On Disney and 2-D vs. 3-D
Nov. 10th, 2003 10:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearA slashdot comment: One good indicator that computers and 3d modeling is part of the process is how the background moves. Traditionally drawn cartoons often have static backgrounds. They may move, but very rarely does the angle at which you're viewing the background change. This is why cartoons today typically have much more dynamic environments than they did in the past.
And my reply:
Well, it doesn't change all the time in "2-D" but it DOES change. Disney has a fantastic package called "Deep Canvas" that does most of the work for generating the 3-D backgrounds while appearing like 2-D space. Its used heavily in Tarzan, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet (where they added the ability to "move" parts of the background around). It allows the background people to "paint" directly into the computer the complete 3-D picture, by painting onto geometric solids with the stylus.
meanwhile, a skeleton-graphics outline of the shapes are sent to the 2-D animators to draw onto, with those outlines removed by the cleanup crew before going into the computer for the final mix down. The computer has already replaced the "ink-and-paint" department, and the "multi-plane camera" of Disney's history; there are no "cels" anymore.
Machines now are fast enough, over their 1997 Tarzan-era counterparts, to render Deep Canvas's work at run-time, as opposed to having to do overnight rendering sessions and see the finished product the next day. This means that effectively Deep Canvas can now be used for pretty much ALL the sets, whether the background will move or not, because the biggest time constraint (rendering) is now a non-issue.
However, what you will get, IMHO, when the 2-D people start using the computer more directly is a lot of scanning. They'll still draw the roughs onto paper, scan them into the computer, then manipulate their 3-D character model to what they already drew. It may actually be the trick to get 3-D to move "properly".
One of the biggest problems with (Disney Feature Style) 2-D animation is the characters move around too much, compared to real life. One of the biggest problems with (Pixar/Dreamworks) 3-D animation is the characters move around too little, compared to real life.
So by having 2-D people drawing on paper, scanning into the computer, you'll get 3-D models that move too much. Have them runthrough and slow things down a little, and the balance between the two (making "perfect" 3D) may finally be achieved.
The only thing *really* being lost in all this is the ability of the animators to reflect the "look" of the actors who provide the voices. Ellen DeGeneres's character in Nemo is the closest I've seen 3-D come to doing what Disney does with their 2-D characters, in that aspect. Consider Rourke in Atlantis (James Garner), Victor and Hugo in Hunchback (one definitely looks like Jason Alexander), Danny DeVito's character in Hercules, or even the the two mooses in Brother Bear (who do kinda look a little like Bob & Doug MacKenzie). 3-D character design at present does not allow that kind of control over eye movements to really get the drama or comedy of the original voice performance across, where the best model for that is the voice artist themselves. Exagerations work in 2-D, they don't work in 3-D. As I said, Dory is one of the few times I've been able to "see" the voice actor in the work produced (Shrek's Donkey being the first, but its hard to miss Eddie Murphy, who'd already done voice work before in Mulan). 3-D just doesn't have the "human touch" consistently, IMHO, that well-done 2-D will always have.
One last comment: Is it really necessary to have the background angle move all the time? Its good for action scenes, and sometimes for tense dramatic moments, but it really gets in the way of exposition sequences, and ANY film director will tell you that. Just because you CAN move the background all the time, or even most of the time, doesn't mean you should. Even in 3-D films, they don't do it all the time; set a camera angle (the job of the layout department) and stick to it.
On a side note, I'd give almost anything to have the footage of DeGeneres in the studio during her recording of the "whale song" sequence of Nemo...
My vision of the future is that Fantasia 2000 is what you'd get, appearance-wise, specifically the Steadfast Tin Soldier bit. There, they had 3-D characters over 2-D backgrounds, but unlike Pixar, the 3D stuff wasn't rendered as "totally" 3D. They did block-shading instead of normal light-shading the way Pixar does theirs, so it still had that aspect of looking 2D. Switch the painted backgrounds to deep canvas and then add some techniques to the facial work and you've pretty much got it.
And my reply:
Well, it doesn't change all the time in "2-D" but it DOES change. Disney has a fantastic package called "Deep Canvas" that does most of the work for generating the 3-D backgrounds while appearing like 2-D space. Its used heavily in Tarzan, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet (where they added the ability to "move" parts of the background around). It allows the background people to "paint" directly into the computer the complete 3-D picture, by painting onto geometric solids with the stylus.
meanwhile, a skeleton-graphics outline of the shapes are sent to the 2-D animators to draw onto, with those outlines removed by the cleanup crew before going into the computer for the final mix down. The computer has already replaced the "ink-and-paint" department, and the "multi-plane camera" of Disney's history; there are no "cels" anymore.
Machines now are fast enough, over their 1997 Tarzan-era counterparts, to render Deep Canvas's work at run-time, as opposed to having to do overnight rendering sessions and see the finished product the next day. This means that effectively Deep Canvas can now be used for pretty much ALL the sets, whether the background will move or not, because the biggest time constraint (rendering) is now a non-issue.
However, what you will get, IMHO, when the 2-D people start using the computer more directly is a lot of scanning. They'll still draw the roughs onto paper, scan them into the computer, then manipulate their 3-D character model to what they already drew. It may actually be the trick to get 3-D to move "properly".
One of the biggest problems with (Disney Feature Style) 2-D animation is the characters move around too much, compared to real life. One of the biggest problems with (Pixar/Dreamworks) 3-D animation is the characters move around too little, compared to real life.
So by having 2-D people drawing on paper, scanning into the computer, you'll get 3-D models that move too much. Have them runthrough and slow things down a little, and the balance between the two (making "perfect" 3D) may finally be achieved.
The only thing *really* being lost in all this is the ability of the animators to reflect the "look" of the actors who provide the voices. Ellen DeGeneres's character in Nemo is the closest I've seen 3-D come to doing what Disney does with their 2-D characters, in that aspect. Consider Rourke in Atlantis (James Garner), Victor and Hugo in Hunchback (one definitely looks like Jason Alexander), Danny DeVito's character in Hercules, or even the the two mooses in Brother Bear (who do kinda look a little like Bob & Doug MacKenzie). 3-D character design at present does not allow that kind of control over eye movements to really get the drama or comedy of the original voice performance across, where the best model for that is the voice artist themselves. Exagerations work in 2-D, they don't work in 3-D. As I said, Dory is one of the few times I've been able to "see" the voice actor in the work produced (Shrek's Donkey being the first, but its hard to miss Eddie Murphy, who'd already done voice work before in Mulan). 3-D just doesn't have the "human touch" consistently, IMHO, that well-done 2-D will always have.
One last comment: Is it really necessary to have the background angle move all the time? Its good for action scenes, and sometimes for tense dramatic moments, but it really gets in the way of exposition sequences, and ANY film director will tell you that. Just because you CAN move the background all the time, or even most of the time, doesn't mean you should. Even in 3-D films, they don't do it all the time; set a camera angle (the job of the layout department) and stick to it.
On a side note, I'd give almost anything to have the footage of DeGeneres in the studio during her recording of the "whale song" sequence of Nemo...
My vision of the future is that Fantasia 2000 is what you'd get, appearance-wise, specifically the Steadfast Tin Soldier bit. There, they had 3-D characters over 2-D backgrounds, but unlike Pixar, the 3D stuff wasn't rendered as "totally" 3D. They did block-shading instead of normal light-shading the way Pixar does theirs, so it still had that aspect of looking 2D. Switch the painted backgrounds to deep canvas and then add some techniques to the facial work and you've pretty much got it.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-10 07:36 am (UTC)i have a feeling that the face of Dory the fish wasn't that far off from the real thing. :)
furthermore...
Date: 2003-11-10 07:40 am (UTC)The coloration of Gill's face simulates the characteristic lines around the mouth of voice actor Willem Dafoe.
Director Andrew Stanton is a fan of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" (1969) and included a couple of references. The shark is called "Bruce" (from a sketch about the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolloomooloo where everyone was called Bruce (it's also the nickname of the animatronic shark used in Jaws (1975))). The krill say, "Swim away, swim away," (from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)).
Re: furthermore...
Date: 2003-11-10 08:05 am (UTC)I caught that reference pretty much immediately, having done that Python sketch on stage (as Michael Baldwin, soon to become Bruce).
I was waiting for the other two to be called Bruce as well, but they didn't go quite that far. oh well.