I understand why exaggeration is useful for animations that aren't photorealistic. However, as animation as advanced and as machines get more powerful, capable of rendering more realistic scenes, is exaggeration still emphasized when producing animations?
Veriny
@CharlesLiu02 That's something animators have to contend with all the time, I think. Walt Disney would often tell his animators that their animations didn't look realistic enough, but when the animators made the motion of their characters hyperrealistic, he would tell them that their animations looked too stiff. I don't think exaggeration always means stretching proportions to the extreme and blatantly breaking the laws of physics - in a realistic animation, it can be something as small as a person who slouches deeply as they sigh, more than anyone would in real life. A realistic, but emphasized, motion.
sZwX74
Even for photorealistic animations, I think one technique that might still count as "exaggeration" is the idea of showing movement "ahead" of it actually happening, to emphasize a certain movement. For example, for someone running, the animation might have afterimages following behind the main body or preimages that the main body catches up to. Of course, these ghost images aren't really there, but they are an exaggeration to help emphasize the running motion.
omaryu17
The concept of exaggeration really displays how moldable animated objects are. Looking at these pictures, I think of the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry cartoons, where movement and shapes are greatly exaggerated in order to display the effect of actions. A cool link I found is this website: https://animation2012.weebly.com/squash--stretch.html, where different principles of animation are shown to display how they affect viewing perspectives.
I understand why exaggeration is useful for animations that aren't photorealistic. However, as animation as advanced and as machines get more powerful, capable of rendering more realistic scenes, is exaggeration still emphasized when producing animations?
@CharlesLiu02 That's something animators have to contend with all the time, I think. Walt Disney would often tell his animators that their animations didn't look realistic enough, but when the animators made the motion of their characters hyperrealistic, he would tell them that their animations looked too stiff. I don't think exaggeration always means stretching proportions to the extreme and blatantly breaking the laws of physics - in a realistic animation, it can be something as small as a person who slouches deeply as they sigh, more than anyone would in real life. A realistic, but emphasized, motion.
Even for photorealistic animations, I think one technique that might still count as "exaggeration" is the idea of showing movement "ahead" of it actually happening, to emphasize a certain movement. For example, for someone running, the animation might have afterimages following behind the main body or preimages that the main body catches up to. Of course, these ghost images aren't really there, but they are an exaggeration to help emphasize the running motion.
The concept of exaggeration really displays how moldable animated objects are. Looking at these pictures, I think of the Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry cartoons, where movement and shapes are greatly exaggerated in order to display the effect of actions. A cool link I found is this website: https://animation2012.weebly.com/squash--stretch.html, where different principles of animation are shown to display how they affect viewing perspectives.