August 15, 2005 4:00 AM PDT

'Shrek' producer's pigeon play

When Hollywood producer John Williams finished Dreamworks Animation's "Shrek" in 2001, he set himself a goal: He wanted to make another animated feature, but on his own, and for far less money.

This week, the product of that resolution will hit U.S. screens. It's a $40 million, Disney-distributed story called "Valiant" about a daring young World War II homing pigeon. Spending less than half of what its most prominent recent competitors spent on comparable projects, Williams' Vanguard Animation has successfully undermined the notion that you have to spend in the range of $100 million to produce a modern computer-animated film.

Does this make Vanguard the next Pixar? Reviews of the film in Britain, where it was released in March, indicate that the team hasn't quite matched the "Toy Story" studio's razor-sharp storytelling. But Vanguard's experience shows that there is still room in the big leagues for small companies armed with high-tech smarts.

Valiant

Pixar "has many years of experience on us, but we want to play on that field," said Buckley Collum, "Valiant" co-producer and Vanguard co-founder. "Our hope is to deliver films of the same quality that people are expecting, but at a price point that is much easier for investors."

Thanks in large part to technology trends such as fast-growing computer power, access to supercomputing facilities, and a rise in open-source and standards-based software, small animation studios are tackling projects that would have been out of reach just a few years ago.

Certainly, the animation business in the United States is still dominated by Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks, whose films account for the vast majority of the genre's ticket sales. A handful of others, such as "Ice Age" and "Robots" creators Blue Sky Studios, fill in the gaps.

Those companies' big-screen productions are expensive. Pixar's first picture, "Toy Story," cost $30 million to make in 1995. Last year's "The Incredibles" came in at $90 million, while Disney's 2002 "Treasure Planet," which was an unambiguous disaster despite some critics' accolades, cost a staggering $140 million.

Some of these costs are attributable to big-name salaries for voice-overs from actors ranging from Tom Hanks to Samuel Jackson. But it's the animation process, painstaking and hardware-intensive, that accounts for the bulk of costs.

Over months and years, artists and programmers separately create three-dimensional models of characters, textures for bodies, trees and other backgrounds, light and shadows, and other individual elements of their worlds. At the end of the process, all of these components and instructions must be "rendered"--essentially a processor-intensive task of combining all of the elements into a single frame of animation.

According to Pixar, each frame--24 of which flit past a viewer's eyes in a single second--takes about six hours to render using today's technology. Some individual frames have taken as much as 90 hours, the company says on its Web site.

funny money

This requires what ultimately amounts to one of animation studios' biggest expenses, both in time and hardware. Big companies like Pixar and Dreamworks have huge "render farms," with servers that amount to hundreds, and typically more than 1,000, individual processors for this task. Pixar has used blade server technology from RackSaver, while IBM xSeries servers are also common.

Now a myriad of technological advances are bringing these tasks down to the level of smaller companies.

The equivalent of computer workstations and software packages that used to cost $100,000 10 years ago now can be purchased for just a few thousand dollars, with high-end desktop machines running off-the-shelf software and the open-source Linux operating system. Exponential processing power growth has let artists do their work faster and add increasing levels of realism to their 3D worlds.

The massive rendering tasks can now be outsourced as well. A small company called RenderRocket, for example, has just launched a Web-based service through which animators can reserve time on and send their work to IBM's supercomputing facility in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., offloading the heaviest computer duties. IBM already has similar relationships directly with individual studios. Big Blue charges between 50 cents and 60 cents per CPU-hour (one processor used for one hour, in a facility where many machines have multiple processors) for this time-sharing.

None of this means that the animation business itself is getting easier, animators note.

That's because technology advances cut both ways. Computers do more, so animators have to do more. Audiences who have seen Pixar's best work, many of whom have logged hundreds of hours inside beautifully rendered video game worlds, are brutally critical of shortcuts.

"The audience is too smart for this to get any easier," said George Johnsen, chief technology officer of Threshold Digital Research Labs, a midsize animation studio with a feature film called "Food Fight" slated

CONTINUED:
Page 1 | 2

2 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Animation Success Stories
The best selling animation movies are those with the winning story. It's not just how good looking it is on screen; not just how cheaply it was done; and not just how much good (or bad) technology's used. The audience doesn't really mind these things. The output is still what matters.

But I agree that the trend should be to make production cheaper. If Vanguard has the cheapest production processes and services to create animation with competitive output quality then they have the potential to succeed. Business-wise, that matters.
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Good Story... Just a little late
Your story claims "Williams' Vanguard Animation has successfully undermined the notion that you have to spend in the range of $100 million to produce a modern computer-animated film."

I just wanted to point out that DNA Productions already did that with an Oscar nominated film called "Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius".
Posted by (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.