Friday, October 23, 2009
Technology Explained: What Is CGI Animation?
Make Use Of: "Have you ever found yourself sitting in the theater, watching a Pixar film, and contemplating what it is about CGI animation that makes for some of the best children’s movies?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This article did a very good job of explaining the process of CGI animation clearly and simply. The author raises the question at the end of whether CGI animation will completely replace traditional animation, and I'm inclined not to think so. Traditional animation is certainly more time- and labor-intensive, but the product has a fine texture and quality to it that can't be matched with computers. CGI animation tends to look very plastic, and while techniques like the Emily video shown in the article are making the image more realistic, you still run into issues of when the characters are not strictly human or when attempting to render realistic buildings and backgrounds. It's interesting to watch Disney (and Pixar) as a battleground for this argument. CGI films have been accepted as the preferred method, but traditional films have such a stylistic difference that works better for a lot of Disney's stories. I see big studios employing both traditional and CGI in tandem as opposed to one replacing the other.
The question that the author raises at the end is a question that seems to have been something that everyone has worried about ever since Toy Story came out. While I know that more and more animation is being done with computers, there's a lot of animation that while being digital in nature still has more in common with traditional animation then CGI.
At least for me, CGI and animation while similar ideas, are totally separate ideas. I normally think of CGI as images that are intended to replace real objects, or to add a more real feeling to existing animation. There's a Japanese animation company called Studio Gonzo that's signature look for a long time was that all vehicles were CGI that was inserted into more traditional animation. I think the traditional art of animation is dieing out since computers now allow for artists to do what took several sheets of paper in a faster, more efficient method, but it's still very easy to tell when CGI and animation apart in those instances.
This is by far one of my favorite articles from this blog. Those that know me know it was my dream from about 4 years old till very recently to become an animator for Pixar, but I was always all about the traditional hand drawn stuff. If we're talking about hand drawn vs. CGI, one is not better than the other, but as an artist I like feeling really connected to my work, and I can't always do that via a computer. It's a total personal preference, but I feel like my work is not coming out through my own hands...therefore it doesn't feel as personal, and therefore I don't like it too much. That's something I would have to struggle with if I were to go into scenic design (autocad = not as fun as hand drafting)...but that's besides the point. From my perspective, CGI is limiting in that sense, but in every other it has broken ground in the animation industry. I am the hugest Pixar fan in the entire world because they know how to tell stories, and animate as well.
It's also interesting that this article showed up this week, because we've been watching animated movies in 33 for the past weekend. I watched Shrek the other day, and I remember thinking the animation was amazing when I saw it, but it's actually nothing special compared to stuff that is coming out now. So yeah...that's all kind of interesting...
CGI might be the state of the art, but it still needs something to animate. Just like you can go out and get the best cameras and associated gear and still be completely unable to make a movie until you also have a script, actors, a director, etc., having CGI available gives you new tools but you still have to have something there to put in front of the virtual camera. Without a story and something to "act" you have a nice mathematical model (which can be popular for its own sake) but it's not a movie.
Though I am definitely a fan of the advancement of animation, I think I'd have to say that I prefer the old way of animating. Yes, computers are far more advanced these days and can handle the idea of manipulating objects in three dimensions to the nth degree, but that doesn't always mean it is the best stylistic choice. When animation was still done through many plates of cells stacked on top of one another, I feel like the artists really had to think through each step and verify that the frames were continuous with the utmost care. These days, you can set a beginning and end point for movement and the computer will practically do it for you.
Perhaps I'm just more artist than techie, but all in all I think CGI has a place perhaps not as special as we make it seem.
This article was fascinating. I had no idea that old GIF animations were actually early CGI. While I do appreciate how intense and accurate CGI can be, I do also think that old school animation is an art form that shouldn't be lost or replaced by this computer generated animation. There is an artistry to hand drawn animation that just isn't there in CGI. And while the images can be amazing in CGI, it's more about science than artistic interpretation. I remember watching cartoons every Saturday morning as a little kid and being fascinated by how the animators drew it all. I was in Skibo the other day with a few friends, and a new kids cartoon was on. It was one of the creepiest things I've ever seen. It was completely CGI, and so disturbing. I don't know whether or not CGI will replace animation, but I dearly hope it doesn't. I love CGI, but I think it also has it's place--in live action.
This article was very interesting because I've never really learned much about CGI animation. I LOVE older cartoons: the style is so much simpler and sometimes comical because the characters are not as real as they are today. Nevertheless, I think its fascinating to see how much that technology can do to bring a character to life through animation and truly recreate the world as we know it.
This was an interesting overview of animation. I think the most interesting point made here is how accessible 3d animation is to average joes (well, Jons) like myself. I have used Blender before, and it is a very powerful program. To have that kind of processing power is very extremely cool, and the results that it gives are even cooler.
Now, with that addition of motion capture suits and camera systems, it is possible to render your 3-d model created in blender to other free software where you can match up your character to the captured motion. This gives the potential, as software like Blender becomes more mainstream, for kids working on their school projects to create animated shorts.
wow...
The world of CGI seems like such a black hole that it's great to read things that explain some of this. All the same, it would be nice to find some more in depth explanations of the process. Last year I remember an article that detailed the process of converting standard films into Hi-Def which apparently involves a lot of manual work. Still, it seems like a lot of these companies don't like to share their process, which is sad for those of us who are interested.
As CGI and computer animation progress in both availability and ease of execution, one has to wonder how it will reach maturity as an art form. I mean, the video of Emily is an amazing piece of technology. Absolutely amazing. Every time I see it I stop and stare. However, the technology in point is only at the point where it can be used to generate what the computer sees with little or no real-time manipulation. This begs the question of why? Sure it's nifty that a computer can do this, but there's really no benefit in emulating such a performance. The actor still has to perform - why not record and play that instead of the intermediary rendering?
As this progresses, I'm sure we can do amazing things with it. Live video feeds would benefit from animation done in real-time with as little additional technology as possible.
Computer animation and traditional animation are two different animals. Disney realized this when they completely shut down their 2D animation department to concentrate on CGI. It didn't matter that the medium was popular with audiences; their movies still sucked. 2D animation has come into its own as an artform where pixar is one of the few companies to effectively utilize computers to the same effect. Computers have tons of artistic potential but we're still figuring out exactly what we can do with them.
It was interesting to finally get a feel for how all the Pixar movies I saw when I was younger were actually made with CGI. I think while CGI has it’s place in animation it will never completely replace hand-drawn animation. There are very different stylistically, and provide two completely different effects, so while CGI might be good under some circumstances, in others, a more traditional approach may be more appropriate, and may have a greater impact on the audience. It’s also interesting to note how another field seems to have been affected greatly by the explosion of technology within the past century, especially one that you wouldn’t think of necessarily at first glance, like animation.
Post a Comment