I did a google for TWO and hey, we're getting noticed. Here's some notable links (you might have to search for the relevant info):

http://www.truveo.com/Tin-Woodman-of-Oz-Op...g/id/3339205586
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...endid=159023626
http://www.imp.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=509

Thanks for posting the links Ken. It's looking amazing I have to say!

It is the first time I've ever heard the new voices...

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/tin-wood...stle/3474476065


I found this.

Scarecrow's voice is going to take some getting use to but perhaps I'm too close to the project to look at (or hear him) objectively.
Its nice to see the word getting out about TWO!

I just heard that myself. I had no idea we we're changing the voices. Shame Roberts was scrapped.

I am guessing that those are just test cases for Angelo Panetta's recording studio. I do not have any inside knowledge about that tho.

Ah right. I thought those were posted by Hash.

I hope you are right. Roberts voice is the coolest ever!

Whoever is doing the sound on these examples is doing a great job and the music is wonderful!

True! Watching the clips with music and sounds gave it an whole new dimension!

Really impressive what you all are doing with the TWO project. I'm in awe of your art and skills, wish I was up to that.

I'll make a comment about the clips in case it is helpful to hear an opinion from a layman -- I just noticed that often a very shallow depth-of-field is used in many scenes of the clips.

My own personal feeling is that, although shallow DOF can look "cinematic" and therefore seem "professional", it may not be the best choice here.

First, for outdoor scenes in bright day, shallow DOF makes it look like we're looking at miniature models -- but perhaps that's true, I don't know what size these characters are!

Second, I just think the feel of animation works better with infinite DOF, I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's because infinite DOF is one of the magic things we can do with animation that we can't do in the real physical world with real lenses. Perhaps it's because historically that's how animations were drawn. Perhaps it's because it allows the viewer to delight in all the little details of the background and freely focus on any part of the picture. Perhaps it's because it makes it seem more magical, where we are less conscious of a camera being part of the scene. Even if it's true that the characters are tiny, I think I would rather experience it through the juxtoposition of the objects rather than my conscious awareness that I'm looking at the scene through an F1.7 camera lens, "the background is really blurry, therefore I must be close and these objects are tiny".

Occasionally DOF is used in movies for an important dramatic effect, such as a focus "reveal" of a character lurking in the background overhearing a conversation. But in animation I think I would still try to find another way to do that to keep the camera awareness out of the story. On the other hand, I admit it is a cool effect when used effectively.

Just my opinion, obviously it's an artistic choice; it just struck me that perhaps shallow DOF was overused in some of the scenes.

But really, really impressive work, especially the way it is being accomplished.

The DoF has since been revised in these early clips.

I can tell you these is not the score I did. I suspect these are temp cuts someone did. The opening doesn't even have the 'adventurer' song.
Chris