Search form

80th Academy Awards rule changes

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
80th Academy Awards rule changes

"An animated feature film is now defined as a motion picture of at least 70 minutes in running time, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique."

Pardon the ignorance, but does that mean motion-capture can't be considered? If you had to tweak it, that could be frame-level refinement. Certainly data exists for each frame, and the end product on the screen is a different image each frame. Plus I've seen feature shots where the animator has several frames go by unkeyed, but as a professional he knows where everything should be / is going to be on a given frame even if he didn't nail it down.

... Not sure I understand your point, but ...

Even with motion capture, the end product is created by rendering frames one-by-one. The characters you see on screen aren't able to move until these frames are compiled together.

The definition is still too unclear. Live-action gets printed on film frame-by-frame, too. The quick succession of single frames to create the illusion of movement is the basis of pretty much all kinds of film.

I'm not so sure I had a point in the conventional sense since it was just an inquiry; I was suggesting those as my reasoning for how it could get through the filter still.

The reason I'd throw up the question solely on motion capture is because I interpreted "frame by frame technique" to implicitly identify a hand-crafted means of developing the images. If I jump up and down attached to a motion capture system, I'm essentially just picking keys and in the largest sense have control but not a lot of precision over what happens in between.

Then I'm saying once the data's in and the character's moving, if it isn't to your liking you can go back and refine it and could wind up pushing frame 46 or subduing frame 30, etc. and then would it count?

Then I was going in the other direction by saying even keyframed animation doesn't necessarily get true frame by frame treatment depending on the animator behind it. You know where a value or body part will be, but you might've just picked -- picked deliberately and cemented and saved -- 50% of those keys.

Jabberwocky, as far as what you said, live action is viewed using a frame by frame technique (printing of actual physical frames), but is a human actually developing their performance with the cognizance of every 24th of each second? I think that's what they're getting at, but I'm not entirely certain, that's why I'm asking.

I think it's clear from the wording - even if the wording isn't itself clear - that their intention is to exclude motion-capture films -- and thank goodness.

Not that I care anything about the Academy Awards. With animated features having their own single-prize, kiddie-table category - instead of being in the running in the main categories, against live-action film - it's kind of pointless caring. Why not an award for "best animation in a feature film", instead, with the same qualifiers as in the above categorical definition?

I'm not so sure I had a point in the conventional sense since it was just an inquiry ...

The reason I'd throw up the question solely on motion capture is because I interpreted "frame by frame technique" to implicitly identify a hand-crafted means of developing the images.

... "Point" meaning why exactly do you feel motion-capture doesn't fall under the current definition, which wasn't made clear in your previous post.

There's nothing about "hand-crafting" in the current definition. It probably appears in older definitions.

Animation doesn't have the best definitions. (For one thing, it isn't actual movement, as the Academy definition seems to suggest. It's an illusion of movement.) Animation probably isn't even the best word for it.

A difference between live-action, and mocapped and other types of animation, is that one is created with photography, and the other is created with illustration or sculpture.

The general public seems to recognize animation as action that never existed outside the movie screen. When you watch Polar Express, you don't see Tom Hanks moving around. You see the conductor, Santa, the hobo, and the kid: all computer illustrations.The "movement" of those characters never existed in the real world. However, the audience recognizes that the movement of Charlie Chaplin or Angelina Jolie did occur in the real world.

... "Point" meaning why exactly do you feel motion-capture doesn't fall under the current definition, which wasn't made clear in your previous post.

My understanding of motion capture is that it records what you're doing, as-is. It issues out the information it records for any given frame, which satisfies the movement verbiage, but if they say movement and performance I'd have to discount it because the decision-making to say, throw a punch -- to me -- is conceptual and not frame by frame. In my mind I anticipate a certain way and I aim a certain way and throw the punch at where I'm aiming. If that takes 40 frames I guarantee you I'm not thinking about 90% of those in my mo-cap suit because it's the cause and effect of my arm's mechanics that I'm relying on and that determines what I'm going to get...where my body parts will be in space.

Whereas if I had a character model, I'll still be worrying about key positions but I have the time and ability to determine exactly where the arm will be, conscientiously, since it's frozen and not happening in real time.

... There's nothing about "hand-crafting" in the current definition. It probably appears in older definitions.

That again is just coming from my understanding. There might not be anything about hand-crafting, but this rule change tries to exclude, which leads me to believe the previous definition is all-encompassing or rather doesn't try to exclude anything. Therefore it wouldn't need to cover "hand-crafted" because there wasn't a problem, in light of everything being accepted.

I'm wording it poorly, but it gets at why I posed the question. My wondering this comes from the notion that I feel motion capture is certain things, so the question is a means to discover if any of those notions hold water.

... Animation doesn't have the best definitions. (For one thing, it isn't actual movement, as the Academy definition seems to suggest. It's an illusion of movement.)

So much for trying to pin a good definition then :D Good point too, I'm surprised I didn't pick out the "movement" discrepancy.

A difference between live-action, and mocapped and other types of animation, is that one is created with photography, and the other is created with illustration or sculpture.

... The general public seems to recognize animation as action that never existed outside the movie screen. When you watch Polar Express, you don't see Tom Hanks moving around. You see the conductor, Santa, the hobo, and the kid: all computer illustrations.The "movement" of those characters never existed in the real world. However, the audience recognizes that the movement of Charlie Chaplin or Angelina Jolie did occur in the real world.

I do want to say none of this is intended to knock motion capture. I'm not coming on here to say "Hey, are they going to kick this one way of doing things out of competition? Huzzah, let's make a move!" It has its place and certainly the results are looking better and better, from what I've seen. I'm finding the Academy's decision interesting for that very reason -- it's not the easiest thing to classify and because I've carried my own non-concrete judgments into reading it, it came across as an attempt to classify. Well, excluding something means it -is- an attempt to classify, I mean it brought about the curiosity over what if anything would be affected. Along the lines of what is different and what is divided.

It might help to compare motion-capture to the Nintendo Wii.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Remote )

Let's say you're playing a Wii boxing game. Whether your character is punching another character because you're whipping a motion-sensitive controller through the air (motion-capture counterpart), or because you're pushing a series of buttons (key-framing couterpart), you're still seeing simulated movement - created with frame-by-frame renderings - that doesn't or didn't exist outside of the viewing screen.

I think it's clear from the wording - even if the wording isn't itself clear - that their intention is to exclude motion-capture films -- and thank goodness.

Here's why you're mistaken:[LIST]
[*]"Frame-by-frame" has been part of the Academy definition for the last two years.
[*]Two mocapped movies, Happy Feet and Monster House were nominated for best animated feature of last year.
[*]Happy Feet won best animated feature a few months ago, under the "frame-by-frame" definition.[/LIST]Unless you're willing to create a third catagory, motion-capture needs to fall into one of two motion picture catagories: live-action or animation. Clearly, people don't accept it as live-action; and if they didn't create a third catagory for rotoscoping, then they won't for motion-capture. The only thing left is to squeeze it into the animation category, which the public already seems perfectly comfortable with. (The general public does not see the technological difference between Shrek and Monster House.)

I'll tell you what, man, the more I've practiced animating and especially going through AM, when your eye gets more developed it stands out. I was kind of proud of Monster House thought for not being as stark as some flicks that preceded it.

Thanks for your insight, Harvey. The Wii example is a reasonable analogue to what the rule pertains to. Plus I tend to speak in metaphor so the thought of hitting buttons being equivalent to keyframing is satisfying. It's a nice construction.

Here's why you're mistaken...

I'm not mistaken, because paying no attention whatever to the Academy Awards could never be considered a mistake. More accurately, I'm just not motivated enough to be accurate.

Motion-capture is the modern rotoscoping; it's a good tool for story-telling, and it's completely unobjectionable - except when it's called animation.

I don't see how the rules are meant to exclude mo-cap at all. I understand they need to put SOMETHING down on paper, but in a lot of ways, defining the difference between an animated film and live action is like defining porn. We just know it when we see it.