by bernadette.poessnicker -

02/03 Software

Verschiedene Programme können digitale Frame by Frame Animation ermöglichen. Welches Programm für welchen Anwendungsfall geeignet ist, hängt mit mehreren Faktoren zusammen. Vertraute Programme beschleunigen zwar die Gestaltung, jedoch kann neue Software nach einer Einarbeitungszeit mit zusätzlichen Funktionen einen größeren Vorteil bieten.

Ich habe mich im Zuge der Semesterarbeit mit Frame by Frame Animation in Procreate, Adobe Animate und Procreate Dreams beschäftigt.

Wie oben erwähnt, ist die Verwendung von vertrauten Programmen nicht nur finanziell sondern auch während dem Gestaltungsprozess ein Vorteil. Aus diesem Grund wollte ich Procreate diesmal auch für Frame by Frame Animation nutzen.

Allerdings ist Adobe Animate auf Frame by Frame Animation zugeschnitten, auch Procreate Dreams ist nach meinem Empfinden eine Weiterentwicklung von Procreate – in Richtung Frame by Frame Animation.

Austesten mit einem kleinen Übungsbeispiel hat mir sehr geholfen. Beim Ausprobieren von Procreate und Adobe Animate bin ich auf einige Hindernisse gestoßen, die mich schlussendlich zur Verwendung von Procreate Dreams geführt haben.

PRO Procreate
– Interface vertraut
– bereits gekauft
– Frame by Frame Animation möglich und simpel

CONTRA Procreate
– Einschränkung bei der Ebenenanzahl durch Ipad Modell (64 Ebenen)
– Referenzvideo kann nur als PNG Sequenz (jedes PNG eine Ebene) importiert werden.

PRO Animate
– Teil der Creative Cloud (bereits gekauft)
– Projekt kann in Adobe Programme importiert werden
– Frame by Frame Animation möglich

CONTRA Animate
– Interface unterscheidet sich sehr zu übrigen Adobe Programmen
– Einschränkungen bei der Pinseloptik im Vergleich zu Procreate

PRO Procreate Dreams
– Neue Software, aufbauend auf Procreate, spezialisiert auf Frame by Frame Animation
– Referenzvideos können einfach importiert werden
– intuitive Software

CONTRA Procreate Dreams
– Neuanschaffung (23,99 €)
– Nicht alle Funktionen sofort klar

Fazit: Für meinen Anwendungsfall ist Procreate Dreams am Besten geeignet. Daher – die Investition lohnt sich.

by helene.goedl -

12 | Designing A Digital Fashion Garment – Getting Started

Today I am starting the journey to designing my first digital fashion garment. The very first step on this journey is – of course – installing the right 3D program. In a previous blog post, I discussed the two current industry standard programs – Marvelous Designer and CLO3D – and compared some of their advantages and disadvantages, their main applications and who primarily uses them for which areas of design. Based on that research and my own background in physical pattern drafting, sewing and traditional analog fashion design, I decided to work with CLO3D. 

The provider offers a student subscription plan as well as a 30 Day free trial which I am starting today (March 6th 2024).  

CLO3D has a very useful pool of learning resources, among them an expansive collection of video tutorials on their own YouTube channel. Their “Beginner’s Guide to CLO” playlist will be the first point of entry for me. I will follow the tutorials in order to get familiar with the basic steps of the program. 

The main interface is a little busy but well arranged and for users with previous experience of 3D programs, it can be quite intuitive. The user has the possibility to rearrange the setup and change the positions of tools and features. 

The Program also comes with some preset avatars, base garments, materials, accessories and patterns. They are a good way to get familiar with the basic functions. In my next blogpost, I will attempt to get started with the sewing functions of the program. 

by helene.goedl -

09 | Industry Standard Softwares for Digital Fashion Design

In the digital fashion design space, there are currently two softwares which are most frequently used specifically for the task of digital garment design. These two softwares are called CLO3D and Marvelous Designer. The following text will present some of the key differences and similarities of the two programs.

To begin with, both CLO3D and Marvelous Designer’s software platforms are owned by the same entity, which results in them being very similar in their foundational structure, with an overall quite substantial functional overlap.

A notable contrast between the two programs is the intended user base. CLO3D is posited as being more tailored for fashion designers, specifically people who already are familiar with fashion design and garment production processes, whereas Marvelous Designer is more aimed towards the gaming industry and 3D artists. Marvelous Designer is dominantly used in the entertainment industry, particularly in VFX, animation, movies, and video games, due to its capabilities in creating realistic virtual garments.

Overall, CLO3D contains a broader set of tools compared to Marvelous Designer, however, the differences in tool sets is mostly owed to project-specific requirements of the intended user base. The two programs also differ in their export capabilities. CLO3D provides enhanced options for exporting garments into the physical realm, catering to the needs of fashion designers who may require interactions with manufacturers. Additionally, CLO3D offers more compatibility with interactive formats, such as WebGL and augmented reality (AR), through the exportation of GLTF and GLB formats, a feature which is not available in Marvelous Designer.

One advantage of Marvelous Designer is its integration with the Adobe 3D asset platform Substance. This feature allows users to seamlessly import Substance textures directly into the program and work with them in creating garments. This feature is not yet available in CLO3D. CLO3D on the other hand, provides a built-in renderer, enabling users to render garments directly within the application, a convenience not found in Marvelous Designer. 

All of these technical details will be important for persons interested in creating digital garments with one of these programs. While they might seem like small differences on superficial examination, they might be the deciding factor for some digital artists in choosing either one or the other to work with. 

Apart from these small technical differences, CLO3D and Marvelous Designer also differ in a further important point – the pricing. In this category, CLO3D comes out slightly more expensive than Marvelous designer. 

In conclusion, fashion designers seeking real-world export capabilities will likely fare better overall with CLO3D, while 3D artists, particularly those using Blender, Cinema 4D, or similar programs, are likely to appreciate Marvellous Designer.

Weblinks:

Marvelous Designer
CLO3D