News at Ten animation idea

Okay, I accept that.

Christ this place is brutal. I was looking for some guidance as I developed it, as I'm not sure how to progress it, but you are right, I guess I could have tried harder.

You've received remarkably better treatment than you have shown others, so I wouldn't be complaining if I were you.

Anyway, I think the original was better. Even if you want to keep the boxes, the white ITV logo would look far better than the shades of blue.

Still 3/5 for me.

We've all given you some rather useful, non abuseful feedback. I haven't seen any brutal comments.

Yes, turning text (for want of a more technical phrase) rarely looks great - just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I also don't see the point in emulating the Sky News logo - it's not that great to begin with and I would say out of the three ITV News have probably got the best logo at the moment.

I know you're only at the beginning of the process but this just highlights how compicated even the most seemingly simple animations actually need to be. The clock alone doesn't really work hence why they have the wire globe and colour effect in 1999, while I think you need to master some 3D techniques to move this on as the 2D clock is limiting what can be achieved.

I've given it a 2/5 - I'll be honest, it'd be a 3/5 still mock on the final frame, but the animation is poor. It's like you've located the rotate Y axis control in AfterEffects and just started playing with it.

I think the clock face does need to be 3D rather than flat, and maybe implemented similar to the 2008 NaT logo. I'd go away and try something new, and come back to us.

This ain't too bad. The colours (espically of the fonts) is the main issue here.
3/5

It's brutal in the sense that this forum used to save negativity for absolutely awful mocks (of which this isn't), aside from which any attempt was given encouragement and constructive criticism. Somewhere along the line, everyone's an expert and mocks are critiqued in the same way (or perhaps more harshly) than actual broadcast material.

Agree with everything that MikeW has said.

Its not a bad idea, but the execution is poor. I'm no expert on animation, but i would say you need more depth and detail as it currently feels very flat. I would recommend you contact Bail or mdtauk who i feel are the closest people we have to resident experts on animation/after effects. They are most likely to have the best technical advice on how to add details to this.

I think once you get a better grasp of the software you'll be able to improve this. I hope that you will continue this because your skills are improving.

-----------------------


• I think a lot of people who gave excellent advice and criticism in the past have jumped ship because they felt like broken records repeating the same advice in thread after thread and being ignored in thread after thread.


• I'm of the mind that posting to this gallery is not necessarily the best way to get guidance or advice whilst developing something. I usually ask someone i trust for guidance before i start the thread. I'm sure there are some gallery regulars - myself included - who would be more than happy to discuss a mock and assist in its improvement via PMs before you posted on the site.

• I think in the gallery's current state with its tit-for-tat bickering and pathetic tactical voting you need to be able to recognise and seek advice from the few individuals who are most likely to know what they are talking about - those who have previously presented excellent quality mocks - and ignore the rest. Specifically the newer members who dont have a clue what they are doing and think they can provide advice when they cant even listen to or act on the advice which is given to them. These same members seem to overly praise or be overly critical depending on how their own mocks have been received or whether they feel 'victimised'.

• The ratings of late have been quite frankly baffling, something i can only assume is down to tactical voting as i find it hard to believe that people would be so stupid in their rating. I think information on who gave what rating most definitely needs to be public.

• I believe that 5 stars should be reserved for mocks that are as close as possible to broadcast quality. Some of the work on this gallery has been superior to broadcast quality. I dont think it is unreasonable to expect that to continue. I'm pretty sure that actual broadcast material is critiqued far more harshly than the gallery - just look at the recent Channel 4 rebrand thread.

(Apologies - it feels like what i've written doesnt flow very well - hence the bullet points)

PS. It needs to be said. I firmly believe you're all very nice in person, even if on occasion some of you are incredibly frustrating. Nothing i write is intended to upset or offend. (Maybe i should set that as my signature?)

Could be time to revise the ratings categories - I find so often mocks are more than respectable but not really impressive, with this being one of them. Awful and poor are pretty much the same thing anyway.