Pixar gets better for each new movie

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Just a thought. Pixar keeps improving their skills with each new film, yet there still is one area which I wouldn't mind see develope even further. I'm talking about the surface and texture of the characters' skin. There is still something "plastic" about it. Not that I'm interested in full photorealism, an animated movie is after all supposed to be a more or less stylized version of reality. But as said, the skin can still be done better.

Maybe the problem will be solved in just a few years. As Peter Jackson has said about the upcoming Tinting movie; "we're making them look photorealistic; the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair."

If this achievement also includes the rest of the major studios, then the future animated movies could get even more interesting.

Computer animation have a lot possibilities which stop-motion doesn't have, but stop-motion still has a touch of realism which computer animation don't (it is a little too smooth for that).
Of course, stop-motion and computer animaton are two different animation genres, and shouldn't be compared, yet I'm looking forward to the day when computer animators are able to simulate a scene from a stop-motion animated movie to such a degree that is is impossible to tell which is the real thing and which is the virtual version. Who knows what we can expect then?

[Voiceroy]

Of course, stop-motion and computer animaton are two different animation genres, and shouldn't be compared, yet I'm looking forward to the day when computer animators are able to simulate a scene from a stop-motion animated movie to such a degree that is is impossible to tell which is the real thing and which is the virtual version. Who knows what we can expect then?

The two genres can legitimately be compared because the technology already exists to combine them as was used for Jurassic Park. But then that also involves the use of motion capture.

So I don't believe you'll see Pixar using that technology--Ratatouille had that bit in the end credits that stated: "100% computer animation, no motion capture involved."

I personally don't think animating detailed skin textures is any great concern to Pixar. Their movies do involve a great deal of detail and realism, but it's also an animated cartoon which is an exaggeration and/or simplification of reality and thus doesn't seem to be necessary to have such detail. The same is even more true for 2D animated toons--when was the last time you saw detail in skin pores in a traditional animated feature film?

I think if Pixar wants to make "photorealistic" skin textures, they'll find a way to do it. They haven't let any challenges deter them to date. Take this quote from Brad Bird on The Incredibles for example:

We really had a tall order with the film. If you were to list the ten most difficult things to do in CG, we did all of them and did a lot of all of them! So there were a lot of people that were concerned that this was an unmakeable movie. But then there were people where this was exactly the throw-down challenge that they were looking for.

[UrsushH.Bear]

One thing I notice is a dynamic audience base. It seems the later pictures address an older audience, but have elements that appeal to the younger crowd. The earlier pictures were addressed to a younger audience with some script and visual details to keep the older viewers into the story. Whether that qualifies as better or not, depends on the viewer.

In terms of visual, Pixar presses the envelope every time.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

What bugs me about Pixar's films -and all 3d films- is that characters, no matter how hard the animators try (or don't try) always look like plastic dolls. Like toys. They smell plastic. And what looks worse than anything on them are the eyelashes and the hair. So, to me, nothing has changed really since "Toy Story". Maybe a lot have changed technically, but the whole essence is the same. Until, and if ever, 3d animation stops being so plastic, I'll always consider it second rate.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Voiceroy:

No offence, but I have never suggested that Pixar should use performace capture or any other shortcuts, so how did you get the idea that I mean something else? I hope Pixar will continue to use 100% "pure" animation is all future movies.

It is correct that stop-motion was used in Jurassic Park, but only in pre-production. Originally it was go-motion that was going to bring the dinosaurs to life. Then Spielberg saw what could be done on computers, and the rest is history. The "real stuff" in the movie was robotic live action models in real size, not animated.

And showing skin pores is not the point I was trying to explain. What I meant was that if it is now possible to create a photorealistic skin on computers, then there is hope we will see animated characters without the plastic look in the future. Unlike handdrawn animation wich is perfect as it is, computer animation still needs some improvements. At least that's my opinion. So I hope you are right about Pixar always finding a solution to problems related to the animated characters.


UrsushH.Bear:

And from the look of it, Wall-E will be even more "adult" judging from the information released so far. One has to wonder what John Carter will look like if it ever goes into production (and if it in that case will be included in their "official" list of animated movies, even if it probably will be a mix of animation and live action).



Aladdin from Agrabah:

That's exactly my point. Even after all these years, most computer animated movies which included human characters still has a "taste of plastic" to them. It suits perfectly for the Barbie movies, and it was the main reason why a movie about toys was Pixar's first movie, but it is time to find a cure against this "child desease" of CGI. For this reason, I'm really looking forward to Rapunzel.
Pixar's next movie, Wall-E, is about characters made of metal instead of flesh, so hopefully the plastic will not be present in this film.

Like already mentioned, Pixar keeps impoving for each movie, and if they could find a way to get rid of the "plastic factor", then computer animation would move on to another level.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I agree, about the whole "characters look like plastic" thing. Personally, I like the animation from video game CGI movies much better than whats in Pixar most of the time.

My best example, Kingdom Hearts 2. The opening video is amazing, it IMO outdoes Pixar. Too bad they didn't do more movies like that *shakes head* oh well.

[BelleGirl]

But how far does the 'photorealims'in CGI have to go? Untill there is no distinction anymore to be seen between life-action and animation?
Then I hardly see the point of going through all the trouble of doing CGI all the way if you can also go for life-action with some CGi-generated characters (like they did with Gollum in Lord of the Rings)
Of course, it also depends on the subject of the story. I don't know if you can make a moive like 'Ratatouille' with part life action and part CGI" and make it look like a whole?

Sometimes I think 'Ratatouille' could als have worked very well if done in traditional 2D-animation.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

But how far does the 'photorealims'in CGI have to go? Untill there is no distinction anymore to be seen between life-action and animation?
Then I hardly see the point of going through all the trouble of doing CGI all the way if you can also go for life-action with some CGi-generated characters (like they did with Gollum in Lord of the Rings).

I have already mentioned that in my first post;
"Not that I'm interested in full photorealism, an animated movie is after all supposed to be a more or less stylized version of reality. But as said, the skin can still be done better."

And once more in the second post:
"... I have never suggested that Pixar should use performace capture or any other shortcuts, so how did you get the idea that I mean something else? I hope Pixar will continue to use 100% "pure" animation in all their future movies."

As you can see, it is the skin which is the main subject here, not making an animated movie look like a live action film with photorealistic people. Making a character look less like plastic is not the same as giving it more realistic anatomy and such. Stop-motion is not realistic, and most of the time it does not look like plastic. Look at a Ray Harryhausen movie. Yes, you can see the characters are not real, but their skin looks pretty realistic compared with what we see today in most CGI movies.
Or what about movies like The Dark Crystal, which is about live action puppets? This is not photorealistic either, but imagine if some of the elements could be recreated on a computer. There is a lot of stuff you can do in a virtual world which you can't do on a set with live action puppets.

Sometimes I think 'Ratatouille' could als have worked very well if done in traditional 2D-animation.

Of course it could, but that's not the subject here.


I must admit I have not too much experience with computer games, but if characters looks better there, one would expect some changes in the movies as well soon.

Stop motion animated features are still being made today, despite the popularity of computer animation. So it looks like the old technique still has some qualities which so far has not been possible to repeat on a computer.
As most people knows by know, Glen Keane put together a crew of computer animators and more traditional animators as a preporation for Rapunzel, and called the project "The best of both worlds".
I don't know, maybe if a similar "best of both worlds" people were collected under one roof, computer artists and professional stop-motion animators, then perhaps one could make a film which combined the strenght of stop motion with all the potential computer animation has to offer.

[Voiceroy]

No offence, but I have never suggested that Pixar should use performace capture or any other shortcuts, so how did you get the idea that I mean something else? I hope Pixar will continue to use 100% "pure" animation is all future movies.

You misread my post. My reply was based on your comment "that stop-motion and computer animaton are two different animation genres, and shouldn't be compared."

Otherwise, you never really asked a question that needed a reply in your original post. It was "just a thought", as you put it.

So think of my post as the first half being a "nitpick" (in a manner of speaking), and the rest of it just commentary based on your thought.

And I'll reiterate that I really don't think detailed skin texture is of much concern to Pixar's animators and designers. Also, Ratatouille was a cartoony film, and the human designs were caricatures. Thus, the characters appearing a little plastic-like just didn't concern me much, but I realize that's just my opinion.

But as I already stated, if Pixar wants the level of detailed skin textures like you're describing, I'm sure they'll find a way to do it. However, I still don't see how it's essential for an animated, cartoony film, which all Pixar's films have been to date.

My best example, Kingdom Hearts 2. The opening video is amazing, it IMO outdoes Pixar. Too bad they didn't do more movies like that *shakes head* oh well.

It's "amazing" because it's on an epic fantasy scale, and it is well-done, but the character movement is still stiff and the poses and facial expressions are mostly static.

I don't believe it outdoes Pixar by a long shot...except maybe their earlier films.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Stop-motion and computer animation are actually two different categories of animation. Just as stio-motion and handdrawn are two different things.

Yes, Ratatouille was a cartoony film, but it doesn't mean the rendering of the skin can't be improved.

You say Pixat wan't have any problems doing something about it. If so, then we could see this in Up. At least I hope so.

[Voiceroy]

Stop-motion and computer animation are actually two different categories of animation. Just as stio-motion and handdrawn are two different things.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again as my original point was that these two sub-genres of animation are comparable and technology has helped combine techniques from both in some feature animation. Of course I understand they're different categories of animation, but my point still stands. "Flushed Away" is a perfect example of what happens stop-motion techniques are combined with CGI.

[TheValentineBros]

And it's good because, well PIXAR has the intellagence. PIXAR doesn't need a scripr. WHY?!? Well, because PIXAR IS a script because it has knowlege with humor, feelings & everything. Wanna see an educational PIXAR theory? Well, Starscream has the review right there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzjdFvp3jM

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Stop-motion and computer animation are actually two different categories of animation. Just as stio-motion and handdrawn are two different things.

I'm not sure why you're bringing this up again as my original point was that these two sub-genres of animation are comparable and technology has helped combine techniques from both in some feature animation. Of course I understand they're different categories of animation, but my point still stands. "Flushed Away" is a perfect example of what happens stop-motion techniques are combined with CGI.

Yes, look at Flushed Away. The movie had the same basic design as Wallce and Gromit, in other words the typical Aardman design. Wallace and Gromit looks much more real than the chracters in Flushed Away simply because the ARE real. I hope Pixar one day will create the same sense of reality as seen in good stop-motion animated movies.

A couple of more examples of animated movies with a cartoony design, but wihout the plastic look (because they are stop-motion, not CGI); The Nightmare before Christmas, James and the giqnt Peach and the Corpse Bride. One could probably include Coraline too, even if it wan't be released about a year from now.

That's what has been one of the driving forces in computer animation from the start; to make it feel as real as possible, no matter if it is supposed to be photorealistic or cartoony and stylized.