AAs and Screenface

[SteveAZee]

These AA's use a projector inside the head to project the face. It has a lamp in it, and lamps have a limited life. If Disney is being cheap and running these projectors out to lamp failure, then that would explain the blurred face that you saw. Disney needs to replace these lamps BEFORE they degrade and affect the image.

They're projected? I assumed they were some sort of OLED screen. Huh.

 

[danyoung]

I speak not as someone who has inside knowledge, but as someone who has spent 30 years as a tech involved with projection, sound, lighting - heck, just a super-tech geek. I'm pretty sure just on observation that it's projection. I am open, however, to the idea that it's something else.

 

[ProjectXBlog]

i like them, with the exception of the frozen ride; that one has a weird problem where it seems like the animated faces don't always "stretch"/fit the AA skulls properly. this is all from a youtube video i saw though, so i'm honestly just talking out of my butt

 

[Raineman]

i like them, with the exception of the frozen ride; that one has a weird problem where it seems like the animated faces don't always "stretch"/fit the AA skulls properly. this is all from a youtube video i saw though, so i'm honestly just talking out of my butt

That's OK, alot of us do that on here most of the time

 

[MrHappy]

What they do in Enchanted Tales with the Wardrobe and Lumiere are outstanding. The mix of robotics and projection on the faces blew me away. I'm hoping that the new Muppet show at MK will get this (although I'm sure die-hard puppeteers would say otherwise) - I'll settle for the stationary characters like Statler and Waldorf getting this treatment.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I'm with @216bruce: It really depends on the face and some are better than others.

I think that a bigger problem is that they don't age well. Buzz Lightyear had a blurred face that last few years that I rode that ride. They may have fixed him by now. The first time I saw him I thought, "That's freaking amazing!" After he started to blur it just looked worse and worse. It may be because the lens needed to be focused or because dust had collected on his screen-face but it just looked awful and they didn't do anything about it. Actually.. I think that the last time I was there Buzz was either covered up or missing. I may be wrong on that.

It can be a great effect but they really need to stay on top of it with regards to maintenance. A blurred face is far worse than a typical AA face.

"My name is blurryface..."

 

[Magenta Panther]

The AAs in Mine Train are great. I always wonder why the bride in Haunted Mansion still exists in her current state. It looks terrible with the screen face.

Yes, and her design doesn't match the rest of the characters in the Mansion. I don't think she's very effective as a result.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

The dwarfs look fine. The Frozen AAs are a mixed bag. Olaf is awesome. Let it go Elsa is great. All the AAs at the end look horrible.

I'm just glad Universal decided against a giant screen faces Kong AA.

 

[ScarletBegonias]

Interesting thread. I never knew the AA dwarves in 7DMT were "screen" faces. I'll have to look again next time I ride.

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

The success of screen-based faces are extremely dependent on two factors- flawless lighting conditions and properly sculpted facial surfaces (and of course proper maintenance on the projector bulbs/focus/etc). If either area is ignored or poorly planned, you will end up with horrible results that completely ruin the experience. The general rule with projection effects as a whole is to have extremely low lighting conditions (something anyone with familiarity with projectors will know), a facial surface adds an additional complexity to the task.

The Buzz Lightyear and Constance figures are examples of extremely poorly done facial projection. Buzz's surrounding environment is a relatively brightly lit queue, so the effect stands out out as a poor mismatch with the rest of the figure and the environment. The surrounding lighting in the environment also ensures the face looks blurry and washed out.

The Constance figure on the other hand has more appropriate lighting conditions at least, but flunks the facial surface. There was no attempt whatsoever to sculpt any of the face texture, it appears it's just a blank flat canvas. It looks totally flat and horrible even head-on, and other angles are just abysmal. It also doesn't help that they decided to animate her arms via projection, which just adds to how flat and awful the figure is. This figure is perhaps even more laughably bad than Buzz Lightyear because there are numerous examples in the same ride of PROPER executions of facial projection, which were created many decades before the current bride figure. Here's the reason the singing marble busts are infinitely better executed than the bride-

The 7DMT figures look fairly decent, with the exception of the Dopey figure. They are decently well lit (within limits of having exterior light leakage) to match the surroundings and the imagineers properly sculpted the facial surfaces accurately to the features of the dwarfs. I haven't ridden Frozen yet, so i'm holding my opinion of it for now (projections don't come across properly via online video).

I have noticed another oddity with the facial projected AA's though- an occasional disconnect between the movements of the bodies and the movements of the projected eyes. I don't know if this is a synchronization thing or something to do with the people animating the figures. Perhaps different people worked on the AA movements and another team did the projected animation. The eye movements don't always naturally match what the body is doing however.

While I don't dislike well-done facially projected AA's, i'll always have a heavy preference and love for fully mechanical faces. The Lincoln face shown at D23 was very impressive. And the new Navi figures teased for Avatar are even more of a step up (with incredible and super realistic motion around the eye area). Mechanical faces can be done improperly as well of course (Ariel), but they can support a much wider range of lighting conditions comparatively speaking and it can be more satisfying to have a fully physical effect. But both types of effects do require very precise conditions to truly pull off naturally.

 

[Andrew C]

For the more human and non-cartoon AA's, like those in POTC and HOP, I prefer the real non-projection face. But I am okay with screen face for more of the animated characters as I think it fits them better.

 

[danyoung]

Merlin, I agree with most of the points you made. I disagree, though, that the Buzz animatronic looks bad - I think they did a terrific job on it!

 

[DisneyPrincess5]

Eh I don't know how I feel about it. I believe that whatever went into creating these new AAs was highly technologically advanced and intricate, but part of me feels as though it's the cheap and easy way out. I appreciate the old fashioned AAs for many reasons, one reason being that I'm confident it took a lot of hard work and time to make them what they are.

I speak not as someone who has inside knowledge, but as someone who has spent 30 years as a tech involved with projection, sound, lighting - heck, just a super-tech geek. I'm pretty sure just on observation that it's projection. I am open, however, to the idea that it's something else.

It's funny you mention this point, because every single time we ride an attraction that has one of these new type AAs, I always say "what the heck is that? A screen, or a projection?" And we can never figure it out.