A new approach for the communication and production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation

Steven Murdoch

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2020

Swinburne University of Technology P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Vic, 3122. Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Current methods of communicating knowledge specific to the production of three- dimensional computer assisted character animation are limited. While the quality and complexity of character animation has increased over recent decades, there has been little advancement in the ways of making deep artistic and technical production knowledge explicit and sharable to aspiring character animators.

In this research Agent-Oriented Software Engineering was applied as a theoretical framework to discuss the components of the animation environment as notions of agency and requirements. The graphical modelling method Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling was then leveraged to design a conceptual goal model of an explicit, simple language system design for the production of three-dimensional computer animation. This Mk I (mark one) Goal Model was applied within an animation project that pursued the collaborative production of three short undergraduate student films. Through the analysis of quantitative and qualitative project data, the Mk I Goal Model was found to communicate production practice and process. At this time areas for improvement were identified concerning the goal model’s granularity, the communication of different types of quality, and the evaluation of requirement achievement. Based on this data, a second simplified conceptual Mk II (mark two) Goal Model was designed that explicitly incorporated Primary and Emotional system requirements. This Mk II Goal Model was then evaluated across a series of short, independent undergraduate student character animation projects. Through the quantitative analysis of data regarding the perceived achievement of the goal model’s requirements, insights were gained around how the simplified system design and its Primary and Emotional requirements were able to communicate production concepts, draw attention to significant system requirements, and define the emotional state of an animated character.

The results of this research present Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling as a way forward in the simplification and explicit communication of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation production practice and process. This thesis provides a substantial theoretical and practical contribution to the field of animation production, and extends the application of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to a new domain. The thesis does this through the demonstration of a novel framework to communicate the complex production knowledge and practices associated with orthodox, three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

iii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my primary supervisors, Associate Professor Sonja Pedell and Professor Emeritus Leon Sterling, and associate supervisors Associate Professor James Verdon, Professor Anita Kocsis and Mr Peter Francis for their continued support. I would also like to thank staff from Swinburne University of Technology, including Mr James Marshall, Mr Bill Trikojus, Dr Anne Prince and Associate Professor Deirdre Barron for their advice and support. Thank you to Dr Margaret Zeegers, for copy editing this thesis. I would also like to thank all study participants for their time and generosity.

A very special thank you to my wife Gillian, children Amelia and Eliza, and extended family and friends for their care, understanding, and patience throughout this process.

iv

Student Declaration

This thesis:

 Contains no material that has been accepted for the award to the candidate of any other degree or diploma, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.

 To the best of the candidate’s knowledge contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.

 Where the work is based on joint research or publications, discloses the relative contributions of the respective workers or authors.

 Copy editing of this thesis was undertaken by Dr Margaret Zeegers, in accordance with the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.

Steven Murdoch

v

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Problem statement ...... 1 1.2 Aim and scope ...... 1 1.3 Overview of the thesis structure ...... 3

Chapter 2: Animation – a complex and multi-domain discipline ...... 6

2.1 Towards a definition of animation ...... 6 2.1.1 Perspectives on animation ...... 6 2.1.2 Animation styles ...... 8 2.1.3 Animation methods ...... 11 2.1.4 Computer animation ...... 13 2.1.5 A definition of animation ...... 16 2.2 Animation processes and pipelines ...... 17 2.2.1 The overarching production process ...... 17 2.2.2 The character animation production process ...... 26 2.3 The character animator ...... 36 2.3.1 The role and expectations ...... 36 2.3.2 Artistic knowledge and expertise ...... 43 2.3.3 Technical knowledge and expertise ...... 55 2.4 Evaluating animation ...... 63 2.5 Communication challenges ...... 69

Chapter 3: Agent-oriented goal modelling - a non-technical method for communicating multiagent systems ...... 73

3.1 Animation systems and environments ...... 73 3.2 Agent-oriented software engineering ...... 74 3.2.1 A theoretical framework ...... 74 3.2.2 The multi-layered conceptual space ...... 81 3.3 Agent-oriented goal modelling: an overview ...... 85 3.4 The next step: agent-oriented goal modelling of animation ...... 88

Chapter 4: Developing a production system design and model ...... 90

vi

4.1 Research question ...... 90 4.2 An agent-oriented goal model of the digital animation process ...... 90 4.2.1 Identifying key activities and requirements ...... 91 4.2.2 Designing a functional model of the digital animation system ...... 94 4.2.3 Identifying agent types and agents ...... 99 4.2.4 Developing and setting behaviours ...... 105 4.3 An agent-oriented goal model for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation (the Mk I production model) ...... 109 4.3.1 Identifying functions and expectations of quality in practice ...... 110 4.3.2 Kenny Roy’s animation workflow ...... 111 4.3.3 Eric Luhta’s animation workflows ...... 112 4.3.4 John Lasseter’s principles of animation ...... 113 4.3.5 Functional system requirements ...... 113 4.3.6 Non-functional ‘quality’ system requirements ...... 121 4.3.7 The Mk I production model ...... 127 4.4 Summary ...... 136

Chapter 5: Evaluating the Mk I production system design and model ...... 138

5.1 Introduction and aims ...... 138 5.2 Project setup, development and pre-production ...... 139 5.2.1 Introduction to the Gunter’s fables project ...... 139 5.2.2 Project and requirement timeframes ...... 140 5.2.3 Developing production concepts and resources ...... 142 5.2.4 Pre-producing assets for production ...... 147 5.3 An investigation into the Mk I production model’s repeatable design and production suitability...... 148 5.3.1 Incorporating the Mk I production model into the digital production systems ...... 148 5.3.2 The production team ...... 150 5.3.3 Distributing and assigning shots to animators ...... 151 5.3.4 Study guidelines and expectations ...... 152 5.3.5 Tracking progress and achievement ...... 154 5.3.5.1 The Zebra Aircon ...... 157 5.3.5.2 The Strongest Tree ...... 159 5.3.5.3 The King of Hearts ...... 162 5.3.6 Findings ...... 164 5.4 An investigation into system requirement language ...... 169

vii

5.4.1 Language choices within the Mk I production model ...... 169 5.4.2 Data collection ...... 169 5.4.3 Data analysis ...... 171 5.4.4 Analysis of requirement language ...... 176 5.4.4.1 Plan animation model ...... 177 5.4.4.2 Layout animation model ...... 179 5.4.4.3 Block foundation animation model ...... 181 5.4.4.4 Enhance foundation animation model ...... 183 5.4.4.5 Detail animation model ...... 185 5.4.4.6 Polish animation model ...... 187 5.4.5 Summary of findings ...... 189 5.5 Summary ...... 191

Chapter 6: Refining the production system design and model ...... 193

6.1 Introduction and aims ...... 193 6.2 Emerging modelling concepts ...... 193 6.2.1 The primary goal and the emotional goal ...... 193 6.2.2 Positioning the emotional goal as a system requirement ...... 195 6.2.3 Positioning the primary goal as a modelling concept ...... 200 6.3 Implementing primary and emotional modelling concepts...... 201 6.3.1 Guidelines for requirement implementation ...... 201 6.3.2 Revising the production model ...... 202 6.3.3 Revising the plan animation model ...... 205 6.3.4 Revising the convey core concepts model (previously layout animation and block foundation animation models) ...... 208 6.3.5 Revising the convey animation and acting model (previously enhance foundation animation) ...... 211 6.3.6 Revising the detail animation model ...... 214 6.3.7 Revising the polish animation model ...... 216 6.3.8 Primary requirements in the production model ...... 218 6.3.9 The Mk II production model ...... 220 6.3.10 Revising the evaluation process ...... 227 6.4 Impact on system design and evaluation ...... 231 6.5 Summary ...... 233

viii

Chapter 7: Evaluating the Mk II production system design and model ...... 234

7.1 Introduction and aims ...... 234 7.2 Project design and setup ...... 235 7.2.1 The animation project ...... 235 7.2.2 Participants ...... 236 7.2.3 Duration and time allocation ...... 237 7.2.4 Project briefing, guidelines and expectations ...... 237 7.2.5 Production and requirement evaluation ...... 239 7.3 Data collection and analysis ...... 240 7.3.1 Evaluation data ...... 240 7.3.2 Perceptions of requirement types ...... 242 7.3.3 Plan animation ...... 243 7.3.4 Convey core concepts ...... 243 7.3.4 Convey animation and acting ...... 244 7.3.5 Detail animation ...... 245 7.3.6 Polish animation ...... 246 7.4 Summary ...... 247

Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusions ...... 250

8.1 Summary of findings ...... 250 8.2 Discussion of findings ...... 252 8.2.1 Concepts ...... 252 8.2.2 System design ...... 254 8.2.3 Evaluation ...... 255 8.3 Contributions to theory and practice ...... 258 8.3.1 Contributions to animation ...... 258 8.3.2 Contributions to agent-oriented software engineering and goal modelling ...... 259 8.4 Considerations for future research ...... 260 8.5 Future research directions ...... 263 8.5.1 Expansion of the digital animation system ...... 263 8.5.2 Application to other styles and methods ...... 263 8.5.3 Modelling of character emotion ...... 263 8.5.4 Quality driven system modelling ...... 264 8.5.5 Evaluation practice and process ...... 264 8.6 Concluding comments ...... 264

ix

References ...... 266

Publications ...... 279

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles ...... 279 Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings ...... 279 Conference Presentations ...... 279

Appendices ...... 280

A4.1 Pixar’s sub-activities mapped to their digital animation process ...... 281 A4.2 Functional requirements elicited from Pixar’s digital animation process ...... 282 A4.3 High-level stages of Pixar’s process as high-level functional requirements ...... 284 A4.4 Positions in 3D computer animation mapped to agent teams ...... 284 A4.5 Other position in 3D computer animation mapped to agent teams ...... 287 A4.6 Agent types within the development team ...... 288 A4.7 Agent types within the pre-production team ...... 289 A4.8 Agent types within the production team ...... 289 A4.9 Agent types within the post-production team...... 290 A4.10 Agent types within the pipeline team ...... 291 A4.11 Agent types within the editorial team ...... 291 A4.12 Agent types within the leadership team ...... 291 A4.13 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: planning ...... 292 A4.14 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: layout ...... 293 A4.15 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: blocking ...... 294 A4.16 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: blocking plus ...... 295 A4.17 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: polish ...... 296 A4.18 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow: blocking ...... 297 A4.19 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow: polishing ...... 299 A4.20 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow: facial animation ...... 300 A4.21 Functions and expectations of Lasseter’s principles of animation...... 302 A4.22 Roy’s workflow functions mapped to high-level requirements ...... 305 A4.23 Luhta’s workflow functions mapped to high-level requirements ...... 306 A4.24 Luhta’s facial animation functions mapped to high-level requirements ...... 307 A4.25 Lasseter’s principles of animation mapped to high-level requirements ...... 307 A4.26 Plan Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 308 A4.27 Layout Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 309 A4.28 Block Foundation Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 309

x

A4.29 Enhance Foundation Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 310 A4.30 Detail Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 311 A4.31 Polish Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements ...... 312 A4.32 Plan Anim: Expectation of quality mapped to requirements ...... 313 A4.33 Layout Anim: Expectation of quality mapped to requirements ...... 315 A4.34 Block Foundation Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements ...... 316 A4.35 Enhance Foundation Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements ...... 318 A4.36 Detail Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements ...... 320 A4.37 Polish Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements ...... 323 A5.1 Briefing letter to the production team (Mk I Production Model) ...... 324 A5.2 Leadership Team: assessment scores ...... 325 A5.3 Plan Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 326 A5.4 Layout Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 331 A5.5 Block Foundation Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 335 A5.6 Enhance Foundation Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 340 A5.7 Detail Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 345 A5.8 Polish Animation: data compile and analysis ...... 350 A7.1 Briefing letter to the production team (Mk II Production Model) ...... 354 A8.1 Human Research Ethics – Ethics Approval ...... 356 A8.2 Human Research Ethics – Acknowledgment of Final Report ...... 358

xi

List of Illustrations

Figure 1.1: Thesis structure ...... 5 Figure 2.1: Styles of animation and their properties...... 10 Figure 2.2: The inter-departmental workflow map of the PDI/DreamWorks pipeline ...... 21 Figure 2.3: A basic but typical three-stage pipeline model ...... 22 Figure 2.4: A comprehensive version of the CG Pipeline ...... 23 Figure 2.5: A departmental view of Pixar’s pipeline ...... 25 Figure 2.6: Williams’ application of his five-step production process ...... 27 Figure 2.7: Williams' five-step animation production process model ...... 28 Figure 2.8: An example of 'thumbnail sketching' used to explore key character poses ...... 31 Figure 2.9: A sticky note model of animation qualities ...... 35 Figure 2.10: The animation principle squash and stretch applied to Pluto ...... 45 Figure 2.11: The animation principle squash and stretch applied to Luxo Jr...... 45 Figure 2.12: The animation principle of anticipation ...... 46 Figure 2.13: The animation principle slow-in and slow-out ...... 47 Figure 2.14: Stanchfield's twenty-eight principles of animation ...... 48 Figure 2.15: The interplay of body language, animation principles and process ...... 53 Figure 2.16: The basic key framing process applied to the attributes of a cube ...... 59 Figure 2.17: Interpolations of a simple object’s transform, graphed as time and value ...... 60 Figure 2.18: Animation curves / splines as they appear within a graph editor ...... 61 Figure 2.19: Peer feedback using on-screen annotations / draw overs ...... 65 Figure 2.20: A generic production tracking chart, noting the one column for animation ...... 67 Figure 2.21: Sweatbox activities highlighted within a two-dimensional animation pipeline .... 68 Figure 3.1: The relative coverage of prominent AOSE methodologies across the phases of software development ...... 76 Figure 3.2: Agents and requirements as perceived within the conceptual space ...... 83 Figure 3.3: The key Goal Modelling concepts and their relationship signifiers ...... 86 Figure 3.4: A goal model for a system of humans and Tamagotchis ...... 88 Figure 4.1: A functional model of the digital animation process ...... 97 Figure 4.2: An Agent-Model for the Digital Animation System ...... 104 Figure 4.3: A high-level Agent-Oriented Goal Model of the Digital Production System ...... 108 Figure 4.4: A functional model of the high-level production system ...... 116 Figure 4.5: The Mk I Production Model’s relationship to Digital Animation System ...... 129 Figure 4.6: The Mk I Production Model’s Plan Animation Goal Model ...... 130 Figure 4.7: The Mk I Production Model’s Layout Animation Goal Model ...... 131 Figure 4.8: The Mk I Production Model’s Block Foundation Animation Goal Model ...... 132 Figure 4.9: The Mk I Production Model’s Enhance Foundation Animation Goal Model ...... 133 Figure 4.10: The Mk I Production Model’s Detail Animation Goal Model ...... 134 Figure 4.11: The Mk I Production Model’s Polish Animation Goal Model ...... 135 Figure 5.1: The Gunter’s Fables overall animation project Gantt chart ...... 141 Figure 5.2: The Gunter's Fables logo for the animated films ...... 143 Figure 5.3: Conceptual artwork from The Zebra Aircon ...... 143 Figure 5.4: Conceptual designs / maquettes of key characters ...... 144 Figure 5.5: Storyboard panels from The Zebra Aircon ...... 145

xii

Figure 5.6: Look and style development panels from The Zebra Aircon ...... 146 Figure 5.7: Animatic vs. Previsualisation frames ...... 147 Figure 5.8: The Digital Animation System with duplications of the Mk I Production Model .. 149 Figure 5.9: The high-level Production Model, featuring the six milestone requirements ...... 150 Figure 5.10: The colour achievement scales ...... 154 Figure 5.11: A sample of milestone achievements within the project’s Goal Model ...... 156 Figure 5.12: A final, post-production frame from The Zebra Aircon ...... 157 Figure 5.13: The final Production Model for The Zebra Aircon ...... 157 Figure 5.14: A final, post-production frame from The Strongest Tree ...... 159 Figure 5.15: The final Production Model for The Strongest Tree ...... 160 Figure 5.16: A final, post-production frame from The King of Hearts ...... 162 Figure 5.17: The final Production Model for The King of Hearts ...... 162 Figure 6.1: The Emotional Requirement placed within the conceptual space ...... 197 Figure 6.3: The core modelling concepts, in primary and normal status ...... 200 Figure 6.4: The top-level model of the Mk II Production system design ...... 205 Figure 6.5: The expandable Well Animated requirement model ...... 213 Figure 6.6: The revised top-level Production Model ...... 219 Figure 6.7: The top-level Mk II Production Model ...... 221 Figure 6.8: The Mk II Production Model’s Plan Animation milestone model ...... 222 Figure 6.9: The Mk II Production Model’s Convey Core Concepts milestone model ...... 223 Figure 6.10: The Mk II Production Model’s Convey Animation & Acting milestone model ... 224 Figure 6.11: The Mk II Production Model’s Detail Animation milestone model ...... 225 Figure 6.12: The Mk II Production Model’s Polish Animation milestone model ...... 226 Figure 6.13: The Mk II Production Model’s Well Animated requirement model ...... 226 Figure 6.14: Application of the Mk I Production Model’s colour achievement scale ...... 227 Figure 6.15: The Mk II colour achievement scale ...... 228 Figure 6.16: The standalone evaluation model template ...... 229 Figure 6.17: An example of the Evaluation Model in use ...... 230

xiii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: The four stages of The Pixar Process and its high-level intentions ...... 92 Table 4.2: The fourteen sub-activities extracted from The Pixar Process ...... 92 Table 4.3: Pixar’s fourteen sub-activities mapped to their four high-level activities ...... 93 Table 4.4: Functional System Requirements derived from The Pixar Process ...... 96 Table 4.5: Agent Teams associated with the Digital Animation System ...... 102 Table 4.6: Behaviour Model for Agent Teams within the Digital Animation System ...... 107 Table 4.7: High-level workflow stages as high-level Functional System Requirements ...... 115 Table 4.8: All Functional System Requirements within the production system ...... 120 Table 4.9: Plan Animation - System Requirements ...... 123 Table 4.10: Layout Animation - System Requirements ...... 124 Table 4.11: Block Foundation Animation - System Requirements ...... 124 Table 4.12: Enhance Foundation Animation - System Requirements ...... 125 Table 4.13: Detail Animation - System Requirements ...... 127 Table 4.14: Polish Animation - System Requirements ...... 127 Table 5.1: Animator rankings based on portfolio assessment ...... 151 Table 5.2: Animator shot assignments and shot difficulty ...... 152 Table 5.3: Achievement scores for The Zebra Aircon's shots and their milestones...... 158 Table 5.4: Achievement scores for The Strongest Tree’s shots and their milestones ...... 160 Table 5.5: Achievement scores for The King of Hearts’ shots and their milestones ...... 163 Table 5.6: Average milestone achievement scores for the three production films ...... 165 Table 5.7: Results to Questions One to Three for the Mk I Production Model ...... 177 Table 6.1: Comparison of System Requirements – Plan Animation ...... 207 Table 6.2: Comparison of System Requirements – Convey Core Concepts ...... 211 Table 6.3: Comparison of System Requirements – Convey Animation and Acting ...... 214 Table 6.4: Comparison of System Requirements – Detail Animation ...... 216 Table 6.5: Comparison of System Requirements – Polish Animation ...... 218 Table 6.6: Comparison of System Requirements – Mk I and Mk II system designs ...... 232 Table 7.1: Requirement achievement scores from Animators and the Director ...... 241 Table 7.2: Analysis of requirement achievement scores ...... 242

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

Character animators working within a three-dimensional computer animation environment bring the contrasting domains of art and technology together, to give life to on- screen digital characters. Current methods and literature for communicating their deep artistic and procedural production knowledge are limited, lack depth, and are typically skewed towards an artistic or technical perspective. Since the development and dissemination of orthodox computer animation processes throughout the 1970s and 80s, the quality and complexity of character animation has increased from the deformation of simple geometric objects in Pixar’s Tin Toy (Lasseter, 1988), to the realistic performances of characters in Lightstorm Entertainment’s Avatar (Cameron, 2009) and Disney’s Frozen (Buck & Lee, 2013). Despite the increasing complexity and technological developments there has been little advancement in the ways of making deep artistic and procedural knowledge of character animation practice explicit and sharable for aspiring character animators. There has also been little evidence-based research in this area, and methods developed to support researchers engaging with the practice, thus highlighting a gap in knowledge and practice of how emerging animation professionals can engage with the artistic and procedural practices that are deployed by experienced character animators during the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

1.2 Aim and scope

This research aims to make the knowledge and practices that underpin the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation explicit and sharable to aspiring character animators.

There is significant breadth to the field of animation that can be perceived as having at least three distinct areas of focus. While all are connected via the animated artefact, they embody different perspectives of research and practice. These themes can be summarised as: animation studies, which is largely focused on the study of animation as an outcome; animation technology, that explores the development of software and tools used within the creation of an animated outcome; and animation production, which concerns the practice and process behind the outcome. This research will focus within the area of animation production, and will primarily draw upon industry-based authorship and resources that are

1

vested in coaching emerging talent in the production practices and processes of three- dimensional character animation.

Three-dimensional character animation encompasses a broad range of activities within a contemporary computer animation environment, such as character modelling (Vaughan, 2011), rigging (Murdock, Allen, Fong, & Sidwell, 2008), animation (Menache, 2011; Roy, 2013), and effects (Kähler, 2012). A typical computer animation filmmaking process is composed of four distinct phases termed development, pre-production, production, and post-production (Pixar, 2011; Winder & Dowlatabadi, 2011, pp. 97-285). This research will explore three-dimensional computer assisted character animation within the production phase, and will consider this phase to be the environment where animation- ready characters are brought to life and in essence filmed by character animators. The scope of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation is further defined by the orthodox style of animation and the computer assisted keyframe animation practices deployed by character animators during their pursuit to craft believable character performances.

Explicit communications of three-dimensional computer animation processes are known to draw on functionally focused pipeline diagrams to model the environments’ systematic social, creative and technology-based processes (Falk et al., 2004, p. 12; Parent et al., 2009, p. 21; Winder & Dowlatabadi, 2011, p. 236; Wyatt, 2010, p. 137). This form of diagrammatic model will be of specific focus to the communication of animation within this thesis. Further afield, the area of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) offers different perspectives and explicit system modelling methods such as Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling (AOGM). Sterling and Taveter (2009) offer a simple and open perspective of AOSE that leverages a multi-layered conceptual space composed of motivation, system design and deployment layers that model different perspectives of systems engineering. In addition to this, they also present an Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling method that uses unambiguous concepts and simple graphical notations to design and view complex environments, and systems that contain notions of agency, functionality and quality. The exploration of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling, within the conceptual environment of the System Design Layer, narrows the scope of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering and Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling that will be applied in this research to the domain of three- dimensional computer assisted character animation.

2

In summary, the scope of this thesis will focus on the exploration of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling and how it could be leveraged to communicate an explicit and sharable system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

1.3 Overview of the thesis structure

Chapter 2 offers a definition of animation that will be carried throughout this thesis. Animation processes and pipelines are then reviewed, highlighting best-practices and limitations for communicating process. The chapter then examines practice-based literature appropriate to the art and technology of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation, highlighting the convergence of the two distinct domains by character animators and the challenges of communicating animation practice and process to emerging talent.

Chapter 3 establishes similarities between animation and modern computing environments, and introduces Agent-Oriented Software Engineering as a theoretical framework to conceptualise the animation environment and its production systems. Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling is then presented and discussed as a suitable modelling method to communicate the underlying knowledge and practices of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

Chapter 4 investigates the potential of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to reconcile animation’s multi-domain knowledge. It does this firstly with the design of a conceptual high- level Agent-Oriented Goal Model of an overarching digital animation system, and then secondly, with a conceptual system design and Agent-Oriented Goal Model for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. This Goal Model harmonises animation concepts using Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and is presented as the conceptual Mk I Production Model.

Chapter 5 explores the conceptual design and capabilities of the Mk I Production Model, through its testing within the production phase of three short animated films made by Undergraduate students. The application of the model, along with the suitability of its design and system requirements are analysed. Findings are discussed and recommendations made for future process and model refinements.

3

Chapter 6 refines the Mk I system design based on findings and recommendations from Chapter 5, and incorporates the emerging Primary and Emotional goal modelling concepts as key components of the revised system design. The highly simplified system design is then presented within an agent-oriented Goal Model termed the conceptual Mk II Production Model.

Chapter 7 evaluates the conceptual design and capabilities of the Mk II Production Model to communicate practice and process, through its deployment across a series of short character animation projects made by Undergraduate students. The application of the model along with the suitability of its simplified design, and new system requirements, to communicate the expectations of practice and process are analysed and findings discussed.

Chapter 8 summarises the findings of research undertaken, and presents discussion of key findings in regards to concepts, system design, and evaluation. Considerations for future research are then discussed, followed by contributions to theory and practice. The chapter concludes with suggestions for potential research directions that could build upon topics discussed within this thesis, before closing with concluding comments.

The flow chart in Figure 1.1 outlines the thesis structure, and the relationship of chapters to the themes of Research Background, Conceptualisation and Studies, and Discussion and Conclusion.

4

Figure 1.1: Thesis structure

5

Chapter 2: Animation – a complex and multi-domain discipline

2.1 Towards a definition of animation

2.1.1 Perspectives on animation

Animation has been discussed and debated widely, with different perspectives of animation as a form of film and genre (Cholodenko, 1991; Crafton, 2011) to enquiry of spectatorship and discussion of gender and cultural representation within the moving image (Bell, Haas, & Sells, 1995; Wells, 2002). Debates of and alike to these themes, including those concerning what can only be described as the challenges of developing a formal definition for the term (Matarazzo, 2016; B. Wells, 2011), will no doubt continue to evolve within circles of Academia fascinated by film, cinema, screen and social studies. At an opposite end of the animation spectrum are scholars and engineers concerned with the development and advancement of technologies to be leveraged within the creation of animation. Such works have led to the progression of animation and computer graphics software (Foley, Van Dam, Feiner, Hughes, & Phillips, 1994), the introduction and integration of algorithmic driven animation and simulation (Byun et al., 2015; Khapugin & Grishanin, 2019; Reynolds, 1987), to motion and performance capture technologies (Maurer, Elagin, Nocera, Steffens, & Neven, 2001; Menache, 2011) that facilitate the recording and animation of physically based movements and gestures within computer animation environments (Cruz Ruiz, Pontonnier, Pronost, & Dumont, 2017; Flueckiger, 2011). Alongside technical advances, the existence of the animated artefact also invites scholarship pertinent to the area of animation practice, process and production that aims to advance how animation is created and shown. This area of study is as broad as the applications of animation, with scholarly work ranging from the applications of traditional animation techniques to digital and immersive environments (Young, 2018), the exploration of the colour formulas behind the traditional animation ink and paint process (Thompson, 2014), to the dissemination of production workflows and lessons in problem solving for low budget Hollywood style animation projects (Teevan, 2011).

This thesis does not seek to enter debates of what animation is or is not, or make statement on matters concerning storytelling, aesthetics or representation within the

6

animated form. Nor does this thesis seek to engage in the discussion of technical development, or the advancement of digital animation tools and technologies. Instead this thesis subscribes to the notion of animation as it appears within the film format, and has been described by the leading animation scholar Wells (1998) who states that “To animate, and the related words, animation, animated and animator all derive from the Latin verb, animare, which means 'to give life to' and that within the context of the animated film, refers to the artificial creation of the illusion of movement in inanimate lines and forms” (p. 10). The view of master animator McLaren that “animation is not the art of drawings that move, but rather the art of movements that are drawn” (Solomon, 1989, p. 11) earns praise from Wells as useful in pursuing a precise definition of animation (1998, p. 10). For a medium that calls for many definitions to describe its breadth, both Wells’ and McLaren’s views argue that the artificial creation of movement and life within animated film, regardless if the drawn method is of analogue or digital origin, as being one of, if not the most defining and interesting characteristic of animation. It is with this perspective that animation will be discussed and analysed through a practice-focused lens going forward.

In its contemporary form the animated film exhibits a range of aesthetics from cartoon and clay, all the way through to the hyper-real and everything that falls in between (Moore & Wells, 2016, pp. 102-197). In some way all are underpinned by the physical and/or digital composite of still and moving elements that can include characters, objects, decorations, textures, lighting, effects and more (Okun & Zwerman, 2010, pp. 4-13). Known as compositing, this practice is undertaken for a breadth of logistical, strategic, artistic and technical reasons that can be influenced by production requirements and the overall studio environment (Brinkmann, 2008, pp. 1-8). Compositing methods range in their complexity from layering and then photographing assets using a multiplane camera rigs (Karwatka, 2008, p. 11) and digital versions of it (Thomas Porter & Duff, 1984, pp. 253-259), through to arranging and then photographing physical models within a physical set (Lord & Sibley, 2010, pp. 64-75). Dealing with all of the elements of the composite as a whole is far beyond the scope of this thesis. Given this, the separation of the elements to focus only on the animated character is necessary to narrow the field of animation, and focus on appropriate animation literature.

Going forward, the term animation will be disconnected from discussions of aesthetics and the composition of multiple drawn elements within a final frame of animated film. Instead it will be related to the single compositional element of character animation, and will focus specifically on the art of animating a character as performed by a character animator. The subject of character animation, and more specifically how it is crafted receives

7

little mention within literature on the subject (White, 2012b, p. 2) and is instead the foundation for prominent animation texts such as those from veteran hand-drawn character animators including Thomas and Johnston (1995), Stanchfield (2009, 2012), Williams (2001) and Goldberg (2008). Although such texts are far from scholarly, they are regularly cited in academic circles for their expert perspectives on animation practice and process (Parent, 2012, p. 10; Schmid, Sumner, Bowles, & Gross, 2010, p. 2; Trutoiu, Carter, Matthews, & Hodgins, 2011, p. 2), as are texts focused on computer-animation by animation experts including Lasseter (1987), Kerlow (2004) and Luhta and Roy (2013) in works by Bates (1994, p. 2), Karg et al. (2013, p. 350) and Orvalho et al. (2012, p. 6). With little scholarly publication discussing the art, practice and process of character animation available, these animation and related practice-based texts will be drawn upon to inform forthcoming analysis and discussion.

2.1.2 Animation styles

Character animation in and of itself can take on a multitude of styles from character designs and movements determined by the form and functionality of everyday objects, such as those featured within Pesapane’s (2010) The Deep to more conventional characters such as Buzz Lightyear from the computer-animated film Toy Story (Lasseter, 1995), Max from the stop-motion animated film Mary and Max (Elliot, 2009) and Snow White from the traditionally animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Hand et al., 1937). As a means to interrogate the many styles of animated characters and approaches seen within the animated film, Wells (1998) offers a theory of animation that positions the animated film as having three styles that he terms as orthodox animation, experimental animation and developmental animation (pp. 35-46).

Wells (1998) discusses the orthodox style of animation from its origins in traditional celluloid-animation techniques, with it containing the following seven properties:

One: Configuration, that is, the film having identifiable human being and/or animal figures compared to abstract and/or illustrative forms of the body;

Two: Specific Continuity, which he defines as the logical and linear continuity of a character and its actions towards achieving a goal, in comparison to the experimental style that celebrates illogical or irrational or even multiple continuities;

8

Three: Narrative Form, where the character/s follow an identifiable story that resists the use of interpretive artistic vocabulary;

Four: Evolution of Content, that prioritises narrative and thematic content over that of materiality of animation and how it is made;

Five: Unity of Style, where the rules of the animated world and its characters are respected, compared to the combination and/or mixture of different styles and approaches;

Six: Absence of Artist, whereby the visibility of the character’s construction and its relationship to the animator as puppeteer are removed, compared to celebrating the artist’s own vision and personal style that is explicit within the work; and

Seven: Dynamics of Dialogue, being the use of dialogue to define a character versus the poetic nature of an avant-garde score or unusual sound (pp. 36-67).

Alongside describing the properties of what orthodox animation is, the previous paragraph also highlights what it is not. Wells (1998) considers the not to be the underpinning properties of the experimental style of animation, and positions its ideological properties as opposite but in some ways related to those present within orthodox animation. Wells (1998) claims that the property of abstraction which is perhaps experimental animation’s most obvious property is “more concerned with rhythm and movement in their own right as opposed to the rhythm and movement of a particular character” (p. 43). Lodged in between the orthodox and experimental styles of animation is what Wells (1998) considers to be developmental animation (see Figure 2.1).

9

Orthodox Animation Experimental Animation

Configuration Abstraction D Specific Continuity e Specific Non-Continuity v Narrative Form e Interpretive Form l Evolution of Content Evolution of Materiality o Unity of Style p Multiple Styles m Absence of Artist e Presence of the Artist n Dynamics t Dynamics of Musicality a l

Figure 2.1: Styles of animation and their properties.

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from Understanding Animation by Paul Wells, 1998; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Wells (1998) describes the developmental style as one that looks back to traditional aspects of the animated film while also being forward thinking and experimenting with new techniques and vocabularies such as clay and puppets. To paraphrase Wells (1998), developmental animation is the style of animation that challenges the philosophical principles of the animated film that also define orthodox animation and enable its evolution (p. 51). The elasticity of the developmental style along with the experimental style’s prioritisation of the artist’s presence, materiality, interpretive narrative and the mixing of styles, do not align with the conventional expectations of the character animator, who according the United Kingdom’s industry-led skills body for the creative industries ScreenSkills (2019), “often work in large teams, which means they need all to be capable of adhering to the same look and animation style” (para. 9).

Consideration of Wells’ (1998) theory of animation styles and approaches offers a way to focus the field and discussion of animation. His notion of orthodox animation is one to which I subscribe but with amendment to include the contemporary form of computer animation as the successor to celluloid based animated film. Although the traditional form of animation is not dead, digital animation has risen as the dominate method of animation, as Kerlow (2009, pp. 3-47) and Selby (2013, pp. 19-24) show throughout their documentations

10

and discussions of technical developments, visual milestones and the charting of animated works from the first acknowledged phantasmagoria show by Philidor in 1779, to Disney’s first cartoon to feature synchronized sound Steamboat Willie in 1928 (Disney & Iwerks, 1928), to the computer animation films of last decade including Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean (Verbinski, 2003) and WingNut Films’ Lord of the Rings (Jackson, 2001) that featured innovative uses of animation and motion capture technology. Going forward the animated film’s compositional element of character animation will be further defined and discussed through a lens of orthodox animation. This will see the term character animation specifically concern the rhythm and movement of a particular character within logical and linear narrative environment, and that it is produced within a collaborative and industrialised process. With this perspective the earlier-mentioned characters of Buzz Lightyear, Max and Snow White, who were all brought to life using different animation methods, can all be considered orthodox in their nature.

2.1.3 Animation methods

Orthodox animated film “offers extraordinary versatility and range in its style and techniques” (Wells, 2006, p. 9), and with such versatility and range in style also positions orthodox character animation as a multi-disciplinary practice. Within this range of styles and techniques are three mainstream methods of animation that are discussed under the broad umbrellas of celluloid or traditional animation, stop-motion animation and digital or computer animation (Selby, 2013, pp. 132-151; Wells, 2006, pp. 88-145). As Wells (2006) and Selby (2013) describe, these methods offer unique foundations and techniques that can be leveraged during the practice of orthodox character animation.

Traditional animation is regularly associated with early Disney and Warner Brothers works that employed a frame by frame production method. Master animator Preston Blair describes this method as “the animator and their assistants make pencil drawings on paper… this work is then traced in ink on celluloid transparent sheets (cels). These inked and painted cels are then photographed in sequence on a painted background" (Blair, 1994, p. 220). This frame by frame process is repeated for each cel or frame featured within the animated film. Stop-motion animation is alike to traditional frame by frame in process but uses physical forms opposed to ones that are drawn on celluloid. The forms are often those made of puppets, dolls and/or clay figurines that are positioned within a set. The contents of the set, including the form, undergo constant and deliberate manipulation by the animator to portray movement over time. Each manipulation of the set is then photographed and compiled as a frame of animation. This method is well documented in Lord and Sibley’s

11

(2010) fundamental text ‘Cracking Animation’ that brings attention to the contemporary workings of this tactile animation method. The third method is computer animation and is sometimes referred to as digital animation. Situated within a virtual environment, this method sees the manipulation of digital puppets and objects within a digital environment that is rendered or drawn using a virtual camera (Wyatt, 2010, pp. 48-115). This method allows for absolute creative and aesthetic freedom and the ability to bypass real-world constraints such as those found when working with the stop-motion method of animation (White, 2012a, pp. 184-195). Aside from taking place within a virtual environment, a distinctive and unique characteristic of computer animation over traditional and stop-motion methods of animation is its ability to automate the transition of forms between two or more poses over time. Known as key frame interpolation, the complex computer algorithms behind this negate the requirement for animators to hand craft each individual frame of animation (O'Rourke, 2003, p. 148). Though this technology enables the computer to essentially animate forms, it is considered an assistive technology (O'Rourke, 2003, p. 146; Patterson & Willis, 1994, p. 829) that can aid in the reduction of time and energy that an animator must expend when manipulating the human being, animal or object forms (Catmull, 1978, pp. 350-351).

As outlined the methods of traditional animation, stop-motion animation and computer animation offer distinct approaches to the production of character animation and the animated film. Though artistic and technological pursuits exist across these animation methods, the discussion of all as ‘animation’ risks echoing the well told narratives of animation principles and movement that are found in leading practice-based character animation texts such as The Illusion of Life (Thomas & Johnston, 1995), The Animator’s Survival Kit (Williams, 2001) and the Animator’s Notebook (White, 2012b). Unlike the traditional animation and stop-motion animation methods, computer animation has the innate ability to facilitate the frame by frame techniques associated with two-dimensional traditional animation, and those concerning the manipulation physical forms within a three-dimensional space as common to stop-motion animation. The ability for computer animation to do this was showcased in Sony’s academy award winning animated film Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse (Ramsey, Persichetti, & Rothman, 2018) that celebrates the different animation methods and techniques while leveraging computer animation methods (Sarto, 2018). With this ability, the contemporary method of computer animation will be the specific topic of further orthodox character animation enquiry within this thesis.

12

2.1.4 Computer animation

One of the biggest differences between hand drawn animation and computer animation is the fact that computer animation is truly three-dimensional – Lasseter (2001, p. 45)

Lasseter’s (2001) claim that computer animation is truly three-dimensional bears truth in relation to traditional forms of animation, but computer animation must be considered as having both a two-dimensional environment that is framed by an X (horizontal) and Y (vertical) coordinate system, and a three-dimensional environment that is established through an X (horizontal) and Y (vertical) and Z (depth) coordinate system as (Vince, 2014) explains in discussions of mathematics for computer animation (pp. 33-42).

As the name suggests, two-dimensional computer animation allows the depiction of forms and their movement in two dimensions, along x-horizontal and y-vertical planes. These forms are technically flat due to their lack three-dimensional volume, but through the application of digital drawing techniques a character animator can create the illusion of depth within the forms graphical appearance and motion that White (2012a) explains in his overview of two-dimensional vector animation and the paperless animation studio (pp. 392- 418). The illusion of depth can be further enhanced through the creation of parallax, an effect made popular in traditional methods of animation whereby background and foreground planes are moved in different increments to create a greater sense of depth within the animated environment (Blair, 1994, p. 216).

Acclaimed computer scientist and former president of Pixar Animation Studios ‘Pixar’ and Walt Disney Animation Studios ‘Disney’ Edwin Catmull (1978) once claimed that 'the computer is a "natural" for creating images of three-dimensional objects’ (p. 351). The environments’ inclusion of the Z coordinate encourages objects to be created with physical accuracies and volume that can depict depth and distance realistically, and not faked as it is needed to be in two-dimensional animation environments. Catmull (1972) famously demonstrated this fundamental quality of three-dimensional computer animation through the making of a short movie that demonstrated a three-dimensional human hand animating through states of being open and closed (pp. 422-431). The computer’s ability to create forms with volume, to view these within a three-dimensional environment, and to manipulate them over time changed the way that character animation would be approached, as Lasseter (2001) explained:

13

“The first run cycle I ever animated on the computer looked great from the side view, but when I looked at it from the front, the arms were going through the body and the knees were bending the wrong way. From then on I always animated with two views of my character always showing, so that I could always tell if the animation was working from all sides” (p. 45).

Lasseter's early experience of animating a character within a three-dimensional computer environment is supported across a breadth of instructional texts that demonstrate approaches to animating characters within a three-dimensional space, such as Roberts’ (2011) animating of a character lifting a heavy object (pp. 129-158) and Roy’s (2013) presentation of character animation workflow (pp. 175-201) that demonstrate the animator working from a variety of different two-dimensional and three-dimensional perspectives within the animation software.

As outlined, the approaches to animating characters within a two-dimensional computer animation environment incorporate a number of the traditional techniques practised by character animators working on celluloid, and have a heavy reliance on drawing techniques whether applied by pencil on paper, or into the computer through the use of a digital pen device (White, 2012b, pp. 332-418). In contrast, approaches to animating characters within a three-dimensional computer animation environment are reliant on the animator knowing how to work with, apply and manipulate mathematical relationships between forms, coordinate systems and other aspects of the digital environment. This technical perspective of animation is the subject of entire books, for example the Principles of Three-Dimensional Computer Animation (O'Rourke, 2003).

In addition to these two different operating environments, computer animation also facilitates the creation of character animation using linear and non-linear production methods. I refer to linear animation as the method whereby the character animator has full creative and technical responsibility for a character’s animated performance, and is demonstrated by White (2012b) in his overview of animation principles and animation process (pp. 6-33). In speaking of the computer animation process Parent et al. (2009) position the linear method as commonplace with the industrialised computer animation processes and state “the use of keyframes, interpolating between them, has become a fundamental technique in computer animation” (p. 19), and Kerlow (2004) describes linear animation as being “done in stages” (p. 66).Through discussion of the different creative, technical and production teams credited with creating an animated film Kerlow (2004) also suggests that this method is applicable to animation teams of all scale (pp. 52-56).

14

Animation producers Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011, pp. 13,128) point out that this linear method of character animation is considered to be time and resource heavy, where the quality of a characters’ animation can be influenced by creative and technical direction, the scale of the production team, scheduling, budget and shot complexity. As the foundational method of character animation within an industrialised process, I position the linear method of character animation as being the orthodox method of character animation explored within this thesis.

I use the term non-linear animation to describe both the linear creation of character animation for real-time computer animation environments, and character performances within these environments that have been popularised through the animation filmmaking practice known as machinima (Chong, 2008, pp. 148-151). Unlike approaches to creating linear character animation that were outlined earlier, non-linear character animation does not centre around the character animator producing a character’s complete performance in stages and to a fixed time and camera angle (Owens, 2017). Instead, the method leverages linear animation techniques such as working in stages, the manual key-framing of substantial poses and having the computer assist in the creation of in-between poses to output short individual, and often looping actions such as walking, running, jumping and waving, as demonstrated via Roy’s (2013) instruction on animating character cycles (pp. 209-230). Known as animation clips, cycles and morphologies, these short linearly created character animations are blended together within real-time environments via algorithms and user input through control devices such as keyboards, mice and control-pads to produce instant and unique combinations of character animation as discussed by Hecker et al. (2008). In the context of industrialised animation processes such as those underpinning the creation of video games (Fredin, 2018) this method is somewhat orthodox in that it typically avoids the presence of the animator, but experimental in that the character animator relinquishes their ability to define a character’s specific continuity within the animated overall performance. With this understanding I align the non-linear method of character animation to Wells’ (1998) theorisation of the developmental animation style that he states as “a mode of expression combining or selecting elements of both [orthodox and experimental] approaches” (p. 35).

As discussed above, computer animation offers versatility in the way character animation can be produced, seeing it as a powerful and diverse animation method. Though orthodox character animation can and is produced by character animators within two- dimensional and three-dimensional computer animation environments, the variances between their hand-drawn and algorithmic based production methods require that they be

15

separated to focus enquiry into the practice, process and production of character animation. With three-dimensional computer animation now a mainstream method for producing animated films, discussions of orthodox character animation will focus squarely within the three-dimensional computer animation environment. While this is a specific aspect of the computer animation method, its embodiment of the rules of animation such as the principles of animation, principles of acting and key frame animation workflows will likely extend forthcoming discoveries from this thesis with broader applications of computer animation in both two-dimensional and three-dimensional forms.

2.1.5 A definition of animation

As outlined in sections 2.1.1-4 the field of animation is wide-ranging and “allows exponents to explore theories and inform audiences, and its flexibility as an artificially constructed form means that is well suited to a vast range of communication applications” (Selby, 2013, p. 6). The breadth of the field also sees the critically important term animation as lacking explicit definition, with scholars declaring that a formal definition may restrict inquiry where others argue that any definition that can explain all that is animated would be too wide and therefore meaningless (B. Wells, 2011, p. 13). Nonetheless, a clear perspective of the term animation must be established for this thesis in order to frame original and meaningful research.

Subscribing to the popular view that the term animation refers to animation filmmaking as used by Hahn (2008, pp. 8-11) on the topic of making animated film in the modern age, a more categorical perspective of the term that is shared by animators working within the filmmaking process is that animation relates to the production practices that underpin the animated character’s form. This perspective is the subject of prevalent how-to- animate texts including the Animator’s Notebook (White, 2012b), Character Animation Fundamentals (Roberts, 2011) and Timing for Animation (Whitaker & Halas, 2009). With this as the point of view, the term animation is narrowed to concern the practices, processes and production workflows behind the animated character. Wells’ (1998) earlier theorisation of animated film styles (see section 2.1.2) offers terms of reference that I state define the orthodox style and its industrialised production methods as the style of animation and character animation to be the subject of enquiry going forward within this thesis.

The orthodox style of animation and its production workflows across the mainstream animation methods discussed in sections 2.1.3-4 also highlight the variances and overlap

16

between traditional, stop-motion and computer animation methods. To avoid a perspective of animation that is so broad that it lacks meaning, the contemporary status and flexibility of three-dimensional computer animation and specifically the linear method of character animation that Kerlow (2009) describes as “keyframing techniques starting with rough animation which consists of blocking the broad motions... and finally the details and the timing of overlapping motion are fine-tuned” (p. 82) is identified as the pragmatic focus for further character animation research and investigation within this thesis.

Drilling down into the broad field of animation, I arrive at an explicit perspective of animation that I define as the act of a character animator producing orthodox character animation via linear production methods within a three-dimensional computer animation environment.

2.2 Animation processes and pipelines

Before you can tackle animation in any serious way, you need to understand the process and principles involved. The actual “process” of animation (i.e., the way the animator actually approaches the creation of scene) is hardly ever mentioned in literature on the subject, but it is extremely important, especially if character animation is your goal

- White (2012b, p. 2)

2.2.1 The overarching production process

In their recount of the early Disney approach to making orthodox animated films Thomas and Johnston (1995, pp. 185-302) discuss the key collaborative stages of the animation filmmaking process with stages ranging from story development, to character animation, photography and sound. When introducing their procedures Thomas and Johnston (1995) state that the overall process was a largely linear sequence of events that were kept flexible, with constant discussions replacing rigid procedures (pp. 186-188). Such flexibility along with their process being what Levoy (1977) calls a “picture-driven process” versus a software or “language-driven process” (p. 65), offers a way to contextualise Thomas and Johnston’s (1995) text heavy approach to communicating their procedures

17

through the use of a process diagram or schematic to do so. The procedures discussed by Thomas and Johnson (1995) would later evolve into a breadth of conventional animation processes, that Catmull (1978) associates with the orthodox style of animation:

In conventional animation there is a continuum from the limited animation of the Saturday morning cartoons to the full animation of the Disney Studios. This continuum is referred to as ‘character animation’, outside of this continuum are the animation ‘art’ films with a great variety of style, quality, and methods (p. 348).

He continues to describe the conventional animation processes of the period as sequential pipelines composed of roughly fourteen steps, commencing with those related to the writing and visualisation of a story, then the recording of sound, followed by incremental stages of animating the character performance before being coloured, photographed and then edited together to output the animated film (Catmull, 1978, p. 349).

In his quest to “speed up the animation process, and to make it cheaper” Catmull (1978) identified eight steps for which he would like to use the computer within conventional animation processes to reduce what he termed touch-time and explains as “the amount of time that some operator or artist must spend working on a figure in some process. The total touch-time would then be the total of the times spent on all steps of the pipeline” (p. 351). His work, along with those from the likes of Gracer and Blasgen (1971) that focused on the development of digital storyboarding systems, Burtnyk and Wein (1971) who explored the computer generated key frame animation techniques, Reeves (1981) who focused on the topic of digital inbetweening, and Levoy (1977) on digital colour, contributed to a reduction of touch-time and the embedding of the computer across conventional animation processes. The intense period of ground breaking computer graphics and computer animation research in the 1970s, 80s and 90s coming from hubs such as the University of Utah in the area of computer graphics, Cornell University on rendering techniques, California Institute of Technology on the subject of motion dynamics and Ohio State University with explorations in hierarchical character animation (Kerlow, 2009, pp. 9-11) aided in the use of diagrammatic methods to communicate how these systems functioned. Examples of these are Catmull’s (1972) block diagram of a system for making animated movies (p. 423), and schematics of the New York Institute of Technology’s early computer-aided animation system ‘CAAS’ (Catmull, 1979, pp. 1000-1001).

18

The rapid advancement of computer animation technology and its integration throughout the conventional and computer-aided animation processes have moulded and given life to the modern paperless animation studio (White, 2012a, pp. 412-418). Built around the utilization of creative software and hardware, the paperless studio follows a digital animation process that combines complex picture and language driven processes (Wyatt, 2010, p. 6). According to Kerlow (2004), the embedding of the computer within the production process has paved the way for “many different ways to design and produce a sequence of three-dimensional computer animation” (p. 43). Kerlow’s statement is supported by the variety of modern pipeline models discussed in literature. Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011), for example, offer feature film versions of the traditional and digital two-dimensional production pipeline, and the three-dimensional production pipeline that is based on the flow of information through four overarching stages (pp. 236, 249-250). Wyatt (2010) presents a ‘basic but typical’ digital studio pipeline that is composed of three key stages (p. 137) that bears some resemblance to Glebas (2013) versions of the two-dimensional and three- dimensional computer animation pipelines that have three main stages (pp. 9-10). Weishar (2002) provides an account of Blue Sky Studio’s feature animation pipeline that is discussed as having ten high-level sequential stages (pp. 11-14). Parent et al. (2009) offer a pipeline model (p. 21) that is based on the flow of information through the departments of Pixar, as first discussed by Henne, Hickel, Johnson, and Konishi (1996) in their paper on the making of Toy Story. Kerlow (2009) also presents his own version of a potential pipeline for a small team working on an independent computer animated short film that is based on the three major stages (p. 74). Despite there often being only slight differences between these pipeline models, their underlying processes vary as Moore and Wells (2016) say:

The process by which an animated film might be made, though, is variable. It has some generic consistencies, but often varies with the technique employed, the purpose of the project and its outcome and, crucially, as a result of the working methods employed by an individual or a collaborative team (p. 8).

The generic consistencies referred to are key stages in the pipeline that relate to conceptualisation, design, animation, lighting and rendering. Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011, pp. 236-237), Parent et al. (2009, pp. 21-22) and Kerlow (2009, p. 77) claim that these stages and their linear sequencing can and do differ from studio to studio, job to job and software package to software package to suite the animation project’s environment. In recognising the flexibility of the pipeline Moore and Wells (2016) highlight that the process is not strictly linear where “Many aspects of the production process overlap and become subject to the ups and downs of the creative process. Things do go wrong and need to be

19

recovered; aspects of any production are constantly reviewed and revised as they go along; and things that seem hard and fast can quickly be jettisoned in preference to another idea or in response to a pragmatic concern” (p. 9). Their perspective of the linear animation process being non-linear is also echoed throughout Falk et al. (2004). Their rare insight into the PDI/DreamWorks Digital Animation Process as it was deployed throughout the making of the feature animated film Shrek 2, is described as a “linear discussion of a non-linear process” (Falk et al. 2004, pp. 9-14). The complexity of their three-stage linear pipeline is shown in Figure 2.2 through what Falk et al. term an “inter-departmental workflow map” (p. 12). They note that the workflow map “does not accurately reflect reality... and does not present the many common variations, exceptions, and concurrency found within the actual process” (Falk et al., 2004, p. 12) but does show the key dependencies and interactions throughout the pipeline. Falk et al. (2004) further describe their workflow map as a ‘living system’ (p. 7). composed of three high-level stages commencing with Design, that focuses on the development of the story and its look; Setup, as the stage where concepts are transition into three-dimensions and characters are setup to deform; and finally Shot Production that involves “building the models and 3-dimensional shots inside the computer, refining sets, animating characters, specific effects, and lighting scenes” (pp. 7-9). In reference to the workflow map (Figure 2.2) it is noteworthy to acknowledge the key interactions that the Character Animation department have with other departments throughout the pipeline, that see information exchanged back and forth with those working in the Layout department, the receiving of data from the Character TD (rigging) team, and the sending of animation data to the Clothing and Character Effects department, and the Effects (global effects) department.

The flexibility and adaptability of the modern digital pipeline to suit different working environments does see different perspectives of the pipeline emerge, where it is common for pipelines to be discussed as having three or four high-level goal based stages. Wyatt’s (2010) basic digital studio pipeline shown in Figure 2.3, for example, is composed of three high-level goal driven stages that he defines as Pre-Production “where the ideas and designs are generated” (p. 137) and contains steps related to story and asset development; Production which focuses on “bringing the design and concepts to life” (p. 137) and encompasses steps that are alike to those within the principle photography stage of a live- action filmmaking pipeline where the set, actors lighting and effects are assembled and shot (Honthaner, 2010, pp. 157-165); and then Post-Production that involves “bringing the picture and sound together” (p. 137) through steps such as editing, sound design, mixing and distribution.

20

Figure 2.2: The inter-departmental workflow map of the PDI/DreamWorks pipeline

Illustration Copyright © 2004, PDI/DreamWorks. Source: Falk, R., Minter, D., Vernon, C., Aretos, G., Modesto, L., Lamorlette, A., Max, H. (2004). Art-directed technology: anatomy of a Shrek2 sequence. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Course Notes, Los Angeles, CA.

21

Figure 2.3: A basic but typical three-stage pipeline model

Illustration Copyright © 2010, Thames and Hudson. Source: Wyatt (2010), p. 137. The Complete Digital Animation Course: The Principles, Practice, and Techniques of Successful Digital Animation

Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) four stage three-dimensional computer animation CG pipeline shown in Figure 2.4 is one of the more comprehensive pipeline models within the computer animation literature. Featuring a typical linear shot pipeline, each shot passes through four overarching stages, with the first stage often being the difference between three and four stage pipelines. The first stage in Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) pipeline is the Development stage and is where “the creative foundation for a project is solidified through visual and written materials” (p. 97), and includes the development of the script into a storyreel and pre-visualisation, and the conceptual design of the film’s characters, environments, props and overall aesthetic. The second stage in Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) pipeline is Pre-Production, and is the stage “in which elements that lay down the foundation for production are assembled” (p. 175), and is expanded in their pipeline model

22

as the ‘asset-pipeline’ that’s shows processes for the creation, testing and delivery of elements. In three stage pipelines such as Wyatt’s (2010) that was discussed above, the Development and Pre-Production stage are typically merged. The third stage in Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) pipeline is termed Production, and is the stage they discuss as including steps relating to character and environment animation, the adding of effects, lighting, and the compositing of these elements together into a finished shot (pp. 229-262). Once complete the shot moves into the fourth stage that they call Post-Production, and describe as the stage concerning “the final visual and audio elements needed to create and deliver the final product” (p. 263).

Figure 2.4: A comprehensive version of the CG Pipeline

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from Producing Animation by Tracy Miller-Zarneke, Zahra Dowlatabadi and Catherine Winder, 2011, p. 236; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

The generic consistencies of the digital animation process discussed earlier are evident across both Wyatt’s (2010) three stage pipeline (see Figure 2.3) and Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) four stage pipeline (see Figure 2.4) models, that see a shot first developed and visualised from a script, then the generation of assets, the shot then being filmed and later integrated alongside other shots and audio in the film’s edit. Although there

23

are many versions of the digital animation process, as a basis for further enquiry I will align discussion and definitions of the digital animation process with the four stage process promoted by Pixar, the ground-breaking three-dimensional computer animation studio who were the first to receive an Academy Award for a short film made entirely of computer animation (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 1988) called Tin Toy (Lasseter, 1988), and the creators of over twenty animated feature films (from 1995-2019) with such titles as Toy Story (Lasseter, 1995), Finding Nemo (Stanton & Unkrich, 2003), The Incredibles (Bird, 2004), Cars (Lasseter & Ranft, 2006), Monsters University (Scanlon, 2013) and Inside Out (Docter, 2015). Although Pixar and others do not publicise specific detail on their proprietary pipelines, Pixar (2011) promotes their high-level digital animation process on the company website through a simplified text description and refers to this as ‘The Pixar Process'. The process commences with the Development stage that focuses on “creating the storyline”, and then moves into the second stage termed Pre-Production that “addressed technical challenges”. The third stage is labelled Production and is focused on “making the film”, and the fourth and final stage is named Post-Production and concerns “polishing the final product” (Pixar, 2011). According to the written account of Pixar’s process (Henne et al., 1996) and the pipeline model of it by Parent et al. (2009) shown in Figure 2.5, and with the assumption that similar inter-departmental interactions as shown in PDI/DreamWorks workflow map (see Figure 2.2) would be present within Pixar’s digital animation process, the interpretation of ‘The Pixar Process’ that I move forward with is one thought as having the Story Department and Art Department largely active within the Development stage of the process and is a conceptual environment that aims to develop the story and ideas into concrete concepts. The Modelling Department and Layout Department would be active within the Pre-Production stage of the process and is an environment that aims to turn two- dimensional concepts into production ready three-dimensional character, assets and environments. The Animation Department, Shading Department and Lighting Department would become most active within the Production stage of the process and is an environment that contains goals relating to the animation, shading and lighting of characters within their world. The Camera Department would be most active within the Post-Production stage of the process and is the environment that aims to output a finished shot for integration within the film’s overall edit.

24

Figure 2.5: A departmental view of Pixar’s pipeline

Used with permission of Elsevier Science & Technology Books, from Computer animation complete: all-in-one : learn motion capture, characteristic, point-based, and Maya winning techniques, by Rick Parent, 2009, p. 21; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

As appears to be common across text and model based accounts of three and four stage pipelines such as the one described by Selby (2013, p. 17), and the one promoted by Pixar (2011), Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011) comprehensive pipeline model (see Figure 2.4) breaks down the Pre-Production stage into the significant steps involved in the preparation of elements for production. But their model and others like it fail to communicate the same depth of activity for the production stage of the pipeline, and is pertinent to the focus of this thesis, being the specific production stage of animation. It also appears to be common for text, video and model-based accounts of the digital animation process to summarise the animation stage of the pipeline as where life is created. Parent et al. (2009), for example, describes the animation stage as where “the animation department is responsible for bringing the characters to life” (p. 22) and does not go on to explain how; in an overview of the Pixar pipeline employee Alex Woo describes the animation stage as where “they [animators] bring the characters to life” (Khan Academy, 2015, 3min 40sec) and then quickly moves on to overview the next department. Wyatt (2010) describes the overarching production stage of the pipeline that includes animation as “bringing designs and concepts to life” (p. 137), where he, like others, fails to expand on the stage and explain the basic process or steps taken towards achieving this.

25

The absence of explicit production-stage processes within these common pipeline models, and more specifically those processes deployed in the creation of life highlights a significant gap in how animation is made and communicated within Digital Animation Processes. The reasons for this absence are unclear; it may be due to many factors such as the term animation lacking definition; the act of animating being too complex and picture- driven to simplify; the pipeline’s flexibility to suit different environments and thus making it challenging to articulate just one process; or it may be none of those and related to choice by the pipeline’s author. Nonetheless, like the overarching Digital Animation Process, the animation production process has generic consistencies that can be arranged and discussed in relation to a character animation production process. With the aim to make knowledge of character animation practice and process explicit and sharable, it is crucial that these generic consistencies be integrated into model-based representations of the Digital Animation Process.

2.2.2 The character animation production process

The character animation production process is generally absent within pipeline models of the digital animation process. The multitude of “how to animate” texts and more specifically their content suggests that there are roughly four to five common chronological steps that form a generic character animation production process. Even though the introduction of computers into the animation process has impacted on the interface character animators use to bring a character to life, the practices and processes deployed in the production of traditional and contemporary character animation have remained consistent, as Wyatt (2010) points out “the craft and the principles of animation have not changed since the 1930s” (p. 6). This notion is also supported by Academy Award winning animator Williams (2001) who when discussing process states that the ‘old knowledge’ continues to be applicable to any style or approach to animation regardless of advances in technology (p. 20).

In his seminal practice-focused text The Animator’s Survival Kit: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas Williams (2001) describes his systematic animation workflow as “a lot of really simple things strung together doing one part at a time in a sensible order” (p. 9). He deliberates over two common approaches that can be taken by character animators during the production stage, the first being the natural way of animation called ‘straight-ahead’ where the animator “just starts drawing and [they] see what happens”, the second being a planned approach called ‘pose-to-pose’ where important details are

26

worked out first, followed by the second most important detail then third most important detail and so on (Williams, 2001, pp. 61-62). Alongside these two popular methods, Williams (2001) goes on to discuss a third approach ‘his preference’ that is a combination of the straight-ahead and pose-to-pose approaches. He discusses this approach via an example where a man is animated walking across a room, then picks up a stick of chalk from the floor and then draws on a blackboard (Williams, 2001, pp. 63-69), and is shown in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Williams’ application of his five-step production process

Illustration Copyright © 2001, Faber and Faber Limited. Source: Williams (2001), p. 66. The Animator’s Survival Kit: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas for Classical, Computer, Games, Stop Motion and Internet Animators.

Throughout this practical example Williams reveals the five goal-based steps of his process, which are:

1) Thumbnail sketching the character’s animation to ‘find’ strong poses; 2) The creation of storytelling ‘keys’ that are drawn in black and aim to show what is happening in the shot, he uses three poses to achieve this; 3) The creation of ‘extreme poses’ that aim to provide a foundation of body mechanics and to transition the character between key frames, of which he draws a further ten poses in red; 4) The creation of ‘breakdown’ poses that aim to shape the movement between extreme poses. To achieve this, he incorporates another twelve poses that are drawn in blue; and 5) Using the extremes and breakdowns as a guide he animates in-between and over the top of these poses using a straight-ahead approach, and alters the guide frames as needed to create smooth and natural movement. He draws these poses via green and purple line work.

27

Williams (2001) communicates his process using a simplified diagram that is akin to the pipeline models discussed earlier in section 2.2.1 and is shown in Figure 2.7. Williams’ (2001) animation process diagram follows on from the pre-production stages of storyboarding and/or layout, and shows his five goal-based steps and their sequencing commencing with the conceptualisation and drawing of thumbnail sketches to explore creative possibilities, then the creation of key storytelling poses, followed by the extreme poses that are then broken down to create a comprehensive guide animation, before the final step of drawing in-between and over these using a straight-ahead approach to create smooth animation.

Figure 2.7: Williams' five-step animation production process model

Illustration Copyright © 2001, Faber and Faber Limited. Source: Williams (2001), p. 67. The Animator’s Survival Kit: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas for Classical, Computer, Games, Stop Motion and Internet Animators.

28

Award winning animation director, academic and author of the text Character Animation Fundamentals: Developing Skills for 2D and 3D Character Animation Roberts (2011) discusses his character animation process across both two and three-dimensional environments. While his approaches differ slightly to accommodate traditional and digital technologies, over a number of how to tutorials he conveys an animation process that contains five steps that are similar to those by Williams (2001). In guiding readers through a simple scenario of a character picking up a heavy object, Roberts’ (2011) animation process commences with planning the scene, where he draws a series of rough thumbnail sketches that aim to explore and capture the major key poses that the final animated character should hit during the scene (p. 116). Once complete Robert’s (2011) process moves onto creating the character’s key positions, and is a stage that he considers to be animating the plot or précis of the scene (p. 13). With the key storytelling poses in place and appropriately timed he moves onto breaking down what happens in-between the character’s key poses, which he describes as creating “the major in-betweens (otherwise known as breakdowns)” with the intention to animate the transitional details and ‘the character’ in between the figure’s movement (p. 144). With the computer able to interpolate the character’s movement between the character’s key and breakdown poses, Robert’s (2011) process turns to adjusting the animation curves with the goal to perfect the character’s movement (p. 147). This in-betweening stage of his process is then closely followed by the fine-tuning of existing movement and the creation of smaller details by going over what has been animated using a combination of pose-to-pose of straight-ahead techniques (pp. 147-148). Unlike Williams (2001) who offers a model of his animation production process, Roberts (2011) reiterates his five steps to animating a simple character across further ‘how to animate’ examples such as the more advanced scenario of a three-dimensional character noticing a coin on the ground, picking it up and placing it into their pocket (pp. 316-318).

Acclaimed character animator and co-founder of the character animation school Animation Mentor, Kelly (2008) shares a treasure trove of professional insights via themed articles within his texts Animation Tips & Tricks volumes one (Kelly, 2008) and two (Kelly, Baena, Sintay, Gilman, & Gilbert, 2009). While his texts contain articles that primarily focus on craft tips, the first volume is structured according to his character animation process with the first chapter exploring planning and touches on topics such as observation, gathering reference material and thumbnail sketching (Kelly, 2008, pp. 1-6). Kelly (2008) notes that after planning he moves onto creating his key poses and defines these as “the ‘key’ moments that most clearly describe the important physical actions or emotional moments in a scene” (p. 87). Kelly (2008) goes on to state that when working on a shot where the character’s full-figure is within the frame, he will generally create key and extreme poses

29

during the same stage of the process to capture all of the important details in the character’s performance (p. 87). Following this stage Kelly (2008) incorporates breakdown poses into his animation with the goal to “describe timing, and… important bits of body mechanics or physical actions that are necessary for believable movement” (p. 89). As the final step in his process, Kelly (2008) gets into what he describes as the fine-tuning and polishing-up of the animation (p. 87). In a subsequent recount of his animation process he lists his process as having nine steps (Kelly et al., 2009, p. 44). His first step is to be assigned a shot to animate by the Director or Producer, with steps two and three focusing on researching and planning the character’s actions and showing these to the animation’s Director for feedback. Steps four and five are focused on creating the key and extreme poses, and also getting feedback on his blocking from the Director. Kelly (2009) notes that he avoids animating the character’s face during the blocking stage, and instead uses this to time to perfect the character’s acting choices, gestures and body mechanics. His sixth step is the commencement of his polishing stage where he focuses on details such as hands, feet, fingers, toes, and tails before moving onto the final three steps of his process that are focused on animating the face and the mouth and then presenting his work to the Director for appraisal. In both versions of his process, Kelly appears to be working to five higher-level steps that commence with step one being the planning of his character performance, then two being the creating of key storytelling and extreme poses that define the character’s mechanics, followed by three being the breaking down of the characters performance and mechanics, four being the polishing of the characters animation with a focus on the animating and tweaking smaller details, and then five being the animation of the character’s facial features and facial performance.

Drawing from his professional experience as a character animator that includes working on the 2012 Academy Award winning short animated film The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (William & Brandon, 2011), Osborn (2015) shares his character animation production process in his animation textbook Cartoon Character Animation With Maya: Mastering the Art of Exaggerated Animation. Like Williams (2001), Roberts (2011) and Kelly (2008, 2009), Osborn (2015) also discusses his production process as featuring five progressive steps that help him to produce a cartoony style of orthodox character animation. His process commences with planning the shot and the character’s key poses, and he describes this step as “exploring many different options and choosing the best one” (p. 30). According to Osborn (2015) this step contains activities such as drawing rough thumbnail sketches (as shown in Figure 2.8), and the recording and analysing of video reference to find appealing timing and acting moments.

30

Figure 2.8: An example of 'thumbnail sketching' used to explore key character poses

Used with permission of Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, from Cartoon Character Animation with Maya: Mastering the Art of Exaggerated Animation, by Keith Osborn, 2015, p. 45.

The second step in Osborn’s (2015) process is what he refers to as the pose-test or blocking (p. 48). He explains the goal of this step is to create only the foundational storytelling poses, and see if they communicate what you hope to convey to an audience (p. 48). Through the act of demonstration Osborn (2015) further explains that to achieve this that he incorporates both the character’s key and extreme poses into this stage to define their story, their body mechanics and their movement throughout the shot (pp. 80-83). Osborn (2015) refers to the third step in his process as breakdown, and shares his perspective of this stage as “breaking down the motion between two extreme poses” (p. 86). Throughout his chapter on breakdowns, Osborn (2015) discusses breakdown poses from a mechanical perspective where he used them to determine the overlapping action, arcs and the slow in and slow out of a character’s action, and from a creative perspective as poses that can be used to reveal the character’s personality (pp. 86-113). With what he describes as the roughed-in animation complete, Osborn (2015) moves onto his fourth stage that he labels ‘refine’ and is where he adjusts the computer’s interpolation between poses with a goal to “sand off the jagged edges and make your [the] motion beautiful” (p. 114). His fifth and final stage of the process focuses on incorporating stylistic effects that are stereotypical of highly exaggerated and cartoony character animation, such as motion blurring and smearing of the character’s body features as it moves through its performance (pp. 138- 169).

31

Professional character animator, animation instructor and author of How to Cheat in Maya: Tools and Techniques for Character Animation Roy (2013) shares tips and tricks that can be used to craft a believable character performance. While Roy (2013) avoids breaking down and discussing his character animation process under explicit headings, his statements such as:

Before you move into the polishing phase… ask yourself some questions. Are my poses as dynamic as I originally planned? Is there still contrast in the animation in pose, timing, and composition? Does this resemble the reference and observation I’ve gathered? (p. 35) suggest there are overarching steps to his process that are similar to those already described by other animators. Roy (2013) hints that the planning and blocking of character poses, their timing and their polishing are part of his process, and offers context in which to interpret his chapter dedicated to tips and tricks for enhancing an animation workflow (pp. 174-207). Roy (2013) opens this chapter with discussion and examples of planning and creating reference material, that includes the thumbnail sketching of the character’s main actions along with the creation and analysis of reference footage (pp. 176-179). The second theme in Roy’s (2013) workflow chapter is blocking, with tips and tricks on timing and manipulating a character’s important storytelling and breakdown poses (pp. 182-195). This section is then followed by what Roy (2013) describes as the polishing stage, where a character’s arcing motions are refined and ‘non-performance texture’ is added to “make the scene feel full of details and real” (p. 200). Although Roy’s (2012) workflow tips and tricks align to roughly three main steps, his self-published Simplified Workflow Checklist features five primary steps that are planning, layout, blocking, blocking plus and polish, with each underpinned by important notes and expectations of quality that he associates with each step.

While the animation production processes shared by Williams, Roberts, Kelly, Osborn and Roy (as cited above) are only a small sample of the character animation processes promoted throughout how to animate texts, they highlight the common creative goals and systematic ingredients of a generic character animation production process. I generalise these goal directed activities and their logical sequencing as being:

One: planning, that aims to explore the creative possibilities of the character’s performance and prepare the character animator for the task at hand;

32

Two: blocking, that aims to create and time the most important storytelling and mechanical poses that are needed to structure and convey the character’s performance to the audience; Three: breakdowns, that sets out to detail the character’s motion and personality in between their storytelling poses; and Four: polishing, that aims to refine the character’s movement, performance and micro details to create a heightened sense of believability and reality.

While these activities and their sequencing provide a generic high-level process to guide the production of character animation, it is widely acknowledged by animation professionals that animation processes, methods and techniques vary between animators and is a reality summarised by White (2012b): “…there are, of course, as many approaches to the animation process as there are animators attempting it – and each animator evolves his or her own methods and procedures” (p. 6). The reality that animators can work any way they want, and that there are no rules (Williams, 2001, p. 68) highlights the challenge faced by character animators and animation professionals when it comes to communicating the underpinning creative and technical practices, processes and expectations associated with the production of character animation. The concept that “all animators have their own working methods” (Wyatt, 2010, p. 90) also suggests that animators have different expectations of quality, and what the achievement of their process steps and goals look like. In Kelly’s (2009) discussion of this topic he highlights that variance in knowledge and expectations as a key issue when engaging others such as the Director or clients into an animators’ production process. He writes, “You want to get their ideas in there, and as much as possible, you want to try to find a creative solution that makes their ideas work. Sometimes, however, this will mean that the animation will be “wrong” in your eyes” (Kelly et al., 2009, p. 16).

While the steps of the generic production processes and their sequencing appear to be similar across different animators’ production processes, it is clear from their texts that expectations of quality are also common while also being somewhat personalised and implicit. When discussing the planning stage of his process, for example, Roy’s (2013) practical goal is to plan-out a scene “thoroughly”, and in regards to the thumb-nailing of poses carries an expectation that his drawings should be “very strong” (p. 176). During a discussion of when to stop planning and starting animating, a senior character animator at Digital Domain Sintay avoids mentioning qualities as measures of achievement, and instead suggests the completion of the planning stage is governed by the deadline and the animators own plans (Kelly et al., 2009, p. 18). In regards to the second generic step of the

33

production process that is termed ‘blocking’ and involves the creation of key and extreme poses, Williams’ (2001) hints that his measure of practical achievement is when the storytelling poses are all present in the scene, and suggest that beyond the drawings simply being there that they must “show what is happening” and should “read” (p. 64). This perspective appears to be shared by Roberts (2011) who describes the blocking stage of his process as being practically complete when the key and extreme poses have been created, and that they should “sum up the essence of the action during the scene”; he offers another expectation of quality that the blocking stage should be “giving a rough overall feel of the animation” (2011, p. 13). When discussing the third generic stage referred to as ‘breakdowns’ Wyatt (2010) describes the practical completion of this stage as having created enough poses to break down the motion in between two keys. He then states an expectation of quality that breakdown poses should “never be exactly half way between two poses”, and that ‘well placed’ breakdown poses can create “dynamic and powerful” motion (Wyatt, 2010, pp. 91-92). In contrast, Osborn (2015) states that he creates breakdown poses in the middle of two extreme poses, and then repeats this process by taking a ‘divide and conquer’ approach until he has a pose on every second frame for a simple transition, or in the case of a complication transition he will have a pose on every frame (p. 97). His expectations of this stage are that breakdown poses should determine aspects of the character’s mechanics such as overlapping action, the arcs that body parts are moving along, the slow-in or slow- out of that action, and reveal the character’s personality (Osborn, 2015, p. 89). The final generic step in the process is ‘polish’. Roy (2013) describes his polishing as complete once the character’s arcing motions have been refined and that “final details like little bits of texture” have been added to the scene (p. 200). In his simplified workflow checklist Roy’s (2012) short prompts suggest that his expectation of practical completion extend beyond the refinement of arcs and non-performance texture, to having also analysed his character’s weight and centre of gravity, and that tiny details such as toe splays, blinks and other subtleties have been animated (2012). These sorts of expectations are also evident in Williams’ (2001) polishing stage of his process that sees him focus on different parts of the character, and drawing in between and over his guide poses using a straight-ahead technique to “add any flapping bits, drapery, hair, fat, breasts, tails etc.” and expects that his polished animation will have the overarching quality of being ‘smooth’ (pp. 66-67).

While there is clearly overlap between animators’ perspectives of what is required for steps within the production process to be practically complete and what qualities each should entail, there are also inconsistencies, variations and clusters of expectations. Ex- head of character animation at PDI/DreamWorks, Schleifer (2011c), for example, discusses his expectations of quality as explicit goals using coloured sticky notes (see Figure 2.9), and

34

positions each quality as belonging to one of three overarching themes being; one: acting and directing, two: animation or three: both (2011c). He considers there to be eight major ‘animation’ qualities that relate to the “technical and artistic things we do to make the movement look nice” (Schleifer, 2011c, para. 15), and are expectations that could arguably feature throughout the different stages of the production process that involve the creation and adjustment of poses such as blocking, breakdown and polish. His collection of nine acting and directing goals relate to the ‘telling of the story’ via the character’s placement, poses and performance. In regards to the generic stages of production process Schleifer’s (2011c) acting and directing qualities should be applicable across all stages, but perhaps more so in the earlier stages of planning and blocking, that according to Williams (2001) and Roberts (2011) is where the story is conceptualised and told through key and extreme poses. Schleifer’s (2011c) third theme includes the four qualities he terms as contrast, entertaining, character specific, and unique. He considers these to be overarching attributes of quality character animation, and should be thought of when addressing both animation and acting/directing goals throughout an animation production process.

Figure 2.9: A sticky note model of animation qualities

Republished with permission of Jason Schleifer.

35

Through reviewing this sample of published recounts of animation production processes, it becomes apparent that there are generic consistencies that can be drawn out and pulled together to frame a standard or generic animation production process. While the practical steps of the production process appear to be reasonably universal, their openness to interpretation by character animators sees their achievement measured by personalised and implicit expectations of quality. The need for a shared understanding of what the process’ steps are aiming to achieve and what qualities they are to entail once achieved is an issue of great importance, particularly for stakeholders such as the Director who has the decision making responsibility and final approval over a character’s animation and performance (White, 2012b, p. 18); and must “quickly and accurately figure out each teammate’s working style… to help create the best possible animation” Palmer (cited in Levy, 2010, p. 1).

The added complexity of implied and subjective process requirements, on top of an already linear process that can be performed in a non-linear way, further highlights the challenges faced by animation professionals when exchanging knowledge of the animation production process via explicit models and forms of communication. The research within this thesis aims to address this challenge, and make these qualities and their communication explicit.

2.3 The character animator

Motion is easy; making something move from one place to the next is as simple as two mouse clicks, but doing true dynamic motion that is sharp, quick, full of energy, responds to physics, and adheres to the rules is never easy. The computer does do a lot; it creates every frame, applies colour and shading, and keeps shapes consistent. However, it does not, for the time being, create animation

- Wellins (2005, pp. 77-78)

2.3.1 The role and expectations

There are different types and classes of animators, with each carrying their own responsibilities and expectations within the production team that can be “put together in different ways depending on the nature and needs of the projects” (Kerlow, 2004, p. 52). While in small production environments an animator may be required to animate everything that moves and be responsible for all aspects of the film’s development, production and

36

post-production (Levy, 2010, pp. 48-52), a larger production environment may employ specialised animators to achieve particular tasks. According to White (2012a) the specialised types of animator include character animators who are tasked with producing the character’s performance, effects animators who animate everything that is not character animation such as fire, earth, air and water, and graphic animators who specialise in the design and movement of graphical elements and titles (p. 198). Throughout his discussion of the broader production team, White (2012a) identifies nineteen common production roles, with four being directly related to character animation. He labels these four roles as the animator, the assistant animator, the inbetweener, and the clean-up artist (pp. 198-199). While these character animation roles are commonplace within two-dimensional forms of character animation and discussed by Thomas and Johnston (1995, pp. 224-229), White (2012a) highlights the expectations of and differences between character animation roles within two- dimensional and three-dimensional environments where he states:

a 3D animator is required to produce all the animation for a scene themselves whereas the 2D animator usually only produces key drawings, and perhaps most of the breakdown drawings, themselves, leaving an assistant animator or an inbetweener to do all of the secondary drawings (p. 198).

This difference in expectation can be seen in Kerlow’s analysis of screen credits for The Prince of Egypt (Chapman, Wells, & Hickner, 1998), a 98 minute hand drawn and three- dimensional computer animated feature film that has one-hundred and eleven credits for final line animation, ninety credits for effects animation, eighty-three credits for character animation and fourteen credits for animation digital final checking, and demonstrates the many hands required to produce two-dimensional character animation. In comparison Kerlow’s analysis of the all computer-animated 95 minute feature film A Bugs Life (Lasseter, 1998) featured an animation team of sixty-eight, which was composed of two animation managers, thirty-three character animators, twenty-three animators working on additional animation (presumed to be effects), one fix animator, two production assistants and a crowd animation team of seven (Kerlow, 2004, pp. 54-55). With The Prince of Egypt having more than one hundred and fifty credits specific to the creation of character animation in comparison to the less than fifty on A Bug’s Life, the notion that the three-dimensional computer animator is expected to do it all appears true. The expectations and ability for a three-dimensional computer based character animator to work in this way is supported by the assistive nature of the computer that has replaced the need for assistant and inbetween animators as per Catmull’s (1972, 1978, 1979) early explorations of how computers could be used to speed up the conventional animation process.

37

With there being different types and classes of animators the expectations of the animator can be broad but also specific. As Williams (2001) notes in his chapter on directing animation, animators can become known and responsible for delivering a particular type of character performance, as “everybody has their ‘thing’ they do well”, and that it is the job of the Director to cast animators for things that they can do compared to the things that they cannot (p. 335). To narrow the focus of inquiry the animator will be discussed in relation to the role and expectations of the character animator, a role that is responsible for doing it all to bring a character to life including all ranges of performance through the use of three- dimensional computer animation. Other types of animators, such as those concerned with the animation of non-character elements including effects, and graphics and crowds are beyond the scope of this investigation.

The team-based and dynamic production environment requires character animators to perceive expectations of their environment and to analyse, act, evaluate and communicate their creative and technical goals. As Kelly (2008) states, it is the job of a professional character animator to be the Director’s or someone else’s tool that they can use as a means to an end, and for the character animator to create whatever it is they want to see (p. 48). White (2012a) expands on the expectations of the character animator, highlighting that they need to also be aware of what other animators in the production team are doing and how they are doing it:

It is the animator’s job to appraise themselves fully with the nature, personality and capability of what is to be animated; listen to the director’s wishes and timings; then produce movement and actions accordingly. Although essentially a solo operation, animation is also a team effort and animators must be mindful and respectful of what the other animators are doing with (quite often) the same characters. Consistency and continuity is a very important aspect of many animated productions and therefore the animator needs to attempt to keep this consistency with other animators (p. 198).

The studio behind the animated feature films Maya The Bee (Stadermann, 2014) and Blinky Bill: The Movie (Taylor, 2015), Flying Bark Productions (2019) reinforce the requirement for animators to be aware of their environment and act accordingly where they list the requirement for animators to show “flexibility and ability to be responsive to change” (para. 9) within their position description for an animator. While needing to work with and within their elastic production environment, the character animator is also expected to have a

38

great deal of autonomy and input into how they achieve their goals as Lasseter (cited in Moore & Wells, 2016) notes:

as directors we first talk to the animators from the standpoint of acting. What is the subtext? We do talk to them also about the practicalities of moving a character from one place to another, but we don’t tell them how to do it (p. 94).

In similar discussions of the character animator’s responsibilities Whitaker and Halas (2009) point out they are expected to rely on domain knowledge and craft expertise to problem solve and achieve their goals, where they write:

The animator should, however, add some ideas of their own as to how the character’s performance can be achieved – just as an actor would in live action… How does a ball bounce? How does a character react in surprise, or snap his fingers? These are problems the animator must solve by their feeling for and knowledge of the subject (p. 11).

As Whitaker and Halas (2009) point out, an animators ‘feeling for and knowledge of the subject’ is a critical attribute of the role and meeting its expectations, and is something that is also prevalent within position descriptions and advertisements for character animators. The United Kingdom’s national occupational standards for working in animation (SkillSet, 2007) define twelve areas of competency that are “an essential foundation for anyone working in animation” (p. 3). These areas include topics ranging from conceptualising and evaluation ideas, writing and visualising scripts, developing design and assets for production, and production management. They then go onto define a further three areas of knowledge and skills that are specific to working within three-dimensional computer animation, and concern the setting up elements for animation, creating animation and rendering animation (SkillSet, 2007, p. 3). The standard that is specific to the creation of animation lists thirteen different expectations related to animation knowledge that includes such topics as knowing and understanding the principles of animation and motion, how to clarify project requirements, how to use animation software, the principles of anatomy and how they impact on movement, and “how to communicate across disciplines especially between creative, technical and production people”; three different expectations relating to being aware of the production environment that include being aware of the creative style and concept, the way in which animation will be used within the project, and different techniques, issues and associated costs; and seven different expectations of competence that include creating accurate animation using key frames and creating the movement and performance

39

required by the production using computer generated assets, to make effective use of animation software, and to “remain constantly flexible and adaptable to new software developments” (SkillSet, 2007, p. 18). These essential attributes are echoed across position descriptions and advertisements for character animators, with recurring themes relating to teamwork, communication, mentorship, working autonomously, and animation craft and software competency. For example, the global studio Mill Film (2019) expect their character animators to work with others, understand client requirements and communicate the creative process:

a 3D Animator must work closely with our animation supervisor and fellow animators… as well as develop an in-depth awareness of client requirements and how to co-ordinate and guide them through the creative process (para. 2).

This message is reiterated by Industrial Light and Magic (2019), the visual effects and animation studio behind animation that appears in such titles as Star Wars, Jurassic Park and Iron Man who require their animators to collaborate with team members, and to provide regular feedback to the production team in dailies. While also requiring their animators to collaborate with the team, Electronic Arts (2019) requires their animators to take responsibility for organizing and scheduling their work to meet deadlines, and state that “it's essential to have an understanding of the production process and the ability to communicate effectively with other disciplines” (para. 4).

According to the above and other major studios, character animators are expected to practice the traditional master and apprentice model to learn craft skills and expertise. Job advertisements commonly require experienced animators to “mentor entry level animators and must be able to support and assist them with their shots” (Industrial Light and Magic, 2019, para. 3). This requirement of mentorship is repeated by DreamWorks Feature Animation (2019) who state that their animators are expected to “mentor new animators, sharing suggestions and helpful tips and tricks, and seek out opportunities and efficiencies that drive the department forward” (para. 2). At the same time Mill Film (2019) allude to the requirement for junior animators to be mentored, with an expectation to “work under guidance of the Senior 3D Artists to grow and develop the business, as well as implement working methodologies… and quality control” (para. 4). While this model of teaching via mentorship seems to be apparent within Pixar (Weber, 2001), the studio has augmented this via the establishment of Pixar University, an in-house training program for employees with courses concerning many aspects of the creative process. Nelson, Dean of Pixar University, sees this program as more than a training platform, and as something that “helps all of the

40

people at Pixar understand each other better and communicate better” (Leslie Iwerks Productions, 2008, 2min 18sec).

Further to being required to work with others and communicate practice, a standard inclusion within job advertisements is for animators to be familiar with key animation software packages and to have general knowledge of other software packages used throughout the production pipeline. Mill Film, for example, post the requirement for their animators to show “familiarity with Maya [animation software], and general knowledge of Photoshop, Illustrator, CAD and Nuke/After Effects [other production software]” (2019, para. 5). In addition to software competency DreamWorks Feature Animation (2019) expect their animators to have the “ability to solve technical issues independently and/or knowledge of when to elevate them” (para. 2).

Revisiting the notion that a three-dimensional character animator is the key, assistant and inbetween animator rolled into one, another common expectation of an animator is that they can take a shot of animation from the initial concept through to practical and successful completion. Industrial Light and Magic (2019) states that their animators will be “responsible for the successful animation of a series of shots on a specific project”, and that they must “maintain or exceed a consistent level of productivity while meeting deadlines and producing high quality work” (para. 3). This expectation is echoed by other studios such Luma Pictures (2019) and Sony Pictures Imageworks (2019) who in their position descriptions state that animators must be able to work independently to meet shot deadlines and production milestones. Further to simply achieving production requirements, animators are also expected to do this successfully through their deep understanding of animation, acting and storytelling principles. The studio behind much of the hyper-realistic character animation found within films such as Alien: Covenant, Black Panther and Iron Man 3; Luma Pictures (2019) state that their character animators are required to demonstrate:

a broad range of character animation and acting skills and an understanding of the principles of animation and how to best employ those principles to create performance that supports both the characters and story goals of the show (para. 2).

Others such as Industrial Light and Magic (2019) state that animators are required to have “expert understanding of traditional animation principles, acting, film production and compositional design” (para. 5), while Flying Bark Productions (2019) expect their animators to have a “good sense of narrative storytelling, comic timing and emotive visual language” and “experience with character animation including lip sync and key posing” (para. 9).

41

Expectations of creative and craft skills continue to be communicated in similar but different ways where expectations of quality can be direct or implied. Electronic Arts (2019), for example, expect that their animators “have an ability to animate the human form, giving the character weight, personality, mood, and believability” and that “they can demonstrate a strong understanding of classic animation principles and fundamentals” (para. 3); whereas DreamWorks Feature Animation (2019) are more implicit in their requirement for animators to craft believable performances, stating that their animators are needed to “develop the emotional content of each scene through strong acting skills” (para. 2).

The common requirements and expectations of character animators to be aware of their environment, to act autonomously and within a team, to be skilled in specific and complementary animation software and to evaluate and communicate their goals and creative processes highlights the breadth and complexity of the role. In discussing how Pixar fosters collective creativity across the studio Catmull (2008) stresses the importance of marrying art and technology throughout the digital animation process, and credits Lasseter as coining one of the companies foundational mantras that “technology inspires art, and art challenges technology” (p. 8), and while it is core to the studio’s way of life Catmull (2008) does also highlight that different domain perspectives and languages are barriers to unison (p. 8). While Lasseter’s perspective of art and technology may be specific to Pixar and its studio environment, the relationship between art and technology that he speaks of is also highly pertinent to the challenges faced by character animators when performing their role. This sentiment is shared by Wellins (2005) in the introduction to this section who claims that the computer can do many things but it cannot animate (pp. 77-78), and by White (2012a) who writes:

a large percentage of 3D animators tend to be animation technicians, meaning they know software inside out but can only be called character animators when they can bring a character truly alive with presence, performance, and personality through the traditional (2D-inspired) principles of movement (p. 198).

As Wellins (2005) and White (2012a) point out, the character animator is expected to possess and marry expert software skills with expert knowledge of animation principles, but to do so they must draw from and bridge the distinct domains and languages of art and technology.

With the role of the character animator and its expectations now defined, the character animator and their reach within the animation environment allows boundaries for

42

research into their practice to be established. As stated within this section, the three- dimensional character animator draws upon their knowledge of art and technology to perform their role. These banks of knowledge are discussed in the sections that follow.

2.3.2 Artistic knowledge and expertise

At the heart of the animators’ artistic knowledge are the principles of animation and their relationship to the laws of physics, and the principles of acting and performance. While these are independent areas of expertise, Wyatt (2010, p. 64) and White (2012a, p. 198) highlight the requirement that character animators are expected to marry them to create believable character movements and performances.

Originating from within the walls of Walt Disney Animation Studios, the principles of animation were conceptualised and labelled by animators as they “searched for better methods of relating drawings to each other and had found a few ways that seemed to produce a predictable result” (Thomas & Johnston, 1995, p. 47). Thomas and Johnston (1995) claim that while these special techniques offered animators some security in their work, they did not work every time. As these techniques were taught to new animators as the “rules of the trade” they became the fundamental principles of animation (p. 47). According to Thomas and Johnston (1995) the twelve principles of animation that facilitated the communication of animation practice and techniques are:

One: squash and stretch; Two: anticipation; Three: staging; Four: straight ahead action and pose to pose; Five: follow through and overlapping action; Six: slow in and slow out; Seven: arcs; Eight: secondary action; Nine: timing; Ten: exaggeration; Eleven: solid drawing; and Twelve: appeal (1995, p. 47).

43

Across their twenty three page discussion of these twelve principles, Thomas and Johnston (1995) describe each as qualities of animation that require interpretation and evaluation from the character animator. They describe the principle of ‘staging’, for example, as:

the presentation of any idea so that is completely and unmistakably clear. An action is staged so that it is understood, a personality so that it is recognizable, and expression so that it can be seen, a mood so that is will affect the audience (p. 53).

The subjective nature of these quality-based principles is again highlighted throughout discussion of the principle ‘appeal’, that Thomas and Johnston (1995) state as being “anything that a person likes to see, a quality of charm, pleasing design, simplicity, communication, and magnetism” (p. 68). The principle of ‘timing’ is discussed as one that has a complicated relationship with other principles such as ‘follow-through and overlapping action’, from a pragmatic view the principle of timing “determines the amount of time that an action take on the screen” (p. 64) and carries the ability to determine the intrinsic qualities of a character’s attitude as being lethargic, excited, nervous or relaxed. During his days pioneering character animation within a three-dimensional computer animation environment, Lasseter (1987) offered insight to how the fundamental principles of animation could be applied within a three-dimensional computer animation environment to make “quality 3D computer animation” (p. 35). In his paper Lasseter (1987) states that the principles of:

timing, anticipation, staging, follow through, overlap, exaggeration, and secondary action apply in the same way for both [two and three-dimensional animation] types of animation. While the meaning of squash and stretch, slow in and out, arcs, appeal, straight ahead action, and pose-to-pose action remain the same, their application changes due to the difference in medium (p. 36).

While echoing meanings and descriptions of each principle as put forward by Thomas and Johnston (1995), Lasseter (1987) avoids mentioning their eleventh principle, ‘solid drawing’, that refers to figures being drawn in three-dimensions and that they show weight, depth and balance (p. 66). While Lasseter (1987) does not explain reasons for its absence, Roy (2013) suggests that this principle “at first glance... has little to do with CG animation” (p. 30) but then goes on to state its relevance as a principle that reminds three- dimensional animators to keep their character’s pose, perspective, form, volume and force on model.

44

As artistic principles that relate to the visual, Thomas and Johnston (1995) and Lasseter (1987) support their discussions with examples of actions like the one shown in Figure 2.10 where the principle of squash and stretch has been applied to a two-dimensional hand drawn version of Pluto’s head that Thomas and Johnston (1995) claim gives “strength to the action and a feeling of moving flesh” (p. 50). On the other hand, the illustration shown in Figure 2.11 shows the same principle of ‘squash and stretch’ applied to the more mechanical figure of Luxo Jr. during his jumping/hopping action. In discussion of this figure Lasseter (1987) states that “an object need not deform in order to squash and stretch” ( p. 36), and this is shown via the lamp’s form expanding and contracting compared with the overly fleshy and exaggerated distortion shown on Pluto’s head. These examples highlight the importance of visual aids in communicating the interpretations and applications of the principles of animation.

Figure 2.10: The animation principle squash and stretch applied to Pluto

Illustration Copyright © 1981, Walt Disney Productions. Source: Thomas, F., & Johnston, O. (1995), p. 50. The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation (1st Hyperion edition ed.). New York: Hyperion.

Figure 2.11: The animation principle squash and stretch applied to Luxo Jr.

Republished with permission from the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. (AMC), from Principles of Traditional Animation Applied to 3D Computer Animation by John Lasseter, 1987.

The method of communicating the meaning and application of these principles through illustration appears common across animation texts. Whitaker and Halas (2009) claims that “it is difficult to avoid using a lot of words to explain what may be seem fairly

45

simple when seen on screen” (p. 2), and is both a reasonable and practical explanation of why the principles of animation tend to be overly described and supported with illustrations that show them in different contexts. Williams (2001) for example, tends to use only short dot-points style notations to describe the principles of animation, and illustrates their application through typical character actions and scenarios like the one shown in Figure 2.12 of a man on a diving board. As shown in this illustration Williams (2001) identifies the principle of anticipation as incorporated into the character’s key and extreme poses.

Figure 2.12: The animation principle of anticipation

Illustration Copyright © 2001, Faber and Faber Limited. Source: Williams (2001), p. 27. The Animator’s Survival Kit: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas for Classical, Computer, Games, Stop Motion and Internet Animators.

The show and tell method of communicating the principles of animation has continued within texts that are concentrated within a three-dimensional computer animation environment. In Roy’s (2013) chapter on the principles of animation he presents each individually alike to Thomas and Johnston (1995), with wordy explanations of each that are supported by computer generated illustrations that demonstrate the principle in focus (pp. 2- 33). This same approach is echoed by White (2012a, pp. 209-264) who discusses the principles plus others using large components of descriptive text that is supported via illustrations of their application. Osborn’s (2015) chapter on the principles of animation focuses only on the principles that pertain specifically to cartoony animation such as anticipation, exaggeration, squash and stretch, timing (pp. 71-75). Like Roy (2013) and White (2012a), Osborn (2015) follows the show and tell approach to communicating the principles of animation and offers lengthy written discussion on how each can be applied with supporting visual aids – rendered frames from animated films that showcase each principle. Kerlow (2009) also follows this approach and like Thomas and Johnston (1995)

46

and Lasseter (1987) he describes the fundamental principles of animation as individual qualities, and supports each with illustrative examples such as the one shown in Figure 2.13. This illustration demonstrates the animation principle of slow-in and slow-out via a human figure kicking a ball. Without a text description it can be challenging to see the principle within the action, but it becomes clearer when focus is drawn to the kicking leg that slows out of the previous action of drawing the leg backwards, before it cushions or slows-in to the leg’s next most extreme pose where it has kicked the ball.

Figure 2.13: The animation principle slow-in and slow-out

Republished with permission of John Wiley & Sons - Books, from The art of 3D computer animation and effects by Isaac Victor Kerlow, 2009; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Unlike Lasseter (1987) who discusses how the principles of animation can be applied within a computer animation environment, Parent et al. (2009) link the fundamental principles of animation to four types of “motion quality that they contribute to in a significant way” (p. 13). They state these motion qualities as follows:

One: the simulation of physics, that incorporates the principles of squash and stretch, secondary action, slow in and slow out, arcs and timing; Two: designing aesthetically pleasing actions, that incorporates the principles of exaggeration, appeal, solid drawing and follow through/overlapping action; Three: effectively presenting action, that draws upon the principles of anticipation, staging, timing and secondary action; and Four: production techniques, which concerns the principles of straight ahead and pose to pose (pp. 13-14).

While these principles can be contextualised, they can and have been expanded beyond the fundamental twelve. Stanchfield (2009) writes that there are twenty-eight principles of animation (p. 5) that appear to overlap with and break down some of the twelve fundamental principles of animation, while also offering new principles such as anatomy,

47

weight, caricature, and planes to consider. His twenty-eight principles of animation that include these and other subjective expectations such as direction, tension, texture and simplification are shown in Figure 2.14. Like others, Stanchfield (2009) takes the opportunity both to show and tell the application of each principle throughout his text (pp. 5-42).

Figure 2.14: Stanchfield's twenty-eight principles of animation

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from Drawn to Life: 20 Golden Years of Disney Master Classes Volume 1 : Volume 1: The Walt Stanchfield Lectures by Walt Stanchfield, 2009; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Though he offers a depth of quality based but subjective principles, Kerlow (2009) suggests that there are a further six principles that should be added to the twelve fundamentals that reflect the evolution of animation since the 1930s (p. 305). These are:

One: limited animation, that concerns the limiting of a figures motion to particular elements such as head, or limbs and can make use of looping actions and cycles; Two: cinematography and editing, that focuses on the use of the camera and shot design and timing to better tell a character’s story; Three: facial animation, that concerns the use of micro expressions and the deformation of facial muscles with reference to the Facial Action Coding System’s (FACS) seven basic but universal emotions of anger, fear, sadness, disgust, happiness, surprise and contempt; Four: visual storytelling, that concerns the aesthetic or visual style of the character, its world and the rendered image; Five: blend motion, that recognises the mixing and merger of motion styles and the techniques used to capture and create them; and

48

Six: user-controlled animation, that relies on the audience blending cycles of animation within for example a video game engine, to create a performance (Kerlow, 2009, pp. 310-318).

Others such as Wyatt (2010) discuss the principles of animation alongside the related principles of motion as motion theory, which according to him blends the principles of animation, with the laws of physics and the essential principles of acting (p. 65).

While the twelve fundamental principles of animation remain at the core of the different interpretations and perspectives of the animation principles just discussed, character animators are also expected to be familiar with the laws of physics and their interplay with the principles of animation. White (2012a) claims that “all actions are individualized, the actual process of movement itself is defined by specific laws and principles that are immutable and universal” (p. 210), and while these principles may be immutable and universal, a character animator is expected to understand and apply these so that they are ever-present or intentionally broken to achieve a desired pose or action (Wyatt, 2010, p. 65).

The laws of physics or motion in focus are the three laws of motion put forward by Sir Isaac Newton in the Principia (1833). According to Zimmerman Jones (2019), an academic within the physical sciences, their English translation is:

Law One: every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it (para. 8); Law Two: the acceleration produced by a particular force acting on a body is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force and inversely proportional to the mass of the body (para. 14); and Law Three: to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts (para. 20).

As an animator and teacher of animation Bousquet (2016) offers an entire textbook on the laws and properties of motion and how they are relevant for animators, and states that “with the need to represent motion convincingly, [animators] should be well grounded in the basics of physics” (p. xvii). As she discusses notions of matter and masses, motion and timing, forces, and light and colour, Bousquet (2016) claims that it is critical for animators to understand each as individual concepts in order to bring them together (p. 5). While the

49

notion has strong support throughout animation texts, animation supervisor on The Lion King (Favreau, 2019) Endicott (cited in Hogg, 2019) explains that animating reality can be “a juggling act trying to make sure you find that perfect balance between the needed realism and the emotional performance” (para. 11). Whitaker and Halas (2009) echo this message while demonstrating the mathematics behind gravity as it applies to the realistic animation of an object, and state that:

In animation is it not usually necessary to work out a movement like this mathematically. It is all right if it looks right, and it looks right if the movement it’s based on is what actually happens in nature – simplified and exaggerated, if necessary, for dramatic effect (p. 35).

It has long been said that “an animator is an actor with a pencil” (Hooks, 2011, p. 6), but as pointed out by White (2012a) the difference between an animator who is a technician and an animator who is a character animator is their ability to bring a character truly alive (p. 198). This perspective is shared by a number of authors, included Blaise (2018), a veteran character animator who states that:

Animation is not the art of moving something... character animation is the art of breathing life into our characters, it’s bringing them to life. So many young people get caught up in the mechanics of how to move something across the screen they forget about the life that a character should have and really feeling that and animating that rather than just thinking about movement (1min 12sec).

As White (2012a) and Blaise (2018) have suggested, the next major element of a character animators’ artistic knowledge relates to acting and performance, and more specifically the principles of acting as they apply to animation. As a leading authority on acting for animation Hooks (2011) argues that there is a significant difference in how stage actors and animators perceive and apply acting theory, and in recognising that animators and stage performers create characters in different ways he puts forward the notion that “stage actors act in the present and fleeting moment, and animators create an illusion of a present moment. Same principles, very different application” (p. 7).

Goldberg (2008) claims that good acting within animation is as acting that “convinces an audience that the character exists” (p. 16), and Wyatt (2010) states the special ingredient to good acting is the creation of empathy through emotion:

50

You must create empathy so that your audience can relate to and care for the character, and emotion is a key part of this. If you can make your character appear to think before any action, this will help make the character appear believable – if the character is thinking, surely he or she must have feelings and emotions (p. 76).

This perspective is echoed as a core theme throughout what Hooks (2011) presents and labels as the seven “essential and inflexible” principles of acting (p. 28). He discusses these principles as emotionally oriented storytelling qualities, and suggests that like the fundamental principles of animation that these essential principles of acting can also blend and be perceived in a multitude of ways (p. 9).

Hooks (2011) prefaces these principles as being guided by four overarching theatrical concepts known as conflict, that concerns an obstacle for the character to overcome; objective, that is something for a character to pursue and has a provable state of achievement; anticipation, that is different from the animation principle of the same name, and is considered an acting error as it reveals a story or plot point before it has actually occurred; and doing, that concerns the character’s active pursuit of their provable objective (pp. 10-11). With the concepts in mind Hooks (2011) defines the seven essential principles of acting as:

One: thinking tends to lead to conclusions, and emotions tend to lead to action; Two: we humans empathize only with emotion; Three: theatrical reality is not the same thing as regular reality, for example actors should only show parts that tell a particular story; Four: acting is doing and also reacting, whereby the undertaking or completion of an action will cause a reaction based on the character’s values; Five: characters should play an action until something happens to make them play a different action, and is tied to the character’s thought process while achieving their objective; Six: scenes begin in the middle, not at the beginning, and concerns the characters state and motivations leading into and out of the key moment that is typically revealed in the middle; Seven: a scene is a negotiation, and deals with the tackling of the characters conflict (pp. 11-12).

While Hooks (2011) discusses the meaning and broad applications of these essential principles of acting within an animation context, Goldberg (2008) proposes tips to creating

51

good acting, with a key being to get inside the character by knowing who they are via defining their history, motivations, internal conflicts and physical characteristics (pp. 16-20). Williams (2001) expands upon this notion by suggesting that we as humans and thus our characters are capable of projecting different personalities, and that these “come out to play” (p. 315) as appropriate for the situation that the character finds themselves in. He lists these personalities as being the authoritarian, the child, the student, the responsible adult, the lover, the friend, the clown, the empathetic kindly person, the hunter and the power crazy maniac; and like Goldberg (2008) he too stresses that animators must get into the character they are depicting, and into the situation that they are in (Williams, 2001, p. 315). The notion that the animator should transform into their character, and that acting qualities are somewhat independent of motion-based qualities, are complex topics that are likely to present challenges when making expectations of quality and process explicit.

Having moved past the planning of the character’s acting and initial animation has commenced, Goldberg (2008) advises animators to evaluate their acting by asking questions such as: “Is the scene well-paced for its emotional content? How does your character break out of one thought before expressing another? If there is more than one character in the scene, are their personalities clearly defined?” and questions relating specifically to the character’s action such as “is your character reacting to stimulus or trying to perform a task? Is he under physical strain or unfettered? Can he perform nonchalantly? Is he interested in what he’s doing, or bored, distracted?” (p. 21).

As discussed above there is significant interplay between the principles of animation and principles of acting, and these tend to come together and be seen through the “one language that everyone speaks fluently, and that is body language” (Wyatt, 2010, p. 78). While this may be a universal language, character animators must also be familiar with the meaning behind different types of poses such as open and closed postures, forward and back postures, aggressive, depressed and conflicting postures and how these can convey what the character is thinking and feeling (Wyatt, 2010, pp. 77-78). Goldberg (2008) echoes this perspective and states that “the whole body must be used as a means of expression” (p. 30). Illustrated in Figure 2.15, Goldberg (2008) uses the show and tell method to communicate the concept of body language. In doing so he reveals the blending of animation processes where there is a focus on key and breakdown poses, the principles of animation such as anticipation, slow-in and slow-out, timing, squash and stretch, and then essential acting principles such as anticipation, thought, reaction and clear gestures that all work together to reveal or show how the character is feeling in their situation.

52

Figure 2.15: The interplay of body language, animation principles and process

Illustration Copyright © 2008, Silman-James Press. Source: Goldberg (2008), p. 31. Character Animation Crash Course!

While the principles of acting can be drawn upon and incorporated alongside the principles of animation and laws of motion to create empathetic body language, Wyatt (2010) highlights the challenge and animation expertise required to do this well… “people are extremely good at reading body language, and, as many of the signals are very subtle, it can be difficult to capture these in your animation” (p. 79).

Further to the essential principles of acting, Goldberg (2008), Hooks (2011) and others offer a range of insights and different quality focused techniques that can be leveraged to achieve stronger body language and the clearer communication of a character’s thoughts, emotions and attitude. These include concepts such as identifying the subtext in a voice actor’s performance so that an animator can “animate what the character means rather than what they are saying” (Kelly et al., 2009, p. 24). Another is the notion of a character’s power centre that Hooks (2011) describes as a point within the character that leads its motion, and suggests that:

The higher the power center, the quicker the rhythm of the character…. Anxiety is a high and heady power center. Confidence, on the other hand, manifests itself in a feeling of weight, a lower power center (p. 29).

Goldberg (2008) offers the concept of an attitude pose (pp. 7-10) that he defines as “a pose that expresses, through the entire body, what a character is thinking and feeling” (p.

53

xvii). This has some overlap with what Hooks (2011) calls the ‘status transaction’, which is as “an unspoken agreement having to do with how we comfortably interact with one another” (p. 32). There are many other interpretative concepts that focus around notions of heroes and villains, active listening, adrenaline moments, animating force and more that Hooks discusses as techniques to achieve good animation and acting (pp. 29-52). While offering thoughts on acting for animation Whitaker and Halas (2009) take a simpler view that is the notion of characterisation, and as something that concerns not what a character does but how they do it (p. 120). While they touch on many of the same concepts that have already been discussed, Whitaker and Halas (2009) do so through a specific lens of timing and link discussions of acting back to the fundamental principles of animation. They write, for example, that “moods of depression, dejection, sorrow, etc. depend on slow timing for their effect, whilst the moods of elation, joy, triumph and so on depend on quicker timing” (2009, p. 123).

In accordance with the broad spectrum of animation, motion and acting principles discussed, there are different thoughts, insights, tips, tricks and perspectives that come together and contribute towards a character animator’s pool of artistic knowledge. This knowledge and the expertise gained through its application has, as previously described, become the standard expectation for character animators across all levels of experience to hold. Walt Disney Animation Studios (2019), for example, requires that applicants for their summer animation internship program “demonstrate a good understanding of acting and animation principles such as timing, clear staging, squash and stretch, anticipation and follow-through, and secondary action” (para. 3) and a broad range of acting and animation exercises such as pantomime, dialogue, walk cycles (para. 4), while Warner Bros. (2019) require their senior animators to have “extraordinary knowledge of traditional animation principles” and “expert level skills using relevant software” and other traits pertaining to time management, being a team player and strong communicator, and the ability to “ensure the timely completion of animations at the desired quality bar” (para. 3). While these expectations go hand in hand with the role, Whitaker and Halas (2009) remind us of the complex and challenging job that a character animator has in simply understanding, bridging and blending the many implicit, subjective and situational attributes of animation quality… “Character animation is the ultimate achievement of animation art. It is a complex combination of craftsmanship, master of the sciences of natural movement, acting and timing” (p. 120). As discussed throughout this section, there are three major areas of artist knowledge that come together during the production of character animation. The research within this thesis aims to make this largely implicit and subjective knowledge, along with its harmonisation within the animation production process explicit and sharable.

54

2.3.3 Technical knowledge and expertise

“In computer graphics movies and video games, things move around. This is called animation” (Gortler, 2012, p. 239). From a broad definition of animation where it is considered to be the moving image, and through a technical perspective Gortler’s (2012) statement is arguably true. But there are at least two technical perspectives that can be taken towards the notion of moving things around, and these require distinction to better scope the expected technical knowledge that a character animator should have. The first perspective concerns the development and writing of animation scripts, plug-ins and tools that enable movement to occur, while the second focuses on the application of these tools and technologies to create and control motion. While the two can overlap, for example within the role a Technical Director, who according to DreamWorks Animation SKG (2019), carries an expectation to “provide support and development of tools and procedures to extend and enhance the pipeline” (para. 2), however working across the two domains is beyond the usual expectations of a character animator.

With a focus on the application of animation tools and technology, Parent et al. (2009) outline that there are three general approaches to the creation and control of motion. The first is artistic animation where the animator is responsible for creating and controlling motion; the second is data-driven animation, in which the primary technology is motion- capture, and the third is procedural animation that relies on the computation of physics and behavioural models to control motion for simulation (p. 4). Drawing reference back to the definition of animation in section 2.1.5 where the character animator is positioned as responsible for producing orthodox character animation using linear production methods, and the approaches just mentioned by Parent et al. (2009); the technical knowledge discussed from this point onwards will concern the character animators’ artistic application of tools and technology of which they have full control over the creation and control of motion.

This perspective aligns with White’s (2012a) view that character animators are expected to be familiar with the computer and animation software as their tools (p. 198). It also aligns with the expectation of technical knowledge for character animators to hold as evidenced throughout job advertisements and position descriptions that state requirements such as: animators must have “expert understanding of Maya, proprietary and other software programs” (Industrial Light and Magic, 2019, para. 6) and “solid experience and understanding of Maya in a production based environment” (Flying Bark Productions, 2019, para. 9).

55

As discussed throughout section 2.2.2 the creation of life requires character animators to incorporate and blend a wide spectrum of artistic qualities within their production environment. In the case of three-dimensional computer animation, the environment exists within animation software that provides character animators with an interface to access, customise and execute systematic and algorithmic functions to create and control the motion of characters. While it is feasible for technically minded character animators and animation technicians to explore the science behind these functions, it is the techniques and principles of such animation technology that they are most likely to incorporate within their artistically focused animation processes. A range of such techniques are demonstrated by Roy (2013) throughout his tutorials, and are the prime focus of the computer animation texts by Parent et al. (2009) and O'Rourke (2003) who discuss core animation technology as non-software specific principles and techniques.

O’Rourke (2003) explains that it is impossible to separate computer graphics procedures such as modelling and rendering and animation from one another, and that the separation of such components is of “conceptual convenience” only (p. 15). Given the complexity of modern computer animation software, this convenience is applied across a number of leading animation software packages such as the current industry standard Maya by Autodesk. While its interface offers a breadth of computer animation functions or tools to its users, it separates these via menu-sets that reflect the prime areas of the production pipeline, for example; modelling, rigging, animation, effects, and rendering (Autodesk, 2018). As this is a matter of convenience this approach also enables character animators to exercise their particular library of tool and technical knowledge within an animation focused environment, that Roberts (2011) discusses as having thirteen basic concepts that appear across animation software packages and will be discussed shortly (pp. 27-38). The notion of separating tools and having basic concepts translates well to practice, as Kelly (2009) writes:

As animators, we’re only really using probably 5% of the program anyway. We need to save key poses, adjust timing, and manipulate the pose -that’s about it, generally speaking. Because of that, I think someone who knows XSI could learn enough about Maya to get started in a day or two (p. 56).

As discussed, Roberts (2011) suggests thirteen basic software concepts that animators must get to know in order to perform their role within a three-dimensional computer animation environment. While some of these concepts appear to be singular, others refer to collections of functions and the sequential operation of different functions, his concepts are as follows:

56

One: screen basics, knowing how to navigate the graphical user interface and where to find core operational features and functions such as selection and manipulation tools, view panels, time line and playback tools, preferences and attribute editors; Two: operational and animation specific keyboard shortcuts that can be used to enhance the efficiency of software navigation and the application of core animation tools; Three: setting and changing preferences, that enable the user to define the parameters of the production environment such as scale, framerate and the software’s playback speed; Four: the creation of basic objects and the manipulation of their volumetric properties such as height, width, depth and subdivision surface properties; Five: transforming objects, including how to move, rotate and scale an object; Six: setting keys, that concerns how to lock in the position of an object at given points in time – creating motion; Seven: manipulating animation curves using a graph or curve editor to control the interpolation of an object’s position between keys; Eight: previewing an object’s motion via efficient and low-fidelity rendering; Nine: hierarchies, as means of enabling one object to influence the movement of another through a parent and child relationship; Ten: how to create bones and have them drive an object’s deformation and movement; Eleven: adding colour and surface properties such a texture maps to objects; Twelve: importing sound as reference to animate objects to; Thirteen: outputting a high-fidelity render of the scene that can travel to other departments within the digital animation process (pp. 27-38).

With artistic animation crafted within a functional software environment, these concepts and their button-level functions dictate, at a technical level, how an animator must go about their production process. The fundamental activity of locking in or keying an object’s pose within a three-dimensional computer animation environment, for example, requires some technical understanding of the steps involved in how to execute this command, what data is being recorded, and how that impacts on the control of motion. As Parent et al. (2009) note:

57

Any value that can be changed can be animated. An object’s position and orientation are obvious candidates for animation, but all the following can be animated as well: the object’s shape, its shading parameters, its texture coordinates, the light source parameters, and the camera parameters (p. 4).

As they point out, three-dimensional objects have values that define their placement, orientation and scale within the three-dimensional world, and these are called transformations. O’Rourke (2003) explains transformations as belonging to an object specific matrix, and that “each transformation matrix consists of nine basic transformations – translation (x,y,z), rotations (x,y,z), and scale (x,y,z). The nine values of the transformation matrix control the overall placement, rotation, and size of the object” (p. 147).

When describing the key-framing procedure (using Maya), Parent et al. (2009) summarise the basic technical knowledge that an animator should hold in relation to the creation of a single key placed within an object’s transform matrix, and how this data and its interpolation is then visualised for editing and refinement as they write:

Animation is simply the change over time in the value of an attribute… Maya stores key frame data for every animated attribute in a separate animation node. The input for this node is time and its output is an attribute value. This data is in the graphical form of attribute verses time and is visualised in the Graph Editor (p. 289).

This key-framing procedure is then explained via the example of animating a cube from one position to another while rotating as shown in Figure 2.16. In this demonstration Parent et al. (2009) describe eight progressive activities that an animator needs to be perform within the software, with each underpinned by a number of smaller and typically sequential tasks.

58

Figure 2.16: The basic key framing process applied to the attributes of a cube

Used with permission of Elsevier Science & Technology Books, from Computer animation complete: all-in-one : learn motion capture, characteristic, point-based, and Maya winning techniques, by Rick Parent, 2009, p. 299; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Their first activity is preparation, and contains four tasks in the order of creating the basic cube object, setting the parameters of the environment, setting the start and end range of time, and then selecting the frame in which to commence animation. Their second activity is focused on setting the keyframes, and in the case of the rotating cube there are ten tasks that include selecting the cube as the object to be keyed, selecting the transform to be keyed, bringing up a menu with options relating to the selected transform, and then choosing to key that transform. The tasks are then repeated for one of the object’s rotation transforms where the current time is changed from frame one to frame ninety, the object is moved using Maya’s move tool that changes the values within the cubes translate transforms, the manipulated transforms are they keying via menu commands of keyboard shortcuts, the objects rotation transform value is then updated and then as a final task it is keyed. Based on keying only the translation and orientation transforms of a simple object at two points in time (frame one and frame ninety), the animator must perform approximately twenty non- creative functional tasks in a specific order. Following the object’s keying that results in basic animation, the animator moves on to the third activity that concerns playing, scrubbing and stopping the animation, and involves selecting specific playback functions such a play and stop, or interactively clicking and dragging ‘scrubbing’ along the timeline. The fourth activity looks at editing the animation curves within the Graph / Curve editor, and is a complex task that requires a technical understanding of interpolation and how this is represented via a per transform curve, and also edited within a two-dimensional graph that plots time and value (Parent et al., 2009, pp. 296-299). O’Rourke (2003) writes that the graph “is a direct and

59

immediate representation of the animation. Three-dimensional software packages allow you to modify, or edit, these parameter graphs and thereby to directly redefine, or edit, the animation itself” (p. 154).Via his own example of a simple rotating cube animation that also sees the cube increase in size over time, O'Rourke (2003, p. 153) breaks down the graphed transformation matrix as shown in Figure 2.17.

Figure 2.17: Interpolations of a simple object’s transform, graphed as time and value

Illustration from Principles of Three-Dimensional Computer Animation by Michael O’Rourke. Copyright © 1995 by Michael O'Rourke. Used by permission of W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

The figure shows how the Translate X ‘TX’ transform increases in value before slowing into its most extreme position before moving in a negative X direction that it then holds from frame 90 to frame 200. The translate Y and Z graphs show that the cube’s position does not change over time and remains in a constant Y and Z position in the environment. The graphing of the Rotate Y ‘RY’ transform shows that the cube rotates in perfectly linear increments around its Y axis from frame 1 to frame 150, and then holds its rotation from frame 150 to frame 200. The graph also shows that the cube does not rotate around its X or Z axis. Finally, the graph shows that the cube increases in scale across all scale transforms ‘SX, SY, SZ’ from frame 90 to frame 150 before remaining at a constant scale, noting that the cubes scale slows-out of its original scale and slows-into its new scale as shown via the ‘smoothness’ of the curves.

The more mathematical or technical representation of a figure’s animation as curves, their tangents, different interpolation algorithms and their relationships to motion are

60

common topics of discussion in technical and artistic computer animation texts. From an artistic perspective Lasseter (1987) discusses the importance of interpolation throughout his paper and states that the “tension and direction controls on the interpolating splines are helpful in controlling the spacing of the in-betweens and to achieve slow in and out” (p. 40). While this message is echoed by Roy (2013) throughout his demonstrations of animation tips and tricks, he highlights their importance as technical knowledge for computer animators as he writes “spline curves, or just splines (or even just curves), are the lifeblood of computer animation… much of your time animating will be spent perusing these little red, blue, and green intertwined curves” (p. 37). He then goes onto describe their appearance once graphed as an intimidating spaghetti dinner gone bad, a notion that is demonstrated in Figure 2.18 which is a screen capture of animation curves / splines within Maya’s Graph Editor as an animator would experience and interact with them.

Figure 2.18: Animation curves / splines as they appear within a graph editor

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from How to Cheat in Maya 2014: Tools and Techniques for Character Animation by Kenny Roy, 2013; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Roy’s (2013) chapter on animation curves / splines discusses further technical knowledge pertaining to animation, with a strong focus on understanding how the different interpolation algorithms known as spline, clamped, linear, flat, stepped and plateau impact on the shape of the curve and as a result the movement of an object between key frames (pp. 36-59), and is consistent with messages of these technical concepts presented by Kerlow (2009, pp. 333-337). While this technical knowledge is core to the editing of curves, Parent et al. (2009) offer a deep step by step technical process of how to edit an object’s

61

animation via curves, which involves opening the Graph Editor, selecting the object’s transforms, zooming in/out, selecting a curve’s tangents, applying pre-set tangent algorithms and steps to manually adjust and delete curves (pp. 300-302). While their process is very much a step-by-step recount of the basic functional steps required in the keyframing of an object, an animator’s experience and technical knowledge can see this process performed more efficiently via software shortcuts; many of which are demonstrated by Roy (2013) in his text How to Cheat In Maya. While Roy (2013) is not as prescriptive in his demonstrations, he shows these same processes applied to more complex objects such as human characters where these systematic activities are applied and repeated for every control point on the characters form – that can range from one to hundreds, for all of the control point’s keyable attributes of which there are typically six to nine, and for every point in time where the control point has been keyed.

As has been highlighted throughout this section, discussion of software fundamentals and keyframe animation processes has shown that animation software introduces notions of computational functionality, mathematical concepts, objective language and systematic workflows as basic technical knowledge into an otherwise artistic animation process. While these discussions have only scratched the surface of a character animator’s technical knowledge and expertise, there are many other technical concepts that animators are likely to experience and apply knowledge of to achieve and troubleshoot their artistic goals. These include but are not limited to such topics as transforming objects locally and globally across different coordinate systems (O'Rourke, 2003, pp. 45-50), avoiding issues such as gimbal lock when two of the three rotational gimbals are driven into a parallel configuration (Kerlow, 2009, p. 161); forward kinematics and inverse kinematics that offer manual and tethered methods of deforming and animating a figure’s hierarchy (Roy, 2013, pp. 100-105); along with limits and constraints that impact how far and how an object or figure can be animated (O'Rourke, 2003, pp. 287-291). In concluding his chapters on basic and advanced computer animation techniques, Kerlow (2009) lists one-hundred and one basic computer animation terms (p. 361) and one-hundred and twenty-eight advanced computer animation terms (p. 404) that summarise the extent of an animator’s expected technical language.

While discussion of an animator’s technical knowledge could be expanded further and in great technical detail, it should by now be clear that there is a technical and objective language to a character animator’s practice and process that needs to be considered when seeking to communicate how character animation is made. Fleming (cited in Withrow, 2003) reminds us of the technical knowledge and expertise that a computer animator should have, and their challenge in balancing this with their artistic expertise:

62

The problem with technology is that it can greatly simplify some tasks while greatly complicating others … In 2D, the animator simply draws the body perfectly and doesn’t have to worry about the technology getting in the way or falling short. Being a digital animator means also being a technical engineer and in many cases a programmer (p. 54).

2.4 Evaluating animation

Throughout the process of creating any animated film there needs to be a degree of objectivity in monitoring progress and evaluating each aspect of the work as it unfolds - Moore and Wells (2016, p. 206)

The critical evaluation of animation may be achieved in any number of pragmatic and artistic ways, and as Moore and Wells (2016) note the critical evaluation of animation generally concerns the “key narrative elements and the thematic and conceptual premises of the work” (p. 206) across all elements of the creative process, including character animation. The standard animation peer-review process is said to have been established by Walt Disney circa 1940 and was coined ‘sweatbox’. Hahn (2008) defines sweatbox as “the ultimate peer review” and describes it as the “meeting between the director and the animators to critique individual scenes of a film” (p. 66). He goes on to describe sweatbox as occurring at regular intervals throughout the making of the film, and highlights the creative and collaborative nature of sweatbox as he writes, “sessions are pretty dynamic – and brutally honest… everyone in the room gets to see where the director is setting the bar for quality… everyone is watching for mistakes or trying to find ways to ‘plus’ the scene” (Hahn, 2008, p. 66). Hahn’s (2008) perspective of this peer-review process is echoed by Thomas and Johnston (1995) who in their discussion of sweatbox state:

The purpose is to be sure that everything is working, whether it is the acting, the action, or the stage directions. If the scenes are good, more business may be added to make them even better; if they are wrong, changes are called for, but always with an eye to saving as much as possible of what has been done (p. 83).

63

Throughout their discussion of sweatbox Thomas and Johnston (1995) highlight the creative nature and focus of feedback given within the meetings, and demonstrate this via their publishing of an excerpt from sweatbox notes concerning the characters Doc and Grumpy from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, dated March 25, 1937. The excerpt reads:

Sc 24B Shoot a corr. ruff. Punch Doc’s poking Grumpy more. Get a nervous head on Doc to “WHO’S A…” he is mad at the start and you have him calm down too much. As Grumpy says “AW SHUT UP” have Doc jump back (just a little) in a fighting pose, dropping his fanny and getting a stretch in the legs…. Get a spring in his legs and fanny wiggle (as Walt demonstrated) while in the fighting pose (p. 83)

As demonstrated within the excerpt, there can be heavy use of visual methods and artistic language to provide meaningful feedback. Thomas and Johnston (1995) also note the challenges and implications of transcribing this in-meeting domain specific language into the written word, as they write:

explicit as they [sweatbox notes] sound … much of the terminology was in words that no one new to the business would use… to anyone not in the meeting, the sweatbox notes made no sense whatsoever; and to those of us who had been there it was still a mystery most of the time (p. 83).

While they may have been discussing the early days of sweatbox, the challenges of clear and specific communication remain present within the contemporary sweatbox practices that when occurring on a daily basis are known as dailies (Winder & Dowlatabadi, 2011, p. 240). While reflecting on his experience in dailies at DreamWorks Animation, for example, Schleifer (2011a) writes:

the shot goes up.. it plays a few times.. a few more times.. and a few more times.. and the director turns to you and says.. “yeahhhhh.. um.. okay.. I think what we need to do here is .. uh.. maybe have a bit more .. overlap? in the arms? or maybe you need to turn the head sooner? (para. 5).

This type of uncertain, artistic and collaborative peer feedback is comparative to Walt Disney’s sweatbox feedback that according to Thomas and Johnston (1995) included comments such as “Yeah I think this is your best bet… y’know?... do it like this and we’ll see

64

how it looks… whaddya think?” (p. 83). While sweatbox may be the standard forum where stakeholders come together and evaluate the achievement of production goals, these recounts demonstrate that mixed and trial and error methods can be deployed in problem solving and communicating artistic solutions to issues, and that it is a matter of some difficulty to communicate decisions via explicit methods of communication, even to fellow animators.

As Moore and Wells (2016) stated, there is no single approach to critically evaluating creative content and troubleshooting challenges within the peer-review forum. The approaches used are predominately creative, and include oral analysis and feedback, draw overs and role play as demonstrated by Lasseter during a face-to-face daily session at Pixar (Walt Disney Animation Studios, 2011). This face-to-face peer-review has been extended to the virtual environment through specialised production tracking and review software solutions such as Shotgun and its RV desktop client, and Ftrack (Perry, 2016). The fundamentals of sweatbox – being the meeting of stakeholders and their exchange of critical feedback, claim to have been enhanced within these packages that promise visual approaches such as the ability to add comments and drawn annotations on top of media to “give clear, on-screen feedback” (Shotgun, 2019a, para. 6) and other interactive features such as written notes and file sharing that “bring clarity, creative momentum and frame specific feedback” (Ftrack, 2019, para. 1) to the review process. Figure 2.19 demonstrates the application of frame specific on-screen annotations via the review software SyncSketch, where the reviewer has indicated to the animator via red marker that the character’s shoulders need to be reshaped to fit the drawn over silhouette, and the eye direction adjusted.

Figure 2.19: Peer feedback using on-screen annotations / draw overs

Draw-Over illustration used with permission by Bernhard Haux, Co-Founder, SyncSketch LLC. Original illustration credited to The Blender Foundation / The Project Gooseberry team at the Blender Institute, used under the Creative Commons Licence.

65

While there are various tools and techniques that can be applied within the peer review process, there is minimal literature discussing the inner workings of sweatbox and the criteria for an animation’s completion. What is available suggests that there is no formula or explicit measures for achievement, and that it comes down to creative and pragmatic compromises. As Kerlow (2009) discusses the planning and developing of the project pipeline, he suggests that there are two words to keep in mind when designing it that are on- target and compromise. He goes on to say how these concepts can mean very different things to individual stakeholders, and offers the example of an artist who being on-target would rarely mean anything other than being satisfied with their work (p. 64). The notion of satisfaction is an important one, and is perhaps one of the most important considerations in the evaluation of animation, as Hahn (2008) explains, the shot is simply complete when it meets the Director’s expectations and they okay it (p. 66). Building on this Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) note that the Director’s decision may be impacted by environmental factors such as project scheduling, available time and human resources, and budget. They state that sweatbox is “a very important meeting for producers to attend so that they can see firsthand the status of the shots in progress and be part of the decision-making process in approving shots” (p. 240).

Alongside the critical evaluation of the on-screen element of animation Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) explain that the evaluation process also includes the tracking of an animation’s progress, and that this enables the Producer to maintain a consistent level of production quality via the shifting of resources to where they are most needed (p. 297). While software solutions such as Shotgun and Ftrack feature charts and spreadsheet solutions to track progress, schedule and reallocate resources, Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) explain how different macro and micro level charts and tracking spreadsheets can be used to manage a project and how they are “a great way to gain a quick overall view of a show’s status” (p. 295). An example of their generic production tracking chart is shown in Figure 2.20, which breaks down a shot into major production activities and records the progress or completion of each activity as the offset. According to Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) the offset is based on scheduled time and is “the difference between the expected goal versus the actual work completed” (p. 295).

66

Figure 2.20: A generic production tracking chart, noting the one column for animation

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from Producing Animation by Tracy Miller-Zarneke, Zahra Dowlatabadi and Catherine Winder, 2011; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

As Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) explain throughout their text, and as can be seen in Figure 2.20, tracking is typically structured at a shot level with key production activities mapped out as high-level activities or tasks that are specific to departments in the production pipeline. In the case of software solutions it is common for the status of each activity to be expressed through explicit status icons and labels such as waiting to start that has no icon or colour, in-progress that is represented via a half filled green circle, and complete that is indicated via a fully filled green circle icon (Shotgun, 2019b). Regardless of the design or style of tracking chart, Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) highlight their appropriateness and importance for communicating progress, and state that tracking charts are “a perfect communication tool for sharing shot details with the artistic and technical crew” (p. 297).

While producers have the flexibility to customise the design of charts and status symbols to suit the production’s environment, literature breaking down and tracking the animator’s attainment of their production process goals appears to be non-existent. The absence of this can likely be attributed to the complexity and personalisation of an animator’s individual processes as discussed in section 2.2.2 and/or preferences only to track statuses for higher level pragmatic and fiscal reasons. But as Hahn (2008) says, peer- review is a regular occurrence throughout the making of a film (p. 66), and is something that has explicitly been incorporated into Winder and Dowlatabadi’s (2011, p. 250) pipeline model of the traditional two-dimensional production process. Shown in Figure 2.21, this model features three sweatbox activities, the first that reviews rough animation, the second that reviews cleaned up animation and the third that reviews the animation with colour.

67

Figure 2.21: Sweatbox activities highlighted within a two-dimensional animation pipeline

Republished with permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd - Books, from Producing Animation by Tracy Miller-Zarneke, Zahra Dowlatabadi and Catherine Winder, 2011; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.

Nevertheless, sweatbox or dailies are notably absent from pipeline models that are specific to three-dimensional computer animation, including those in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 discussed earlier. We know from insights to an animator’s work day, including Lasseter’s day at Pixar (Walt Disney Animation Studios, 2011), Kelly’s day at Industrial Light and Magic (Kelly et al., 2009, p. 14), and Schleifer’s (2011b) day at DreamWorks Animation that sweatbox sessions are a daily occurrence when a film goes into production and are deeply embedded within the animator’s production process. While Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) state that “tracking is just one mode of communication on a show, and clear communication is key to a production’s success on every level” (p. 303), the absence of tracking at the micro level of animation production suggests that the clearest method of communicating the progress, problems and achievements of an animator’s work remains to be the highly visual, trial and error practice that is sweatbox. With an overall research aim to make the practice and production knowledge of the character animation

68

explicit and sharable, the sweatbox forum and its support of mixed communication methods presents an appropriate environment where research could be tested and evaluated.

2.5 Communication challenges

As shown throughout section 2.3 the production of character animation within a three-dimensional computer animation environment is underpinned by the expert but contrasting domains of animation art and computer technology, and the character animator is expected to marry these domains and their languages to create believable character performances (Wellins, 2005, pp. 77-78). While the computer is a key instrument in the animation process Porter and Susman (2000) echo familiar messages from the animation community, in that the attainment of believability is more challenging than the figure’s movement, as they write… “The folly that the computer-based animation community has had to anticipate is that movement in computer graphics is easy, but animation is much more than just movement” (p. 26).

Though believability is a primary goal for character animators (Porter, 1997, pp. 11- 14), how this is achieved is very much an individualised process (Wyatt, 2010, p. 90). As discussed throughout the analysis of character animation workflows in section 2.2.2, there are generic consistencies that appear across individual processes, that see the animator first plan the performance, then visualise it using the minimal number of storytelling poses as practical before breaking down the movement and finessing the authenticity of the character’s actions and personality. The artistic knowledge and subjective qualities that underpin these progressive steps are typically discussed in terms of animation principles, and as Roy (2013) reminds us, these principles “are not rules, but rather guidelines for creating appealing animation that is engaging and fun to watch” (p. 3). With the understanding and knowledge that processes and artistic guidelines can be moulded to suit different production environments and scenarios, the transfer of animation practice and process knowledge into simplified, explicit and repeatable terms is a major communication challenge. Williams (2001) describes a conversation that he had with fellow animator Hawkins that captures the essence behind the challenges facing those who seek to communicate, and to engage with the unique and highly visual languages of character animation practice and process.

69

Williams: “I'm afraid my brains are in my hands”. Hawkins: “Where else would they be? It’s a language of drawing. It’s not a language of tongue” (p. 10).

As a drawn language the practice of animation, its techniques, processes and terminology are commonly transferred through the master and apprentice model, and is a model that Williams (2001) explains as the key to him gaining and developing his expert knowledge of animation (pp. 1-10). While discussing this method Tarantini (2011) as production artist and educator highlights the concept of trainability as the key component of the relationship between the master and apprentice, and how this attribute must be present in both parties in order to unlock and transfer knowledge of trade secrets (p. 254).

As a precursor and potential substitute for this face-to-face method of communicating and learning animation techniques and processes, a number of excellent how-to-animate books aim to hand down animation knowledge through a simulated master and apprentice experience. As the author of one such text, White (2012b) speaks to this concept in his prologue that reads:

Imagine you have rummaged through the drawers of a dusty old studio animation desk and found inside a rare personal notebook that had in it all the core secrets of movement. Imagine if all those core secrets told you everything you’ll ever need to know to become a master animator yourself. Imagine that these notes were clearly written down, illustrated, and easy to understand – as if the author of the notebook wrote them down as he learned those key secrets from his own teacher. This is what I hope you’ll find when you open the pages of this book (p. x).

While speaking to his text, White (2012b) managed to describe the intention behind many of the seminal text books that have already been drawn upon throughout this chapter, including titles by Thomas and Johnston (1995), Williams (2001), Goldberg (2008), Whitaker and Halas (2009), Stanchfield (2009), Glebas (2012) and Osborn (2015). Although these and other texts contain a wealth of essential professional knowledge and information, they acknowledge that animators develop their own processes and ways of achieving their creative goals. This may explain why the authors, who are all veteran character animators, struggle to articulate their practice, goals and processes using common and explicit language.

70

As highlighted in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 the concepts communicated through these texts are generally done so via lengthy explanations of concepts and supportive illustrations, much of which is considered to be required knowledge for animators as evidenced through job descriptions. Further to such requirements, and as discussed earlier, it is common for these same job descriptions to require experienced animators to mentor junior animators and for junior animators to be supervised and/or be mentored by senior level animators. While this model was popularised in the earlier days of traditional animation, it remains at the forefront of animation training with the likes of Walt Disney Animation Studios offering formal apprenticeship programs to recent animation graduates; that according to their apprenticeship website “offers participants a chance to understand the depth of their new skills, refine and strengthen key areas, apply them in our real world environment, and work under the guidance of a Disney Animation mentor” (Walt Disney Animation Studios, 2019, para. 1).

With the apprenticeship model still positioned as the best-practice approach to communicating and learning the ropes of animation practice and process, it is clear that methods for engaging with the craft, even with the rise of computer animation, have not greatly evolved since the so called golden age of animation as described by Thomas and Johnston (1995).

As has been highlighted throughout this chapter, the practice of animating a believable character within a three-dimensional computer animation environment requires the animator to bridge and blend the contrasting domains of animation art and computer technology. The current methods used to communicate the craft’s complex practice and multi-domain knowledge such as the apprenticeship, “how-to-animate” textbooks and pipeline models, tend either to avoid the use of explicit processes and language or lack depth of detail and requirements, or are presented via lenses that are skewed towards artistic, technical or management audiences. Since the dissemination of computer animation procedures throughout the 1970s and 80s there has been little advancement in the methods used to capture and communicate the multi-domain knowledge, practices and language of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation, and to make this explicit and accessible to emerging professionals and non-professional audiences.

The research that follows aims to make the underpinning artistic, technical and procedural production knowledge associated with three-dimensional computer assisted character animation explicit and sharable to aspiring character animators, and in doing so contribute to the ongoing development and expansion of the animation discipline with a new

71

approach to the communication of character animation practice and process. This aim will be explored via the novel application of an Agent-Oriented Software Engineering lens to view the animation environment, and will leverage an explicit graphical modelling method known as Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to communicate the hard and soft requirements of character animation practice within a diagram alike to the pipeline models discussed in Chapter 2.2.

72

Chapter 3: Agent-oriented goal modelling - a non-technical method for communicating multiagent systems

3.1 Animation systems and environments

The introduction of celluloid animation systems and the division of labour within animation studios is credited to the founders of Bray Studios (Cohen, 2000). While their early twentieth century innovations and ways of working have evolved alongside the introduction of computers into the animation process as discussed in Chapter 2.2, the fundamental structure of animation studios have remained somewhat constant, and can be thought of as having three tiers of operation.

The first of these tiers concerns the purpose along with the creative and operational goals of the studio, and homes the high-level motivations for developing and producing an animation film. It is very much the domain of the animation producer and core team members such as the writer and animation director, human resources, accounts and others as discussed in depth by Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011, pp. 17-95). The second tier concerns the design of systems and processes that will address both the studio’s and project’s high-level goals, and how they will be achieved using the studio’s social and technological systems. This systematic environment is closely aligned to the conceptualisation and design of a project’s overarching Digital Animation Process that was discussed in Chapter 2.2.1. This process focuses on communicating how critical information and creative outputs will flow from one department to the next. The third and final tier relates to the deployment of the Digital Animation Process, and is the environment where human and nonhuman entities interact to action the Digital Animation Process and its departmentalised sub-systems. It is both the physical stage and environment where the project’s plans are followed and the film is made.

As discussed throughout Chapter 2, these tiers feature mostly implicit goal-oriented behaviour and complex transactions between technology and people of wide-ranging expertise. Though computers are a primary tool within the animation system Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) remind us that transactions across the studio’s social systems are

73

essential to a film's production… “animation is truly collaborative and no one person is responsible for getting a project done” (p. 3). The interlinked human and computer interactions, and studio processes can be thought of as a sociotechnical or multi-agent system. This chapter briefly introduces the area of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, and a method of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling that has demonstrated research and practical capabilities to design, view and implement sociotechnical/multi-agent systems.

3.2 Agent-oriented software engineering

3.2.1 A theoretical framework

As the name suggests the discipline of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) concerns the engineering of agent-based software systems, which are similar in nature to the animation studio system described in the previous section. In the Introduction to MultiAgent Systems Woolridge (2002) defines an agent as “a computer system that is capable of independent action on behalf of its user or owner” (p. 3) that enjoys the properties of autonomy, reactivity, pro-activeness and social ability (p. 23). The definition of an agent is also discussed by Sterling and Taveter (2009) in The Art of Agent-Oriented Modelling as “an entity that performs a specific activity in an environment of which it is aware and can respond to changes” and explicitly point out that people share these properties and can also be considered agents (p. 7). Ronald et al. (2007) have also shown the agent metaphor to be useful in being able to represent human behaviour. Woolridge (2002) describes a multiagent system as containing a number of agents that interact, and require the ability to cooperate, coordinate and negotiate with each other to achieve the goals and/or motivations of their user or owner (p. 3), and I argue is comparable to the sociotechnical ‘animation studio’ system. Naturally, research related to agent-oriented software engineering is heavily weighted towards software engineering interests with technical papers, applications, discussions and perspectives reaching far beyond the practical animation focus this thesis pursues. Forthcoming discussion will refer to traditional software focused applications and examples of agent-oriented software engineering and goal modelling to provide background and points of comparison. However, I look to agent-oriented software engineering for inspiration and approaches to facilitate the explicit discussion, design and implementation of a character animation production process, with human agents operating within a physical animation production environment.

74

As discussed by Wooldridge and Ciancarini (2001) and Sterling and Taveter (2009) numerous methodologies have been developed over time for modelling agent-oriented software systems. These include Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) methodologies that are focused on the modelling of goals in the early stages of system development to acquire system requirements, and consider organisation and actor (agent) goals as the source of these requirements (Werneck et al., 2009, p. 2). In an overview of GORE research Lapouchnian (2005) discusses the main GORE approaches as being the NFR framework, i*/Tropos, KAOS and GBRAM. In his discussion of the prominent i* methodology by Yu (1995), Lapouchnian explains that i* supports the modelling of the system-to-be through the identification of activities that take place before system requirements are formulated, and that these early phase models can be used to help understand why a new system is needed, and then to propose and evaluate new system configurations and processes (p. 8). Another popular GORE methodology is KAOS by Van Lamsweerde (2001). Werneck et al. (2009) describe the KAOS methodology as having four perspectives of the problem domain that are treated through goal, object, responsibility and operational models, and state that the goal model is considered to be the main focus with the other models derived from it. They explain that KAOS goal models feature a top-down AND/OR hierarchy, where the most strategic goal is refined into sub-goals that describe how the higher-level goal can be achieved (p. 8). According to Lapouchnian (2005) the KOAS methodology is a well-developed approach for goal-oriented requirements analysis, and enables analysts to construct requirements models and requirements documents from KAOS models (p. 11).

Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) methodologies are an evolutionary step on GORE methodologies, and promote the use of agents across all stages of the software development process (Sterling and Taveter, 2009, p. 191). Two of the prominent methodologies discussed in AOSE literature are Gaia and Tropos. The Gaia methodology (Wooldridge et al., 2000) was the first complete methodology proposed for the analysis and design of multiagent systems (Cernuzzi et al., 2004, p. 69). The methodology is applied after system requirements have been gathered and specified, and “is intended to allow an analyst to go systematically from a statement of requirements to a design that is sufficiently detailed that it can be implemented directly” (Wooldridge and Ciancarini, 2001, p. 8). Sterling and Taveter (2009) describe Gaia models as being relatively simple in design, and that the methodology’s concepts appear easy for students and industry developers to understand (p.197). As explained by Sterling and Taveter (2009) the Tropos methodology is based on i*, and is a requirements-driven software development methodology (p. 235). A detailed account of the Tropos methodology is offered by Bresciani et al. (2004) who state that

75

Tropos “spans the software development process from early requirements to implementation for agent oriented software” (p. 233). They introduce the methodology as being based on two key ideas, the first is that an agent and its related mentalistic notions such as goals and plans are used throughout all phases of the software development process. Second, that the Tropos methodology covers the very early phases of requirements analyses, allowing for a deeper understanding of the software’s operating environment and the kind of interactions that should occur between software and human agents. Further to their explanation of Tropos Bresciani et al. (2004) offer a useful diagram shown in Figure 3.1, that demonstrates the relative coverage of Tropos compared to other prominent agent-modelling methodologies including i*, Kaos and Gaia (p. 232).

Figure 3.1: The relative coverage of prominent AOSE methodologies across the phases of software development

Republished with permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers (Boston), from Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology by Bresciani et al. 2004; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc

In addition to the Gaia and Tropos Sterling and Taveter (2009) discuss the methodologies MaSE, Prometheus, ROADMAP, RAP/AOR (pp. 191-237), and advise that the software life cycles that these methodologies imagine are not identical, but are loosely consistent whereby they envision stages of requirements elicitation and analysis, architectural and detailed design, and implementation (p. 192). Though Sterling and Taveter do not advocate the use of any one methodology, their discussion and demonstration of ROADMAP goal models throughout their book are appealing when thinking about how to best capture and communicate the aims and complexity of both the animation studio system and different character animation production processes.

Sterling and Taveter (2009) discuss the ROADMAP (Role-Oriented Analysis and Design for Multiagent Programming) methodology as an extension of the Gaia methodology

76

for open systems (p. 220), and is detailed by Juan et al. (2002). They go on to describe the methodology as focusing on domain and system analysis of agent-based systems, and that it works well in combination with the RAP/AOR (Radical Agent-Oriented Process/Agent- Oriented-Relationship) methodology proposed by Taveter and Wagner (2005). Sterling and Taveter (2009) describe RAP/AOR as a methodology “aimed at creating distributed organisational information systems” and caters for the design needs of such systems by modelling the behaviour of an agent based on its perceptions, beliefs and commitments (p. 221). Like other AOSE methodologies Sterling and Taveter (2009) discuss ROADMAP and RAP/AOR as featuring different models in the system modelling process, and state that ROADMAP’s goal and role models are the best developed and most extensively used in modelling application specific domains (p. 222). Throughout their book Sterling and Taveter demonstrate that these goal models feature an uncomplicated design and “include roles that define capacities or positions with functionalities needed for achieving the goals” (p. 224). The simplistic modelling notations used within their models were originally proposed by Kuan et al. (2005), and are visited in section 3.3.

Though Sterling and Taveter’s discussion and demonstration of goal modelling takes a software engineering perspective to the conceptualisation of complex sociotechnical systems including those behind robotic vacuum cleaners, smart homes, e-commence systems and smart simulation software for military applications, their ROADMAP approach to goal modelling has been transferred to sociotechnical/multiagent systems beyond the immediate realm of smart software and computing over the last decade to elicit and communicate user and system requirements, bring different domains together, and drive discussion across system stakeholders. Examples of these applications include Burrows et al. (2019) in the design new technology to assist the homeless in accessing service providers; Mayasari and Pedell (2017) to support communication between grandparents and their grandchildren over a distance; Marshall (2018) to teach undergraduate digital media design students, Pedell et al. (2017) to elicit and communicate design requirements from older people in regards to the design of personal alarm systems; and Sterling et al. (2019) for modelling the emotional needs of clients when interacting with teleaudiology services. Research by Sterling and his collaborators has shown that system goals can be very high- level and provide guidance for the whole system design and development process via their refinement as motivational, system design and deployment concepts, and that goals related to expectations of quality can be explicitly attached to the functional requirements of a system to define how they should be fulfilled (Paay, Sterling, Vetere, Howard, & Boettcher, 2009). The capability of this goal modelling approach to communicate and connect different agents and goals relating to functionality and quality via straight forward notations and

77

semantics appears promising to explore the animation environment, and to visualise and harmonise the hard and soft concepts associated with the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. As such, Sterling and Taveter’s perspective of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering and their ROADMAP method of goal modelling are positioned as the framework that research within this thesis will draw upon.

While setting the landscape for agent-based systems Sterling and Taveter (2009) discuss the foundations for building software in a complex and changing world, and identify desirable characteristics that software should have in order for it to be effective within a modern computing environment (pp. 4-5). To demonstrate the suitability of agent-oriented software engineering to the sociotechnical system that is animation production, the following will make connections between the modern computing environment and animation environment.

Sterling and Taveter (2009) state that “the modern world is complicated, and that complexity affects software”; and highlight complexity as the first characteristic of the modern computing environment (p. 4). As discussed throughout Chapter 2 the production environment can be described as a living system that is built around a seemingly linear process that is executed in a non-linear manner (Falk et al., 2004, pp. 9-14). The complexity of the system and its environment sees production data flow between stages and departments with various levels creative and technical compromise and social satisfaction (Kerlow, 2009, p. 64). The system’s complexities are also amplified with changes in creative direction, software, human resources and business operations (Winder & Dowlatabadi, 2011, p. 240).

The second characteristic highlighted by Sterling and Taveter (2009) is distribution, where software may need to be dispersed across different services to accommodate user demand, and feature for example, multi-lingual qualities for its deployment across different communities. As pointed out in the beginning of this chapter, the production of animated film and indeed shots of character animation is a team effort, where labour is distributed across human resources to cope with the requirements and demand of a project. Furthermore, the globalization of the animation industry and its production centres as examined by Yoon (2017), highlights the outsourcing of production work to offshore locations and distribution of production activities across studios with networks of integrated facilities (Failes, 2018).

The third characteristic of the modern computing environment is that software must be time-sensitive. Sterling and Taveter (2009) explain this as concerning the software’s

78

response time to a consumers demand or interaction, and also in regards to the software’s consumption of processing resources. Such notions of time-sensitivity are embedded throughout the animation environment as Winder and Dowlatabadi (2011) have discussed in regards to time pressures around deadlines, scheduling and budgets (p. 151). These time pressures flow throughout the environment, where for example in the animation department individual animators are assigned weekly quotas that if not achieved may require additional animators or resources to be assigned at the expense of other activities (Winder & Dowlatabadi, 2011, pp. 116-117).

The next important characteristic that Sterling and Taveter (2009) highlight is the uncertainty and unpredictability of the surrounding environment, where data may be false or generated by uncontrollable sources in the environment, and state that “software must be developed to expect the unexpected” (p. 5). These characteristics of uncertainty and unpredictability are intertwined with the complexity of the animation environment noted earlier, and the need for system entities to be aware of their surroundings as discussed in Chapter 2.2.1 where White (2012a) claimed that “animators must be mindful and respectful of what the other animators are doing” and be consistent with what other animators are doing (p. 198). The requirement to be adaptive was also discussed as a core requirement of an animator working within animation studios such as Flying Bark Productions (2019), who state that animators must demonstrate “flexibility and ability to be responsive to change” (para. 9).

According to Sterling and Taveter (2009) the final characteristic of the modern computing environment is that it must be open, where the environment must be susceptible to new information and new realities that change its landscape, and that the software must change its behaviour accordingly. While a production environment is somewhat closed to ensure the integrity and security of the pipeline (Cronan, 2014), at the same time the environment is accommodating to software upgrades, new tools and processes that increase the efficiency of data exchange and reaching the desired quality bar (Baisley, 2003). The environment is also not immune from changes in the broader landscape such as the non- sustainable industry practices that were highlighted by the closure of Oscar winning visual effects studio Rhythm ‘N Hues in 2013 (Curtin & Vanderhoef, 2015), or the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster that triggered Pixar to re-write, re-record and re-animate dialogue in reference to radiation at the last minute (Walt Disney Animation Studios, 2011, 16min 35sec).

79

While connection has been demonstrated between the modern computing and animation environments, Sterling and Taveter (2009) also highlight desirable attributes software should contain if it is to perform effectively and serve its users well (pp. 5-6). The first of the attributes is adaptivity, and via their example of security software Sterling and Taveter (2009) explain that if a new virus or security threat is determined the software should incorporate knowledge of the threat and adapt itself to the new environment. The second attribute they note is intelligence, where the software must be able to deal with complexity and uncertainty, they state that “a system that was unaware of what was going on around it would not seem intelligent” (p. 6). The third attribute they highlight is efficiency, where the software must provide rapid feedback in light of the environments complexity. By likening the overarching digital animation process and its character animation sub-process to the software in Sterling and Taveter’s example, connections can be formed between these desirable attributes and those that are present within human entities or agents operating within the animation environment’s social-system. As per discussions in Chapter 2 that highlight the expectations of the animator, it was determined that animators are able to personalize and adapt their practice and process to the animation scenario (Wyatt, 2010, p. 90); it was also highlighted that animators must be aware of their surroundings and be able to perceive and act on creative, technical and environmental changes (White, 2012a, p. 198); and that they have the ability to give and receive timely feedback via social channels such as meetings with producers, team members, the director and/or other departments throughout the environment.

The fourth attribute of software that Sterling and Taveter (2009) highlight is purposefulness. They state that it can be difficult (if not impossible) for all requirements to be known in a complex and changing environment, and that it can be better to work at a higher- level and explain the system’s purpose in terms of goals (p. 6). As demonstrated throughout Chapter 2 animation is a complex and multi-domain discipline that features a plethora of objective and subjective requirements, and that these can be challenging identify and also communicate. For this reason it is understandable that the highest level goal of an animator and the purpose of their production process is commonly explained as to bring a character to life (Parent et al., 2009, p. 22; Wyatt, 2010, p. 137). The generic consistencies of the character animation production process that were highlighted in Chapter 2.2.2 are also deliberated in terms of goals, and in doing so allows the animator to draw upon their own expertise and apply best-practice approaches to achieve their purpose.

Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) final software attribute is that it should be understandable, in that its design and purpose should be comprehensible so that it can be

80

better engaged with (p. 6). This desirable attribute relates to the very core of this thesis whereby the animation production process may be understood by those who have mastered it, but it is not easily communicated or comprehensible to others who are seeking to engage with it.

With connection now established between the characteristics of the modern computing environment, desirable attributes of software systems, the animation environment and attributes of its systems; Sterling and Taveter’s notion of using agent and system concepts to conceptualise and simplify the complexities of the animation sociotechnical system appears plausible.

Moving forward it is important to note that for reasons including to emphasise their software engineering perspective of agent-oriented systems and to avoid conflict between other perspectives that may be associated with sociotechnical systems, Sterling and Taveter (2009) prefer to use the term multiagent system in place of sociotechnical system (p. 11). While introducing the conceptual landscape of a multiagent system they also highlight the key advantage to their perspective over others, whereby implicit or non-functional concepts can and should be made explicit… “When thinking about the world, people form sets of interrelated concepts. Such concept sets are often implicit. We believe they should be made explicit in designing and building multiagent systems” (p. 27).

Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) perspective that implicit concepts can be made explicit is of particular relevance and importance when seeking to make the interwoven artistic and technological practices of character animation understandable. With their desire for explicit concepts Sterling and Taveter (2009) introduce the multi-layered conceptual space as a means to conceptualise, view and implement multiagent systems, inclusive of their implicit and objective requirements. The following section will explore the fundamental concepts of agents and systems, and how they can be conceptualised within the multi-layered conceptual space.

3.2.2 The multi-layered conceptual space

Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) multi-layered conceptual space is composed of three distinct layers or environments that are designed to model and communicate different perspectives of a multiagent system. In accordance with their explanation of the conceptual space (pp. 27-28) the top-level motivational layer is based around the owner’s perspective of the system and houses system defining concepts, the system’s purposes or goals, and the

81

roles required to achieve them. The mid-level system design layer is based around the system designer’s perspective, and proposes a system to achieve the motivational environment’s goals. The environment embraces the notion of agents and their enacting of the system’s requirements. The low-level deployment layer is based on the perspective of the system’s builder and frames the concrete environment in which the system design is deployed by concrete agents. These layers can be likened to the tiers of the animation environment that were discussed in section 3.1, where the high-level motivations or goal to make an animated film will trigger the design of an appropriate system to achieve it - such as the digital animation process. This process will then be deployed throughout a physical studio environment, and be actioned by the studio’s management, creative and technical personnel accordingly.

Sterling and Taveter (2009) explain that the core concepts of agency and requirements run throughout the multi-layered conceptual space, and are perceived differently within each environment. Within the motivational environment, for example, agency is discussed in relation to roles; within the system design environment it is discussed in relation to agents; and within the deployment environment it is discussed in relation to concrete agents. When discussing the core concept of requirements, within the motivational environment the system owner’s requirements are framed in terms of purpose/s or goals. Goals go on to be interpreted as activities that are composed of system requirements, which are defined by the system designer within the system design environment. Based on the system design and its requirements, the system’s builder identifies concrete actions to be performed within the deployment environment (pp. 28-43). Figure 3.2 is based on Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) comprehensive illustration of the ontological foundations of the multi- layered conceptual space (p. 45), and shows these concepts positioned throughout its three environment’s.

As shown in Figure 3.2 the concept of agency runs throughout the three conceptual environments and represents perspectives or modelling concepts that concern system intelligence. At the highest level, intelligence requires a modular unit of knowledge termed the domain entity and a role that represents some capacity or position within the system (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, pp. 341-344). In reality, the domain entity may be Charlie, a human, who brings a wealth of animation knowledge and experience into to the system. In this environment Charlie may perform a lead role such as an animation director or producer, and may establish the key requirement or goal to create an animated motion picture.

82

Figure 3.2: Agents and requirements as perceived within the conceptual space

Based on Sterling and Taveter's illustration of conceptual space’s ontological foundations (2009, p. 45). Illustration copied with permission from MIT Press, from Leon S. Sterling and Kuldar Taveter, The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling, © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published by The MIT Press.

As the system advances from the motivational environment into the system design environment, concepts relating to agency are discussed as agents. In this environment agents are derived from the roles and domain entities established within the motivational environment, and are mapped to appropriate activities such as to produce, direct or animate a shot of character animation. In the deployment environment notions of agency are perceived as concrete agents, who are tasked with performing concrete actions that will achieve the activities set out in the system design. This may see Charlie assume the real- world position (concrete agent) of director, producer, animator or a combination of these or others.

As with the concept of agency, the concept of requirements runs throughout the multi-layered conceptual space, and facilitates the transfer and modelling of goals, activities and concrete actions throughout the three environments. Within the motivational environment the system’s motivating requirement/s or purpose/s are discussed in terms of goals. Sterling and Taveter (2009) explain that goals can be based around achievement, cessation, avoidance and optimization, and are “measurable to a greater or lesser extent” (p.

83

31). For goals that are not easily measured, Sterling and Taveter (2009) introduce the concept of a quality goal as a non-functional requirement of the system (p. 31). If the system’s purpose or goal is to produce an animated motion picture about toys that come alive, for example, it may also have a quality goal of being an excellent or even ground breaking motion picture. Within the system design environment the motivating goals are perceived as activities that may also be composed of Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. An activity may be to animate a specific shot within the motion picture, for example. The activity might contain two functional requirements: the first where a particular character such as a toy cowboy must feature; and a second where that same character must look at the name tattooed on the bottom of its boot. The activity or perhaps one of the Functional Requirements may have a related Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement that expects the shot to be emotional.

In the final deployment environment the system’s activities are transformed into concrete actions that will be undertaken within a physical environment. Once performed these actions should fulfil both the Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements that were established in the system’s design environment. If the shot is animated with the specific character and that character also looks at its tattoo, for example, then the system built around the shot is functionally complete. But the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement that expects the shot to be emotional is subjective, and with its achievement determined to the satisfaction of the concrete agent animating the shot and/or other concrete agents within the system, such as a Director and Producer.

As shown throughout this section Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) perspective of agent- oriented software engineering shows a measure of potential as a framework to conceptualise and make understandable the complex animation environment, the interaction between its social and technical systems, and the implicit and objective requirements that run throughout them. Sterling and Taveter (2009) promote a range of modelling methods that fit into the multi-layered conceptual space. Each is designed to convey different types and depths of information to the system’s stakeholders. These include the Goal Model, Motivational Scenarios, Role and Organisation Models, Domain Models, Agent and Acquaintance Models, Interaction Models, Knowledge Models, Scenario Models, Behaviour Models and Service Models (pp. 65-112). They state, “these models are compatible with a wide range of agent programming languages and agent-oriented methodologies” (p. 61). Though this may be the case, perhaps the most interesting and appropriate model for disciplines outside of software engineering is the Goal Model, as “the notions of goals and roles are intended to be intuitive and easy to understand for nontechnical people, such as

84

customers and other kinds of external stakeholders” (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, p. 65). Alongside these intentions the Goal Model appears similar in outcome to the animation pipeline models discussed earlier in Chapter 2.2.1, where both leverage simple shapes, language and hierarchical structures to communicate a system’s design via a diagrammatic model. While the Goal Model is the product, the method used to create it is referred to as Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling.

3.3 Agent-oriented goal modelling: an overview

According to Sterling and Taveter (2009), Goal models and the practice of Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling can communicate the complexities of a multiagent system by drawing connection to the multi-layered conceptual space and its three environments that were discussed in section 3.2.2. They declare that the main objective of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling is to enable stakeholders throughout the three environments to “discuss and agree on the goals of the system and the roles the system needs to fulfil in order to meet those goals”, and liken goal models to use-cases but for open and distributed systems (p. 66). Some defining and beneficial characteristics of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling is that it uses easy syntax and straight forward semantics to communicate complex systems. This has made Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling palatable within software engineering and design domains, as demonstrated by the use of this modelling method by Paay et al. (2009), Miller, Pedell, Sterling, and Lu (2011), Miller, Lu, Sterling, Beydoun, and Taveter (2014), Dai, Mahi, Earls, and Norta (2017); and more recently by Marshall (2014), Miller et al. (2015), Lopez- Lorca, Miller, Pedell, Sterling, and Curumsing (2014) and Marshall (2018) to model emotional concepts within multiagent systems. The topic of emotional modelling concepts emerged at the time of undertaking the study in Chapter 5, and are subsequently investigated in Chapter 6.

According to Sterling and Taveter (2009):

a goal model can be considered as a container of three components: goals, quality goals, and roles. A goal is a representation of a functional requirement of the system… a quality goal, as its name implies, is a non-functional or quality requirement of the system… a role is some capacity or position that the system requires in order to achieve its goals (p. 66).

85

These concepts and their relationship to each other throughout the three environments of the multi-layered conceptual space are visualised using the notations shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: The key Goal Modelling concepts and their relationship signifiers

Note: The notations featured are redesigns offered by Marshall (2011) based on Sterling and Taveter (2009, p. 67). Illustration copied with permission from MIT Press, from Leon S. Sterling and Kuldar Taveter, The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling, © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published by The MIT Press.

When designing a goal model of a multiagent system the concept of agency is represented via the notation of a human figure, and in accordance with the earlier Figure 3.2, perceptions of agency differ throughout the multi-layered conceptual space. In the Motivational environment, for example, agency is discussed in terms of Roles, in the System Design environment notions of agency are referred to as Agents, and within the Deployment environment they are discussed as Concrete Agents; however regardless of the environment in which the goal model is conceptualising, the human notation remains consistent.

In accordance with Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) explanation of requirement concepts within the multi-layered conceptual space (pp. 28-43), a functional requirement is represented via a parallelogram notation and is used to indicate something that must be attempted for the system to function, and is evaluated as being complete or incomplete. In the Motivational environment functional requirements are discussed in terms of Goals; within the System Design environment they are regarded as Activities and Functional System Requirements; and within the Deployment environment they are perceived as Concrete Actions. The quality based concept of a Non-Functional System Requirement is leveraged throughout the multi-layered conceptual space to denote how a functional requirement

86

should be, and to emphasise the soft and subjective nature of this requirement it is symbolised via a fluffy cloud notation. The concept is perceived in the same light as its functional counterpart where in the Motivational environment it is perceived as a Quality Goal, and in the System Design environment as a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. It is unusual for a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement to be directly implemented within the Deployment environment, however in an open system the system’s builder may see a need to directly implement a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement as an attribute of a Concrete Action. Both types of requirements have language rules to ensure their simplicity throughout the multiple environments of the conceptual space, where a functional requirement must draw upon a verb, and a quality requirement must incorporate an adjective. While it is not essential, it is preferred that the word count of a concept’s label is restricted by the scale of its symbol, and that it uses a consistent and readable font size appropriate to the model's output medium, for example, print or screen. In general, this results in a one to three words label per notation.

Figure 3.4 shows these notations and their application within a goal model for a system of humans and Tamagotchis (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, p. 68). The goal model of this system features a top-level functional requirement that is to entertain and educate the owner, with a quality requirement that the owner has fun. These requirements are most likely directly linked to the motivating goals of the system that were defined within the Motivational environment. There are two agents that contribute towards the achievement of this requirement, the Owner agent and the MyTamagotchi agent, and though their status as human or nonhuman is not defined at this level of system design it will eventually be determined during the system’s build and deployment. The goal model also features a hierarchy of Functional Requirements and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements and uses sub-requirements (shown as requirements that are placed below another) to expand on what is required to inevitably achieve the highest-level requirement, that is to entertain and educate the owner.

87

Figure 3.4: A goal model for a system of humans and Tamagotchis

Illustration used with permission from MIT Press, from Leon S. Sterling and Kuldar Taveter, The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling, © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published by The MIT Press.

3.4 The next step: agent-oriented goal modelling of animation

As explored throughout this Chapter the multi-layered conceptual space for designing multiagent systems along with the method of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling are capable of conceptualising and communicating notions of agency and requirements from the motivating purpose of a system to its deployment within a concrete environment.

Highlighted in Chapter 2 and noted in section 3.1, the motivating requirement or purpose of a character animation production process is to bring a character to life. Given this, there is little need to investigate the animation production process within the conceptual environment of the Motivational layer. Whereas the conceptual environment of the System Design Layer that focuses on designing systems composed of quantifiable and implicit concepts is most relevant to frame the conceptualisation, modelling and communication of the practical steps and principle-based expectations that underpin the production of three- dimensional computer assisted character animation. While it has been highlighted in section 2.2.2 that there is a generic high-level production process or system that can be followed to

88

produce such character animation, the details of this system change per animator and animation scenario, and are challenging to articulate using simple and explicit language.

The following chapter will explore the application of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling within the conceptual environment of the System Design Layer, with an outlook to explore how agent-oriented modelling concepts can be leveraged to capture, conceptualize and communicate the Functional and Non-Functional requirements of a system for producing three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

89

Chapter 4: Developing a production system design and model

4.1 Research question

The previous chapters have discussed the complexities of the animation environment alongside the artistic and technical foundations that are embedded throughout character animation production processes, and have highlighted the potential for Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to conceptualise production concepts and to make them explicit and understandable for stakeholders. This potential is explored by asking the research question, how can Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling be adapted to make explicit the practices and processes associated with the production of orthodox three-dimensional computer assisted character animation?

4.2 An agent-oriented goal model of the digital animation process

As discussed in Chapter 2.2.1 the Digital Animation Process is the overarching system that drives the development of computer animation films from their concept through to their completion. It typically has four key environments or stages that are referred to as Development, Pre-production, Production and Post-production (Pixar, 2011). A key aim of this chapter is to develop a conceptual Agent-Oriented Goal Model that is specifically focused on the sub-system of producing three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. In order to frame this sub-system, the parent system - the Digital Animation Process, will first be modelled using the same Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts and language.

To produce the overarching model for system design, the Digital Animation Process promoted by Pixar Animation Studios termed The Pixar Process (Pixar, 2011) is analysed to identify key process functions along with their sequencing. Through a series of mapping exercises these functions are translated into core agent-modelling concepts and modelled as Functional System Requirements. These requirements are then compiled into a high-level functional system model that is dubbed the Digital Production System. Following the presentation of this model, common jobs in three-dimensional computer animation are

90

identified and used to generate a pool of industry relevant Agents. The responsibilities and interactions of these Agents are then defined through the development of a Behaviour model that determines the sequencing of the system’s functional requirements. Drawing upon the functional, Agent and Behaviour models, a high-level conceptual Agent-Oriented Goal Model of the Digital Production System is composed, and presented as a platform that can be used as a basis for modelling production focused sub-systems.

4.2.1 Identifying key activities and requirements

As discussed throughout Chapter 2.2 the Digital Animation Process embodies systematic and creative requirements. These requirements are plentiful, and the activities that they provoke can be widely subjective, dependent on other requirements, and impacted by changes throughout the overall project environment. Stakeholders managing or working within the Digital Animation Process may consider particular activities to have different levels of importance, to be invalid, or even to be situated within different stages of the process. Stakeholders may have also developed their own unique versions of Pixar’s Digital Animation Process to suit their project environment, as such it is important to recognise and accept variations to the process as long as they aim to achieve the motivating requirement that is to create a three-dimensional computer animation film.

In the modelling work that follows, my own experiences as a three-dimensional animation practitioner and educator have been drawn upon, as needed, to take the conceptual step of identifying the activities from Pixar’s Digital Animation Process and translating these into Functional System Requirements, and then into a model of the Digital Animation System design.

The four major stages of the Pixar Digital Animation Process, along with the high- level descriptions of each stage as they appear in Pixar’s own documentation of the process (2011) are shown in Table 4.1. As established in Chapter 2.2.1, these stages and their sequencing are common across the field of animation, and given this, provide a backbone to construct a model of the Digital Production System design.

91

The Pixar Process

Production Stages Description

Development Creating the storyline

Pre-Production Addressing technical challenges

Production Making the film

Post-Production Polishing the final product

Table 4.1: The four stages of The Pixar Process and its high-level intentions

With the intention to develop a model that is both relevant to animation practice and that makes use of common animation language, the labelling, intent and sequencing that Pixar had given to these stages was respected and carried through into the modelling process. In their original form the stages and their descriptions closely align with the agent- modelling definition of an activity, that is “an execution of actions constituting the activity situated in a specific context that takes time, effort, and application of knowledge” (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, p. 339). To form distinctions between this group of activities and the many more narrow activities that each embody, the four major activities are referred to as high- level activities.

In the promotion of their process, Pixar (2011) describe fourteen key activities that take place within their Digital Animation Process. It is noteworthy that in the headings and descriptions of these activities that Pixar fail to make explicit links between each and the four higher-level activities. The fourteen activities can and should be considered high-level within their own environments, but to distinguish these from the four high-level activities they are referred to as sub-activities. The fourteen sub-activities and the order in that they appear within the Pixar Process are shown in Table 4.2.

1 A story is pitched 8 The sets are dressed 2 The text treatment is written 9 The shots are laid out 3 Storyboards are drawn 10 The shot is animated 4 Voice talent begins recording 11 Sets and characters are shaded 5 Editorial begins making reels 12 Lighting completes the look 6 The art department creates the look and 13 The computer data is “rendered” feel 14 Final touches are added 7 Models are sculpted and articulated

Table 4.2: The fourteen sub-activities extracted from The Pixar Process

92

Although Pixar failed to make explicit links between their high-level and sub-activities, the order that sub-activities were presented and the dependencies that each imply—for example, models cannot be sculpted and articulated until the art department has created their look and feel, and that the computer cannot render data until the shot is both animated and illuminated—suggests that a linear relationship exists between them and also to the high-level activities. To clarify these relationships, the four high-level activities and the fourteen sub-activities were mapped to one another based on the title and description Pixar had given to each sub-activity, and their alignment to the brief descriptions of the four high- level activities. The mapping is shown in appendix A4.1, with the final alignment and clustering of the sub-activities to the high-level activities shown in Table 4.3.

Development Pre-production Production Post-Production

1 A story is 7 Models are 10 The shot is 11 Sets and pitched sculpted and animated characters are articulated shaded 2 The text treatment is 8 The sets are 12 Lighting written dressed completes the look 3 Storyboards are 9 The shots are drawn laid out 13 The computer data is 4 Voice talent “rendered” begins recording 14 Final touches 5 Editorial begins are added making reels 6 The art department creates the look and feel

Table 4.3: Pixar’s fourteen sub-activities mapped to their four high-level activities

This mapping clearly shows that there is significant activity in the earlier stages of a Digital Production System, and that these narrow rather quickly to ensure animators have all of the assets needed to produce their shot/s of animation during the process’s production stage. It is important to highlight that Pixar’s description of these activities offered no real guidance as to when they are complete or who will complete them, and that the high-level activity of production contains only one sub-activity that concerns animating the shot. This sub-activity is the focus of significant exploration and modelling in section 4.3. Via the previous mapping an overarching perspective of Pixar’s (2011) Digital Animation Process has been made visible, and offers a foundation in which to now explore and apply core agent-oriented modelling concepts.

93

4.2.2 Designing a functional model of the digital animation system

Taking a system design perspective to the high-level and sub-activities in Table 4.3, all activities will be considered as Functional System Requirements. Once brought together these system requirements form a functional model of the Digital Production System, and shows that each play an important and sequential step towards the achievement of the Digital Production System’s motivating purpose. The purpose is defined by an even higher- level motivation, which for this modelling work is to make an orthodox three-dimensional computer animated film.

To be of substance and to serve as a solid foundation for which deeper system modelling can occur, Pixar’s fourteen sub-activities, that can also be thought of as sub- functions, were expanded to include logical Functional System Requirements that must take place to achieve them. To identify these additional functions the sub-activities/functions shown in Table 4.3 were analysed alongside their brief descriptions published on Pixar’s (2011) website. From these descriptions additional functions and their sequencing were identified. The description pertaining to the sub-function Voice talent begins recording, for example, features key points such as temporary/scratch voices are first recorded for the storyboard reels then professional actors begin recording the characters voices and the best reading is eventually animated. From this description it can be determined that there are at least three sequential functions that underpin the voice recording activity, being Record scratch track, Record professional voices, and Present for approval. Of the fourteen sub- functions, number ten, The shot is animated, offers perhaps the least amount of detail. Instead of breaking this sub-function down into smaller logical steps or functions, Pixar (2011) describe it as the stage where animators use animation software to choreograph the movements and facial expression of characters in each scene, and adjust frames created by the computer as necessary. While Pixar (2011) offers minimal detail regarding sub-functions, the need to animate objects and to present work for approval can be extracted from their descriptions.

In translating each of these functions into objective system requirements, Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) guidelines for labelling and presenting Functional System Requirements were applied (p. 67). This included the creation of short verb centric labelling in line with ‘the agent must… x’ and that this labelling is readable within a consistently sized parallelogram symbol. The process of translating Pixar’s fourteen sub-functions into functional requirements and their expansion to include additional functions, is shown in appendix A4.2. The outcome of this process was the creation of fourteen sub-level

94

requirements, and an additional forty-three sub-level Functional System Requirements. In addition to the creation of these system requirements, the four high-level activities featured earlier in Table 4.1 underwent the same translation process to generate the Digital Animation System’s high-level functional requirements (see appendix A4.3). In a similar fashion to the fourteen sub-level functions, the four high-level activities required no consolidation and featured similar labelling to their origins. For example, the high-level activity/function Development was translated into the high-level Functional System Requirement Develop Production. The high-level Functional System Requirements that were generated from this process and serve as the backbone of the Digital Animation System are: 1) Develop Production; 2) Pre-Produce Assets; 3) Produce Animation; and 4) Apply Post- Production. These four high-level requirements along with their fourteen sub-functions and their forty-three sub-level Functional System Requirements are shown in Table 4.4. The resulting list was then used to generate and compose a functional goal model of the Digital Animation System.

Using the contents within this table, a functional goal model of the Digital Animation Process was composed, and is shown in Figure 4.1. During the process of transferring requirement labels from the table-based model into their parallelogram symbols, the majority were found to be clear and readable within their symbols. In some instances though, labels were too long and extended outside of their symbol, or created too much crowding within the symbol causing readability issues. In such cases the label was amended, with thought given to retaining the requirement’s intent. The Functional System Requirements Sculpt Model By Hand, for example, did not fit within the symbol’s border and was amended to Sculpt Clay Model. Although introducing clay into this requirement is restrictive, it was the original intent to sculpt using this material and thus this resulted in a clearer requirement. The requirement Scan Model into Computer had similar issues with the length of the label, and was relabelled to Scan model. Though this requirement is now less specific than the original, the environment in which this activity is addressed should imply that the scan will be input into the computer as a three-dimensional object. Another reason to amend a label during this process was based on the re-assessment of its general relevance to the professional environment. The requirement Present for Approval, for example, suggested that the work would either be approved and marked as complete, or not approved and marked as incomplete by a more senior agent. To reflect the peer-review and feedback practices embedded within the sweatbox review process better, the requirement was re-labelled to Get Appraisal. Overall there were few requirements that required their label to be amended, but it is important to note that changes to requirements were made based on modelling aesthetics and for requirement clarity.

95

Develop Production Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Pitch Idea Present idea to Make Animatic Capture Storyboards leadership team Make Script Write Script Insert Scratch Voice Recordings Develop Emotional Present For Approval Reference Present for Approval Make Mood Sheet Illustrate World Make Storyboard Draw Sequence Illustrate Characters Present for Approval Design Sets Record Voice Track Record Scratch Voices Design Props Record Professional Design Surface Voices Appearance Present For Approval Make Colour Scripts For Lighting Present For Approval

Pre-Produce Assets Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Make Models Sculpt Model By Hand Dress The Set Make Environment Space Scan Model Into Populate Environment Computer Make Mesh Objects Present For Approval Make Object Rig Layout Shot Position Characters Present For Approval Position Camera Present For Approval

Produce Animation

Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Animate (Production Animate Objects Type) eg. Shot #, Cut Present For Approval Scene.

Apply Post-Production

Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Sub-Functions Sub-Level Functions Setup Shaders Shade Assets Light Shot Setup Lighting Present For Approval Present For Approval Render Data Separate Channels Apply Effects Composite Footage Submit For Rendering Composite Audio Present For Approval Apply Dynamics Present For Approval

Table 4.4: Functional System Requirements derived from The Pixar Process

96

the digital animation process animation digital the Figure 4.1: A functional model of of model functional A Figure 4.1:

97

As can be seen in this functional model, the four high-level requirements are to be addressed and in a logical linear order. Presenting the model on a single A4 page presented design challenges in how the model is to be read, and would likely appear different on a larger format page. With this in mind, the sequencing of high-level requirements is from top to bottom, starting at Develop Production and finishing at Apply Post-Production. Spread across these high-level requirements are the fourteen sub-level Functional System Requirements that were drawn out from Pixar’s Digital Animation Process. It is intended for these requirements to be addressed in a linear sequence from left to right. In the case of the additional lower-level functional requirements, there is no particular order or sequence in that they are to be undertaken as some may occur in parallel. The sub-level functional requirement Layout Shot, for example, has three lower level requirements Position Characters, Position Camera and Get Appraisal. While the positioning of characters and the camera are separate activities, they are likely to occur alongside each other in order to create the most desirable layout and staging for the animator to work within. Even so, there is a need for some logical sequencing to take place where these two Functional System Requirements must be addressed before the agent can seek appraisal.

To ensure that a linear workflow is evident within this system design once deployed, rules or conditions are required to stipulate that Requirement A is to be addressed before attempting Requirement B and so on and so forth. Depending on the environment and the volume of stakeholders interacting within the system, such conditions may be requirement specific, or be applied to a hierarchy or clusters of requirements. In agent-modelling practice rules are assigned to system entities who then choose to follow or disregard them (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, pp. 40-41). In a Digital Production System the system entities may be human, for example, an animator, or artificial, such as a rendering program that monitors the progress of frame rendering and then prioritises and distributes processing power to render all frames within a time limit. Their ability to understand, follow and break conditions, which may be desirable if their environment unexpectedly changes, is largely dependent on their knowledge of the system, their ability to act within and perceive the environment around them, and also knowing when to seek the assistance of other system entities. To facilitate the generation and application of conditions or rules, the system’s entities or Agents will now be identified.

98

4.2.3 Identifying agent types and agents

For the sake of simplicity up until this point, I have referred to notions of intelligence within the conceptual environment of the System Design Layer as Agents. However, and more precisely within this environment an Agent is derived from an Agent Type (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, pp. 35-37). Sterling and Taveter (2009) discuss an Agent Type as a set of similar Agents, where for example a junior animator, an animator and a senior animator would all be Agents of the Agent Type: Animator. Within a system design Agents are generated from an Agent Type, and are assigned to specific system activities (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, p. 339). When the system design is deployed Agents are translated to Concrete Agents who in turn perform Concrete Actions. In general, forms of agency are considered to be intelligent entities (human or nonhuman) that are capable of acting, perceiving and reasoning within their environment. An Agent’s ability to behave in this way is governed by rules that are applied to the Agent Type, that then filter down to its Agents and then to its Concrete Agents.

As discussed in Chapter 2 it is common to find large teams of professionals throughout the Digital Animation Process, and for each team to have a relationship to a high- level Functional System Requirement. To distinguish between the different agent concepts, I refer to a cluster of related Agent Types as an Agent Team. The Agent Types Model Maker and Texture Artist, for example, are deployed alongside each other in the pre-production stage of the Digital Animation System, and while they are different Agent Types they are part of a team that is working towards achieving the same high-level system requirement Pre- Produce Animation and can be thought of as belonging to the Agent Team Pre-Production Team.

From a hierarchical perspective, Agents within the Digital Animation System are children of an Agent Type, and the Agent Type is a child of an Agent Team. Moving up one level, an Agent Team is a child of an even higher-level Agent Team or organisation team that houses all Agent Types throughout the Digital Animation System. I define this higher- level Agent Team as the Digital Animation Team, and is the top most Agent Team that all human agents within the Digital Animation System are connected.

99

Based around the high-level requirements in the functional model of the Digital Animation System, agent teams are proposed and defined as follows:

1. Digital Animation Team The top-level agent team, and is home to all agent teams and agent types involved throughout the digital animation process. 2. Development Team A high-level team that houses all agent types that design and develop concepts to be constructed and animated. 3. Pre-Production Team A high-level team that houses all agent types that construct assets for use by the production team. 4. Production Team A high-level team that houses all agents that animate assets. 5. Post-Production Team A high-level team that houses all agents that create the final aesthetic and version of the project.

With a direct relationship established between Agent Teams and high-level system requirements, the deployment of Agent Teams and their responsibilities become clearer. For example, when a specific high-level system requirement has been addressed and deemed complete, the Agent Team assigned to it is no longer required to interact with the Digital Animation System.

Conversely when a specific high-level requirement is about to commence a specific Agent Team can be called upon to interact within the Digital Animation System, and with all Agent Teams considered children of the Digital Animation Team it is foreseeable that inactive Agent Types and their Agents can be re-assigned to a different team if their expertise is required. The Agent Type Texture Artist, for example, may have addressed their requirements within the Pre-Production Team, and when the project is in its final stages of post-production there may be requirements for additional textures to be created or textures to be fixed due to unforeseen complexities. This Agent Type can move from the Pre- Production Team to the Digital Animation Team and from there be re-assigned to the Post- Production Team.

Having developed a conceptual functional model based on Pixar’s Digital Animation Process it is only appropriate that the Agent Types in this conceptual system design also

100

reflect those found within Pixar. But this information is challenging to source. The United Kingdom’s industry-based accrediting skills body Screen Skills (formally known as Skill Set) promotes a list of sixty-six different roles found throughout the three-dimensional computer animation industry (SkillSet, 2011). The comprehensiveness and industry relevance of this list saw it (the list) used as the basis to identify and label the Agent Types associated with the Digital Animation System.

To arrive at the list of Agent Types for the Digital Animation System, Screen Skills’ roles in three-dimensional computer animation were mapped to the four high-level Agent Teams based on their role/label and their alignment to the definitions of the Agent Teams given earlier. Roles such as Character Designer and Environment Designer that focus on the design and development of concepts to be constructed and animated, for example, were mapped to the Development Team. Roles such as Modeller, Rigger and Texture Artist that construct assets for animation were mapped to the Pre-Production Team. Production roles that focus on the animation of assets such as Junior Animator, Animator and Supervising Animator were mapped to the Production Team, and roles such as Compositor, Effects Artist and Render Wrangler that require the production stage to be completed were mapped to the Post-Production Team. Screen Skills’ list also contained roles where there was no clear alignment to the current Agent Teams such as Head of Tools, Editor, Runner and Director, as such these roles were mapped to an Other Team. Overall, twenty industry roles were mapped to the Development Team, eight industry roles were mapped to the Pre-Production Team, five industry roles were mapped to the Production Team, twenty-two industry roles were mapped to the Post-Production Team, and eleven industry roles were mapped to the Other Team. The mapping of these sixty-six industry roles to the Agent Teams is shown in the appendix A4.4.

There were commonalities identified between the eleven other industry roles that included direction, supervision, technical development and editorial responsibilities. Upon further analysis of each role it was clear that the additional Agent Teams were required to house and deploy these crucial roles throughout the Digital Production System. Roles relating to project management and decision making such as Producer, Director and CG Supervisor were aligned to the Leadership Team. Roles pertaining to technical efficiency throughout the Digital Production System such as Head of Tools and Tools Writer were brought together in a Pipeline Team, and those relating to vision and film assembly such as Director of Photography, Editing Assistant and Editor were pooled together to form an Editorial Team. The mapping of these industry roles to the new Agent Teams is shown in appendix A4.5. What is interesting to note about these new teams is that all three interact

101

with the high-level requirements of the Digital Production System. The Leadership Team, for example, will interact with low and high-level system requirements by appraising outcomes and to progress the system moving forwards. The Pipeline Team will interact across all requirements to ensure the flow of information and data throughout the system, and the Editorial Team will collect outcomes from each stage to progress the assembly and edit of the film in parallel to its development and production. As a result of this mapping there are seven Agent Teams and one overall Agent Team working across the Digital Production System, and are shown in Table 4.5.

Agent Team Label Description

Highest Level Digital Animation All agent types / agent teams involved Agent Team Team throughout the digital animation process.

High-Level Agent Development Team All agent types that design and develop Teams concepts to be constructed and animated.

Pre-Production Team All agent types that construct assets for use by the production team.

Production Team All agents that animate assets.

Post-Production Team All agents that create the final aesthetic and version of the project.

Pipeline Team All agents that create technical tools and pathways for data to be passed between high- level teams.

Editorial Team All agents that manage the assembly and sequencing of final shots.

Leadership Team All agents that work with, manage and direct agent types within the digital animation team.

Table 4.5: Agent Teams associated with the Digital Animation System

With the Agent Teams of the Digital Animation System defined, attention was directed towards the identification and labelling of the different Agent Types to be homed within each of the Agent Teams. In many cases the mapping of industry roles to the Agent Teams highlighted duplication in the core nature of some roles. Some of the roles mapped to the Pre-Production Team, for example, were Character Technical Director, Modeller, Modelling Supervisor, and Modelling Technical Director; all can be associated with making or creating models for an animator to animate during the production stage of the Digital Production System. With a common core, these roles were merged into a single Agent Type named Model Maker. During the deployment of the Digital Animation System the Agent

102

Type: Model Maker may be duplicated several times to cater for different system needs and levels of expertise, such as a Junior Model Maker, a Model Maker, and a Supervising or Senior Model Maker. Such overlap in the core nature of roles was common across all of the Agent Teams. In the case of the Development Team its twenty industry roles were condensed into five Agent Types that were the Concept Artist, Layout Artist, Painter, Production Director, and Story Artist (see appendix A4.6 for mapping). The Pre-Production Team’s eight industry roles were reduced to three Agent Types that were the Model Maker, Texture Artist, and Rigger (see appendix A4.7 or mapping). The Production Team’s five industry roles that were Animation Director, Animator, Character Animator, Junior Animator and Lead Animator were identified as having a common core relating to the animation of objects and characters, and thus were merged into the single Agent Type of an Animator (see appendix A4.8 for mapping). The twenty-two industry roles mapped to the Post- Production Team were consolidated into six Agent Types that were the Compositor, Effects Artist, Lighter, Renderer, Shader Artist, and Tracker (see appendix A4.9 for mapping). The additional Pipeline Team housed three industry roles that were reduced to two Agent Types that were the Setup Artist and Tool Developer (see appendix A4.10 for mapping), and the Editorial Team’s three industry roles were also reduced to two Agent Types that were the Cinematographer and Editor (see appendix A4.11or mapping). The final team was the Leadership Team that had five industry roles mapped to it, and were brought together to form two Agent Types being the Director and Producer (see appendix A4.12 for mapping). The outcome of this mapping resulted in sixty-six industry roles consolidated into twenty-one Agent Types that are homed across seven Agent Teams. From a hierarchical perspective all of the Agent Types and their teams fall under the highest-level organizational team that is the Digital Animation Team.

Drawing upon this pool of Agent Teams and Agent Types a visual Agent Model was composed using Goal modelling notations. Figure 4.2 shows this model and the relationship of the sixty-six Agent Types to their Agent Teams, which are represented via an ‘agent/human group’ symbol. In its current form this Agent Model has the potential to both clearly and broadly communicate the many different roles and teams required throughout the Digital Animation System. Further to its foreseen communication qualities, the Agent Model serves as key resource that can be merged with the Functional System Model shown earlier in Figure 4.1 to compose a model of the Digital Animation System. Of particular importance in this Agent Model is its identification of the Production Team and Leadership Team, and their Agent Types. These agent concepts aid in Section 4.3’s conceptualisation and design of an Agent-Oriented Goal Model for a system to produce three-dimensional character animation.

103

e Digital Animation System Animation System Digital e Figure 4.2: An Agent-Model for th for Agent-Model An Figure 4.2:

104

4.2.4 Developing and setting behaviours

For the Digital Animation System to function as desired, behaviours are needed to guide Agent Teams and Agent Types of what requirements they will be responsible for addressing, when to commence activity, how long the activity will remain active for and how long they have to address requirements. In most cases the behaviour patterns of the Agent Types shown in the Agent Model (see Figure 4.2) will be influenced by the overall motivations and requirements of the broader multiagent system. Where there are high-level motivations to create a feature film for cinematic release, for example, the behaviour of the Agent Type: Animator may focus on animating a single character within a single shot over a five-day period, and they may interact with a larger team of animators and leaders to address their requirements. An alternative scenario may be where motivations are to mass produce children’s television as quickly and cheaply as possible. In this situation the same animator may focus on animating multiple characters, props and environmental assets across multiple shots over a five-day period, and they may be responsible for all aspects of the activity including its appraisal. As high-level motivations and the environment could influence the demands on Agent Types and thus their behavioural patterns, the terms that bind them to requirements should be simplistic, and allow flexibility in behaviour without having to re-write expectations.

To enforce the linear sequencing of the Digital Animation System’s high-level functional requirements and to relate Agent Types to them, high-level behaviours were formulated for the seven Agent Teams. These were deliberately made simple and consistent in their design across all teams to cater for system flexibility and shifts in Agent behaviour. Each included direct reference to an Agent Team and concise statements of responsibility that formed connection to a high-level Functional System Requirement, and constraints that structured the flow of data between high-level Functional System Requirements. The behaviour model for the Pre-Production Team, for example, assigned responsibility to address all requirements pertaining to the high-level function Pre-Produce Assets. With the hierarchy and structure of requirements within the functional system design, this simple restriction ensures that only the Pre-Production Team will address pre-production requirements. The behavioural expectations for this team also include constraints that the team must not commence responsibilities until receiving interactions from the Development Team, and that they must complete all responsibilities before interacting with the Production Team. These simple constraints ensure that the Pre-Production Team does not commence addressing requirements without receiving interaction or data from the Development Team, and that they will only interact with and pass on completed assets/data to the Production

105

Team to animate once the assets are complete. The high-level Behaviour Model is shown below in Table 4.6.

Behaviour Model: Digital Animation System

Agent Team / Type Development Team

Description All agent types that design and develop concepts to be constructed and animated

Responsibilities To address all requirements pertaining to the high-level function: Develop Production

Constraints Must complete responsibilities before interacting with the agent teams: Pre-Production Team, Editorial Team

Agent Team / Type Pre-Production Team

Description All agent types that construct assets for use by the production team

Responsibilities To address all requirements pertaining to the high-level function: Pre- Produce Assets

Constraints Must not commence responsibilities until receiving interaction from the agent team: Development Team Must complete responsibilities before interacting with the agent team: Production.

Agent Team / Type Production Team

Description All agents that animate assets.

Responsibilities To address all requirements pertaining to the high-level function: Produce Animation

Constraints Must not commence responsibilities until receiving interaction from the agent team: Pre-Production Team. Must complete responsibilities before interacting with the agent teams: Post-Production Team, Editorial Team

Agent Team / Type Post-Production Team

Description All agents that create the final aesthetic and final version of the project.

Responsibilities To address all requirements pertaining to the high-level function: Apply Post-Production

Constraints Must not commence responsibilities until receiving interaction from the agent team: Production Team. Must complete responsibilities before interacting with the agent team: Editorial Team.

106

Agent Team / Type Editorial Team

Description All agents that manage the assembly and sequencing of final shots.

Responsibilities To collect and assemble outcomes from the Development Team, Production Team, and Post-Production Team.

Constraints Must await interaction from agent teams to collect outcomes.

Agent Team / Type Pipeline Team

Description All agents that create technical tools and pathways for data to be passed between high-level teams.

Responsibilities To interact with all teams and their activities, develop tools and pathways for data exchange.

Constraints Cannot perform functions assigned to other agent teams, but may interact with all agent teams and agent types

Agent Team / Type Leadership Team

Description All agents that work with, manage and direct agent types within the digital animation team

Responsibilities To manage and direct the functionality, progress and quality of the digital production system and its outcomes

Constraints Cannot perform functions assigned to other agent teams, but may interact with all agent teams and agent types

Table 4.6: Behaviour Model for Agent Teams within the Digital Animation System

These high-level expectations intend to guide and shape Agent Team and Agent Type behaviour across the Digital Animation System. It is foreseeable, though, that more detailed behaviour models may be required for specific Agent Types at the time of system deployment. For example the Agent Type: Story Artist may only interact with requirements relating to storyboarding in the Pre-Production stage; the Agent Type: Animator may only address requirements concerning character animation in the Production stage; and the Agent Type: Effects Artist may only perform activity related to creating effects in the Post- Production stage of the Digital Animation System. This depth of behavioural modelling was not undertaken for the high-level Digital Animation System, but it may be required in situations where multiagent interactions are required.

The high-level Behaviour Model identifies the Agent Teams responsible for addressing specific high-level system requirements, but for the purpose of simplicity the conceptual model of the Digital Animation System should not expect stakeholders to refer back to it. The Behaviour Model should convey a level of detail that is sufficient for all stakeholders to understand how the system works, and what Agent Team or Agent Type is

107

responsible for addressing a particular requirement. As discussed in Chapter 3.3, goal modelling uses common symbols such as parallelograms, clouds and humans. One of these symbols is a solid line that is used to denote a relationship between an Agent and a Functional System Requirement. Although the relationship between an Agent and a Functional System Requirement should be obvious within a Goal Model, the constraints imposed on Agent Teams are not represented outside of a Behaviour Model. To address this issue with minimal impact on established modelling practice and language, a short footnote that summarised the high-level behavioural expectations was added to the Goal Model that read Requirements are to be completed from left to right. It was intended that this caveat feature only at the highest level of the Goal Model and that it filters down into lower-level or sub-models.

Bringing together the high-level requirements from the Functional System Model shown in Figure 4.1 with the Agent Teams from the Agent Model in Figure 4.2, a conceptual high-level Agent-Oriented Goal Model was composed of the Digital Animation System and is shown in Figure 4.3. This model features the high-level Functional System Requirements in their intended sequence from left to right, and uses solid lines to represent the relationships between Agent Teams and the high-level functional requirements they are responsible for addressing. The hierarchy of requirements and the high-level relationships of the Leadership Team, Editorial Team and the Pipeline Team indicate that these teams are able to interact with all child requirements and teams related to the highest-level requirement Produce Animated Film.

[Requirements are to be completed from left to right]

Figure 4.3: A high-level Agent-Oriented Goal Model of the Digital Production System

108

The conceptual work undertaken thus far has explored the potential of Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling concepts to capture and to convey the essential high-level components of a Digital Animation System, which includes the high-level Functional System Requirements, their sequencing to form a systematic process, and the Agent Teams and Agent Types that are responsible for addressing requirements during the system’s deployment. Via the modelling of the high-level Digital Animation System shown in Figure 4.3 it can be assumed, with confidence, that the full Functional System Model shown in Figure 4.1 that features Pixar’s fourteen sub-requirements and forty-three sub-level system requirements, and the full Agent Model in Figure 4.2 that was developed from Screen Skills’ list of industry roles, can be merged into a more comprehensive Goal Model of the Digital Animation System. Even so, the modelling of the full Digital Animation System is beyond the scope of this thesis that focuses on the Production stage, and may be a possible future research direction.

The exploration and modelling of Agent and Functional System Requirement concepts has so far yielded a foundation that is fit to construct in-depth models of the Digital Animation System’s high-level requirements. The next section continues the exploration of these modelling concepts and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, via the design of a system that is focused on the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation, termed the Mk I Production Model.

4.3 An agent-oriented goal model for the production of three- dimensional computer assisted character animation (the Mk I production model)

With the overarching Digital Animation System providing a foundation for deeper system modelling, this section explores and details the development of a conceptual Goal Model that proposes a system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. As highlighted in Chapter 2.3, the practice and process underpinning the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation draw upon a combination of explicit and implicit requirements, expectations and expertise across the domains of art and technology. To develop a model of a production system that features generic steps and relevant language, a small number of production workflows were analysed with common functions and expectations of quality drawn out and translated into Functional

109

and Non-Functional System Requirements. These system requirements were then visualised using goal modelling concepts, and assembled to present a conceptual Goal Model of a system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

The following sections detail this process and include the analysis of resources, the identification of functions and expectations of quality, their translation into Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and the composition of requirements into an Agent-Oriented Goal Model.

4.3.1 Identifying functions and expectations of quality in practice

As has already been established in Chapter 2, the transfer of production knowledge ranges widely from textbooks filled with animation tips and tricks to artist interviews, personal webpages, blogs and the rare peer-reviewed academic journal article. To form a pool of common functions and expectations that can be drawn upon to design and compose a conceptual Production Model, a small sample of these animation resources underwent analysis to identify the many functions and expectations of quality that are common to production activity.

While many animation texts are directed towards two-dimensional practices of character animation, they are transferrable to the three-dimensional environment but tend to lack detail specific to three-dimensional computer animation. The resources selected to undergo analysis and conversion into Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts have been written specifically for producing character animation within a digital three-dimensional environment. The first is by Roy, an animator credited on such films King Kong, Garfield, and Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (Internet Movie Database, 2016b), and is a self- published checklist of his character animation workflow that is practical in its intentions and includes a mixture of explicit steps and notes (Roy, 2012). The second is by Luhta who’s animation credentials include such films as Horton Hears a Who!, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and Hotel Transylvania 2 (Internet Movie Database, 2016a), and takes an in- depth look at his production process via a tutorial in his how to animate computer animation textbook (Luhta, 2009). The third and final resource is a peer-reviewed paper by the computer animation pioneer Lasseter (1987). Unlike the resources by Roy (2012) and Luhta (2009), Lasseter’s (1987) paper is squarely focused on the discussion and promotion of the quality centric principles of animation within a computer animation environment.

110

In addition to their common focus on three-dimensional computer assisted animation, these resources offer different and overlapping perspectives of quality and approaches that can be taken to the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. The sample size of three may be small but their common focus, practical foundations, and their variance in format bring together a typical cross-section of resources that are readily accessible to anyone seeking to engage with the production of three-dimensional character animation. Collectively they offer sufficient professional perspectives and a quantity of insight that is suitable to influence and inform the details of a conceptual production system and model.

In identifying functions and expectations of quality from these resources, a similar approach to the one used to identify the functional requirements of the high-level Digital Animation System was applied. First the key steps and expectations from each resource were identified. From this, functions were translated into common Functional System Requirements and assembled to create a functional Production Model. Then expectations of quality that were drawn from each resource were mapped to their respective Functional Requirements, and underwent transformation into Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. As discussed in Chapter 3.3 a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement is intended to be a subjective requirement and works well to communicate the creative or artistic elements involved in animation practice. During the modelling process this soft type of requirement is depicted using a soft/fluffy cloud symbol and features adjective based labelling. Once established, the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements and Functional System Requirements were brought together in a conceptual model for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

4.3.2 Kenny Roy’s animation workflow

Roy’s (2012) original single page workflow checklist is broken into five key stages: Planning, Layout, Blocking, Blocking Plus, and Polish. The five stages of Roy’s (2012) workflow are broken down and analysed in the appendices A4.13 to 4.17 where his checklist items are interpreted as functions, and key words that relate to expectations of quality for each item are listed. In Roy’s stage of Blocking, for example, he has a checklist item called Performance Texture that is accompanied by the description “Add very rough blocking of little shakes and bumps that I know I am definitely going to want later. Non-performance texture can always be sprinkled in” (2012). Analysing this through a requirements lens revealed that the function of this item is to Add Performance Texture, and that it carries the

111

expectations of quality that are Rough and Small. This process is applied across Roy’s (2012) entire workflow checklist and resulted in the identification of twenty-eight Functional System Requirements and twenty Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

4.3.3 Eric Luhta’s animation workflows

In Luhta’s (2009) three-dimensional computer animation textbook, How to Cheat in Maya 2010, he shows his production workflow across two main chapters titled Blocking and Polishing. Although limited to two stages, there are many similarities between his and Roy’s (2012) workflow. Luhta’s (2009) blocking workflow, for example, features topics that range from concept generation to splining key frames. Roy (2012) highlights many of the same topics but separates them into the smaller stages of Planning, Layout, Blocking and Blocking Plus. Nonetheless the concepts in both Luhta’s (2009) and Roy’s (2012) Polish stages appear to be relatively similar. In addition to his two workflows, Luhta (2009) introduces a third that focuses specifically on facial animation. His facial animation workflow along with the functions and qualities drawn from it provide a deeper and more specific insight to this aspect of character animation production process.

The stages and analysis of Luhta’s (2009) three workflows are broken down and analysed in the appendices A4.18 to A4.20, where his key steps are interpreted as functions. These appendix items also include expectations of quality that were drawn from his descriptions and discussions of each step throughout his book. In most cases expectations of quality were narrowed down to the key words or phrases used. When Luhta (2009) discusses Blocking, for example, he writes, “We are going to be doing a stepped key pose- to-pose blocking of the main poses, then add breakdowns, then convert the keys into spline mode, and refine from there” (p. 233). Using the same requirements lens that was applied to the analysis of Roy’s (2012) checklist, the function for this key point is to Define the approach to blocking action. Luhta (2009) is describing a rather linear and high-level approach that will guide his entire process, thus this function could be thought of as having the expectations that it should be High-level and that it should also Explain the process. The analysis of Luhta’s (2009) three workflows Blocking, Polishing and Facial Animation, identified thirty functions and eighty-six expectations of quality.

112

4.3.4 John Lasseter’s principles of animation

Lasseter's (1987) seminal paper on the application of traditional animation principles to three-dimensional computer animation discusses the importance and relevance of the principles of animation in producing quality three-dimensional computer animation. Unlike Roy (2012) and Luhta (2009) who focus on workflow, Lasseter (1987) specifically focuses on animation quality. His detailing of animation quality provides clarity and a deeper perspective around the expectations of quality that both Roy (2012) and Luhta (2009) refer to throughout their workflows. The principles of animation from Lasseter’s (1987) paper and their analysis are featured within appendix A4.21, where each principle is accompanied by key descriptions that were used to identify their functions, and relevant expectations of quality. As the principles are focused on quality, it could be argued that they cannot be functions, but the intent of this conceptual exercise was to identify functions or triggers that would require an agent in the production process such as an Animator, to systematically question or evaluate the quality of the animation produced. Lasseter (1987) explains the animation principle of Arcs as:

The visual path of action from one extreme to another is always described by an arc. Arcs in nature are the most economical routes by which a form can move from one position to another. For they make animation much smoother and less stiff than a straight line for the path of action. When motion is slow... the arc of the path of action is curved, as desired. The path of even a fast motion should be curved or arced. Straight inbetweens can completely kill the essence of an action (p. 41).

Through a requirements lens the function for this principle could be to Transition Actions or to Evaluate the Transition of Actions for the desirable qualities that are Smooth, Curved, Arced, Economical and Organic. This type of analysis for Lasseter’s (1987) principles of animation identified twelve functions (one for each animation principle) and thirty-nine expectations of quality that should assist in the production of high- quality/believable character animation.

4.3.5 Functional system requirements

A total of seventy functions were identified across Roy’s (2012) workflow checklist, Luhta’s (2009) workflow tutorials, and Lasseter’s (1987) principles of animation. In addition the workflows of Roy (2012) and Luhta (2009) identified a total of eight high-level functional

113

workflow steps. This section explores the consolidation of the seventy-eight functions into common high- and low-level functions.

From a high-level perspective Roy’s (2012) production workflow offered five functions that he termed Planning, Layout, Blocking, Blocking Plus, and Polish. In contrast Luhta’s (2009) production workflow presented three high-level functions that he termed Blocking, Polish, and Facial Animation. Although there is similarity between their high-level functions, Roy’s (2012) five-stage workflow should be more palatable for system stakeholders due to its smaller and more focused stages of constructing animation. With this perspective Roy’s (2012) five high-level functions were used as the basis for designing the high-level structure of the conceptual production system.

Like Roy’s (2012) workflow, Luhta’s (2009) facial animation workflow followed a layered process that sees facial animation built up in stages. Lip-sync planning, for example, occurs before the jaw motion is crafted, once the jaw motion is evident the finer mouth and lip details are added and so on. As a layered process the steps align well and could be integrated with Roy’s (2012) five-stage workflow. With the face being such a complex and important component of a character’s performance, an additional sixth stage concerning facial animation was added to support the high-level design of the conceptual production system. The extra stage should ensure that key steps involved in crafting facial animation are given specific and significant attention throughout the production system. This stage or function has been sequenced after the blocking stages where the foundations of a character’s body have been animated, but before polishing where an extra level of finesse is applied.

As previously stated, Lasseter’s (1987) work did not discuss process or workflow and as such did not influence the high-level design of the conceptual production system. However the functions identified from his principles featured heavily throughout the later stages of the conceptual production system where the quality of animation is of a paramount focus.

Following Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling labelling conventions the six high-level functions of the conceptual production system were translated into requirements language, and are shown in Table 4.7. To create distinction between the later stages of the system requirements linked to Blocking and Blocking Plus featured foundation labelling to clarify the nature of the overall stage, as well as to guide expectations of quality. Despite initial intentions to focus specifically on the face the stage of Facial Animation was labelled Detail

114

Animation. The intentions behind this were multi-pronged, whereby shifting the high-level focus away from the face should allow the animator to focus on smaller body details alongside those also on and around the face; it should also facilitate the creation of larger foundational facial movements such as the jaw and/or extreme facial expressions alongside the blocking of the character’s body; and finally the label should set an overall expectation for the level of detail and thus animation quality produced during this stage of the production system.

Production System High-Level Functional Requirements

High-level Workflow Stages High-Level System Requirements

Planning Plan Animation

Layout Layout Animation

Blocking Block Foundation Animation

Blocking Plus Enhance Foundation Animation

Facial Animation Detail Animation

Polish Polish Animation

Table 4.7: High-level workflow stages as high-level Functional System Requirements

Figure 4.4 places these requirements within a high-level functional model of the conceptual production system. Alongside these requirements this model also shows the production system’s relationship to the highest-level requirement Produce Animation from the overarching Digital Animation System as well as the Agent Team and Agent Type responsible for interacting with the system. In this model it should be noted that the production system is based around the production of a specific shot of animation, and would be duplicated for all shots of animation that are required to be produced within the Digital Animation System.

115

Figure 4.4: A functional model of the high-level production system

With the high-level design of the production system now established, its high-level functional requirements provide a foundation to map the seventy functions identified across Roy’s (2012) workflow, Luhta’s (2009) workflows and Lasseter’s (1987) principles into the system design. The six high-level Functional System Requirements are defined as follows:

1) Plan Animation Scope: Concerns the gathering, analysis and generation of reference material that will guide and/or influence the creation of animation. Expectation: To become thoroughly informed in the creative, quality and technical requirements of character mechanics, actions and behavioural attributes in order to guide and problem solve future activities.

2) Layout Animation Scope: Concerns all activity relating to the setup and visualisation of the story/shot using the most simplistic and minimalistic animation. Expectation: To provide a foundation for which the pending animation is to be constructed upon, by establishing the fundamental storytelling and character characteristics through the approximate positioning, articulation and timing of characters and props within the animation environment.

116

3) Block Foundation Animation Scope: Concerns the creation of the most important storytelling/performance key poses and their timing. Expectation: To establish the characters performance through the design and implementation of fundamental poses and time-accurate actions, in order to guide future activities.

4) Enhance Foundation Animation Scope: Concerns the breaking down and building up of foundational poses to create absolute clarity around the character’s body language, performance and timing. Expectation: To establish accurate physicality and timing in the character’s mechanics and performance through the definition of transitional movement and the inclusion of primary facial mechanics and expressions.

5) Detail Animation Scope: Concerns the fine tuning of computer-generated movement/in-betweens and the animation facial and expressive features. Expectation: To unite the physicality and expression of character mechanics and performance through the detailing of transitional movement, facial expressions and performance subtitles.

6) Polish Animation Scope: Concerns the addition and fine-tuning of micro details and micro- movements that enhance a character’s overall fleshiness and believability. Expectation: To advance the emotion and believability portrayed in the character performance through the refinement and fine-tuning of physicality, expression and subtleties.

With the scope and expectation of each high-level functional requirement defined, the seventy functions were mapped to the high-level functional requirements according to their labels and general alignment with the definitions above. The mapping of functions is available within the appendices A4.22 to A4.25.

As a result of this mapping, sixteen functions were aligned to the high-level Functional System Requirement: Plan Animation. When comparing functions to one another common themes were evident that resulted in the creation of eleven Functional System

117

Requirements (see appendix A4.26). In most cases the relationships between functions and their functional requirements were direct, for example the function Act Out Performance translated into the Functional System Requirement Act Out Performance. Where similar functions were present a common requirement was termed or identified from the list. The functions, for example, Generate Thumbnails of Key Poses, Pencil Test and Plan Action Using Thumbnails, refer to the same or closely related concept, and were consolidated into the single functional requirement Plan Action Using Thumbnails. For functions relating to dialogue, a hierarchy was formed to group and show requirement dependency. Specifically, the Functional System Requirements Identify Intent, Identify Key Words and Identify Tone all contribute to the achievement of the Functional System Requirement of Analyse Dialogue.

As shown in appendix A4.27 there were direct links between the six workflow functions and the final four functional requirements associated with the high-level system requirement: Layout Animation. The most common requirement pertained to the concept of staging that appeared in Roy’s (2012) and Luhta’s (2009) workflows, as well as Lasseter’s (1987) principles.

Of the fourteen functions mapped to the high-level requirement: Block Foundation Animation (see appendix A4.28), there was minimal overlap between functions except for those related to the principles of animation. With a shared focus on animation quality, these functional requirements were brought together as a hierarchy and given a focus on evaluation. The focus on evaluation is thought to be more impactful for the agent addressing the requirements as opposed to adding or creating specific qualities. The act of evaluating is expected to allow the Agent to go back and re-address requirements until they are satisfied with the achievement of particular principles/qualities.

As shown in appendix A4.29 there was a combined total of nineteen functions mapped to the high-level functional requirement: Enhance Foundation Animation, with some overlapping in regard to the principles of animation. In most cases individual functions directly influenced the creation of Functional System Requirements. Of particular interest was the function Create Secondary Pass, which was not mapped to a lower-level Functional System Requirement. It was instead merged into the higher-level requirement: Enhance Foundation Animation, as both share a common intention that is to undertake a second pass at adding detail. There were eighteen Functional System Requirements created under the high-level requirement: Detail Animation (see appendix A4.30). The majority of these requirements focused on evaluating animation quality, while the others were generally concerned with the

118

crafting of facial animation. Compared with the other high-level system requirements Detail Animation had the highest volume of Functional System Requirements and the greatest focus on evaluating the principles of animation.

The final high-level requirement: Polish Animation and the mapping of its twelve functions to five Functional System Requirements is shown in appendicles A4.31. Like the previous Detail Animation requirement, there was a clear and majority focus on the principles of animation. With an expectation that the character’s animation is of a highly detailed standard entering the polishing stage, these principle-based functions were not translated into separate or similar functional requirements. They were instead consolidated into a single functional requirement labelled Evaluate Animation. The intention of this was to allow the agent to review and address all principles of animation. The remaining four Functional System Requirements have a somewhat shared focus on adding and fine-tuning small details across the character’s poses and motion.

The mapping, comparison and consolidation of functions from Roy’s (2012) workflow, Luhta’s (2009) workflows and Lasseter’s (1987) principles of animation resulted in the creation of sixty-three lower level Functional System Requirements. These requirements compose the detailed step-by-step process that the Agent Type: Animator will work through in the conceptual production system to produce animation. All of the sixty-three lower level Functional System Requirements are shown in Table 4.8 under their respective high-level system requirements. In this format, the table and its contents serve as a text based functional model of the conceptual production system. With a functional system now established, the following section explores the identification and generation of Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements and their relationships to Functional System Requirements.

All Functional Requirements of the Conceptual Production System

Plan Animation

Establish Shot Direction Act Out Performance > Identify Key Words

Plan Action Using Thumbnails Identify Thought Process > Identify Tone

Gather Reference Material Analyse Dialogue Document Animation Workflow

Analyse Reference Material > Identify Intent -

119

Layout Animation

Stage Shot Evaluate Story -

Compose Shot Setup Scene -

Block Foundation Animation

Create Key Poses Familiarise Key/Curve > Evaluate Poses Relationship

Create Transition Poses Evaluate Blocking > Evaluate Appeal

Manage Keyframes > Evaluate Timing > Evaluate Staging

Enhance Foundation Animation

Create Copied Pairs Add Performance Nuances > Evaluate Pose

Breakdown Poses Evaluate Motion > Evaluate Secondary Action

Adjust Timing > Evaluate Rigidity > Evaluate Appeal

Create Jaw Motion > Evaluate Timing > Evaluate Personality

Block In Facial Expression > Evaluate Transitions -

Pose Mouth Corners > Evaluate Anticipation -

Detail Animation

Convert To Splines Evaluate Motion > Evaluate Transition

Pose Mouth Shapes > Evaluate Rigidity > Evaluate Secondary Action

Animate Tongue > Evaluate Timing > Evaluate Appeal

Animate Blinks > Evaluate Anticipation > Evaluate Personality

Animate Eye Brows > Evaluate Unity Recognise Anomalies

Animate Eye Darts > Evaluate Easing Document Anomalies

Polish Animation

Fine-tune Poses Add Non-Performance Nuances Evaluate Animation

Enhance Arcs Add Micro Details -

Note: ‘>’ denotes a requirement that is a child within a requirement hierarchy

Table 4.8: All Functional System Requirements within the production system

120

4.3.6 Non-functional ‘quality’ system requirements

The earlier analysis of Roy’s (2012) workflow, Luhta’s (2009) workflows and Lasseter’s (1987) principles of animation highlighted a total of one hundred and forty-five expectations of quality, with one hundred and four identified as being unique, whereby they were not similar to another requirement. Adhering to the agent-modelling specifications for creating and labelling Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, the one hundred and four unique expectations were translated into adjective based Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

The already-established Functional System Requirements for each stage, their associated expectations of quality, and their translations into Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements are shown side-by-side in the appendices A4.32 to 4.37. By following the same process used to consolidate and arrive at the earlier pool of Functional System Requirements, the expectations of quality were compared and where significant overlap and equivalency was identified they were consolidated into a common requirement. In the context of the Functional System Requirement Stage Shot, for example, the expectations of Clear, Obvious and Understood were combined into a common Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement labelled Obvious. In the overwhelming majority of cases individual expectations of quality translated directly into their own Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. If the expectation of (a functional requirement) is to be Clear what you are doing, for example, it translated into Clear, and if it were expected to be Emotional it translated into Emotive. In many cases the translation was even more direct, for example the expectations of Rough and Affective translated to the Non-Functional System Requirements Rough and Affective. It is important to note that not all Functional System Requirements had identifiable expectations of quality. Where no or insufficient expectations of quality were identified but were felt necessary to shape the achievement and/or direction of a Functional System Requirement, a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement was derived from my own expertise and experience in producing three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. The Functional System Requirement: Setup Scene, for example, had no identifiable expectations of quality, however the following were generated Basic, Simple, and Accurate. In the few such situations a brief rationale was listed alongside the Functional System Requirement in question, and the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements listed without the need to undergo translation.

121

With many of the one hundred and four Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements showing relevance across multiple Functional System Requirements, for example, those related to the principles of animation, the final count of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements throughout the production system, inclusive of duplicates, totalled one hundred and ninety-six. Table 4.9 to Table 4.14 show the final Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements embedded within each high-level system stage, alongside their respective Functional System Requirements. In most cases a single functional requirement has an average of two to three Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. Even so, in some situations a single functional requirement has up to nine Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements that should be addressed before the Functional System Requirement is deemed complete. The high number of expectations identified throughout this process gives evidence to the complexity, subjective nature and the challenges associated with communicating animation practice and process.

122

Plan Animation

Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements

Establish Shot Descriptive Identify Thought Varied Direction Process Clear Story Oriented

Imaginable Strong

Story-Telling Clear

Plan Action Using Basic Analyse Dialogue Portrayable Thumbnails Strong Line of Action Descriptive

Experimental Written Down

Clear Identify Intent Memorable

Personal Revealing

Gather Reference Broad Influential Material Specific Identify Key Words Emphasised

Plentiful Inflective

Varied Identify Tone Evocative

Analyse Reference Thorough Document Animation High Level Material Workflow Understood Layered

Act Out Informative Spontaneous Or Planned Performance Captured

Performed

Table 4.9: Plan Animation - System Requirements

123

Layout Animation Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements Stage Shot Simple Compose Shot Interesting

Interesting Evaluate Story Clear

Focused Obvious

Non-Distractive Interesting

Inventive Setup Scene Basic

Obvious Simple

Affective Accurate

Strong

Table 4.10: Layout Animation - System Requirements

Block Foundation Animation

Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements

Create Key Poses Basic Evaluate Poses Identifiable

Fundamental Poses Strong

Narrative Evaluate Appeal Engaging

Roughly Timed Likable

Well-Designed

Create Transition Stepped Asymmetrical Poses Basic Appealing

Fundamental Poses Evaluate Staging Obvious

Roughly Timed Clear

Manage Keyframes Economical Affective

Familiarise Experimental Strong Key/Curve Relationship

Evaluate Blocking Fundamental Evaluate Timing Emotive

Readable

Rough

Table 4.11: Block Foundation Animation - System Requirements

124

Enhance Foundation Animation

Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements

Create Copied Accurate Evaluate Rigidity Maintained Pairs preserving Accurate

Efficient Flexible

Breakdown Poses Transitional Evaluate Timing Emotive

Completing Readable

Offset Accurate

Adjust Timing Quick Evaluate Transitions Arced

Easy Curved

Accurate Smooth

Create Jaw Motion Open & Closed Economical

Accurate Organic

Block In Facial Fundamental Evaluate Anticipation Natural Expression Expressive Intuitive

Pose Mouth Integrated Focal Corners Foundational Evaluate Pose Identifiable

Add Performance Rough Strong Nuances Small Evaluate Secondary Influenced Action Evaluate Motion Accurate Credible

Appealing Subordinate

Symbolic of Final Obvious Outcome

Plentiful Evaluate Appeal

Evaluate Varied Engaging Personality Story Orientated Likable

Strong Well-Designed

Clear Asymmetrical

Appealing

Table 4.12: Enhance Foundation Animation - System Requirements

125

Detail Animation

Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements

Convert To Splines - Evaluate Unity Natural

Pose Mouth Shapes Closed for 2 Frames Interesting Min

Organic Continual

Synchronized Evaluate Easing Natural

Animate Tongue Simple Evaluate Transitions Arced

Visible when Vertical Curved

Travelling Smooth

Animate Blinks Influenced by Thought Economical

Organic Organic

Closed for 2 Frames Evaluate Secondary Influenced Min; Action

75/25 Lid Ratio When Credible Closed

Cushioned into Open Subordinate

(Iris) Partially Visible in Obvious Open/Close Poses

(top lid) Touching Iris Evaluate Appeal Engaging

Animate Eye Brows Driven by the Apex Likable

Organic Well-Designed

Animate Eye Darts Thoughtful Asymmetrical

Rectangular or Appealing Triangular

Quick Evaluate Personality Varied

Evaluate Motion - Story Orientated

Evaluate Rigidity Maintained Strong

Accurate Clear

Flexible Recognise Documented Anomalies

126

Evaluate Timing Emotive Document Anomalies Brief

Readable

Accurate

Evaluate Natural Anticipation Intuitive

Focal

Table 4.13: Detail Animation - System Requirements

Polish Animation

Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Functional System Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements Requirements System Requirements

Fine-tune Poses Minimal Add Non- Subtle Performance Enhance Arcs Arced Nuances Drifting

Curved Alive

Smooth Interesting

Economical Fun

Organic Varied

Add Micro Details Subtle Detailed

Small Believable

Evaluate Animation Specific Organic

Improved

Life-Like

Table 4.14: Polish Animation - System Requirements

4.3.7 The Mk I production model

The previous sections established the high-level and low-level Functional System Requirements, Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, the Agent Team, Agent Type and their relationships to one another. Conceptually the elements for a production system have been gathered, and once combined will offer a system design that has the potential to

127

guide stakeholders through the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

Using the Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts and symbols discussed throughout Chapter 3 and the system ingredients just discussed, the conceptual system design termed the Mk I Production Model was composed. Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.11 show the Model. Due to the scale of the model, the high-level requirements and their embodied Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements are shown in separate figures that can be thought of as sub-systems.

Figure 4.5 shows the highest level of the system termed the Production Model, where it is related back to the overarching high-level model of the Digital Animation System. The figure shows that the Agent Team: Production Team generates a specific Agent Type: Animator that is responsible for addressing and achieving the requirements of the Production Model for Shot #. If the animated film project in this model were to have multiple shots of animation the Production Model along with its Agent Type would be duplicated under the high-level requirement Produce Animation. The behaviours that were established earlier in the chapter for Agent Teams and their Agent Types will see the high-level requirements undertaken in sequence from left to right. A notable exclusion from the high-level model are Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, which instead feature heavily in sub-system models.

The six sub-system models each show the Agent Type: Animator responsible for addressing the requirements of the sub-systems. It is noticeable across these models that the relationship of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements to Functional Requirements are shown using broken/dotted lines, and as discussed in Chapter 3.3 this style of line work signifies that a soft, negotiable relationship exists between these requirements, whereas the unbroken line signifies a non-negotiable relationship.

It should be noted that due to the A4 document size and available white space, functional requirements that have multiple Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements are shown to have one quality requirement connected to another and so on. This design decision was made to maximise page space, and in all cases where Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements are connected to one another they should be interpreted as having a direct connection to their Functional Requirement. Their stacked appearance is not suggesting that a quality requirement has its own quality requirement.

128

Figure 4.5: The Mk I Production Model’s relationship to Digital Animation System

129

el el Model’s Plan Animation Goal Mod Goal Animation Plan Model’s I Production The Mk Figure 4.6:

130

Layout Animation Goal Model Model Goal Animation Layout The Mk I Production Model’s I Production The Mk

Figure 4.7:

131

n Model’s Block Foundation Animation Goal Model Goal Animation Foundation Block Model’s n Figure 4.8: The Mk I Productio The Mk Figure 4.8:

132

ation Goal Model Goal ation n Model’s Enhance Foundation Anim Foundation Enhance Model’s n Figure 4.9: The Mk I Productio The Mk Figure 4.9:

133

Model Model Production Model’s Detail Animation Goal Goal Animation Detail Model’s Production Figure 4.10: The Mk I The Figure 4.10:

134

Model Model Production Model’s Polish Animation Goal Goal Animation Polish Model’s Production Figure 4.11: The Mk I The Figure 4.11:

135

4.4 Summary

Building on the challenges identified in Chapter 2 around the communication of character animation practice and process, and the potential for Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering theoretical framework and their method of Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling to communicate complex environments, concepts and interactions as discussed in Chapter 3, this chapter sets out to explore how Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling could be adapted to make explicit the practices and processes associated with the production of orthodox three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

Drawing on three of the core agent-oriented modelling concepts found within the System Design Layer of Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) multi-layered conceptual space (pp. 27-59), the modelling concept of a Functional System Requirement was leveraged to identify, frame and visualise the objective steps of Pixar’s (2011) Digital Animation Process along with steps found within the specialised production workflows of the professional character animators Luhta (2009), Roy (2012) and Lasseter (1987). Interpreting their practical and procedural activities through this lens enabled a way forward to consistently present the higher-level stages of an animation production process and the general activities and actions undertaken by animators during practice.

The second modelling concept known as the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement was used as a vehicle to identify expectations of quality throughout animation practice, and then frame and visualise these mostly tacit practices and subjective expectations as explicit concepts. Viewing expectations of quality through this lens facilitated the creation of a common and simple-language approach to convey the often more challenging soft concepts that as discussed in Chapter 2 vary throughout animation practice.

The third agent-modelling concept was the Agent Type, and was used to identify and visualise the different roles required throughout the Digital Animation System. In addition to visualising these roles, the exploration of Agent Types within the Digital Production System lead to the introduction of Agent Teams with high-level rules. Agent Teams and their behaviour are a subject of much exploration within multi-agent system research, where topics range from and beyond flexible and reusable models of teamwork (Tambe, 1997), the detection and monitoring of social failures within cooperative agent teams (Kaminka and Tambe, 2000), the balance of global and local knowledge needed to improve team cooperation (Parker, 1993), and the assessment of human behaviour through crowd simulation (Sharma et al., 2011). The detailed modelling and assessment of agent teams

136

was beyond the scope of this research that instead took inspiration from animation studio practice, and clustered similar Agent Types and Agents within the multi-layered conceptual space’s System Design Layer. These clusters were then communicated as Agent Teams via the modelling notation developed by Marshall (2014, p. 274), which is a group of three overlapping humanoid figures. The introduction of Agent Teams alongside the clustering of Functional System Requirements lead to the development of high-level team specific rules that were composed of responsibilities and constraints. Conceptually, these rules progress the overall system forwards in a manner that is flexible and accommodating of system and environmental change.

Having explored these core agent-oriented modelling concepts to capture and conceptualise knowledge of the Digital Animation Process along with knowledge of character animation practice and process, conceptual Agent-Oriented Goal Models of the overarching Digital Production System and a system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation were composed. The development of these Goal Models demonstrates that at least conceptually, Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts are capable of capturing, reconciling the creative and technical domains of character animation, and presenting character animation practice and process using simple and explicit language.

The following chapter explores the application of these Goal Models, and their embedded concepts to communicate knowledge of animation practice and process. This takes place within a simulated animation studio environment, where undergraduate design students, as aspiring character animators, reference the models to guide their production activity across three short animated films.

137

Chapter 5: Evaluating the Mk I production system design and model

5.1 Introduction and aims

The previous chapter leveraged Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts and techniques to design and model a system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. Labelled the Mk I Production Model, it presents a novel approach that is expected to guide stakeholders through a repeatable production process, and to communicate clearly the different objective and tacit requirements that underpin it, although the model’s ability to do this is speculative and untested within a live production environment.

To investigate and to develop insight into the model’s suitability as a practical tool to guide and communicate the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation to aspiring animators, it was embedded within an Undergraduate student animation project named Gunter’s Fables. This project had high-level motivations to produce three short animated films and other creative artefacts such as games and print material. The study of the Mk I Production Model within this project was underpinned by two aims that were to investigate:

 The Mk I Production Model’s suitability to guide animators through a repeatable three-dimensional character animation production process.  Perceptions of the language used to denote the Mk I Productions model's Functional and Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements.

Through their investigation, it was expected that the application of the Agent- Modelling framework discussed in Chapter 4 would be endorsed as suitable for sharing production knowledge, and would help identify and refine representations of knowledge that were clear or needed revision. Section 5.2 introduces the Gunter’s Fables project, its setup, and overviews the development and pre-production stages of its Digital Animation Process, providing context for the application and study of the Mk I Production Model in the Production stage. Section 5.3 details investigation of the first aim, which concerns the model’s design and production suitability. Section 5.4 focuses on the second aim and

138

investigates animator’s perceptions of the language used throughout the model. Section 5.5 summarises findings from across this initial and exploratory study.

5.2 Project setup, development and pre-production

5.2.1 Introduction to the Gunter’s fables project

Gunter’s Fables was the topic of an industry-based curriculum project at Swinburne University of Technology, within the Undergraduate program Bachelor of Design: Multimedia Design. The project brought together more than sixty final-year multimedia design students to design and produce e-books, posters, computer games and animations based on three of the Gunter’s Fables books discussed below. The project environment shared characteristics with that of a professional animation studio where teams of creative practitioners collaborate across the development and production of stories, conceptual artwork, model making and character animations to achieve the goal of producing an animated film. This environment combined with a sixteen-week University semester and a real-world project scenario, presented an ideal environment and opportunity to study the Mk I Production Model and its design.

Consideration was given to the time frame and the project’s other motivations, resulting in three books chosen by the project’s Leadership Team - composed of lecturers, to be developed into short-animated films. The three books were selected for their equivalence to one another, where they had similar word counts and narrative structures, different characters, and multi-character interactions. These attributes plus the perceived complexities of each production in regard to character performance, interactions and dialogue made these appropriate choices to produce within the available project timeframe. The structure of each narrative, for example, exhibited similar character arcs, and the lead characters appeared to occupy the narrative equally by way of appearance and dialogue. Based on the books’ text, the complexity of character performances was thought to be comparable across the three books, with each having a similar volume of simple and complex actions.

The three books chosen for adaption into screenplays and then animations were The Zebra Aircon (Pauli, 2007), The King of Hearts (Pauli, 2006a) and The Strongest Tree (Pauli, 2006b). The Zebra Aircon followed a conversation between two lead characters, a zebra and a termite, who conversed beside a termite mound in the African Savannah. They examined natural heating and cooling occurrences in the environment and how these could be adapted

139

by humans to create more sustainable temperature control systems. The Strongest Tree followed a story told from a strong and healthy tree to an audience of the viewer, and the tree’s furry and feathered friends. The tree's story was one of recycling, and how all creatures big or small, beautiful or ugly contribute to the maintenance of the environment through their activities and reprocessing of waste. Far from the lush greenery of the forest is the story The King of Hearts. Based in the middle of the ocean, the story explored naturally occurring energy sources from the perspectives of a baby whale and seagull. Their conversation aimed to ignite new methods of energy creation and how it could be applied to human activity.

As films within a branded series, it was expected that each exhibit consistent and comparable brand attributes, creative direction, aesthetic styling and character animation. To establish consistencies across the films, the overarching Digital Animation System was duplicated and deployed as the guiding project framework for each film. The three systems’ initial high-level requirements Develop Production and Pre-Produce Assets were performed mostly in parallel and by the same Agent Team, seeing all of the screenplays, storyboards, conceptual designs and production-ready assets feature similar and consistent qualities.

5.2.2 Project and requirement timeframes

The sixteen-week timeframe to complete the three Digital Animation Systems was governed by the availability of the project stakeholders (twenty undergraduate students), and the project’s physical environment that was a unit of study. With each film having identical Digital Animation Systems guiding their development, pre-production, production and post- production, the overarching systems were deployed largely in parallel with some offset to transition talent and resources across productions as required to meet project deadlines.

The four high-level requirements of the Digital Animation Systems were scheduled and planned in overlapping one-week long blocks, with variation in their durations occurring to accommodate the different number of shots and complexities anticipated for each film. The Development stages were allocated five weeks, the Pre-Production stages six weeks, the Production stages between seven and nine weeks, and the Post-Production stages five weeks. Of particular importance to the study of the Mk I Production Model was the time allocated to each film’s Production stage. As shown in Chapter 4.3.4 the Mk I Production Model features six high-level requirements that are Plan Animation, Layout Animation, Block Foundation Animation, Enhance Foundation Animation, Detail Animation and Polish

140

Animation. Each requirement was allocated one working week per shot, resulting in each shot of animation allocated a maximum of six weeks for production.

These timeframes and expectations were communicated to all members of the Production Team through a specific briefing document. This document included general project information and the high-level Gantt chart shown in Figure 5.1 which showed how long each stage was allocated per film and the overlap of stages across films.

Weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The Zebra Aircon Development Pre‐production Production Post production The Strongest Tree Development Pre‐production Production Post production The King of Hearts Development Pre‐production Production Post production

Figure 5.1: The Gunter’s Fables overall animation project Gantt chart

The overall team of twenty students were distributed across all stages and films shown in Figure 5.1. The offsetting of stages across films allowed students to be transferred between the same stage on different films, and into later stages by assuming different Agent Types. For example, one student contributed to the first four weeks of the Zebra Aircon’s Development stage and the last three weeks of the King of Heart’s Development stage. They were later transitioned into the Zebra Aircon’s Post-Production team and stage. This flexibility was extended to the project’s animators, however their movement between films and teams was tightly controlled due to having pre-planned animator/shot assignments in place. Prior to the commencement of the Production stages, all animators were members of a Development and/or Pre-production team, where their contributions varied. Upon completion of their eventual production activities, each animator was transitioned into one of the three post-production teams or onto other facets of the Gunter’s Fables project that included the making of printed and interactive outcomes. Team configurations and the movement of labour across the project was managed exclusively by the Leadership Team, who assigned and re-assigned labour in response to weekly progress, team and film needs.

141

The following sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 describe the Development and Pre-production stages of the Digital Animation System, and provides context for what work was undertaken prior to deploying the Mk I Production Model within the Production stage of the overarching Digital Animation System.

5.2.3 Developing production concepts and resources

The first stage of the Digital Animation Systems was home to the deployment and actioning of the high-level requirement Develop Production, and involved Agents working within the three Development Teams to perform conceptual activities in unison and in parallel to ensure the consistency of work produced.

Early development activities included the adaption of books into animation screenplays, the development of character and environment designs, and film aesthetics via conceptual artworks. Of particular significance was the team’s development of pre- visualisation media such as storyboards and animatics, that featured hand-drawn visuals alongside temporary voice recordings, sound effects and basic editing techniques. In addition to their storytelling qualities, the animatics provided the Leadership Team with a foundation in which to base each films’ Production stage, where approximate film durations, desirable poses and acting choices for characters, and the number of individual shots to be animated were made known.

Across the three Development stages many conceptual artefacts were produced, and together built a foundation of project knowledge that was used by project stakeholders to further develop and produce the films. Conceptual artefacts included comprehensive style guides, hand-drawn and digitally crafted conceptual artworks and physically sculpted character and environment maquettes. A sample of these artefacts are shown below in Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.6, and includes project and film branding, character designs, storyboards and aesthetic developments.

142

Figure 5.2: The Gunter's Fables logo for the animated films

Figure 5.3: Conceptual artwork from The Zebra Aircon

143

Figure 5.4: Conceptual designs / maquettes of key characters

Top Left: Termite, from The Zebra Aircon. Top Right: Wise old tree (minus foliage), from The Strongest Tree. Bottom: Baby whale, from The King of Hearts.

144

Figure 5.5: Storyboard panels from The Zebra Aircon Aircon Zebra from The panels Storyboard Figure 5.5:

145

Figure 5.6: Look and style development panels from The Zebra Aircon

146

5.2.4 Pre-producing assets for production

The second high-level requirement of the Digital Animation Systems was to Pre- Produce Assets that were conceptualised throughout the development stages. Agents from the three Pre-Production Teams applied their craft knowledge and skills to construct three- dimensional models and animation ready assets for the Production Teams to animate during the production stage of the overarching system.

In pre-producing assets for the production stages, Agent activities included the crafting of three-dimensional character and environment models, model texturing, model rigging, set design, set dressing as well as the layout of scenes and shots in accordance with approved animatics and conceptual artwork. In addition to asset construction and scene preparation, rig testing was undertaken by the Agent Teams to ensure that character models could be manipulated into the positions and poses visualised in their respective animatics. Via this testing process the three hand drawn animatics were updated to three-dimensional previsualisations, which included low detail approximations of three-dimensional characters and environments, accurate camera angles and camera moves, and the placement and posing of characters. Figure 5.7 shows comparison frames from the hand-drawn animatic and three-dimensional previsualisation of The Zebra Aircon. As can be seen in the three- dimensional previsualisation frame on the right, the original creative intentions for the shot have been carried over with refinements made to the camera angle, shot composition and character posing to accommodate the form, scale and placement of three-dimensional models and assets within the environment.

Left: An original hand drawn animatic frame from shot 03 from The Zebra Aircon. Right: The equivalent frame from the three-dimensional Previsualisation featuring 'lo-fi' assets.

Figure 5.7: Animatic vs. Previsualisation frames

The three-dimensional pre-visualisation artefacts advanced the planning of the three production stages, by presenting the Leadership Team with refined film and shot durations,

147

and by enabling the creative and technical complexities of each shot to be identified and resolved prior to each system’s production stage. The three-dimensional previsualisation artefacts along with others crafted throughout the development and pre-production stages such as style guides, pose sheets and voice over recordings, were constructed without the help of a detailed goal model, and were guided by the high-level activities that features in the high-level Digital Animation System model. These artefacts formed a library of resources that the Production Teams could draw upon to assist in their achievement of the Plan Animation and Layout Animation requirements that feature within the Mk I Production Model.

5.3 An investigation into the Mk I production model’s repeatable design and production suitability.

With the development and pre-production stages of the three Digital Animation Systems now complete, the Mk I Production Model’s suitability to guide animators through a repeatable three-dimensional character animation production process was able to be investigated, and insights gained into the model’s design and application within an active production environment. Using the three Gunter’s Fables production stages as backdrops, the Mk I Production Model was incorporated into the Digital Animation Systems and distributed alongside study guidelines and data collection procedures that were applied throughout each film’s production.

5.3.1 Incorporating the Mk I production model into the digital production systems

The next requirement in the Digital Animation Systems was to Produce Animation using the assets created in the previous development and pre-production stages. With each film containing multiple shots of animation a copy of the Mk I Production Model was made for every shot, and related back to each Digital Animation System’s high-level requirement Produce Animation. This is demonstrated in Figure 5.8 that shows a high-level functional model of one Digital Animation System where the Mk I Production Model has been duplicated four times and labelled Animate Shot #.

In accordance with its design and development in Chapter 4, the Mk I Production Model is composed of six high-level system requirements or sub-systems. To simplify the Mk I Production Model's visual communication both on screen and in hardcopy printouts for the

148

student animators, the model was separated into seven models over seven pages. The first page featured the high-level model, and the remaining six pages each contained one of the model’s sub-systems, as demonstrated earlier in Chapter 4.3.7. While these models were termed sub-systems, to better align with terminology that evolved organically by stakeholders throughout the earlier stages of the Digital Animation System, the high-level requirements were renamed Milestones and their sub-systems Milestone Models.

Figure 5.8: The Digital Animation System with duplications of the Mk I Production Model

Figure 5.9 shows the highest-level model that was referred to throughout the project as the Gunter’s Fables Production Model, noting that this model is the same functional model of the production system that appeared earlier as Figure 4.4. Showing only the high- level requirements and Agent relationships, the Model intended to act as both a point of reference and as an overview of the production system for the Production Team and broader pool of Digital Animation System stakeholders. The six milestone models appeared earlier from Figure 4.6 to Figure 4.11.

149

Figure 5.9: The high-level Production Model, featuring the six milestone requirements

5.3.2 The production team

The production requirements of the three Digital Animation Systems were performed by a single Production Team composed of twelve Agents of the type: Animator. The animators were all current undergraduate students, and based on the environment’s workload expectations (that mirrored the University’s minimum study expectations) were required to dedicate a minimum of twelve and a half hours per week towards their production activities. Of the twelve and a half hours, approximately one and a half hours per week were allocated to sweatbox (see Chapter 2.4) being the formal review and evaluation of production activities with peers. The remaining eleven hours per week were to contribute towards achieving production activities.

Prior to commencing the production activities, animators had not completed any formal training around the production of three-dimensional character animation. To undertake the role animators were required to demonstrate, via a portfolio of work, that they had fundamental competencies in three-dimensional object modelling, general computer graphics and the use of the project’s primary animation software, Autodesk Maya. Based on the assessment of portfolios by the Leadership Team, the perceived knowledge and skills of each animator were mapped to one of three broad competency-based categories. This was important to ensure that simpler shots were assigned to less competent animators, and that more complex or challenging shots could be assigned to animators who had higher levels of competency. The categories and assessments formed a tool for the Leadership Team to match and assign shots of animation to particular animators. Assessments were not disclosed to the animators, nor did assessments prevent animators from being assigned more challenging or less challenging shots across the project. Table 5.1 lists the individual

150

animators as A01, A02, A03 and so on, and their ranking as 1, 2 or 3 in accordance with the three competency categories. Assessments indicated there to be a spread of skill levels across the Production Team, with two animators perceived as having limited software knowledge and low practical competency, six animators as having good general software knowledge and practical competency, and four animators as being confident software users who had strong work ethic and practical competency.

Animator Skill / Competency Assessments

Competency Categories (1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High) 1 Limited knowledge and ability to navigate and operate tools, demonstrated practical ability and comprehension is minimal. 2 General knowledge of software and tools, demonstrated practical ability is moderate but lacking polish and attention to detail. 3 Can confidently navigate and operate software and tools independently. Demonstrated practical abilities indicate strong work ethic and attention to detail.

Animator Mapping Animator # Competency (1-3) Animator # Competency (1-3)

A01 2 A07 1

A02 2 A08 2

A03 3 A09 2

A04 1 A10 2

A05 3 A11 2

A06 3 A12 3

Table 5.1: Animator rankings based on portfolio assessment

5.3.3 Distributing and assigning shots to animators

Following the creation and approval of pre-visualisation artefacts in the development and pre-production stages of the three films, the two members of the Leadership Team reviewed and assessed each shot of animation for its perceived complexities, creative and technical challenges. The assessment of shots considered the duration, the number of characters in the shot, the desired actions and acting choices, continuity requirements, speech and interactions with other characters and objects. As outcomes of this assessment, four shots were labelled as E for Easy, twenty-four shots were labelled M for Medium, and thirteen shots were labelled as H for Hard.

151

Individual animators were considered for shots spanning all three films, and were assigned shots based on their perceived knowledge and skills. Table 5.2 shows the mapping of shots to animators, where the three films are listed horizontally across the table, and the shot number, shot difficulty and the animator assigned to each shot running vertically down the table. Of the twelve animators, six were assigned shots across two films, and six were assigned shots in only one film.

The Zebra Aircon The Strongest Tree The King of Hearts Shot Shot Animator Shot Shot Animator Shot Shot Animator # Ranking ID # Ranking ID # Ranking ID

01 M A9 01 M A1 01 M A11

02 M A9 02 M A1 02 H A5

03 H A5 03 E A1 03 H A12

04A H A5 04 M A8 04 H A12

04B M A5 05 H A3 05 H A12

05 M A10 06 H A3 06 M A11

06 M A9 07 M A3 07 M A6

07 M A6 08 M A8 08 H A3

08 H A6 09 M A2 09 M A11

09 H A6 10 M A2 10 M A5

10 M A12 11 M A3 11 M A2

11 H A6 12 M A8 12 H A5

12 E A4 13 E A10 13 M A2

------14 E A7

------15 M A12

Table 5.2: Animator shot assignments and shot difficulty

5.3.4 Study guidelines and expectations

The study was introduced by a person not associated with the Gunter’s Fables project. This approach was used so that the researcher, who was also a member of the Leadership Team, would not know who was or was not participating in the study, however all

152

students agreed to be participants. A hard and soft copy of the Mk I Production Model was distributed to all members of the Production Team approximately one week prior to the commencement of production activity. This was accompanied by an oral briefing from the Leadership Team, and was also distributed to the Production Team as full text (see appendix A5.1) that stated the parameters for the production stage as follows:

 How the model was to be used by the Production Team “As a member of the production team, you must exclusively reference this model to guide your weekly production activities”.

 The timeframe for delivering each shot and its milestone requirements “All animation shots have been allocated six working weeks to produce, this means you should aim to achieve one or more milestone requirements per working week”.

 The model-based process for structuring weekly reviews and feedback “Once per week your work-in-progress will be screened to the production team and leadership team, the Gunter's Fable Production Model and the milestone requirements you have been attempting that week will be used as a basis for structuring peer feedback and critique during the screening sessions”.

 The requirement to complete a questionnaire pertaining to each of the milestone models “You are asked to complete an online questionnaire, where you will be asked a series of short questions specifically relating to your perception and achievement of the milestone requirement and its underpinning requirements. You are encouraged to complete the questionnaire before, during and immediately after achieving the milestone requirement, at minimum you are asked to complete the questionnaire at least once per milestone requirement”.

In addition to the text copy, the oral briefing reviewed and discussed key pre- production and pre-visualisation artefacts, production scheduling and deadlines. Download links to access these artefacts along with a soft copy of the Mk I Production Model were made available within the text copy of the briefing. During and also following the briefing, there were no questions from the Production Team specifically relating to the study parameters, procedure or design of the Mk I Production Model.

153

5.3.5 Tracking progress and achievement

The Mk I Production Model was duplicated forty-one times across the three films, creating a total of two hundred and forty-six individual milestone requirements that were to be addressed throughout the project’s twelve-week production period. As discussed in Chapter 2.4, studio approaches to tracking the progress of three-dimensional computer animation and animation in general, typically involve a software solution that lists shot numbers, activities to be performed, dates, allocated animators, and the status of a shot throughout the pipeline.

Implementing such a solution may have introduced additional overhead to the project, and have risked shifting focus away from the Mk I Production Model as the primary tool for the Production Team and other project stakeholders. Given this, an in-model method for tracking requirement achievement and thus system progress was added to the Mk I Production Model, and built upon emerging practices surrounding the application of Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling to the management of design projects by Marshall (2014). In accordance with his work, this approach also used a numerical colour scale ranging from one-red (unachieved) to ten-green (achieved), but it used different tones to represent achievement. Figure 5.10 shows Marshall’s choice of de-saturated colours compared with the more saturated and vibrant colours chosen to represent achievement within the Mk I Production Model. The inclusion of vibrant colours was intended to establish three clear zones of achievement, and in some ways is like a traffic light signal. The three zones were: red (unachieved), yellow (acceptable functional achievement) and green (acceptable functional and quality achievement).

Figure 5.10: The colour achievement scales

Left: The colour achievement scale by Marshall (2014) Right: A more vivid colour scale for inclusion within the Mk I Production Model.

In accordance with the study procedure, animators screened their work-in-progress for each shot on a weekly basis to the Production Team and the two members of the Leadership Team within a sweatbox environment. Channelling the hierarchical and dynamic feedback practices associated with sweatbox (see Chapter 2.4) and Marshall’s method of

154

evaluating requirement achievement, the Mk I Production Model and appropriate milestone models were used as a framework for the Leadership Team to provide verbal feedback on the achievement of Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. Upon completion of each shot’s review, each member of the Leadership Team made independent assessments of milestone achievement, and indicated this via a numerical value ranging from one (unachieved) to ten (achieved). There was little variation between member assessments. Of the two hundred and forty six milestones requirements assessed, one hundred were assessed the same, one hundred and forty varied by one mark, and six varied by two marks (see appendix A5.2). The assessment scores from both Leadership Team members were then averaged, and rounded up to determine a final numerical value for the specific shot and milestone requirements. Using this value, the milestone requirements were coloured by the Leadership Team in accordance with the colour achievement scale. This process was repeated on a weekly basis until the production period concluded.

Figure 5.11 features a sample of this in-model shot tracking method from a point in time during the production of The Zebra Aircon. The enlarged requirements show the tracking and overall achievement for Shot 01 that appears to be progressing well but is not yet complete, Shot 02 that is complete to an acceptable functional and quality standard, Shot 05 that is in-progress and of a borderline unacceptable standard, and Shot 06 that is complete to an acceptable functional and quality standard. The highest-level system requirement Produce Animation is coloured red, indicating that the production of all shots is not yet complete. The zoomed-out model at the bottom of Figure 5.11 shows the progress of all shots at same point in time. Although unreadable at the scale shown, the colour coding clearly communicates the overall status of shots and progression of the film’s production stage.

155

Figure 5.11: A sample of milestone achievements within the project’s Goal Model

Top: A sample of milestone achievements for The Zebra Aircon - Shots 01, 02, 05 and 06. Bottom: All shots from the same film, indicating overall production stage achievement and progress.

156

5.3.5.1 The Zebra Aircon

Figure 5.12: A final, post-production frame from The Zebra Aircon

The Zebra Aircon was composed of thirteen shots of three-dimensional character animation and were produced by a team of six animators over a seven-week production period. The achievement of each shot and their underpinning milestone requirements are shown at distance in Figure 5.13 and in more detail within Table 5.3, where final shot and milestone achievement scores and animator details are recorded.

Figure 5.13: The final Production Model for The Zebra Aircon

157

Milestone Shot # Avg. Requirement 1 2 3 4A 4B 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plan Animation 7 7 8 8 8 3 7 4 7 4 8 7 8 7

Layout Animation 8 9 7 8 7 4 7 7 7 5 8 7 8 7 Block Foundation 9 10 9 9 9 4 8 8 8 6 9 6 8 8 Animation Enhance Foundation 8 9 9 9 8 6 9 7 6 8 9 6 8 8 Animation

Detail Animation 7 8 9 9 7 7 9 7 7 8 9 7 7 8

Polish Animation 6 9 7 10 7 6 9 6 6 7 10 7 7 7

Shot Achievement 8 9 8 9 8 5 8 7 7 6 9 7 8 7

A9 A9 A5 A5 A5 A10 A9 A6 A6 A6 A12 A6 A4 Assigned Animator ID Perceived Ability (1-3) 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1

Table 5.3: Achievement scores for The Zebra Aircon's shots and their milestones.

As can be seen from the scores in Table 5.3 the average achievement score for milestone requirements were similar, with scores of 07/10 and 08/10 across the six milestones. With averages all situated within the green zone or acceptable functional and quality achievement, the data suggests that the Mk I Production Model was able to communicate the production process, or at least the higher level stages of the production process to the film’s team of animators.

The individual milestone scores and their averages across the film show that the early milestones Plan Animation and Layout Animation were achieved to a slightly lower standard than those requiring the creation and refinement of more substantial character animation such as Block Foundation Animation, Enhance Foundation Animation and Detail Animation. Speculatively, the slight variation might suggests that those initial milestone activities may be undervalued and/or underperformed by animators in attempts to commence the more 'hands on' milestone activities. The same achievement data shows a possible link between the achievement of the earlier milestones and the overall achievement of the shot, where the lower achievement of the Plan Animation and Layout Animation milestones also saw a lower overall level of shot achievement.

The final milestone requirement Polish Animation intends to be where micro-details and micro-movements are added and fine-tuned to enhance the character’s fleshiness and believability. Achievement scores pertaining to this milestone show that it was often achieved to a just acceptable but lower standard than the previous Detail Animation

158

milestone. This suggests that the milestone and its underpinning requirements may need review and/or refinement to communicate the quality-based expectations of the milestone better. It must also be noted that as this was also the last milestone for each shot, workload and deadlines may have impacted on the animators’ investment in animating and refining small details. Shot achievement scores shows that not all shots were achieved equally, with the lowest shot scoring 05/10 and the highest scoring 09/10, and may be attributed to the level of animator competency and/or other factors such as workload.

At the end of The Zebra Aircon’s seven-week production period, all thirteen shots and their milestone activities were tackled and achieved to an acceptable standard. The completion of all shots suggests that the Mk I Production Model coveys a practical character animation production process. However, the variance in milestone achievement per shot, particularly across the early milestone requirements suggests that achieving the process’s foundational milestones to a high standard may be beneficial to producing an overall higher- quality shot. Additionally, the deployment of multiple animators across the film, their explicit referencing of the model and completion of individually assigned shots, suggests that the model’s production process is also repeatable.

5.3.5.2 The Strongest Tree

Figure 5.14: A final, post-production frame from The Strongest Tree

The Strongest Tree was composed of thirteen individual shots of three-dimensional character animation. The production of these shots was attempted by a team of five animators over a production period lasting eight weeks. The achievement of each shot and

159

their underpinning milestone requirements are shown at distance in Figure 5.15, and in more detail in Table 5.4 where final shot and milestone achievement scores and animator details are visible.

Figure 5.15: The final Production Model for The Strongest Tree

Milestone Shot # Avg. Requirement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Plan Animation 9 9 6 7 4 6 6 7 3 3 5 7 7 6

Layout Animation 7 7 7 8 5 8 4 8 7 7 7 9 9 7

Block Foundation 8 6 8 9 7 8 6 9 7 7 7 9 8 8 Animation

Enhance Foundation 7 7 7 8 6 6 7 8 6 7 6 8 8 7 Animation

Detail Animation 7 6 7 6 6 7 7 8 7 7 6 7 8 7

Polish Animation 8 7 7 7 6 7 6 8 7 7 5 7 7 7

Shot Achievement 8 7 7 8 6 7 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 7

A1 A1 A1 A8 A3 A3 A3 A8 A2 A2 A3 A8 A10 Assigned Animator ID Perceived Ability (1-3) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2

Table 5.4: Achievement scores for The Strongest Tree’s shots and their milestones

The average achievement scores recorded across the six milestone requirements ranged between 06/10 and 08/10. The average score for the Plan Animation milestone was the lowest of all six requirements, while milestones that required the creation and refinement of more substantial character animation such as Block Foundation Animation, Enhance Foundation Animation and Detail Animation received slightly higher average scores of 07/10 and 08/10. The difference in milestone achievement scores was similar to those in The

160

Zebra Aircon, which also highlighted that the reasonably hands off milestone of Plan Animation was underperformed by animators, and that there is correlation between the lower achievement of initial requirements and the overall shot achievement score. In the King of Hearts, for example, shots that achieved a 03/10 for planning received an overall shot achievement score of 06/10, compared to shots that achieved a 07/10 for planning and an overall shot achievement score of 08/10.

Shot achievement scores show that not all shots were produced equally, but there were groups of similar standards. The shots with the lowest achievement scores, for example, were shots 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 with all receiving a score of 06/10 and were animated by the animators A2 and A3. The highest scoring shots were 1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 with each receiving a shot achievement score of 08/10, and were animated by the animators A1, A8 and A10. As was found in The Zebra Aircon, when an individual animator produced multiple shots, the achievement scores were similar; for example, animator A1 produced three shots with one assessed as being 8/10 and two shots as being 7/10. With this pattern now emerging across two films and multiple animators, it suggests that individual animators found a level of comfort and confidence in the production system and their role within it. All milestone requirements except for Plan Animation averaged scores that were situated within the green zone of the achievement colour scale, meaning they were of an acceptable functional and quality. With an average achievement of 06/10 the Plan Animation milestone was situated at the higher cusp of the yellow zone which translated to an acceptable functional standard.

At the end of this film’s eight-week production period, all thirteen shots and their milestone activities were attempted and achieved to varying degrees of achievement. The variance in milestone achievement per shot, particularly for the Plan Animation milestone, suggests that more focus is needed within the Mk I Production Model to promote its importance in achieving an overall higher quality outcome.

161

5.3.5.3 The King of Hearts

Figure 5.16: A final, post-production frame from The King of Hearts

The King of Hearts required the production of fifteen shots of three-dimensional character animation. Production was undertaken by a team of seven animators over a period of nine weeks, and the flexibility of the agent-system was demonstrated with a single animator (A11) performing all fifteen Plan Animation and Layout Animation milestone requirements. The assigned animators then commenced production from the milestone Block Foundation Animation onwards. This alternative approach was deployed while the assigned animators were performing activities elsewhere within the larger Gunter’s Fables project, and was done so in an attempt to expedite the film’s production stage and create additional post-production time that was needed to tackle unforeseen technical complexities relating to water/ocean simulation. The achievement of each shot and their underpinning milestone requirements are shown at distance in Figure 5.17, and in more detail in Table 5.5 where final shot and milestone achievement scores and animator details are recorded.

Figure 5.17: The final Production Model for The King of Hearts

162

Shot # Milestone Requirement Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plan Animation * 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Layout Animation * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Block Foundation Animation 8 9 8 8 6 7 8 6 9 8 9 7 7 6 7 7 Enhance Foundation Animation 9 9 8 8 7 7 8 6 9 6 7 7 7 5 4 7 Detail Animation 8 7 8 8 6 8 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 Polish Animation 9 7 9 7 7 8 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 Shot Achievement 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 A11 A5 A12 A12 A12 A11 A6 A3 A11 A5 A2 A5 A2 A7 A12 Assigned Animator ID Perceived Ability (1-3) 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 * Requirements performed by a single animator across all fifteen Shots.

Table 5.5: Achievement scores for The King of Hearts’ shots and their milestones

The average achievement score for all milestone requirements except for Layout Animation was 07/10, with it receiving a higher average achievement score of 09/10. The two milestone requirements addressed by the same animator were achieved consistently across all fifteen shots, with all Plan Animation requirements scoring a 07/10 and all Layout Animation requirements scoring 09/10. Achievement data for these initial milestones appear to have had a positive impact on the overall production of each shot, with consistently high overall shot achievement scores. Despite there being some fluctuation in the achievement scores of later milestone requirements, the overall shot achievement scores were in close proximity to one another with scores of 07/10 or 08/10. With all shots situated well within the green zone, achievement data suggests that the Mk I Production Model was able to communicate the animation production process and its expectations of quality clearly and consistently.

The Mk I Production Model was designed with flexibility in mind, specifically that it could be adapted to different production scenarios. For the production of The King of Hearts the model did not undergo change, though, and as stated earlier, the approach to performing activities did change with one individual animator assigned to the Plan Animation and Layout Animation requirements for all fifteen shots. The consistent and high achievement of these milestone requirements indicates that a level of understanding was present within the individual animator. Achievement scores for the mid and later milestone requirements show that the assigned animators were able to take over and resolve the four production milestones that followed Layout Animation, suggesting that prior experience achieving pre- requisite requirements is not essential if the point of commencement is sufficiently resolved. At the end of the nine-week production stage all fifteen shots were achieved to an acceptable standard.

163

5.3.6 Findings

This initial investigation into the Mk I Production Model’s suitability to guide animators through a repeatable three-dimensional character animation production process uncovered much about the Production system and model design, and its application within an active production environment. Following the review and comparison of findings across the three production stages, eleven key insights and recommendations were identified that should be considered to improve the development and application of the Mk I Production Model.

 The Mk I Production Model does communicate a repeatable process.

Applications of the Model addressed a total of two hundred and forty-six milestone activities, and ten thousand, five hundred and seventy-eight system requirements. The achievement of all forty-one shots and their subsequent milestone requirements by the team of twelve project animators suggests that the Mk I Production Model, as anticipated, can be used as a functional tool to guide animators through a repeatable three-dimensional character animation production process.

 The structure and design of the Mk I Production Model can accommodate different characters and production scenarios.

An intention of the Model's design was its flexibility to accommodate different configurations of character without the need to amend structure or requirements. This flexibility was demonstrated across the three films with each featuring a range of different characters. Characters varied in their technical design and underpinnings, actions and poses, and anatomical configurations that included bipedal, quadrupedal, vegetation, aquatic and airborne designs. With the overall acceptable achievement of shots and the different production stages, it is reasonable to assume that the Model’s design and requirement language is adequate to communicate animation practice and process for a range of character designs and animation scenarios.

 Repeat applications of the Mk I Production Model by individual animators appeared to have no impact on overall production quality.

Where an individual animator produced multiple shots of character animation, the achievement scores for those shots were similar, which indicates that repeat applications of the Mk I Production Model does not greatly increase or decrease an

164

animator’s understanding of Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. Such consistency further supports the notion that the Mk I Production Model frames a repeatable system for the production three-dimensional character animation.

 The Mk I Production Model has an average achievement score of 07/10, suggesting a base level of communication and expectation across the model.

The average achievement scores for all three production stages and their respective milestone requirements are presented in Table 5.6 with the data showing a consistent level of achievement for all production stages and their milestones. Such consistency further supports notions of the Mk I Production Model’s flexibility and repeatability. As the Leadership Team were the only assessors of milestone requirement achievement, the consistency of scores also suggest that there is a base level of knowledge and achievement that the model could be expected to communicate and deliver.

Average Milestone Achievement Scores Per Film AVG. Milestone Requirement The Zebra The Strongest The King of

Aircon Tree Hearts Plan Animation 7 6 7 7 Layout Animation 7 7 9 8 Block Foundation Animation 8 8 7 8 Enhance Foundation Animation 8 7 7 7 Detail Animation 8 7 7 7 Polish Animation 7 7 7 7 Average Production 7 7 7 7 Achievement

Table 5.6: Average milestone achievement scores for the three production films

 Milestones were consistently assessed as being weighted towards functional achievement.

The overwhelming majority of shots and their milestone requirements were achieved to an overall acceptable standard, generalised as 'acceptable functional and quality achievement'. With average scores of 07/10 the level of achievement highlights that the Mk I Production Model appears to communicate and emphasise the Functional Requirements of the system reasonably well, but does not do this as well for the system's Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements. The timeframe to achieve milestone requirements and the volume of requirements being performed in parallel by a single

165

animator should be taken into consideration with this assessment, as these factors are likely to have directly impacted on the achievement of quality and may explain the general fit for purpose quality across the films. From this, future iterations of the Mk I Production Model may wish to consider prioritising the system's Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements to be of equal or greater weighting than Functional Requirements.

 The initial planning and layout milestone requirements were generally underachieved in comparison to the more data-heavy hands-on milestone requirements.

The two initial milestone requirements Plan Animation and Layout Animation can be seen as somewhat hands off activities, collectively they require little interaction with animation software and what interaction occurs typically results in fundamental but minimal animation data being created. The average achievement scores for these milestone activities suggests that they are underachieved across the majority of shots, specifically when compared to the later milestones activities that are predominately more hands on and see the creation of large chunks of animation data. Achievement data for these initial activities also indicate there may be a link between their achievement and the overall shot achievement score, for example, shots that had higher-achieved hands off activities often had higher overall shot achievement scores. This pattern suggests that future iterations of the Mk I Production Model should explore approaches to increase animator engagement and awareness surrounding the importance of the initial milestone requirements.

 The colour coded tracking system was utilised by the Leadership Team to track and represent progress across all project models.

The procedure for recording milestone achievement within the production model created a common resource for the communication and discussion of project progress between members of the Leadership Team and Production Team. The colour of individual milestones shows that achievement fluctuated during the production of most shots, for example, the milestones Block Foundation Animation and Enhance Foundation Animation may have scored low, but the next milestone Detail Animation may have scored much higher. As per the linear nature of animation workflows discussed throughout Chapter 2, a key stage in the production process should be achieved to the highest standard before a subsequent stage or milestone in the process is attempted. Fluctuation evidenced across the models suggests that

166

milestones were revisited by animators in between sweatbox sessions, or while attempting later milestones to accommodate for the lack of earlier achievement. This highlights a flaw with the production environment and project scheduling that was put into place, where one milestone was expected to be achieved per week. The environment did not allow for sweatbox sessions to occur more than once per week, as such revisions made to a milestone by an animator mid-week were not captured or reflected within the model. Across the three projects, there are also many examples where the colour of milestones were of a consistent shade. Animator skill, knowledge and work ethic may be contributing factors to this, but it is possible that the bracketing of achievement via the red zone, yellow zone and green zone may have inflated animators’ perceptions of achievement. For example, an evaluation on the cusp of the green zone could have been perceived as sufficient achievement with no further improvement required. While this is speculative, future iterations of the Mk I Production Model might consider the use of a more rigid/traffic light inspired colour scale to clarify and encourage higher levels of achievement.

 The timelines and work load for animators was intensive, and, if relaxed, may improve the quality of animation.

All shots were completed within the overall sixteen week production window. Across the three production stages minimal timeline amendments were required, and when required were minor and only done to facilitate unanticipated circumstances. Despite the completion of all shots throughout this period of time, the shot count to animator ratio required most animators to produce multiple shots of animation in parallel. Although these scenarios were achieved, the narrow timelines may have negatively impacted on the overall achievement scores. Had there been a greater time allocation and/or less activities for an individual animator to achieve in parallel, the total achievement scores may have been higher. Given this, the time allocation and number of activities being performed by an individual animator should be taken into consideration during future applications of the Mk I Production Model.

 The method used to determine animator suitability and shot complexity was appropriate.

Shots were assigned to an animator based on their perceived ability to overcome shot complexities and achieve production requirements. In comparing the animators’ perceived ability rankings and the shot achievement scores, it appears in large that

167

the animators were suitably matched to their assigned shots. This finding supports the approach used to screen, rank and assign animators to specific shots.

 Dialogue between the Leadership Team and animators was surface-level and may be deepened if animators conduct a self-assessment of milestone achievement.

During the weekly peer-review and assessment of milestone achievement, dialogue shared between the animator/s and the Leadership Team was largely surface-level with a primary focus on the Leadership Team’s appraisal. Following the completion of the three production stages it was apparent that extending animators’ use of the Mk I Production Model to include self-assessments of milestone achievement may have enabled deeper discussion and greater insights into animators’ perceptions of the milestones and their achievement. Future investigations may wish to consider extending milestone and requirement assessments to include assessments by animators alongside those of the Leadership Team.

 Characters were animated, but appeared to lack emotion.

Upon completion of the three films, the Leadership Team undertook a critical review of each film via a sweatbox-style review session. During this session the Leadership Team conferred that characters generally exhibited accurate and believable movement, but their performances appeared to lack identifiable emotion.

As discussed in section 2.3, emotion is widely considered to be a core attribute of character animation, and was a key aim behind the many quality-based requirements embedded throughout the production model. Though a lack of emotion could be attributed to animator skill or experience, it could also be that the Mk I Production Model's Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements did not emphasise the importance of such emotional qualities, or prompt the animator to view such requirements through an emotional lens. Future iterations of the Mk I Production Model should consider the communication of explicit emotional qualities alongside, or as a substitute for some Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

168

5.4 An investigation into system requirement language

Alongside the investigation of the Mk I Production Model’s practicality and repeatability, a second investigation was undertaken (see second aim, section 5.1) to gather insight into how the project’s animators perceived the language used to communicate the model’s Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

5.4.1 Language choices within the Mk I production model

During the design of the Mk I Production Model the selection of language and its suitability to communicate specific requirements was a core consideration in creating an unambiguous model for project stakeholders. How the Mk I Production Model’s requirements were performed, how the quality requirements were achieved and how the overall system performed would be influenced by the language embedded within the Model. One of the functional requirements underpinning the milestone Enhance Foundation Animation, for example, was Breakdown Poses. This functional requirement had direct relationships with three Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements that determined its overall expected quality. Had this Functional System Requirement instead been composed as a Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement, for example, Broken Down, it could have been glossed over as a non-system function and potentially forced the creation of additional system requirements to position it within the production system.

Although careful consideration was given to the conceptualisation, labelling and positioning of the Mk I Production Model’s requirements, to evaluate the production system’s design properly it was important to investigate and gather an awareness of how the language choices that were made and their intentions were perceived by the project’s animators.

5.4.2 Data collection

Capturing animator perceptions of the system’s requirement language had the potential to be impacted by matters such as time pressures of the project’s schedule, the reality of having to achieve requirements and shots, and their ability to recount perceptions before changing focus to other requirements. The notion of animators providing explicit feedback on all two-hundred and fifty-eight of the Mk I Production Model's system requirements while also undertaking production activity was thought to be too demanding if

169

meaningful responses were to be recorded. Given this, a decision was made to capture animators’ perceptions to the Mk I Production Model’s six milestone requirements explicitly, and optionally invite perceptions of any underpinning requirements or those they felt should be commented on. To ensure that the context of perceptions was appropriate, responses were captured throughout the project’s production stages at times when milestone requirements were being addressed by the animators.

A short online questionnaire was designed to capture responses, and was made accessible to animators at any time or location convenient to their weekly activities. The questionnaire was composed of four short questions. One question asked the animator to rate the clarity of the milestone requirement, two questions prompted an explanation of their perception of the milestone’s intent and achievement, and the other asked for perceptions specific to individual requirements. A rating scale was included in the questionnaire to capture a numerical indication of animators’ perceptions to question one. The remainder of the questions were designed to be open-ended with the aim of capturing meaningful responses and interpretations as guided from the animators’ perspectives. An alternative to the use of open questions was to use closed yes/no questions, but this was decided against due the possibility of limiting responses, and potentially missing unexpected insights and opportunities to understand how the language within the Model was interpreted and applied during practice (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). The four questions asked were as follows:

One: Is the intention of the milestone requirement (label) clear? (Rating scale 01: extremely unclear – 10 extremely clear) Two: Please explain what you believe the intention of this requirement to be... Three: Please explain how the requirement is achieved... Four: Please provide comments, feedback or observations surrounding the requirement and quality requirements underpinning it…

The asking of animators to complete the questionnaire, and how perception data was going to be collected were communicated to the animators as part of the production stage briefing and briefing document (see appendix A5.1).

Prior to the first data being collected an amendment was made to this procedure that asked animators to have completed the questionnaire at least once before obtaining peer feedback and critique during weekly screening sessions. This measure was put in place to avoid peer review and feedback influencing their initial perceptions of requirements. All

170

twelve animators chose to provide the minimum one perception for each of the six milestone requirements, and did not provide multiple perceptions per milestone, for example, before, during and after. Data collection showed that each animator recorded a total of six perceptions over approximately six weeks - allowing one week for each milestone activity to be attempted and achieved.

5.4.3 Data analysis

The analysis of responses varied across the four questions. Question One generated raw numerical data that was used to identify trends in animator perceptions, Questions Two and Three used the definitions of each milestone requirement as a lens to identify the alignment and clarity of responses, and Question Four grouped similar responses and categorised them into areas of concern and understanding to be considered in the future refinement of the system design and model. The following breakdowns demonstrate the analysis process for each question was conducted.

Question One: Responses to this question were collated into a table that mapped each value (01-10) against a descriptive level of clarity. Levels of clarity were formed by grouping values in increments of two, for example, 01-02: Extremely Unclear, 03-04: Fairly Unclear, 05-06: Neutral, 07-08: Fairly Clear, and 09-10: Extremely Clear. The spread and/or clustering of results was used to identify trends in animator’s perceptions of clarity for each milestone requirement. The results of this analysis were later compared to the results from Questions Two and Three to identify relationships between the numerical and open-ended responses.

The scope and expectation of each milestone requirement was defined during the design of the Mk I Production Model in Chapter 4.3.2 and are listed in the findings section for each milestone. To avoid influencing animators’ perceptions of the milestone requirements and therefore responses to the questionnaire, these definitions were not disclosed to the animators.

The method used to analyse responses to both Questions Two and Three was the same, with Question Two focused on the perception of the activity intent and Question Three focused on the perception of activity achievement.

171

Responses to these questions were analysed through a lens that aimed to identify if the perception of each requirement was functional, quality driven or holistic. This was achieved through the consideration of a responses context, any mentions to requirements, and the inclusion of verbs (functional), adjectives (quality driven) and/or the synthesis of the two to achieve a higher level objective (holistic). Upon determining the foundation of a response, its alignment to the milestone requirement’s definition was identified as having No (NA), Low-Level (LL), Mid-Level (ML) or High-Level (HL) alignment. Alignment with milestone definitions were determined using the following criteria:

Question Two Alignment Criteria (Perceptions of Intent) No Alignment (NA): When the response indicates no link or association to the defined intent.

Low-Level Intent (LL): When the response indicates a link to the defined intent by signifying an awareness of individual requirements, with no reference to a synthesis of requirements or quality requirements.

Mid-Level Intent (ML): When the response indicates a link to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of individual requirements, and the inclusion of quality requirements.

High-Level Intent (HL): When the response indicates a link to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of functional requirements and quality requirements to generate knowledge, and reference to inform future requirements.

Question Three Alignment Criteria (Perceptions of Achievement) No Alignment (NA): When the response indicates no link or association to the defined intent.

Low-Level Intent (LL): When the response indicates a link to the definition by signifying functional completion, with no recognition of quality requirements.

Mid-Level Intent (ML): When the response indicates a link to the definition by signifying the functional

172

completion of requirements and inclusion of quality requirements.

High-Level Intent (HL): When the response indicates a link to the definition by signifying the synthesis of functional requirements and quality requirements, resulting in the generation of sufficient knowledge and/or artefacts to inform future requirements.

The process for analysing and aligning responses to Questions Two and Three is demonstrated below using a sample of Low-level, Mid-Level and High-level responses submitted for the milestone requirement Block Foundation Animation, for Question Two only. The definition of the Block Foundation Animation milestone was to establish the characters performance through the design and implementation of fundamental poses and time- accurate actions, in order to guide future activities.

Low-Level Response and Analysis: Response: To make/animate the character using only my planned keyframes so I have a three-dimensional version of my sketches and storyboards.

Analysis: The response is written with a functional/task driven perspective, where functions are identified 'make/animate the character', 'using only my planned keyframes' - that refers back to the functional intent of the prior milestone Plan Animation. The response fails to acknowledge requirements pertaining to quality and represents a Low-Level understanding of the milestone requirement’s intent. Therefore, this response aligns with the category of Low-Level Intent (LL).

Mid-Level Response and Analysis: Response: Using animation software outline and keyframe the key poses with relevant timing and movement. Further evaluate the blocking and movement in the scene and experiment with animation pacing in the graph editor.

Analysis: The response identified actions pertaining to functional requirements in the model, such as Create Key Poses through words such as 'keyframe' and 'key poses', and requirements related to evaluation such as 'Evaluate Movement' through the acknowledgment of 'further evaluate the blocking and movement'. The response also referred to qualities such as 'relevant timing and movement'. The response surpassed the identification of individual requirements by alluding to their grouping or synthesis to perform dominate activities such as creating key poses, and evaluating

173

movement, but the response did not indicate a holistic intention or purpose of the model as a whole. Therefore, this response aligns with the category of Mid-Level Intent (ML).

High-Level Response and Analysis: Response: Tell the story of the character by creating the required actions using basic keyframes. The keyframes should also be reasonably well timed so the animation is 'on time'.

Analysis: The response demonstrates a holistic understanding of the milestone requirement as it identifies the sum of all requirements to 'Tell the story of the character', and also alludes to the synthesis of quality requirements by stating that the actions are to be 'on time'. Therefore, this response aligns with the category of High-Level Intent (HL).

The process for analysing the open ended responses submitted for Question Four which asked animators to provide comment, feedback or observations surrounding the requirements underpinning the milestone, involved the review and then grouping of similar responses into categories of concern and levels of understanding. Responses were first reviewed and sorted into requirement specific and non-specific comments. Requirement specific comments were those that contained explicit and/or heavily implied references to the model’s requirements; all other comments were considered to be non-specific comments. When provided, non-specific comments were re-reviewed in attempts to identify specific concerns or comments relevant to the model, its requirements and/or its implementation and if found were flagged as specific comments. Where this was not the case, such as in the comment: (The milestone was...) Pretty straightforward and clear. Lots of technical terms though so it is a little challenging to wrap your head around it initially; then the comment was recorded and noted for future review and consideration. Requirement specific comments underwent further review to identify the rational for isolating the mentioned requirement/s. Responses were then mapped to high-level descriptive categories such as; Sure of meaning where the requirement was identified as clear and understood, Unsure of meaning where there was uncertainty around the requirement, and Other where the response specifically identified something other than clarity or uncertainty around the requirements meaning. A brief description was retained in a table of responses for those marked as Other. In the event that similar comments were identified, only one was recorded in the data set. Comments that re-enforced requirement clarity, and requirements without comment were noted as being

174

Understood/Sure of meaning. The analysis of responses to Questions Four are demonstrated below, with a sample of response that were Unsure of meaning, and Other.

Unsure of meaning #1 Response: I do not understand what is meant by the quality goal "Asymmetrical" under "Evaluate Appeal". I would change the name of this goal to "Interesting", perhaps?

Analysis: This response has explicitly identified the quality requirement 'Asymmetrical' and its associated functional requirement, and clearly stated that the meaning is not understood, but has also made a suggestion of an alternative name that may be more relatable. Given this, the requirement 'Asymmetrical' and a rationale of 'Unsure of meaning' will be recorded in the table of data, as will be the suggestion of an alternative name.

Unsure of meaning #2 Response: The goals are clear, I wrote down additional words to further my understanding of the quality goals, such as "defining character and personality" on "add performance nuances". At first I did not understand exactly what secondary action was and needed clarification on this.

Analysis: This response suggests that the identified requirements although understood, require further description and/or explanation of their meaning, but with knowledge that further explanation was required, the requirements are not understood as intended, thus will be recorded as 'Unsure of meaning'.

Other Response: The quality goals linked to (Create Key Poses) which are (Fundamental Poses) and (Basic) are very similar and come across as meaning the same thing to me. I find it difficult to know what the difference is between them.

Analysis: This response has explicitly identified requirements in brackets to be listed, however does not state or imply that they are not understood, but are difficult to differentiate between. Given this, these will be recorded as 'Other' with a note 'Difficult to differentiate between as they are similar'.

175

5.4.4 Analysis of requirement language

A summary of results from the analysis of Question One, Question Two and Question Three for the Mk I Production Model’s six milestone models are shown below in Table 5.7 The table shows the alignment categories for Questions One, Two and Three running down the left hand side, and the number of responses aligning with those categories for each milestone to the right. Response alignment data for Question One is the count of raw data provided by animators with no interpretation or analysis by the researcher. Data for Question Two and Question Three are the results of analysis as per the methods demonstrated earlier. Results from the analysis of open-ended responses to Question Four are not included in the table, and are discussed in the milestone specific sections of analysis that follow. Original data and analysis per milestone requirement are available within the appendices, see A5.3: Plan Animation, A5.4: Layout Animation, A5.5: Block Foundation Animation, A5.6: Enhance Foundation Animation, A5.7: Detail Animation and A5.8: Polish Animation. The sections that follow separate and analyse the results shown in Table 5.7 based on milestone model.

Milestone Model / High-Level Requirement Name

Block Enhance Plan Layout Detail Polish Foundation Foundation Animation Animation Animation Animation Animation Animation

Rating data in response to Question One as provided by animators.

09-10 Extremely Clear 8 10 7 2 10 9

07-08 Fairly Clear 4 2 5 7 2 3 Q 05-06 Neutral - - - 3 - - 1 03-04 Fairly Unclear - - - - -

01-02 Extremely Unclear - - - - -

Alignment of responses to Question Two ‘Intent’ as analysed by the researcher

HL High-Level - 3 2 3 - 2

ML Mid-Level 8 3 5 4 8 4 Q 2 LL Low-Level 4 6 5 5 4 6

NA No Alignment ------

176

Alignment of responses to Question Three ‘Achievement’ as analysed by the researcher

HL High-Level 2 4 3 4 9 4

ML Mid-Level 5 5 4 6 2 6 Q 3 LL Low-Level 4 2 3 1 1 2

NA No Alignment 1 1 2 1 - -

Table 5.7: Results to Questions One to Three for the Mk I Production Model

5.4.4.1 Plan animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To become thoroughly informed in the creative, quality and technical requirements of character mechanics, actions and behavioural attributes in order to guide and problem solve future activities.

Question One: There were four responses indicating that the intention of this activity was fairly clear, with a further eight responses indicating that the intent was extremely clear. The clustering of responses in the higher end of the clarity scale suggests that the activity name, and its underpinning requirements presented a clear and understood intention of the milestone model to the animators.

Question Two: There were four responses that fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual activities, although failed to acknowledge attributes pertaining to quality, for example, one animator responded with Create thumbnail sketched to plan the movement and explore possibilities of the movement. The remaining eight animators demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question. These eight responses exhibited the synthesis of individual requirements, and acknowledged attributes pertaining to quality such as: This goal is asking me to analyse the characters’ mood and explore poses and movement to express the moods. There were no high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These results show that the majority of the projects animators shared a mid-level understanding of the activities’ intent, tending to perceive the purpose as a series of functional requirements with some association with quality.

Question Three: There were two high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These exhibited a holistic understanding of the requirement and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and/or artefact to inform future requirements.

177

One animator’s response to this question was: I have a thorough plan of what my character is going to do, and what he will look like doing it. There were five mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual activities and acknowledged attributes pertaining to quality, for example, one animator wrote: I am expected to explain how I want the termite to move through a series of images, in detail, of how the arms should move, the expression on the termites face and how he is saying the words. There were four low-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These exhibited the completion of individual activities, yet failed to acknowledge attributes pertaining to quality such as: That I have worked through all of the goals and drawn all the key poses of my character. In addition, there was one perception identified as having no alignment to the definition and did not mention the achievement of individual activities or quality requirements.

The results show that the understanding of activity achievement is spread across the team of animators, with few recognising achievement at a higher level. Similar to the results from Question Two, the majority of responses fell within a mid to low level understanding of achievement where it was perceived as the completing of functional activities with some association to quality. While these results were not largely different from those of Question Two, they suggest that viewing the Plan Animation milestone activity model through a lens of achievement may foster a more comprehensive understanding of the model and its activities.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, fifteen of a possible forty-five requirements were identified that attributed to a state of uncertainty and/or confusion among animators. The number of identified requirements suggests that the majority of requirements making up the Plan Animation milestone model were clear, and communicated their intent as anticipated. The results suggest that further review of the language and requirement category of the two identified functional activities, and thirteen identified quality requirements should be undertaken in future developments of the Plan Animation milestone activity model.

Data suggests that animators’ believe their perception of the model’s Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and therefore requirement language, to be reasonably holistic, but the analysis of open-ended responses relating to intent and achievement suggests otherwise, with the majority of responses typically clustering around a mid to low-level of perception. This level of perception suggests that the model’s requirements including the language used to describe them are perceived as a series of functional requirements with some associations with quality, and rarely recognised lower-

178

level requirements as supporting higher-level requirements. This finding suggests that the language used within the model, particularly within higher level requirements should be reviewed to better support the intentions of the highest-level activity: Plan Animation.

In addition, the requirements and their descriptive language identified in responses to Question Four were primarily Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. This suggests that the Functional System Requirements were mostly understood, while the quality requirements may have been too specialised or specific to interpret without prior production knowledge and/or experience. Also of interest were the spread of responses to Question Three that pertained to achievement, where some high-level perceptions were recorded. Though the results to this question were spread, the higher-level perceptions suggest that viewing the model and its language through a lens of achievement as opposed to a lens of intent may provide a greater understanding of the model when applied to practice.

5.4.4.2 Layout animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To provide a foundation for which the pending animation is to be constructed upon, by establishing the fundamental storytelling and character characteristics through the approximate positioning, articulation and timing of characters and props within the animation environment.

Question One: There were two responses indicating that the intention of this requirement was fairly clear, with a further ten responses indicating that the intent was extremely clear. The clustering of responses towards the top end of the clarity scale suggests that the requirement name, and its underpinning requirements presented a clear and understood intention of the milestone requirement model Layout Animation to the animators.

Question Two: There were six responses which fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual requirements although failed to acknowledge attributes pertaining to quality, for example one animator responded with: Set key frame on the character to show his pose and movement over time, and also create simple objects as stand in objects for him to act around. Three animators demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question, where their responses exhibited the synthesis of individual requirements while also acknowledging attributes pertaining to quality, such as: This goal is asking me to setup the character so it is clear in

179

the cameras vision, and that no objects will be distracting when the character is animated. A further three animators responded to this question with perceptions analysed to be high- level, these responses linked to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of functional requirements and quality requirements to advance the production system forwards. One animator wrote, for example: Set up the scene with the basic objects and characters needed to tell the story and frame it appropriately so it is interesting and clear. Although there were three high-level perceptions recorded by animators suggesting that the holistic intent of the Layout Animation milestone model was clearer than its previous Plan Animation milestone model, the majority of animators shared a mid to low-level understanding of the requirement’s intent, and as found in for the Plan Animation milestone they also tended to perceive functional requirements as being separate and with some association to quality.

Question Three: There were four high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question, which exhibited a holistic understanding of the requirement and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and or artefact to inform future requirements. An example of one animator’s high-level response was: The timing is specific in relation to the audio, that the scene looks interesting, that the scene is clear & that the scene is aligned with the story. There were five mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual requirements, and acknowledged attributes pertaining to quality, for example, one animator wrote: That everything (including the character and objects) are sitting nice in the render camera view, and that nothing is distracting. There were two low-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question, these exhibited the completion of individual activities, yet did not acknowledge attributes pertaining to quality such as: The character has the same key frames as my storyboard and sketches. In addition, one response was identified as having no alignment with the definition and did not mention the achievement of individual functional or quality requirements. As also found in responses to this question for the previous Plan Animation model, the results show that the understanding of requirement achievement is spread across the team of animators, but in the case of this Layout Animation model the majority of responses were clustered towards the higher end of the scale. Such clustering when compared to the results of Question Two suggests that viewing the Layout Animation milestone model through a lens of achievement may foster a more comprehensive understanding of the model and its requirements.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, seven of a possible twenty requirements were identified as contributing to a state of uncertainty and/or confusion for animators. The seven identified requirements suggest that the majority of requirements

180

making up the Layout Animation milestone model were clear, and communicated their intent as anticipated. The results also suggest that further review of the language used to denote quality requirements should be undertaken in future developments of the Layout Animation milestone model.

Data suggest that animators understand their perception of the models’ system requirements and therefore their language to be extremely clear. Analysis of the open-ended responses suggest that the language does not clearly communicate the model’s intent holistically, but more so communicates achievement at a higher level. The difference in results relating to intent and achievement suggest that animators may be initially basing their understanding of the milestone’s intent through a lens of achievement. In addition, the model’s requirements and their descriptive language identified in responses to Question Four were primarily Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and suggests that Functional System Requirements were largely understood, while the quality requirements may have been too specialised or specific to deduce without prior production knowledge and or experience.

5.4.4.3 Block foundation animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To establish the characters performance through the design and implementation of fundamental poses and time- accurate actions, in order to guide future activities.

Question One: There were five responses indicating that the intention of this requirement was fairly clear, with a further seven responses indicating that the intent was extremely clear. The clustering of responses in the higher end of the clarity scale suggests that the requirement name, and its underpinning system requirements presented a clear intention of the milestone model to the animators.

Question Two: There were five responses which fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual requirements, although failed to acknowledge requirements relating to quality, for example, one animator responded with: To animate the character using only my planned keyframes so I have a 3D version of my sketches and storyboards. An additional five animators demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question, with their responses exhibiting the synthesis of individual requirements while also acknowledging requirements pertaining to quality, such

181

as: Using animation software outline and keyframe the key poses with relevant timing and movement. Further evaluate the blocking and movement in the scene and experiment with animation pacing in the graph editor. The remaining two animators responded to this question with perceptions analysed to be high-level, these responses linked to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of functional requirements and quality requirements to advance the production system forward, such as what one animator wrote: Tell the story of the character by creating the required actions using basic keyframes. The keyframes should also be reasonably well timed so the animation is 'on time’. Similar to findings from the Layout Animation milestone model, the majority of animators shared a mid to low-level understanding of the requirement’s intent, and tended to perceive separate functional requirements with some association with quality.

Question Three: There were three high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question, these exhibited a holistic understanding of the requirement and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and or artefact to inform future requirements, one animators’ response to this question was: The action of the character are made and when playing back is clear what the character will be doing and what time it will be happening at. This should block out the animation in basic frames for feedback and review before adding details. There were four mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual requirements and acknowledged requirements pertaining to quality, for example, one animator wrote: Showed clear and interesting key poses. Characters are positioned to get interesting layout and the animation is roughly timed. There were three low-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question, these exhibited the completion of individual requirements, however failed to acknowledge requirements relating to quality, such as: The things I want to see to mark this goal complete is the movement of my characters are blocked out in the cameras view. In addition, there were two perceptions identified as having no alignment to the definition and did not mention the achievement of individual functional or quality requirements. The data suggest that the understanding of requirement achievement is spread across the team of animators reasonably evenly from a low to a high level of perception. This spread gives reason to believe that viewing the models’ requirement language through a lens of achievement is not as clear as opposed to viewing through a lens of intent.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, eighteen of a possible thirty-five requirements were identified as having a level of uncertainty and/or confusion between animators. The eighteen identified requirements suggest that just over half of the

182

requirements that made up the Block Foundation Animation milestone model were not understood, and did not communicate their intent as anticipated. Of these eighteen requirements, two were identified as Functional System Requirements, and suggests that further review of the language used to denote Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, of which sixteen were identified, should be undertaken in future developments of the Block Foundation Animation milestone model.

The findings suggest that the animators understood their perception of the model's requirements, and therefore their language to be reasonably clear. Nonetheless, analysis of the open-ended responses suggest that the language does not convincingly communicate the model’s intent holistically or how the model is achieved as assumed by the animators. Slightly clearer perceptions were recorded when viewing the model through a lens of intent over a lens of achievement. The model’s requirements and their descriptive language identified in responses to Question Four were primarily Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and suggests that the model’s Functional System Requirements were largely understood. Similar to findings from the Layout Animation model, the quality requirements may have been too specialised or specific to contextualise without prior production knowledge and or experience.

5.4.4.4 Enhance foundation animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To establish accurate physicality and timing in the characters mechanics and performance through the definition of transitional movement and the inclusion of primary facial mechanics and expressions.

Question One: There were two responses indicating that the intention of this activity was extremely clear, and seven responses indicating that the intention of the activity was fairly clear and a further three responses considered to be neutral. The majority of responses fell within the categories of fairly clear and neutral. Although the data shows animators’ understanding of the intent to be clear, it also suggests that the intent of the high-level activity and thus the model was not as clear as compared to other milestones such as Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation.

Question Two: There were five responses that fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual requirements although failed to acknowledge requirements pertaining to quality. One animator, for example,

183

responded with: Build on the foundation animation by adding in more detail, like completing the actions with the inclusion of inbetween keyframes and animating basic facial expressions. An additional four animators demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question, with their responses exhibiting the synthesis of individual requirements while also acknowledging attributes pertaining to quality such as: Build up on the blocking out by adding in more details and adjusting the keyframes to get better timings and movements. The remaining three animators responded to this question with perceptions analysed to be high-level, these responses linked to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of system requirements to advance the production system forwards, such as what one animator wrote: Build on the current character animation by adding more poses to ‘breakdown’ the blocked out actions, and to evaluate the overall motion and get it looking more how it should be when complete. The majority of animators shared a mid to low level understanding of the requirement’s intent, tending to perceive functional requirements as separate or unrelated to a higher-level goal, and with few seeing the combination of Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements as holistically underpinning a higher-level intent.

Question Three: There were four high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These exhibited a holistic understanding of the activity and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and or artefact to inform future requirements. An example of one animator’s high-level response was: The motion of the character(s) should be accurate, appealing and look like the final intended outcome. This means that enough breakdown poses and keyframes are made, so there is no question about what the character will be doing or how long it will take. There were six mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual requirements, and acknowledged requirements relating to quality. One animator wrote, for example: For this goal to be achieved, there needs to be more detail added to the animation, so the lip sync looks matched with words (jaw open and close) and the body moves with more detail (adding breakdown poses). The character should also be appealing and have a personality that is strong and clear. One low-level perception was identified in the responses to this question and exhibited the completion of individual requirements, yet did not acknowledge requirements pertaining to quality, the response was: This goal will be achieved when the blocking I had earlier has more details layered in, like his feet and arms need more poses to show how they move overtime, and the jaw should animate open and closed to simulate the mouth movement. One further response was identified as having no alignment to the definition and did not mention the achievement of individual functional requirements or quality requirements.

184

The data shows a similar pattern of understanding for this model as found in the earlier Layout Animation model, with the majority of responses clustering towards the higher end of the scale. This clustering suggests that viewing the Enhance Foundation Animation milestone model through a lens of achievement may foster a more comprehensive understanding of the model and its requirements, than viewing it through a lens of intent which had oppositely skewed responses.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, twenty of a possible sixty-seven requirements were identified causing some uncertainty and/or confusion for animators. Two of the identified requirements were Functional System Requirements, and eighteen were Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and suggests that the language used to describe the quality requirements should undergo review if efforts are to be made to increase the clarity of the models language in the future.

The findings show that animators understood the intent of the model to be reasonably clear, but the analysis of open-ended responses suggests that the language does not clearly communicate the model’s intent holistically, but more so communicates achievement at a higher level. It is unclear if the animators were originally viewing their intention of the model through a lens of intent or a lens of achievement. Further to this, the model’s requirements and their descriptive language identified in responses to Question Four were primarily Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, suggesting that the Functional System Requirements were largely understood, bar a few. As identified in the previous two models, the data for this model also suggests that the quality requirements may have been too specialised or specific to deduce without prior production knowledge and or experience.

5.4.4.5 Detail animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To unite the physicality and expression of character mechanics and performance through the detailing of transitional movement, facial expressions and performance subtitles.

Question One: There were two responses indicating that the intention of this activity was fairly clear, with a further ten responses indicating that the intent was extremely clear. The clustering of responses towards the top end of the clarity scale suggests that the requirement’s name, and its underpinning requirements presented a clear and understood intention of the milestone model Detail Animation to the animators.

185

Question Two: There were four responses which fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual requirements but failed to acknowledge requirements pertaining to quality. One animator, for example, responded with: Look at my enhanced animation, convert the keys to splines and facial animation like the tongue and eyes. The remaining eight animators all demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question, with their responses exhibiting the synthesis of individual requirements while also acknowledging requirements pertaining to quality, such as: Detail animation is asking me to add in more details, not big movements but little details that give the character more life. Like eye movement and blinks, tongue animation when speaking and generally make sure that the animation looks right and not robotic. There were no high- level perceptions recorded. The clustering of perceptions was similar to those found for responses to the earlier Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation models, and suggests that the majority of animators shared a mid to low level understanding of the requirement’s intent, and that they tended to perceive functional requirements as being separate and with some association to quality. The lack of any high-level responses suggests that animators did not see this model’s system requirements as holistically underpinning a higher-level intent.

Question Three: There were nine high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question, these exhibited a holistic understanding of the requirement and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and or artefact to inform future requirements. An example of one animator’s high-level response was: For this goal to be achieved, the animation should be pretty close to final with smooth and natural animation in the body and have interesting and natural facial and eye movements. There were two mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual requirements, and acknowledged attributes pertaining to quality, for example, one animator wrote: For this goal to be achieved, the facial features like eyes and mouth need to be detailed and express thought and be natural. The body and all connections need to be converted from stepped to splined tangents and also look natural. One low-level perception was identified in the responses to this question, and exhibited the completion of individual requirements, yet did not acknowledge attributes pertaining to quality, the response read: For this goal to be achieved, the character would have good facial animation and be in spline mode with some key manipulated to have better looking curves. The data shows that an understanding of requirement achievement is high across the team of animators. With the clear majority of responses clustered towards the top of the scale, viewing the Detail Animation milestone model through a lens of achievement may

186

foster a more comprehensive understanding of the model and its requirements than viewing it through a lens of intent, that had high, but not as high perceptions recorded.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, seven of the possible seventy requirements were identified as contributing to a state of uncertainty and/or confusion for animators. The number of identified requirements suggests that the majority of requirements making up the Detail Animation milestone model were clear, and communicated their intent as expected. Of the seven identified requirements only one was a Functional System Requirement, with the remaining being Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. Though these requirements typically used language that was common, it was apparently unclear in the context of this model.

The data proposes that animators’ believed their perceptions of the model's requirements and therefore their language to be reasonably holistic, but analysis of the open-ended responses pertaining to intent suggest otherwise, with the majority of responses clustering around a mid to low-level perception. The intent of the model's requirements, including the language used to describe them, were perceived as a series of Functional System Requirements with some associations with quality. This difference suggests that the animators believed they understood requirement intent in more depth than they did, or had trouble articulating their understanding of intent when asked to explain it. Interestingly, the responses relating to activity achievement showed significantly higher levels of perception than responses specific to activity intent. This suggests that viewing the model through a lens of achievement may foster a deeper and or holistic understanding of the model and its underpinning requirements. As was found in responses to Question Four for the previous milestone models, the common requirements to attract comment were Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. This suggests that the majority of Functional System Requirements were understood, and that expectations of quality may have been too specialised for aspiring animators to understand.

5.4.4.6 Polish animation model

The expectation for this model was defined earlier as: To advance the emotion and believability portrayed in the character performance through the refinement and fine-tuning of physicality, expression and subtleties.

Question One: There were nine responses indicating that the intention of this requirement was extremely clear, and three responses indicating that the intention of the

187

requirement was fairly clear. The majority of responses fell within the category of extremely clear, with all responses also indicating that the intention of the high-level requirement was clear. This suggests that from a preliminary standpoint, the milestone model and its embedded language were clearly understood.

Question Two: There were six responses which fell into the category of low-level perception. These responses exhibited an awareness of individual requirements, although failed to acknowledge requirements relating to quality, as one animator responded: The goal of polish animation is asking that I review what I have and look really closely at the keyframes and characters poses and animate really fine details. Four animators demonstrated mid-level perceptions in answering the question, with their responses exhibiting the synthesis of individual requirements while also acknowledging requirements relating to quality, for example: To enhance the arcs and poses I already have, making sure they are organic. The remaining two animators responded to this question with perceptions evaluated to be high-level. These responses linked to the defined intent by signifying a synthesis of functional and quality requirements to advance the production stage to a state of completion. One animator, for example, wrote: The word polish I think means to add a bit of gloss to my work, which I take as asking me to really make sure that all the actions are the best they can be. As found across most of the other models, for the Polish Animation model the majority of animators shared a mid to low-level understanding of activity intent, and tended to perceive functional requirements as disconnected from the higher-level requirement.

Question Three: There were four high-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These exhibited a holistic understanding of the activity and how it would be achieved through the creation of knowledge and/or artefact to inform future project requirements. An example of one animator’s high-level response was: The goal can be marked achieved when, the character animation is complete, with no noticeable anomalies and the performance feels right. There were six mid-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These perceptions exhibited the completion of a blend of individual requirements, for example one animator wrote: In order for this goal to be achieved, the poses and arcs need to be manipulated to make them feel more organic, and the character should also incorporate micro details and performance nuances to create a more life-like character. There were two low-level perceptions identified in the responses to this question. These exhibited the completion of individual requirements yet did not acknowledge requirements pertaining to quality, such as: This goal could be called achieved when the little details have been added and the motion of the character has been fine tuned.

188

The results show that an understanding of requirement achievement is spread throughout the team of animators, with the majority of responses clustering from the middle to the higher end of the scale. Similar to the models before this one in the production process, response clustering suggests that viewing the Polish Animation milestone model through a lens of achievement may foster a more comprehensive understanding of the model and its activities than viewing the model through a lens of intent, which recorded more lower level perceptions.

Question Four: In the responses to this question, six of a possible twenty-six requirements were identified as having a level of uncertainty and/or confusion between animators. Only one of the identified requirements was a Functional System Requirement, with the remaining five being Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. This suggests that the language used to describe the model’s quality requirements should be improved for clarity.

The data suggests that animators’ understood the intent of the model to be reasonably clear, but the analysis of open-ended responses suggests that the language used in the model is better perceived through a lens of achievement, over a lens of intent with the former achieving higher-level responses. Neither of these lenses wholly aligned with the animator’s numerical responses to the model's clarity, so it remains unclear if the animators were originally viewing their intention of the model through a lens of achievement or a lens of intent. As was the case with the previous models, the majority of responses to Question Four identified mostly Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements as being challenging to understand.

5.4.5 Summary of findings

This initial investigation into the Mk I Production Model’s requirement language has uncovered much about the language chosen to communicate aspects of the production system’s functionality and expectations. Following the review and comparison of findings from the six milestone requirements in the previous sections, four key insights and recommendations have been identified that should be considered in the future development and application of the Mk I Production Model. These are:

189

 Animators assumed their understanding of intent for all milestone models to be clear, but the majority were unable to articulate the same high levels of clarity convincingly when explaining the intent or achievement of the models.

It is not clear why animators assumed their understanding of intent for all milestone models to be clear, yet failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of intent in open- ended responses. It may be possible that the seemingly tidy presentation of the Mk I Production Model and its high-level requirements make requirements appear unambiguous, and discouraging deeper analysis. It also may be possible that the animator's understanding of intent was initially accurate, but that the volume of requirements to be addressed and the real-world complexities of production may have clouded and/or shifted their understanding of intent towards a functional outlook.

 While most of the functional language appears to be understood, the language used to communicate Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements can, depending on its context be difficult to interpret.

When providing open ended feedback on Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements that underpin each of the six milestone models, it was common for animators to identify and explain their concerns surrounding the Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements more than the Functional System Requirements. For the majority of those requirements identified, the reason for their noting was due to being unsure of the requirement’s meaning. During the design of the Mk I Production Model it was thought that the inclusion of quality requirements should promote the inclusion of anthropomorphic qualities within a character's animation. With animators identifying concern with more Non-Functional 'Quality' System Requirements than Functional System Requirements, it suggests that an extensive review should be carried out of at least the identified or even all quality language within the model.

 Responses to achievement questions captured a greater number of higher-level responses than questions relating to intent.

Responses across all milestone models relating to requirement achievement generally recorded higher levels of perception and alignment to milestone definitions, than responses specific to requirement intent. Although achievement responses were

190

generally higher than intent responses, their alignment to the milestone definition was wider spread. This suggests that some animators were interpreting requirements and thinking about how to achieve individual requirements as opposed to analysing their intent and determining possible actions. Given this, viewing the milestone models through a lens of achievement may have fostered a deeper and or more holistic understanding of the milestone models and their underpinning requirements. This suggests that the lens in which the model is intended to be viewed through, and the lens it is being viewed through should be considered in future iterations of requirement language. This may increase the efficiency and overall understanding of the model for animators.

 The questionnaire was sufficient for exploring animators’ perceptions, but the activity of completing the questionnaire appeared to carry a low priority across the team of animators.

The method of using a short questionnaire to collect data was acceptable for this initial investigation, and the questions appeared sufficient. All twelve animators submitted responses for each of the six milestone activities, and also acknowledged many of the sub-level requirements, but the extent of most responses was typically shorter than anticipated. It was also discovered that zero of the twelve animators completed the questionnaire more than once per milestone. The brief and single occurrence submission of responses suggests that this activity was of a low consideration and/or was too time intensive for animators to prioritise when embedded within a real-world production scenario. Perhaps in future applications of this method further consideration should be given to enforcing a time and suitable duration for feedback to be provided, for example, 30 minutes before peer assessment activities.

5.5 Summary

Developed as a conceptual approach to communicating a three-dimensional character animation production process, the Mk I Production model was deployed as a practical tool within a production environment. In line with the project briefing delivered to the Production Team and as demonstrated throughout sweatbox activities, the Mk I Production Model was exclusively referenced by animators to guide their production process, and by the

191

Leadership Team to discuss and evaluate the animator’s work during weekly sweatbox review sessions.

Though data analysis did not identify any obvious disadvantages to using the model as a tool for process communication and evaluation within a practical environment, it did highlight that some of the model’s requirement language was confusing, and that a holistic understanding of high-level milestone requirements appeared to be lacking. Despite this, the Production Team applied the production model forty-one times across the Gunter's Fables project, with all three films assessed by the Leadership Team as having been animated to an equivalent standard.

This initial and exploratory study shows promising results in regards to the suitability of the model to guide animators through a repeatable production process. Many valuable insights were gained into the model’s design and practicality. These insights show promise for further exploration of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling as an approach and language to frame an explicit and repeatable three-dimensional character animation production process. The combination of findings and observations from this Chapter’s two investigations have built a foundation in which to refine and further develop the production model, with considerations to:

 A review of the colour coded tracking system and an expansion of its use as a shot tracking tool.  Revision of the timeframe and animator workloads that are suitable to fully realise the model’s requirements.  The inclusion of animator self-assessments in data collection.  The development of explicit peer review and achievement criteria.  To define a lens in which the model should be viewed, and update the model’s requirement language accordingly.  The inclusion of emotional attributes / expectations, and a review of requirement weightings within the model.

192

Chapter 6: Refining the production system design and model

6.1 Introduction and aims

The previous chapter studied the application of the Mk I Production Model within a live production environment, where it was demonstrated that an agent-oriented production system and goal-model can successfully and repeatedly communicate requirements and guide animators through a three-dimensional computer assisted character animation production process. Further to the model’s successes, the study identified attributes of the model and its application that could be improved, and may potentially facilitate greater and clearer communication of animation practice, process and its evaluation. This Chapter describes a simplification of the Mk I Production Model’s system design, which maintains its practical/applied intentions. Driving this simplification are four underlying objectives that are to:

 Create greater distinction between notions of animation quality;  Emphasise the achievement of significant System Requirements;  Reduce the granularity of System Requirements; and  Address how the model and its requirements are viewed and evaluated by stakeholders.

6.2 Emerging modelling concepts

6.2.1 The primary goal and the emotional goal

In Marshall’s (2014) application of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to digital media design projects, he introduces the notions of Primary Goals and Emotional Goals into the motivational environment of the multi-layered conceptual space, and states their significance to multiagent systems as he writes:

“A computer game must be engaging enough that people will play it. Making a game that is fun trumps other system requirements, irrespective of whether the goal of fun is

193

clearly definable or measurable. If no one wants to play the game, no matter how robust the code is, it has not met the primary system requirement” (p. 45).

The same could be said for screen outcomes such as live-action or animated film and television, where the outcome must primarily be engaging enough that people will watch it. Marshall's (2014) elevation of emotion over form and function together with Hooks’ (2010) statement that “animators need to know the connections between thinking, emotion and physical action” (para. 3) highlights the importance and need to promote emotion within the production system. Marshall’s (2014) Primary Goal and Emotional Goal modelling concepts have great potential to increase the awareness of key system requirements, and to help delineate between, and clarify notions of creative, artistic and acting quality within the Mk I Production Model.

Marshall (2014) defines the high-level Emotional Goal as something that “aims to affect a person's emotional state or wellbeing” (p. 45). In differentiating this new modelling concept from the existing high-level Functional Goal and Quality Goal concepts, he goes on to propose that the Emotional Goal be thought of as a feeling goal. Linking this concept to modelling practice, Marshall proposes that an Emotional Goal be shown using a heart symbol, as compared to a Quality Goal that he calls a being goal, which is represented via a cloud symbol, and a Functional Goal that he refers to as a doing goal, that is modelled using a parallelogram symbol. Since its introduction by Marshall (2014) the Emotional Goal has attracted attention from Sterling and his collaborators to identify and evaluate how agents/user groups should feel when interacting with a system or project outcome (Curumsing, Pedell, & Vasa, 2014; Mendoza, Miller, Pedell, & Sterling, 2013; Miller et al., 2015; Pedell et al., 2017; Sterling, Lopez-Lorca, & Kissoon-Curumsing, 2018). The concept has also been reversed to form a Negative Emotional Goal (Lopez-Lorca et al., 2014), that is shown via an upside-down heart symbol and has been used to communicate user emotions that are to be avoided.

There is immediate potential for the Primary Goal to become a vehicle to narrow and highlight key focuses within an agent-oriented system design, and for the Emotional Goal, in both of its positive and negative forms to delineate between different quality requirements. With such possibilities the two concepts will be explored beyond their current discussion within the motivational environment of the conceptual space, and as explicit modelling concepts within the mid-level system design environment, where the Mk I Production Model is homed.

194

6.2.2 Positioning the emotional goal as a system requirement

With Marshall’s (2014) positioning of the Emotional Goal alongside the Functional Goal and Quality Goal within the conceptual spaces’ motivational environment, it by association also subscribes to being translated into a system requirement within the conceptual space’s system design environment. Intended to communicate the human quality of emotion the Emotional Goal has the potential to form an exclusive relationship with the system’s agents that by definition exhibit human qualities such as the ability to act within an environment, perceive events and reason (Sterling & Taveter, 2009, p. 35). To ensure that it is not dissolved into an attribute of system agency and can be related to a range of modelling concepts, Marshall’s (2014) Emotional Goal will be treated in a similar light to the other high-level Functional and Non-Functional Goal concepts where it will be translated into an explicit system requirement that is capable of carrying messages of activity and/or expectations throughout the multi-layered conceptual space.

Functional System Requirements are typically used to communicate system functionality. They should be straight forward to evaluate. Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements are used to communicate expectations of how a function should be, and can be challenging to measure. As demonstrated in Chapter 5 via the animations developed for the Gunter’s Fables project, explicit emotional concepts are not mission critical for system functionality. This means that an emotional system requirement should not be considered a function that is required for the production system to succeed. In staying true to Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) definition of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements that is “any requirement about the quality of the software as opposed to its functionality” (p. 344) means that the system design environment considers all notions of quality, including those related to emotion to be a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. Aligning with this definition, the emotional concept will be considered as a type of Non-Functional System Requirement, and will be termed a Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirement or simply an Emotional Requirement. As a type of non-Functional System Requirement which is an expectation-based attribute of functionality, it can be related to Functional System Requirements during the modelling process. Given its status as a Non-Functional System Requirement, I propose that the Emotional Requirement share similar language rules and approach to evaluation as the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement.

Before reaching an exact definition for the Emotional Requirement it is important to recognise that the requirement could foreseeably be used to communicate a range of emotional perspectives, such as: the emotional state of the Agent Type addressing a

195

Functional Requirement, for example, the Agent Type: Animator should be happy when performing their activities; the Agent Type: Audience who is responding and/or reacting to the outcome of the Functional Requirement should feel a range of emotions based on the content that they are viewing; or the emotional state of the animated character, who is the outcome of Functional Requirements and should both feel and exhibit a range of emotions. All three are valid emotional perspectives to model, but I find the latter being the animated character’s emotional state to be more interesting and contextually appropriate for the Production System. With this perspective and in the context of the character animation focused Production System, I define the Emotional Requirement as any requirement concerning the emotional state of a character, as opposed to the emotional reaction of external agency such as the animator or audience. To avoid confusion and/or conflict with definitions of the Emotional Requirement that may be used in other, non-character animation contexts, the Emotional Requirement described here should be perceived more broadly as a Character Animation Emotional Requirement. Consider this definition in a scenario where it may be a director's intention to have an animated character express delight in order to create an opposite audience reaction, for example, the Witch in the poison apple scene from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Hand et al., 1937). The Witch (the animated character) may be delighted at Snow White's poisoning, but this does not mean that the audience (external agency) or even other animated characters will feel delighted. Depending on the mechanics of the story, what the character is actually delighted about and what character the audience chooses to engage with, the audience may feel scared or disgusted. Given this, having the ability to communicate an animated character's emotional state is important for the character animation production process, and by extension the desired reaction of external agency.

The potential for the Emotional Requirement to help differentiate between creative qualities that focus on creative direction, artistic qualities that focus on the principles of movement, and acting qualities that focus on character performance, is promising. As an authority on acting for animation Hooks (2011) states that “everything, including emotion begins and ends with the thinking brain” (p. 14). His perspective that a character’s internal monologue and emotional state are linked, helps to position notions of acting quality as a fitting type of quality to be communicated via the Emotional Requirement. Taking the view that emotion is linked to acting as opposed to notions of creative direction and motion, expectations of acting quality will be explicitly modelled using the Emotional Requirement. For clarity during the modelling process the scope of acting quality will be narrowed to convey only a character’s emotional state, leaving other expectations of quality to be communicated as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements.

196

To facilitate the identification and labelling of Emotional Requirements within the Production System, I borrow Marshall's technique that he uses to identify the motivating Emotional Goals of a system, which is to ask a simple question… The user should feel [insert emotion] (2014). Based on this I propose to identify and label an Emotional System Requirement by stating… The character is feeling [insert emotion]. The emotion and thus emotional state of the character can then be clearly labelled within the heart symbol, and then related to an appropriate Functional System Requirement.

With the emotional requirement now defined, its mapping within the conceptual space is important for its solidification as a conceptual and usable modelling concept. Figure 6.1 shows the three environments of the multi-layered conceptual space, and highlights the core theoretical concepts of Agency and Requirements within each environment (ovals), along with the modelling concepts of Functional Requirements (parallelograms), Non- Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements (clouds), Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ Requirements (hearts), and Agent Team and Agents (humans).

Figure 6.1: The Emotional Requirement placed within the conceptual space

197

As shown in Figure 6.1 the top-level motivational environment’s notion of Agency has two key concepts: Roles, that are a capacity or position designed to achieve a goal such as an Animator; and the Domain Entity that represents specific knowledge or expertise, for example, a three-dimensional character animator. The core notion of a Requirement features the concepts of Goals that are states of affairs to be achieved, and can be separated into three different modelling concepts: the Goal that is something the overall system must do, the Quality Goal that is how the activity surrounding the Goal or its output should be, and the Emotional Goal that communicates how the activity surrounding the Goal or its output should feel. For example, the high-level Goal may be to create a film using three-dimensional computer animation, this should feel fun for the film’s stakeholders to work on, even if it is not. The output of this high-level goal – the film, might have a Quality Goal that states it should be Entertaining and an Emotional Goal that expects it to feel Original, even if it is a re-make of an existing film. To achieve the Goal many Roles will be required, one is an Animator and the incumbent of this role will need domain knowledge of three-dimensional computer animation. In the mid-level system design environment, the motivational environment’s Roles and Domain Entities merge into the single concept of Agents. As an embodiment of domain knowledge and role descriptions, the concepts of Agent Teams and Agent Types can be drawn out to address the environment’s system requirements. The environment’s Requirement concepts transfers the motivational environment’s Goals into overarching system requirements, and are communicated as Functional System Requirements. Prior to the introduction of the Emotional Requirement all concepts of how a Functional System Requirement’s output should be or should feel, were communicated via a Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. With the introduction and placement of the Emotional Requirement modelling concept within the system design environment, how a Functional Requirement’s output should feel can be communicated through a Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirement. In the specific context of character animation production, the output of a functional requirement will be an animation file that demonstrates the development and/or refinement of a character’s animation. The Production Team, for example, is responsible for addressing the overarching system requirement to make an animated film. As part of the production system the team’s animators address Functional System Requirements such as Block Animation and Polish Animation, and in doing so address that the character’s animation should be Refined and that the animated character feels Envious. Following the design of multiple sub-systems to make the film, the modelling concepts of the system design environment are translated into Concrete Agents to perform Concrete Activities that foreseeably carry the same quality-based expectations as defined throughout the system design environment.

198

The Mk I Production System design and model set out to be a one size fits all system design, and deliberately avoided changes to system requirements for different shots of animation. This was achieved by labelling Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements with broad language for example, accurate, appealing, expressive and strong. Unlike procedural activities and some expectations of quality that can be repetitive and predictable within the system, a character’s emotions are story and context specific. These often change over time or between shots too, making emotions near impossible to define and label within a one size fits all system design and model.

As an approach to embedding changing concepts like character emotion within a repetitive system design, I propose that an Agent Defined Requirement be introduced as a new system design concept. This requirement could be placed within a system design by its architect. To communicate what is and what is not an Agent Defined Requirement, the system architect would indicate the requirement’s status as an Agent Defined Requirement via a single question mark '?' label. Theoretically upon an Agent perceiving an Agent Defined Requirement, an explicit label must be identified and the requirement updated accordingly. In the specific case of an Agent Defined 'Emotional' Requirement, the Agent would need to reference appropriate resources and/or consult with appropriate project stakeholders such as the Director to define the emotion/s in which the character is to be feeling. Should multiple emotions be required, for example, joy followed by rage, the Agent Defined Requirement and its relationships would be duplicated by the Agent, enabling more than one emotional requirement to be communicated within the Production Model. Figure 6.2 shows an Agent Defined 'Emotional' Requirement, the process of identifying the emotion, and its final representation as an Emotional Requirement.

Figure 6.2: The notation and process for updating an Agent Defined 'Emotional' Requirement

199

6.2.3 Positioning the primary goal as a modelling concept

The second emerging concept from Marshall's (2014) work is the Primary Goal, that aims to draw attention to significant high-level project goals. Like the emotional goal the primary goal has also originated within the conceptual space’s top-level motivational environment, and requires transitioning into the system design environment before it can be considered as a usable system modelling concept. Given the clear and simple intention behind the Primary Goal that is to draw attention to important concepts, the only consideration for its transition should be the terminology used to describe it within the system design environment. When moving from the motivational environment into the system design environment, Goals are interpreted as Functional System Requirements, and expectations of quality as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements and now also Non- Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirements. Within the system design environment, I propose that modelling concepts that are to be bestowed with primary status be prefixed with the word Primary, for example: Primary Functional System Requirement, Primary Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement and Primary Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirement. It is foreseeable that any Agent, Functional or Non-Functional modelling concept may be promoted to primary status independent of its type or hierarchical position within a system design. Even so, the system architect must ensure that a primary concept is of absolute significance and importance to the system’s design, or risk diminishing the meaning behind the primary status. Figure 6.3 mirrors Marshall’s (2014) modelling work where he signifies primary status via a heavier weighted symbol outline, and shows the core system design modelling concepts with both normal status and primary status.

Figure 6.3: The core modelling concepts, in primary and normal status

Primary requirements should prove to be of great value in the simplification of the Mk I Production Model, particularly where multiple concepts contribute towards the achievement

200

of a common objective, as was the case for many of the Mk I Production Model’s milestone models. The inclusion of primary requirements within future system designs may also facilitate greater and more specific awareness of system and requirement intent, and has the potential to increase the efficiency of and Agent engagement with the evaluation process by reducing the process to focus only on requirements that have primary status.

6.3 Implementing primary and emotional modelling concepts

6.3.1 Guidelines for requirement implementation

Prior to the exploration and embedding of the Primary and the Emotional modelling concepts within the Mk I Production Model, basic guidelines were established to aid with their implementation. Building upon Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) modelling standards (pp. 61-112) that were adhered to during the design of the Mk I Production Model throughout Chapter 4, these guidelines aimed to develop a greater awareness of key system requirements, to emphasise the importance of their achievement, and to simplify the overall system design and model by reducing the volume of system requirements. Further to these key aims, the guidelines also considered findings from the application of the Mk I Production Model to practice as summarised in Chapter 5.5 such as the relabelling, merging and/or removing of specific requirements. The guidelines were as follows:

 Revise requirement labels and hierarchy to promote intent. Findings from the Mk I Production Model study suggested the creation of a consistent lens in which to interpret the model. The production system’s key requirements should be refined to include labels that better suggest intent. Similar or closely related Functional System Requirements should be clustered under a new or existing functional requirement that suggests collective intent.

 Elevate significant system requirements to primary requirements. Primary requirements should be used to increase the awareness of significant Functional and Non-Functional types of system requirements and their achievement. Where appropriate this may require the highlighting or elevation of lower-level system requirements to higher-level system requirements within a model.

201

 Communicate acting qualities via Agent Defined Emotional Attributes. Where an expectation of quality concerns emotion or acting quality, it should be replaced with an emotional requirement. Where a character’s acting qualities differ from shot to shot and thus model to model, these requirements should be defined by the Agent Type: Animator via an Agent Defined Emotional Attribute/Requirement.

Using the Mk I Production Model as a starting point, a top down approach was taken to implement these guidelines. The following sections document the implementation of these guidelines across the Mk I Production Model and the evaluation process.

6.3.2 Revising the production model

The-top most level of the Mk I Production Model aimed to provide a clear overview and structure of the production system. Review of the Model highlighted positive design aspects including that it clearly outlined the high-level production process, and that it aligned with conventional perspectives of the animation production process. Contra to these findings was the similarity of some milestone requirements, that requirement labels could better promote intent, and other than the animator there were no other stakeholders depicted within the model.

Following this review, it was proposed to keep the high-level system clean and clutter free, that the similar milestone requirements Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation be merged, requirement labels be reviewed with a view to better promote intent, and the inclusion of additional key stakeholder Agents should be considered. The following actions were taken:

 Additional Agent type: Director added as a key system stakeholder, and Primary status awarded to the Agent Type: Animator. Consideration was given to the volume of stakeholders who interact with the production system, and therefore Agents Types that may be involved in this system such as directors, supervisors, producers and other animators. Aiming to avoid model complexity, one additional Agent Type was added - the Director. It is assumed that a dedicated entity or any stakeholder from the Leadership Team can assume the responsibilities of the Director. This Agent Type will be involved in the review of each milestone’s achievement, and as such is linked to the

202

system's principle requirement. With the addition of this new Agent Type, the Agent Type: Animator was elevated to primary status as the Agent Type most responsible for performing and achieving the Production System’s requirements.

 Consolidation and relabelling of the Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation milestone requirements into the Convey Core Concepts milestone requirement. These milestones housed different requirements and carried their own objectives, however both aimed to create the foundations of a character’s performance and body mechanics. As similar but relatively small milestones, there appeared to be little distinction between the two in practice and in review. With their consolidation and with the introduction of an intent focused requirement label, animators should be encouraged to create higher quality foundations of their character’s performance.

 Milestone requirements relabelled to promote intent. Although milestone requirements were thought to feature simple language that was common to animation practice, the meaning of these labels was noted as potentially difficult to understand without domain expertise.

Animate Shot #: The system's principle requirement was renamed to Produce Animation. This label better described the intent of the process, and should be easily interchanged with Animate Shot # in the context of a multi-shot animation project. This requirement was also promoted to primary status as the overarching function and/or goal of the system design.

Plan Animation: This label was unchanged, the current wording accurately described the activity being undertaken, and promoted a clear overall intent.

Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation: The labelling of these original milestones was found to be too domain specific; they were also merged into one new milestone. The new requirement label Convey Core Concepts is thought to be clearer in its objective and that it frames the intent of the milestone’s underpinning Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements.

Enhance Foundation Animation: This milestone was renamed to Convey Animation and Acting, a label that is thought to promote the intention of this step

203

in the process better. The previous label was deemed too domain specific, and did not hint at a benchmark or expectation of what Enhance looked like. Via its renaming to include the metric to Convey and the expectations of Animation and Acting, the label is expected to create better distinction between the previous milestone and better relate to the system's primary and secondary stakeholders.

Detail Animation: This requirement was left unchanged. The label was found to provide an accurate description of activity and set expectations of the milestone’s outcome.

Polish Animation: The relabelling of this requirement was considered, but it was left unchanged due to its dominance within the professional domain. The term Polish could have been broadened to possibilities such as add fine details or add life qualities or others pertaining to adding flesh details and nuances to increase a characters overall believability. Even so these and other alternatives did not seem appropriate for the breadth of animation activity underpinning this requirement.

With the application of the new guidelines and concepts, the top-level Production Model underwent significant change. Notable changes included the merger of the Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation milestone requirements into the new Convey Core Concepts milestone requirement, and the renaming of the milestone requirement Enhance Foundation Animation to Convey Animation and Acting. In addition, primary status was given to the Agent Type: Animator but not the Director who will interact with the process but more so in secondary role. Figure 6.4 shows the updated top-level Production Model. With such significant change from the original Mk I version, it was logical to name it the Mk II Production system design and model.

204

Figure 6.4: The top-level model of the Mk II Production system design

6.3.3 Revising the plan animation model

As the first milestone model in the system, the Plan Animation milestone aims to facilitate a depth of planning that is relevant to a characters performance before an animator picks up their tools. Review of the milestone model highlighted positive design aspects such as the largely appropriate labelling of Functional System Requirements, and that the flat structure enabled animator to freely move around within the model as needed. At the same time, the review also identified concerns with the model’s design in that there appeared to be excessive and unclear Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. The model was also considered by animators to be somewhat hands off and of lower importance than those which resulted in the creation of computer animated artefacts. Although the flat structure was deemed a positive aspect of the model’s design, the lack of clustering is a direct contributor to the volume of quality system requirements. As a result of the review, the actions below were taken:

 The Agent Type: Director was added as a key requirement stakeholder. The Director was related to a requirement cluster that aims to facilitate the briefing and hand-over of pre-production data to the Animator. The inclusion of the Director is also expected to facilitate initial discussion/consultation/review with the Animator, and pave the way for future interactions throughout the system.

205

 Primary requirements were identified and incorporated within the model. The Plan Animation milestone requirement was given primary status. A single primary 'quality' requirement identified as Comprehensive was created, although this did not feature in the original model it intended to capture and convey the collective breadth of the model’s many Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

 Related functional requirements were brought together into three clusters. With consideration for the model’s flat structure and need to emphasise the intent and importance of the milestone requirement, three distinct clusters of activity were formed: Arrange Briefing, Explore Physicality, and Explore Acting Possibilities. The labels for these requirements were chosen to promote a holistic view of what their underpinning requirements were seeking to achieve. Only one functional requirement was omitted from the Model being Document Animation Workflow, and was done so as it was ultimately achieved through the existence of the Production Model.

 An Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement was incorporated into the model. One agent or animator defined emotional requirement was embedded within the model, and was attached to a functional requirement labelled Identify Emotion(s). A note accompanied the concept stating, ‘This animator defined requirement will feature as a primary requirement in forthcoming models’. Consideration was given to positioning this requirement as a high-level primary requirement within the model, but it was instead embedded within the requirement cluster focused on the exploration of acting possibilities.

 Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements were ranked for their significance and were retained and/or omitted as appropriate. A review of quality requirements identified the most significant expectations of quality and prioritised their relationship to key functional requirements (such as those at the top of a requirement cluster) over lower-level functional requirements. This action was anticipated to highlight the importance of individual expectations, and to relate one expectation of quality to multiple functions.

206

Alongside the elevation of the main Plan Animation Functional System Requirement to primary status, a single Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement of Comprehensive was added as a high-level requirement to set the overall expectation of achievement quality. A single Agent Defined 'Emotional' System Requirement was embedded into the lower levels of the Model, and will feature later as a primary requirement throughout the larger production system. These actions and others resulted in a significant redesign and the simplification of the Plan Animation milestone model.

Table 6.1 shows a comparison of the number of requirements within the original Mk I Production Model’s Plan Animation model to the Mk II Production Model’s version. The data clearly shows that the number of Functional System Requirements has increased. This can be attributed to the clustering of requirements and expansion of Functional System Requirements within each to clarify the parent requirement’s intent. But the data also shows that the volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements has decreased significantly from thirty-four to six, and is a result of the clustering of Functional System Requirements along with the introduction of a Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement.

Mk I Mk II

Agents 1 2

Primary Requirements 0 2*

Functional Requirements 12 19

Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements 34 6

Emotional Requirements 0 1

Total 47 28

* subtracted from total to recognise duplication. Table 6.1: Comparison of System Requirements – Plan Animation

207

6.3.4 Revising the convey core concepts model (previously layout animation and block foundation animation models)

The merger of the Mk I model's Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation milestone requirements resulted in the creation of the Convey Core Concepts milestone model. As the second key function in the Production System, this milestone requirement and its underpinning Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements seek the creation of low-fidelity animation that clearly communicates fundamental storytelling concepts, movements and gestures that were conceptualised during the Digital Animation System’s development phase, and the Production System’s Plan Animation milestone model. Review of the Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation models highlighted positive design aspects that included both having a narrow focus that crossed over during production activity. One sets out to establish the principal movements and poses of the character within the environment, for example, and the other seeks to refine the mechanics of body movement that falls in-between the principal poses. Another positive was their focus on efficiency, where the expectation of low-fidelity animation encouraged quick and iterative experimentation with character movement and posing. Other positive aspects were their inclusion of evaluation-based requirements that facilitated an agent conducting a critical self- review of achieved Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements. The models also featured many quality requirements that pertained to the principles of filmmaking and the principles of animation, with their dominance setting the overall theme of expectation across both models.

Alongside these positive model/system design aspects, the study data highlighted a number of issues such as the two milestones having similar intentions to establish the foundations of the character’s animation, and that their quick achievement appeared to slow production activity and animator momentum when review sessions were only taking place on a weekly basis. Further to these being somewhat of a bottleneck, requirement labelling across both models appeared to be largely domain specific and challenging to understand for inexperienced animators. Both models featured an excessive volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements, with many of the Functional System Requirements having multiple expectations of quality. A common concern noted by animators during the deployment of the Mk I Production Model was that it was not clear if these milestones are seeking the foundations of both body and facial animation to be created. While the later milestone Enhance Foundation Animation explicitly seeks the blocking-in of facial movement, it may be

208

more practical and desirable to create the foundations of a facial performance during this earlier stage. As a result of this review, the following actions were taken:

 Primary requirements were identified and incorporated within the model. The Convey Core Concepts milestone requirement was setup as a primary requirement. Two primary 'quality' requirements were identified that were Clear and Rough, both of which were key expectations of quality across the original models. An additional quality requirement of Stepped was linked to the primary function, but it was not promoted to primary status. This action was taken as Stepped animation is a preferable quality, but it is not by any means essential to achieving the overall primary requirement that the outcome is to convey core concepts in a clear and rough way.

 Requirements with overly domain specific labels were identified, relabelled and clustered using broader and intent focused language. This resulted in the creation of three requirement clusters, each with a specific focus. The cluster Configure Workspace is not dissimilar to the Mk I Layout Animation model, and brings explicit focus to the configuration of the animator’s software workspace by expanding the individual requirement Setup Scene, into specific requirements that are Setup File Structure, Source Production Assets, and Setup Timeline. It also houses a requirement labelled Setup Cinematography that merged the previous model’s cinematography focused requirements of Stage Shot and Compose Shot. Many of the Block Foundation Animation requirements were relabelled and related to the other two requirement clusters, Block-Out Body Animation and Block-Out Facial Animation. Block-Out Body Animation intends to establish or block out the foundations of the character’s body animation, whereas Block-Out Facial Animation aims to establish the foundations of the character’s facial performance.

 Evaluation based requirements were removed from the model. These functional requirements were removed from the model, for the intention and outlook that evaluation practices will be self-instigated and ongoing as part of Agent activity and/or instigated by the Director as part of the higher-level Production Model. For consistency, evaluation-based requirements were also removed from the Production Model’s other milestone models. The removed

209

evaluation attributes will be re-introduced back into the model both directly and indirectly as quality requirements, via the Well Animated requirement and its expanded model in the forthcoming Section 6.3.5.

 The volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements was reduced to emphasise the importance and achievement of primary expectations. Across the two original milestone models, most Functional System Requirements were related to one or more Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. This resulted in an abundance of expectations that were challenging for animators to evaluate and prioritise. To emphasis the achievement of the milestone’s Primary Non-Function ‘Quality’ System Requirements all sub-level Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements were removed, leaving only three that were directly related to the top-most milestone/functional requirement.

 An Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement was considered for inclusion but not incorporated into the model. This stage of the system is primarily focused on establishing the foundations of character motion and body mechanics. Although emotional qualities could be considered at this stage, deliberate focus will be given to them in the system’s next milestone model Convey Animation and Acting. To ensure focus is driven towards establishing and achieving quality character motion, expectations of emotion were omitted from the model.

This revision process saw the merger of two complementary models, resulting in the significant redesign for this stage of the Production Model. The comparison in Table 6.2 shows that the number of Functional System Requirements has decreased slightly, and that the volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements has decreased significantly from forty to just three.

210

Mk I** Total Mk II

Agents 1 / 1 1 1

Primary Requirements 0 / 0 0 3*

Functional Requirements 5 / 10 15 12

Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements 15 / 25 40 3

Emotional Requirements 0 / 0 0 0

Total 56 16

* subtracted from total to recognise duplication. ** Mk I Layout Animation / Mk I Block Foundation Animation milestone models

Table 6.2: Comparison of System Requirements – Convey Core Concepts

6.3.5 Revising the convey animation and acting model (previously enhance foundation animation)

Convey Animation and Acting is the third stage in the Production Model and aims to build upon the character’s foundational movement with the refinement of body mechanics, and the addition of meaningful gestures and expressions. Originally labelled Enhance Foundation Animation, the new requirement label aims to clarify the overall intent and expectations of the model. Review of the milestone model highlighted positive design aspects such as the flat structure that enabled the animator to freely move around in the model/system as needed, and that it highlighted specific qualities that should be evaluated. At the same time the review also identified concerns with the model’s design that had an excessive volume of Non-Function ‘Quality’ System Requirements, and some Functional Requirements that were too restrictive and locked animators into a specific artistic workflow or approach. Feedback from animators throughout the application of the Mk I Production Model highlighted that it was unclear if this stage was specific to facial animation or if the requirements related to both body and facial animation. The model also offered an expanded set of evaluation requirements that were based on Lasseter’s (1987) principles of animation. Although seen as key to measuring the achievement of the milestone, these requirements contributed heavily towards the model’s excessive volume of Non-Function ‘Quality’ System Requirements. Following this review, the action below was taken:

 An Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement was included as a primary requirement.

211

The emotional requirement that first appeared within the Plan Animation milestone model was re-introduced and elevated to primary status. Its inclusion and placement within the model intend to highlight the importance of character emotion at this stage of the production system.

 A new expandable Non-Function ‘Quality’ System Requirements labelled Well Animated was introduced. In the Mk I Production Model the principles of animation (Lasseter, 1987) were shown as individual quality requirements, and appeared throughout the majority of its milestone models. These individual requirements were included to communicate and highlight the importance of each principle, but their inclusion contributed to the model’s large and confronting volume of requirements. To simplify their communication and strengthen focus on these desirable qualities, a single Non-Function ‘Quality’ System Requirements was created and labelled Well Animated. This label describes the overall intent behind the principles of animation, and via the use of an unorthodox modelling practice the requirement label was suffixed with '...' to signify that the requirement can be expanded/is linked to a standalone model. Figure 6.5 shows that the stand-alone model contains only the principles of animation, with Well Animated having primary status within the model. The Well Animated model breaks with Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling convention, and extends its application to cater for animation processes. As Figure 6.5 shows, each requirement features a label that mirrors the principle’s name and not an adjective. This decision was made to create clearer links to the twelve principles and their definitions as they are known and documented within the community of animation practice. As overarching principles of animation quality, they also replace the many evaluation requirements that were drawn from these principles and appeared throughout the Mk I Production model.

212

Figure 6.5: The expandable Well Animated requirement model

 Primary requirements were identified and incorporated within the model. Four primary requirements were identified, with one being the milestone requirement and another the Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement another. The remaining two were the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements Comprehensive, that sets the expectation for the level of detail for the model’s outcome, and Well Animated that links to expectations of quality concerning character movement, performance and on-screen readability. With the introduction of these primary requirements, all sub-level requirements were distilled into essential and less restrictive tasks and expectations.

 Two requirement clusters were created to highlight the milestone’s focus on body and facial animation. Two requirement clusters were introduced to direct animator focus towards the acting qualities of both the character’s body and the face. The first cluster Keyframe Body Mechanics and Gestures houses body-focused requirements. The second cluster Create Facial Performance features requirements that build on foundational facial animation blocked-out created under the previous milestone.

213

These actions resulted in the significant redesign of this milestone model’s underlying requirements but not its original intent. Table 6.3 shows that the overall number of modelling concepts within the model dropped significantly from sixty-eight to seventeen, with a noticeable reduction in Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements from fifty to just six.

Mk I Mk II

Agents 1 1

Primary Requirements 0 4*

Functional Requirements 17 9

Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements 50 6

Emotional Requirements 0 1

Total 68 17

* subtracted from total to recognise duplication. Note: The Mk I milestone model was labelled Enhance Foundation Animation

Table 6.3: Comparison of System Requirements – Convey Animation and Acting

6.3.6 Revising the detail animation model

Detail Animation is the fourth milestone model in the Production Model, and aims to unite character mechanics and performance through the detailing of existing movement, facial expression and performance subtitles. Feedback on and review of this milestone model highlighted positive design aspects such as the inclusion of evaluation requirements, and that specific requirements, for example, Animate Blinks, Animate Eye Brows, and Animate Eye Darts were useful in directing where to add detail. Review also highlighted that the majority of requirements, excluding the evaluation-based requirements featured clear and easy to understand labels. The review also identified concerns with the model’s design, which included the considerable volume of evaluation requirements and their domain specificity, and a general bias towards requirements that were focused on the detailing of facial animation over body animation. In addition, the review highlighted that the model’s overall volume of requirements made the system appear larger and more complex than it intends to be. Following this review, the below actions were taken:

214

 Primary requirements were identified and incorporated within the model. The first primary requirement added was the Detail Animation milestone requirement, followed by the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement Convincing that sets the expected level of detail for the character’s performance and outcome. Well Animated was the third primary requirement and was included to set expectations surrounding the quality of the character’s movement, performance and on-screen readability. The final primary requirement was the Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement that was carried over from the previous milestone to ensure that this major quality is retained, and improved upon throughout this stage of the Production Model.

 Individual evaluation requirements were replaced with the Well Animated Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. Forty-five evaluation-based requirements were replaced with the one Well Animated Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. This move drastically improved the model’s scale and readability. It should also enable animators to review and evaluate their work alongside descriptions of the principles of animation, as documented across animation texts from professional character animators such as those discussed in Chapter 2.3.2.

 Requirement clusters were introduced to highlight the focus on detailing body and facial animation. The Mk I Detail Animation model was biased towards facial animation, to maintain this emphasis a requirement cluster focused on the detailing of body animation was introduced into the model as was a second cluster that pooled together and distilled requirements related to the detailing of facial animation. The facial animation cluster deliberately incorporated the term performance into the requirement label as a means to communicate intent, and the importance of acting and emotion over bio-mechanics. Though specific requirements from the Mk I Detail Animation model such as Pose Mouth Shapes, Animate Tongue, Animate Blinks, Animate Eye Brows and Animate Eye Darts were identified as being useful in directing animators where to add detail, they were distilled into the requirements of Keyframe Eyeball and Lid Action, and Keyframe Jaw Mechanics. These broader requirements intend to build upon the more prescriptive Keyframe Eye Direction and Keyframe Core Facial Expression requirements that were

215

included within the preceding Convey Core Concepts milestone model.

 The volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement was reduced. All but one Functional System Requirement had one or more associated Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement. This volume of requirements contributed to the model’s perceived complexity and the lack of an overarching expectation for the milestone. All but a few key Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements were removed, and consolidated under the primary Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements Convincing and Well Animated.

Revisions and refinements made to this milestone model have significantly decreased the overall volume of system requirements, and subsequently addressed concerns related to the model’s complexity. Table 6.4 shows the number of requirements in the original model compared to the Mk II version, where the overall number of elements have reduced from seventy-one to sixteen.

Mk I Mk II

Agents 1 1

Primary Requirements 0 4*

Functional Requirements 19 10

Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements 51 4

Emotional Requirements 0 1

Total 71 16

* subtracted from total to recognise duplication.

Table 6.4: Comparison of System Requirements – Detail Animation

6.3.7 Revising the polish animation model

The fifth and now final milestone model is Polish Animation, which aims to advance character believability through the fine-tuning of their general physicality, expressions and performance subtleties. Review of the milestone model highlighted positive design aspects such as its relatively small scale, its broadly labelled system requirements and its inclusion of a singular evaluation requirement. Alongside these positive aspects the review also

216

identified parts of the model that were unfavourable, such as the high volume of Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements and the lack of high-level evaluations. Following this review, the below actions were taken:

 Five primary requirements were identified and incorporated within the model. This included one Functional System Requirement that was the milestone requirement and four expectations of quality. One of these quality requirements was an Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement that continued from the previous milestone, and another was the Well Animated Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement that links to the twelve principles of animation. Although both had appeared within the previous milestone model, they were included to ensure that such important qualities are retained and addressed in this final stage of the production process. Alongside these the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement of Believable was added to set the expected level of detail for the character’s performance, as was the requirement of Fleshy. This particular quality is expected to drive the fine detailing of the character’s movement to include non- performance elements of muscle and bone.

 Functional System Requirements were consolidated and relabelled to promote intent. The original model featured five sub-level Functional System Requirements with one being specific to the evaluation of animation. With this now addressed via the primary requirement of Well Animated, it was removed from the model. All bar one of the four remaining Functional System Requirements were relabelled to better suggest and clarify their intent. The requirement Fine Tune Poses was renamed Refine Contacts and Collisions to clarify what elements of the pose/s are to be fine-tuned, Enhance Arcs was relabelled to Show The Flow Of Energy and better describes the overall intent for refining the character’s arcing motions, Add Non-Performance Nuances appeared challenging for animators to understand and to clarify the intent of this requirement it was relabelled Tie Features Together, the fourth and final requirement Add Micro Details remained unchanged.

 The removal of sub-level Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements. The original model’s twenty Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements aimed to achieve a collective feeling of believability and fleshiness within the

217

character’s performance. With the inclusion of these now as primary requirements, the sub-level expectations of quality were no longer required.

As per the previous milestone models, the application of the system design guidelines had a significant impact on the Model’s design but not its original and underlying intent. Table 6.5 shows that the overall number of modelling concepts within the model had dropped from twenty-seven to ten, with the most significant change being the volume of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements changing from twenty to just three.

Mk I Mk II

Agents 1 1

Primary Requirements 0 5*

Functional Requirements 6 5

Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements 20 3

Emotional Requirements 0 1

Total 27 10

* subtracted from total to recognise duplication.

Table 6.5: Comparison of System Requirements – Polish Animation

6.3.8 Primary requirements in the production model

Following the application of the design guidelines to the milestone models, the Production Model that was first revised in section 6.3.2 was further refined to include all of the system’s primary system requirements. Shown in Figure 6.6 the Production Model features the five high-level Functional System Requirements with primary status, as well as their directly related primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ and ‘Emotional’ System Requirements.

218

Figure 6.6: The revised top-level Production Model

As identified in Chapter 2.5 a core challenge associated with the communication of animation practice and process surrounds the unification of artistic and technological domain language. The inclusion of the system’s primary concepts within the top-level Production Model is expected to make the high-level actions, intent, sequencing and expectations of quality clearer for animators. Further to this the application of the colour-coded achievement scale within this model should offer system stakeholders an even greater high-level perspective of the system design, system progress and production quality without the need to dig-deeper and/or expand inquiry to individual milestone models.

219

6.3.9 The Mk II production model

Alongside the revision of the Production Model and its milestone models in this Chapter, seven Agent-Oriented Goal Models were constructed, and done so for the same presentation and readability reasons noted during Chapter 4.3.4. These models are:

One: the high-level Production Model (see Figure 6.7) Two: the Plan Animation milestone model (see Figure 6.8) Three: the Convey Core Concepts milestone model (see Figure 6.9) Four: the Convey Acting and Animation milestone model (see Figure 6.10) Five: the Detail Animation milestone model (see Figure 6.11) Six: the Polish Animation milestone model (see Figure 6.12) Seven: the Well Animated requirement model (see Figure 6.13)

Combined, these seven models form the conceptual Mk II Three-Dimensional Computer Assisted Character Animation Production Model, or more simply the Mk II Production Model, which was refined based on the findings from the first study.

220

ction Model ction Model l Mk II Produ

Figure 6.7: The top-leve Figure 6.7:

221

ne model ne model

Production Model’s Plan Animation milesto Plan Animation Model’s Production Figure 6.8: The Mk II The Mk Figure 6.8:

222

ilestone model model ilestone

ey Core Concepts m Core Concepts ey Production Model’s Conv Model’s Production Figure 6.9: The Mk II The Mk Figure 6.9:

223

Production Model’s Convey Animation & Acting milestone model model milestone Acting Animation & Convey Model’s Production Figure 6.10: The Mk II The Figure 6.10:

224

stone model model mile stone Animation etail

Production Model’s D Model’s Production Figure 6.11: The Mk II The Figure 6.11:

225

ment

model Production Model’s Well Animated require Well Animated Model’s Production Figure 6.13: The Mk II The Figure 6.13: Polish Animation Animation Polish

milestone model model milestone Figure 6.12: The Mk II Production Model’s Production Mk II The Figure 6.12:

226

6.3.10 Revising the evaluation process

As demonstrated in Chapter 5.3, the Production System’s evaluation process leveraged the peer review format known as sweatbox that was discussed in Chapter 2.4. Building on this practice the evaluation process made use of a colour coded achievement scale to indicate the level or standard of achievement for system requirements within the model. As a positive side-effect of this process, the coloured model/s also communicated the overall progress and quality of the Production System.

In the application of the Mk I Production Model, animators screened their work-in- progress on a weekly basis to the project’s Leadership Team who then assessed the achievement of the work according to the relevant milestones model. This created a visual snapshot of achievement at a particular point in time, as shown for Shot 01 in Figure 6.14. Although this process was efficient and well suited to the production environment, it was reliant on the Leadership Team making the assessment and was not overly effective at engaging animators in making their own critical assessments of achievement.

Figure 6.14: Application of the Mk I Production Model’s colour achievement scale

It was also noted throughout the evaluation of the Mk I Production Model’s application to practice that the scale’s range may be too great, and as a result may have facilitated a false sense of achievement once a requirement entered the lower-end of the green/achieved third of the scale. Addressing this concern and with the intention to create clearer distinctions between states of achievement, the colour coded achievement scale was reduced from ten values to four values. The four-value colour scale is shown in Figure 6.15, where 1 / Red = Unachieved, and is the starting point for all requirements, 2 / Burnt Orange = Insufficient quality, 3 / Gold = Fit for purpose quality, and 4 / Green = Achieved or Excellence in quality.

227

Figure 6.15: The Mk II colour achievement scale

During the evaluation process of the Mk I Production Model its Functional System Requirements were measured using the full ten-point colour scale, where the colour was a representation of a requirement’s overall functional and quality achievement. With the Mk II Production Model now featuring primary quality and primary emotional requirements, the evaluation of Functional System Requirements will align with the true sense of a Functional System Requirement as something that is either incomplete/unachieved or complete/achieved. Going forward this hard type of requirement will be evaluated as such, and reference either end of the colour coded achievement scale, for example, 1 / Red or 4 / Green, with no middle ground. Even so, the model’s soft Non-Functional 'Quality’ and ‘Emotional’ System Requirements that have a level of subjectivity will continue to utilise the full range of the achievement scale. The reduction of the scale from ten to four values, along with reserving the full range of the colour scale for Non-Functional System Requirements marks a significant change in how each system requirement will be viewed by the system’s stakeholders. These changes pave the way for animators and/or other Agents involved in the evaluation process to better recognise and assess the quality of animation, as different from its functional achievement.

Noted earlier in this section, having the Leadership Team perform the evaluation/s was not overly effective at engaging animators to undertake their own critical assessment of their weekly activities and achievements. As an approach to increase animator engagement with the evaluation process a standalone evaluation model containing only the Production Model’s primary requirements was composed and is shown in Figure 6.16. The evaluation model is similar to the top-level Production Model shown earlier in Figure 6.14 as both feature and emphasise the system’s primary system requirements. Instead of showing the relationships between modelling concepts and system requirements, the evaluation model isolates system requirements for the purpose of evaluation and not for the purpose of communicating system design or process.

228

Figure 6.16: The standalone evaluation model template

229

Functionally, the evaluation model is designed firstly to capture the appraisals from the primary Agent – the Animator, and secondly a senior stakeholder such as a supervising or leadership Agent. The model expects the animator to assess their achievement of relevant primary requirements independently, and to then present an appropriately coloured evaluation model to senior stakeholder/s for their expert evaluation. Aiming to reduce the time required for animators to receive formal assessments from a senior stakeholder, a blank line was added underneath each requirement. This line on the model exists to quickly and efficiently record evaluations from senior stakeholders that can be given during sweatbox peer-review sessions or independently during one-on-one consultations. An example of how this would work is shown in Figure 6.17 where the animator has indicated that the primary Functional Requirement is complete (4 / Green), the emotional requirement is of a low or insufficient quality (2 / Burnt Orange), the quality requirement Comprehensive is of a fit for purpose quality (3 / Gold) and the quality requirement Well Animated is of a low or insufficient quality (2 / Burnt Orange). In this example the senior Agent’s appraisal has been written down as a number from one to four, and shows that they largely agree with the animator’s independent assessments, except for the quality requirement Comprehensive. This requirement has been assessed by the senior agent as being of low or insufficient quality (2 / Burnt Orange) as compared to the animator’s assessment that was of a fit for purpose quality (3 / Gold). The full evaluation model shown at a reduced scale clearly shows that the production process has progressed to the halfway point, with the final two milestone requirements yet to be attempted (1 / Red = Unachieved).

Figure 6.17: An example of the Evaluation Model in use

Once assessments are recorded, the evaluation model is then to be leveraged to inform and/or update a common project model that communicates project progress and achievement to broader groups or teams of project stakeholders.

230

6.4 Impact on system design and evaluation

As documented throughout the previous sections, the application and integration of the new design guidelines and modelling concepts saw the Mk I Production Model and its milestone models undergo significant transformation based on study one’s data. Notable system-wide changes included the merger and relabelling of milestone requirements to bring together similar activities and to better promote high-level intent, and the assigning of primary status to all functional milestone system requirements to indicate their importance in the overall system. The introduction and implementation of Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ and Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirements is expected to have a significant impact on the overall system design, as does the introduction of a new expandable Non- Functional Well Animated System Requirement. These new requirements should highlight key expectations of quality, and simplify the overall system design by consolidating one- hundred and ninety-five Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements into just twenty-two Non-Functional ‘Quality’ and four Non-Functional ‘Emotional’ System Requirements.

Table 6.6 shows a comparison of modelling concepts included within the Mk I Production Model and the new Mk II Production Model. The Mk II version introduced eighteen high-level Primary System Requirements, and one Emotional System Requirement that was included four times throughout the system. In addition to adding these new modelling concepts, one-hundred and seventy-three Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements and fourteen Functional System Requirements were omitted from the Mk II design. As a result of implementing new modelling concepts and system design guidelines, the total volume of Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements was reduced from two hundred and sixty-four in the Mk I system design to eighty-one in the Mk II system design.

231

Mk I vs. Mk II System Requirements

Primary Functional Quality Emotional

Requirements Requirements Requirements Requirements

Mk I System Requirements vs. Mk II System Requirements (totals)

Mk I 0 69 195 0

Mk II 18 55 22 4

Plan Animation Model

Mk I 0 12 34 0

Mk II 2 19 6 1

Convey Core Concepts Model (* Layout Animation Model / Block Animation Model)

Mk I* 0 / 0 5 / 10 15 / 25 0 / 0

Mk II 3 12 3 0

Convey Animation and Acting Model

Mk I 0 17 50 0

Mk II 4 9 6 1

Detail Animation Model

Mk I 0 19 51 0

Mk II 4 10 4 1

Polish Animation Model

Mk I 0 6 20 0

Mk II 5 5 3 1

Table 6.6: Comparison of System Requirements – Mk I and Mk II system designs

The increased emphasis and focus on Primary System Requirements and how these were linked to and would influence the lower-levels of their respective milestone models were contributing factors in the clustering of system requirements throughout the Mk II system design. The original Mk I system design featured four mid-level requirement clusters, all of which housed a range of evaluation-based system requirements, for example, Evaluate Blocking and Evaluate Motion housed requirements such as Evaluate Timing, Evaluate Staging, Evaluate Transition and Evaluate Secondary Action. In comparison the Mk II system design features ten requirement clusters that range in purpose and intent. In the majority of cases these clusters were used to delineate and create specific focus around a

232

character’s body animation or its facial animation. For example, the Convey Core Concepts model featured the requirement clusters Block-Out Body Animation and Block-Out Facial Animation, and the Convey Acting and Animation model featured Keyframe Body Mechanics and Gestures and Create Facial Performance. The review and re-design of these requirement clusters has removed the flat hierarchy that was present across much of the original milestone models, and in doing so aims for greater clarity and communication around what elements of the character an animator is expected to work on during the different stages of the Production System.

In addition to their impact on system design, the new concepts and design guidelines should further the development of the sweatbox evaluation process, with the creation of the standalone evaluation model that is composed of only primary functional, primary quality and primary emotional system requirements. Once embedded within the sweatbox evaluation processes, animator engagement with the Evaluation Model is anticipated to increase, as well as improve their awareness of the system’s primary requirements and also deepen their own understanding of achievement standards. Furthermore, the immediate recording of a senior stakeholder’s assessment on the model should reduce the overall time required to communicate evaluations back to the animator, and create opportunity for targeted discussion and knowledge exchange.

6.5 Summary

The exploration and embedding of primary and emotional concepts within the system design layer, the Production system, and the evaluation process, are expected to have addressed the aims identified at the beginning of this chapter that were to: Create greater distinction between different types of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements; Emphasise the achievement of significant system requirements; Reduce the granularity of system requirements; and to address how the model and its requirements are viewed and evaluated by stakeholders. The work undertaken in this Chapter has also expanded the potential for Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to be applied more broadly within the domain of screen practice and production, with new insights of how to simplify complex and quality heavy production systems, and for systems that centre around the identification and evaluation of character and audience emotion. Although such explorations are of interest, a study outlined in the next chapter will seek to evaluate the Mk II system design and the impact of Primary and Emotional concepts within an active production environment.

233

Chapter 7: Evaluating the Mk II production system design and model

7.1 Introduction and aims

The Mk II Production Model that was developed in Chapter 6 aims to improve the original model’s communication of animation practice and process through the greater emphasis of requirement intent, the explicit communication of a character’s human qualities, and the simplification of the model and its granularity. An additional goal of the redesigned model was to increase stakeholder engagement throughout its deployment, particularly in the evaluation of requirement achievement. As a result, the original ten-point colour coded achievement scale was consolidated into just four levels of achievement, and a new evaluation model was developed for use by animators and their direct supervisor/s.

The Mk II Production Model is expected to guide novice animators through a repeatable three-dimensional computer assisted character animation production process better than the Mk I Production Model. So far its ability to do this featuring fewer system requirements, relabelled system requirements and two new types of system requirements is hypothetical. To evaluate and to develop insight into the models’ new design, both the Production Model and the Evaluation Model were embedded within a live animation project that sought the production of nineteen short self-contained three-dimensional character performances. Specifically, the study of the Mk II Production Model aimed to:

 Explore the impact of the model’s simplification and new concepts on its ability to guide and communicate animation practice and process; and  Ascertain the impact of revisions made to the evaluation process on stakeholder engagement and perceptions of achievement.

234

7.2 Project design and setup

7.2.1 The animation project

The Performance Animation project was a curriculum-based animation project embedded within an undergraduate unit of study at Swinburne University of Technology. The unit of study aimed to introduce students from a range of design-focused degree programs to the practice of three-dimensional character animation. As explained in Chapter 5.2, the Mk I Production Model was also conducted within an undergraduate design-focused unit of study, and focused on the collaborative development and production of animated films that carried strict character and continuity requirements. However, due to matters of the new unit of study’s structure and accreditation, the Performance Animation project focused on individual outputs, and challenged these first time three-dimensional character animators to undertake the individual planning and production of a three-dimensional character performance. While these animators were not working towards the creation of a collaborative project, their individual outputs could foreseeably form a shot within a larger multi-shot animated film. Given this, the project’s guidelines stated that performances were to have an approximate duration of ten to fifteen seconds, and were able to range from a dialogue based performance that utilised pre-recorded audio to a non-dialogue action or mime based performance. In lieu of an extensive design and pre-production process where characters would normally be conceptualised and constructed for production, the participants were able to choose from a pool of production ready three-dimensional characters that were sourced from the reputable online libraries The 11 Second Club (Bogdanoff & Bogdanoff) and Animation Buffet (Haas), giving them more time for the actual character production which is the focus of this research.

Alongside these creative requirements the Mk II Production Model was established as the project’s production framework and guide for production activity, and the Evaluation Model as the tool to facilitate and record stakeholder perceptions of requirement achievement. The communication of these requirements was carried out via the same method used in the study of the Mk I Production Model, that involved the development and distribution of a written project brief and document that introduced the Production and Evaluation Models (see appendix A7.1). This two-page document provided a statement of the Production Model’s intention, definitions of each modelling concept, and the process on how and when to use the different models.

235

7.2.2 Participants

Nineteen participants were voluntarily engaged as animators within the project, all of whom were students enrolled into the unit of study that the Performance Animation project was embedded in. Prior to commencing the project all animators indicated that they had not undertaken any formal training in three-dimensional character animation, but had completed introductory studies in three-dimensional model making, texturing and lighting.

To establish an equivalent level of craft and evaluation competency across the participants, all undertook five short skill-building animation exercises prior to commencing the project. These fundamental exercises included an introduction to the software’s animation toolset via the creation of three individual bouncing ball animations, that also introduced the animation principles of timing, spacing, arcs, squash and stretch, overlapping action and follow through. These exercises were followed up with traditional sweatbox peer review sessions as discussed in Chapter 2.4, which aimed to build confidence across participants in articulating and receiving evaluation. Building on these foundations and looking ahead to the Performance Animation project, animators then undertook two further introductory exercises that focused on the production of a generic bi-pedal character walk- cycle and an on-the-spot action that showed a character’s persona. These one-week exercises guided animators through a layered animation process, and enabled familiarisation with the standard operation and animation of a production ready three- dimensional character. Alongside the development of these animation skill, the exercises also aimed to build awareness of body mechanics, timing, weight, emotion and other key principles of animation including exaggeration, secondary action and appeal.

An additional non-animator participant was engaged as the Director for the Performance Animation project. The Director was a professional animator with over ten years of three-dimensional character animation experience and two years of undergraduate teaching experience. The Director had no prior engagement with the Mk I Production Model or study, and received the same project briefing documents that were distributed to the animators. To ensure consistency in the Director’s communications throughout the project, written definitions of the five milestone models, as identified in the forthcoming section 7.2.4, were provided to the Director as a resource to draw upon as required.

236

7.2.3 Duration and time allocation

The Performance Animation project was conducted over a six-week period. The scale of the project and its timeframe considered participant attendance and study requirements that were divided into three hours of face-to-face class time with the Director per week, and nine and a half hours of independent production time per week. Approximately one and a half hours of each week’s face-to-face class time was allocated to the formal review and evaluation of production activities. The remaining eleven hours per week were to contribute towards independent consultation and production related activities. All participants were expected to achieve one milestone model per week. This schedule aligned with the expectations set for the earlier application of the Mk I Production Model and allowed one additional week as a buffer to accommodate delays, unforeseen circumstances and/or the further refinement of milestones.

7.2.4 Project briefing, guidelines and expectations

The brief for the project was to create a short character performance, along with this copies of the Mk II Production Model and Evaluation Model were distributed to participants in hard and soft copy prior the project’s commencement. Supporting this the Director also provided participants with an oral briefing that consisted of a read through of all documents, project brainstorming, and a review of suitable production ready characters. The Production Model’s briefing document was comparable to that of the one used within the original Mk I Production Model study, and communicated topics such as:

 How the model was to be used by the Animator, and read: Enacting the agent of 'Animator', you will aim to produce your three-dimensional character animation from concept through to completion by achieving each milestone's primary requirements.

 The timeframe for completing the animation and the Model’s milestone requirements: The Production Model's five milestones are progressive; this means you must aim to achieve the first milestone in your first week of production activity, the second milestone in your second week of production activity, and so on and so forth until your production is final. You have five weeks of scheduled production

237

activity plus one additional 'final' week, where your focus should be to continue achieving and improving upon the achievement of the fifth milestone.

 The process for structuring weekly reviews and feedback: Requirement achievement will be self and peer evaluated as part of regular 'sweatbox' critique sessions, and will utilise a colour coded scoring system to express achievement. This method of evaluation aims to facilitate directed critique and discussion to better your understanding of the production process and its expectations. Upload your self-evaluation to Blackboard [the learning management system] before presenting your work-in-progress.

Note: In the first study, a survey was used alongside the Goal Model to capture participants’ perceptions of the Production Model and its requirements. While useful for research, it appeared to carry a low priority for participants who were focused on achieving their production goals. To ensure focus was directed towards the Mk II Production Model and Evaluation Model, a questionnaire was not included as a data gathering tool within this second study.

As stated earlier in section 7.2.2, in addition to the briefing documents and models, the Director also had exclusive access to definitions of the milestone models. These were carried over from those first identified in Chapter 4.3.2 with some minor revision, and to include the requirement Convey Core Concepts that was formed by the merging of the Layout Animation and Block Foundation Animation models. These definitions were to be referenced during briefings, consultations and sweatbox sessions to ensure the consistent communication of expectations to participants, and were as follows:

1) Plan Animation Scope: Concerns the gathering, analysis and generation of reference material that will guide and/or influence the creation of animation. Expectation: To become thoroughly informed in the creative, quality and technical requirements of character mechanics, actions and behavioural attributes in order to guide and problem solve future activities.

2) Convey Core Concepts Scope: Concerns all activity relating to the setup and visualisation of the performance using the most simplistic and minimalistic animation. Expectation: To communicate a character’s performance through the design and

238

implementation of fundamental poses and time-accurate actions, in order to guide future activities.

3) Convey Acting and Animation Scope: Concerns the breaking down and building up of foundational poses to create absolute clarity around the character’s body language, performance and timing. Expectation: To establish accurate physicality and timing in the character’s mechanics and performance through the definition of transitional movement and the inclusion of primary facial mechanics and expressions.

4) Detail Animation Scope: Concerns the refinement of computer generated and in-between movements, resulting in a performance that exhibits convincing acting and animation. Expectation: To unite the physicality and expression of character mechanics and performance through the detailing of transitional movement, facial expressions and performance subtitles.

5) Polish Animation Scope: Concerns the addition and fine-tuning of micro details and micro- movements that enhance a character’s overall fleshiness and believability. Expectation: To advance the emotion and believability portrayed in the character performance through the refinement and fine-tuning of physicality, expression and subtleties.

7.2.5 Production and requirement evaluation

As stated earlier the project did not require participants to design and construct production ready characters. Given this, the Development and Pre-production stages of the overarching Digital Animation System were condensed into the week prior to the project’s Production phase. Throughout this week participants in conjunction with the Director, conceptualised and set the overall creative direction for individual performances and selected the character/s to be animated. In the six weeks that followed, participants undertook the Production phase of the Digital Animation System, and referenced the Mk II Production Model and the Evaluation model in accordance with the project’s briefing.

239

The sweatbox evaluation process that was deployed throughout the study of the Mk I Production Model was revised in Chapter 6.3.10, with the intention to create greater distinction between perceptions of achievement and to facilitate better engagement with animators during the evaluation process. Key revisions to the process included the reduction of the colour coded achievement scale from ten values to four values, Functional System Requirements being assessed as either incomplete or complete only, and the development of the Evaluation Model. With the application of this revised evaluation process the project’s animators recorded their own perceptions of achievement on a weekly basis, and for the purposes of data collection lodged a PDF of their Evaluation Models within the learning management system.

Upon completing and lodging their assessments, animators presented their weekly output and evaluations to their peers including the Director. Based on their extensive professional experience and access to definitions of each milestone model, the Director provided evaluations of requirement achievement that animators then recorded on a hard copy of their individual Evaluation Models. Alongside this, the Director’s evaluations were also recorded on a separate Evaluation Model for their record keeping and for the purpose of data collection and analysis. This process was repeated on a weekly basis until the conclusion of the project.

7.3 Data collection and analysis

7.3.1 Evaluation data

Across the six-week Production phase of the project, the Mk II Production Model was duplicated a total of nineteen times, one instance per animator. This saw a total of three- hundred and forty-two primary requirements evaluated by the project’s pool of animators and then again by the Director. While the evaluation of these requirements varied in achievement (see Table 7.1), the completion of all nineteen animation projects suggests that revisions made to the Mk I Production Model in Chapter 6.3 that resulted in the Mk II Production Model, did not significantly impede the model’s ability to communicate a structured and repeatable production process. Though the Mk II Production Model appeared to have communicated the production process to animators, the ability of its primary requirements to communicate clear and consistent expectations of system functionality and quality is of interest in gaining deeper insights into the model’s ability to guide and communicate

240

animation practice and process. As an approach to exploring the clarity of these requirements, evaluation scores were extracted from the Animators’ individual Evaluation Models and the Director’s evaluation records (see Table 7.1), and then compared to identify similarities between evaluations. Though the evaluation data represents stakeholder perspectives of requirement achievement and animator performance, similarities found between Animator and Director evaluations were used to indicate if a requirement might have conveyed consistent expectations of functionality and quality to these stakeholders.

Table 7.1: Requirement achievement scores from Animators and the Director

241

7.3.2 Perceptions of requirement types

To identify trends in requirement clarity and perceptions of achievement, the animator’s evaluation records and Director’s evaluation records underwent side-by-side comparison as shown in Table 7.2. This comparison reveals that sixty-one percent or two hundred and eight requirements were evaluated as having the same level of achievement or similarly score by the Animators and Director. The remaining thirty-nine percent or one hundred and thirty-four requirements differed in their assessments by one or more points. This split suggests that there is a reasonable gap in the perception of the model’s primary requirements between the stakeholder groups. When looking at the different types of primary requirements present within the Mk II Production Model, it becomes clearer that differences in perception are skewed towards requirement types.

This table shows the number and percentage of primary requirements that were assessed as being the same and different, and is referred to as the similarity score. It also shows the average achievement score awarded for each requirement by the project’s pool of Animators and the Director.

Table 7.2: Analysis of requirement achievement scores

There were ninety-five copies of the model’s five Primary Functional System Requirements (Plan Animation, Convey Core Concepts, Convey Animation and Acting, Detail Animation and Polish Animation) across the animation project. These were evaluated as being either complete (green) or incomplete (red), with eighty-two percent or seventy- eight requirements receiving the same assessment by the pool of Animators and the Director. Of the one-hundred and ninety Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements that were evaluated across the project, fifty-four percent or one-hundred and three requirements received the same assessments from the Animators and the Director. The evaluation of the Non-Functional, acting focused ‘Emotional’ System Requirements was within a similar range

242

to the evaluation of the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements where forty-seven percent or twenty-seven requirements received the same assessment from the Animators and the Director. The comparison of achievement scores via requirement type suggests that there may be a greater shared understanding of the model’s primary Functional System Requirements than the model’s Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ and ‘Emotional’ System Requirements.

Shifting focus to the Mk II Production Model’s individual milestone models reveals more about these differences on a per-requirement basis, and is discussed in the sections that follow.

7.3.3 Plan animation

Analysis of the evaluation data suggests that a common understanding of the Plan Animation milestone model appears to be mixed. Thirteen of the nineteen animators had indicated that they had functionally achieved the milestone requirement with an assessment of 4/4 (complete), where the Director had assessed only ten as being complete. Despite this difference the overall similarity score for this Functional System Requirement was seventy- four percent. Being well over the fifty percent mark, this score suggests that requirement labelling and the underpinning requirements communicate a reasonably clear and consistent message of intent. However, this appears to not be the case for the sole Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement: Comprehensive, that received a similarity score of forty- seven percent. This in combination with the animators’ higher average score of 2.9/4.0 compared to Director’s average score of 2.2/4.0 indicates that this expectation of quality is not well understood.

7.3.4 Convey core concepts

General perceptions of the Convey Core Concepts model were positively skewed, with similarity scores for its primary requirements ranging from fifty-eight to eighty-four percent. The raw evaluation data also suggests that the Animators’ and the Director appeared to have a common understanding of what the functional completion of this milestone model looked like, with a similarity score of eighty-four percent and similar average achievement scores of 3.1/4.0 and 3.2/4.0. Evaluations suggest that expectations of quality within this model were largely understood, with similarity scores of seventy-four percent obtained for the expectation of Rough and fifty-eight percent for the expectation of

243

Clear. While the data in Table 7.2 place their comparative average achievement scores within a similar range, as can be seen in Table 7.1 these requirements mostly received achievement scores between two and three. This suggests that some uncertainty may exist around what these overall qualities look like when achieved, or that there may be an inability to meet the expectations in full. With the expectation of Clear receiving the lowest similarity score of fifty-eight percent, it should be considered for review in future iterations of the Model.

7.3.4 Convey animation and acting

Evaluation data for the milestone model Convey Animation and Acting suggests that a common understanding of the model’s primary requirements is present, but also indicates that there may be some uncertainty around the Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement, and what this looks like during this stage of the Production System. Thirteen of the nineteen animators indicated that they had achieved the Primary Functional System Requirement with an evaluation of 4.0/4.0, compared to the Director who evaluated only ten as being functionally complete. Despite this difference, the similarity score for this requirement was positive at seventy-nine percent, and suggests that the requirement label and its underpinning requirements communicate are reasonably clear message of intent and achievement.

The primary expectation of Comprehensive received a low similarity score of fifty- three percent, and aligns with the similarity score of forty-seven percent given to the same expectation within the Plan Animation milestone model. Although the intent of this quality focused requirement appears to be neither clear nor unclear, its similar average achievement scores of 2.6/4.0 and 2.1/4.0 suggest that there might have been a shared understanding of this expectation between the animators and the Director.

This model was the first time that the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement Well Animated featured throughout the Production Model. With a similarity score of seventy- four percent and average achievement scores that were within 0.3 of each other, it appears that the intent of this novel requirement was mostly understood, and that it clearly communicated its expectations to the Animators and the Director.

This milestone model was also the first to position the Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement as a Primary System Requirement. Its average achievement score as

244

identified by the Animators was 2.3/4.0. This was significantly higher than the average score derived from the Director’s evaluations which was 1.6/4.0. The similarity score for this primary requirement was lower than desirable at forty-two percent, and suggests that this requirement lacks a common understanding between the Animators and the Director. Although the reasons for this are not immediately clear, the experience of the Animators versus that of the Director, a skilled character animation professional, may have had a significant impact on perceptions of its achievement.

7.3.5 Detail animation

There appears to be a common understanding of the Functional System Requirement Detail Animation which received a high similarity score of eighty-nine percent, and average achievement scores that are within close proximity to one another. Interestingly, the Animators perceived their functional achievement as being slightly lower than the Director with 2.6/4.0 compared to 2.9/4.0. Although it is not clear why, the Animators’ lower average achievement scores may be a result of the stakeholder group being unaware of how much detail is expected at this stage of the process versus that of the final Polish stage of the Production Model.

In comparison with the Primary Functional System Requirement, the two Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements of Convincing and Well Animated had lower similarity scores of fifty-three and sixty-three percent respectively. While their average achievement scores were comparable, it is noteworthy that the Animators’ ranked their achievement of Convincing only marginally higher than the Director’s assessment. With close alignment of evaluation data for the two expectations of quality, it should be considered that the two may have been perceived as one and the same, for example, if something is well animated then it should also be convincing. Future revision/s of the model should consider this possibility. Unlike in the previous Convey Animation and Acting milestone model, the average achievement scores for the Agent Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement were much closer to one another in this model with the Animator’s scoring 2.3/4.0 and the Director 2.1/4.0. In combination with an improvement in the emotional requirement’s similarity score from forty-two to forty-seven percent, it is reasonable to assume that discussions and/or feedback regarding the emotional requirement in sweatbox sessions may have improved stakeholders understanding of emotional qualities.

245

7.3.6 Polish animation

With a similarity score of eighty-four percent and comparable average achievement scores of 2.4/4.0 and 2.6/4.0, the Animators’ and Director’s evaluation data suggests that they have a shared understanding of what the Functional System Requirement Polish animation is setting out to achieve. This does not appear to be the case for this model’s four Non-Functional System Requirements that had low similarity scores and somewhat disparate average achievement scores.

The Emotional Requirement had the highest similarity score of this model’s Non- Functional System Requirements at fifty-three percent, and while this is a small increase from the previous model, it suggests that further work is needed to improve how this requirement is perceived and evaluated by the model’s stakeholders. The two Non- Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements of Believable and Fleshy both received very low similarity scores of thirty-seven percent, and average achievement scores that differed by nearly three quarters of one point. For both requirements the Animator’s average achievement score was 0.7 higher than the average achievement score from the Director. The requirement’s low achievement scores and the difference in perceptions of their achievement suggests that a common understanding of these quality expectations is lacking, and that both should be revised ahead of any future deployment of the Production Model.

The final Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement Well Animated had a similarity score of just forty-seven percent. This was sixteen percent lower than the same requirement’s similarity score in the previous milestone model. Despite this surprising score its average achievement scores were comparable at 2.3/4.0 and 2.1/4.0, and were similar to the previous two milestone models where this requirement also featured. The average achievement scores suggest that there is a shared understanding of this quality based requirement, however the low similarity score suggests otherwise. When comparing the ten Animator and Director evaluations that were not the same, the overwhelming majority (nine of ten) were different by only one point with one assessment differing by two points. Interestingly neither the Animators nor the Director evaluated the achievement of this requirement as being fully achieved, with most scores being two or three out of a maximum four. This may explain the sudden decrease in the requirement’s similarity score, and may also be tied to the Animators’ overall sense of accomplishment having completed the Production Model and their project.

246

7.4 Summary

The deployment of the Mk II Production Model set out to explore how its simplified design, and inclusion of Primary and Emotional modelling concepts impacted on the model’s ability to communicate and guide production activity. Analysis of the Animator’s and Director’s evaluation data highlighted strengths and weaknesses across the Production Model’s pool of Primary Functional and Primary Non-Functional System Requirements. All five of the model’s Primary Functional System Requirements, for example, featured high similarity scores that ranged between seventy-four percent and eighty-nine percent. These positive similarity scores suggest that the Animators and the Director had a similar understanding of the purpose and expectations underpinning these Primary Functional System Requirements. However this appears to not be the case for the Production Model’s ten Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements, where the evaluation data showed perceptions of achievement between the Animator’s and the Director to be less common as the Production Model progressed. Perceptions of these requirements were at their highest during the earlier stages of the Production Model, for example, where similarity scores ranged from seventy-four percent in the Plan Animation stage, to sixty-three percent in the Detail Animation stage and thirty-seven percent in the Polish Animation stage. Though the similarity of stakeholder evaluations has been used to indicate a requirement’s ability to convey consistent expectations of functionality and quality, it is important to note that the approach did not consider scenarios where for example, an animator might have understood a requirement but lacked the self-reflection abilities to accurately evaluate its achievement, or that an animator did not understand a requirement and through chance recorded a similar evaluation to the experienced Director.

The original Mk I Production Model featured a depth of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements in the later stage of the model. With an aim to reduce requirement granularity in the Mk II Production Model, the majority of these requirements were consolidated into the Primary Well Animated and Emotional System Requirements. These primary requirements appeared alongside one another throughout the final three milestone models where a common understanding of each was anticipated to evolve and strengthen over the duration of the production process, but the Animators’ and the Director’s evaluations of these requirements yielded unexpected results. Stakeholder perceptions of the Well Animated requirement appeared to grow distant over the three milestone models, with similarity scores declining from seventy-four percent to sixty-three percent and then to forty-seven percent. Reasons for this decline are not clear, but may be attributed to the underachievement of quality-based requirements in the earlier stages of the Production

247

Model and/or a lack of time and/or lack of production experience. At the same time the stakeholders appear to have been developing a shared understanding of Emotional Requirements. Across the three milestone models the Emotional Requirement’s similarity scores, for example, increased from forty-two percent to forty-seven percent and then fifty- three percent. These scores do not suggest that a strong or consistent understanding of Emotional Requirements was reached, but was instead developing throughout the production process.

The impact of the model’s simplified design and inclusion of new requirement types appears to have had little or no negative impact on the model’s ability to communicate and guide stakeholders through a repeatable production process. However, with the majority of the model’s Primary Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements receiving lower similarity scores compared to that of the model’s primary Functional System Requirements, which may be attributed to the two having different scales of achievement, issues of subjectivity and contextualisation that were uncovered in the earlier Mk I Production Model study are once again underscored as influential factors in the perception of production qualities. Evaluation data suggests that perceptions of emotional qualities require further development, but their inclusion appears to have made progress towards separating notions of acting quality from creative and artistic qualities. As highlighted by the decline in shared perceptions of animation quality and the increase in emotional quality over time, the inclusion and balance of emotional and other quality requirements should be considered within future iterations of the Production Model.

Alongside the exploration of the model’s design and system requirements, the study also set out to ascertain the impact of revisions made to the evaluation process on stakeholder engagement and perceptions of achievement. The introduction of the standalone evaluation model in combination with having animators evaluate their individual achievements prior to receiving peer critique differed from the one-way/Director driven on- model evaluation process that was deployed throughout the study of the Mk I Production Model. The outcome of this revised approach resulted in all of the Project’s nineteen animators completing and lodging their evaluations ahead of weekly sweatbox feedback. Although evaluations were mixed between the Animators’ and the Director, the data showed that all animators engaged with the process, which was a significant improvement in stakeholder engagement over the Mk I Production Model; and that animator evaluations were reasonable and often in close proximity to those from the Director, and suggests that meaningful engagement occurred with and around the evaluation of requirements.

248

The shift from indicating requirement achievement on a ten-point scale to a four-point scale brought stakeholder evaluations much closer together, and painted a seemingly clearer picture of a production’s completion and quality. Another significant change occurred in the evaluation process that saw Functional System Requirements strictly evaluated as either complete (four/green) or incomplete (one/red), that in the previous study had a broader range and considered expectations of quality in their assessment. The evaluation data for these requirements showed many as achieved, yet their related quality requirements were not fully achieved with achievement scores ranging from as low as one to as high as three. While this approach enabled the achievement of the model’s different requirement types to be clearly identified, the functional completion of a production risks being misunderstood as it also having of an assumed level of quality. With character animation being a quality centric activity, future iterations of the Evaluation Model should explore if the status of Primary Functional System Requirements should or should not consider the achievement of any underpinning Non-Functional System Requirements.

Overall, revisions made to the evaluation process appear to have increased and deepened stakeholder engagement with the evaluation of the Production Model’s Functional and Non-Functional System Requirements. Engagement was driven through the introduction and formalisation of the Evaluation Model within the sweatbox process, seeing the process become a formalised two-way conversation between the stakeholder groups. The Evaluation Model and reconfigured sweatbox process also facilitated instant and comparative feedback on requirement achievement, and thus progress of the overall production that in the previous study was delayed until the Leadership Team updated a project wide model. While perceptions of achievement differed between Functional and Non-Functional types of System Requirements, the condensed four-point achievement scale appeared to challenge stakeholder perceptions of what quality looked like across all stages of the Production Model.

Having aimed to improve upon the Mk I Production Model and its successes as a conceptual and practical communication tool, the application of the Mk II Production Model in combination with the Evaluation Model have reinforced and furthered the capability of Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling to conceptualise and communicate a system for the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation. The model’s design and application to practice demonstrated the potential for the emerging Primary Requirement modelling concept to reduce the complexity of a system design, and for the Emotional Requirement to draw specific focus to the emotional state of an animated character versus that of system stakeholders and external agency.

249

Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusions

8.1 Summary of findings

As a foundation for the discussion of findings and their contributions to the field of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation, this section offers a summary of what was known prior to undertaking research and what is now known as a result of it.

Section 2.2 identified that diagrams of the Digital Animation Process are frequently used to communicate the flow of information between the many stakeholders involved in the making of a digitally animated film, and that the process for animating characters is absent from such models. Section 2.3 recognised that character animators are expected to marry deep artistic knowledge of the principles of animation, motion and acting with the objective functions and processes of computer animation to produce believable character performances. Section 2.4 highlighted sweatbox as the current best-practice for evaluating the production of character animation, and underscored that the dynamic language and mixed methods of appraisal used within this practice made feedback challenging to articulate and understand. Section 2.5 positioned animation as being a visual practice underpinned by a creative process, where the apprentice model remains at the forefront of learning animation practice, process and language.

Section 3.1 provided a concise overview of the animation studio environment. Section 3.2 introduced and positioned Agent-Oriented Software Engineering as a promising theoretical framework to explain the complexities of the animation environment. Section 3.3 summarised the method of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling and how its Agent and System Requirement concepts have the potential to harmonise and communicate production concepts through a diagrammatic Goal Model, that is akin to the animation pipeline models discussed throughout Section 2.2.

Chapter 4 explored how Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling could be leveraged to make explicit the artistic and procedural knowledge underpinning the production of three- dimensional computer assisted character animation. Through the design and modelling of a production system, it was demonstrated that conceptually Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling was capable of uniting, contextualising and sequencing the concepts underpinning a three- dimensional computer assisted character animation production process.

250

Chapter 5 demonstrated that the Mk I Goal Model had practical application, and that the system design was repeatable through a range of different character performances produced. In regard to the aim of the research, this initial study demonstrated the fundamental capability of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to simplify, make explicit and share the underpinning knowledge of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation to aspiring character animators. Application and analysis of the Mk I model led to the following important observations: some of the model’s requirement language was confusing, a holistic understanding of the process appeared challenging to communicate, the amalgamation of the sweatbox evaluation process with the in-model colour achievement scale enabled progress to be communicated but the approach one directional, and although characters were animated their performances appeared to lack emotion.

Chapter 6 acted on findings from the Mk I study, and argued that the emerging Primary Goal and Emotional Goal modelling concepts can be contextualised as explicit system design modelling concepts, and that their application can conceptually facilitate the reduction of system granularity, emphasise the significance of select system requirements, and create clearer distinction between notions of animation and acting quality. The simplification of the system design led to conceptual discoveries that common quality-based requirements could be encapsulated within an expandable type of Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement, and that Emotional Requirements can be leveraged to explicitly define the emotional state of an animated character instead of system agency. The chapter also proposed that Agents can populate the character’s desired emotional state via the novel Agent-Defined ‘Emotional’ Attribute modelling concept. Further to these conceptual advancements, revisions to the evaluation process found that an independent Evaluation Model can be composed from the system’s Primary Requirements, and that the Evaluation Model can be meaningfully integrated within the system’s deployment environment via a revised sweatbox process.

Chapter 7 found that the incorporation of Primary and Emotional system requirements within the Goal Model did not impede the model’s ability to guide aspiring animators through the production of different three-dimensional character animation performances. Application and analysis of the simplified Mk II system design led to findings such as: Primary requirements seemed to create awareness and shared perceptions of the system’s key functions but less so for the system’s Primary quality-based requirements, despite having a consistent requirement dedicated to the principles of animation the perceived achievement of animation qualities appeared to decline over time, and a shared understanding of Emotional Requirements seemed to be developing as the system

251

progressed through its later stages. Application of the revised evaluation process that included the embedding of the Evaluation Model revealed that: engagement with the evaluation process increased as a result of changes to the process, animator evaluations often appeared to be in close proximity to those from the Director, and that the four-point achievement scale appeared to challenge perceptions of what ‘quality’ looked like across the system.

8.2 Discussion of findings

Following the research undertaken in Chapters 4 to 7, new knowledge was developed in regard to the explicit communication of animation’s artistic and procedural concepts, the suitability of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to conceptualise and communicate animation systems, approaches to system design, and the evaluation of system requirements. This new knowledge and its importance is discussed below under the broad headings of concepts, system design, and evaluation.

8.2.1 Concepts

1) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering provides a conceptual and explicit lens to view and discuss the Animation environment.

As proposed throughout Chapter 3 and then explored within Chapter 4, viewing the animation environment and its processes through the theoretical lens of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering enables the complex social, technical and artistic components of three-dimensional computer animation to be theorised and discussed using the explicit notions of agency and requirements. This finding is important for advancing the communication of character animation practice and process within its own and related creative domains.

2) Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling and its concepts are suitable to contextualise and communicate character animation concepts, practice and process.

From the conceptual work undertaken in Chapter 4 it was apparent that the core Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts of Agents, Functional and Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements were able to embody, and communicate the essential components of the animation environment, along with the deeper concepts of the character animation

252

production process. Nonetheless, the evaluation of the Mk I Production Model in Chapter 5 led to the realisation that while Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements are conceptually capable of articulating a breadth of artistic qualities; there was a practical need to delineate between qualities that concerned motion and acting.

The conversion of the emerging Emotional Goal concept into a Non-Functional Character Animation Emotional System Requirement within Chapter 6, and then its application within the Mk II Production Model throughout Chapter 7 highlighted the ability for this concept to convey expectations pertinent to acting. Though the inclusion of this concept within the Mk II Production Model highlighted challenges with stakeholders developing a shared understanding of the requirement’s intention, its addition as a modelling concept offers a way forward to explicitly communicate acting qualities as opposed to those specific to motion and/or creative direction within animation specific system designs.

In addition to identifying limitations of the Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirement, the evaluation of the Mk I Production Model also led to the discovery that dependent relationships between Functional System Requirements were not as visible to animators as intended. As explored throughout Chapter 6, the modelling concept of the Primary Goal advocated by Marshall (2014) offered a means to draw attention to significant system requirements. Via its inclusion within the Mk II Production Model and the Evaluation Model in Chapter 7, the Primary Requirement’s ability to draw attention to the collective purpose of lower-level System Requirements was highlighted alongside its ability to simplify system designs through the coalescing of more granular system requirements. The suitability of the standard and emerging Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling concepts to conceptualise, and then communicate the underpinnings of the animation environment along with character animation production process is of great significance to addressing the primary aim of this research. The flexible and explicit nature of these concepts along with their visualisation via a model that is alike to best-practice pipeline diagrams, positions Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling as a suitable theoretical and practical framework to conceptualise and communicate a breadth and depth of character animation concepts.

3) Emotional Requirements can be leveraged to define, communicate and evaluate an animated character’s emotional state explicitly.

The Emotional Goal was introduced as an emerging goal modelling concept that aimed to define the emotional response of system stakeholders. However the appropriation of this concept within Chapter 6 to model the emotional state of an animated character rather

253

than system stakeholders, offered a novel character animation perspective and application of this concept alongside the proposal and implementation of an Agent-Defined ‘Emotional’ System Requirement.

Though this perspective and modelling concept have undergone only initial and limited exploration within Chapter 7, they are one of the more interesting discoveries to emerge from this research. This is because they offer a unique angle in which to enter discourse that concerns character emotion within on-screen and off-screen applications such as animatronics and robotics (Costantini, De Gasperis, & Migliarini, 2019; Schofield, 2018), and the application of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling to communicate emotions within multiagent systems in accordance with works from Lopez-Lorca et al. (2014); Marshall (2018); Mendoza et al. (2013); Miller et al. (2015); Pedell et al. (2017); Sterling et al. (2018).

8.2.2 System design

1) Designing a system with fewer and simplified requirements can be as effective as a system design with a greater volume of specific requirements.

The Mk I system design featured two hundred and sixty-four system requirements. While shown throughout Chapter 5 as being able to unite these artistic and procedural concepts within a repeatable process, the system design was perceived as being overloaded. The simplification of the system design through the leveraging of Primary and Emotional System Requirements saw the Mk II system design composed of just eighty-one system requirements. As demonstrated throughout Chapter 7, this simplified design was also able to guide animators through a repeatable character animation production process.

While the repeatability of the Mk II system design further highlights the practicality of the Primary and Emotional modelling concepts, it also demonstrates the ability of a simplified system design to provide stakeholders with sufficient information to form context appropriate concrete actions. The simplified system design also suggests that a granular level of system modelling may not be necessary to communicate other animation-focused activities, and that simplification may instead encourage animators to look deeper into the modelled system requirements.

254

2) Greater emphasis on, and further exploration of quality-based requirements is needed.

While the functionality of the Mk I and Mk II system designs were able to guide animators through to stages of practical system completion, the attribute nature of Non- Functional ‘Quality’ and ‘Emotional’ System Requirements saw the achievement of these qualities to be the subject of compromise. Though it is not unusual or unexpected for quality to be conceded in order to fulfil the requirements of immovable deadlines, a greater balance of functional and quality completion should be desired within animation-based system designs. As identified throughout Chapter 2, character animation is foremost a visual practice that is underpinned by art and technology, and as such it should be important for system designers to acknowledge this within their designs. While the use of Primary and Non-Functional System Requirements present ways forward in the prioritisation and achievement of qualities, they are unlikely to be the only components of a solution. Although it would be an unorthodox perspective of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling and system design in general, system designers may wish to consider and explore the reversal of concept relationships, whereby Functional Requirements are positioned as attributes of Quality based requirements.

8.2.3 Evaluation

1) The meaningful evaluation of requirements is a matter of perspective and can have some subjective elements.

From the perspective of a system designer and/or animation pipeline engineer, the colour-coded evaluation of high-level Milestone Requirements (Functional System Requirements) should provide objective oversight of system progress and completion. However as demonstrated by the evaluation practices in Chapter 5 that used a ten-point colour scale, having a range of achievement was meaningful to summarise the attainment of a milestone’s functional and quality-based requirements to members of the Production Team. Though this approach was perhaps more practical on the ground, it appeared less meaningful in the identification of specific system successes and/or problems that a system designer or animation pipeline engineer may be interested in.

In Chapter 7 the evaluation of Primary Functional System Requirements and Primary Non-Functional System Requirements remained true to their objective and subjective foundations, whereby functional concepts were evaluated as being either complete or

255

incomplete, and quality concepts evaluated via a scale of four ranging from unachieved to achieved. While this practice appeared to indicate the successes and/or failures of individual system components better, the explicit separation of these requirements showed the potential to confuse an animator’s overall understanding of what achievement looked like. Their work may be incomplete but of a high-quality, for example, or complete but of a low or mixed quality or a combination thereof.

As discovered throughout this project, if evaluations are to be meaningful to the system’s stakeholders the perspective/s of evaluation should be clearly defined. Given this, it would be advisable for future system designers, particularly when designing animation systems, to question the purpose of requirement evaluation, who the evaluation is for, how they will use or learn from the evaluation throughout the system’s lifecycle, even if it were to mean challenging the definitions that have been established around the evaluation of different requirements types.

2) The range of the colour-coded achievement scale impacts on perceptions of the system’s expected standards and their achievement.

As identified during the review of the Mk I Production Model’s evaluation practices in Chapter 5, the one to ten range of the colour coded achievement scale appeared to provide stakeholders with an unrealistic sense of the system’s overall expectation of quality. An evaluation that fell just within the green-zone of the scale, for example, may have suggested that the requirement was achieved to the project’s expectations where green was good enough. Deployment of the revised scale in Chapter 7 that ranged in value from one to four featured only one green value, and appeared to create clearer perceptions across stakeholders of when a quality requirement was achieved to the expected standard.

From the work undertaken it is now apparent that the range of the in-model colour coded achievement scale is an important aspect in the communication of what is or is not an acceptable standard of requirement achievement. While a broader range may be suitable for a variety of situations, it appears that a narrow range of achievement enables a more realistic perception of achievement, particularly within a system designed to build and refine the output quality of an animated character/s progressively.

256

3) Requirements can be clarified through the use of an explicit two-way evaluation model and process.

As highlighted in Chapter 2.4 the evaluation of character animation is predominately a top-down process with appraisal carried out by senior project stakeholders, where feedback is often challenging to interpret and/or understand. The sweatbox process deployed throughout the Mk I Production Model followed this traditional approach, with in- person and in-the-moment appraisal of requirements handed down from members of the Project’s Leadership Team to Animators. The structure of this process also caused delay (in the sum of hours) before the Leadership Team could update and distribute the project’s overarching Production Model back to Animators. The conceptualisation of the Evaluation Model in Chapter 6.3 and its application throughout Chapter 7 demonstrated the immediacy of feedback and clarity that can be had between stakeholders during sweatbox, when using the Evaluation Model as a means to record and structure appraisal.

This knowledge of how the evaluation process can be facilitated will be important for developing stakeholder perceptions around system requirements and their achievement, while also offering system designers a more efficient and targeted means of facilitating social interactions and negotiations between agents. Further to these practice-based benefits, the vehicle of the Evaluation Model will facilitate researchers in efficiently gathering evaluation data from multiple participants, for example, animators and directors, via a method that can be meaningfully embedded as part of practice as opposed to other methods that may be considered secondary to a participant’s principal objectives.

The research undertaken throughout this thesis aimed to make the knowledge and practices that underpin the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation explicit and sharable to aspiring character animators. In light of the findings discussed above, this research has established that the Agent-Oriented Software Engineering theoretical framework, inclusive of the Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling method and its modelling concepts, can be leveraged to make the knowledge and practices that underpin the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation explicit. This research has also demonstrated that the use of agent-oriented Goal Models, as a shared communication artefact within the animation environment, can be drawn upon to determine concrete actions, communicate process, achievement and explicit expectations of quality to aspiring character animators. The next section details how the research performed and findings, make original and substantial contributions to theory and practice.

257

8.3 Contributions to theory and practice

8.3.1 Contributions to animation

As discussed in the early stages of Chapter 2, the field of animation lacks formal definition (B. Wells, 2011). While this may be a challenging concept for some fields, the animation community celebrates the breadth and diversity of unique perspectives, processes, styles and techniques as means to develop new and interesting discourse, methods and outcomes that propel the area forward. In the opening address of the journal Animation Practice, Process & Production, editor, P. Wells states that “the idea behind this journal, then, is to find some pertinent methods, approaches and (visual) languages to readily engage with and reveal animation practice” (2011).

In this light, the work undertaken within and throughout the entirety of this thesis contributes to the ongoing development and expansion of animation. It does this through the offering of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering as novel framework in which to view and discuss animation concepts, and Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling as a method in which to conceptualise, harmonise and communicate animation knowledge with a particular focus towards three-dimensional computer assisted character animation production processes.

The work within this thesis also contributes a new approach to the communication of character animation process to aspiring animators, which White (2012b) highlights as lacking within the literature:

Before you can tackle animation in any serious way, you need to understand the process and principles involved. The actual ‘process’ of animation (i.e., the way the animator actually approaches the creation of scene) is hardly ever mentioned in literature on the subject, but is extremely important, especially if character animation is your goal (p. 2).

As discussed throughout Chapter 2.2, White (2012b) and others have, in their individual ways, passed-down detailed knowledge of character animation processes. Even so, their textual communications of process knowledge are often long, ambiguous and typically require the use of illustrative works to show quality-based concepts. In comparison with these works, the Goal Models produced throughout this thesis demonstrate that processes for creating character animation, specifically three-dimensional computer assisted

258

character animation, can be communicated with depth via the use of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling and its simple and explicit language concepts.

As well as to the contributions of a new language that leverages requirements and goal models to communicate the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation, the work within this thesis also offers a new technique to augment the learning and teaching of character animation practice and process. As highlighted in Chapter 2.5, the conventional method of learning character animation practice and process is the apprenticeship, where craft knowledge and skills are developed and refined over time under the mentorship of a more experienced character animator. As demonstrated throughout the evaluation of the Mk I and Mk II Production Models in Chapters 5 and 7, experienced animation practitioners assumed leadership or mentor roles within the animation environments. In these roles the experienced animators also positioned the models, including the Evaluation Model, as adjuncts to direct discussions of practice, process and achievement.

8.3.2 Contributions to agent-oriented software engineering and goal modelling

The work undertaken throughout this thesis contributes to the application of Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) theoretical framework of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, specifically through the novel adaption and demonstration of their theoretical concepts to contextualise components and interactions within the three-dimensional computer animation environment. Further to expanding the application area, the conceptual and applied Goal Modelling work evidenced within this thesis extends the reach of Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling method from the areas of software engineering and design (Burrows et al., 2019; Mayasari & Pedell, 2017; Pedell et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2018; Sterling et al., 2019), to now include animation, and more specifically the design of the three-dimensional computer assisted character animation production systems.

As discussed in Chapter 3, an advantage of Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) perspective of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering is that it considers non-functional concepts within the design and construction of multiagent software systems (p. 27). While undertaking the initial investigations within this thesis, their theoretical framework and Agent- Oriented Goal Modelling method was extended via the introduction of the Primary Goal and Emotional Goal modelling concepts by Marshall (2014). The conceptual work within Chapter

259

6 furthers use-cases of Emotional Goals within multiagent systems, with the concept transitioned from being a Goal within the Motivation Layer of Sterling and Taveter’s (2009) multi-layered conceptual space (pp. 27-28), into an explicit Non-Functional System Requirement within the System Design Layer of multi-layered conceptual space. Finally, the contextualisation and application of this concept to define the emotional state of an animated character has extended and will challenge current understandings of the Emotional Goal, that so far appears to have only been leveraged to identify how a system’s stakeholder or user should feel or not feel while interacting with the system (Burrows et al., 2019; Curumsing et al., 2014; Lopez-Lorca et al., 2014; Mayasari & Pedell, 2017; Miller et al., 2015; Pedell et al., 2017; Sterling et al., 2019).

8.4 Considerations for future research

The research presented throughout this thesis has enabled new and innovative insights to emerge in regard to the simple and explicit communication of character animation practice and process, and resulted in usable techniques. The following provides a critique of the overall research performed, and where applicable recommendations of how to address these shortcomings.

1) Foundations for system design

The design of the Mk I and Mk II Production systems along with their Goal Models were developed using requirements drawn out from Pixar’s (2011) public facing promotion of their digital animation process, and a sample of publications from professional character animators (Luhta, 2009; Roy, 2012; Lasseter, 1987). While these resources were able to deliver a sufficient depth of practice-based knowledge to move forward with research, it did mean that perspectives of character animation included within the system designs were limited. From a research perspective the few sources were sufficient to support the development of the systems, findings and new knowledge claimed within this thesis. Even so, prior to undertaking future theory-confirming studies, it would be advisable to broaden the sample rate and types of perspectives to include proprietary knowledge and processes. Such perspectives could include those elicited from observational studies within animation studios, and/or from interviews with a range of skilled professionals such as junior, mid-level and senior-level character animators.

260

2) System and requirement context

The applications of the Mk I and Mk II Production Models were accompanied by oral and written briefings that aimed to provide study participants (animators) with context for how to use and interpret the Goal Models and their modelling concepts. The scope and intentions behind both models’ high-level requirements were not disclosed to the animators for the concern that individual perceptions of what requirements were asking, or what they looked like once achieved may have become distorted. Though this approach enabled requirement clarity and system design to be researched, had definitions of high-level requirements been provided to all project stakeholders a greater and shared understanding of system purpose and project expectations may have been developed.

3) Selection of participants

Participants within the Mk I and Mk II system studies were students enrolled within design focused undergraduate units of study. While these units of study accommodated learning relevant to the production of three-dimensional character animation, they were not specific to this topic and included other study opportunities in areas such as storytelling, conceptual art, game design, character design and technical development/character rigging. In the Mk I study only students with an interest in pursuing character animation studies were recruited as participants, whereas all students enrolled within the Mk II study’s unit of study were engaged as participants in accordance with their coursework requirements. It is foreseeable that not all Mk I and Mk II study participants were aspiring character animators, and may have been undertaking study for general knowledge and/or to further general computer animation skills and abilities. Regardless of their intentions, the selection of participants meant the pool of knowledge was reasonable similar across both studies, and from a research perspective were sufficient to support findings and claims made within this thesis. For future studies of the production system design, to strengthen engagement and data quality it would be advisable to recruit students and/or early career professionals who have a specific outlook on performing the role of a three-dimensional computer assisted character animator as participants.

261

4) Data collection and analysis

Data collection and its analysis was undertaken using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, these included:

 Model Design: qualitative based analysis, elicitation and contextualisation of animation practice and process requirements;  Mk I Model Study: structured approach to the generation of qualitative Model evaluation data, a questionnaire composed of structured and semi-structured questions, and the qualitative and quantitative analysis of model evaluation and questionnaire data; and  Mk II Model Study: structured approach to the generation of qualitative model evaluation data, and quantitative analysis of Model evaluation data.

The aim of the data collected and analysed in the Mk I model (Chapter 5) and Mk II model (Chapter 7) studies was not to test specific outcomes (such as performance or quality of design), but to evaluate the usefulness of an initial framework. The research conducted in the study environments, small sample sizes and work performed by participants introduced a complex set of variables. The quantitative analysis undertaken throughout these Chapters was of an explorative nature, and supported the development of insights into the clarity and consistency of system requirements. Though these studies were not concerned with variable testing using statistical measures, future work that explores specific aspects of the model, system design and/or its deployment could benefit from statistical testing and analysis.

While the use of mixed methods has enabled the development of many insights and supported statements made throughout this thesis, an independent second researcher would have strengthened the credibility of findings and conclusions via the triangulation of analysis (Jick, 1979; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Prior to undertaking any future theory- confirming studies, the benefits of more formalised data collection and analysis methods should be considered.

262

8.5 Future research directions

Throughout the course of exploring the synthesis of Animation, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering and Goal Modelling, future research directions became apparent. This section presents some potential directions for future research that could build upon this thesis.

8.5.1 Expansion of the digital animation system

Chapter 4.2 demonstrated the development of an overarching Digital Animation System and Goal Model based on Pixar’s (2011) high-level animation process and Screen Skill’s (2011) list of common roles within three-dimensional computer animation. While this Digital Animation System and Goal Model served as a foundation for the design and modelling of the Mk I and Mk II Production systems, other stages and activities within the overarching system were not explored. Building on the work within this thesis, a comprehensive model of the Digital Animation System that includes the other stages of Development, Pre-Production and Post-Production could be undertaken.

8.5.2 Application to other styles and methods

The conceptual perspectives and modelling practices discussed throughout this research were specific to three-dimensional computer animation, and could be applied to the modelling of other animation methods including traditional animation, two-dimensional computer animation and stop-motion animation. These conceptual perspectives and practices could also be extended to other styles and forms of character and/or non-character animation within gaming, mixed reality, and simulation across the broader fields of health, science and engineering.

8.5.3 Modelling of character emotion

The work undertaken within Chapter 6 and 7 regarding the modelling of an animated character’s emotional state via the Emotional Requirement was preliminary. There is future research to be undertaken in the development, testing and refinement of this concept and the character-focused perspective offered within this thesis. Future work could explore how this requirement can be better integrated and evaluated within system designs and models, the relationship between the modelling of an animated character’s emotions and those of

263

system stakeholders and audiences, and the development of an explicit lexicon to communicate character emotion best.

8.5.4 Quality driven system modelling

The system design and modelling work undertaken throughout this thesis took an orthodox function-first approach to the design and modelling of systems, whereby notions of quality were established as attributes of system functionality. It was also highlighted that character animation is a creative practice that embodies mostly quality-driven outcomes. Though it would be unorthodox, future research could investigate the design and development of a quality-first modelling approach where functions are perceived as attributes of quality-based concepts and system requirements.

8.5.5 Evaluation practice and process

As demonstrated throughout Chapter 5 and 7 the evaluation practices and processes deployed alongside the Mk I and Mk II Production Models had evolved, with intentions to improve stakeholders’ understanding of system requirements and their achievements. There is future research to be undertaken around the refinement and testing of evaluation practices and process, such as: how the colours and range of the colour-coded achievement scale impacts on perceptions of quality expectations and their achievement, the development of explicit criteria for the achievement of quality-based concepts, and how other methods of assessment may be more or less beneficial than current practice.

8.6 Concluding comments

As demonstrated within Chapter 2 of this thesis, the production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation is a complex and multi-domain practice. Importantly, investigation into this practice highlighted that its deep artistic, technical and procedural knowledge is challenging to communicate and to make understandable to aspiring character animators. Further to this, it was argued the area of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering promotes perspectives and techniques to simplify the communication of complex environments and systems comprised of social and technological interactions.

264

The starting point for this research was to explore the conceptual and practical potential of Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling as both a method and system design technique to reconcile, and then communicate character animation knowledge using explicit concepts and language within a Goal Model. Through this and iteration of the Goal Model it was found that explicit system design techniques that consider notions of functionality and quality, present a way forward in clarifying and communicating the interplay of character animation’s artistic, technical and procedural knowledge to emerging character animators.

The work in this thesis has shown that Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling, as a novel method for conceptualising and viewing character animation knowledge and process, extends the conventional master and apprentice and pipeline model methods of communicating practice, through the explicit representation and harmonisation of tacit knowledge and practical techniques. Through its application and adaption within the animation production environment, Agent-Oriented Goal Modelling offers a new framework and method for the design, communication and production of three-dimensional computer assisted character animation.

265

References

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (1988). Academy Awards Database: Short Film (Animated) - Tin Toy. Retrieved from http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=131266 8886893

Autodesk. (2018). Menus and menu sets. Retrieved from https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/maya/learn- explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2018/ENU/Maya-Basics/files/GUID-D90A2BDB- FD05-4528-8A95-C33A02D15129-htm.html

Baisley, S. (2003). Insight to Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.awn.com/animationworld/insight-innovation

Bates, J. (1994). The Role of Emotion in Believable Agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122-125.

Bell, E., Haas, L., & Sells, L. (1995). From mouse to mermaid: The politics of film, gender, and culture: Indiana University Press.

Bird, B. (Director), & Walker, J. (Producer). (2004). The Incredibles [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar Animation Studios.

Blair, P. (1994). Cartoon Animation: Walter Foster.

Blaise, A. (2018). Acting for Animation - Intro and Change of Attitude. Acting for Animation Course. https://creatureartteacher.com/.

Bogdanoff, M., & Bogdanoff, A. The Eleven Second Club - Resources. Retrieved from http://www.11secondclub.com/resources

Bousquet, M. (2016). Physics for animators. New York: RC Press.

Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi- Agent Systems, 8, 203-236.

Brinkmann, R. (2008). The art and science of digital compositing: techniques for visual effects, animation and motion graphics: Morgan Kaufmann.

Buck, C., & Lee, J. (Directors), & Del Vecho, P. (Producer). (2013). Frozen [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.

Burrows, R., Lopez-Lorca, A., Sterling, L., Miller, T., Mendoza, A., & Pedell, S. (2019). Motivational Modelling in Software for Homelessness: Lessons from an Industrial Study. RE 2019. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE 27th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). Jeju Island, South Korea.

Burtnyk, N., & Wein, M. (1971). Computer-generated key-frame animation. Journal of the SMPTE, 80(3), 149-153.

266

Byun, D. J., Falt, H., Frost, B., Ali, M., Daniels, E., Mund, P. D., & Kaschalk, M. (2015). Procedural animation technology behind microbots in Big Hero 6. Xroads of Discovery. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2015 Talks, Los Angeles, California.

Cameron, J. (Director), & Landau, J., & Cameron, J. (Producers). (2009). Avatar [Motion picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox.

Catmull, E. (1972). A system for computer generated movies. Proceedings of the ACM annual conference - Volume 1, 422-431, Boston, Massachusetts.

Catmull, E. (1978). The problems of computer-assisted animation. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 12(3), 348-353. doi:10.1145/965139.807414

Catmull, E. (1979). New Frontiers in Computer Animation. American Cinematographer, 60(10), 1000-1003,1049-1053.

Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity. Harvard Business Review, Septemeber 2008, 1-11.

Cernuzzi, L., Juan, T., Sterling, L., & Zambonelli, F. (2004). The gaia methodology. In Methodologies and software engineering for agent systems (pp. 69-88). Springer, Boston, MA.

Chapman, B., Wells, S., & Hickner, S. (Directors), & Finkelman Cox, P., & Rabins, S. (Producers). (1998). The Prince of Egypt [Motion picture]. United States: DreamWorks Animation.

Cholodenko, A. (1991). The Illusion of life: Essays on animation. University of Sydney. Power Institute of Fine Arts.

Chong, A. (2008). Digital animation. Lausanne: Worthing. AVA Academia.

Cohen, K. (2000). Milestones of the Animation Industry in the 20th Century. Retrieved from https://www.awn.com/animationworld/milestones-animation-industry-20th-century

Costantini, S., De Gasperis, G., & Migliarini, P. (2019). Multi-agent System Engineering for Emphatic Human-Robot Interaction. IEEE AIKE 2019. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering (AIKE), Cagliari, Italy.

Crafton, D. (2011). The Veiled Genealogies of Animation and Cinema. Animation, 6(2), 93- 110. doi:10.1177/1746847711404979

Cronan, S. (2014). 5th Kind and Marvel: How studios increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve quality of content and products. Journal of Digital Media Management, 3(3), 222-229.

Cruz Ruiz, A. L., Pontonnier, C., Pronost, N., & Dumont, G. (2017). Muscle-Based Control for Character Animation. Computer Graphics Forum, 36(6), 122-147. doi:10.1111/cgf.12863

267

Curtin, M., & Vanderhoef, J. (2015). A vanishing piece of the Pi: The globalization of visual effects labor. Television & New Media, 16(3), 219-239.

Curumsing, M. K., Pedell, S., & Vasa, R. (2014). Designing an Evaluation Tool to Measure Emotional Goals. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming (IJPOP), 3(1), 22-43. doi:10.4018/ijpop.2014010102

Dai, P., Mahi, N., Earls, J., & Norta, A. (2017). Smart-contract value-transfer protocols on a distributed mobile application platform. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314190216_Smart-Contract_Value- Transfer_Protocols_on_a_Distributed_Mobile_Application_Platform

Disney, W., & Iwerks, U. (Directors), & R. Disney & W. Disney (Producers). (1928). Steamboat Willie [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Studios.

Docter, P. (Director), & Rivera, J. (Producer). (2015). Inside Out [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar Animation Studios.

DreamWorks Animation SKG. (2019). Technical Director Job. Retrieved from https://www.creativeheads.net/job/4610/technical-director-in-glendale

DreamWorks Feature Animation. (2019). Animator. Retrieved from https://sjobs.brassring.com/TGnewUI/Search/home/HomeWithPreLoad?partnerid=25 354&siteid=5108&PageType=JobDetails&jobid=465185&codes=AD007#jobDetails=4 65185_5108

Electronic Arts. (2019). Character Animator at Electronic Arts. Retrieved from https://ea.gr8people.com/index.gp?opportunityID=157399&method=cappportal.show Job

Elliot, A. (Director), & Coombs, M. (Producer). (2009). Mary and Max [Motion picture]. Australia: Melodrama Pictures.

Failes, I. (2018). Method Studios: Building a global network with a boutique spirit. Retrieved from http://vfxvoice.com/method-studios-building-a-global-network-with-a-boutique- spirit/

Falk, R., Minter, D., Vernon, C., Aretos, G., Modesto, L., Lamorlette, A., . . . Max, H. (2004). Art-directed technology: anatomy of a Shrek2 sequence. SIGGRAPH 2004. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Course Notes, Los Angeles, CA.

Favreau, J. (Director), & Favreau, J., Silver, J., & Gilchrist, K. (Producers). (2019). The Lion King [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Pictures.

Flueckiger, B. (2011). Computer-generated characters in Avatar and Benjamin Button. Digitalitat und Kino. Translation from German by B. Letzler, 1.

Flying Bark Productions. (2019). 3D Animator - Expressions of Interest. Retrieved from https://www.flyingbark.com.au/workwithus?p=job%2FoLn29fw3

Foley, J. D., Van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K., Hughes, J. F., & Phillips, R. L. (1994). Introduction to computer graphics (Vol. 55): Addison-Wesley Reading.

Fredin, N. (2018). The Game Design Pipeline. Retrieved from https://www.cgspectrum.edu.au/blog/the-game-design-pipeline/

268

Ftrack. (2019). Ftrack Features – Planning, Production tracking, Review & Approval. Retrieved from https://www.ftrack.com/en/features#production-tracking

Glebas, F. (2012). The Animator's Eye: Adding Life to Animation with Timing, Layout, Design, Color and Sound. Focal Press.

Glebas, F. (2013). The Animator's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Animation. Taylor & Francis.

Goldberg, E. (2008). Character Animation Crash Course! Los Angeles, CA. Silman-James Press.

Gortler, S. J. (2012). Foundations of 3D Computer Graphics. Cambridge. MIT Press.

Gracer, F., & Blasgen, M. (1971). KARMA: a system for storyboard animation. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 5(1), 26-36. doi:10.1145/988638.988639

Haas, J.-D. Animation Buffet. Retrieved from www.animationbuffet.blogspot.com

Hahn, D. (2008). The Alchemy of Animation: Making an Animated Film in the Modern Age. Disney Editions.

Hand, D., Cottrell, W., Jackson, W., Morey, L., Pearce, P., & Sharpsteen, B. (Directors), & W. Disney (Producer). (1937). Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Productions.

Hecker, C., Raabe, B., Enslow, R. W., DeWeese, J., Maynard, J., & Prooijen, K. v. (2008). Real-time motion retargeting to highly varied user-created morphologies. ACM Trans. Graph., 27(3), 1-11. doi:10.1145/1360612.1360626

Henne, M., Hickel, H., Johnson, E., & Konishi, S. (1996). The making of Toy Story. COMPCON’96. Paper presented at the COMPCON'96. Technologies for the Information Superhighway Digest of Papers, Santa Clara, CA.

Hogg, T. (2019). Taking on the ‘Lion’s’ Share of the Work. Retrieved from https://www.awn.com/vfxworld/taking-lions-share-work

Honthaner, E. L. (2010). The complete film production handbook (4th ed.). Burlington, MA.

Hooks, E. (2010). Welcome to Ed Hooks – Acting for Animators. Retrieved from https://www.awn.com/blog/welcome-ed-hooks-acting-animators

Hooks, E. (2011). Acting for Animators (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Industrial Light and Magic. (2019). Animator Sydney, Australia at Lucasfilm. Retrieved from https://jobs.disneycareers.com/job/sydney/animator-sydney-australia/391/13541298

Internet Movie Database. (2016a). Eric Luhta. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1628742/

Internet Movie Database. (2016b). Kenny Roy. Retrieved from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1636619/#animation_department

269

Jackson, P. (Director). (2001). B. Osborne, P. Jackson, F. Walsh, & T. Sanders (Producers). The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring [Motion picture]. New Zealand: WingNut Films.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.

Juan, T., Pearce, A., & Sterling, L. (2002). ROADMAP: extending the gaia methodology for complex open systems. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1 (pp. 3-10).

Kaminka, G., & Tambe, M. (2000). Robust Agent Teams via Socially-Attentive Monitoring. Journal Of Artificial Intelligence Research, 12, 105-147. doi: 10.1613/jair.682

Karg, M., Samadani, A.-A., Gorbet, R., Kühnlenz, K., Hoey, J., & Kulić, D. (2013). Body movements for affective expression: A survey of automatic recognition and generation. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 4(4), 341-359.

Karwatka, D. (2008). Walt Disney and his multiplane motion picture camera. Tech Directions, 67(6), 10-11.

Kelly, S. (2008). Animation Tips & Tricks, Vol. 1. Retrieved from http://www.animationmentor.com/resources/ebooks/

Kelly, S., Baena, C., Sintay, K., Gilman, A., & Gilbert, W. (2009). Animation Tips & Tricks, Vol. 2. Retrieved from http://www.animationmentor.com/resources/ebooks/

Kerlow, I. V. (2004). The art of 3-D computer animation and effects (3rd ed.). Hoboken, N.J. John Wiley & Sons.

Kerlow, I. V. (2009). The art of 3-D computer animation and effects (4th ed.). Hoboken, N.J. John Wiley & Sons.

Khan Academy. (2015). Pixar in a Box | Welcome to Pixar in a Box. Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar/start/introduction/v/pipeline- video

Khapugin, E., & Grishanin, A. (2019). Physics-based character animation with cascadeur. Thrive SIGGRAPH 2019. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2019 Studio, Los Angeles, CA.

Kähler, K. (2012). 3D Facial Animation: Recreating human heads with virtual skin, bones, and muscles: AV Akademikerverlag.

Kuan, P. P, Karunasekera, S. & Sterling, L. (2005). Improving goal and role oriented analysis for agent based systems. 2005 Australian Software Engineering Conference, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 40-47, doi: 10.1109/ASWEC.2005.27.

Lapouchnian, A. (2005). Goal-oriented requirements engineering: An overview of the current research. University of Toronto, 32.

Lasseter, J. (1987). Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer animation. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 21(4), 35-44. doi:10.1145/37402.37407

270

Lasseter, J. (Director), & Reeves, W. (Producer). (1988). Tin Toy [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar Animation Studios.

Lasseter, J. (Director), & Guggenheim, R., & Arnold, B. (Producers). (1995). Toy Story [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar Animation Studios.

Lasseter, J. (Director), & Anderson, D. & Reher, K. (Producers). (1998). A Bug's Life [Motion picture]. United States: Pixar Animation Studios.

Lasseter, J. (2001). Tricks to animating characters with a computer. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics (ACM Digital Library), 35(2), 45-47.

Lasseter, J., & Ranft, J. (Directors), & Anderson, D. (Producer). (2006). Cars [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Pictures & Pixar Animation Studios.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: a call for data analysis triangulation. School psychology quarterly, 22(4), 557.

Leslie Iwerks Productions. (2008). Pixar University [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Pictures & Pixar Animation Studios.

Levoy, M. (1977). A color animation system: based on the multiplane technique. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics. Proceedings of the ACM annual conference - Volume 11, 65-71.

Levy, D. B. (2010). Directing Animation. Allworth Press.

Lopez-Lorca, A. A., Miller, T., Pedell, S., Sterling, L., & Curumsing, M. K. (2014). Modelling Emotional Requirements. Retrieved from http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/tmiller/pubs/modelling-emotional-requirements.pdf

Lord, P., & Sibley, B. (2010). Cracking animation (4th ed.). London. Thames & Hudson.

Luhta, E. (2009). How to Cheat in Maya 2010: Tools and Techniques for the Maya Animator. Burlington, Vt. Elsevier.

Luhta, E., & Roy, K. (2013). How to cheat in Maya 2012: Tools and Techniques for Character Animation. Waltham, MA. Focal Press.

Luma Pictures. (2019). Animator. Retrieved from https://jobs.lever.co/lumapictures/7a385dd7-d9a1-4433-920b-d1ac7eb9067d?lever- source=Indeed

Marshall, J. (2011). Redisgned Agent-Oriented Goal Model notations based on Sterling and Taveter (2009, p. 67). Swinburne University of Technology. Unpublished.

Marshall, J. (2014). Agent-Based Modelling of Emotional Goals in Digital Media Design Projects. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming (IJPOP), 3(1), 44-59.

Marshall, J. (2018). Agent-Based Modelling of Emotional Goals in Digital Media Design Projects. Innovative Methods, User-Friendly Tools, Coding, and Design Approaches in People-Oriented Programming (pp. 262-284). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Matarazzo, V. (2016). What is animation? The 'Six Blind Men and an Elephant' conundrum. Animation Practice, Process & Production, 5(1), 15-38. doi:10.1386/ap3.5.1.15_1

271

Maurer, T., Elagin, E. V., Nocera, L. P. A., Steffens, J. B., & Neven, H. (2001). Wavelet- based facial motion capture for avatar animation [Patent]. Google Patents.

Mayasari, A., & Pedell, S. (2017). Pictorial Language: A bridge to meaningful conversation between grandparent and adolescent grandchildren. DESIGN4HEALTH 17. Paper presented at the DESIGN4HEALTH 2017 conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Menache, A. (2011). Understanding motion capture for computer animation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam. Elsevier.

Mendoza, A., Miller, T., Pedell, S., & Sterling, L. (2013). The role of users’ emotions and associated quality goals on appropriation of systems: two case studies. Transforming the Future. Paper presented at the 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, Australia. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Mill Film. (2019). 3D Animator at Technicolor. Retrieved from https://careers.technicolor.com/job/new-york/3d-animator/3488/3978140?mode= job&iis=Indeed&iisn=Indeed.com

Miller, T., Lu, B., Sterling, L., Beydoun, G., & Taveter, K. (2014). Requirements elicitation and specification using the agent paradigm: the case study of an aircraft turnaround simulator. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(10), 1007-1024.

Miller, T., Pedell, S., Mendoza, A., Sterling, L., Keirnan, A., & Lopez-Lorca, A. A. (2015). Emotion-led modelling for people-oriented requirements engineering: the case study of emergency systems, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 105 (Jul 2015), pp. 54-71.

Miller, T., Pedell, S., Sterling, L., & Lu, B. (2011). Engaging stakeholders with agent-oriented requirements modelling. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XI (pp. 62-78). Springer.

Moore, S., & Wells, P. (2016). Fundamentals of Animation 2nd ed. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Murdock, K., Allen, E., Fong, J., & Sidwell, A. G. (2008). Body Language: Advanced 3D Character Rigging. Chichester, GB. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Newton, I. (1833). Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (Vol. 1). excudit G. Brookman; impensis T. T. et J. Tegg, Londini, 1833.

O'Rourke, M. (2003). Principles of three-dimensional computer animation: modeling, rendering, and animating with 3D computer graphics. WW Norton & Company.

Okun, J. A., & Zwerman, S. (2010). The VES handbook of visual effects: industry standard VFX practices and procedures. Focal Press.

Orvalho, V., Bastos, P., Parke, F. I., Oliveira, B., & Alvarez, X. (2012). A Facial Rigging Survey. Paper presented at Eurographics (STARs) the 33rd Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics, Cagliari, Italy.

Osborn, K. (2015). Cartoon Character Animation With Maya. Beaverton, Ore: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

272

Owens, J. (2017). Game vs. Film Animation with Riot’s Senior Character Animator Alex Lehmann. Retrieved from Game vs. Film Animation with Riot’s Senior Character Animator Alex Lehmann website: https://blog.animationmentor.com/game-vs-film- animation-with-riots-senior-character-animator-alex-lehmann/

Paay, J., Sterling, L., Pedell, S., Vetere, F., & Howard, S. (2018). Interdisciplinary Design Teams Translating Ethnographic Field Data Into Design Models: Communicating Ambiguous Concepts Using Quality Goals. In Innovative Methods, User-Friendly Tools, Coding, and Design Approaches in People-Oriented Programming (pp. 226- 261). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Paay, J., Sterling, L., Vetere, F., Howard, S., & Boettcher, A. (2009). Engineering the social: The role of shared artifacts. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 67(5), 437-454. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.12.002 Parent, R. (2012). Computer animation: algorithms and techniques. Newnes.

Parent, R., Ebert, D. S., Gould, D., Gross, M., Kazmier, C., Lumsden, C. J., . . . Musgrave, F. K. (2009). Computer animation complete: all-in-one: learn motion capture, characteristic, point-based, and Maya winning techniques. Burlington, Mass: Morgan Kaufmann.

Parker, L. (1993). Designing control laws for cooperative agent teams. Proceedings IEEE International Conference On Robotics And Automation. doi: 10.1109/robot.1993.291842

Patterson, J. W., & Willis, P. J. (1994). Computer Assisted Animation: 2D or not 2D? The Computer Journal, 37(10), 829-839. doi:10.1093/comjnl/37.10.829

Pauli, G. (2006a). The King of Hearts / El Rey de Corazones. Zeri. Fondo Editorial Grania Fundacion; Bilingual edition.

Pauli, G. (2006b). The Strongest Tree / El árbol más fuerte. Zeri. Fondo Editorial Grania Fundacion; Bilingual edition.

Pauli, G. (2007). The Zebra Aircon / El Ventilador de Las Cebras. Zeri. Fondo Editorial Grania Fundacion; Bilingual edition.

Pedell, S., Keirnan, A., Priday, G., Miller, T., Mendoza, A., Lopez-Lorca, A., & Sterling, L. (2017). Methods for Supporting Older Users in Communicating Their Emotions at Different Phases of a Living Lab Project. Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7, no. 2 (Feb 2017), pp. 7-19

Perry, T. S. (2016). February 2016 Tech Review. Retrieved from https://www.animationmagazine.net/technology/february-2016-tech-review/

Pesapane, A. (Director), & Phelps, S. & Pesapane, A. (Producers). (2010). The Deep [Motion picture]. United States.

Pixar. (2011). How We Do It: The Pixar Process. Retrieved from http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html

Porter, T. (1997). Creating lifelike characters in Toy Story. SIGART Bull., 8(1-4), 10-14. doi:10.1145/272874.272876

273

Porter, T., & Duff, T. (1984). Compositing digital images. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 18(3), 253-259. doi:10.1145/964965.808606

Porter, T., & Susman, G. (2000). On site: creating lifelike characters in Pixar movies. Commun. ACM, 43(1), 25. doi:10.1145/323830.323839

Ramsey, P., Persichetti, B., & Rothman, R. (Directors), A. Arad, A. Pascal, P. Lord, C. Miller, C. Steinberg (Producers). (2018). Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse [Motion picture]. United States: Sony Pictures Animation.

Reeves, W. T. (1981). Inbetweening for computer animation utilizing moving point constraints. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 15(3), 263-269.

Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 21(4), 25-34. doi:10.1145/37402.37406

Roberts, S. (2011). Character Animation Fundamentals: Developing Skills for 2D and 3D Character Animation. Taylor & Francis.

Ronald, N., Sterling, L., & Kirley, M. (2007). An agent-based approach to modelling pedestrian behaviour. International journal of Simulation, 8(1), 25-38.

Roy, K. (2012). Simplified Workflow Checklist. Retrieved from www.kennyroy.com/public/WorkflowChecklist.pdf

Roy, K. (2013). How to Cheat in Maya 2014. N.Y. Focal Press.

Sarto, D. (2018). Creating A Stylized Universe for Sony’s ‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider- Verse’. Retrieved from https://www.awn.com/animationworld/creating-stylized- universe-sonys-spider-man-spider-verse

Scanlon, D. (Director), & Rae, K. (Producer). (2013). Monsters University [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Pictures & Pixar Animation Studios.

Schleifer, J. (2011a). Animation Quality vs Quantity - Intent. Retrieved from http://jasonschleifer.com/2011/05/20/animation-quality-vs-quantity-intent/

Schleifer, J. (2011b). Animation Quality vs. Quantity – the great debate! Retrieved from http://jasonschleifer.com/2011/05/16/animation-quality-vs-quantity-the-great-debate/

Schleifer, J. (2011c). Animation Quality vs. Quantity – What about Quality?! Retrieved from http://jasonschleifer.com/2011/05/17/animation-quality-vs-quantity-what-about- quality/

Schmid, J., Sumner, R. W., Bowles, H., & Gross, M. H. (2010). Programmable motion effects. ACM Trans. Graph., 29(4), 57:51-57:59.

Schofield, D. (2018). Digital Emotion: How Audiences React to Robots on Screen. International Journal of Computer Applications, 5(1), 1-20.

ScreenSkills. (2019). Animator - ScreenSkills. Retrieved from https://www.screenskills.com/careers/job-profiles/animation/production/animator/

Selby, A. (2013). Animation. London. Laurence King Publishing.

274

Sharma, S., Otunba, S., & Han, J. (2011). Crowd simulation in emergency aircraft evacuation using virtual reality. In 2011 16th International Conference on Computer Games (CGAMES) (pp. 12-17). IEEE.

Shotgun. (2019a). Shotgun Software - Features. Retrieved from https://www.shotgunsoftware.com/features/

Shotgun. (2019b). Shotgun Support - Statuses. Retrieved from https://support.shotgunsoftware.com/hc/en-us/articles/219030978-Statuses

SkillSet. (2007). Careers in Animation. Retrieved from http://www.skillset.org/animation/careers/

SkillSet. (2011). Jobs in Computer Animation. Retrieved from http://www.skillset.org/animation/careers/3D_computer/

Solomon, C. (1989). Enchanted drawings: The history of animation. Alfred A. Knopf.

Sony Pictures Imageworks. (2019). Animator. Retrieved from https://www.imageworks.com/job-postings/3 Stadermann, A. (Director). (2014). B. Stephen & T. Wegener (Producers). Maya The Bee [Motion picture]. Australia: Flying Bark Productions.

Stanchfield, W. (2009). Drawn to life: Volume 1: 20 golden years of Disney master classes. Taylor & Francis.

Stanchfield, W. (2012). Drawn to Life: Volume 2: 20 golden years of Disney master classes. Taylor & Francis.

Stanton, A., & Unkrich, L. (Directors) & Walters, G. (Producer). (2003). Finding Nemo [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Pictures & Pixar Animation Studios.

Sterling, L., Burrows, R., Barnet, B., Taffe, S., & McDonald, R. (2019). Emotional Factors for Teleaudiology. In Tele-Audiology and the Optimization of Hearing Healthcare Delivery (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Sterling, L., Lopez-Lorca, A., & Kissoon-Curumsing, M. (2018). Adding Emotions to Models in a Viewpoint Modelling Framework From Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: A Case Study With Emergency Alarms. In Innovative Methods, User-Friendly Tools, Coding, and Design Approaches in People-Oriented Programming (pp. 324-367). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Sterling, L., & Taveter, K. (2009). The art of agent-oriented modeling. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.

Tarantini, T. (2011). Pictures that do not really exist: Mitigating the digital crisis in traditional animation production. Animation Practice, 1(2), 249-271. doi:10.1386/ap3.1.2.249_1

Taveter, K., Wagner, G. (2005). Towards radical agent-oriented software engineering processes based on AOR modelling. In B. Henderson-Sellers and P. Giorgini (eds.), Agent-Oriented Methodologies (277-316). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Taylor, D. (Director). (2015). J. Ballantine & B. Stephen (Producers). Blinky Bill the Movie [Motion picture]. Australia: Flying Bark Productions.

275

Teevan, M. (2011). Animating by numbers: workflow issues in Shane Acker's 9. Animation Practice, Process & Production, 1(1), 83-96. doi:10.1386/ap3.1.1.83_1

Thomas, F., & Johnston, O. (1995). The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation (1st Hyperion ed.). N.Y. Hyperion.

Thompson, K. M. (2014). Colourful material histories: The Disney paint formulae, the paint laboratory and the ink and paint department. Animation Practice, Process & Production, 4(1), 45-66.

Trutoiu, L. C., Carter, E. J., Matthews, I., & Hodgins, J. K. (2011). Modeling and animating eye blinks. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 8(3), 17.

Van Lamsweerde, A. (2001). Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In Proceedings fifth IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (pp. 249-262). IEEE.

Vaughan, W. (2011). Digital Modeling. Berkeley, Calif. New Riders.

Verbinski, G. (Director). (2003). J. Bruckheimer (Producer). Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. United States: Walt Disney Pictures.

Vince, J. (2014). Coordinate Systems. In Mathematics for Computer Graphics (pp. 33-42). London. Springer London.

Walt Disney Animation Studios (Producer). (2011). A Day In The Life of John Lasseter [Motion picture]. United States: Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Walt Disney Animation Studios. (2012). Recruiting: Production Supervisor. Retrieved from https://careers.disneyanimation.com/job_groups/job_description?id=155

Walt Disney Animation Studios. (2019). Apprenticeships. Retrieved from https://www.disneyanimation.com/careers/interns-apprentices

Warner Bros. (2019). Senior Animator. Retrieved from https://www.warnerbroscareers.com/find-jobs/?172007BR

Weber, K. (2001). Interviews: Pixar. interactions, 8(2), 99-104.

Weishar, P. (2002). Blue Sky: The Art of Computer Animation. Harry N. Abrams.

Wellins, M. (2005). Storytelling Through Animation (Graphics). Charles River Media, Inc.

Wells, B. (2011). Frame of reference: toward a definition of animation. Animation Practice, Process & Production, 1(1), 11-32. doi:10.1386/ap3.1.1.11_1

Wells, P. (1998). Understanding animation. London. Routledge.

Wells, P. (2002). Animation: Genre and Authorship. Wallflower Press.

Wells, P. (2006). The fundamentals of animation. Lausanne, Switzerland. AVA Pub. SA.

Wells, P. (2011). From 'Sunnyside' to 'soccer': reading up on animation. Animation Practice, Process & Production, 1(1), 3-9. doi:10.1386/ap3.1.1.3_2

276

Werneck, A & Oliveira, A & Leite, J. (2009). Comparing GORE frameworks: I-star and KAOS. In WER.

Whitaker, H., & Halas, J. (2009). Timing for animation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier/Focal Press.

White, T. (2012a). Animation from Pencils to Pixels: Classical Techniques for the Digital Animator. CRC Press.

White, T. (2012b). Tony White's Animator's Notebook: Personal Observations on the Principles of Movement. CRC Press.

William, J., & Brandon, O. (Directors) & Enochs, L., Kantrow, A., & Farnsworth-Smith, T. (Producers). (2011). The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore. United States: Moonbot Studios.

Williams, R. (2001). The Animator's Survival Kit-Revised Edition: A Manual of Methods, Principles and Formulas for Classical, Computer, Games, Stop Motion and Internet Animators. London. Faber and Faber Limited.

Winder, C., & Dowlatabadi, Z. (2011). Producing animation (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Focal Press.

Withrow, S. (2003). Toon Art: The Graphic Art of Digital Cartooning. N.Y. Watson-Guptill.

Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N. R., & Kinny, D. (2000). The Gaia methodology for agent- oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and multi-agent systems, 3(3), 285-312.

Wooldridge M., Ciancarini P. (2001). Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art. In: Ciancarini P., Wooldridge M.J. (eds) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. AOSE 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1957. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/10.1007/3-540-44564-1_1

Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Wyatt, A. (2010). The Complete Digital Animation Course: The Principles, Practice, and Techniques of Successful Digital Animation: Thames & Hudson.

Yoon, H. (2017). Globalization of the animation industry: multi-scalar linkages of six animation production centers. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23(5), 634-651. doi:10.1080/10286632.2015.1084298

Young, M. (2018). Drawn to 360°: How can the aesthetics and qualities of traditional 2D animation storytelling add to the immersive VR projection paradigm? Animation Practice, Process & Production, 7(1), 11-40.

Yu, E. (1995). Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering (PhD). University of Toronto.

Zimmerman Jones, A. (2019). A Practical Intro to Newton's 3 Laws of Motion. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/introduction-to-newtons-laws-of-motion-2698881

277

278

Publications

The following publications have been written during my PhD candidature.

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles

Murdoch, S. (2016). Agent-oriented modelling in the production of 3D character animation. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 10(1), 35-52.

Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings

Murdoch, S. (2015). Exploring Primary and Emotional Goals within an Agent-Oriented, Animation Production Process. Paper presented at What’s This Space? Screen Practice, Audiences and Education for the Future Decade, the Australian Screen Production Education & Research Association Annual Conference Proceedings: Flinders University, Australia.

Conference Presentations

Murdoch, S. (2014). Agent-Oriented Modeling in the Production of 3D Character Animation. Screen Explosion. Paper presented at the Australian Screen Production Education & Research Association Annual Conference, University of Newcastle, Australia.

Murdoch, S. (2015). Embedding Primary and Emotional Requirements within an Agent- Oriented System for Producing 3D Character Animation. What’s This Space? Screen Practice, Audiences & Education for the Future Decade. Paper presented at the Australian Screen Production Education & Research Association Annual Conference, Flinders University, Australia.

279

Appendices

280

A4.1 Pixar’s sub-activities mapped to their digital animation process

Sub-Activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Development x x x x x x

Pre-production x x x

Production x

Post-Production x x x x High Level Activities -

Development Pre-production Production Post-Production “Creating the storyline” “Addressing technical “Making the film” “Polishing the final challenges” product”

11 A story is pitched 17 Models are 20 The shot is 15 Sets and sculpted and animated characters are 12 The text treatment articulated shaded is written 18 The sets are 16 Lighting 13 Storyboards are dressed completes the drawn look 19 The shots are 14 Voice talent laid out 17 The computer begins recording data is “rendered”

15 Editorial begins 18 Final touches are making reels added 16 The art department creates the look and feel

Pixar’s fourteen sub-activities mapped to the four high-level stages of their Digital Animation Process

281

A4.2 Functional requirements elicited from Pixar’s digital animation process

Sub-Activity 1 A Story Is Pitched

Key Functional Pitch Idea Requirement

Additional Functional Present Idea To Requirements Production Team

Sub-Activity 2 The Text Treatment Is Written

Key Functional Make Script Requirement

Additional Functional Write Script Develop Emotional Present For Requirements Reference Approval

Sub-Activity 3 Storyboards Are Drawn

Key Functional Make Storyboard Requirement

Additional Functional Draw Sequence Present For Approval Requirements

Sub-Activity 4 Voice Talent Begins Recording

Key Functional Record Voice Track Requirement

Additional Functional Record Scratch Record Professional Present For Requirements Voices Voices Approval

Sub-Activity 5 Editorial Begins Making Reels

Key Functional Make Animatic Requirement

Additional Functional Capture Storyboards Insert Scratch Voice Present For Requirements Recordings Approval

Sub-Activity 6 The Art Department Creates The Look And Feel

Key Functional Make Mood Sheet Requirement

Additional Functional Illustrate World Illustrate Characters Design Sets Design Props Requirements Design Surface Make Colour Scripts Present For Appearance For Lighting Approval

Sub-Activity 7 Models Are Sculpted And Articulated

Key Functional Make Models Requirement

Additional Functional Sculpt Model By Hand Scan Model Into Make Mesh Make Object Requirements Computer Objects Rig

282

Present For Approval

Sub-Activity 8 The Sets Are Dressed

Key Functional Dress The Set Requirement

Additional Functional Make Environment Populate Environment Present For Requirements Space Approval

Sub-Activity 9 The Shots Are Laid Out

Key Functional Layout Shot Requirement

Additional Functional Position Characters Position Camera Present For Requirements Approval

Sub-Activity 10 The Shot Is Animated

Key Functional Make (Production Type) E.g. Cinematic Shot 1, Cut Scene Shot 2 etc. Requirement

Additional Functional Animate Objects Present For Approval Requirements

Sub-Activity 11 Sets And Characters Are Shaded

Key Functional Shade Assets Requirement

Additional Functional Setup Shaders Present For Approval Requirements

Sub-Activity 12 Lighting Completes The Look

Key Functional Light Shot Requirement

Additional Functional Setup Lighting Present For Approval Requirements

Sub-Activity 13 The Computer Data Is “Rendered”

Key Functional Render Data Requirement

Additional Functional Separate Channels Submit For Rendering Present For Requirements Approval

Sub-Activity 14 Final Touches Are Added

Key Functional Apply Effects Requirement

Additional Functional Composite Footage Composite Audio Apply Present For Requirements Dynamics Approval

283

A4.3 High-level stages of Pixar’s process as high-level functional requirements

High-Level Activity 1 Development

High-Level Functional Requirement Develop Production

High-Level Activity 2 Pre-Production

High-Level Functional Requirement Pre-Produce Assets

High-Level Activity 3 Production

High-Level Functional Requirement Produce Animation

High-Level Activity 4 Post-production

High-Level Functional Requirement Apply Post-Production

A4.4 Positions in 3D computer animation mapped to agent teams

Digital Animation Team

Pre- Post- Development Production Other Positions Production Production Team Team Team Team Team

3D Tracker/Match Mover x

Animation Director x

Animator x

Art Director x

Assistant Director x

CG Supervisor x

Character Animator x

Character Designer (often x 2D)

Character TD x

284

Cloth Simulation FX Artist x

Compositing Supervisor x

Compositor x

Concept Artist (often 2D) x

Digital Painter x

Director x

Director of Photography x

Editing Assistant x

Editor x

Effects (FX) Artist/FX x Animator

Effects (FX) TD (several x levels)

Effects (FX)Supervisor x

Effects Designer x

Environments Designer x

Fixing TD x

Fur/Feathers FX Artist x

Head of Tools (R & D) x

Junior Animator x

Layout Artists x

Layout Supervisor x

Layout TD (several levels) x

Lead Animator x

Lighting Supervisor x

Lighting TD / CG Lighter x

Matte Painter x

Modeller x

Modelling Supervisor x

Modelling TD x

Pre-Vis Artists (3D) x

Producer x

Production Assistant x

285

Production Designer x

R & D Artist/Look Dev x Artist

Render Wrangler x

Renderer x

Rendering Supervisor x

Rendering TD x

Rigger x

Rigging Supervisor x

Rigging TD x

Roto Artist x

Runner x

Scanner/Recorder x

Scanning TD x

Set Dressers x

Shader Writer x

Shading TD x

Shading/Texture x Supervisor

Shot TD (Facility Houses) x

Storyboard Artist x

Storyboard Assistant x

Storyboard Supervisor x

Texture Artist/Texture x Painter

Tools Writer x

Visual Effects (VFX) x Supervisor

Water FX Artist x

Wire Remover x

Positions in 3D computer animation (SkillSet, 2011) mapped to Agent Teams

286

A4.5 Other position in 3D computer animation mapped to agent teams

Digital Animation Team

Positions Pipeline Editorial Leadership

Assistant Director x

CG Supervisor x

Director x

Director of Photography x

Editing Assistant x

Editor x

Fixing TD x

Head of Tools (R & D) x

Producer x

Runner x

Tools Writer x

Other positions in 3D computer animation (SkillSet, 2011) mapped to Agent Teams

287

A4.6 Agent types within the development team

Development Team

Positions Agent Type

Character Designer (often 2D)

Concept Artist (often 2D) Concept Artist

R & D Artist/Look Dev Artist

Environments Designer

Layout Artists

Layout Supervisor Layout Artist

Layout TD (several levels)

Set Dressers

Matte Painter Painter Digital Painter

Art Director

Production Assistant Production Director

Production Designer

Pre-Vis Artists (3D)

Scanner/Recorder

Scanning TD

Shot TD (Facility Houses) Story Artist

Storyboard Artist

Storyboard Assistant

Storyboard Supervisor

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Development Team

288

A4.7 Agent types within the pre-production team

Pre-Production Team

Positions Agent Type

Character TD

Modeller Model Maker Modelling Supervisor

Modelling TD

Texture Artist/Texture Painter Texture Artist

Rigger

Rigging Supervisor Rigger

Rigging TD

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Pre-Production Team

A4.8 Agent types within the production team

Production Team

Positions Agent Type

Animation Director

Animator

Character Animator Animator

Junior Animator

Lead Animator

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Production Team

289

A4.9 Agent types within the post-production team

Post-Production Team

Positions Agent Type

Compositing Supervisor Compositor Compositor

Effects (FX) Artist/FX Animator

Visual Effects (VFX) Supervisor

Water FX Artist

Cloth Simulation FX Artist Effects Artist Effects (FX) TD (several levels)

Effects (FX)Supervisor

Effects Designer

Fur/Feathers FX Artist

Lighting Supervisor Lighter Lighting TD / CG Lighter

Render Wrangler

Renderer Renderer Rendering Supervisor

Rendering TD

Shader Writer

Shading TD Shader Artist

Shading/Texture Supervisor

3D Tracker/Match Mover

Roto Artist Tracker

Wire Remover

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Post-Production Team

290

A4.10 Agent types within the pipeline team

Pipeline Team

Positions Agent Type

Fixing TD Setup Artist

Head of Tools (R & D) Tool Developer Tools Writer

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Pipeline Team

A4.11 Agent types within the editorial team

Editorial Team

Positions Agent Type

Director of Photography Cinematographer

Editing Assistant Editor Editor

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Editorial Team

A4.12 Agent types within the leadership team

Leadership Team

Positions Agent Type

Assistant Director

CG Supervisor Director

Director

Producer Producer Runner

Mapping of Agent Types to the Agent Team: Leadership Team

291

A4.13 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: planning

Planning

Checklist item Create Thumbnails

Function Generate thumbnails of key poses

Expectations .

Checklist item Record/YouTube References

Function Gather references

Expectations .

Checklist item Acting out

Function Act out performance

Expectations .

Checklist item Pencil Test Tricky Timings

Function Pencil test

Expectations .

Checklist item Consult Storyboards

Function Consult storyboards

Expectations .

Checklist item Journal Workflow

Function Journal Workflow

Expectations .

The Planning stage of Roy's workflow checklist, with functions and expectations of quality

292

A4.14 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: layout

Layout

Checklist item Decide on Staging that is clear and inventive, and experiment. Nobody can really tell what it will look like so early on – you need to try things out.

Function Stage shot

Quality Clear what is going on; have an inventive/creative layout Expectations

Checklist item Compose the shot with interesting shapes and silhouettes. It will only get muddier from here – you have to start really strong to end up with something strong in the end.

Function Compose shot

Quality Interesting Shapes: interesting silhouettes; strong Expectations

Checklist item Before blocking, ask the question, “Does this tell the story?”

Function Evaluate Story

Quality The story should be clear Expectations

The Layout stage of Roy's workflow checklist, with functions and expectations of quality

293

A4.15 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: blocking

Blocking

Checklist item Start building poses using the Fundamental Approach – build things like overlap into the pose.

Function Create key poses

Expectations Basic poses and movement

Checklist item Decide what part of the transition my Stepped Keys represent.

Function Identify transition poses

Expectations Crafted using stepped keys

Checklist item Keyframe Economy

Function Manage keyframes

Expectations Use the least amount of key frames possible to animate the action

Checklist item Editability – Work with graph editor open and start making some adjustments there to familiarize myself with the keys.

Function familiarise key/curve relationship

Expectations .

Checklist item Inner Monologue as a Timing Tool. If I am having trouble timing the blocking, record a piece of “Inner Monologue” and use it as the sound file in Maya.

Function capture inner monologue

Expectations .

Checklist item Performance Texture – add very rough blocking of little shakes and bumps that I know I am definitely going to want later. (Non-performance texture can always be sprinkled in.

Function Add performance nuances

Expectations Rough; Small

Checklist item Do not add any detail until POSITIVE the timing and staging is final.

Function Evaluate Blocking

Expectations Timing and staging is final

The Blocking stage of Roy's workflow checklist, with functions and expectations of quality

294

A4.16 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: blocking plus

Blocking Plus

Checklist item Turn Stepped Into Copied Pairs – This preserves your holds much better than going right into splines

Function Create Copied Pairs

Expectations .

Checklist item Fall Back on Fundamentals – when I am having a performance problem, the very first thing I try is to change the size of a fundamental, like anticipation

Function Review fundamental principles

Expectations .

Checklist item Arcs – Add necessary breakdowns to really define my arcs

Function Define Arcs

Expectations .

Checklist item Weight check – do a pass looking at exactly where the centre of gravity is.

Function Check Weight

Expectations Feel natural; guide follow-through and overlapping actions

Checklist item Compare Thumbs – At this point, I’m losing a bit of the strong posing that I started with. Compare animation to my thumbnails and ‘re-push’ the posing!

Function Compare Thumbnails

Expectations Poses are strong

Checklist item Watch at Speed – Always watch the animation at speed to see problems

Function Recognise Problems

Expectations Should be played back at real-time speed

Checklist item Make Lists for Notes – Always make a list of notes that you see right when you first sit down; this list will last you much longer than you would if you just work mindlessly on the animation and lose your fresh eyes!

Function Note anomalies

Expectations Should note when first noticed

The Blocking Plus stage of Roy's workflow checklist, with functions and expectations of quality

295

A4.17 Functions and expectations of Roy’s workflow: polish

Polish

Checklist item Totally New Mindset, Not A Continuation of Blocking Plus. This means no more adding of breakdowns, they are already there, just need to be adjusted.

Function Fine-tune Breakdowns

Expectations .

Checklist item Non-performance Texture. You can now add the little bit of ‘dirt’ to the keys that you need, and things like non-performance breaths, etc.

Function Add non-performance nuances

Expectations Subtle; focus on internal mechanics

Checklist item Arcs – One more pass to make sure my arcs are looking great.

Function Enhance Arcs

Expectations .

Checklist item Don’t Polish too early!

Function Evaluate Progress

Expectations .

Checklist item Final 5%, Toe Splay, Blinks, Fix Tiny Things

Function Add micro details

Expectations Subtle

The Polish stage of Roy's workflow checklist, with functions and expectations of quality

296

A4.18 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow:

blocking

Blocking

Key Point Thumbnailing

Function Plan action using thumbnails

Expectations Drawn using basic shapes and lines; should have thought out lines of action; experimental; you should like it; doesn’t need to make sense to anyone but you; should be clear.

Key Point Reference

Function Study reference material

Expectations Should study the movement until you understand it thoroughly.

Key Point Break down the animation into a list

Function Create Shotlist

Expectations Contain simple description of what the action is, and why it is being done; Should clarify what you are doing; Should force you to picture each moment in your mind; Should tell a story.

Key Point Setup Scene ~ Map out approach to any technical aspects, such as constraints, animated cameras, using IK or FK, etc.

Function Setup Scene

Expectations Should include a shot camera, adjust settings of characters to be in order, props should be in place, environment should be setup.

Key Point Decide on approach to blocking. We are going to be doing a stepped key pose-to-pose blocking of the main poses, then add breakdowns, then convert the keys into spline mode, and refine from there.

Function Define approach to blocking action

Expectations Be high-level, show process.

Key Point Key Poses 1: Create a framework for animation using key frames

Function Create framework

Expectations Should start with storytelling poses ‘golden poses’; Should be the fundamental events with only two or three poses; Should convey the most basic level of narrative; Poses should read as clearly as possible.

Key Point Key Poses 2: Describe the parts of the animation where the movement changes.

Function Create secondary pass

Expectations Contact poses; Broad changes of movement; Strong Line of Action; Smooth inbetween motion; Roughly Timed.

Key Point Rough timing of when key poses happen

Function Adjust timing

297

Expectations Quick and easy; Accurate.

Key Point Camera Animation, stepped camera works well for storytelling poses, but to refine things anymore it needs to be smooth.

Function Stage shot with camera movement

Expectations Simple; Smooth: Interesting; Focus on the animation

Key Point TweenMachine (note: use of animation tool/script)

Function Breakdown poses

Expectations Should add clarity; Show movement from one key to another; Define anticipation, overlap, arcs and other animation principles; Closer to one of the keyframes and not smack in the middle.

Key Point Breakdown poses continued

Function Add breakdown poses

Expectations Show timing and movement more accurately; Clear what the animation will look like when it’s finished; Feature one key frame in every four frames.

Key Point Refining the timing

Function Evaluate timing

Expectations Evaluated using real-time playback

Key Point Copied Pairs

Function Copy held poses

Expectations Reflect accurate timing; preserve character position; keep better control over the in-betweens when splined.

The Blocking stage of Luhta’s workflow, with functions and expectations of quality

298

A4.19 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow:

polishing

Polishing

Key Point Cushions

Function Ease-in flat motion

Expectations Feel more alive and natural

Key Point Moving Holds

Function Add movement to static poses

Expectations Subtle; Create a slight drifting motion; Feel alive.

Key Point Texture

Function Add texture to movement

Expectations Interesting and fun to watch; detailed and various; not be noticeable, but subconsciously felt. If it were missing, it wouldn’t feel right. Make animation more believable, more organic.

Key Point Finishing Touches

Function Evaluate application of animation principles

Expectations Be reviewed and applied one at a time; be enhanced if needed. Remove flat curves unless deliberate.

The Polishing stage of Luhta’s workflow, with functions and expectations of quality.

299

A4.20 Functions and expectations of Luhta’s workflow: facial animation

Facial Animation

Key Point Listen to the audio until all the accents and nuances are ingrained into your mind. Also think about the context of the line, along with the characters internal though process and motivation for saying it. Planning like this should be done before body animation, as it would influence our decisions in that regard as well.

Function Capture intent of audio

Expectations Memorable; Revealing; Influential

Key Point Write the dialogue out

Function Analyse Dialogue

Expectations Identify nuances; note actions such as blinking, brow movement, head tilts; Written down.

Key Point Identify accents

Function Identify accents in audio

Expectations Be the words/sounds that stand out – usually key words.

Key Point Identify tone

Function Identify tone

Expectations Expose character attitude.

Key Point Core poses

Function Block in expression

Expectations Reflect nuances

Key Point Lip-sync

Function Create jaw motion

Expectations Be open and closed actions; Be for physical movement not every word

Key Point Work on the mouth corners

Function Pose corners of mouth

Expectations Be on the same keys as the jaw open/close; Be simple and not polished.

Key Point Mouth shapes

Function pose mouth shapes

300

Expectations Give any closed shapes at least two frames; Feel organic / natural; Not feel floaty or off time

Key Point Tongue

Function animate tongue

Expectations Be simple; Be at the top and bottom of the mouth as required; Be seen when touching the top of the mouth.

Key Point Blinks

Function Animate Blinks

Expectations Be dictated by the emotion and thought process of the character; Feel organic; When closed, should be so for two frames; When closed, the top lid should be around 75% and bottom 25%; Top lids should touch the top of the irises on the way up or down; Should cushion when coming into an open; Keep the iris partially visible in all opening and closing poses..

Key Point Blinks and Brows

Function Animate Eye Brows

Expectations Apex of brow should lead the rest by a frame; Feel organic and not an assembly of moving parts.

Key Point Eye Darts

Function Animate eye darts

Expectations Show that the character is thinking about something and that there is an internal monologue happening; Form a subtle pattern (triangles, rectangles etc); Be 2 frames of movement.

Key Point Final Touches

Function Polish Movement

Expectations Face should feel like an organic whole; Indicate thought process; Express attitude.

The Facial Animation stage of Luhta’s workflow, with functions and expectations of quality

301

A4.21 Functions and expectations of Lasseter’s principles of animation

Principles of Animation

Principle Squash and Stretch

Description The most important principle is called Squash and Stretch. When an object is moved, the movement emphasizes any rigidity in the object. Anything composed of living flesh, no matter how bony, will show considerable movement in its shape during an action. The most important rule in squash and stretch is that, no matter how squashed or stretched out a particular object gets, its volume remains constant. Squash and Stretch also defines the rigidity of the material making up and object...When the parts of an object are of different materials, they should respond differently: flexible parts should squash more and rigid parts less. An object need not deform in order to squash and stretch. For instance, a hinged object like Luxo Jr. Another use of squash and stretch is to help relieve the disturbing effect of strobing that happens with very fast motion because sequential positions of an object become spaced far apart.

Function Emphasize Rigidity

Expectations Constant volume; accurate flexibility; overlapping

Principle Timing

Description Timing, or the speed of an action... gives meaning to movement... It reflects the size and weight of an object, and can carry emotional meaning. Proper timing is critical to making ideas readable. It is important to spend enough time (but no more) preparing the audience for: the anticipation of an action; the action itself; and the reaction to the action. More than any other principle, timing defines the weight of an object. The way an objects behaves on screen, the effect of weight that it gives, depend entirely on the spacing of the poses and not on the poses themselves. The emotional state of a character can also be defined more by its movement than by its appearance.

Function Time movement

Expectations Emotional; readable

Principle Anticipation

Description Anticipation is the preparation for the action. In one sense, it is the anatomical provision for an action. Without anticipation many actions are abrupt, stiff and unnatural. Anticipation is often used to explain what the following action is going to be. Anticipation is also used to direct the attention of the audience to the right part of the screen at the right moment. This is essential for preventing the audience from missing some vital action. Anticipation can also emphasize heavy weight.

Function Prepare Action

Expectations Natural; intuitive; focal;

Principle Staging

Description Staging, is the presentation of an idea so it is completely and unmistakably clear. An action is staged so that it is understood; a personality is staged so that it is recognizable; an expression so that it can be seen; a mood so that it will affect the audience. It is important when staging an idea that only one idea be seen by the audience at a

302

time. The object of interest should contrast from the rest of the scene. Each idea or action must be staged in the strongest and simplest way before going onto the next idea or action. Another idea developed in the early days at Disney was the importance of staging an action in silhouette... the animators realized that it is always better to show an action in silhouette.

Function Stage idea

Expectations Obvious; clear; understood; affective; strong;

Principle Follow Through and Overlapping Action

Description Follow through is the termination of an action. Actions very rarely come to a complete stop, but are generally carried past their termination point. In the movement of any object or figure, the actions of the parts are not simultaneous: some parts must initiate the move.. this is called the lead. As with squash and stretch, the objects mass is shown in the way the object slows down. This overlapping action makes the object seem natural, the action more interesting. Overlapping maintains a continual flow and continuity between whole phrases of actions.

Function Unify Actions

Expectations Natural; interesting; continual

Principle Straight Ahead Action and Pose-to-Pose Action

Description There are two main approaches to hand drawn animation. Straight ahead action is used for wild, scrambling actions where spontaneity is important. Pose-to-Pose is used for animation that requires good acting, where the poses and timing are all important. Planning the animation out in advance, as in pose-to-pose, becomes even more important. The action must be well thought out, the timing and poses planned so that even in the early layers, the poses and action are clear.

Function Freehand OR Layered

Expectations Spontaneous; Planned;

Principle Slow In and Out

Description Slow in and slow out deals with the spacing of the inbetween drawings between the extreme poses. "Slowing out" of one pose, then "Slowing in" to the next pose simply refers to the timing of the in-betweens'. This gave the desired feeling of weight to his little base.

Function Ease Actions

Expectations Natural;

Principle Arcs

Description The visual path of action from one extreme to another is always described by an arc. Arcs in nature are the most economical routes by which a form can move from one position to another. For they make animation much smoother and less stiff than a straight line for the path of action. When motion is slow... the arc of the path of action is curved, as desired. The path of even a fast motion should be curved or arced. Straight inbetweens can completely kill the essence of an action.

Function Transition Actions

Expectations Smooth; curved, arced, economical, organic

Principle Exaggeration

303

Description The meaning of exaggeration is, in general, obvious. Does not mean arbitrarily distorting shapes or objects or making an action more violent or unrealistic. Exaggeration can work with any component, but not in isolation. The exaggeration of the various components should be balanced. The ironic effect of all this exaggeration was to make the film more realistic, while making it entertaining.

Function Amplify Action

Expectations Obvious; realistic; balanced

Principle Secondary Action

Description A secondary action is an action that results directly from another action. Important in heightening interest and adding realistic complexity to the animation. A secondary action is always kept subordinate to the primary action. A change in the middle of a major move will go unnoticed, and value intended will be lost. It must also be staged to be obvious, though secondary.

Function Supplement primary action

Expectations Influenced; credible; subordinate; obvious

Principle Appeal

Description It means anything that a person likes to see: a quality of charm, pleasing design, simplicity, communication, or magnetism. Your eye is drawn to the figure… you appreciate the object. A weak drawing or design lacks appeal. A design that is complicated or hard to read lacks appeal. Where the live action actor has charisma, the animated character has appeal. One thing to avoid is called “twins”… This gives the pose a stiff, wooden, unappealing quality.

Function Appeal

Expectations Engaging; likable; well designed; asymmetrical;

Principle Personality

Description The underlying goal of all the principles discussed earlier. Not a principle unto itself, but the intelligent application of all the principles of animation. When character animation is successful and the audience is thoroughly entertained, it is because the story has become more important and apparent than the technique that went into animation. The success of character animation lies in the personality of the characters. In character animation, all actions and movements of a character are the result of its thought processes. It is critical to have the personality of a character clearly in mind at the outset. One character would not do a particular action the same way in two different emotional states.

Function Exhibit Personality

Expectations Varied; story orientated; strong; clear;

Lasseter’s Principles of Animation, with each interpreted as a function with expectations of quality.

304

A4.22 Roy’s workflow functions mapped to high-level requirements

Roy’s Workflow Functions Mapped to the Six High-Level System Requirements

1 Plan Animation 3 Block Foundation Animation 5 Detail Animation

2 Layout Animation 4 Enhance Foundation Animation 6 Polish Animation

Generate Thumbnails Of 1 Identify Transition Poses 3 Compare Thumbnails 3 Key Poses

Gather References 1 Manage Keyframes 3 Recognise Problems 5

Act Out Performance 1 Familiarise Key/Curve 3, 5 Note Anomalies 5 Relationship

Pencil Test 1 Capture Inner Monologue 1 Fine-Tune Breakdowns 6

Consult Storyboards 1 Add Performance Nuances 4 Add Non-Performance 6 Nuances

Journal Workflow 1 Evaluate Blocking 3 Enhance Arcs 6

Stage Shot 2 Create Copied Pairs 4 Evaluate Progress 6

Compose Shot 2 Review Fundamental 5 Add Micro Details 6 Principles

Evaluate Story 2 Define Arcs 5

Create Key Poses 3 Check Weight 5

The twenty-eight functions from Roy's workflow mapped to the six high-level requirements of the production system

305

A4.23 Luhta’s workflow functions mapped to high-level requirements

Luhta’s Workflow Functions Mapped to the Six High-Level System Requirements

1 Plan Animation 3 Block Foundation Animation 5 Detail Animation

2 Layout Animation 4 Enhance Foundation Animation 6 Polish Animation

Plan Action Using 1 Create Secondary Pass 4 Copy Held Poses 4 Thumbnails

Study Reference Material 1 Adjust Timing 4 Ease-In Flat Motion 6

Create Shotlist 1 Stage Shot With Camera 2 Add Movement To Static 6 Movement Poses

Setup Scene 2 Breakdown Poses 4 Add Texture To Movement 6

Define Approach To 1 Add Breakdown Poses 5 Evaluate Application Of 6 Blocking Action Animation Principles

Create Framework 3 Evaluate Timing 5

The seventeen functions from Luhta’s workflow mapped to the six high-level requirements of the production system.

306

A4.24 Luhta’s facial animation functions mapped to high-level requirements

Luhta’s Workflow Functions Mapped to the Six High-Level System Requirements

1 Plan Animation 3 Block Foundation Animation 5 Detail Animation

2 Layout Animation 4 Enhance Foundation Animation 6 Polish Animation

Capture Intent Of Audio 1 Create Jaw Motion 4 Animate Eye Brows 5

Analyse Dialogue 1 Pose Corners Of Mouth 4 Animate Eye Darts 5

Identify Accents In Audio 1 Pose Mouth Shapes 5 Polish Movement 6

Identify Tone 1 Animate Tongue 5

Block In Expression 4 Animate Blinks 5

The thirteen functions from Luhta’s Facial Animation Workflow mapped to the six high-level requirements of the production system.

A4.25 Lasseter’s principles of animation mapped to high-level requirements

Lasseter’s Principles Functions Mapped to the Six High-Level System Requirements

1 Plan Animation 3 Block Foundation Animation 5 Detail Animation

2 Layout Animation 4 Enhance Foundation Animation 6 Polish Animation

Emphasize Rigidity 3, Unify Actions 4, 5 Amplify Action 3, 4 4, 5

Time Movement 3, Freehand OR Layered 1 Supplement Primary Action 4, 5 4, 5

Prepare Action 3, Ease Actions 4, 5 Appeal 3, 4, 5 4, 5, 6

Stage Idea 2, 3 Transition Actions 4, 5 Exhibit Personality 3, 4, 5, 6

The twelve functions from Lasseter’s Principles of Animation mapped to the six high-level requirements of the production system.

307

A4.26 Plan Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Plan Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Establish Shot Direction 2 Generate Thumbnails Of Key Poses

2 Plan Action Using Thumbnails 3 Gather References

3 Gather Reference Material 5 Act Out Performance

4 Analyse Reference Material 2 Pencil Test

5 Act Out Performance 1 Consult Storyboards

6 Identify Thought Process 11 Journal Workflow

7 Analyse Dialogue 2 Plan Action Using Thumbnails

8 Identify Intent 4 Study Reference Material

9 Identify Key Words 1 Create Shotlist

10 Identify Tone 11 Define Approach To Blocking Action

11 Document Animation Workflow 8 Capture Intent Of Audio

7 Analyse Dialogue

9 Identify Accents In Audio

10 Identify Tone

11 Freehand OR Layered

6 Capture Inner Monologue

The sixteen Planning stage functions mapped to eleven functional requirements.

308

A4.27 Layout Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Layout Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Stage Shot 1 Stage Shot

2 Compose Shot 2 Compose Shot

3 Evaluate Story 3 Evaluate Story

4 Setup Scene 4 Setup Scene

1 Stage Shot With Camera Movement

1 Stage Idea

The six Layout stage functions mapped to four functional requirements

A4.28 Block Foundation Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Block Foundation Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Create Key Poses 1 Create Key Poses

2 Create Transition Poses 2 Identify Transition Poses

3 Manage Keyframes 3 Manage Keyframes

4 Familiarise Key/Curve Relationship 4 Familiarise Key/Curve Relationship

5 Evaluate Blocking 7 Compare Thumbnails

6 Evaluate Timing 5 Evaluate Blocking

7 Evaluate Poses 1 Create Framework

8 Evaluate Appeal 7 Emphasize Rigidity

9 Evaluate Staging 6 Time Movement

7 Prepare Action

9 Stage Idea

7 Amplify Action

309

8 Appeal

7, Exhibit Personality 8

The fourteen Block Foundation Animation stage functions mapped to nine functional requirements.

A4.29 Enhance Foundation Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Enhance Foundation Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Create Copied Pairs 7 Add Performance Nuances

2 Breakdown Poses 1 Create Copied Pairs

3 Adjust Timing - Create Secondary Pass

4 Create Jaw Motion 3 Adjust Timing

5 Block In Facial Expression 2 Breakdown Poses

6 Pose Mouth Corners 1 Copy Held Poses

7 Add Performance Nuances 5 Block In Expression

8 Evaluate Motion 4 Create Jaw Motion

9 Evaluate Rigidity 6 Pose Corners Of Mouth

10 Evaluate Timing 9 Emphasize Rigidity

11 Evaluate Transitions 10 Time Movement

12 Evaluate Anticipation 12 Prepare Action

13 Evaluate Pose 8 Unify Actions

14 Evaluate Secondary Action 11 Ease Actions

15 Evaluate Appeal 11 Transition Actions

16 Evaluate Personality 13 Amplify Action

14 Supplement Primary Action

15 Appeal

16 Exhibit Personality

The nineteen Enhance Foundation Animation stage functions mapped to sixteen functional requirements

310

A4.30 Detail Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Detail Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Convert To Splines 7 Review Fundamental Principles

2 Pose Mouth Shapes 13 Define Arcs

3 Animate Tongue 9, Check Weight 12

4 Animate Blinks 17 Recognise Problems

5 Animate Eye Brows 18 Note Anomalies

6 Animate Eye Darts 14 Add Breakdown Poses

7 Evaluate Motion 9 Evaluate Timing

8 Evaluate Rigidity 2 Pose Mouth Shapes

9 Evaluate Timing 3 Animate Tongue

10 Evaluate Anticipation 4 Animate Blinks

11 Evaluate Unity 5 Animate Eye Brows

12 Evaluate Easing 6 Animate Eye Darts

13 Evaluate Transition 1 Familiarise Key/Curve Relationship

14 Evaluate Secondary Action 8 Emphasize Rigidity

15 Evaluate Appeal 9 Time Movement

16 Evaluate Personality 10 Prepare Action

17 Recognise Anomalies 11 Unify Actions

18 Document Anomalies 12 Ease Actions

13 Transition Actions

14 Supplement Primary Action

15 Appeal

16 Exhibit Personality

The twenty-two Detail Animation stage functions mapped to eighteen functional requirements

311

A4.31 Polish Anim: Workflow functions mapped to requirements

Polish Animation

Functional System Requirements Workflow Functions

1 Fine-tune Poses 1 Fine-Tune Breakdowns

2 Enhance Arcs 3 Add Non-Performance Nuances

3 Add Non-Performance Nuances 2 Enhance Arcs

4 Add Micro Details 5 Evaluate Progress

5 Evaluate Animation 4 Add Micro Details

2 Ease-in flat motion

3 Add movement to static poses

3 Add texture to movement

5 Evaluate application of animation principles

5 Polish Movement

5 Appeal

5 Exhibit Personality

The twelve Polish Animation stage functions mapped to five functional requirements

312

A4.32 Plan Anim: Expectation of quality mapped to requirements

Plan Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Establish Shot Direction 1 Descriptive 1 Descriptive

2 Clear What You Are Doing 2 Clear

3 Visualised In Your Mind 3 Imaginable

4 Story-Telling 4 Story-Telling

Plan Action Using 1 Basic Shapes and Lines 1 Basic Thumbnails 2 Thought Out Line of Action 2 Strong Line of Action

3 Experimental 3 Experimental

4 Clear 4 Clear

5 Personally Meaningful 5 Personal

Gather Reference None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Broad Material reference material should be broad to discover new ideas (broad), and specific to 2 Specific character attributes and mechanics (specific). That there should be a lot of reference collected (plentiful) and that it 3 Plentiful should be from various perspectives and/or resources (varied). 4 Varied

Analyse Reference 1,2 Thoroughly Understood 1 Thorough Material 2 Understood

Act Out Performance None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Informative acting out a performance generates mechanical reference to inform movement 2 Captured (informative), that it should be recorded (captured) for continual reference, and that it should be performed as if the animator 3 Performed were the character (performed).

Identify Thought Process 1 Varied 1 Varied

2 Story Oriented 2 Story Oriented

3 Strong 3 Strong

4 Clear 4 Clear

Analyse Dialogue 1 Portrayable 1 Portrayable

2 Descriptive 2 Descriptive

3 Written Down 3 Written Down

313

Identify Intent 1 Memorable 1 Memorable

2 Revealing 2 Revealing

3 Influential 3 Influential

Identify Key Words None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Emphasised words key words are often emphasised (emphasised), and have inflection 2 Inflective (inflective) that suggests mood/tone.

Identify Tone 1 Evocative 1 Evocative

Document Animation 1 High Level 1 High Level Workflow 2 A Guide To Layering Detail 2 Layered

3 Spontaneous 3 Spontaneous Or Planned

3 Planned

Expectations of quality associated with the Plan Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

314

A4.33 Layout Anim: Expectation of quality mapped to requirements

Layout Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Stage Shot 1 Simple 1 Simple

2 Interesting 2 Interesting

3 Focused on Animation 3 Focused

4 Non-Distractive 4 Non-Distractive

6 Clear what is going on 5 Inventive

5 Have an inventive/creative layout 6 Obvious

6 Obvious 7 Affective

6 Understood 8 Strong

7 Affective

6 Clear

8 Strong

Compose Shot 1 Interesting Shapes 1 Interesting

1 Interesting Silhouettes

Evaluate Story 2 Strong 1 Clear

1 The story should be clear 2 Obvious

Experience suggests that additional 3 Interesting qualities should be present, the story should be obvious (obvious) and story telling actions/animation should be appealing or interesting (interesting)

Setup Scene None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Basic when setting up a scene the environment/assets can be basic and void 2 Simple of detail (basic), the scene should be simple in that it only contains what the animator needs to start telling the story 3 Accurate (simple), but the design and placement of assets should be accurate (accurate).

Expectations of quality associated with Laying Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

315

A4.34 Block Foundation Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements

Block Foundation Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Create Key Poses 1 Basic poses and movement 1 Basic

2 Fundamental Poses 2 Fundamental Poses

3 Most basic level of Narration 3 Narrative

4 Roughly Timed 4 Roughly Timed

Experience suggests that it is better to 5 Stepped create key poses using ‘stepped keys’ as it allows easier evaluation of the poses, but it is not a requirement (stepped).

Create Transition 1 Crafted using stepped keys 1 Stepped Poses

There is minimal difference between 2 Basic expectations of key poses and transitional poses as they serve to 3 Fundamental Poses create the foundations of movement. Experience suggests that qualities are 4 Roughly Timed similar between the two.

Manage Keyframes 1 Use the least amount of key 1 Economical frames possible to animate the action

Familiarise Key/Curve None Identified. Experience suggests 1 Experimental Relationship that experimentation is needed with the shifting and manipulation of key frames and their curves to become familiar movement is being recorded over time.

Evaluate Blocking None Identified. Experience suggests 1 Fundamental that the overall aim and thus quality of the blocked animation is to be fundamental (fundamental) so that animation can be quickly manipulated and/or built upon.

Evaluate Timing 1 Emotional 1 Emotive

2 Readable 2 Readable

3 Rough 3 Rough

Evaluate Poses 1 Identifiable 1 Identifiable

Experience suggests that in order for a 2 Strong pose to identify with an action or

316

emotion, that it must also be a strong and suggestive pose (strong).

Evaluate Appeal 1 Engaging 1 Engaging

2 Likable 2 Likable

3 Well Designed 3 Well-Designed

4 Asymmetrical 4 Asymmetrical

Experience suggests that just because 5 Appealing a character is engaging and likeable that it is not always appealing, and that this should be an additional quality (appealing).

Evaluate Staging 1 Obvious 1 Obvious

2 Clear 2 Clear

3 Affective 3 Affective

4 Strong 4 Strong

Table A4.2: Expectations of quality associated with Block Foundational Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

317

A4.35 Enhance Foundation Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements

Enhance Foundation Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Create Copied Pairs 1 Accurate 1 Accurate

2 preserving 2 preserving

3 Efficient 3 Efficient

Breakdown Poses - Exhibiting Animation Principles 1 Transitional - This expectation will be linked to the evaluation requirements.

1 Transitional 2 Completing

2 Completing Fundamental Actions 3 Offset

1, Plentiful 2

3 Close to one keyframe and not in the middle

Adjust Timing 1 Quick 1 Quick

2 Easy 2 Easy

3 Accurate 3 Accurate

Create Jaw Motion 1 Open & Closed 1 Open & Closed

2 Accurate 2 Accurate

Block In Facial 1 Fundamental 1 Fundamental Expression 2 Expressive 2 Expressive

Pose Mouth Corners 1 United with jaw Motion 1 Integrated

2 Foundational 2 Foundational

Add Performance 1 Rough 1 Rough Nuances 2 Small 2 Small

Evaluate Motion 1 Accurate 1 Accurate

2 Appealing 2 Appealing

3 Symbolic of Final Outcome 3 Symbolic of Final Outcome

318

4 Plentiful 4 Plentiful

Evaluate Rigidity 1 Constant Volume 1 Maintained

1, Accurate Flexibility 2 Accurate 3

2 Overlapping 3 Flexible

Evaluate Timing 1 Emotive 1 Emotive

2 Readable 2 Readable

Experience suggests that the timing of 3 Accurate poses/animation at this point in production should be accurate and ready for detailing (accurate).

Evaluate Transitions 1 Arced 1 Arced

2 Curved 2 Curved

3 Smooth 3 Smooth

4 Economical 4 Economical

5 Organic 5 Organic

Evaluate Anticipation 1 Natural 1 Natural

2 Intuitive 2 Intuitive

3 Focal 3 Focal

Evaluate Pose 1 Identifiable 1 Identifiable

Experience suggests that in order for a 2 Strong pose to identify with an action or emotion, that it must also be a strong and suggestive pose (strong).

Evaluate Secondary 1 Influenced 1 Influenced Action 2 Credible 2 Credible

3 Subordinate 3 Subordinate

4 Obvious 4 Obvious

Evaluate Appeal 1 Engaging 1 Engaging

2 Likable 2 Likable

3 Well Designed 3 Well-Designed

4 Asymmetrical 4 Asymmetrical

Experience suggests that just because 5 Appealing a character is engaging and likeable that it is not always appealing, and

319

that this should be an additional quality (appealing).

Evaluate Personality 1 Varied 1 Varied

2 Story Orientated 2 Story Orientated

3 Strong 3 Strong

4 Clear 4 Clear

Expectations of quality associated with Enhance Foundational Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

A4.36 Detail Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements

Detail Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Convert To Splines - - - -

Pose Mouth Shapes 1 Closed for 2 Frames Min 1 Closed for 2 Frames Min

2 Organic 2 Organic

3 Synchronized 3 Synchronized

Animate Tongue 1 Simple 1 Simple

2 Visible when Vertical 2 Visible when Vertical

3 Travelling 3 Travelling

Animate Blinks 1 Influenced by Thought 1 Influenced by Thought

2 Organic 2 Organic

3 Closed for 2 Frames Min 3 Closed for 2 Frames Min;

4 75/25 Lid Ratio When Closed 4 75/25 Lid Ratio When Closed

5 Cushioned into Open 5 Cushioned into Open

6 (Iris) Partially Visible in 6 (Iris) Partially Visible in Open/Close Poses Open/Close Poses

7 (top lid) Touching Iris 7 (top lid) Touching Iris

320

Animate Eye Brows 1 Driven by the Apex 1 Driven by the Apex

2 Organic 2 Organic

Animate Eye Darts 1 Communicating Thought 1 Thoughtful

2 Rectangular or Triangular 2 Rectangular or Triangular

3 2 Frames of Movement 3 Quick

1 75/25 Lid Ratio When Closed

Evaluate Motion - - - -

Evaluate Rigidity 1 Constant Volume 1 Maintained

1, Accurate Flexibility 2 Accurate 3

2 Overlapping 3 Flexible

Evaluate Timing 1 Emotive 1 Emotive

2 Readable 2 Readable

Experience suggests that the timing of 3 Accurate poses/animation at this point in production should be accurate and ready for detailing (accurate).

Evaluate Anticipation 1 Natural 1 Natural

2 Intuitive 2 Intuitive

3 Focal 3 Focal

Evaluate Unity 1 Natural 1 Natural

2 Interesting 2 Interesting

3 Continual 3 Continual

Evaluate Easing 1 Natural 1 Natural

Evaluate Transitions 1 Arced 1 Arced

2 Curved 2 Curved

3 Smooth 3 Smooth

4 Economical 4 Economical

5 Organic 5 Organic

Evaluate Secondary 1 Influenced 1 Influenced Action 2 Credible 2 Credible

3 Subordinate 3 Subordinate

321

4 Obvious 4 Obvious

Evaluate Appeal 1 Engaging 1 Engaging

2 Likable 2 Likable

3 Well Designed 3 Well-Designed

4 Asymmetrical 4 Asymmetrical

Experience suggests that just because 5 Appealing a character is engaging and likeable that it is not always appealing, and that this should be an additional quality (appealing).

Evaluate Personality 1 Varied 1 Varied

2 Story Orientated 2 Story Orientated

3 Strong 3 Strong

4 Clear 4 Clear

Recognise Anomalies 1 Documented 1 Documented

1 Played back at real-time speed

1 Noted when first noticed

Document Anomalies None Identified. Experience suggests 1 Brief that any documentation should be brief, in order to keep a record/reminder of anomalies (brief).

Expectations of quality associated with Detail Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

322

A4.37 Polish Anim: Expectation of quality to requirements

Polish Animation

Functional System Expectations of Quality Non-Functional ‘Quality’ Requirements System Requirements

Fine-tune Poses None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Minimal fine-tuning at this stage should have minimal impact on posing and/or timing, and that changes are at micro-level.

Enhance Arcs 1 Arced 1 Arced

2 Curved 2 Curved

3 Smooth 3 Smooth

4 Economical 4 Economical

5 Organic 5 Organic

Add Non-Performance 1 Subtle 1 Subtle Nuances 2 Drifting 2 Drifting

3 Alive 3 Alive

4 Interesting 4 Interesting

5 Fun 5 Fun

6 Varied 6 Varied

7 Detailed 7 Detailed

8 Believable 8 Believable

9 Organic 9 Organic

Add Micro Details None Identified. Experience suggests that 1 Subtle micro details are of a micro/small scale (small), and that they are very subtle and 2 Small not immediately obvious (subtle).

Evaluate Animation 1 Specific 1 Specific

2 Improved 2 Improved

3 Life-Like 3 Life-Like

Expectations of quality associated with Polish Animation, and their interpretation as Non-Functional ‘Quality’ System Requirements.

323

A5.1 Briefing letter to the production team (Mk I Production Model)

The Gunter's Fables project is utilising Agent-Oriented Goal Models to manage the overall project and its varied outcomes. Supporting this project management technique, an in-depth Goal Model has been developed which presents a system designed specifically to produce three-dimensional character animation, and is named the Gunter's Fable Production Model. As a member of the production team, you must exclusively reference this model to guide your weekly production activities. The Gunter's Fable Production Model spans seven individual pages, the first page contains a high-level model with the top most activity named 'Animate Shot #', underpinning this requirement are six milestone requirements that are to be attempted and achieved in order of left to right, starting with 'Plan Animation' and concluding with 'Polish Animation'. Each of the remaining pages expand on one of the six milestone requirements, and is done so through a milestone specific goal model. It is recommended, but not essential that you also attempt the activities within these milestone models from left to right. All animation shots have been allocated six working weeks to produce, this means you should aim to achieve one or more milestone requirements per working week. It is likely you have already, or will soon be assigned multiple shots of animation to produce over the three films - you will need to factor this into your personal weekly schedule. Once per week your work-in-progress will be screened to the production team and leadership team, the Gunter's Fable Production Model and the milestone requirements you have been attempting that week will be used as a basis for structuring peer feedback and critique during the screening sessions. The progress of each shot and milestone requirement as perceived by the leadership team during peer review, will be updated onto an all-inclusive project goal model that has been established to track the development of the overall Gunter's Fable project. For each milestone requirement that you attempt, you are asked to complete an online questionnaire, where you will be asked a series of short questions specifically relating to your perception and achievement of the milestone requirement and its underpinning requirements. You are encouraged to complete the questionnaire before, during and immediately after achieving the milestone requirement, at minimum you are asked to complete the questionnaire at least once per milestone requirement. A link to download the Gunter's Fable Production Model and to access the questionnaire can be found below:

Production Model: [link removed / no longer valid] Questionnaire: [link removed / no longer valid]

324

A5.2 Leadership Team: assessment scores

325

A5.3 Plan Animation: data compile and analysis

326

327

328

329

330

A5.4 Layout Animation: data compile and analysis

331

332

333

334

A5.5 Block Foundation Animation: data compile and analysis

335

336

337

338

339

A5.6 Enhance Foundation Animation: data compile and analysis

340

341

342

343

344

A5.7 Detail Animation: data compile and analysis

345

346

347

348

349

A5.8 Polish Animation: data compile and analysis

350

351

352

353

A7.1 Briefing letter to the production team (Mk II Production Model)

Production Model A requirements based three-dimensional character animation production process

What is it? The Production Model is a tool that has been specifically developed to communicate the creative expectations, technical requirements and workflow required to produce an animated three- dimensional character performance.

Core concepts that you need to know! The Production Model presents a repeatable animation process that is segmented into five progressive stages or 'milestones'. Using a requirements based modelling language known as Agent- Oriented Modelling (AOM), the process's creative expectations, technical requirements and responsibilities are made explicit using simple notations, these are;

 Agents: represented as human icons, are used to associate responsibility to perform and achieve requirements.  Functional Requirements: represented as parallelograms, these indicate activities that are to be performed in order for the process to progress, and are often technically orientated. Functional Requirements are easy to measure as they are either complete or incomplete, and do not consider quality.  Non-Functional 'Quality' Requirements: represented as clouds, these describe the quality attributes of Functional Requirements, or simply put - how a Functional Requirement 'should be'. Quality Requirements can be difficult to measure as their achievement is often subjective.  Emotional Requirements: represented as hearts, are used to describe the human qualities and emotions that an animated character is to exhibit, or simple put - how the character should 'feel'. Emotional Requirements can be difficult to measure as their achievement is subjective.  Agent Defined Requirements: Requirements labelled as '?' are situation dependent, and require you to define them in the model.

Enacting the agent of 'Animator', you will aim to produce your three-dimensional character animation from concept through to completion by achieving each milestone's primary requirements (shown as bold icons). Requirement achievement will be self, and peer evaluated as part of regular 'sweatbox' critic sessions, and utilise a colour coded scoring system to express achievement. This method of evaluation aims to facilitate directed critique and discussion to better your understanding of the production process and its expectations.

354

How to use the Production Model The Production Model's five milestones are progressive; this means you must aim to achieve the first milestone in your first week of production activity, the second milestone in your second week of production activity, and so on and so forth until your production is final. You have five weeks of scheduled production activity plus one additional 'final' week, where your focus should be to continue achieving and improving upon the achievement of the fifth milestone.

Self-Evaluation In addition to the Production Model, you have been provided with an Evaluation Model [Production- Model-Evaluation.pdf] which features only milestone primary requirements. Self-evaluation must happen in one of two ways; 1) Open the PDF file in Adobe Illustrator, and colour the requirement icons as per the achievement scale. 2) Print out the PDF file in colour, on A4 paper, and provide a numerical assessment (as per the achievement scale) on the line positioned underneath each requirement icon. You must then submit your self-evaluation to Blackboard alongside your work-in-progress. If using the printed evaluation method, please submit a scanned copy of this to Blackboard.

Unachieved Milestones or Absence In the event that you are unable to achieve or have failed to achieve a milestone, you must continue working towards achieving that milestone, and then also work towards achieving the milestone you would have otherwise been focusing on achieving in the same week. You are free to re-evaluate and re-present reworked milestones alongside current milestone achievements.

Working ahead of schedule In the event that you are working ahead of schedule and progressing through multiple milestones between teaching weeks, please ensure to self-evaluate milestones and prepare work-in-progresses for each milestone.

Each week you must;  Self-evaluate the achievement of the appropriate milestone, and upload your self-evaluation to Blackboard before presenting your work-in-progress.  Present your work-in-progress for 'sweatbox' evaluation as per the appropriate milestone, and submit to Blackboard.

355

A8.1 Human Research Ethics – Ethics Approval

356

357

A8.2 Human Research Ethics – Acknowledgment of Final Report

358