Understanding and reviewing CG Animations
We are in the future and the trend of CGI in animation is no longer flabbergasting us, we are now in a position to claim back our objectivity, this sense of awe that permeated us when we saw our first CG animated flick, has dwindled and now it is time again for the future to be called "present". That is until the next big thing comes knocking at our door. So what do we do now ? We got our senses back, we make the best of it and that means we demand quality to those that create CGI because we don't want to end up with what I call an "overall negative ratio" where, out of 10 productions, 1 or maybe 2 are really worth paying for a cinema ticket.
Nowadays the amount of productions is growing with each passing year and so is the amount of dedicated studios and the first consequence is that our choice is broadening which is a good thing because it means that we can afford to be more picky, also all these new studios sprouting all over the world mean for us, a chance to witness a new cultural approach and a different perspective in the subsequent productions. Some pessimistic analysts have said that this bubble of growing CG Animation output will soon burst due to the fact that people are now used to this new technology. I disagree with that, of course the output cannot sustain growth forever and I think the time has come for it to stabilize. After all, traditional 2D animations have weathered all sorts of changes in society and this, for over 80 years. Only a technological evolution (or should I say revolution ?) has been able to finally make those 2D features more or less retire.
So here we are, witnessing a certain maturity in this industry as well as in ourselves. We are then ready to ask, what are the criteria to be taken into account to say that any given CG Animation is all about quality and not just a commercial product designed to attract audiences at the expenses of everything else ? Well, the first thing is to know what is the prime target intended by the makers, if it is young children then we should see whether there is an educational value. As the story unfolds, you can see that if the animation makes your children ask all sorts of questions that are relevant to the way they perceive the world around them as well as questions regarding their interactions with you or their friends etc. Also see if they are entertained through and through which demonstrates a production that is consistent with its goals whereas If your kids are amused the first 5 minutes then bored the next 45, that would be a rather negative sign. As for the quality of the rendering, it won't be a top criterion for the younger ones but such productions appear rather seldom as the industry tends to move towards a "family" type of entertainment. (especially in the USA).
Now for a more general type of reviewing, let us take the example of an average production whose target audiences are older children and grown-ups. This time we want to know that the story be of interest, that discrepancies as well as inconsistencies be avoided as best as can be, that the theme be appealing to us. Most of the time (if not always) there will be situations that are intended to be comical so that fact is no longer a criterion in itself and we should see whether the comedy ingredient is subtle and clever or instead, predictable and already seen a million times before (e.g. a character slipping on something or crashing on a wall or receiving a pie on his face which will only be funny to young children). Another important aspect defining a good story is the sense of achievement of the main character's purpose and the movie's ability to convey that sense to the audience. In other words, do we have the feeling at the end that the "good" guys went through fairly hard times to finally overcome the "bad" ones and subsequently earn their sense of achievement and our respect ? Of course this won't be as relevant when a story's main theme is that of comedy and comical situations alone.
The other paramount aspect defining a good CG Animation is the rendering and all that is implied by that. This criterion, though technical, cannot be ignored because it is what differentiates CG productions from traditional animations or movies, it is the very reason of our awe when we caught our first glimpse of these CG Flicks. These technical aspects are important because they tell us a lot about the type of softwares used in the production, the knowledge the creators have of those softwares, their level of creativity and their mastery of colors, light and depth etc. Here is what should be considered when reviewing an animation:
FLUIDITY: A central aspect defining CGI, the smoother the animation the more pleasant it is to the eye. The worst CG Animation is more fluid than the best traditional hand-drawn production. Most CG Animations achieve a high level of fluidity but there are nonetheless differences in the control of movement of characters which will play a part in the overall review.
SURFACES AND TEXTURES: Another aspect that only CGI can achieve is the different types of texture, e.g. skin, hair, ground, tree bark etc. These tend to vary from realistic to extremely realistic and the higher the realism combined with high fluidity, the better the experience of watching it. By comparison, traditional animation realism vary from not realistic at all to slightly realistic.
COLOR AND LIGHT: This aspect though not the most important one is still to be taken into consideration, for it will define the way the animation is seen, where a strong dose of colors and a lower level of light grades will give an overall "cartoon-like" appearance. On the other hand, a broader grade of colors and lights associated with high fluidity and texture will yield ultra realistic characters and landscapes.
DEPTH: Probably the aspect that catches my eye the most and is the very reason of calling those animations "3D", the depth ratio is crucial to a sense of reality in any animation. This is something that is completely absent from traditional animation or at best, slightly suggested. In CGI, it varies from good to exceptionally good and with the ever evolving knowledge of creators, "exceptionally good" should become standard rather than occasional.
By now you should have a pretty good idea of what to expect or consider when you decide to go and see the latest animation on the big screen. You can always check http://www.cganima.com if you wish to see my reviews and, I don't know, compare them with your own experience. Remember that in the end, what really matters is that you and your kids have a good time watching 21st century entertainment. I certainly will.
About the Author
Richard is a long date CGI geek. He shares his deep knowledge of Computer Generated
Nowadays the amount of productions is growing with each passing year and so is the amount of dedicated studios and the first consequence is that our choice is broadening which is a good thing because it means that we can afford to be more picky, also all these new studios sprouting all over the world mean for us, a chance to witness a new cultural approach and a different perspective in the subsequent productions. Some pessimistic analysts have said that this bubble of growing CG Animation output will soon burst due to the fact that people are now used to this new technology. I disagree with that, of course the output cannot sustain growth forever and I think the time has come for it to stabilize. After all, traditional 2D animations have weathered all sorts of changes in society and this, for over 80 years. Only a technological evolution (or should I say revolution ?) has been able to finally make those 2D features more or less retire.
So here we are, witnessing a certain maturity in this industry as well as in ourselves. We are then ready to ask, what are the criteria to be taken into account to say that any given CG Animation is all about quality and not just a commercial product designed to attract audiences at the expenses of everything else ? Well, the first thing is to know what is the prime target intended by the makers, if it is young children then we should see whether there is an educational value. As the story unfolds, you can see that if the animation makes your children ask all sorts of questions that are relevant to the way they perceive the world around them as well as questions regarding their interactions with you or their friends etc. Also see if they are entertained through and through which demonstrates a production that is consistent with its goals whereas If your kids are amused the first 5 minutes then bored the next 45, that would be a rather negative sign. As for the quality of the rendering, it won't be a top criterion for the younger ones but such productions appear rather seldom as the industry tends to move towards a "family" type of entertainment. (especially in the USA).
Now for a more general type of reviewing, let us take the example of an average production whose target audiences are older children and grown-ups. This time we want to know that the story be of interest, that discrepancies as well as inconsistencies be avoided as best as can be, that the theme be appealing to us. Most of the time (if not always) there will be situations that are intended to be comical so that fact is no longer a criterion in itself and we should see whether the comedy ingredient is subtle and clever or instead, predictable and already seen a million times before (e.g. a character slipping on something or crashing on a wall or receiving a pie on his face which will only be funny to young children). Another important aspect defining a good story is the sense of achievement of the main character's purpose and the movie's ability to convey that sense to the audience. In other words, do we have the feeling at the end that the "good" guys went through fairly hard times to finally overcome the "bad" ones and subsequently earn their sense of achievement and our respect ? Of course this won't be as relevant when a story's main theme is that of comedy and comical situations alone.
The other paramount aspect defining a good CG Animation is the rendering and all that is implied by that. This criterion, though technical, cannot be ignored because it is what differentiates CG productions from traditional animations or movies, it is the very reason of our awe when we caught our first glimpse of these CG Flicks. These technical aspects are important because they tell us a lot about the type of softwares used in the production, the knowledge the creators have of those softwares, their level of creativity and their mastery of colors, light and depth etc. Here is what should be considered when reviewing an animation:
FLUIDITY: A central aspect defining CGI, the smoother the animation the more pleasant it is to the eye. The worst CG Animation is more fluid than the best traditional hand-drawn production. Most CG Animations achieve a high level of fluidity but there are nonetheless differences in the control of movement of characters which will play a part in the overall review.
SURFACES AND TEXTURES: Another aspect that only CGI can achieve is the different types of texture, e.g. skin, hair, ground, tree bark etc. These tend to vary from realistic to extremely realistic and the higher the realism combined with high fluidity, the better the experience of watching it. By comparison, traditional animation realism vary from not realistic at all to slightly realistic.
COLOR AND LIGHT: This aspect though not the most important one is still to be taken into consideration, for it will define the way the animation is seen, where a strong dose of colors and a lower level of light grades will give an overall "cartoon-like" appearance. On the other hand, a broader grade of colors and lights associated with high fluidity and texture will yield ultra realistic characters and landscapes.
DEPTH: Probably the aspect that catches my eye the most and is the very reason of calling those animations "3D", the depth ratio is crucial to a sense of reality in any animation. This is something that is completely absent from traditional animation or at best, slightly suggested. In CGI, it varies from good to exceptionally good and with the ever evolving knowledge of creators, "exceptionally good" should become standard rather than occasional.
By now you should have a pretty good idea of what to expect or consider when you decide to go and see the latest animation on the big screen. You can always check http://www.cganima.com if you wish to see my reviews and, I don't know, compare them with your own experience. Remember that in the end, what really matters is that you and your kids have a good time watching 21st century entertainment. I certainly will.
About the Author
Richard is a long date CGI geek. He shares his deep knowledge of Computer Generated
I can’t help but think that you’re looking at everything from a purely statistical viewpoint... meaning that the more stats and processing power taken to make something on the screen equals better CGI and animation, which is quite frankly far from the truth.
ReplyDeleteSophisticated CGI does not necessarily mean being able to render every blade of grass in a scene with the most technical shading, lighting, and focus that you can achieve. By contrast, simple backgrounds, scenes, and animation does not mean bad CGI either. Fine examples of this are the abysmal failure of “Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within” which had technical stats up the wazoo when it was released, versus something like “Ice Age” which has a relatively simple, stylistic, and ultimately cartoony CGI.
Bottom line is that you can have the best graphics and power in the world, but without a good story, it’s not going to fare well.