DVDizzy Forum

I'm starting a new topic because the older one was moved to 'Off-topic' by mistake, apparently as I didn't clarify if it concerned Disney in the title. This is a continuation of 'Spirit: Stallion OFC Animation Quality...Again!' SO justt continue reading here if you started that topic, or if you've never read it and just wanna start from here...no problem.

Anyway...

Thank you Lord Yupa for providing the Miyazaki clip. I'm sorry I cannot watch it but I use dial-up with a 56k modem and it's too slow to view video clips online, but thank you all the same.

* * *

Hi! Now I've watched both Dreamworks' 'Sinbad' and Disney's 'Treasure Planet'.
Here are some differences I've noted:

-Overall, in Sinbad, characters look larger and more robust, and for some reason seem to occupy more screen space than in Treasure Planet.

-Sinbad's animation seems more fluid than in Treasure Planet but it comes at a price. I've noticed that the characters in Treasure Planet have more detail than those in Sinbad. They remind me of Miyazaki's films. Notice the flesh around Silver's neck and the muscles around Jim's throath as he rides his solar surfer in the opening of the movie. The characters in Sinbad look a bit bland (except for the wonderful Eris) in comparison to the meticulous detail in Treasure Planet. The outlines of the characters in Sinbad also look thicker than those utilised in T.Planet, those of the former being finer and thinner.

-And the most obvious difference, Sinbad is like a constant special effect, where the hand drawn characters are integrated in a 3D environment. Dreamworks say it's the latest technology. In Treasure Planet, characters are also placed in 3D environments but only in choice moments. In Treasure Planet, you will still find 2D scenes with a hand-painted background, for example when Jim meets B.E.N. Scenes that are virtually absent in Sinbad. What does this mean? That Dreamworks are more technologically advanced than Disney? Or that Disney just didn't need to show off by making every second 'eye-popping'? Or neither?



As for the enjoyment of the movies, I really had fun watching Sinbad, but I feel T.Planet surpasses it greatly. If I said that I loved T.Planet it would be an understatement. For me it's one of those RARE movies creates its own magic. Those kind of movies are REALLY rare and they are unique to every person. You may discover only few movies like that. Actually, at the moment I cannot recall any other movie that makes my heart flutter with excitement like Treasure Planet.

When my brother saw Treasure Planet, he told me that he didn't very much enjoy it because he didn't like sci-fi much, but he thought it was a masterpiece of the imagination and of animation. I remember him telling me that 3 years ago.



In terms of animation, let's say that the following movies are approximately all pair:

Dreamworks: "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
"Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas"

Disney: "Atlantis: The Lost Empire"
"Treasure Planet"



However, in terms of animation I think the best 2 are 'Spirit' and 'Treasure Planet'

And Treasure Planet is my favourite from all four.

Yesterday I was showing my Dad the new "Earthsea" trailer from Studio Ghibli and he and I agree on one thing -- that traditional, hand-drawn animation has this sense of weight, fluidity, subtlety, and nuance that CG just doesn't have. There's really nothing quite like it. Just thought I'd mention that .

juliancarter wrote: -Sinbad's animation seems more fluid than in Treasure Planet but it comes at a price. I've noticed that the characters in Treasure Planet have more detail than those in Sinbad. They remind me of Miyazaki's films. Notice the flesh around Silver's neck and the muscles around Jim's throath as he rides his solar surfer in the opening of the movie. The characters in Sinbad look a bit bland (except for the wonderful Eris) in comparison to the meticulous detail in Treasure Planet. The outlines of the characters in Sinbad also look thicker than those utilised in T.Planet, those of the former being finer and thinner.

Well...
I haven't seen "Sinbad", but I do think it's important to find the right balance between motion and design, and attempt to make both as convincing and "lifelike" as possible. "Treasure Planet" comes very close to achieving that balance. I suppose that much of "Sinbad" was rotoscoped, by the way, accounting for what you consider "more fluid" motion than "Treasure Planet" (which I thought had very smooth movement, as a matter of fact), while "Treasure Planet", like most Disney films, is "pseudo-rotoscoped", meaning that live-action footage was used for reference but not traced over.
As for outlines, only with the advent of digital-ink-and-paint back in the late '80s in Disney films (and even earlier, the advanced optical printing techniques pioneered by Studio Ghibli) has there been a much wider usage of color outlines other than the standard black or brown, but variation in thickness of character outlines was very common in animation, and still is, and can greatly affect how the character is perceived by the viewer when in motion. Using lighter, more subtle outlines I think is more effective in establishing "realism", but cartoony animation tends to use thicker outlines.

juliancarter wrote: -And the most obvious difference, Sinbad is like a constant special effect, where the hand drawn characters are integrated in a 3D environment. Dreamworks say it's the latest technology. In Treasure Planet, characters are also placed in 3D environments but only in choice moments. In Treasure Planet, you will still find 2D scenes with a hand-painted background, for example when Jim meets B.E.N. Scenes that are virtually absent in Sinbad. What does this mean? That Dreamworks are more technologically advanced than Disney? Or that Disney just didn't need to show off by making every second 'eye-popping'? Or neither?

Let me make this clear -- in terms of animation quality alone, Disney is the best, followed by Don Bluth (whom I really, really dislike, but that's for another discussion), with Les Armateurs Studios in France and Studio Ghibli in Japan lagging far behind. Dreamworks doesn't even come close, in my opinion. It's more important to convince the audience of the reality of the characters than to awe or amaze them with new techniques that they honestly couldn't care about. Disney probably has even more technological advances in the hand-drawn animation medium than Dreamworks, though it would probably be impossible to know, but they also have subtlety, something that Dreamworks truly lacks.

juliancarter wrote: As for the enjoyment of the movies, I really had fun watching Sinbad, but I feel T.Planet surpasses it greatly. If I said that I loved T.Planet it would be an understatement. For me it's one of those RARE movies creates its own magic. Those kind of movies are REALLY rare and they are unique to every person. You may discover only few movies like that. Actually, at the moment I cannot recall any other movie that makes my heart flutter with excitement like Treasure Planet.

When my brother saw Treasure Planet, he told me that he didn't very much enjoy it because he didn't like sci-fi much, but he thought it was a masterpiece of the imagination and of animation. I remember him telling me that 3 years ago.

In terms of animation, let's say that the following movies are approximately all pair:

Dreamworks: "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron"
"Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas"

Disney: "Atlantis: The Lost Empire"
"Treasure Planet"

However, in terms of animation I think the best 2 are 'Spirit' and 'Treasure Planet'

And Treasure Planet is my favourite from all four.

Though I'm not a "Treasure Planet" fan, I'll admit it's a solid piece of good storytelling and especially characterization, which is what matters the most. Same with "Spirit". That's all I can say about it.

Best Wishes,
Lord Yupa

P.S.: Maybe you'll be able to watch the "Earthsea" trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS6dzOwujAs

I too have just finished watching "Sinbad" and it was an okay movie. My favorite character had to be Eris, or Spike, I can't decide. Well, now, let's see:

Sinbad you could automatically tell that something was 3D, from the first time that you saw it. Sometimes, in TP, you can barely tell what's 2D or 3D, sometimes. Sinbad had a good storyline, and pretty good characters, as did TP, but I feel that TP had something extra. It had some wonderful, out of this world, magical quality that somehow Sinbad was lacking. TP was a new twist to an old story. Even though some people will think that this is bad, but I think that this twist was for the better. A lot for the better. Did that last sentence even make sense? Anyway from both of these movies, TP beats out Sinbad, by a landslide. Nice video Lord Yupa, I can't wait for EarthSea to come to the States! I'm a big anime fan.

Lord Yupa wrote:Let me make this clear -- in terms of animation quality alone, Disney is the best, followed by Don Bluth (whom I really, really dislike, but that's for another discussion), with Les Armateurs Studios in France and Studio Ghibli in Japan lagging far behind. Dreamworks doesn't even come close, in my opinion. It's more important to convince the audience of the reality of the characters than to awe or amaze them with new techniques that they honestly couldn't care about. Disney probably has even more technological advances in the hand-drawn animation medium than Dreamworks, though it would probably be impossible to know, but they also have subtlety, something that Dreamworks truly lacks.

I would personally think of Studio Ghibli's animation as different, rather than inferior to Disney's..."lagging far behind" is a bit harsh. Ghibli's visual styles are quite consistent from director to director: Miyazaki's characters are of a certain style, Takahata's are similar but slightly different, etc. One thing they have in common is an enormous attention to detail: lush backgrounds, stunningly real atmospherics (fog, rain, clouds, etc.), tiny additions to a scene that enhance the realism (tiny birds flying up in the sky, etc.). Lifelike qualities are added through design rather than through the most detailed movement possible; many scenes are shot on the twos or threes, but fast action is still given a full 24 fps to illustrate.

When looking at Disney films, nearly every one has a different sort of style, so it's a tough claim to say that Disney is just across-the-board superior. Treasure Planet is visually stunning, but a good number of other films in the Disney canon (Home on the Range, many of the '70s features) are incredibly flat visually. And over-stylization in some films (Atlantis comes to mind) has been cited as a distraction rather than a merit. There are also cases of sloppy CGI integration in some Disney films, the hydra in Hercules being a prime example.

I do agree that Dreamworks is the most common offender of not blending in CGI and hand-drawn elements well enough, since by now there are techniques that make this possible. So when they're saying that the animation process in Sinbad is "cutting edge", I can't help but wonder exactly what edge they're talking about.

Karushifa wrote: So when they're saying that the animation process in Sinbad is "cutting edge", I can't help but wonder exactly what edge they're talking about.

A note about that: though Sinbad is visually impressive I was totally unconvinced by the CGI effects.

Don't you think that the giant white eagle looked rather 'fake'? It seemed to look to me like some low-budget CG Prop. Even the ocean (when Sinbad hooks the ship to the giant fish' looks sort of plain, as if the surface of the ocean was just a flat texture.

Now I'm really quite ignorant when it comes to 3D animation (it's 2D I know and am learning about), so I'd like to know whether these things I've noticed are true, or whether I'm talking gobblers out of inexperience.
(I'm worried that I may be misjugding the film).

juliancarter wrote:Don't you think that the giant white eagle looked rather 'fake'? It seemed to look to me like some low-budget CG Prop. Even the ocean (when Sinbad hooks the ship to the giant fish' looks sort of plain, as if the surface of the ocean was just a flat texture.

I totally agree with you. The white giant eagle looked totally unreal, and out of place. As did the squid sea-monster thingy. You could automatically tell that it was 3D. These creatures were far from "cutting edge technology" IMO.