My point in singling out these animations was precisely to draw attention to the way that pursuing “realism” with a higher FPS can lead to sacrifices in animation quality. There are some high-FPS brick animations that do it well. “The Magic Portal” immediately springs to mind.

The question people should be asking is, “what frame rate should I use on this particular film?”, and I think the answer there is closely tied to another question: “why am I making animated films?” If your films are an outlet for you to experiment with super-slick graphics, then animating at 25+ fps might make sense. It’s another way for you to attempt to improve the visual aspect of your craft.

However, I think most successful filmmakers and animators make films because they want to tell memorable, compelling stories. In that sense, visuals are only one part of the language of cinema, and making sure all aspects of your film are on the same level as the picture is a balancing act in itself.

“The Machine” has sharp visuals, but is not terribly noteworthy or memorable otherwise. Does the fact that the main character has an animated face make it easier to tell what he’s thinking or doing? In this case, not really. His physical motion is smooth, but his movements are robotic; he walks in a straight line, turns, and then walks in a straight line again. Does that make his walk animation better or “more realistic” than a 12 fps walk cycle that bends and flows with human feeling? I would say no.

Honestly, the thing I found most impressive about “The Machine” was the animation of the alarm clock being shut off; the offset plate that is hit and becomes a tile for a frame or two was a brilliant little touch. That alone was more interesting to me than coffee that looked like real fluid… which the guy then drank with stiff movements that didn’t look anything like a living character drinking something.

“Good” vs. “realistic” in the world of animation is a whole other conversation — perhaps one that warrants its own post. 🙂