Difference between revisions of "Doc talk:Overview"

From Synfig Studio :: Documentation
Jump to: navigation, search
m (moved Talk:Introduction to Doc talk:Introduction: Move page to Doc namespace)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
* get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 
* get help with what is Synfig good for (in teh animation creation process... Genete?) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 
* wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --[[User:Ohoservices|Ohoservices]] 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 
* wikipedia cite (do with footnote) --[[User:Ohoservices|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):
 +
<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?
 +
 +
 +
>>> ** 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?
 +
</nowiki>

Revision as of 12:52, 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?