Gephyrophillia | Ask TXB #3

Originally Posted on 01/26/2007 by Jeff Harris

Why can't I just keep my opinions to myself?

It's a question that I tend to ask myself many times. On Thursday, I posted an article called "What Is Rotoscoping?", which basically did what all other animation blogs aren't doing . . . defending rotoscoping and motion capture as a tool for animation whereas everybody and their mother is saying that motion capture isn't animation at all.

Obviously, I've touched yet another nerve with Reuben, aka HG Revolution on the Toon Zone forums, who decided to confront me and my opinion yet again. And yet again, I have to defend my stance. And here I thought I wasn't going to have an Ask TXB this week:

Dear Jeff Harris,

Motion-capture can't really be considered animation since animation is the process of creating movement frame-by-frame. That's what separates stop-motion from puppetry and why JibJab isn't considered live-action. Since rotoscoping requires each frame to be drawn or digitally painted off of the live-action film, I'd consider that to be a process of animation since it still requires an animator.

Mo-cap, on the other hand, doesn't even require animators. It just requires actors, some good graphic design, and a bunch of computer programmers who may or may not have any experience in keyframing animation. Robert Zemmickis doesn't even consider The Polar Express to be animation.

As such, I can see people's distaste in Monster House and Happy Feet being nominated (I'd have picked Flushed Away for the win myself). Not that mo-cap can't produce stunning results, because it can, but ultimately animation without animators does sound like a disturbing thought for many artists.

Your response?

HG Revolution

Okay, here's my response, which includes a history of motion-capture, which a lot of people are so ignorant about:

Have you ever met Waldo C. Graphic? No? Okay, how about Moxy and Flea? Ever heard of pioneers like Rebecca Allen or Brad deGraf? I'll get back to them in a few.

Motion-capture was first introduced in the late 1970s with roots based in rotoscoping (another thing . . . rotoscoping is essentially primative mo-cap because both practices utilize the use of live-action to capture motion to use for the illusion of motion, which is, in fact, what animation is about). Rebecca Allen of the New York Institute of Technology's Computer Graphics Labs used computers, a mirror, and videotapes of real dancers to help create the first-known motion-capture production, Twyla Tharp's The Catherine Wheel. Allen used keyframes to create the animated images.

During the 1980s, the technology of motion-capture continued to evolve. A computer science professor at Simon Fraser University named Thomas Calvert used mo-cap to see how humans move naturally as well as plot abnormalities in movement.

The precursor of what we commonly know as mo-cap began in the mid-80s became more prominent. MIT and NYIT both experimented with optical tracking technology, which involved placing markers (flashing LEDs, small, reflective dots, or large, reflective table-tennis-sized orbs) on the body so that multiple cameras can track and trace the movement of a person. MIT developed the "Graphical Marionette," a precursor to today's modern body suit, using LEDs connected to multiple wires rather than reflective orbs that are free to move around. The signal of the movement was translated into a wireframe image on a computer that can be manipulated and posed into many key positions as well as use the motions to create a virtual character. The major downside of the process is the extensive rendering time, which has decreased with the advent of modern technology, but is still slower than regular computer animation, which explains why animation houses were reluctant to use the technology in the late 80s and most of the '90s.

In the 1980s, a man named Brad deGraf dared to do what no one had done or will ever attempt to do. He forever bridged the connection between computers, animation, and puppetry. As Head of Technical Direction for Digital Productions, he oversaw production of computer-animated segments in the cult film The Last Starfighter, co-directed Plan 3D from Outer Space for Expo 1985 and animated the reintroduced global AT&T logo for designer and director Saul Bass (who also designed logos for United Airlines, Minolta, and Warner Communications).

As a co-founder of deGraf/Wahrman, he designed and developed Perform, the world's first realtime computer animation program. In 1988, deGraf performed the first real-time computer character, Mike Normal, the Talking Head, at SIGGRAPH. He also developed simulated rides for Universal Theme Parks, including the Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera ride. Along with Jim Henson Productions and Pacific Data Images (the studio that brought you Shrek [couldn't resist, since PDI became a vital part of Dreamworks Animation]), deGraf also co-developed Waldo C. Graphic, which merged the earlier Muppet technology known as the "waldo" (which manipulated Muppets with large and small heads, heavily used in Fraggle Rock) with computer animation and mo-cap technology creating real-time characters that could be reanimated as a fully-rendered character in post-production.

When he formed deGraf Associates, deGraf developed another program, Alive, utitilzing his prior work experiences, licensing the technology to Disney Imagineering and Colossal Pictures. He also worked with Blue Sky (creators of Ice Age, Robots, and soon Horton Hears a Who) in providing motion capture for "Spaceboy in Sky-High Scramble" and consulted with Sony Pictures on the development of Imageworks. Also around this time, deGraf developed Electric Atlas, a precursor to Google Earth, but that's not really relevant to this conversation.

At Colossal, deGraf helped start up the digital media division (which later spun off into Protozoa), directed the Peter Gabriel movie Steam, co-created Moxy for Cartoon Network as well as Floops, the internet's first episodic cartoon, and developed motion-captured virtual animation hosts for MTV, ZDTV/Tech TV (who remembers Dev Null from The Site?), and Sony Television.

Today, the techniques created by the likes of MIT, NYIT, and deGraf are still prominent in motion-capture. Video game companies like Eidos and Electronic Arts use motion capture to keyframe movements of real people to make their athletes, soldiers, and other realistic characters look more lifelike. Onadime used realtime motion-capturing and digital puppetry (which is mocap with your hands) to perform Bugs Bunny's first ever live interview sessions for the Looney Tunes: Back in Action press junkets, to have Bloo co-hosting the Cartoon Network upfronts in 2005, and to have Space Ghost introduce GameTap at E3 2005. Animators work hard on these projects, but since it blends computer technology and motion capture, people tend to ignore the animation part of it. And, in case you didn't realize, animation IS a graphic design project since design is the visual component of animation. All animation requires timing, key calculation, and skill, which mocap animators also utilize.

With that said, here's a question I'd like a lot of the critics of Happy Feet and Monster House to ask themselves. Which film would they be more angered by if it was nominated for best animated picture, Monster House or A Scanner Darkly? I know the discussion is moot, but since A Scanner Darkly has just as much a right to be nominated, as would Reinassance, but how would the same critics of Monster House and Happy Feet's placement feel if those two rotoscoped films got nominated instead? I'd like to see those critics get torn asunder over that question.

*end transmission*

Jeff Harris,
Creator/Webmaster, The X Bridge.