DVDizzy Forum

this was shown off at this year's siggraph. its ther attempt to achieve more cartoony hand painted esk motion blurs. what do you guys think?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k6I4OdGgMd0&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k6I4OdGgMd0&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I think their onto something once they tone it down a bit. it can be dialed up and down. they started doing something like this for Presto, where they could turn the effect up and down depending on the shot. it allows the poses to read smoothly, yet not get blurred too much, making it read clearer. Brad Bird has said in the past that this is one of the areas he thinks needs CG animation needs improved the most. Still a ways to go to match what's been done in hand drawn blurs, but with some more tweaking we could be close.

I agree. I want to comment on the accuracy of that Pinnocchio. it is really nice.

I'd enjoy seeing a fully-rendered version of that.

Hello,
I am newbie in this forum site.
I like this forum site.
Thanks.

Yeah, that Pinocchio is dead-on, even his mannerisms! When he giggled and put his hand over his mouth it was perfect!!

I know this is just a motion blur study, but it reminds me of the rumor that I heard after Toy Story first came out. Someone said Disney was considering re-creating some of their most iconic hand drawn classics in CGI, shot-for-shot. People were panicking, so I am sure they are glad that that never came to fruition!

Welcome to the forum nilyvn

I saw this on Cartoon Brew this morning. And that's what I thought of when I watched it, MJW. I know that it's not for a film or anything, but I was disappointed with the CGI Pinocchio. I was thinking that, while I'm extremely glad they never went along with remaking the DACs in CGI, that if they did, they'd probably have made Pinocchio look better than this one...I don't know, maybe he isn't fully shaded or something- I don't know much at all about computer animation- but something's off about him.

Yeah hes not propery lit or anything, the focus is on the blur itself. no need to wast time going through multimple passes. in fact this may even be real time. (meaning not actually rendered at all) though that's usually not possible to to do, as blurs typically need time to calculate. There are no shadows at all here, again to save time.

In the comparison, was the one on the left supposed to be better?

Because, to me it was...

Hear me out, I think that what it is is the way CGI is, hand-drawn-like blurs don't work, because...it's CGI! The blurs on the left just fit the CGI more. I wouldn't even mind if hand-drawn animation could do that as far as blurs go, looking more realistic.

The left one is more of less the current method. the one on the right is the one attempting to mimic hand drawn/painted blurs.

The problem with realistic blurs is a lot of great facial expressions and poses get lost in a blurry mess. A cartoony blur helps the pose/expression stick a bit more and can be more fun to look at. Cartoony blurs wouldn't work all the time (even hand drawn cartoons dont have it All the time), but for specific shots or motions it could really help.

Kyle wrote:I think their onto something once they tone it down a bit.

Agreed. At the moment, I do prefer the one on the left but I think that if they can find the right balance with this effect, it'll be great.