How did they “film” Shrek? Computer simulated, and/or computer assisted animation, no doubt, but why do the characters look so life-like? Someone had to draw something…the computer may help with the motions (i.e.: rotation and translation of a figure) but how did they do it?
Why does it look more realistic than, say, the Barbie animated characters (which I’ve been watching with my toddler). Computer simulated as well, the Barbie animation gives me the mental image of balloon-like figures and the motion seems less life-like, for some reason.
On the DVD they showed the creation. What you see is a skeleton draped with muscles draped with skin draped with clothes. Because there actually is muscle being rendered under the skin it looks more lifelike and realistic.
Yes s/he is. It’s the way most of the high-end CGI is done I believe. You’re not just seeing the ‘surface’ area (like a cartoon), but the whole creature, from skeleton on up like silentgoldfish said. In other words, the skin animation is caused by the muscles animation (which will follow the bone movements), at least I think it’s that way. In Barbie, all that’s done is the skin.
My friend Mike* is one of the lead animators for the Barbie videos. He has spent the past 18 months griping about not being given enough time to do anything.
The reason he doesn’t have time is because the company that wants the movies isn’t willing to spend the money on it.
But the people he works with are good artists when given the time. See Reboot if you doubt this.
I didn’t say they were bad artists, just that they folks who did Shrek are better. Which seems self-evident to me, as they’re the ones who got the high-paying gig doing original feature length movies, while your friend is stuck doing Barbie cartoons.
I don’t even think it’s that. My guess is it’s the time/money aspect that does the most. Given a budget and a deadline like Shrek, I think the increase in quality would be quite high. In this case, artistic skill may not be what divides them.