14 
Hand-drawn animation seamlessly merges with CGI in Disney’s new groundbreaking short, Paperman. It’s apparently a marvel of new technology, but all I really know is it’s absolutely stunning. It’ll melt your heart.
Well, unless you’re a cold-hearted stone golem or something. Still, it’s worth the six minutes of your time, either way. If you want to see it in the cinemas, apparently it’s playing before Wreck-It-Ralph when it opens on February 8th.
Thanks LeftOfNever!
Classic Disney Animations and Their Real Life Counterparts
Here's the First Clip From Pixar's Absolutely Adorable New Short
This Short Film Shows English Eccentricity and Engineering at Its Best
I absolutely love this short. John Lasseter style back in town.
Very cute indeed!
Nice short, but I fail to see the marvel of technology, 2D/3D has done the rounds.
Different story but it reminds me of an Australia short I watched a few years back called ‘Signs’, I’d say a major influence on this and much better (almost exactly the same end shot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_KXiVfXxxk
This shows the what the tech is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsoiEpuvTeQ
It’s not just that they have 2D and 3D put together. They actually draw in 2D on the actual 3D objects, which is then applied to the 3D shapes and the motion of and distortions of the 3D affect the 2D lines. The 2D shapes can even be key framed themselves over time and so can morph between the frames whilst still being in the correct location for the 3D object.
One example shows that the hair is modeled and animated in 3D, but the lines in the hair are all drawn over the top of the first keyframe in a sequence and then they are automatically applied to the hair as it moves and animates and changes shape.
What a lovely piece of animation/cgi.
Very cute, but als old.
wow, the magic paper absolutely ruined that. It was a lovely little story about human endeavour. I was expecting a little coincidence at the end, the usual luck of these things, but the paper pushing him around was just painful.
I felt that also, very forced concept that displaced the real magic of love with fake magic of children.
It was Disney. Classic, classic Disney.
Everyday items personified into whimsical characters. Simple as that. Don’t like that, don’t like Disney.
A strong point if it is a kids film, is it a kids film? We have enough magic in the world without spoiling things with aimless mumbo-jumbo.
I think just like most Disney films, it is to be enjoyed by everyone.
Or… Something for the whole family.
Yet the cheap magic trick spoilt it for 2 out of 6 commentators on here so far – so that’s a fail, something for 1/3 of the family.
Thing is, I completely understand what you’re talking about. When the paper planes came to life I was shocked and a bit like… “Well, that’s cheating… and a bit lazy”.
But then I remembered to let go of that and just be a kid again, enjoy the imagination and fun. The paper plane characters add a different flavour to the story. Definitely something we weren’t expecting, which isn’t a bad thing in any story.
A fair point.
It’s a beautiful short animation. I don’t think the magic realism aspect of the story feels out of place at all. It’s an animated world so more or less anything can happen – like an old man tying balloons to his house and floating away or toys that speak. Maybe I’m less cynical.
The technology involved is a new model of production and way of using 3D. Simply stating that 3D is passe doesn’t understand what’s going on here.
I have a degree in animation, I know what is going on – most animation software will combine 2D and 3D, and have done for years – anyone could make a similar piece from off the shelf software.
I love ‘Up’, but that isn’t magic, it is physically impossible to lift a house with that many balloons, but it is founded in real substance and his job in the story, which is a million miles from self aware paper. And talking toys is a common childhood fantasy, self aware paper isn’t an adult fantasy that is too common.
“It’s an animated world so more or less anything can happen”
And there lies the difference between good animation and bad animation, anything can happen but should it happen?
A degree in animation. Impressive. I’m guessing the hacks at Disney don’t have much experience in that field.
I think you said:
“The technology involved is a new model of production and way of using 3D. Simply stating that 3D is passe doesn’t understand what’s going on here.”
To which I said:
“I have a degree in animation, I know what is going on”
I think you missed the point, I ain’t saying I know better than Disney, I’m stating that just because they haven’t done much of this before does not make it ground breaking.
But I am saying I know more about animation that a layperson, who isn’t professional qualified in the subject.
Have you studied art? Taken life drawing lessons? These are much more useful than knowing how to operate Nuke or some off the shelf 3D program. Having a degree in 3D animation impresses no one.
Disney wrote their own additional software to do this so they must have found something that wasn’t featured in off the shelf software else why would they do that? It’s the sort of thing VFX houses do all the time.
But then, I’m commenting more about the story, which works. Of course more or less anything can happen. It’s animation. That’s the whole point of being in that world. You can make that sort of thing happen, even self aware paper planes.
P.S. Like you, I’m not a layperson either.
Its true. Just today I had to write a script just to render a cube.
Its a very nice art style, for sure. But I can sort of see where Mark is coming from.
Some nice shaders, and compositing. But its mainly the direction and character animation which makes the piece. Which is what Disney have been doing their entire lives.
“It is physically impossible to lift a house with that many balloons”
That’s not strictly true. National Geographic (and others) have conducted experiments to prove that it can actually be done.
http://www.slashfilm.com/video-recreating-ups-flying-house-real-life/
Well I never, turns out Blackberry didn’t need a Z10. They just needed a paper aeroplane.