-engine” if using a game engine as the hub of production turns out to be the right way to approach it (this is something I’m getting more and more interested in). While this doesn’t remove all potential issues with scaling the approach to feature film size, I think it does drastically simplify the problem. Of course, we haven’t actually produced a long-form project using these techniques, and I’m sure there are going to be unforeseen roadblocks, so we shall see!
In any case, thanks again for your comment! I hope this illuminates how I envision this production process being different from the way I imagine that Spider-verse is being done, and why I think that the immense cost gains I’m claiming here are achievable.Grasses belong to one of the largest and most economically and ecologically important families of plants: the Poaceae, formerly called the Gramineae. There are over nine thousand species of grasses recognized by botanists. Grasses can be found on every continent and in a wide variety of habitats, both as the dominant plant type (in prairies and tundra) or as minor components of the plant community. Collectively, grasses domesticated as crops represent the world's most important source of food.
Grasses share a number of characteristics that differentiate them from other plant species. They typically have long, narrow leaves. The stems may be either flattened or round, and they are often hollow. Grasses can grow very tall (tropical bamboos can reach up to 100 meters [328 feet]) or they can grow prostrate along the ground. The root systems of grasses are highly branched (fibrous) and do not have a well-defined central taproot. Many grasses spread horizontally through the production of underground stems known as rhizomes, or prostrate stems aboveground known as stolons. New grass shoots can emerge from either rhizomes or stolons.
Grasses have evolved in environments where drought, grazing by large herbivores, and fires were common. Unlike many plants, the growing points (or meristems)
SHUT UP
@Benjiisme5 th-cam.com/users/shortsxHEgHjJvR94?si=K4h3zSLH-55LhXAw
Chat gpt goes hard lil bro
To long
Guys a bot subbed to me, what do I do?
Arkey did doodle dirty🤣 10:14
Arlen?
4:10 bro turnd blue
Nah fr
7:30 Bro turned yellow
If the doodle unit and the arkey unit be like with knifes: *helicopter meme*
Arkey the screamer. Doodle the burper
Arkey doodles mom;) doodle the unfunny guy
@@dudurchalarkey' mom
Doodle the screamer and doodle the burper
@@unknownxdflyme3872 breh arkey screams more and sometimes doodle screams more than arkey
Doodle: u need a dad
Arkey: exactly wait what? Dont u dare Say something about m'y father figure
Dayum
7:20 DOODLE SAID MY BIRTHDAY
***arkey******
He said may 8
You mean march 15
@@KaukaniMiranda-zs2jd HE SAID MARCH 15TH
👇🏾Claim your 20 minute ticket here
W doodle😂
Names for arkey Barkey darky marky farty bartey now names for doodle dodo modle google suidool
16 second 0:20
Who else loves doodle
Rip partner
?
Arkey's Mom yeah W Doodle
1 minutes gang
Can you please make the octopus talk again? It’s very funny, please.
Your partner is gone dude in ttd
That's cap
Fr@@cristcobas8620
Bros partner in TTD is long gone now...
One more Skibi tower defense vid both of you will lose partner in ttd
Pls keep playing this game I don't care if your partner gets taken away as long as this channel can have variety games I am happy.
DODO AND FARTY
DODO AND FARTY
they have that name in a video
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!
You’re a cop
DOODOO and FARTY = DOODLE and ARKEY
5:19
You are the best robot TH-cam
That’s go doodle and arkey 😂😂😂
YOOOO HI
Claim your 5 min ticket here!!!
👇
Arkey always has a crush on doodles mom 3:51
Rip Doodle and Armored’s partner
W doodle and arkey
Under one hour gang
👇
That video is very cool 😎 and nice 👍 wow 😯
R.I.P doodles and Arkeys partner now in ttd cause of this video
8:01 he saw saw the money 💀
It's sad that i had to watch this when i was sick😢
Same
11:02 bemmy: You Used Me and You Still Lost
Hi ❤
The Bemmy
GGS for there partner in toilet tower defense
Doodle and arkey is very goated like sunny and melon
Girls theme to the top of his lungs 🫁
Arkey I'm taking ur mom to a 1£ restaurant lol
I love yall❤
ARKEYS MOM!!
Yooo
Hi doodle
RIP PARTNER 🕊
21 March 2024 - 9 May 2024
Rip Partner 💯
Thomorrow is my birthday 🎉
Happy early birthday 🥳 🥳🥳🥳🎉🎉🎉🎉🎁🎁🎁🎂🎂🎂
Yo what’s good but good videos guys sub for them to reach 700k arkey doodle hope u mak3 it
Bemmy and telantric gonna be mad at doodle 💀
Hi doodle and Arkey / archi
Astrology is also an option
Under one hour gang
👇
✊nope get out of here
NOOOOO doodle and arkey don’t know they WILL lose there partner
Doodle and Arkey be careful TTD might take away your partner if you keep on making videos here
Rip bros partner when the ttd mods see this.
We are putting wor- *sounds like a dolphin* 7:27
Sign your final unit in toilet tower defense Before it gets taken away 😢
Ok father figer roll