Home Theater Forum http://www.hometheaterforum.com Subject: Live Chat with PIXAR Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 Everyone, please give me your attention.... Thank You all for coming tonight. As you know, our guests tonight are Bill Kinder and Leo Hourvitz from PIXAR animation Bill is the Editorial Supervisor, and Leo is the Technical Director for Pixar Gentlemen, we are so very proud to have you as guests... Umm... Ron, I hate to interrupt but... Uh-oh, did I make a mistake? I'm *one of* the technical directors at Pixar... There are a bunch of us! Ahhh, okay. I stand corrected. Would either of you two gentlemen like to start with any comments? Go for it, Bill! Well, I'd just say I hope everyone here enjoys the DVD of A Bug's Life, which was created from the original digital source files at Pixar We're here to tell you about how we made it, and why it's interesting for home theater. The two main things that are interesting about the disc are its source (NOT a film-tape transfer) and the fact that the full frame (1.33:1 aspect) version is NOT a pan & scan, even though the theatrical release was 2.35:1. We can start anywhere - with questions, or we can just start blabbering. Actually... I promised Obi the opening question. After he is done, I will open the floor to questions. So... Let me ask Obi to make the opening remarks... I did get a chance to watch the new DVD of A Bug's Life yesterday and I want to congratulate everyone at Pixar for setting a new standard in DVD image quality. It is really a beautiful film and a beautiful disc. My first question relates to the framing of the images on the film. Since the recomposed version of the movie does have a small amount of additional image at the top and bottom of the frame, just what was the actual framing of the original animation graphics? Secondly, what do you gentleman consider the most as artistically appealing framing? I'll work on the first part of the question... I'll take part two I think you're asking, 'what part of the 1.33 frame was visible in the original 2.35 frame?' -- is that about right? It wasn't the same from shot to shot... For every shot that we reframed, Craig Good and the layout crew made an aesthetic judgement about what reframed camera position would look best. I know that some of the background is missing from the sides with a bit more on top and bottom. Just curious what the aspect ratio is of the souce material Oh, Okay... The shots were first composed to the 2.35 frame (obviously, since that's what the movie was!). But, one of the great tricks of working in the virtual set of CG is that the set is modeled as though it were a physical reality; that is, the set isn't restricted to just where the camera looks. So, when we opened up the camera top and bottom to show more, there was something there to show. That for the sets (i.e., the ant colony and world). The animation of the characters was done in the 2.35 composition, so it started out set up for that. In shots that we reworked extensively for the 1.33 version, we did go back and rework the animation a few times so that it worked well in the 1.33 composition. So, the shots were originally composed at 2.35, and the original aniamation was done in that ratio, but because it's a fully modeled CG environment, there was always something out there to look at... Did that answer the question? "Artistically Appealing" depends completely on the presentation format. In movie theaters, where the screen is (should be) 30 feet wide, the decision was carefully made to frame the images in CinemScope (2.35:1. But at home, where millions more people will see our images, the screen is much smaller - and almost square (1.33:1). So our approach is much better for that venue than the standard film to tape process, because we were able to compose the images for that presentation format. And the Director's feelings about the 1.33 version? Bill, are you taking this one? They supervised it. In many ways, for home video, the 1.33:1 version is more appealing because it uses all the available lines of resolution. When John Lasseter (the Director) was reviewing the 1.33 version, all the time he'd go, 'Wow!' This shot looks better in 1.33!' ...because of course, some shots really lent themselves better to either the 2.35 or the 1.33 aspect ratio. Thanks guys. It's a great disc and a fun movie. I look forward to not only future projects, but hopefully a DVD of Toy Story before too long. Okay, David is up first... Why was it chosen to do a reframing for the 4:3 version of the film? All of us here agree that P&S is the devil's work :-) ,but would the general public appriciate all the extra work? They will. Here's why. The "general public" may not appreciate everything that goes into the composition of each shot, but they wind up being entertained by the effect that good filmmakers can create through the use of great composition. And so it will be with the 4:3 vversion of A Bug's Life. Totally! Although people may not always know why a P&S version looks wierd, the movie will be more compelling when there aren't halves of a conversation or unidentifiable object peeking into screen. (and of course, we would have had a lot of those P&Sing a 2.35 movie!) Very good points. Thank you very much. Likewise, they may not notice the dirt and negative defects on a film-tape transfer. But when they see A Bug's Life without those problems, they'll feell like they have cleaned their glasses. Peter Rohlfs has the next question... Thanks for coming. Could Toy Story be transferred to DVD in the same way? How about the reframing (I've read that the disatisfaction with P&S Toy Story inspired the reframing)? I can answer. Technically, it could be done. Whether it will be is a much bigger decision than I can make - economics will largely decide. Obi? Speaking of Toy Story, has Buena Vista made any moves to put that into production for DVD, and also, I would like to see some of Pixar's shorts on DVD. Me too. I know of no plans yet, which does not mean there aren't any. Sorry :-) That's a shame - you guys need to push! :) Up next is David Can we expect a DVD compilation of Pixar shorts? I know of no plans yet, which does not mean there aren't any. Sorry :-)Same answer as above. okay, Scotth is up... how much extra processing would have been required to produce this anamorphic since all the info was already in the digital domain? The anamorphic decision was not based on processing... okay, what was it based on? The reframed version (1.33:1) transcends the 16x9 issue because... it is a version of the film directed by John Lasseter which uses ALL the available lines of resolution in NTSC (or PAL, if you're so inclined) and does not require anyone to have a newer monitor. The DVD will also have the flat, letterboxed version, as it was theatrically released, but there are some good reasons why this was left flat (not anamorphic), too -- 1.) DVD players have a "letterbox filter" in them. Some of these filters do a poorer job than others, and it would be a shame to have the digital mastering process compromised by a cheap chip in a DVD player. Also, 2.) it would be less elegant for the viewer to navigate between the two versions on the dual layer disc because you would have to change the setting on your DVD player to do the anamorph (or not) depending on which version you were watching - a whole navigation/menu tree which you don't have to navigate on our disc. That being said, I appreciate the value of 16x9 for those who are equipped to handle it properly - and there is nothing technically stopping us from delivering a 16x9 version later. In fact, underlying our direct digital mastering process is the news that we are completely UNtethered from any particular format -- or even aspect ratio. And Pixar's digital art can be appreciated, uncompromised, by a larger viewing audience. Glad to hear,I hope to see anamorphic material from you in the future. Thankyou for your time. Mike Knapp is next... Why the violet ants? I like them. Was it done for contrast purposes between them and the plants? leo? Hi! That was Tia Kratter's call -- she was one of the Art Directors on Bugs. I don't have the full list of reasons she gave for it, but that's one of them, and also the black option would have made it very hard for anything to show up -- black They work much better than a natural ant color....very nice choice surfaces are really hard to make visible in CG. Cool question. Next up is OBI... My question is a bit more general in nature.... Where do you feel CGI will fit into animated features in the future? Is there a future for hand-drawn animation? I'll go Obviously, we'll keep seeing more and more CG, both in terms of full-length features and in terms of CG and live action. But personally, I don't think that we'll ever leave the aesthetic of the traditional animated character behind completely. It's just different from the feeling you get with 3D CG, and I think will always have it's place. Of course, right now 3D CG is the growing field, so it'll probably get a lot of attention the next few years... And, as we've seen, there'll be a lot of CG integrated into features based on traditional cel animation... So really, it's not CG, it's about whether the 3D aesthetic or the cel aesthetic dominates in a particular film -- the computers will be helping make pretty much all of 'em... Next up is PaulHillenbrand... Who is the person or what is the name of the comittee that gave the go ahead for the 4:3 non P&S version? Well, John Lasseter had a lot to do with it. He didn't want to see his film panned and scanned. Obi, you may follow up... Can you duplicate the "look" of a film like, say, "Little Mermaid" with a computer, and would you want to? leo? Um...I think you could probably duplicate the look of a frame if you really wanted to, but getting some kind of vector-oriented computer system to duplicate what an skilled animator with a pencil can do is hard. There are systems that do a pretty good job producing cel animation from vector outlines, but I'm not 100% convinced that they can duplicate with the very best animators can do on a feature film project... Kenn is up... Can each of you tell us what brought you into this field.... and since we all love movies, can you tell us your favorite of all time I first encountered computer graphics at an Apple II lab at the University of Michigan and was instantly hooked because in computer graphics, when your program is working you get an attractive picture and when it's not you (usually) don't. Since then I've been lucky enough to find a bunch of places to learn more about graphics, design, and film... And my fave film is Blade Runner. I made my first splice when I was twelve - scotch tape, scissors, and super-8. Had to hide the fact that the person hit by a car in the shot was a dummy. My sister drove the car. That was a long time ago. Since then, I've done everything I could to tell stories on film, and to be around people who are great at it. Before Pixar I worked at American Zoetrope (Francis Coppola's place). Before that, I did some video editing and documentary filmmaking. My favorite film..... Let's say, "The Shining" tonight, in honor of Stanley. Very nice choices Next up...DavidEly... With the anticipated arrival of Star Wars Ep. 1 and it's cutting edge realistic CGI work, do you believe that animated films such as BUGS will take on a more realistic form or will we still see the 'cartoonish' type characters for years to come? I can go Go! The exaggerations and the character designs that we did on Bugs -- and even on Toy Story -- are 'unrealistic' mostly because we chose to make them that way. Although we tried to make the world the insects of Bugs live in realistic (by and large), it's already the case that the departures from realism are storytelling and character choices... so, I think no, animated films won't particularly move in a more realistic direction overall. There'll probably be some more realistic ones, and some less; it's about the director's and crew's vision, and in a lot of cases the best way to tell the story will continue to not be realism..." I'd add, Pixar is not about realism. But it's also quite a departure from 'cartoons.' I think Pixar tries to make believable worlds that are quite fantastic and imaginative. Very nice Next up is Trenton... I am a 'budding' 3D modeler/animator, and have used various graphics packages to dabble. I realize that PIXAR uses mostly in-house tools, but what software package would you recommend I concentrate on to 'get my feet wet' and to create a demo reel? -and- I am also a beginner in DV editing, same question. What types of skills are the best to develop, and where would be my best resources? There's a stock Pixar answer for this ... It doesn't matter! Animate with what you have, paper is fine. I'd like 'stock' AND personal opinion! :) A lot of our animators had never used computers before they came to Pixar, but they knew animation -- timing, character definition, expressions and emotion, and story, story, story. Those are the things we look for in an animation reel, no matter whether the medium of the reel is cel animation, CG, stop motion, or oil on glass.... Seriously, it's about the basic skills that animators use to give life to characters and tell stories... I don't have a favorite I agree. Concern yourself less with the particular tools, and more with what you want to say with them. Got some scotch tape? Make a cut! Seriously, DV is a great tool - shoot like crazy, and edit even crazier. Good luck. software package; the mainstream ones are all pretty capable.. Excellent. Thank you. I'll ask a question... This is really Disney's first animation release to DVD... Can we expect Disney to be commiting to their classic animation? (to be released on DVD) Personally, as a fan, I hope so. Honestly, though I have no idea whether or when. Ditto. I'd love to see 'em. Mr. Violet Ant, Mike Knapp... How long before we see a sampled actor cmpletely done in CGI for a feature Well... Maybe not too long. But I don't really think it's a good idea. If you want a real person, get a good actor and use a camera; the human face is capable of such incredible expression that in animation we work really hard to capture just the essence of it. But, as you say, someone will probably do it soon... the technology's there (e.g., the Virtual Andre commercials...) Wasn't "Max Headroom" circa 1986? Oh, but that wasn't a feature, that was TV. Then Costner could just liscense his CGI files and sit at home hahaha Next up is Kenn... can you give us some little table scrap of info on what we can expect to see from you guys in the future? Toy Story 2!!!!! What he said->! This holiday season. It's going to be awesome, I promise! Alas, I have to go, everyone... it's been fun! Leo, Thank You so much! thanks Leo Thank you Leo. It's been fun! yes...thanks sooo much You bet! And one last shout for Obi... So glad to see another "Streets of Fire" fan! See you everyone! Thank you very much Leo. Next up is Trenton... Dumb question here...can we expect the voice talent of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks revisited in Toy Story 2, and who else might me have the opportunity to hear? Bill, can you take Trenton's question? To answer Trenton - yes Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. And other, new voices -- you'll be happily surprised! We have kept these guys here a long time We have any more questions? One more? Okay... Bill, thank you so much for your time here It's been a pleasure. I have a question - how many readers here have 16x9 viewing set ups? Answer by typing 16x9! Can I have a job? I draw real purty 16X9 16x9 16x9 x2 16X9 (if you count the computer monitor) I Squeeze my 4:3 projector There are quite a few in our forum Cool. I hope we see the installed base contiue to grow. Great talking to you all. Thank You Bill thank you Bill Thank You, members, for coming tonight yes thank you Thank you, and goodnight. See you on the forum! thank You Thank you. Good night. Thanx everyone! Thank you Bill, you are welcome to join the membership base of the forum as well. We would appreciate your insights on a regular basis! Yes, you and Leo should check in our forum Especially over the next week as people receive their DVDs As a Home Theater user, not as a provider! There will be lots of BUGS LIFE talk and reviews Will do, definitely. Thanks. Ahhh .... okay. I quite enjoyed this tonight, and I'll definately be here for the next chat! Session Close: Sun Apr 18 23:17:46 1999