Members Phait Posted March 30, 2010 Members Share Posted March 30, 2010 http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-chipmunk-voices.html It's 2010. By recording to tape, you require the voice actors to actually talk slower for their parts, becaus when the tapes are sped up, you get the trademark chipmunk sound. Okay it's not 1970 here... record to digital, and use a damn pitch shifter. WHY would they do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 30, 2010 Members Share Posted March 30, 2010 Some people have a feel for craft and tradition... :D Frankly... I'm the slightest bit dubious that they're actually using tape. Although I can believe that they chose to go with a speed-up rather than merely pitch and formant shifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 This is great. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 I just watched the clip. I confess, I am totally won over by it. I can't believe how visually expressive are the faces now... like the lead Chiptte singing here... :phil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 I'm totally won over by the fact they put way obvious Auto-Tune on them for the song (of course, they pretty much have to, it's part and parcel of teen pop) but I couldn't watch more than 15 seconds of the tune -- it made me want to pull my ears off and stomp up and down on them. When digital processing is too cartoonish for a cartoon it should make people wonder. Yeah... I just watched Roger Rabbit for the first time in a decade or more... that last flame-out of old school hand cel animation was really a fin de siecle kind of blow-out. I don't suspect we'll see anything like that again. (Although I see some of the original principals are talking about doing a sequel after a bunch of misfires that mostly didn't involve them.) In December 2007, [Frank] Marshall admitted he was still "open" to the idea, [41] and in April 2009, [Roger] Zemeckis revealed he was still interested. [42] It is said that the original writers, Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman are currently writing a new script for the project. It is also said that the cartoon characters will be in traditional 2D, while the rest will be in performance capture. [43] from you-know-where-ipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 Yeah... I just watched Roger Rabbit for the first time in a decade or more... that last flame-out of old school hand cel animation was really a fin de siecle kind of blow-out. I don't suspect we'll see anything like that again. (Although I see some of the original principals are talking about doing a sequel after a bunch of misfires that mostly didn't involve them.) from you-know-where-ipedia I should think, in this day and age, doing Cel animation would seem as slow as doing Claymation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 I think the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 I should think, in this day and age, doing Cel animation would seem as slow as doing Claymation.Stop motion is/was actually much faster than hand drawn animation, particularly in the case of Claymation -- a super fast, super-loose process compared to the kind of precision stop-motion done by Harryhausen and pals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 I think the “20 times longer” thing has more to do with the voice actors speaking slowly and the retakes than it does the recording format, but it makes one wonder why digital pitch shifting w/o time shifting is such a trick to get right.That was my take, too. And my experience in my own chipmunks-themed political satire (briefly but no longer mentioned above). Working at half-speed is really not very intuitive for most folks. I had to 'conduct' my voice actors to keep their pacing adequately slow. And it still was almost indecipherable in the end; maybe just as well. I think, if I was doing a Chipmunks project, I would put some serious R&D feasibility testing into pitch/formant shifting tech. I mean, seriously, listen to what Nashville and radio pop sounds like. People are not going to care if some cartoon chipmunks sound 'weird.' Especially not 4 year olds seeing their first Chipmunks vid or movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Funny that even on that, you can hear the AutoTune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 Working at half-speed is really not very intuitive for most folks. . I'll bet those actors had to fight the urge to crack up laughing, having to deliver lines at half-speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted March 31, 2010 Members Share Posted March 31, 2010 They tried it with digital pitch shifting at first, but it did not work, It did not retain the original chipmunks character. yeah, it was a ton of work, a buddy of mine worked on some of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.