Chicken Little & Beyond: Disney Rediscovers its Legacy Through 3D Animation

With Chicken Little, Disney fully embraces 3D animation for the first time. Bill Desowitz explores how the studio’s CG future is being defined by its traditional legacy.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld

Ryan continues about the challenges of animating a character without pupils. “I wasn’t able to do a thinking character [in which he could use his eyes], so I had to move his head, which gave him a nervous energy. Also, I’ve been able to move his eyebrows from the top of his head to really tight squints to get that flexibility that’s important. Squash-and-stretch is really important because it took away that puppet feel from computer-generated images. What we want to do is give the character a fleshy feel.”

Textures were a big challenge too for Look Development. The software development team wrote a system for placement of hair, cloth, feathers and leaves called XGen. This allowed shortcuts by using cards and then painting on top of that with a new program called Paint 3D, which is especially good for transparency and displacement. They actually scanned feathers and since they don’t light easily, they kept the feathers off until final rendering.

Lighting & Compositing used the Lumiere lighting program and created compositing software they termed DShake. Another Disney tradition is being able to hone in on the most important aspect of a shot and read silhouettes of characters. They were able to achieve this, especially when Buck and Chicken Little fight off the aliens, with an Occlusion (or global illumination) pass that couldn’t be achieved in 2D. This provides subtle shading — form and depth — and volumetric rendering. Occlusion improvements on subsequent films will be able to influence color too.

“It just seems like we’re scratching the surface,” Ryan adds. “I’m going to be working on Rapunzel Unbraided next, doing a haggard old witch. Her skin looks like an apple that’s been left out in the sun for years. What you want to try and get is that skin over bone. This is just incredible stuff — it truly feels like there’s been a [technological] evolution through animation. We went from flat cartoons to getting the multi-plane effect and now with CG getting full dimension and these really believable characters. We’re able to control the silhouette of the characters, so we’re getting very designed so you can shape shift these forms so they have all the aspects of two-dimensional animation into this great CG world.”

Meanwhile, data management and data versioning were accomplished through a new program called SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruel Pita Artists). “Every shot in a department was imported or exported through an SPCA interface,” Goldberg suggests. “It was modeled on the traditional pipeline. Setting up the overall pipeline and data flow from the departments involved an interesting philosophical issue. We basically had a system of making 2D movies that was a refined thing of beauty. We had spirited discussions about chucking this approach. We decided that it was too efficient to throw it out. Our execs, directors, producers and art directors still come from 2D and still have a particular way of looking at things and have an approval process that’s worth keeping.

“Scene Planning is gone because we didn’t want a catch-all department. We wanted to keep each department responsible for their own deliverables. We put a lot of scripts in place for artists to check their work and automated as much as we could. One of the overriding philosophies of the old pipeline was: ‘Don’t Pass Crap Downstream.’ We kept placing rigorous checks for what the next department was going to do in the current department. There was resistance at first because department heads got frustrated. Ultimately, as enough of these checks got into place, we started seeing really big wins because things didn’t come back and it did eliminate those catchall departments.

“We went ahead and took on some big initiatives like subdivision surfaces into our pipeline, but didn’t refine it on Chicken Little, so other shows are going through big levels of refinement. One of the things we didn’t tackle that American Dog is taking on in earnest is the ability to handle very large environments. We came up with a nice element flow for being able to bring elements from one department to the next and have layout set everything up, but we didn’t get there on Chicken Little. This will be essential to Rapunzel too.”







Comments


fajNzUU (not verified) | Sun, 08/28/2011 - 18:22 | Permalink
You can hail CG Disney all you want, your choice. But I rather stick to the old hand-drawn cartoons that I now collect on VHS and DVD anymore, thank you. This includes old Disney Classic, D-2 from other American studios, and Japanese anime, where they still make 2-D features and televison to this day. CG may make cartoon characters more so super-uber-real detailed like Chicken Little's feathers, but 2-D as all about warmth, charm, art and graphic interpetation via the animators' whims and actistic vision, which you could never get from live-action nor the live-action-like CGI. So far, the only CGI to be close to 2-D was Dreamworks' "Madagascar" with it's almost toony design, humor and personalities. (Odd how Disney brags about "Rapunzel" going to be the first to have old-animation-like features when someone else already pioneered in that.) So far ther Dreamworks features and Pixar aren't bad but don't warm my heart and imagination like 2-D had. I don't feel like going to see Chicken Little frankly. From what I saw mostly in TV commericals, and one movie trailer once, and in some critic reviews, it didn't seem very entertaining to me. Which amazes me how this movie made money in the number one spot. It is very sadding to me that, even with Michael Eisner gone, Disney still continues to wander from the artistic and business ideas of its founder and no longer be the Disney studio people enjoyed. It is offically a dark, cold mega-cooperation that only wants money more than the nurturing and pioneering of movies. From now on I'll save my money and pay it for Studio Ghibli movies (which Disney distributes), old Disney Classic movies on VHS/DVD, and the upcomming Naria.
John S. (not verified) | Sat, 11/19/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink
Bravo! Very interesting reading regarding the making of the film, but I must say I was fairly impressed with the 3-D technology and how far its progressed over the past 30 years. After just having seen the film, I was entranced by the sharpness, clarity an "virtual" reality of two dimentional images becoming three dimensional images right in front of my eyes. It was amazing. Even the Disney 3-D logo before the film was shockingly "real". And the 3-D glasses they give you - comfortable fitting of the eyes (even if you wear glasses to begin wih) and no distortions whatsoever! Bravo Disney! The next step into enjoying the animated features - is to "feel" like oyu are in them!
Lorenzo Marchessi (not verified) | Fri, 11/11/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink
I enjoyed "Chicken Little" quite a bit. Congratulations to all those who worked on it. It is a film to be proud of to be sure. In response to the previous poster, I would argue that the film contains one of the most inventive characters I've seen on screen for some time. Fish out of Water was a strong character, and one with no dialogue, which is not the easiest thing to do. It was pretty interesting to read about some of the technology that went into the feathers and such. I would like to see articles like this more often on AWN.
Floyd Bishop (not verified) | Fri, 11/11/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.