tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post110268941068233083..comments2024-03-12T10:31:11.815-07:00Comments on The Ward-O-Matic: The Polar Express: A Virtual Train Wreck (conclusion)Ward Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-3493198601805753112009-12-20T05:48:39.273-08:002009-12-20T05:48:39.273-08:00This is bad necro, I know, but I thought it was fu...This is bad necro, I know, but I thought it was funny that I found this while searching for info on the process used in Avatar.<br /><br />Funny because I saw a picture today showing one of the actors in full mo-cap rig and side-by-side with the finished CGI 'actor' at the same point in the film.<br /><br />MY first reaction was that the CGI version just didn't have the same expressiveness as her real face. Exactly the same complaint you are making here and other people agree with.<br /><br />My next comment was that Gollum did a much better job of the intricate facial details, and now I see the same idea, with an explanation that they had hand-animators working the face 90% of the time.<br /><br />What's interesting is the progress or lack of in the 6 or so years since the Gollum work was done. In Avatar, the actor's face is painted with a fine grid of green dots and a camera is set up as part of the mocap gear, pointing directly into the face of the actor. So they can track facial movements with far greater detail than before. But this *hasn't* translated into better expressions. The tiny movements that convey humanity are still smaller than the grid of dots.<br /><br />Anyway, shame on my for reviving this old thread but the coincidence of my conclusions matching these for a different film was worth it, I figured.<br /><br />Here is the Avatar picture:<br /><br />http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/assets_c/2009/12/avatar_zoe_mocap-thumb-585xauto-7962.jpg<br /><br />You can't tell me that CGI has captured her full range of expression, it's positively flat.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15171437451538569993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-85270786413952221382009-11-30T19:08:03.459-08:002009-11-30T19:08:03.459-08:00For that matter Hanks played a conductor not an en...For that matter Hanks played a conductor not an engineer, the only thing that I didn't like about the film is that there was no coupler on the front of the locomotive, though it was based on Pere Marquette 1225.<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CbKzozQs90Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12818721984298857987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-35511602580008688012008-10-05T21:23:00.000-07:002008-10-05T21:23:00.000-07:00"In animation, it really takes a bit of exaggerati..."In animation, it really takes a bit of exaggeration to make something look convincing."<BR/><BR/>This quote speaks volumes as to why I didn't like Happy Feet. Whenever I saw the penguin dance, it felt stiff. I kept wanting him to make bigger movements. If you look at the movements of Red Hot Riding Hood, they are exaggerated, but they look right. If MoCap "animators" were allowed to make adjustments to the captured footage, then maybe it would look better. I think eventually people will get tired of badly executed MoCap and it will die a slow silent death. Oddly enough, I love MoCap when used in games.Andreashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584746273156316675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-57377849004066815922008-09-14T13:52:00.000-07:002008-09-14T13:52:00.000-07:00you should do the same for "beowulf." also directe...you should do the same for "beowulf." also directed by zemeckis. the big problem with these films is the total lack of taste. as if the "animators" were really just technicians who never took an art class.AChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04456811515163886597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-4002882374705037462008-03-19T07:09:00.000-07:002008-03-19T07:09:00.000-07:00Excellent article. Why bother paying Tom Hanks a f...Excellent article. Why bother paying Tom Hanks a fortune for that. It just seems pointless.<BR/>Mocap is fantastic when used in computer games but this sort of thing is just using technology for technology's sakeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-28638946688303513722008-01-13T17:33:00.000-08:002008-01-13T17:33:00.000-08:00This is commenting on an old article, but...The Po...This is commenting on an old article, but...<BR/><BR/>The Polar Express, its secondary star was the steam engine. Steam Engines continue to inspire awe and emotion in the people that observe these behemoths on the railroad.<BR/><BR/>This is the Pere Marquette 1225. A Lima Locomotive Works 2-8-4 (wheel arrangement) steam engine built during World War II.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hln47cP78&NR=1<BR/><BR/>And yes, this is the actual locomotive that was used as a template (and co-starred in certain segments) in the Polar Express.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-16937679134954689172007-11-28T18:33:00.000-08:002007-11-28T18:33:00.000-08:00Hey, great post.Now that the "sequel" to the Polar...Hey, great post.<BR/><BR/>Now that the "sequel" to the Polar Express is out - Beowulf - I'm curious to hear what you thought of that.<BR/><BR/>I never saw the Polar Express, but I did recently see Beowulf and found myself thinking of the Uncanny Valley and how inhuman the characters often looked in the film. The best things in the film were those that were completely animated, like the dragon, or the scenery. Not really a glowing recommendation for the team that worked on it, although I think there's a lot of potential for someone to do some really interesting things with it.glahahgglghhaghghggghhhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641563026220459728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-58053801791940325862007-11-12T09:26:00.000-08:002007-11-12T09:26:00.000-08:00I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I do a fair bit of...I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I do a fair bit of work in 3D (Lightwave, mostly) and I avoid character animation of human characters at all costs for this very reason. It's much easier (not easy, but easier) to pull off a Gollum or other stylized character because people don't have preprogrammed expectations. While they may have imagined in general what Gollum should look like, we instantly recognize when a human looks anything less than human because our brains process all the little details from every face we've ever seen in all our life experiences.<BR/><BR/>Yes, children are more forgiving, but part of this is because their brains have a smaller database of details to process.<BR/><BR/>One commenter blamed the "data set" for the lack of character depth. I mostly blame the director. Zemeckis is quite good at the "big picture," but, in my opinion, he frequently falters when it comes to detail. Some good examples of where Zemeckis' lack of detail kept films from reaching their full potential include "Contact", "Forrest Gump" and "Castaway". Polar Express needed someone to pay more attention to detail. Giving the animators more control could easily have compensated for the small data set. While you can't really make <BR/>the characters "more human," good 3D artists and animators, given enough latitude, have become very, very good at "fooling" the human brain and making things seem more natural.<BR/><BR/>I will say that while I found the characters visually lacking (and the elves downright frightening), the overall experience of seeing The Polar Express in IMAX 3D was, at the time, incomparable to anything I had seen prior. I haven't seen any other CG films in IMAX 3D since, so I have no comparison for how they may have gotten even better. But since my first viewing of Polar Express was in IMAX 3D, watching it in 2D is like watching a completely different movie.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, a comment to "Anonymous". Ward is not a cynic. He is a skeptic. In film, animation, and similar lines of work, it is skepticism that drives the art form forward. Cynicism would just hold it back. Now if Ward were, say, an accountant or a doctor writing a blog about how how much the 3D work in Polar Express sucked, that would be cynicism. But artists in this field only get better by analyzing a work and figuring out how to improve upon it. I can assure you that it's unlikely an artist that worked on Polar Express would take offense to this, but would instead view it as a useful tool to make the next one even better.<BR/><BR/>If CG artists and animators sat on their "laurels" and didn't continue to advance the state of the art, they would be out of work. The film goers who pay for the tickets will settle for nothing less.Philip Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04974816840198940610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-56228446860597676822007-07-26T14:43:00.000-07:002007-07-26T14:43:00.000-07:00Hey I got the perfect solution for you "anonymous"...Hey I got the perfect solution for you "anonymous": don't bother stopping by. If you don't like what I say then so be it. You decided to take the time to visit this blog, read through the post -- not me. Oh, and DID you REALLY read my post here? If you did, then you would've read that I actually liked the film, just not the attitude of the filmmakers touting this "new technology" as being the end-all be-all answer to animation. They were sloppy in their execution of the characters and motion and if they just paid attention to the aesthetics of human beings and such, then it would've been a bigger hit.<BR/><BR/>But no, you probably just wanted to stir something up here by wasting your own time away by submitting a wasteful comment, empty and useless.<BR/><BR/>Cynical? Who's cynical here? It's part of who I am when it comes to analyzing animation. In order to make better cartoons, we animators are going to be more critical than a general audience. True, kids are not going to pick up on the details like I am, but that doesn't mean we have to give the audience a lesser product. I did this to help us, as artists and animators, try and figure out how we could do better.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I have two kids. Check out my artwork -- I animate cartoons for a living. I love animation and comics and cartoons. I think that I know more about what it is to be a kid than you'll ever know.<BR/><BR/>Okay? Okay.Ward Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-20008372850867638152007-07-26T12:18:00.000-07:002007-07-26T12:18:00.000-07:00You can't hear the bell because you're too damned ...You can't hear the bell because you're too damned cynical. You've forgotten what it means to be a child. Children don't waste their time being critical details. Find a more constructive way to spend your time and stop wasting mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-67690140074267938742007-06-30T12:19:00.000-07:002007-06-30T12:19:00.000-07:00Motion Capture that was magic and expensive back w...Motion Capture that was magic and expensive back when they did this is now cheap and better quality. Look at<BR/>http://www.phasespace.com/gallery.php?movie=7 for an example of what can be done in real time, instead of weeks later, and doesn't require more than a few minutes to clean up. This leaves more time for story and interpretation rather than just a CG technique.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-62270579003133226022007-05-18T08:42:00.000-07:002007-05-18T08:42:00.000-07:00What I wonder is- why did they decide on rotoscopi...What I wonder is- why did they decide on rotoscoping and 3D? If they had just done rotoscoping and traditional animation, or live-action, costuming, and the usual amount of special effects, things would have been much less complicated, and probably less expensive. I don't think they really thought this through very well.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08335253913494570498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1166119992142717012006-12-14T10:13:00.000-08:002006-12-14T10:13:00.000-08:00Who really cares about whether or not the characte...Who really cares about whether or not the characters are identical to the actors? It is a movie for children. I think the movie was great and the conductor looks just like Hanks! You obviously have too much time on your hands if you sit and analyze every detail in a kid's movie. My children love this film as do I.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1142443303982933852006-03-15T09:21:00.000-08:002006-03-15T09:21:00.000-08:00This is a very good read and it was nice to read v...This is a very good read and it was nice to read varied options. But out of all the comments this one was spot on. <BR/><BR/>“Mocap is great for two things in a film...<BR/><BR/>1) It saves your animators time by doing the large motions for them, leaving them to focus their energies on putting subtle expression and life into the character.<BR/><BR/>2) It captures small movements of the body most people don't think about. Do this right now. Stand up. Stand fairly still. Become aware of how much your body moves regardless of how still you try to stay. Notice how much your leg muscles slightly contract and expand to keep your self upright and balanced. A living thing is rarely ever still, and mocap will add those ever-so-slight twitches and weight-shifts to a character.<BR/><BR/>Mocap is a tool. It is a tool for animators to use, to accelerate production and help them deliver more believable performances by supply more believable general motions. But just as a hammer will not build a house, mocap will not make a film. Mocap is only one of many tools an animator can reach for when creating something.”<BR/><BR/>I would just like to add that Gollums expressions were basically rotoscoped form the test plates of Andy Serkis acting with minor tweaks from the animators. I feel that this is a good technique as the animators have hindsight on the acting so the can help improve the performance of Andy Serkis. It seems to me that The Polar Express was just bad use of motion capture and there is a lot to learn from its mistakes. Motion capture should not be dismissed and animators should not be afraid of it as they should not be afraid of computers or for that matter a pencil (that’s me) they are all tools to be used, there is a time and a place for every thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1137469412736201482006-01-16T19:43:00.000-08:002006-01-16T19:43:00.000-08:00This whole post has been fascinating to read. As w...This whole post has been fascinating to read. As well as an artist, art educator and film fan, I'm a mom of a 2-year old who is absolutely devoted to this movie, so I've seen it no fewer than fifty times on DVD, once in 3-D IMAX. I'm in general agreement with most of the posts about the "creepy" characters, and the real need for some serious eyebrow adjustments on these characters and a heck of a lot more data-capture. I'm wondering if anyone thinks another factor in the oddness of it is the inconsistent and badly placed lighting - the center of every face seems bizarrely dark around the nose and eyes, as if they've had to work so hard to get the nose and cheeks to bump out they've covered everything in charcoal and wiped the high points off instead of modeling everything in the correct lighting for the surroundings. And at every point, the interior of their mouths is like a huge, dark hole with no back - once you pass the teeth you just go on in infinite darkness. For me, that was the creepiest of the creepy. And personally, I wasn't blown away by the over-animated, contorted conductor and engineer - they went too far the other way, and they had no reference in the book to make their identities mesh with the otherwise gentle and poetic reality of the images. A teeny bit of restraint there would have gone a long way.<BR/><BR/>I do think there needs to be a little bit of correction when one says that they were going for "ultra-realism" in TPE- they're not doing photorealism that would make it look like a live action movie, but rather an imitation of the "realism" of the children's book illustration that is indeed focused on drawing every single hair but simplifies forms, overexaggerates, and has a very still, magical quality (even as they're rushing down the sides of mountains). It's a very 40's kind of look. Realism has changed a lot over centuries, the Dutch Masters' realism looks nothing like the American Realism of the '70s. Now, that doesn't excuse some very out-of-joint shoulders and elbows periodically, which either set of realists would have tut-tutted. And what was up with that Santa? He's really a piece of wood. That beard is made of foam, I'm sure.<BR/><BR/>And I agree with one poster, the experience of the film is somehow much, much better in 3-D. Cuts out some of the odd head positioning in the girl character, especially, and begins to make sense of the unusual angles.<BR/><BR/>I also have a little request for the gallery - if you don't have little kids, or if you're not deeply involved in your kids' lives, I can see why you think it's so horrible that they'd waste money on goody-two-shoes "pap" like this. But I'm so grateful for just one movie that doesn't include people making fart jokes, punching each other, and blowing each other away. Most of the pure animation movies do those things even if they are designed for and marketed to kids. And I'm saying this as an enormous Quentin Tarantino fan myself, so I'm not at all opposed to major bloodshed, twisted sex, inappropriate behaviour of the naughtiest kind, and the creative use of 4- and more-letter words in adult movies. I just think there's a way to make entertainment that doesn't include any of those things, and I'd be happy for people to spend a heck of a lot more millions on discovering what those ways are. Animated or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1137166345445735742006-01-13T07:32:00.000-08:002006-01-13T07:32:00.000-08:00I'm very late to comment on this post but can't re...I'm very late to comment on this post but can't resist as it's in the area of my research.<BR/>Apart from the Matsuhiro Mori Uncanny Valley stuff I hugely recommend "Superportraits: Caricature and Recognition" by Dr Gillian Rhodes of the UWA Face Lab.<BR/>It turns out that the photoreal CGI is not just inferior because we can't get it to look as real as real life: we are actually not looking for real life when we go about our daily business. Rhodes explains that caricature often communicates the identity of a person better than a photo (and by extension a photorealistic facsimile) of that person because of the way we store the image of that person in our memory. Each new face we experience is mapped against a stored norm that we each have. That norm is derived by averaging all the faces we have experienced. When we remember GW Bush for example we probably remember that his eyes are closer together than those of most faces we have experienced. We store this knowledge, not realistically, but in an exaggerated (or caricatured) fashion. When a good cartoonist exaggerates this difference from the norm (by sticking Bush's eyes right next to each other) we instantly identify with it because the caricature more accurately reflects our memory of Bush than a photo of Bush.<BR/>The thing that I find endlessly fascinating, and am trying to explore in my graphic design PhD, is that the human visual system, the eyes and the brain, should be set up to appreciate exaggeration and distillation despite having evolved through hundreds of thousands of years of looking out on the real (and unexaggerated) visual world. I have reached the conclusion, through a variety of good psychophysical and sociological reasons, that in visual communication terms, illustration (which allows for distillation and exaggeration) and drawn, non-representational, animation are superior means for conveying most messages. Meanwhile the advertising industry and the movie industry stumble blindly on using photography, film and poorly conceived CG design for 9 out of 10 stories.<BR/>Compounding the problem is that most graphic design courses emphasise typography over image and even illustrators themselves have trouble articulating just what the strengths of their chosen medium are (I'm thinking here of books like "the Education of an Illustrator" by Heller and Arisman: 200 + pages and about a half dozen pictures!).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1128832087729420482005-10-08T21:28:00.000-07:002005-10-08T21:28:00.000-07:00Anonymous, I can see what you're talking about, bu...Anonymous, I can see what you're talking about, but it doesn't hold up. Still images or moving, the characters in POLAR EXPRESS were creepy all the way around. And I discuss this already in my initial post, that I know that these are still images, that there is a lot that goes on in the modeling and the shading of the characters in the CG realm. BUT It doesn't matter if the kids are still or moving, they were horribly designed and the mo-cap did not suit the situation at all. <BR/><BR/>What I did in these still frames was for aesthetics. And my point in doing it was to show that the simple tweaking in Photoshop could've been done in the modeling and shading of the characters. I will say this again: <B>It doesn't matter if these characters are stationary or moving, they are still creepy.</B> And believe me, I've seen the film twice, and I'll attest to that statement time and again.<BR/><BR/>FINAL FANTASY is not worth talking about because NOTHING in that film worked. Just because there were bad animators (and I use that term loosely when talking about this particular film) working on the character's faces in that film gives you the notion that animation is not the solution? That's a very limited and very narrow-minded viewpoint. <BR/><BR/>I will go back to the RINGS trilogy, and say that it was with Gollum where everything worked like it should've: both animators and performance capture from actors working in tandem with each other. In order for everything to work right, there needs to be communication between everyone, and Peter Jackson, WETA and Co. made sure of this, in my opinion. <BR/><BR/>But I'm afraid that Zemeckis just doesn't get this, and so now we'll have to endure more creepy characters in BEOWULF and MONSTER HOUSE, although the creepiness might work in his favor for both films.Ward Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1128490499846903882005-10-04T22:34:00.000-07:002005-10-04T22:34:00.000-07:00Quite an interesting discussion, but many of thepo...Quite an interesting discussion, but many of the<BR/>posts are missing something obvious:<BR/><BR/>much of the discussion is about Mocap versus<BR/>Animation. But note, the Polar faces look creepy<BR/>in STILL pictures, and Ward has made improvments<BR/>to the STILL images. <BR/><BR/>Mocap versus animation is an issue of movement.<BR/>While the mocap may be an additional problem,<BR/>the "creepy face" phemomenon shows up in still<BR/>pictures and thus is an issue of modeling or rendering.<BR/><BR/>Unrelated, <BR/>a couple other comments: Final Fantasy had<BR/>hand-animated faces and mocap'd bodies,<BR/>but the faces still looked creepy. Another indication that animating itself is not the solution.<BR/><BR/>R.e. the Nyquist commentary (correct), the face<BR/>tracking in the Matrix sequels used optic flow,<BR/>meaning that every pixel was being tracked,<BR/>not just a hundred markers. The results<BR/>looked great (not creepy), as seen from their<BR/>presentations at Siggraph. However they had<BR/>a different(?) problem in that the results looked worse as the face got further away. The distant shots in the movies do _not_ look good.<BR/><BR/>On Lemony Snickett you do see the CG baby's face<BR/>in a number of shots, e.g. when she is biting<BR/>the table. This is great stuff, the rendering<BR/>is perfect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1117902342833432182005-06-04T09:25:00.000-07:002005-06-04T09:25:00.000-07:00Before we continue any further on this argument, a...Before we continue any further on this argument, anonymous, you should read the first part of my commentary of The Polar Express <A HREF="http://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2004/12/polar-express-virtual-train-wreck.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>. In it, I talk about the issues raised in trying to emulate realism in art and/or film, which is what the filmmakers were trying to do here. I mention the theory of The Uncanny Valley, wherein non-human characters (robots, animated characters, etc.) are strangely rejected by humans the closer they resemble real humans. <BR/><BR/>This is NO WAY related to Homer Simpson or South Park characters. Your argument here is not even in the same ballpark. In those shows, they are very much indeed cartoon characters and we accept them as such. They are stylized representations of humans, with no emphasis on trying to suggest realistic human behavior or mannerisms. Because of this, the viewer can easily associate and relate to these characters. It's just not even an issue here. <BR/><BR/>When the filmmakers of Polar Express established the setting to being as close to real life as possible, they had a big task to tackle, because of the Uncanny Valley theory and with animation in general. Do they stylize the movements of the characters or not? Should they stylize the look and feel of the children, or not? They decided to go the ultra-realism route, thereby making it close to impossible to emulate. It was a challenge. <BR/><BR/>Believe me, if you check out all the reviews on The Polar Express (you can see them <A HREF="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/polar_express/" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>), the number one issue these people had with the film (and with all the people I talked with personally) were how creeped out they were by the zombie-like children. They simply were not buying the fact that these kids were believable as characters. Funny, since Pixar's The Incredibles had some of the most believable characters in recent animation history (heck, even in live-action films too). <BR/><BR/>If you had read the first part to the commentary, you will see that I did, in fact, like The Polar Express as a whole. The major problem I had with it was the fact that the filmmakers were touting the animation and technology as "ground-breaking" and "revolutionary," which they were wrong in both accounts. I hate the fact that millions of dollars were put in a film that could've been pushed further toward having believable characters. My Photoshop experimentation done here was just an indication that all they had to do was spend a little more energy on tweaking the eyes and faces of the characters, and that perhaps more people would've been more open and forgiving of the film, ensuring a bigger box-office return.<BR/><BR/>It also goes deeper in the fact that filmmakers can't just simply be complacent in thinking that audiences will go see anything that, on the outside, looks cool. It's all about the characters and the story. Point blank. That's why The Simpsons work and why South Park works. People love the characters. Great writing. It doesn't matter if they made a show with twigs and glue, if there's a decent story with some lovable characters in it, people will dig it. All the high-tech wizardry in The Polar Express was just a cheap facade, if you ask me. It was not worth it. The filmmakers were audacious in thinking that they had a sure thing. And they didn't.Ward Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1116950097553265682005-05-24T08:54:00.000-07:002005-05-24T08:54:00.000-07:00Take it easy buddy, u expressed your opinion and I...Take it easy buddy, u expressed your opinion and I expressed mine, so did a dozen other people here, but I’m the only one being attacked.<BR/><BR/>If your implying to my ‘issues’ as racism I can assure you I’m not racist, I grew up listening to MC Hammer, and please no one hold that against me, I’m also a fan of Will Smith, Whoopi godberg, and my all time favorite classic is The Cosby Show.<BR/><BR/>Any ways back to the matter at hand, I may be mistaken about the African American girl, but I guess I have better things to do with my time than to stare at images picking out imperfections. The Majority here didn’t like The Polar Express, but I’m sure not all of them disliked it for the same reasons you didn’t like it. I mean I’m not a fan of South Park and their illustrations are kept to a minimum and I’m sure even amateur artists can draw better than the South Park Illustrations, but you got to love the time and effort they put into these animations. I hope I’m not getting off track too much here but my point is, alot of people here didn’t like The Polar Express, but if you search the web a lot of other people liked it and would agree with me.<BR/><BR/>I seriously doubt ‘The Polar Express’ freaked anybody out, if any animated character should freak people out I think Homer Simpson gets Gold Medal and yet the whole world loves Homer. He’s not perfect, I mean any one can jump onto Photoshop and do wonders with imperfect pictures, biggest evidence are playboy magazines.<BR/><BR/>You stressed a lot on my term ‘cartoonish’, well I’m certain they weren’t aiming for a realistic style, I mean the whole animation is supposed to be surreal. If you’d told me Final Fantasy wasn’t going for cartoonish I would have agreed.<BR/>Just because they’ve used Motion Capture doesn’t mean they cant aim for cartoonish, I’m sure if motion capture existed back in the days of Roger Rabbit (And you cant tell me Roger Rabbit wasn’t a cartoon) they sure would have used it rather than spending hours manually animating it. <BR/><BR/>Cheers Anonymous :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1116939122381948082005-05-24T05:52:00.000-07:002005-05-24T05:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous, you are entitled to your opinion, just ...Anonymous, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine. However, there are a few things I must point out that you bring up. First of all, that is a rather general viewpoint about me making the boy's lips look "African-American." No one else has made this assumption, thus I feel that you are in the wrong. And even if I did, why would that be wrong? Sounds like you have some issues there that you need to work out. <BR/><BR/>Most of the tweaking I did on all the eyes (yes, I worked on ALL the eyes to all the characters in the examples I fixed) were in the pupils and iris. Look closer and you'll see. <BR/><BR/>Another thing, I did not even do one tweak on the African-American girl's skin, so, what you see in my new version must be completely in your mind. <BR/><BR/>For the record, I am a traditional animation director. I've been doing this for 9 years. I think I know what looks right when it comes to animation or not, so, in my opinion, THE POLAR EXPRESS was a huge waste of time, energy and money. Again, in my OPINION. And based on the majority of the responses here, I am not alone. <BR/><BR/>Purpose? What purpose are you talking about? To freak audiences out? They certainly did that. But "cartoonish?" No. If you thought that the filmmakers were trying to go for a "cartoonish" look in the characters, then they were WAY WAY off. Think about it -- they were trying to go for REALISM, here. They put millions of dollars in capturing the live-action performances of human actors. No over-the-top expressions or takes. There was no indication of trying to go "cartoonish," as the filmmakers worked feverishly on getting all the characters, settings, environments to look as close to real life as possible. From the freckles on the boy's skin down to the millions of strands of hair on all the children's heads. There was absolutely no hint of trying to go "cartoonish," in THE POLAR EXPRESS. So, you are terribly wrong in your assessment there.Ward Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1116934920968813632005-05-24T04:42:00.000-07:002005-05-24T04:42:00.000-07:00Your right about those boy's eyebrows in the Polar...Your right about those boy's eyebrows in the Polar Express, but you didn't do him any favors by giving him African American lips, and I couldn't really see any differences you might have made to the eyes. Oh and I think you made that girl’s skin even drier. And from a 2D and 3D animator’s point of view, I think they’ve done well in The Polar Express, the cartoonish images look great they have served their purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1109892033310113992005-03-03T15:20:00.000-08:002005-03-03T15:20:00.000-08:00We can gain a lot by looking to the Nine - the Nin...We can gain a lot by looking to the Nine - the Nine Old Men. This is why Mo-Cap is inadequate to the task:<br /><br />"The camera certainly records what is there but it records everything that is there, with an impartial lack of emphasis... On the other hand, an artist shows what he sees is there, especially that which might not be perceived by others. His drawings [or poses, in the case of 3D animation] can be closer to the true realism of an object because he can be selective and personal in what he chooses to show... The point is: a work of art is never a copy; for it to have meaning to people of many generations and numerous cultures, it must be the personal statement of the artist."<br />- Frank Thomas<br />Chapter 13. The Illusion of Life.<br /><br />The technique that Ward-O-Matic (wwwwaaaarrrrddddd) describes from LOTR was looking at Andy Serkis' filmed performance, roto-ing it, exaggerating important subtleties, and animating the face traditionally (they also had to animate fingers and toes). This is the technique they used more often than not and it's the same way Walt and the Nine captured performances for "Snow White". The scene where Gollum's face changes when Frodo first calls him "Smeagol" was traditionally-animated. There is emotion a $3-mil mo-cap rig would be challenged to reproduce. <br /><br />Watch the Two Towers' Platinum Edition third disc, titled "The Taming of Smeagol" to see a reflection of what is happening in all of Hollywood. I'm particularly satisfied with Jackson's discerning eye when it comes to the 'flavor of the month' effects versus what looks great (i.e., he doesn't always use CG).<br /><br />However, motion capture is being heavily pursued by Hollywood. They hope with enough investment now, it will be quite cheap later and they won't have to bother with us cruddy 'ole animators anymore. It's like buying McAnimation. Give me a shake with that. Hollywood is ultimately a business - we can't forget that. Right now, they aren't willing to pay the traditionally- animated toll. <br /><br />If you haven't seen Polar Express - don't. <br /><br />When you pay for a movie, that's your "vote". When you buy tickets to the Ice-capades performance of the Polar Express, you're voting. When you buy that insulting stuffed Santa Claus that appeals to the largest possible existentialist audience by saying "Christmas... is in your heart" you are voting. To vote "NO" you don't buy! Let your voice... not be heard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1108508248459575092005-02-15T14:57:00.000-08:002005-02-15T14:57:00.000-08:00Excellent modifications there! They just tweaked t...Excellent modifications there! They just tweaked those images up a notch, closer to photorealism. But that's just a one frame in a movie that contains way over 100.000 frames.<br /><br />It sure is a shame that almost all of Hanks's true characteristics and charisma has gone with the wind while they zapped him into digital world. I believe there are few main reasons for that to happen. And most of them are caused by "blindness", which is caused by technological issues.<br /><br />Let's say a director knows always what he (or she) wants and makes sure gets what he wants. He always spots a wrong facial expression in a single second of a 30 second take. Now when we stare at the same take created by a computer, we are quite amazed what we can do with computers nowadays. All looks so life-like and real. All looks so perfect and polished. All looks just too fine to be true. And made with this "box" on the table? So, could it be that the director can't say how to make those animations more life-like or he is happy what he sees on the screen and thinks that it cannot be made any better? "Real movie" directors are used to work with live humans and not with old men and little boys made from ones and zeros, but on the other hand, facial expressions and other movements should be the same in real-life and in digital world and quite easy to spot.<br /><br />However, it's a totally different world. If we'd like to have a perfect CG-movie, we should take each frame in a movie under special care. Have a good look at it: what kind of an atmosphere it has, does it give you the right feeling and warmth. But when that frame is modified and tweaked to a point that it could be sold as a masterpiece next to Van Gogh's paintings, and it's shown to you with 23 (depending on frame-rate, eh) other images in a time of a second, you really can't see the major difference.<br /><br />This is a long path to walk. Photorealism. Maybe in year 2200 you don't need real actors. Every other child who just got his first computer could re-make Matrix Trilogy in a weekend - and make it look even better than the original movies. Maybe. But what's the point? I'll say, it's nice to have that sort of a CG-feel in a movie that is all about CG. Without the certain CG-feel it looks like a real movie shot with real cameras and actors.<br /><br />As earlier said, you can tweak and tweak, but with those schedules it certainly aren't possible. Some people are just expected to see the finished movie in theaters.<br /><br />And don't get me wrong, those adjustments you made were just the thing that was needed to spice up the scene - or the frame. Keep up the good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8984824.post-1107741758171144412005-02-06T18:02:00.000-08:002005-02-06T18:02:00.000-08:00Yes, I completely agree with you. In fact, I menti...Yes, I completely agree with you. In fact, I mention this theory, the "uncanny valley," in the first installment of this commentary, <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwardomatic.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F12%2Fpolar-express-virtual-train-wreck.html">HERE</A>. Thanks for the comment, by the way.Ward Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05013085293679968596noreply@blogger.com