Difference between revisions of "Doc talk:Overview"
From Synfig Studio :: Documentation
Ohoservices (Talk | contribs) |
Ohoservices (Talk | contribs) |
||
| 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): | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | * >>> 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. | |
| − | >> I looked in several places. I found this to be weird on one hand but the most comprehensive on the other hand. | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | >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? | |
| − | + | ||
| − | >>> 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? | + | |
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 13:56, 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?
