Term for voice acting to create video reference

[Hoptoad]

Is there a term for contracting a voice actor to do a reading, but not for their vocal performance, but for the video reference of their body and facial expressions while performing so the video can be used as a reference when animating?

[slowtiger]

I don't know of any special term for that. Maybe you could use "reference acting" and make it clear that this material isn't going to be published in any way.

[Hoptoad]

Wow, I get to name a thing?

I think I'll call it "Body and Facial Reference": abbreviated BFR. Pronounce it Bofur -- like the dwarf from LotR.

Here are the rules of grammar I just invented:

The process itself is called Bofur. As in: "He does both voice-over and Bofur."

The video product is called a Bofur. As in: "Which computer has the Bofur for this scene?"

Lastly, the actor is a Bofur. As in: "Has anybody seen the Bofur? I think he ate my doughnut."

[slowtiger]

"Why does he move so funnily?"
"Oh, he's just bofuring."

[Hoptoad]

LOL

I know that was a joke, but I like how you constructed a gerund from bofur.

"Bofuring" is now an official word. Somebody notify Webster.

[hayasidist]

Is there a term for contracting a voice actor to do a reading, but not for their vocal performance, but for the video reference of their body and facial expressions while performing so the video can be used as a reference when animating?

dare I ask why. If you have a pro voice actor they'll give you loads of facial expressions and a lot of body language because that's how they put the feeling into the words. You'll also need the final voice track _before_ you start animating: voices are almost always cast, recorded, and edited before animation begins. A film might make it as far as the layout stage with scratch (temporary) voices, but it’s best to animate to final dialogue. In a large production it’s common to video-record the vocal performance so the animators can use it as reference.

[Hoptoad]

dare I ask why.

The voice acting is TTS.

So. . .yeah.

[hayasidist]

so you get someone to read it and give you the body language, then get a computer to speak it! well ... ok ... it's your production and your pipeline ...

[DK]

I think that would be hilarious to watch!
D.K

[Hoptoad]

so you get someone to read it and give you the body language, then get a computer to speak it! well ... ok ... it's your production and your pipeline ...

No, that's not the process. All the TTS is done. Animation is what's happening now.

The problem is that the animation could be better in places.

Making a bofur could bump things up a notch.

Believe me, I get that using TTS in a cartoon is a bit odd, but we are confident it won't be a problem if the story is good and the animation is good.

Why?

As we all know (or should know), if the voice acting is good and the story is good, then non-spectacular animation isn't a big, tragic problem. The cartoon can still be successful. Right? Right.

Therefore, if 2 of the 3 primary qualities of a cartoon are good (animation, voice acting, story), then there is no reason to panic over using TTS. As long as the other 2 qualities are good, all is well.

At least that's what we tell ourselves.

Note: for some reason, good animation and good voice acting combined with bad story does not work, so our 2/3 theory is not entirely mathematically foolproof. But we try not to think about that.

[Hoptoad]

I think that would be hilarious to watch!
D.K

There are intentionally funny parts in the cartoon, so laughter would certainly be welcome.

Well, not in the sad parts, of course. There are a couple sad parts. If people laugh in the sad parts, that would be bad.

[hayasidist]

No, that's not the process. All the TTS is done. Animation is what's happening now.
The problem is that the animation could be better in places.
Making a bofur could bump things up a notch.
...

so, potentially, you could use an _actor_ (and maybe only one) who can read all the lines and "perform" as the character would (IOW not necessarily a voice actor)?

[or even the animators themselves with the age-old tried and tested mirror technique (e.g. https://www.traditionalanimation.com/20 ... u-animate/)]

[Hoptoad]

so, potentially, you could use an _actor_ (and maybe only one) who can read all the lines and "perform" as the character would (IOW not necessarily a voice actor)?

You're right, a voice actor is not needed. A regular actor would work just fine.

I agree; one actor could do all the parts, as long as they make the important characters appear different somehow. It might be a fun challenge for someone.

[hayasidist]

... As we all know (or should know), if the voice acting is good and the story is good, then non-spectacular animation isn't a big, tragic problem. The cartoon can still be successful. Right? Right.
Therefore, if 2 of the 3 primary qualities of a cartoon are good (animation, voice acting, story), then there is no reason to panic over using TTS. As long as the other 2 qualities are good, all is well.
At least that's what we tell ourselves.

This discussion (for me at least) represents a fascinating case study into cost-benefit analyses of various production approaches.

Going a bit (a lot?) OT -- you obviously made the decision to use TTS based on a set of criteria [which might have included, such as, the hassle of getting voice actors]. And you've also pointed out that there was an implicit cost-quality trade off. But the "binary" good/bad of the 3 qualities you cite is, IMO, way too simple. I'll assume you're familiar with the Pareto principle ... [but just in case, and oversimplifying it: if the cost of "excellence" is $100: spend $1 to get 1% quality, spend $20 to get 80% quality; but to get the last 20% of quality, you'll need to spend another $80.]

With the three dimensions you point out [which I'll adapt to include not just voice but all the other sounds so: (visual elements, sound, story)] the overall quality is clearly influenced (dragged down) by the lowest quality element. And to put a nuance on your observation that a bad story is a quality killer, I think there are countless movies that have somehow thrived with a storyline that is, to most people, just plain awful because the other dimensions have excelled (notwithstanding that the screenplay itself is usually a tiny element of the overall cost).

However ... Given where you are now, and your feeling that the animation needs the extra sparkle that can be obtained from using live action models, how would you now rate the cost-benefit trade-off of TTS against live Voice Actors?

[Hoptoad]

With the three dimensions you point out [which I'll adapt to include not just voice but all the other sounds so: (visual elements, sound, story)] the overall quality is clearly influenced (dragged down) by the lowest quality element. And to put a nuance on your observation that a bad story is a quality killer, I think there are countless movies that have somehow thrived with a storyline that is, to most people, just plain awful because the other dimensions have excelled (notwithstanding that the screenplay itself is usually a tiny element of the overall cost).

I'd agree, if you're talking about live action movies. People will see a live action movie because they like the star or subject matter, so a badly written script is less problematic. But animated movies? I'm not so sure. I could be wrong, but I think the average movie-watcher holds animation to a higher standard.

I can think of no animated films that are widely considered to have a bad script and yet are "successful" because people liked how it was animated and voice-acted.

EDIT: Okay, I can think of one. (I'm not going to name it.)

However ... Given where you are now, and your feeling that the animation needs the extra sparkle that can be obtained from using live action models, how would you now rate the cost-benefit trade-off of TTS against live Voice Actors?

We'd prefer using voice actors. Absolutely. But we'd be gambling if we took out a loan to pay for them. TTS was used for the scratch dialogue and the scenes still worked: the jokes were still funny and the action still action-y. Would the movie be somewhat better with actual voice actors? I have no doubt the answer is yes; voice actors are amazing. Would the increase in the quality of the movie associated with using voice actors instead of TTS offset the financial risk associated with borrowing money for the actors' fees? Well, clearly we think the answer is "no." The TTS we already have on hand appears to be "satisfactory," and we've gotten this far without loans, so we're going to use TTS and see what happens. It might be a goofy mistake, or not. Time will tell!