While I've been busy with a motion graphics job that's due in early January, I did have a chance this month to meet with some people and talk about plans for next year.
Speed Racer is coming to town! Animation Collective is extending the Japanese franchise with a NYC-produced flash/3D hybrid series. I had a chance to speak with Kostya Gorbachev and Amy Ackerman about possibly helping them with a crunch in their CG department. I'm not sure whether our schedules will mesh, but it was nice going down to 37th Street and catching up with some old friends there.
This last week I also met with Megan O'Neill from AtomFilms. I'm hoping we can work together on a short I've been raring to make which I'll call the Sid Cyborg project. We talked a little bit about Atom's plans to become Comedy Central's shorts hub on the web. It's a good time to be a maker of film shorts! (Well... a better time, at least.)
Finally, I had lunch with Xeth Feinberg and we talked about his Papu series. Here's a holiday-themed (sorta) toon from Xeth that had me laughing all the way through:
Merry Xmas and best wishes for the New Year!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
A Fund Too Far!
Last Thursday I finished A Fund Too Far, a film produced to be shown at the Xmas party of a private equity firm. Basically, it a roast of the partners of the firm; we animated photos of their faces and placed them over the faces of the heroes of classic war films. We got some very funny actors to do their voices.
I had a great time working with Adrian Witzke and John O'Brien, the writers and producers of the film. John Mondin, Frank Franconeri, and Allen Enlow provided the voices, all of whom I have worked with before. Julien Koetsch and Kelly Jones provided some much needed assistance with the animation, and Kevin Scott pitched in with some dialogue editing. Thanks guys!
I don't really feel comfortable posting the film, since it was made for private consumption, but I will post the title image. Take my word for it, it was pretty good for a 9-minute film made in 10 days!
Beowulf... Why?
Robert Zemeckis, a very talented filmmaker, is back this season exploring the highly unpromising vein he started mining with The Polar Express. Beowulf is a loose retelling of the Old English epic poem. Like Final Fantasy, these Zemeckis films are photoreal depictions of human characters. The innovation that Zemeckis has clamped onto is procedural; rather than animating from scratch, he records actors’ performances, this go-around with a new motion capture technique that photographs them from multiple angles. I saw the rig he uses for this at the SIGGRAPH convention this summer; it looks like a geodesic dome fitted with dozens of lights and cameras.
Despite my misgivings about motion capture, I came to the film wanting it to succeed. I saw it on the first weekend, and in IMAX 3D. Unfortunately, I have to report that the film was an almost complete failure. Only two scenes really worked: Angelina Jolie’s seduction of the hero, and the final action set piece. For the most part it was a flat, frigid bore.
The question I was left with was… why? If this film had been made in live action with CGI assistance, it still would not have been a good film, but it would have been a better film. I know what Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich can give a story. What motion capture got out of them was barely 10% of what they can do even when they’re having a bad day.
What went wrong? First, the motion capture doesn’t look that bad. When it’s bad, motion capture looks… dirty. There’s more detail there than needs to be there. Zemeckis has obviously had animators edit the motion extensively. The trouble is not the usual one of too much extraneous detail, but not enough. There’s no intimacy to the performances.
When humans look photo-real we expect photo-real expression. The human face is a highly complex interweaving of dozens of muscles. Moreover, we are extraordinarily adept at reading it; our species has evolved into master interpreters of our own faces. Small subtleties carry enormous meaning. The fault might not be with the motion capture alone, but the character rigs too. 3D technology has advanced enormously, but it still cannot quite simulate all the details of facial movement, at least not when the benchmark is human complexity.
Perhaps it is also the circumstances in which the motion was captured. An actor is far likelier to create a compelling performance on a set, with the actors he’s playing against right there in front of him. A geodesic dome is not quite the same spark to the imagination.
Finally, there is the issue of what 3D folk call the “Uncanny Valley”. This term was coined by MIT researchers on robotics. They were trying to come up with a robot design that would provoke emotional attachment. They found that the more like humans the robots got, the more warmly people responded to them. This perhaps was not surprising. What was more surprising was that there came a point when this effect started diminishing and reversing. People started getting a little freaked out by the human likeness. When the design started becoming completely convincing – like say, Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner – identification and attachment returned. This effect was dubbed the uncanny valley. People in 3D argue about whether it really exists. As one who has fallen in myself (in a mixed media project,) I can testify that it does exist. Does Beowulf fall into the uncanny valley? Well, it’s clawing up the far side, but it’s there.
I go back to the most pertinent question: why? Why bother recreating reality in mathematically defined polygons, when real reality is right here with us? I know the answer in my bones because I’ve made films both in 3D and live action. A live action shoot is terribly frustrating for control freaks like me… and presumably, Zemeckis. A plane flying overhead ruins your best take. The damn cameraman muffles the follow on another good take. The actor scratches his nose for no apparent reason, ruining yet another one. And if you say you’re satisfied with the shot, at 1AM in the morning, when you’ve been up and working your ass off since 6AM, then you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. You rarely get retake days. The 3D world, on the other hand, is infinitely malleable. You can tweak the camera angle or the hue of the hero’s plaid jacket till the cows come home. Yes, there are time constraints because budgets are never infinite but things can be… adjusted. Always adjusted.
The truth, however, is that this kind of stuff doesn’t really matter all that much. Filmmakers can obsess about things intricate like camera movements or subtle pictorial elements, but that’s just the icing on the cake. What matters is story and performances. To sacrifice performance for the flexibility to execute the filmmaking flourishes is terribly, terribly wrong-headed. And I just can’t imagine what other upside there is in a technique such as this.
I believe 3D animation does not need to be confined to family audiences. It can appeal to older, narrower audiences. But I also think animation needs to be allowed to be animation. Let it do what it does best: provide an imaginative restyling of life movement and life imagery.
Despite my misgivings about motion capture, I came to the film wanting it to succeed. I saw it on the first weekend, and in IMAX 3D. Unfortunately, I have to report that the film was an almost complete failure. Only two scenes really worked: Angelina Jolie’s seduction of the hero, and the final action set piece. For the most part it was a flat, frigid bore.
The question I was left with was… why? If this film had been made in live action with CGI assistance, it still would not have been a good film, but it would have been a better film. I know what Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich can give a story. What motion capture got out of them was barely 10% of what they can do even when they’re having a bad day.
What went wrong? First, the motion capture doesn’t look that bad. When it’s bad, motion capture looks… dirty. There’s more detail there than needs to be there. Zemeckis has obviously had animators edit the motion extensively. The trouble is not the usual one of too much extraneous detail, but not enough. There’s no intimacy to the performances.
When humans look photo-real we expect photo-real expression. The human face is a highly complex interweaving of dozens of muscles. Moreover, we are extraordinarily adept at reading it; our species has evolved into master interpreters of our own faces. Small subtleties carry enormous meaning. The fault might not be with the motion capture alone, but the character rigs too. 3D technology has advanced enormously, but it still cannot quite simulate all the details of facial movement, at least not when the benchmark is human complexity.
Perhaps it is also the circumstances in which the motion was captured. An actor is far likelier to create a compelling performance on a set, with the actors he’s playing against right there in front of him. A geodesic dome is not quite the same spark to the imagination.
Finally, there is the issue of what 3D folk call the “Uncanny Valley”. This term was coined by MIT researchers on robotics. They were trying to come up with a robot design that would provoke emotional attachment. They found that the more like humans the robots got, the more warmly people responded to them. This perhaps was not surprising. What was more surprising was that there came a point when this effect started diminishing and reversing. People started getting a little freaked out by the human likeness. When the design started becoming completely convincing – like say, Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner – identification and attachment returned. This effect was dubbed the uncanny valley. People in 3D argue about whether it really exists. As one who has fallen in myself (in a mixed media project,) I can testify that it does exist. Does Beowulf fall into the uncanny valley? Well, it’s clawing up the far side, but it’s there.
I go back to the most pertinent question: why? Why bother recreating reality in mathematically defined polygons, when real reality is right here with us? I know the answer in my bones because I’ve made films both in 3D and live action. A live action shoot is terribly frustrating for control freaks like me… and presumably, Zemeckis. A plane flying overhead ruins your best take. The damn cameraman muffles the follow on another good take. The actor scratches his nose for no apparent reason, ruining yet another one. And if you say you’re satisfied with the shot, at 1AM in the morning, when you’ve been up and working your ass off since 6AM, then you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. You rarely get retake days. The 3D world, on the other hand, is infinitely malleable. You can tweak the camera angle or the hue of the hero’s plaid jacket till the cows come home. Yes, there are time constraints because budgets are never infinite but things can be… adjusted. Always adjusted.
The truth, however, is that this kind of stuff doesn’t really matter all that much. Filmmakers can obsess about things intricate like camera movements or subtle pictorial elements, but that’s just the icing on the cake. What matters is story and performances. To sacrifice performance for the flexibility to execute the filmmaking flourishes is terribly, terribly wrong-headed. And I just can’t imagine what other upside there is in a technique such as this.
I believe 3D animation does not need to be confined to family audiences. It can appeal to older, narrower audiences. But I also think animation needs to be allowed to be animation. Let it do what it does best: provide an imaginative restyling of life movement and life imagery.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Keeping Busy
I'm currently working on a couple of enjoyable projects.
A private equity firm has commissioned me to make a film for their Christmas party. It's basically a roast of their partners. The guys that are writing the short work for the firm and have some really funny ideas for the piece. Basically, we are going to take old classic films -- particularly war films -- and put cut-outs of the partners' faces over the lead characters. I think it's going to be a blast.
Also, Gavin Grace from Blue Peach Media has hired me to design and animate a video presentation for one of his Fortune 500 clients. It's motion graphics -- I'm flexing different muscles, but they're good muscles to flex occasionally!
A private equity firm has commissioned me to make a film for their Christmas party. It's basically a roast of their partners. The guys that are writing the short work for the firm and have some really funny ideas for the piece. Basically, we are going to take old classic films -- particularly war films -- and put cut-outs of the partners' faces over the lead characters. I think it's going to be a blast.
Also, Gavin Grace from Blue Peach Media has hired me to design and animate a video presentation for one of his Fortune 500 clients. It's motion graphics -- I'm flexing different muscles, but they're good muscles to flex occasionally!
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
BGRG Featured on Revver
Blue Guy vs Red Guy is featured today as an Editor's Pick on the Revver front page. With a little luck, I'm hoping to be able to afford a beer with the proceeds of this film!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Blue Guy vs. Red Guy
Here is Blue Guy vs Red Guy, the 3D short that I spent much of my free time on this summer. It started as an exercise... a way of getting my feet wet in 3D character animation. Before I knew it these two were becoming characters and having a relationship and going through a little story arc... they sort of decided they wanted to be in a movie.Once again, it was a pleasure to work with composer Karl Preusser. This is the third piece he's done for me and he always brings something good to the party. Also, this was the first time I worked with Kevin Scott. Kevin has done sound design for animation before at Funny Garbage, where I have also worked. As you can hear, he did a great job... and was a delight to work with.
A Blog Is Born
Here starts the Homebaked blog! Sure, you might have caught me blogging elsewhere, but this spot will be just about my work in animation. Here you will be safely insulated from my political rantings and strange observations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)