DVDizzy.com

You're right, it would. But I see that happening. I think other studios will be pushing for ways to create an artistically appealing hybrid, and so while maybe not this exact technique... it's the idea. I know Disney already has movies planned (like Frozen) for a traditional CG approach, but I think it would be a huge mistake for them to begin any new projects and NOT use this approach. I'll put it this way: it should be the future of animation.

You gotta wait till you see it Sotiris!

I'm not doubting it will be great; I'm just underlining the realities of the industry which is resistant to change. There are many diverse and beautiful techniques in the animation medium, none of which caught on besides the "traditional" look. Many thought that Lorenzo, which also blended CG and hand-drawn animation quite successfully (albeit in a different way than Paperman) would be a game-changer but sadly, it was not. I'm just hoping Paperman doesn't have the same fate. If Disney really believes in this new technique and wants to promote it, it is imperative to make features with it otherwise it is bound to remain as another arthouse technique.

_________________

They say they wish to celebrate the line. I wonder if it is possible to celebrate the flatness of handdrawn animation as well, using similar techniques. But I'll just wait and see what the final result of Paperman looks like (one can only hope that all the words from those who have seen it, doesn't rise the expectations too high).

The line was often all there was in animation in the early days, before colors and higher budgets made cartoons more sophisticated. Yet if there is going to be some experimenting with new technology, I would like to see the opposite approach as well, where the line to some degree has been replaced by clear colors that defines the objects, backgrounds and characters.

I don't know if you have read any comics drawn by Giulio Chierchini, but the colors in his art have a special look (it's possibly done with computers);

http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1795-A

http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1788-B

http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1744-C

http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+1756-C

There are still lines, but no more than necessary and normally not black, so one can ask how much further the direction could be explored.

For the time being, I'm just happy that we'll have a chance to see Paperman



This sounds terribly wrong

Disney Delivers Game-Changing Paperman Short
http://billdesowitz.com/disney-delivers ... man-short/

Immersed in Movies: Disney's 'Paperman' Short Delivers Hybrid Breakthrough
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononho ... ugh?page=1

_________________

Paperman's World Premiere was at Annecy tonight, so be on the lookout for reviews and whatnot! Here's an image posted to Paperman's Facebook page:



<img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/461919_239786959464913_207899989320277_402257_1019283199_o.jpg" width="800">

There is a description that would be interesting to know a little more about: "We brought together as best we could the expressiveness of 2D drawing immersed with the stability and dimensionality of CG."

I get the stability stuff, but how does the dimensionality work? It's the dimensionality that takes away the flatness of the animation.

Imagine if you draw a short animated sequence the old way, either on paper or on a tablet. A character that is a line drawing made up of black lines moving around on a white background.

Then design a CGI version of the character, just as they have done in Paperman. Make an excapt copy of each frame from the original 2D sequence, drawing the same lines over the CGI character (or simply superimpose the original artwork over the CGI). Don't add colors, shadowing, rendering or background to the CGI test.

What we have now is two identical pieces of the same animated sequence; a flat and original version, and a CGI version with more dimensionality. What is it that seperates them? The only way to find out, is to superimpose them both. When each frame contains two same size line drawings located on the same spot on the screen, one drawn by hand and the other modified with the computer, what would we see? What would the differences be when comparing frame by frame? Seeing differences is not the same as understanding the differences. And could the computer "learn" something from it, making other kinds of conversions possible? That's something a lot of people would be curious about. Of course, to make it easier to see which is which, one could simply turn the lines of the CGI version red and the lines that makes up the original drawings blue. Or gray and black, or whatever that works.

So basically it's drawing over the existing CG animation? Sounds more like next gen rotoscoping than something that's knocking the socks out of people.

But I'll know if it's good or not when I'll actually see something out of "Paperman".

_________________

Eh, it's nothing expected when it comes to animation nowadays, YTPGod/FD.

_________________

Well, I know I'm beating a dead horse over this, but I still hope there's a future for films that are completely hand-drawn, not that I find anything wrong with the whole hand-drawn/CG hybrid idea or CG.

As for the concept art, it looks quite interesting. For some reason, however, it looks more CG than feeling like CG.

I think you're forgetting they said the expressiveness of 2D, and when they say 2D they actually mean hand-drawn. What the hand can do that the computer can't. Hand-drawn animation just has more fluidity and life and ability than CGI animation. Adding dimension to that (hopefully)shouldn't ruin it. Yup, I said it, CGI lovers.

_________________

Except, it is knocking the socks off people. Pretty much every person that has seen it.

Like I said: in the most basic, dumbed down explanation... yes, they are drawing over the existing CG animation. But also like I said, there is much more to it than that. If there wasn't, it obviously wouldn't be anything special, as that has been done multiple times before to no acclaim.

Disney’s Paperman: John Kahrs and Kristina Reed Interview
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/paperman-intervie/

The Skwigly Animation Podcast ‘Annecy Special’ – John Kahrs, Kristina Reed and Matt O’Callaghan
http://www.skwigly.co.uk/the-skwigly-an ... callaghan/

_________________

So, basically, they create everything in CG, hand draw over everything and then add the colors, shadowing, etc.? Because that's kind of how it sounds and it altogether doesn't sound cheap.

Innovation isn't cheap, my friend. But, hopefully, those who count will realize that it's worth it.

But will they? If it's twice as expensive and time-consuming to produce, will they risk that on a feature?

_________________

I hope they do stick with it and use this new innovation on future features. The more experience the animators gain in using this new technique will help them to cut down on production times and Disney have shown some willingness recently in spending money to refine the artistic styling of their films, like in Tangled. If the public reaction to the short is anywhere as enthusiastic as it has been within the animation community then I can see Disney experimenting with it further on future shorts before they take the dive into feature production but it would be exciting to see Disney be a cinematic innovator again soon.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

Given the attitude of those I've spoken to at the studio, I don't think anyone is worried that they won't. I mean, seriously... you would have to be seriously stupid to see what they've done and not want more. And even if an executive did happen to be that stupid - they've no doubt seen the reaction within the animation community, and now the limited European premieres... I'm sure they'll put two and two together and realize that this is something that needs to be explored if WDAS wants to remain a force in the industry.

I don't think Disney Animation can afford not to invest in this.

And this isn't to say that the feature would look exactly like Paperman or even use the same exact technique - but it's the idea behind it that counts: "What if the future of traditional animation and CG animation were the same thing?" Exploring this technology and pushing it further is what's important.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-hill/ ... ertainment

An article written by Jim Hill about Paperman and John Kahrs' inspiration for the short.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

Entertainment Weekly four-page article on Paperman

There are also some new hi-res images of the short, which look stunning.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland