I've watched Sponge bob cartoon from nickelodeon, and it looks good. I notice even sometimes the sponge bob doesn't move, he is steady for a few secs, but still he looks alive, either by speaking or moving his eyes or something. Now,on the other hand , if i create a character and move onlly his eyes or mouth. all of his body is like steady like a mummy and it seems so unrealistic. how is it, sponge bob can be realistic even if steady, and my poser anims, look weird, and bad even if the characters move some parts of their body.

Are you animating cartoon characters or human figures? Stylized cartoon is a lot more forgiving, esp in 2D. Also, note that many cartoons use highly exaggerated poses that even in a still carry a lot of motion in them.

Three words: "Animator's Survival Kit".

There is a well known and studied process for 'bringing characters to life', even at the minimalist motion stage.  This aforementioned book is practically a bible on the process from a professional animator.

It's all about 'believability'.  Humans expect a particular degree of animous so that the figure doesn't appear to be a frozen image.  Anime has explored this to a great degree (both good and bad) to reduce the amount of animation while maintaining this animous.  Some 70's animated cartoons pushed it quite to the extreme and breeched the divide to the point where the corruption of believability is evident and some laugh at the 'cheapness' of the production.  In other words, you can only minimize the animous so much before you are doing nothing more than comic book still boxes that belay the concept of animation in the production.

The crucial revelation is that 'humans' (and this could be caricature animals or sponges) have automatic systems that are always in play.  Breathing, eye-blinking, nostril breathing flair, mouth twinges, body balancing, and so on are what are called "Autonomic" - not under direct conscious control.  These neural systems do the background tasks we are mostly unaware of.  But we are usually 'aware' of them (to some degree) in other beings.  It is easy to tell that a taxodermic display is not a real live animal (as good as the depictions are) because the brain eventually realizes that the dead, stuffed animal is doing nothing - at all.  Very few animals do not exhibit autonomic processes (but there are those that do at certain times - insects are good at this).

Basically, anthropomorphic characters (those mimicking human traits) should have the same animous - the same motive quirks and traits that would suggest a living being (possibly with a conscious brain) is being portrayed.  Of course, certain situations can play upon the antithesis - think of someone in contemplation in a 'zen state' (legs crossed, head down in meditation).  The animous there is so subdued as to be insignificant - and that is probably the impetus for the scene.  How much animous - how much activity or dynamics is shown in an animated sequence is just as important as the animous itself.

Attached Link: http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperGraph/animation/character_animation/principles/lasseter_s94.htm

John Lasseter (Pixar) gave a lecture detailing the differences between 2D & 3D animation where he speaks about the "moving hold" among other things.

required reading for an animator.

Also note that when you use poser chars you are running smack into what is called the "uncanny curve"...google the word for details, but basically what it means is that people are much more forgiving of say a toonish mouse with human traits then a human doll with human traits. The closer the doll/figure gets to looking 'real' the less likely a viewer is able to accept any flaws in its look/motion. In fact it even starts looking very creepy simply because it makes us uncomfortable to see an 'almost' real 3d object that suddenly moves as if it had broken its knee or elbow (all too common in poser).

Well i've seen several poser animations used in TV, and they are quite cheap.. They actually have poser characters in the supermarket self checkout computers.. and the animation is quite bad.

It isn't Poser that creates bad animations - it's bad animators.

My take on this is that your quip on 'cheap' is closer to the truth than you expected.  Poser is a 'cheap' alternative to the costs of higher-end software or using consultants thereof.  And for the price, they probably had time restrictions and weren't too worried about experience.  You'll usually see companies try to keep costs to a minimum by farming out the work to an employee who has some experience (or not).  This isn't the most professional way to get good results - "We need you create these animations for us in a couple weeks, in your spare time.  Here's Poser.  You figure it out."

3D animation is not for the feignt of heart.  They're called 'Studios', because it takes dozens and dozens of seasoned professionals (of all ilks) and many months (or years) to make those shorts or full length 3D CG movies.  You can't expect the same quality from a single 'weekend warrior' in
a few weeks or months with the limitations imposed - even if that person is experienced.

tebop

Poser is a great program for learning animation. Good characters that are already rigged (a huge headache in any program), and an easy to use time line with a great curve editor. You can jump right into the keys with very little hassle and animate.

The only drawback (pre Poser 7 comment) is that you grow out of it sooner or later because the features just aren't there.

yep. just to agree with the above. bad animations in poser are largely due to user error. it's the easiest app in which to animate humanoid figures IMVHO. it's also one of the easiest apps in which to get bad renders (due to user error), but maybe that was fixed in P7. the bad joint bending in previous versions may also be fixed in P7. failure to do proper joint bending can also be attributed to user error, but previous versions basically have a mid-90s joint set-up that is obsolete, regardless of whatever advanced users can do to ameliorate it.

it always tickles me that the seeming goal of 'anime' is to make the characters move as little as possible..;)

Actually, it's presumed that simple organic molecules were affected by solar radiation to produce simple organisms..not sure how you'd do that in Poser, maybe then they come out with Poser 8..;)

"Actually, it's presumed that simple organic molecules were affected by solar radiation to produce simple organisms..not sure how you'd do that in Poser, maybe then they come out with Poser 8..;)"

I initially read that as:
"...simple organic molecules were affected by solar radiation to produce simple orgasms..not sure ....;)"

Maybe I wasn't so wrong:-))

For biological nature to take off, there'd need to be a reward...(simple, innit?)

Cheers,
Diolma

(And apologies for a purile attempt at humour)

Attached Link: Why do game characters look so creepy

In this article in "Slate", the author talks about the "uncanny valley" which is the idea that the more "realistic" an image, the more "fake" it looks. Basically, it means that we accept things like non-moving hair in animated movies like "The Lion King"... but we scream "fake!" when the hair in "Final Fantasy" moves realisitcally.

well, I'm not sure how far up the evolutionary tree orgasms start at..;) I'm sure someone, somewhere has done a study, though..;)

BTW (and back on topic) my single brain cell seems to remember something about a python script that introduced slight, random movements into an animation of standing figures...quite a while back..

Quite possibly by Occam (drat - I can never remember how he spells his nick.. but the Python Guru)

Might be worth asking in the Python forum:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

Quote - BTW (and back on topic) my single brain cell seems to remember something about a python script that introduced slight, random movements into an animation of standing figures...quite a while back.

Link to ockham's Naturalizer