Search form

Disney Embraces Motion Capture

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Disney Embraces Motion Capture

DISNEY PRESS RELEASE:

Disney and Zemeckis Form 3D Performance Company

The multi award-winning team of Robert Zemeckis, Jack Rapke and Steve Starkey join forces with The Walt Disney Studios to set-up a new performance capture film company, it was jointly announced by Dick Cook, chairman, The Walt Disney Studios and producer/director Robert Zemeckis.

The company will create films using the performance capture technology, a technique of digitally recording actors' movements that are fed into a computer allowing for the development of state-of-the-art 3D motion pictures.

Zemeckis, Rapke and Starkey will produce all of the films with Zemeckis expected to direct a number of the projects. The Walt Disney Studios will distribute and market the motion pictures worldwide.

In making the announcement Cook said, "The creation of this new company is yet another step in our leadership role in cutting edge technology as it relates to the movie industry." Cook continued, "Bob is an amazing director who continues to push the envelope in creating the best in cinematic experiences. Along with his partners, Jack and Steve, they are one of the finest producing teams in the business. They have a real pulse on the future of motion pictures especially as it pertains to the creativity and technology of motion capture and 3D film experiences. They are true leaders in every sense of the word and we are proud to be partners with them in this new endeavor."

Zemeckis added, "Jack, Steve and I are looking forward with great excitement to be working with Dick Cook and his team. In addition to being an enthusiastic champion of 3D movies, The Walt Disney Studios is committed to the advancement of digital cinema in all areas including performance capture."

Zemeckis, along with executive producing partner Rapke and producer Starkey, first used this innovative film technology of performance capture when he directed the highly successful animated feature film The Polar Express.

Following up on the success of The Polar Express, Zemeckis was executive producer on his second performance capture film, the Academy Award-nominated Best Animated Film Monster House, with Rapke and Starkey producing. Additionally, Zemeckis is directing and producing the performance capture film, Beowulf, with Rapke and Starkey also producing. The film is due out in theaters in 2007.

Among some of their other credits are: Cast Away -- Zemeckis director and producer and Rapke and Starkey producers; What Lies Beneath -- Zemeckis director and producer and Rapke and Starkey producers; Contact -- Zemeckis director and producer and Starkey producer; Forrest Gump -- Zemeckis received an Academy Award for Best Director and Starkey was awarded the Best Picture Oscar for his role as producer; "Back to the Future" trilogy -- Zemeckis directed and Starkey served as associate producer on part 2 and 3 and Who Framed Roger Rabbit -- Zemeckis directed and Starkey was associate producer.

It's as simple as this: Live-action is a recording of real-world movement. Animation is fake movement that never occured in the real world.

Hey, Harvey. I appreciate your position, experience, and knowledge. And I more than admit I'm still figuring this stuff out. But that's just my point in saying things are fuzzy.

Motion capture is the "recording of real-world movement".

Anyway, I was just trying to support Larry's position as someone with nothing to lose (and possibly something to gain) if everything went motion capture (which, of course, it won't).

Besides, I forgot my medication last night and this morning, so legally I can't be held responsible for anything I said (or possibly did) during that time. But I've popped 5 or 10 pills since, and am now good to go.

No hard feelings meant by all this. Back to work....

One key element of which is imparting life. Just as motion graphics and badly drawn animation fail to meet that criteria, so does motion capture (in my opinion).

Isn't Southpark animation? I'd say so. And it's about as crude and badly done as it gets.

But, assuming a small "a" definition, where do we draw the line?

Why must there be a line at all? If these guys want to use this technique, then what difference does that make to anyone here?

I can understand if people feel threatened about losing work to motion capture, but just say that if that's the case. Don't hide behind semantics or disparage other people's work trying to define them out of some arbitrary view of what animation is or isn't.

Don't hide behind semantics or disparage other people's work trying to define them out of some arbitrary view of what animation is or isn't.

See? This is why I'm on medication...

I certainly didn't mean to disparage anyone's work.

I have an overwhelming appreciation for the intelligence, technology, and man hours that go into producing motion capture. It is a valid film making technique.

I have an overwhelming appreciation for the intelligence, technology, and man hours that go into producing motion capture. It is a valid film making technique.

Very cool then. I started to post something last night, but didn't for some reason.

Anyway, the gist was that what they call it should be irrelevant. Does the movie work or doesn't it? Polar Express didn't quite work for me, but Monster House did. I think the sticking point among the purists seems to be that they want to call it "animation." Let them. I don't really care. I care about the final movie and whether it works story-wise first and then whether it works for me on an artistic level.

Motion capture is the "recording of real-world movement".

What counts is what we see on the screen. With motion capture, the record of real-world movement (the computer data) does not appear on the screen.

Perhaps this will make it easier for you: Whenever you see moving images on the screen, ask yourself if what you are seeing is a record of movement that occured in the physical world. The characters in Dumbo never moved in the real world. The characters in Monster House never moved in the real world. The spaceships in the latest sci-fi movie never moved in the real world. The characters in The Departed did move in the real world. The puppets in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz did move in the real world.

Performance capture can be ace when used judiciously, but I don't think non-photoreal characters are the right target, as is currently de rigueur in studio output.

You lose something when you can't take a few liberties with real-world physics in a cartoon.

Its Short Cut

Hello.

I guess what bothers me about it...is that motion crapture is really used as a short cut....or even worst... "we have this thing and now we have to use it" - type attitude.

I understand with production schedules and budgets, folks use it as a short cut...especially gaming

I would prefer live action relerence footage... to someone in a suite moving around. What does that leave for the animator?

Some schools even have it...it would be better for folks to learn ACTION ANALYSIS then depend on mo-crap.

I spoke to someone who worked on Gollum and they said the actor guy received alot more of the credit for his performance then he should have.
I think Peter jackson wanted him nominated for an Oscar. Image a guy in a mo-crap suit deserving an Oscar?

I don't think so....

Let's get real here.

Some game-makers and movie producers are looking for the most believable, realistic movement. Without motion capture, animators are simply incapable of that type of movement, unless they copy reference footage and take a hundred times as long.

To demonstrate this inability, one needs to look no further than a little bomb called Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which features life-like characters, no motion capture, and stiff, robotic movement.

So what are we supposed to do here? Are we supposed to tell audiences, "No, you can't have realistic-looking animated characters, and, no, you can't have believable movement, because we have to respect the animators' egos"?

Are we supposed to tell audiences, "No, you can't have realistic-looking animated characters, and, no, you can't have believable movement, because we have to respect the animators' egos"?

Haha, well said. I think purism has its place but it has to be balanced with practicality. What we are talking about here, after all, is one technique among many for bringing characters to life.

This is like the whole HD vs film debate. And my challenge is the same. If you can't tell which one you're looking at without already knowing, then what difference does it make if they used one method or another?

Let's get real here.

Some game-makers and movie producers are looking for the most believable, realistic movement. Without motion capture, animators are simply incapable of that type of movement, unless they copy reference footage and take a hundred times as long.

To demonstrate this inability, one needs to look no further than a little bomb called Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which features life-like characters, no motion capture, and stiff, robotic movement.

Hey Harv, this is untrue. Did you notice the difference between the hand animated Gollum, the 50/50 blend and the pure mo-cap one? I didn't. Surely that means animators are capable of that type of movement.

Plus, I'm afraid you're wrong about the Final Fantasy thing - the characters were all mo-cap with hand animated faces.

Sorry to contradict ya but the facts speak for themselves..

Hey Harv, this is untrue. Did you notice the difference between the hand animated Gollum, the 50/50 blend and the pure mo-cap one? I didn't. Surely that means animators are capable of that type of movement.

Hi, Kev.
I did imply that they're capable of that type of movement, provided they have much more time and live-action reference.

Plus, I'm afraid you're wrong about the Final Fantasy thing - the characters were all mo-cap with hand animated faces.

Thanks, Kev.
Wow. Final Fantasy (2001) to Polar Express (2004) to Monster House (2006) is an even better illustration of the advances motion capture has made in such a short time.

I guess I can revise my statement by comparing the stiff hand-animated facial animation of The Spirits Within to the increasingly fluid motion-captured facial animation of Polar Express and Monster House.

I just finished watching Monster House and I've got to say I was pleasently surprised by the story and characters. What did bother me ever so slightly was the character animation. First off, mo-cap'ped acting. That looks a little out of place when used to breathe life into cartoony characters such as the ones in that movie. The facial animation I didn't like at all. If they'd gone and mo-cap'ped the bodies and hand-posed the facial expressions, exaggerated them a tad more and taken them over the top, well - I'm not sure it would've worked with the mo-cap but I can't help being interested in how that would have looked.
As Don Bluth says, though, story is king and Monster House had some nice moments. I'd give it one thumb up. (Not two.)

Hi, Kev.
I did imply that they're capable of that type of movement, provided they have much more time and live-action reference.

You know what's crazy? All of the techniques ended up taking about the same amount of time (on that film, anyway)...

Nice to speak to you again. It's been a while!

: )

Highly skilled animators are technically very capable of producing realistic motion, but in my experience most don't want to do that type of "realistic" stuff because it's boring as hell to work on.

Most animators I know are not interested in spending their time copying live action "realistic" movement , but sometimes it's that junk that pays the bills, so animators are reduced to working on tweaking mo-cap . However, "realism" isn't equal to "better" .

For those who haven't read it , I direct your attention to Ward Jenkin's now classic 'blog post of a few years back, talking about the difference between slavishly copying mo-cap vs. real animation :

Polar Express: A Virtual Train Wreck Part 1
[URL=http://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2004/12/polar-express-virtual-train-wreck...
Polar Express: A Virtual Train Wreck Part 2[/URL]

(yes, granted, the mo-cap technique has gotten better since Polar Express, as evidenced by Monster House and a few other examples. Still doesn't mean it's good... or better than what could be done if talented animators were unleashed on the project instead of being told to stick to the mo-cap)

Two very potent quotes that Ward references from The Art of the Incredibles book in the above article:

"In my opinion it's always been a fallacy, the notion that human characters have to look photo-realistic in CG. You can do so much more with stylized human characters. Audiences innately know how humans move and gravity works, so if a human character doesn't feel right, they'll feel something's wrong. But if the weight works for stylized characters, the audience doesn't question it - like the Dwarfs in SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, which were so cartoony and stylized. In THE INCREDIBLES, the characters are cartoony heroes but they can be hurt and they have this family dynamic that makes them believable."

-Ralph Eggleston, Artistic Director for THE INCREDIBLES

"From the beginning, we all wanted the cast of characters to look like cartoon people instead of photo-realistic people. In animation, it really takes a bit of exaggeration to make something look convincing. The great caricaturist Al Hirschfeld most typified this. He could perfectly capture a person's identity by simply sketching curlicues for hair and pinholes for eyes. The faces and attitudes he drew were often more recognizable in the abstract than if they had been rendered out realistically." [B]

-Teddy Newton, Character Designer on THE INCREDIBLES[/B]

Hans Perk has posted some great transcripts from Disney Studio action analysis classes in the late 1930's when the rotoscope and it's proper use was a hot topic . Those guys knew what they were up against . Things don't change that much. Already in 1937 the book keepers and accountants were pressuring the animation staff to rely more on rotoscoping because "it's cheaper and faster , and the public doesn't know the difference" (as if the ignorance and bad taste of the general public ought to be driving creative/artistic decisions ? )

One quote from the notes Hans posted :

"The only thing an artist has is the fact that he can do something that can't be done with a machine. He should say to himself, "Am I going to let a machine work me out of a job and a profession?" That is what it is going to do, unless the artist keeps moving. It is up to him. As long as jobs have to be done, and have to be done economically, the rotoscope is the quickest way to do it, the challenge will always be there. So it is up to the artist to deliver. He must do a drawing and say, "See here - my drawing may not be perfect as far as realism is concerned, but it has a spirit the rotoscope can never give you."

-Don Graham, Disney Studio art class, July 26, 1937

This has nothing to do with massaging animator's "egos" . It's about preserving the humanity of our art of animation.

"EustaceScrubb" has left the building

I don't think anyone here is arguing that motion capture is better than regular "cartoony" 3D animation. No one is arguing that motion capture doesn't have a long way to go, still. Motion capture does some things better, and regular 3D does other things better. Some producers want exaggerated, comedic, or simplified animation, and other producers want animation that is more realistic than what regular animators are capable of.

I can see why some of you are so upset, though. Mocapped movies are offering some stiff competition for regular 3D, and are being taken more seriously by audiences than the traditional kids' cartoons. Dramatic fare can be tough to do with the "cartoony," "hand-crafted" techniques, but it's much easier with mocap and rotoscoping. 3D brought down 2D. Will motion capture bury "traditional" 3D? :confused:

Mocapped movies are offering some stiff competition for regular 3D

Yes, stiff is often the word that comes to mind to a lot of us when we watch mo-cap .:D

"EustaceScrubb" has left the building

Yes, stiff is often the word that comes to mind to a lot of us when we watch mo-cap .:D

Unless you were watching "Happy Feet" or "Polar Express".

Software: TVPaint Pro, Harmony Standalone, Storyboard Pro, Maya, Modo, Arnold, V-Ray, Maxwell, NukeX, Hiero, Mari, RealFlow, Avid, Adobe CS6
Hardware: (2) HP Z820 Workstations + 144-core Linux Render Farm + Cintiq 24HD Touch

Unless you were watching "Happy Feet" or "Polar Express".

Of course, I was half-joking in my previous comment , but actually the animated corpses of "Polar Express" are the definition of what I meant by stiff . (the dead eyes .... those eyes....)

I haven't seen Happy Feet yet .

"EustaceScrubb" has left the building

This has nothing to do with massaging animator's "egos" . It's about preserving the humanity of our art of animation.

The same criticism was leveled at CG when it was in its infancy. Traditional animators sweated the onset of a technology that could potentially do them in and set about arguing this same kind of pedantic dime-store philosophy. And then Toy Story came out.

As with any new technology, the artists are still needed. And as it happens, the animators are still needed as well in albeit redirected and more limited capacities.

And as with CG, all tools will still be utilized, depending on the story the filmmakers want to tell and the medium they choose to tell it in. There are still plenty of traditional animators (I'm one of them) and CG animators around doing their thing and doing it well.

The same criticism was leveled at CG when it was in its infancy. Traditional animators sweated the onset of a technology that could potentially do them in and set about arguing this same kind of pedantic dime-store philosophy. And then Toy Story came out.

I have been considering that same point: animators and 2D-lovers were outraged about "stiff" and "lifeless" 3D technology, actually all the way up to The Incredibles.
Since The Incredibles debuted, they've been silent on the subject.
Their rants against motion capture will vanish, as well, probably in 5 years or so.

I have been considering that same point: animators and 2D-lovers were outraged about "stiff" and "lifeless" 3D technology, actually all the way up to [I]The Incredibles.

[/I] Since The Incredibles debuted, they've been silent on the subject.

Not me. If I see stiff and lifeless CG animation I get just as worked up about it as ever... the only thing that makes me get even more upset is stiff and lifeless hand-drawn animation.

"EustaceScrubb" has left the building

Of course, I was half-joking in my previous comment , but actually the animated corpses of "Polar Express" are the definition of what I meant by stiff . (the dead eyes .... those eyes....)

I haven't seen Happy Feet yet .

I wouldn't recommend either movie really but I thought both had excellent use of motion capture though I haven't really focused on the eyes.

Software: TVPaint Pro, Harmony Standalone, Storyboard Pro, Maya, Modo, Arnold, V-Ray, Maxwell, NukeX, Hiero, Mari, RealFlow, Avid, Adobe CS6
Hardware: (2) HP Z820 Workstations + 144-core Linux Render Farm + Cintiq 24HD Touch

Not me. If I see stiff and lifeless CG animation I get just as worked up about it as ever... the only thing that makes me get even more upset is stiff and lifeless hand-drawn animation.

That's not the point. Do you completely discount CG as a filmmaking tool because someone happens to use it badly? Of course not. The same should be true of mo-cap. If it works, it works. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. But the prejudice against the technique itself, regardless of how well it is implemented, reeks of traditionalists who poo-poo any new technology, like DPs and digital or animators and early CG.

Motion Crapture

Motion Crapture is Motion Crapture...Look how fast POLAR EXPRESS came to TV...it was all over the place....

One name you don't see is John Lassiter.

Larry, Polar Express made $300 million worldwide and was in theatres for 17 weeks. That's roughly the same performance as Over The Hedge.

And I thought Monster House was a terrific film. It's also been nominated for an Annie, an Oscar, and a Golden Glode.

Technique is technique but ultimately the story is the thing. If it works, it works. I don't think motion capture will replace animators any time soon (how do you animate Cars with mo-cap?). It's just one more tool for filmmakers. I also think 2d will make a come back as well.

Okay Tom!

Okay Tom...it is just MY opinion.

I tried to watch Polar Express- and it was just too awful!

This deal with Dis just seems to smack of a director trying to play animator- my opinion.

Thanks.

...a director that played a significant role in animation's resurgence in the late 80's.

Believe me, I appreciate what you're saying, and I certainly don't disagree with you about Polar Express. Artistically, I didn't love it or hate it, but it wasn't that successful in implementing the motion capture, and they didn't push the "look" enough.

I was simply pointing out that audiences liked it enough to generate quite a few ticket sales.

That said, I highly recommend you give Monster House a try. It's truly a unique film and they don't just use the motion capture to substitute for true animation. They do some really unique things with it, not the least of which is the most convincing voice acting of any animated film I've seen in a long time.

Monster House, when compared to Polar Express, shows that motion capture is improving.
While the technology is still at the toddler stage, some of the character animation in Monster House is much more interesting and convincing than any of the character animation in Cars, Flushed Away, or Curious George.

Naturally, some professionals in traditional animation are going to be threatened by competing technologies. The more successful and beloved motion "crapture" becomes, the more loathed it will be by traditional animators.

Monster House, when compared to Polar Express, shows that motion capture is improving.
While the technology is still at the toddler stage, some of the character animation in Monster House is much more interesting and convincing than any of the character animation in Cars, Flushed Away, or Curious George.

Naturally, some professionals in traditional animation are going to be threatened by competing technologies. The more successful and beloved motion "crapture" becomes, the more loathed it will be by traditional animators.

Just to jump in as an unemployed (untalented) wannabe animator...

I have a Masters in Computer Science. I specialized in artificial intelligence, and I've programmed my own render engine. I get a kick out of getting a computer to do things you didn't think it could.

I love technology, and I abhor motion capture (minus Gollum and King Kong, so far) as an animation technique. It's great for special fx and cg creatures interacting in the human world (see above), but it just isn't animation. And it won't be, no matter how good it gets. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying this to start a fight or go on a rant. It's just that I'm not a traditional animator. I didn't go to art school, and I'm still struggling to learn how to draw. In fact I should be thrilled about this technology, but I'm not.

Okay I can take a hint

Okay, okay Tom....I can take a hint. I will go see Monster House...and keep an open mind.

Gee DSB, one would like to think that Richard Williams had more to do with the success of RR than Bob. Though, I will admit Zemekis did use the "Raul" joke properly....

Williams is a multi Oscar winner too.

Thanks.

We can argue all day long about who had more to do with the success of Roger Rabbit (and I don't necessarily disagree with you). My point is that Zemeckis has legitimate animation-related credits that predate this deal. Saying he's a "director trying to playing animator" ignores some pretty substantial facts.

JIt's great for special fx and cg creatures interacting in the human world (see above), but it just isn't animation.

Actually, it is animation. In motion pictures, moving imagery is either live-action or animation. Monster House, Polar Express are not live-action.

I will go see Monster House...and keep an open mind.

I suggest not bothering. Although Monster House's animation is more engaging than Polar Express, it still won't meet your standards of traditional "cartoony" animation. Also, animation aside, it's not a great film. The story and characters are pretty mundane, and it isn't a good-looking movie, the way most Pixar movies are.

Around Christmas 2005 they were showing Polar Express on all the notebooks on display at my day job in the hardware store. I really don't have any desire to deepen the watching experience by actually sitting down with the DVD and see it with sound for a change.
Mo-cap is OK with me in movies using CG animation to imitate reality, meaning Lord if the Rings, Star Wars, Spider-Man, Harry Potter and so forth. Movies which are purely "animation for animation's sake" shouldn't try to imitate reality in my book, that's why I don't like mo-cap'ped all-CG movies, meaning Polar Express, Final Fantasy and the likes. And even though Don Bluth is one of my favourite animation directors, I'm not overly fond of his use of mo-cap in classical, either. (Bakshi - let's not talk about it.)
I'm considering giving Monster House a chance because I want to see how a suspenseful fright movie with a PG rating works out. I haven't got the highest of hopes, but oh well. Leastways the models don't look as eerie as the Polar Express ones.

Actually, it is animation. In motion pictures, moving imagery is either live-action or animation. Monster House, Polar Express are not live-action.

I don't think we're limited to those two options only, but for the sake of argument, let's say we are.

The word "animation", I think is suffering from dual meaning, much like web and Web or god and God. If someone talks about "a web", that could easily be a spider web, cob web, or web of lies. But, if you refer to "The Web", we all know you're refering to what we're using to converse right now.

The simplest definition for "animation" (small "a") could easily be said to be anything that isn't live action. But "Animation" (big "A"), I think takes on a higher meaning to a lot of people. One key element of which is imparting life. Just as motion graphics and badly drawn animation fail to meet that criteria, so does motion capture (in my opinion).

But, assuming a small "a" definition, where do we draw the line? Muppets are puppets controlled by humans, not unlike puppets used in stop motion. It's just one step farther to say they're very similar to the puppet-like 3D rigs used in Pixar movies. But, most people will agree that Muppet movies are live action, while Pixar movies are animation. So what's the difference?

With Muppets the performance is created in real time, with a direct connection between what the puppeteer is doing and that effect on the Muppet. Sounds a lot like motion capture (especially this latest incarnation, and where it's headed).

I'm not trying to argue that Muppets are animation or that motion capture is live action (yet). I'm just pointing out that the lines are fuzzy and getting fuzzier.

And, my whole point in even jumping in here is that there are a lot of people upset/disappointed/angry about the increasing use of motion capture as a substitute for Animation in animated movies. Not just 2D traditionalists feeling threatened.

But, I think it's time for me to crawl back into my hole and get back to animating with the hopes of one day actually Animating...

I didn't realize people were feeling threatened, for that very reason. Like the inability to distinguish between them could lose people work, and that's a threat, but otherwise it's a personality thing. You don't wanna be accused of something you didn't do wrong, so you also don't want to be associated with work you feel is of a different quality (I'll refrain from saying better or worse, but to my eyes certainly motion capture appears distinct).

I'm used to people saying "cartoonist" and meaning a person who makes a comic strip, like in the newspaper. So I cringe whenever someone who wants to go into animation tells people they're going to be a "cartoonist." It's happening more and more with the people that are around 4 years younger than me, just coming into school and becoming passively interested in all this. I know what they mean but my word associations are already stuck, so I hear that and it sounds the same as calling an orthopedic surgeon a "bone-ist" or a cardiologist a "heart maker-better."

Moose, what you're describing is a personal, romantic view of animation.
I'm refering to a technical industry definition - as well as a shared universal definition - of animation.
(Crocodile Dundee said, "Thas nodda noif," but technically, it was.)

You say the line is fuzzy, but it's only fuzzy to those who don't understand what animation is and isn't. You may be confused about the issue, but the industry figured this out a hundred years ago. It's as simple as this: Live-action is a recording of real-world movement. Animation is fake movement that never occured in the real world.