DVDizzy Forum

Oh, I noticed his, and others' hair blowing in the wind, I don't know how anyone couldn't. And his head moved slightly upward and his eyes blinked. So? It still looks dead, or like blocks being moved slightly.

Remember, just because it moves alot, doesn't mean it moves well.

And yes, after watching it again, Snow White moved a lot smoother and better. The pencil can do anything (though animating it and keeping it's shape are tough matters, the pencil can draw more than building in CGI is capable of, it can draw anything any way) but the computer has limitations. Unless maybe you use the pencil tool in the computer, but you know what I mean that's not how they do CGI.

Okay, you all wanna know why hand-drawn is better than CGI? Well, first of all, a hand-drawn animator makes the whole thing with his pencil, putting his soul and feeling into it. A CGI animator clicks and drags with a mouse. The pencil movement creates the actual drawing. The mouse can't. Unless you draw with the pencil tool in the computer, which still can't do everything or nearly as well as with a pencil, and then you have the tablets and pens connected to the computer but that is not CGI animation!

But much more than that, in 2D the possibilities are endless. The lines can bend and flow in every possible way. But CGI, things start out as blocks and balls that take a long time to bend and shape.

In the actual animation, 2D really flows while CGI doesn't bend or flow nearly as well. With rulers and certain tools, 2D can do very straight things, but CGI can't really do the fluidity 2D can.

But now Glen Keane has gotten animators to replicate his hand-drawn animation, or at least it appears so enough. After all it's just about the appearence, the illusion of life, while we put our real feelings and beliefs into the paper and pencil on the screen...or uh, virtual blocks and balls on the screen.

So I think that CGI will be able to appear to match 2D enough to make it look good an beautiful. Who knows. Perhaps they will do some hand-drawing of character's faces, and just apply some effect to make it blend in with things that are blockier and straighter or more stationary. Or maybe they really can make the computer match 2D's movements exactly...but they have to draw 2D first, so for some certain, important, most needing scenes they draw the characters, then make the CGI match them.

But I think if Rapunzel looked as well animated as the Incredibles, but in the beautiful realistic human painting style, I think I'd be okay.

Disney Duster wrote:Okay, you all wanna know why hand-drawn is better than CGI? Well, first of all, a hand-drawn animator makes the whole thing with his pencil, putting his soul and feeling into it. A CGI animator clicks and drags with a mouse. The pencil movement creates the actual drawing. The mouse can't.

Why do I keep hearing comparisons of the tools? What about the artist behind the work? Isn't he or she the one that injects soul and feeling into the performance of the animation, regardless of the given tools?

That's true enigmawing, one of my favourite scenes in all the Disney movies would be the Transformation scence from BATB.

In the making-of feature in the BATB dvd, they show us the sketches of that same scene, and you can see dents on the original sketches,you see the artist was so passionate about animating that scene that he actually cried, and what a scene that turned out to be !

I love that FF clip that Yukitora posted!

I think Yuna was fairly fluid (the one dancing for those of you not in the know) and watch 1:20-1:24 where she's on the platform of water THAT is superior to Snow Whites animation imo. The way the backgrounds, the water and spirits? look are really good.

Yes the villagers don't look extremely good but neither does Ariel in the Little Mermaid half the time she's (as has been pointed out before) off model a lot.

The clip wouldn't play fully for me as all Youtube ones seem to so I can't really rewatch it over and over for more comments but I digress.

I do think that while there is good computer animation (KH, FF etc) I will always love 2d more. The artists put more work into it, more effort, everything has to be as close as possible to the drawing before it. It has more warmth than CGI. I hate how sterile and cold CGI often looks.

Enigmawing, it is the pencil that allows the artist to more easily get more of his soul and feeling into what he draws with the pencil.

Chernabog, Ariel may look off-model sometimes, but those characters couldn't, like, move well, how are we supposed to feel the emotion of her crying when she's like that, while we feel for slightly off-model Ariel moving her face so emotively? It's about what's possible. We know 2D can be on-model. In 2D, with a pencil, anything can be done, meanwhile, as I said, CGI has limits, it just can't do everything, every bend and movement and possibility 2D has. At least for now.

Disney Duster wrote:Enigmawing, it is the pencil that allows the artist to more easily get more of his soul and feeling into what he draws with the pencil.

It's fine to keep your opinion but as an artist myself I'll have to respectfully disagree.

For the record, Yukitora's clip comes from the 2001 Playstation 2 game "Final Fantasy X".

The game came at a time in which graphics were a big focus in gaming and many companies were trying hard to emulate the same type of detail, color and animation seen in CG movies of the time. Back then, the CG clips in FFX were considered astounding.

Square-Enix, the creators of the game, were also behind the massive feature film flop "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". It was a film that tried hard to create convincing CG human beings and spared no expense in getting even the smallest details possible.

From then on, Square has been working hard to make amazing CG animation through their games. They have progressed a lot since FFVII and I think Yuki should have shown a clip from Advent Children or FFXII to give you a better idea of the type of work S-E does with CG animation.

A pencil is a useful tool and may reach into an artist's soul or whatnot, but nothing tops finger paints. You're using your own finger and some paint to create something! Much better than a pencil. I propose Disney animate a film in nothing but finger paintings. That's what a true artist would want. It'd likely take years upon years, but it'll be worth it.

And regarding the whole hand-drawn vs. CGI argument...

"Our technological abilities aren't apparent because we've chosen not to employ them in our daily lives. We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
-Sojef, Star Trek: Insurrection

Of course, I enjoy CGI films and I won't consider them inferior simply because they're done through a computer (and remember that CAPS films use computers too, you know). But that quote always stuck with me regardless.

albert

Disney Duster wrote:
Chernabog, Ariel may look off-model sometimes, but those characters couldn't, like, move well, how are we supposed to feel the emotion of her crying when she's like that, while we feel for slightly off-model Ariel moving her face so emotively? It's about what's possible. We know 2D can be on-model. In 2D, with a pencil, anything can be done, meanwhile, as I said, CGI has limits, it just can't do everything, every bend and movement and possibility 2D has. At least for now.

With Ariel, you know why she's crying you've seen the events that lead up to that moment and have gotten to know her which is why you feel for her.

With this character you just saw a few minute clip, you don't know her story, who she is, why she's crying etc. So your not going to feel for her. Plus this is a clip from the game where the story plays out over the entire game and these CGI movie clips aren't meant to be on the same level as a feature length movie, it's just meant for the transition.

I do agree that CGI has it's limits and I agree it can't do every bend and movement that 2D can. I don't love CGI but I don't write it off completely, I just find it hard to really like it. As I've said things are so sterile often it feels cold even when it's trying to show warmth etc.

Enigmawing, and I respectfully respect what you said! I'm also an artist, with pencils.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:With Ariel, you know why she's crying you've seen the events that lead up to that moment and have gotten to know her which is why you feel for her.

What? Her being animated better, seeing her well animated, well emoting face doesn't play a part...at all?!

No, she may go slightly off-model, as does Belle, but it's never as bad as that girl "crying". After all, you said we only felt for her because we have seen what she's been through. But if she's so off-model how can we tell it's the same girl?! I'm just joking with ya!

Escapay I like that quote. Anyway, yea pencils are just really good tools for lots of reasons, including getting it tight and not as...sloppy as fingerpainting would be, and getting what you want done quicker, etc.

Disney Duster wrote: What? Her being animated better, seeing her well animated, well emoting face doesn't play a part...at all?!

That plays a part in yet yes, but there's more to it than just the animation. She could be extremely well animated but whats the point if we don't care about her character or know why she's crying or what's led up to that? All we'd see is a really pretty animated character crying for some reason. The two "sets of things" go hand in hand, the good animation and the story. You need both to make it believable.

A bit odd that some still compare the two animation forms as it was a contest of which one is the best. I never hear about comparing stop motion with others forms of animation, because people know it is a different medium. And I have never heard about anyone who has complained about Nightmare before Christmas, wanting it to be handdawn instead.

It is the same wit DreamWorks animation and Pixar. I can't remember anyone has expressed wishes that their CGI movies should be 2D instead. Disney is the only studio who is a target for such ideas. And so would Studio Ghibli if they decided to do CGI. The reason for the negative reactions many posters express, has to do with what their ideas about what the Disney studio is supposed to be, rather than the computer animation itself. It's probably how country fans would behave if they found out that Willie Nelson or Kenny Rogers had decided to make a rock album as their next release. It wouldn't matter how excellent the music was, the only way to satisfy their die hard country fans would be to return to country.


The way I see it, computer animation can be divided into three different procedures;

Design
The sophistication of the designs has come a long way since Dire Straits' Money for Nothing. They may start with geometrical figures like squares and circles early in the process, but it looks like it is possible to shape objects and characters into every desirable form and shape these days.

Rendering
In CGI, you can't color a face's surface with the same flat and homogenous colors which is so well known from 2D. The texture, light, reflexions and color pattern has to be more complex to avoid it from looking unnatural. As it has been mentioned so often, there is still a feeling of plastic in the rendering of humans, but the technology keeps getting better and better. Hopefully Disney succeeds with their ambitions of making Rapunzel look like it is painted in 3D.
As en experiment, I wouldn't mind seeing an animated movie with photorealistic rendering as well. Disney himself said that one of the great things about animation, was that everything was possible. Now this is starting to become possible in live action too, but animation still has the special look and feeling live action don't have, simply because it is animation.

Animation
And with animation I mean animation by hand, not digital rotoscoping or performance capture. It's all a matter of control. 2D animators creates each new frame from scratch, unlike 3D, where already existing designs has to be manipulated into new positions from frame to frame. In the early days, it was more like virtual stop motion using a mouse instead of hands to move the objects into new postures. I don't know how far the technology has come, but once the animators have achieved total control over the objects and characters, and can move them exactly as they desire and with the same steady hand as animating on paper, then I would say also computer animation has been perfected. Of course, some things such as waterfalls and leaves blowing in the wind requires computer programs if the movie is supposed to be finished within its schedule, but again, it is how these programs are used that makes the final result. These are tools which has to be used with the same skills as when animating humans and animals.
Already with Chicken Little, Disney created new tools which gave the animators more control, like Chicken Wire and Shelf Control.

Animating in 3D also requires more realism than 2D animation (even 3D rubber hose animation). Lasseter himself says;
"One of the biggest differences between hand-drawn animation and computer animation is the fact that computer animation is truly three dimensional. The first run cycle I ever animated on the computer looked great from the side view, but when I looked at it from the front, the arms were going through the body and the knees were bending the wrong way. From then on I always animated with two views of my character always showing, so that I could always tell if the animation was working from all sides."
And The director of Bolt;
"That's something that John is really big on: studying the physics of things and being true to the material. If something's metal, you can't bend it in CG or it looks strange. On both Glago and Bolt, I've learned to take research really, really seriously."
Another reminder that we are talking about two different mediums. But less realism can be positiv too. 2D animators usually have more freedom than CGI artists. Just as the artists who works with limited animation (the UPA studio) has more freedom than those working with full animation (the Disney studio).

Cast update!

I can't wait for this!

Chernabog_Rocks wrote: Yes the villagers don't look extremely good but neither does Ariel in the Little Mermaid half the time she's (as has been pointed out before) off model a lot.
.

I don't think you should pass much judgment on the background characters in a video game. I seriously doubt a game will be funded as well as a film, so I think they concentrate mostly on the central characters. Which is why the background characters (who mean little to nothing) look like crap and Yuna looks gorgeous.

Also, I don't think they, if you were to compare the clip to a movie, compare to Ariel. Even when Ariel's off-model, she looks better than those background characters. Even so, TLM is not a prime example of what 2D animation can do, consistently, anyway.

When will Disney release some new images? It's been so long.

the girl who will plays the evil witch also played natla in TRA TRU if she plays her i know we have a good villianess heres a clip of natla
SPOILER for TRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXavw1- ... re=related

amazon980 wrote:the girl who will plays the evil witch also played natla in TRA TRU if she plays her i know we have a good villianess heres a clip of natla
SPOILER for TRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXavw1- ... re=related

I'm playin Underworld right now so I won't look, it's a total spoiler!

but I think she could be good as the voice of the witch.

amazon980 wrote:the girl who will plays the evil witch also played natla in TRA TRU if she plays her i know we have a good villianess heres a clip of natla
SPOILER for TRU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXavw1- ... re=related

I gotta get Tomb Raider Underworld. damn

Mike wrote:Anyway, yea pencils are just really good tools for lots of reasons, including getting it tight and not as...sloppy as fingerpainting would be, and getting what you want done quicker, etc.

I was being facetious about the finger paints, Mike.

(though I prefer finger painting to regular pencil drawing, but that's just me.)

albert

Of course there is something to be said for pencil art, but when it comes to animation? A lot of the feel and vitality of the original drawings are lost in the final product. Think about it. We have the rough animator who begins the scene. Then it gets passed to the rough inbetweener that fills in the drawings the original animator did not. Then those drawings are passed to a clean-up artist, who typically traces/builds upon the the original pencils of the previous artists (not only for the sake of cleaning up, but for the sake of uniformity and keeping on-model).

And then in the old days, those traced/cleaned-up drawings were traced yet again by the cel inkers. They eventually came up with xerography, which was preferred by the animators at the time because it removed one of the steps that involved tracing, and thus kept some of the vitality of the original drawings. And of course in the early days of xerography the "inking" turned out to be gritty with a high contrast. That was later refined and softened. Of course now we have CAPS which is basically the next step, still allowing to keep the vitality of the cleaned-up drawings but allowing the "inks" to be colored like in the old days of inking cels by hand.

And I'm not even touching on the pre-production art.

Whew! Anyway, I guess my point is that I still feel that 2-D and CG aren't really comparable (as I've said before, CG is more closely related to stop motion anyway). I'd say neither is really "better" than the other, it's just a personal preference. And I can also understand why people have recently had a chip on their shoulder about CG, as we've been over-saturated with it in the past few years. It's just that line art isn't the only way to inject heart and soul into a performance.

Now back to that finger painting . . .