Disney's Frogumentary

[slowtiger]

why do you think pencil on paper is more precise than stylus on tablet

The most delicate cleanup drawings I had in my hands were from three different "Asterix" films produced by Gaumont, when Hahn Film in Berlin made "Asterix in America". We had a whole basement full of cardboard boxes, containing animation and painted cels and bachground art - some in pristine condition, but most of it really carelessly crammed into the boxes. For weeks we were sorting the scenes by film, searching for good stuff for re-use, or just very good models.

Most drawings were on 15F paper, with a character being about 15 - 25 cm high. The face would cover about 3 x 4 cm, of characters definitely comparable to Disney's most complex characters: namely the Centurion, which was IMO more expressive than the main characters. The pencil lines were superb, of about 0.2 - 0.4 mm thickness, with nicely tapered ends and full of life. Even the hair consisted of several strokes! (The only image I could find online doesn't do justice to the drawings. The centurio is the far right one. There were at least two different assistants doing the cleanups, and this was the one doing the simple toes - that's how we sorted them out. The other one was less lazy ...)


(Of couse we were not allowed to "borrow" any of those drawings. I don't know where they ended up, I fear they were eventually thrown away.)

Having to draw that same character at the same size in the same quality on the Cintiq would be impossible for me. The line would have to be under 1.5 px thick. (I tested this with scanning one cel with a resolution so it fit into HDTV.) Even enlarging the view doesn't help. Now the analog dimensions of drawings were mostly dictated by rostrum camera dimensons and paper formats (and traditions), but still there's a certain feeling of "rightness" in drawing a character on paper in exactly that size - it will not be the same character in double or half the size, or it will be a different style then. There's a close relationship between line thickness , character size, and expression: some stuff only works in a certain combination of these three. That's why it doesn't really help to blow up the project's dimensions: while it technically might enable the clean up artist to achieve the fine line, it is not possible to get the same "spirit" into it.

But my days with Benjamin Blümchen, Werner, and Asterix are over, so there's no need for that level of exactness in my own stuff. I have chosen my style with a thicker line and a higher tolerance for "wobbly" lines, which will make the work on the Cintiq fast enough. But for the accuracy of those old projects still nothing beats a good sharp 2B pencil (preferrably Berol Turquoise) on 70g paper.

And there's another point: though nobody would spot any difference in the final film, I always miss the feeling of having a real pencil on real paper. After a day at the computer, I really need to give my hands something physical to hold and manipulate. Maybe I should get into knitting again?

[Paul Fierlinger]

After a day at the computer, I really need to give my hands something physical to hold and manipulate. Maybe I should get into knitting again?

Get a dog and stroke him, preferably a wire haired terrier.

Having to draw that same character at the same size in the same quality on the Cintiq would be impossible for me.

You might need a tablet. The Cintiq was one of the worst things I have ever had to animate with. That thing, I agree, is a step backwards from pencil on paper.

[Sierra Rose]

Once again, I feel the sadness (perhaps I mean frustration) for the long delay Bauhaus caused so many by not giving up the ghost sooner and sparing everyone their fairy tales. Just think if Disney had really tried TVP and their artists found the superior drawing experience we have every day, they would have jumped on-board TVP with joy.

It's obvious even to me, who has never done paper animation, that paperless is wonderful beyond description. Who would really want to go back? So what if the line isn't so delicate...you can tell a story with a slightly less delicate line, for sure.

I want TVP to succeed so much and I thank D. T. Nethery for trying to get Disney to appreciate it.

[Elodie]

Thanks for your kind words Rose, Paul and David. It touches us a lot =)

I thank D. T. Nethery for trying to get Disney to appreciate it.

All TVPaint thank him for this.

It's very great to know the feelings that animators can have about paperless animation and animation on paper. It gives us more clues concerning the improvement and evolution of TVP Animation. Maybe can we add a "scratch" sound for people who are missing the pencil's lead on paper ?

You might need a tablet. The Cintiq was one of the worst things I have ever had to animate with. That thing, I agree, is a step backwards from pencil on paper.

I personally agree with you, Paul : I don't understand where is the pleasure to have his hand hiding the software's interface. The rare times where I use Fabrice's computer (with a touch screen), I become crazy, because my hand bothers me

[ematecki]

The old way is a slower, less efficient way

Not always. Believe me the production management at Disney really wanted "The Princess & the Frog" to go paperless . They were pushing hard for it . If it were only for the artists whining about learning a new skill set they would have pushed it anyway , artists be damned. The reason they did not do it paperless is because the nearly year-long period of testing gave empirical , closely-tracked production data that showed the scenes which were done paperless moved through the pipeline slower. If they could have made their movie cheaper using paperless production they would have done it. Those who couldn't or wouldn't adapt would have been shoved out of the way. But it was not faster or more efficient. The line control for the type of precise drawing needed for the Disney style of character animation wasn't easy enough to replicate with the Cintiq tablets drawing in Toonboom. Too many wobbly lines that needed to be adjusted vector point by vector point. Very time consuming and not at all intuitive for people who are used to drawing freehand.

That doesn't meant it won't change in the future as both the hardware and the software is tweaked to be more artist friendly. (and again, if they had tried the paperless tests using TVP things may have turned out differently, but for a variety of reasons they went with ToonBoom , and the drawing tools in Toonboom are not as good as the drawing tools in TVP)

Using the wrong tool slows every process down :)

[Paul Fierlinger]

Elodie, the way the cleanup artist's hand obstructed the camera's view even bothered me; I felt like screaming at the YouTube to have him put his hand away so I can watch what he's drawing. Hands should be kept like children; out of sight and silent (no scratchy sounds please).

[Elodie]

(no scratchy sounds please)

Sure ? Ooooh, I would swear you did love it

Nah, sorry, I'm kidding you

[User767]

When it is suggested that TVP get into the hands of animators at Disney (or any 'large' production)- I am curious how that size of production could be handled by TVP? There were a LOT of people working on the production of that film. A lot of parts for a lot of people for a lot of scenes.

Toon Boom deals with management, database, library (and gobs of visual elements). They wrote special modules for Disney. They probably gave Disney T-shirts and pens and pads of paper and all sorts of other goodies. I'm sure they had a hefty training and support package as well.

I can't imagine using TVP on something of that scale. It's hard enough to deal with a team of ten with it. I wonder how the freedom gained would weigh against the restrictions imposed by the software and media management? What about resolution independence, and an infinite work area? How much storage space would they have needed to support their production crew at full resolution all the time?

Everything that has to be worked around costs time, money and effort. A job I did last year included some [other] animation software-which, while quite capable, also ended up costing more in time and effort than would be worthwhile on a longer project. This project only lasted a few months, but the software wasn't designed for workgroups-and it showed. TVP is pretty much the same. I would guess that if you included the needed functionality for a large production, it would find it's way into Disney on it's own.

Or, maybe it would be better for Disney and the likes to scale down to something more Fierlinger-sized?

[Fabrice]

The aim of TVPaint is to provide solutions for artists, freelance, schools, TV chanels, etc .... and of course Studios, no matter their size !
As a serious and professionnal company, we also provide training, support, specific development / solutions for our customers, depending on their production budget and team size.

For exemple : you should read this interview from Mads Jul :
http://www.tvpaint.com/v2/content/artic ... juul_3.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They were ... 25 people, they worked in .... 3480 x 5760 pixels ... the limitation came from other softwares from A.... which couldn't follow more than 4000x4000 !
TVP Animation can be used without any problem on big productions.

By the way, it seems that the drawings on the last Disney movie were done on paper then scanned with ToonBoom.
I really think that they could have fasten their production time with TVP Animation, especially because animating paperlessly is much much faster !

nb : more and more storyboard artists @Disney are using the TVPaint technology.

[ematecki]

Toon Boom .... They wrote special modules for Disney.

How much did Disney pay for these ?
We could do the same for that money.

[User767]

They were ... 25 people, they worked in .... 3480 x 5760 pixels ... the limitation came from other softwares from A.... which couldn't follow more than 4000x4000 !
TVP Animation can be used without any problem on big productions.

By the way, it seems that the drawings on the last Disney movie were done on paper then scanned with ToonBoom.
I really think that they could have fasten their production time with TVP Animation, especially because animating paperlessly is much much faster !

I read the Mads interview. Happily, they could work around not using a 'real' compositor (which doesn't suffer from this pixel dimension issue-and,incidentally, Harmony has a decent compositor included in the package). And, by the way, I believe Harmony supports 100.000x100.000 pixels at 24 bit color (Not positive about that, but I know it's more than 8 bits/pixel). They also have render farm support, amongst other things.

I think the issue is more: how does TVP work with 200+ animators simultaneously, and for a few years running? I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it's not really set up for it (whereas something like Harmony is). Note, too, that Harmony was able to deal with the people who wanted to draw on paper. I'm curious if the drawings were scanned and vectorized though. Wouldn't surprise me. They did add in Animo functions for the Disney-fied version (and, subsequently, the current release). Animo scanning always seemed to work really well for maintaining line character. Audio+synch support is great too.

Personally, I don't like the interface to TVP, and never have. I know a number of people who share that feeling, and also many who love it. I do prefer to draw on paper. It's a different experience than staring at a glowing screen. 16 or 24 field paper is vastly different from a tablet. But, I do use a variety of animation software as needed. What I prefer doesn't matter, does it? Shouldn't all art forms give way to the emulated version produced in software? We don't need oil paint on canvas-that can be done in TVP. Same with charcoal on paper, or acrylics or any other media, right? May as well scan and destroy all of the flat art in existence. They should do the same with the massive archives that Disney maintains. It would be much better if all of that was on a hard drive instead, right? Faster and more space efficient, after all.

More important, for TVP-you don't have the right sales pitch for the people who write the purchase orders. Isn't it those brilliant people who decided that 2D animation should be eliminated from Disney? Aren't those the same brilliant people who decide that paperless is 'better'? They're the ones buying it. Unfortunately, people like John Lassiter are involved now, and they're [foolishly] supporting those horrible, slow pencils. (I'm being facetious here). I don't doubt that Toon Boom was chosen by some 'suits', and a couple of 'artists'. Toon Boom caters to both of them. It's not just the software, it's also the 'schmooze'. And they (toon boom) do both of those things pretty well. Obviously, it did what they needed it to do. If the show makes a profit, it was the right decision.

I couldn't care less what software anyone uses. I don't know why it matters, either. By the way, I'm still on Mirage on my personal machine. Haven't found it particularly enticing to 'move up' to TVP-though I've used it at other places. Sorry. This was a bit rambly, wasn't it?

[D.T. Nethery]

I think the issue is more: how does TVP work with 200+ animators simultaneously, and for a few years running? I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it's not really set up for it (whereas something like Harmony is).

What would prevent using TVP on a network with 200+ artists?

You say you don't know that it can't be done and I don't know either.

I can't see why not.

Note, too, that Harmony was able to deal with the people who wanted to draw on paper. I'm curious if the drawings were scanned and vectorized though. Wouldn't surprise me. They did add in Animo functions for the Disney-fied version (and, subsequently, the current release). Animo scanning always seemed to work really well for maintaining line character. Audio+synch support is great too.

Yes, of course the final line clean up drawings were scanned and vectorized in Toonboom. That's the whole thing that got this conversation started ... Marshall Toomey mentioned in that video clip that most of the artists who tested the paperless system drawing directly into Toonboom rejected it because it was too slow and cumbersome . The feeling among the majority of Disney artists was that the Toonboom digital drawing tools did not provide the same level of sensitivity as good old pencil and paper. So they animated and cleaned-up all the character animation on paper , which was then scanned into Toonboom Harmony for digital ink & paint.

Also, when you say "Note, too, that Harmony was able to deal with the people who wanted to draw on paper." are you implying that TVP doesn't do that too ? But traditional drawings can be scanned and imported into TVP , so what's the difference ?

Personally, I don't like the interface to TVP, and never have.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Do you like the ToonBoom Harmony/ToonBoom Animate Pro interface better ?

Just curious: Have you used both TVP and Toonboom ? ( I have. ) By the way, I feel it's important to note that I'm not putting down ToonBoom. They have a versatile, powerful piece of software, no doubt about it. But for me it comes down to the drawing tools: TVP's are better and more "artist friendly" in my opinion.

I know a number of people who share that feeling, and also many who love it.

You think some of them might be here on this forum ? (the ones who love it )

So you join a forum which is an online community of devoted TVP users, a software you say you don't like and never have . Ok... whatever.

I do prefer to draw on paper. It's a different experience than staring at a glowing screen.

Well, we agree on something. It is certainly a different experience. (but not necessarily a bad experience , imo) . But then , staring into the backlight on an animation disc for hours on end isn't so wonderful either, right ? However, I agree there's a lot to be said for continuing to work with traditional media . I don't feel that "paper vs. paperless" is a narrow either/or position I must be forced to choose between. I use both. (*cue Paul , enter stage left on white charger with sword drawn) .

16 or 24 field paper is vastly different from a tablet.

24 field paper ? Good grief, man, are you mad ?!! . I shuddered everytime I got a scene on 24 field . Impossible to flip it , awkward to draw on.
I hope I never see another piece of 24 field animation paper. 16 field is fine, though I actually prefer 12 field. My Cintiq tablet has a working area
somewhat larger than a 12 field piece of paper. No problem there. Our friends who prefer the Intous tablet also have a large working area equivalent to
between 12 - 16 field if they have a nice large monitor.

But, I do use a variety of animation software as needed. What I prefer doesn't matter, does it? Shouldn't all art forms give way to the emulated version produced in software? We don't need oil paint on canvas-that can be done in TVP. Same with charcoal on paper, or acrylics or any other media, right? May as well scan and destroy all of the flat art in existence. They should do the same with the massive archives that Disney maintains. It would be much better if all of that was on a hard drive instead, right? Faster and more space efficient, after all.

Yes, yes, very droll ... I hear your sarcasm . I get it. Again, I'm not one who thinks that all traditional media should be done away with, so I'm not getting drawn into a "paper vs. paperless" debate.

(And from what I understand all the animation art in the Disney morgue has in fact been digitized for reference and archival purposes, though of course they haven't destroyed the original artwork after scanning it. )

More important, for TVP-you don't have the right sales pitch for the people who write the purchase orders. Isn't it those brilliant people who decided that 2D animation should be eliminated from Disney? Aren't those the same brilliant people who decide that paperless is 'better'? They're the ones buying it. Unfortunately, people like John Lassiter are involved now, and they're [foolishly] supporting those horrible, slow pencils. (I'm being facetious here). I don't doubt that Toon Boom was chosen by some 'suits', and a couple of 'artists'. Toon Boom caters to both of them. It's not just the software, it's also the 'schmooze'. And they (toon boom) do both of those things pretty well. Obviously, it did what they needed it to do. If the show makes a profit, it was the right decision.

No comment really on what you've said here. Yes the "schmooze" you refer to is a factor. I've seen it up close.

I couldn't care less what software anyone uses. I don't know why it matters, either. By the way, I'm still on Mirage on my personal machine. Haven't found it particularly enticing to 'move up' to TVP-though I've used it at other places. Sorry. This was a bit rambly, wasn't it?

I'm not at all surprised you haven't upgraded from Mirage to TVP (since you said you never liked the interface , why would you?) Mirage is basically the same interface as TVP, so I guess you don't use Mirage very much even if it is on your machine. On the other hand I did like Mirage, so I like TVP even better .

As you say , different people have different preferences. Ultimately this is no different than the arguments we used to have about what pencil was was the "best" pencil to use for animating. Kids just out of Sheridan or Cal Arts thought if they could just get the same pencil that Glen Keane uses they would be able to draw like Glen . Yada, yada ... whatever.
Use the tool that works best for you.

[ematecki]

Anyway, 3D is best :) :) :) :)

[Paul Fierlinger]

Anyway, 3D is best

LOL

[D.T. Nethery]

Anyway, 3D is best

LOL

And there you have it ! Yes, we are all dinosaurs , drawing on paper or tablets , it doesn't matter. We have a "D" missing , so 2D must not be as good as 3D , so I've heard.