Motion Capture "Animation"

Archives
#1

I’d like to pose a question to you all.

Regardless of whether or not you like the medium, do you consider motion capture animation to actually be animation?

While there is no doubt it is CGI (Computer Generated Images) there is some rom to debate whether the motion counts as animation. In particular, animation implies art in motion which motion capture is but it is real motion that is being replicated by a computer rather than being created by the squash and stretch or “squetch” of a mouse click or turn of a frame. Also one could argue since people must create the motion that they are actors as much as any other live-action fim. Chew on it and ask yourself if you believe motion capture is really animation.

It seems like a trivial question but it does carry some clout. If motion capture was classified to not be animation then should a motion capture film like Polar Express or Monster House be eligable for an Oscar nomination in the Best Animated Feature category. Or should we view the category as being inclusive all art that is not staged live and not just animation?

#2

This is a toughie, certainly. To be entirely honest, I would consider even motion capture animation to be animation, and for a motion cpature film to be eligible for an Oscar in the animated feature category seems perfectly reasonable to me.

#3

I think motion capture is an excellent tool to assist in animation, but with the likes of Polar Express I genuinely think it would have been a much more charming film if they had used costumes and sets, it had an eery look to it and personally I find that there has to be a degree of exaggeration in the movement in order for weight and such to truly be conveyed - I thought Polar Express had a lot of ‘slipping’ animation in it simply because it didn’t have that - did anyone else think so? It really bothered me, nevermind that it undercuts skill and talent - motion-captured actors is just not the same as the performance an actor and an animator collaborate on, IMO.

#4

Even though it’s cheating to some extent, I would still consider it animation.

You have to remember that everything in the environment has to be animated, and in some cases, the environment itself. In Monster House, the house was obviously animated by hand in CGI, unless they constructed some type of model they could control and then captured its movements. But by the way the house moved, I’d say not.

And I don’t know much about motion capture, but aren’t the facial expressions created on the computer? That’s definitely animating something.

~~=oP

#5

Not really. I’m sure they have to be enhanced by animators, but a motion capture suit also captures facial expression if the special I saw on Polar Express is anything to go by - as I said, I think it’s good for assisting in difficult areas of animation, I don’t think it’s good for doing whole features, though.

And yes, animating the environment is animation :wink: I didn’t say it wasn’t!

#6

And I didn’t say that you said it

wasn’t! :wink:

~~=oP

#7

Haha, sorry, I thought you were implying I’d dismissed that aspect of it! Maybe it’s because I really

didn’t like Polar Express, but when I see people choosing to use motion capture over animators it really bothers

me. It doesn’t seem like an artistic choice, it almost seems like a cost-cutting choice (or a time-cutting

choice? I’m sure the equipment for motioncapture is extremely expensive), where you end up with a parody of an

animated feature without having to pay half the amount of animators or spend weeks producing only a few minutes

of footage. It’s bad enough the state the industry’s been in - especially in the UK - with outsourcing overseas

and cutbacks generally without something else to contend with XD

#8

Motion Capture

bugs me mainly because I’d prefer to see hardworking animators get jobs. That’s of course assuming that they

hirer fewer people – but that’s just me assuming.
Polar Express scared me actually - just the faces … the

movement … I remember seeing the trailer and thinking I should be really enjoying certain moments - but I

wasn’t. It would have been MUCH better off had they gone for a live-action film – then I think it would have

been more of a truly magical movie. (But then again - you could always just watch the Harry Potter train scenes I

suppose).

Anyways - I think Monster House looks a LOT better – but I still don’t see the point. I mean

why not just get real kids at that point? What’s the point of having humans motion capturing just to be …

humans? I mean unless you’re trying to do something bizarre - prove an actor or actress could really be someone

they don’t look like at all or could never really portray … in a live action movie … but I’m not really

seeing that. Except for Tom Hanks playing virtually every character in Polar Express …

But anyways - I

think its wonderful for films like Lord of the Rings with Gollum or King Kong – but I’m not truly warming up to

it on animated films (lets see how ‘Monster House’ looks …). As for the Oscars – that question could be

exactly why it WASN’T nominated (Polar Express) … it may have looked too bizarre to the academy … granted it

was more deserving that Shark Tale … but whatever. A lot of critics seem to be strongly pulling for Monster

House at the moment (Ebert and Roeper think its the leading contender … but I really don’t think it could beat

out ‘Cars’ - I don’t really want it to) … so we’ll see! It technically IS animation … but I just don’t

always feel it has a point or really has the heart of an animator. It can be helpful - but I sure hope in the

future it isn’t relied on completely.

But that’s just my two cents. X)

#9

I’d say motion capture is more acting

than animation. Animators always say they need to be actors to understand and properly portray their characters

movements and expressions – but making actors animators is ridiculous! :wink:

For some things like

Lord of the Rings, motion capture works really well. But for a full animated movie,

it seems sort of like… cheating!

The trailer for Monster House is

here and I have to say, while

obviously the lip-synching lines up perfectly, that seems to be the only advantage. The expressions are really

stiff and underplayed, and the characters seem to pale in comparison to the beautiful backdrops.

Give me

traditional animation any day!

#10

Firmly agreed!

:-D)

#11

Motion capture rocks, but

only in Tim Burton films, in my opinion. ^^;

Traditional animation’s great, but I only watch it when they

take time to do their shading and stuff. Like … I’ll only watch a Disney sequel if they saw fit to shade the

character or something. When they don’t it’s just plain lazy.

Same could go for 3-D animation, but I

haven’t seen recent CGI movies that don’t take time to shade or make use of their lighting.

#12

Yesss exactly what I was trying to

say. Monster House looks like an awesome little film but something about the way those characters are rigged or

just the way they move, it’s just not as expressive as they could be, imo! Something gets lost in the

translation between the actors and the capture I think.

#13

My problem with Polar Express (which I didn’t see) was that they looked too

real. What’s great with Incredibles is that they knew that more human you make a human in 3-D, then they look

horrid, or even scary!

As for motion capture, in the way of the old Rankin-Bass films, and the classic

clay-mation, I would say that yes, they are considered animation. It simply was just another medium of telling a

story.

There all different way of animating, but as long as it’s not the actual actor we’re seeing on

screen, then it’s animation . . . that’s why in real-life film, like POTC II, they say “Animators”

in the credits. The actor who voices Davy Jones and his men don’t look that way, do they??

#14

I’m gonna say they didn’t motioncapture Davy Jone’s tentacles or the Kraken,

though! :wink: In a film like POTC I think it’s very appropriate, definitely, but Polar Express terrified me XD

Plus, I really don’t want to have to fight against $3000 equipment for a job - it doesn’t drink coffee or go to

the bathroom or have a union :frowning:

#15

Well, I wasn’t saying the animation in POTC was Motion capture, I was simply saying that those scenes and

people are considered “animated,” even though the film is considered “real life”.

#16

aha, sorry! My brain merged two things at once then! Not nearly enough sleep lately, egad!

#17

I just saw ‘Monster House’ today (in 3D! Which was pretty flawless 3D at that …) and had a lot of fun. :slight_smile:

While there was a percentage of the time that the facial expressions or character movements bugged me – quite

honestly most of the time I thought the expressions were great and perfectly fine. I want ot see a ‘making of’

doc or something though - I haven’t seen any. There is a major step up above Polar Express … but there is some

work to still be done.
Very fun movie though – I think (so far this year) it should be a contender for the

Oscars – but I dunno in comparison to anythng else thats come out this year. I of course still love ‘Cars’ -

but they’re two very different movies.

But have my opinions on motion capture changed? Eh … not really.

I still think the fact they’re humans gives them reason to either get kid actors or animate it themselves. But

whatever - I still had fun. :slight_smile:

#18

Let’s not confuse the terms “Motion Capture” and “Stop Motion”

Animation here. :wink:

#19

The sad

thing about computer animation in general is that people use it as an excuse to be lazy. Now, I want to be a

carreer computer animator, don’t get me wrong. But, like every medium, it has its specific uses. Just like you

wouldn’t necessarily try to do a sketch with paints, you shouldn’t use mocap for everything you come across.

It’s good for big, broad movements, certainly. But there’s a lot of subtlety to motion that mocap just

doesn’t get. I don’t think it should ever be used on its own, for one. Example: Gollum. People tout him as a

triumph of motion capture animation. However, what a lot of people don’t talk about as much is the fact that

there was also a team of keyframe animators working on him. This was a brilliant plan, in my eyes- you get the

general idea of how everything moves with the mocap, and then you go back in and tweak to perfection with the

keyframe animators. Synergy of methods. I think if Polar Express had taken the time to stick a bunch of

keyframe animators on the film, it would have looked a lot better, more polished, and less fake.

Like any

good art form, computer animation has a lot of details that need to be taken care of in order to make it look

really, really good. And, as with most art forms, there are corners that can be cut. Even traditional animation

cuts corners- the Clone Wars cartoons made me want to cry sometimes. But it’s all about knowing how to use the

tools you can be given. Mocap is a tool. You’ve just gotta know how to use it well. :slight_smile:

#20

^^^

Yes! Exactly, you said what I apparently couldn’t get out right there :smiley: