Ok, so I have a “informative” paper due in my English class and the topic I picked was 3D animation. I was wondering if anybody here could tell me what misconceptions and/or ignorance you’ve run into over the years about your work. I think I have a pretty good idea about what to write on already, but if anybody has run into some common problems with people not understanding anything about the creation of animations I would really appreciate hearing about it.
Even though I want to, I probably can’t make this blender specific because of the lack of knowledge by my classmates and professor. (He’s pretty much the definition of the stereotype on English professors, we hear puns and math professor jokes just as often as all the Shakespeare, Dickens, ect… quotes)
One thing that I know I want to hit on is that CG artists are not always computer know it all geeks. (No, I have no idea why your computer isn’t working… Yes, I know I sound knowledgeable to you, but knowing what that part is called doesn’t mean I can tell you why it’s busted.)
The one recurring theme that appears by newbies & non CG folks alike are questions and expectations like “How long will it take for me to get that good ? & Can anyone make a movie for my idea in 3D in a week for free ?”
Other than that, and a bit off your thread main issue, a former classmate of mine who was really into computers when he was 15 years old was earning in pounds roughly a quarter of a million per annum seven years later . . . and he had no qualifications. And ofcourse he was never labeled a nerd by us, merely someone with an interest in that field.
There was a thread just few weeks ago here in Off topics that discussed misconceptions about CG. Search should bring it up. I think the most common one was people saying, “Well the computer does all the work for you, doesn’t it?”
DichotomyMatt: yeah now that I think about it I remember that thread, sorry everyone.
Hobo Joe: gah, you evil person, now I’ll never get anything done. no really thanks, I think I actually saw the original thread on there, wow, that was a long time ago.
You might wish to ponder just what “an ‘informative’ paper” actually ought to be.
(This, of course, is a major component of this very-useful exercise…)
Your natural tendency will be to “be ‘informative’” from your personal position of (very-considerable) knowledge. Trouble is, your audience does not possess any of that same knowledge! Therefore, you might well present material that makes perfect sense to you but that is, in fact, utterly-incomprehensible to your audience.
And your professor, in due course, will “grade the paper ‘accordingly.’” :eek:
So… stop and consider your intended audience. (Not “the professor,” but rather some hypothetical person…) What sort of material would be ‘informative’ to them? What sort of base-knowledge (if any!) might it be reasonable to assume that they know? What is it actually reasonable to consider ‘informing them’ of?
You might well need to scrap your current plans and to devise a completely different paper… even if that paper seems “utterly rudimentary” to you, it might not be!
That “discovery” might well be the ‘hidden purpose’ of this exercise. It is actually very difficult for a “subject matter expert” to create anything that is usefully ‘informative,’ let alone ‘vaguely interesting,’ to a layman…
no really thanks, I think I actually saw the original thread on there, wow, that was a long time ago.