Difference between revisions of "Doc talk:Overview"

From Synfig Studio :: Documentation
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 8: Line 8:
 
== Content Discussion ==
 
== Content Discussion ==
 
this is an excerpt from an email discussion between zelgadis (>>> and >) and oho (>> and last answer):
 
this is an excerpt from an email discussion between zelgadis (>>> and >) and oho (>> and last answer):
<nowiki>
 
>>> Some content of the page is disputable. I.e.:
 
>> sure  ;-)
 
>>> ** "Chances are that for several reasons a 3D animations is much more
 
>>> time-consuming than a comparable 2D animation. "
 
>> chances are...
 
>Still, very disputable. ^___^
 
I love disputes  ;-)
 
Seriously: it is just what came into my mind in one day, I am open to changes!
 
I think being a bit inconvenient and insubordinate is a good thing.
 
Please tell me when I'm getting to exaggerated, ok?
 
  
 +
* >>> Some content of the page is disputable. I.e.:
 +
* >> sure  ;-)
 +
* >>> "Chances are that for several reasons a 3D animations is much more time-consuming than a comparable 2D animation. "
 +
* >> chances are...
 +
* > Still, very disputable. ^___^
 +
* I love disputes  ;-)  Seriously: it is just what came into my mind in one day, I am open to changes! I think being a bit inconvenient and insubordinate is a good thing. Please tell me when I'm getting to exaggerated, ok?
  
>>> ** The classification of "Types Of Animation" is weird. I figured out
+
* >>> The classification of "Types Of Animation" is weird. I figured out that it come from Wikipedia article, but they talk about "animation techniques" - probably there's a little difference.
>>> that it come from Wikipedia article, but they talk about "animation
+
* >> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand. I will rename that to technologies, good point!
>>> techniques" - probably there's a little difference.
+
* >ok.
>> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand.
+
>> I will rename that to technologies, good point!
+
>ok.
+
  
 +
* >>> ** "Why Do 2D Animation?" Do we really need to motivate choice of 2D animation over 3D?
 +
* >> yes. newbies to animation need some help on where to start. Otherwise they would tend to 3D ("3 is more than 2" kind of reasons). I would have found it very helpful a few years ago to get this kind of short hints on where the differences are.
 +
* > They are just different. Choice of technology
  
>>> ** "Why Do 2D Animation?" Do we really need to motivate choice of 2D
+
* >>> depend on expected result.  Maybe just point to the differences?
>>> animation over 3D?
+
* >> tried to do that... what did I miss? Any help appreciated.
>> yes. newbies to animation need some help on where to start. Otherwise they would tend to 3D ("3 is more than 2" kind of reasons).
+
* > Maybe just rename "Why Do 2D Animation?" to something else?
>> I would have found it very helpful a few years ago to get this kind of short hints on where the differences are.
+
* I like it... it doesn't say 3D is bad, it just answers the question "why should I do 2D when I can do 3D?". Other ideas?
> They are just different. Choice of technology
+
>>> depend on expected result.  Maybe just point to the differences?
+
>> tried to do that... what did I miss? Any help appreciated.
+
> Maybe just rename "Why Do 2D Animation?" to something else?
+
I like it... it doesn't say 3D is bad, it just answers the question "why should I do 2D when I can do 3D?"
+
Other ideas?
+
</nowiki>
+

Revision as of 12:56, 14 May 2010

Thoughts

  • need to link the tutorials to the "5 samples" --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • maybe a few screenshots or so (just some pictures to make it more colorful ;-) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --Ohoservices 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


Content Discussion

this is an excerpt from an email discussion between zelgadis (>>> and >) and oho (>> and last answer):

  • >>> Some content of the page is disputable. I.e.:
  • >> sure  ;-)
  • >>> "Chances are that for several reasons a 3D animations is much more time-consuming than a comparable 2D animation. "
  • >> chances are...
  • > Still, very disputable. ^___^
  • I love disputes  ;-) Seriously: it is just what came into my mind in one day, I am open to changes! I think being a bit inconvenient and insubordinate is a good thing. Please tell me when I'm getting to exaggerated, ok?
  • >>> The classification of "Types Of Animation" is weird. I figured out that it come from Wikipedia article, but they talk about "animation techniques" - probably there's a little difference.
  • >> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand. I will rename that to technologies, good point!
  • >ok.
  • >>> ** "Why Do 2D Animation?" Do we really need to motivate choice of 2D animation over 3D?
  • >> yes. newbies to animation need some help on where to start. Otherwise they would tend to 3D ("3 is more than 2" kind of reasons). I would have found it very helpful a few years ago to get this kind of short hints on where the differences are.
  • > They are just different. Choice of technology
  • >>> depend on expected result. Maybe just point to the differences?
  • >> tried to do that... what did I miss? Any help appreciated.
  • > Maybe just rename "Why Do 2D Animation?" to something else?
  • I like it... it doesn't say 3D is bad, it just answers the question "why should I do 2D when I can do 3D?". Other ideas?