Siggraph 2007 Surfs Up Course Notes

Course # 13, SIGGRAPH 2007
San Diego, CA USA
The Making of an Animated Documentary
Written & Presented by:
Rob Bredow
David Schaub
Daniel Kramer
Matthew Hausman
Danny Dimian
R. Stirling Duguid
Sony Pictures Imageworks, Culver City, CA, USA

©2007 Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. All rights reserved.
SURF’S UP
About these notes

These course notes cover new tools, processes and pipelines that
were developed to make Surf ’s Up a reality. These course notes are
intended to serve as a reference for some of the more unique
aspects of the Surf ’s Up production pipeline. Many aspects of the
production of the film share a lot in common with other CG
feature films and have been intentionally omitted.
This document is best viewed in “Facing Pages” mode if viewing digitally.
i SIGGRAPH 2007
SURF’S UP
SIGGRAPH 2007 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.1. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1.2. About the Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2. Making an Animated Documentary . . . . . . . . . . . .5
2.1. The Premise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
2.2. Found Footage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2.3. The Live-Action Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
2.3.1. The HandyCam System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
2.3.2. The Hardware and Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
2.4. Slow Motion and Time Manipulation . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.4.1. High Speed Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.4.2. Step Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
2.4.3. Ramped Camera Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
3. Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
3.1. Animation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
3.2. Character Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
3.3. Cody’s animation rig and controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
3.3.1. Body Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
3.3.2. Face Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
3.4. Character Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
3.4.1. Development Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
3.4.2. Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
3.4.3. Cycle Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
3.5. Performance Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
3.5.1. Premise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
3.5.2. Body Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
3.5.3. Acting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
3.5.4. Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
3.6. Layout / Animation Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.6.1. Rough Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.6.2. Layout / Animation Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
3.6.3. Animation Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
3.6.4. Final Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
iii SIGGRAPH 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.7. Animating the Shape of the Wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 5.3. Wave Trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
3.7.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 5.4. Foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
3.7.2. Rig Builds and Wave Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 5.5. Wave Geometry Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
3.7.3. Animation Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 5.6. Creating Correct Motion Blur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
3.7.4. Animation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 5.7. Wave Particle Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
3.7.5. Visualization Aides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 5.7.1. Lip Spray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
3.8. Surfing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 5.7.2. Whitewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
3.8.1. Rig Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 5.7.3. The Foam Ball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
3.8.2. Constraint System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 5.8. Rendering a Lot of Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
3.8.3. Surfing Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 5.9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
4. Making Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 6. Wave Shading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
4.2. Goals and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 6.2. Artistic Goals: Realistic vs. Stylized . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
4.2.1. Slow Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 6.3. Rendering the Water: Wave Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
4.2.2. Control vs. Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 6.4. Rendering the Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
4.2.3. Wave Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 6.5. Compositing: Putting It All Together . . . . . . . . . . .98
4.2.4. Establishing Waves Early in Pipeline . . . . . . . . . .57 6.6. Filming Waves Documentary Style . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
4.3. Wave Shot Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 6.6.1. Underwater Camera Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
4.3.1. Rough Layout Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 6.6.2. Board Mounted Video Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
4.3.2. Animation Setup Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 6.7. Examples of Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
4.3.3. Animation Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 7. Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
4.3.4. Final Layout Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 7.1. Presenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
4.4. Wave Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 7.1.1. Rob Bredow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
4.4.1. Wave Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 7.1.2. David Schaub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
4.4.2. Animation Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 7.1.3. Daniel Kramer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
4.4.3. Wave Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 7.1.4. Danny Dimian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
4.4.4. Wave Trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 7.1.5. Matt Hausman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
4.4.5. Wave Riders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 7.2. Additional Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
4.4.6. Wake Visualizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 7.2.1. R. Stirling Duguid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
4.4.7. Whitewater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
5. Wave Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 8.1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 8.2 Imageworks Credit Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
5.2. The Wave and the Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
SIGGRAPH 2007 iv
SURF’S UP
v SIGGRAPH 2007
INTRODUCTION

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
Introduction
SIGGRAPH 2007 1
SURF’S UP
1.1 Abstract
The CG animated documentary Surf ’s Up called for
unique production techniques to be leveraged
throughout the creation of the film. This half day
course presents an in-depth look at several of the key
aspects of the production:
• Integration of a live action hand-held camera

into the virtual world to allow the movie to be
“shot” in a documentary style.
• Development of the wave system and its

integration and use by all departments on the film
during the production of the movie.
• Animation techniques and choices made to

support the documentary nature of the film.
• Novel effects animation techniques created to

support the large number of breaking waves
featured in the film.
• Look development and lighting techniques

leveraged to render the realistic breaking waves as
seen in the film.
2 SIGGRAPH 2007
INTRODUCTION
1.2 About the Film

Surf ’s Up is an animated documentary that delves behind the scenes of the high-octane world of competitive surfing.
The film profiles teenage Rockhopper penguin Cody Maverick (Shia LaBeouf ), an up-and-coming surfer, as he enters
his first pro competition. Followed by a camera crew to document his experiences, Cody leaves his family and home
in Shiverpool, Antarctica to travel to Pen Gu Island for the Big Z Memorial Surf Off. Along the way, Cody meets
surf nut Chicken Joe (Jon Heder), famous surf promoter Reggie Belafonte (James Woods), surf talent scout Mikey
Abromowitz (Mario Cantone), and spirited lifeguard Lani Aliikai (Zooey Deschanel), all of whom recognize Cody’s
passion for surfing. Cody believes that winning will bring him the admiration and respect he desires, but when he
unexpectedly comes face-to-face with a washed-up old surfer named Geek (Jeff Bridges), Cody begins to find his own
way, and discovers that a true winner isn’t always the one who comes in first.
SIGGRAPH 2007 3
SURF’S UP
4 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING AN ANIMATED DOCUMENTARY

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
SIGGRAPH 2007 5
SURF’S UP
2.1 The Premise

The premise of shooting Surf ’s Up as an animated documentary provided a welcome opportunity to use new
techniques to bring a fresh look to an animated feature. The idea that the film was shot by a medium-budget
documentary crew informed every area of the production; from the choices made with the camera moves to the
lighting setups used throughout the film.
Some of the most important items that lead to the “documentary” feel of the movie were identified after studying
films like Step Into Liquid (2003), The Endless Summer (1966) and Second Thoughts (2004). They all contained “found
footage,” lots of hand-held cameras and extensively used slow motion and other time manipulation techniques.
6 SIGGRAPH 2007
2.2 Found Footage

Like any good documentary, Surf ’s Up contains
footage from various sources that is being used
throughout the film. This footage required an
authentic “archive” feel to help inform the audience
that the film has a real history (albeit fabricated).
The archive footage was used heavily in the first act
of the film to help establish the world and the genre
of the movie but was also referenced in the second
and third acts to refer back to historical events that
played an important role in the story.
The filmmakers also “found” footage from modern

day sources and leveraged shots from SPEN (the
“Sports Penguin Entertainment Network”). This
footage was played as if it was shot on high
definition video so it had a distinctive sharp look,
color artifacts, and over-the-top motion graphics left
over from being shot by a sports network always
looking for that punchy feel for their viewers.
The primary types of footage that Imageworks

conveyed during the film included:
• 1920s film
• 1950s film
• 1970s film
• 1970s still photographs (Polaroid, instamatic)
• Circa 2000 1st unit photography
• Circa 2000 Video
SIGGRAPH 2007 7
SURF’S UP
2.2 Found Footage cont’d

A large assortment of elements went into creating the
various looks including:
• Grain
• Film discoloration
• Scratches
• Negative dirt (white)
• Print dirt (black)
• Small hairs
• Fuzzy projection mask
• Light leaks (yellow/orange glow on right
edge of screen)
• Roll outs
• Tape splices
• Lens vignetting
• Projection vignetting
• Projection strobing
• Lens color aberrations
• Negative/Clear leader marker lines
• China marker lines (for process)
• Video scanlines/interlace/de-interlaced method
• Motion graphics
The various film and video looks used throughout the

film were implemented as compositing macros that
were applied to degrade the full color, high resolution
images generated by the render and created the look
appropriate for the shot or sequence. The macros were
developed by the Compositing Supervisor and other
lead lighting/compositing artists and each of the
individual lighting artists adjusted the effects as needed
for their particular shot and sequence.
8 SIGGRAPH 2007
SIGGRAPH 2007 9
SURF’S UP
2.3 The Live-Action Camera

Any low or medium budget documentary takes advantage of
the speed and convenience of a handheld camera throughout
production. The filmmakers and Visual Effects Supervisor
desired to convey this same feeling throughout Surf ’s Up.
10 SIGGRAPH 2007
2.3.1 The HandyCam System

Sony Pictures Imageworks built a new live-action camera system for the film, dubbed the “HandyCam.” The
HandyCam system allowed a live action camera to be used to “shoot” an animated scene. The camera operator would
operate the physical camera and the capture system recorded those movements and used them to drive the virtual
camera for the shot. Since the hardware and software used in this system was real-time, the operator would get instant
feedback of the performance in the form of a 3D smooth shaded version of the virtual world fed back into the
eyepiece of the camera.
The very first shot that used the HandyCam system proved to be very educational. It seemed like a simple shot which
had already been blocked out by key-framing a camera in Maya. It consisted of a camera watching some pieces of a
surfboard wash up on the beach and then tilt up to find a surfer on a wave near the horizon. Interestingly, after nearly
20 takes and several different operators, the camera move felt completely awkward and un-natural. After studying
the original key-framed camera move, it became obvious to the Head of Layout that the angles called for in the move
were almost impossible for a real operator to achieve. A simple adjustment was made where the camera operator stood
in a slightly different location on the beach to get the shot from a more natural angle and a couple of takes later, the
camera was finished and ready to go into the film. The final camera work looked as though it could have been caught
“in the moment” by a cameraman on the scene and felt correct for the movie—a significant improvement over the
original key-framed version of the shoot.
From that point on, the general rule for the HandyCam system was that if you couldn’t get the shot in a few takes,
something was probably wrong with the concept or the basic idea of the shot and it should be simplified. Since the
movie was a documentary, the filmmakers wanted it to feel as though it had been captured in real-time as the events
took place and there was no chance to go back and get a second take.
Since the system operated in real-time, it allowed the production the flexibility to use the HandyCam system on as
many shots in the film as was appropriate. In all, the crew used this tool on over half the shots in the film including
helicopter shots and shots “filmed” underwater.
In addition to providing a natural hand-held feel to the camera work in the movie, the HandyCam helped to give an
authenticity to the camera work throughout the film by keeping the camera moves simple. It lent more credibility
to the documentary feel, even if the audience only perceives it subliminally.
HandyCam in action
SIGGRAPH 2007 11
SURF’S UP
2.3.2 The Hardware and Software

Imageworks is highly experienced with motion capture and integrating live-action cameras into a CG world as
evidenced by the work on The Polar Express (2004), Monster House (2006), and others currently in production. On
Surf ’s Up, the Visual Effects Supervisor wanted to build on those existing camera capture systems (previously referred
to as “Wheels”; see From Mocap to Movie: The Making of The Polar Express course notes (2005)) and improve them in
two specific areas.
First, the 3D playback portion of the system needed to work in real-time in Maya. Since the front-end of the
Imageworks pipeline is built around Maya, the overhead involved in moving complicated scenes into another 3D
package, which is better optimized for 3D viewing, can be taxing to the efficiency of a production. In particular, since
the Surf ’s Up scenes required complex interaction between the wave and the characters, an automated translation step
would have been very complicated or impossible.
As a result, the CG Supervisors on Surf ’s Up worked closely with the Imageworks Software department to develop an
optimized playback system inside Maya. This custom plug-in enabled real-time caching and playback of hundreds
of thousands of polygons per second while keeping all the data in the format native to the facility pipeline. The tool
was so convenient and provided such quick feedback for complicated scenes that it was quickly adopted throughout
the Imageworks pipeline as the primary display engine for complicated 3D geometry.
Example of complex scene data from Big Z's beach
12 SIGGRAPH 2007
The second major improvement was the hardware and

software used to capture the position and location of
the camera. In previous movies that Imageworks had
completed, the hand-held camera moves were designed
to simulate a high-end steady-cam as used in most big
budget features. This had the technical advantage that
the capture system could have small errors and noise in
the data which could later be filtered out by smoothing
and would result in a camera move which felt correct
for a high end film.
For Surf ’s Up, the team desired the little bumps and
imperfections that are characteristic, and part of the
charm and authenticity of a low-budget documentary.
These are a result of not having access to a steady-cam
and other high-end equipment when shooting in
remote locations. Technically, this required a highly
accurate capture device that would need very little
post-filtering to achieve the final look.
For these requirements, the Visual Effects Supervisor

turned to 3rdTech to leverage their HiBall-3100 Wide-
Area tracker. This hardware was ideally suited to the
requirements of the show as it easily covered a medium
size capture area of 16’x16’ and works indoors with a
low ceiling. The system also yields highly accurate data
since the beacon arrays are statically mounted to the
ceiling and the high resolution sensor is attached to the
camera. Using that type of design, a small change in
the angle of the camera provides a large change to the
position of the markers across the sensor; so the
accuracy of the rotational data is extremely robust.
The HiBall-3100 tracker has a very low latency as well.
The Imageworks team also installed encoders onto the

zoom controls on the camera so the operator could
manipulate the zoom as well as the position and
orientation in a completely intuitive way. All of this
data was fed into a cohesive library which managed
and recorded the data and sent the appropriate streams
to Maya for real-time display.
SIGGRAPH 2007 13
SURF’S UP
2.4 Slow Motion and Time Manipulation

Documentary filming relies extensively on manipulation of
time for purposes of storytelling, setting the mood and
generally making something out of a limited amount of
footage. For Surf ’s Up, several different types of time
manipulations were implemented to allow the filmmakers
the same amount of flexibility that you would expect if you
were shooting a live-action surfing documentary.
2.4.1 High Speed Photography

The first type of time manipulation was to allow any shot to be photographed using High Speed
Photography (aka: slow motion, or shooting over-cranked). This is to mimic the live action camera that is
configured to shoot more than 24 frames in one second. The slow motion effect is smooth and graceful.
High Speed Photography gives a high-end and almost hyper-realistic look when shooting water. Very high
speed cameras shoot 200 or 300 frames per second and are great for shooting effects work or close up crashing
waves. Step Into Liquid provided great reference of breaking waves shot at 200 fps.
For High Speed Photography, the Layout department determined a camera speed. This speed was recorded
in a database and displayed on the slate for everyone to reference. The camera speed indicated the frame rate
of the camera if it were shot on a live action set. A value of 48 fps slowed everything in the shot down by a
factor of 2. The Layout, Animation and Effects departments all used this frame rate and adjusted their
workflow using various tools so that the final output of the department looked as though it was shot at the
desired frame rate.
For example, Layout had a shot that they wanted to shoot at 240 fps (extreme slow motion). Layout recorded
a real-time handheld camera move and then slowed it down by a factor of 10 to get the appropriate speed for
the shot. Animation would take that shot when it arrived in their department and squeeze it down by a factor
of 10 to first animate the character in real-time. Once the real-time blocking is approved, the animation file
would then be stretched back out to 10 times the length so that it appears to be moving in slow-motion and
any last touch-ups would be completed. The Effects department also built all of their tools to respect the
camera speed variable so that particle effects and other simulations would slow down correctly for the shots.
The procedural implementation of the high speed camera allowed the filmmakers to use slow motion at will
during the production of the film without significant budgetary impact.
14 SIGGRAPH 2007
2.4.2 Step Printing

Another tool often used in documentaries is to Step Print
a shot (aka: double-printing or triple-printing). Often,
footage is acquired at a given frame rate during the shoot
but later it is decided in the editorial post-production that
the shot needs to be slowed down. At that point, the only
option is to print each frame in the shot twice, three or four
times to make the action fill more time. This results in a
stepped slow motion effect that looks more low-end and
gritty. It’s ideal for cutting action into faster paced
sequences or anywhere that a smooth slow-motion effect
wouldn’t feel right.
For Step Printing on Surf ’s Up, the production again

mimicked the live-action paradigm and the editorial
department could step print and adjust the timing of shots
in “post” at anytime up until the edit was complete. This
allowed the filmmakers the flexibility to make timing
changes to shots after they were animated and lit and
certain frames were double or triple-printed to achieve the
necessary slow down. The result was that the final shot
appeared to have been shot in real time (or at the camera
speed) and then the playback speed was adjusted in “post”.
The difference between the two types of slow motion is

somewhat subtle but the audience picks up on the variety
of different techniques used in the film. The conventions
adopted by Surf ’s Up mimic the conventions an audience is
used to seeing in any surfing documentary and helps to aid
the authenticity of the movie.
SIGGRAPH 2007 15
SURF’S UP
2.4.3 Ramped Camera Speeds

The final type of time manipulation used during the production of Surf ’s Up was the Ramped Speed shot. For these
shots, the camera speed or the playback speed was adjusted during the shot for maximum impact. On a live action set,
a ramped camera actually allows the camera to change frame rates during a shot. It’s a complicated technique that
requires the coordination of several things to actually adjust a “frame rate” dial on the camera while simultaneously
adjusting the aperture of the lens to maintain proper exposure. Ramping the camera speed allows for a shot to go
from real-time to slow motion during the course of a shot and has been used recently in high-end feature films.
1 2
5 6
16 SIGGRAPH 2007
The Ramped Speed shots in Surf ’s Up were managed as “one-offs” since the automated tools did not have the ability
to handle the various speeds on behalf of the user. In each of these shots, the animation, FX and camera were
massaged to have a ramped speed feel to exaggerate the dramatic timing of the shot and draw the audience’s attention
to the part of the shot that the filmmakers were interested in focusing on. The Ramped Speed shots always required
some combination of the above techniques to create the illusion of smooth changes between camera speeds.
The combination of all three time manipulation techniques was designed to continually remind the audience that the
movie was shot with a camera and edited like a traditional surfing documentary—the surfers just happen
to be penguins.
3 4
7 8
SIGGRAPH 2007 17
SURF’S UP
18 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
ANIMATION
SIGGRAPH 2007 19
SURF’S UP
3.1 Animation Team

The Surf ’s Up animation crew consisted of the
Animation Director, four Lead Animators and
approximately 60 Animators at full capacity. The Lead
Animators were sequence-based (rather than character-
based), and would be cast sequences based on their
strengths and specialties. For example, the surfing
sequences were managed almost exclusively by the
surfing team because of the level of specialty that
surfing required. The same applied to sequences that
predominantly featured a certain character that a given
crew may have shown a knack for.
It was the goal of the Directors to create a film (and

environment) where the animators could truly have
fun with the animation. Many shots were staged as an
open palette where animators could cut loose and allow
the animated performances to drive the sequence. The
crew took to the idea that this was an “animator’s
movie” with incredible performance opportunities that
don’t come along very often.
The Layout, Animation and Effects crews were joined

at the hip, and got even tighter as time went on. It was
extremely important to maintain close communication
between departments for every shot that traveled
through the pipe. At no time did one department
“throw-it-over-the-fence” to the next department and
move on. The smallest change (or detail overlooked)
would always have a way of affecting other
departments downstream. The goal was to always keep
shots moving forward through the pipe; never
backward. Ongoing communication between
departments was the key to making that happen.
20 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.2 Character Designs

Character designs for Surf ’s Up began in January 2005.
While the characters are loosely based on reference
from specific penguin types (rockhoppers, emperor
penguins, etc.), the adaptation of these references are
steeped in a rich heritage of classic 2D design. A very
distinctive feature of the penguin designs is the painted
patterns on their feathers. The Geek has the subtle
hibiscus pattern, whereas Tank Evans has prominent
tattoos. These distinct lines and patterns are unique
for each of the lead characters. The directors knew that
they wanted to cast Jeff Bridges for the role of Geek, so
it was important to move quickly with that design first
so that Jeff Bridges could be sold on the idea as well.
The concept and design won over the actor, and the
Geek design ultimately drove the look of the other
characters, all of which underwent much iteration over
the year leading up to production.
By January 2006, the designs for all of the characters

were approved by the Directors and were able to move
forward into modeling. Each design was clearly
defined from all angles with the traditional array of
model and pose sheets, as well as artwork for the
complete set of phonemes and facial expressions. The
goal was to replicate these designs in 3D with a high
degree of accuracy. Even after modeling and rigging
began, the Character Designer remained on hand to
consult with the Animation Director and Modeling
Supervisor so that the intended designs translated
seamlessly to a 3D world.
SIGGRAPH 2007 21
SURF’S UP
3.3 Cody’s animation rig and controls

The most important goal for the animation rigs on
Surf ’s Up was that they be fast and responsive. From
the perspective of the Animation Director it was better
to animate with a basic, stripped-down puppet that
was fast, rather than use a slower rig with a lot of cool
features. This way the animators could do many more
iterations of a shot, and experiment with new acting
ideas that may never have been attempted with a slower
rig. When it came to the characters in this film, it was
less about the technology and more about the heart
behind the performance. The technology could not
stand in the way of that creative process. There were a
lot of “cool” features built into the rigs up front that
were ultimately stripped out because of the
performance hit. What was left in the end was a very
efficient rig with only a few unique features that are
summarized in this Section.
3.3.1 Body Rig
3.3.1.1 Reverse Spine

Surf ’s Up was not an extreme squash-and-stretch style
of film but it did have a fair amount of poses that
couldn’t be achieved with a standard FK spine. With
that in mind the FK spine was equipped with a special
feature that allowed the animator to pick a point along
the spine at which to “reverse” it, essentially folding the
spine in the opposite direction of the normal spine.
The reverse spine was particularly useful when the
animators were posing a surfing character. Surfers are
often getting their feet above their heads and using the
reverse spine allowed animators to keep the top part of
the body in a fixed pose while rotating the lower half of
the body from a pivot point in the chest area.
Reverse spine pivot
22 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.3.1.2 Knee Poppers and Cuff Controls

One of the most interesting aspects of the characters
was the setup and animation of penguin’s legs. Early
in the design phase of the characters, a “board short”
look was created for the legs of the penguins. This
was not an anatomically correct penguin leg, but for
this movie the penguins needed to surf. The knees
of an anatomically correct penguin are actually
enclosed inside their bodies (as is most of the leg)
making them look as if they were walking inside a
sack of potatoes. In contrast, Cody and most of the
other lead penguins made a complete departure
from reality and had short visible legs that needed
controls to achieve a wide variety of poses. The setup
team created controls that allowed animators to
Anatomically correct skeleton vs. Cody’s modified skeleton move the shorts independently of the inner leg. The
FK short joints coupled with the cuff controls
allowed for the animators to pose the shorts into the
exact poses they needed. The inner legs also had
controls that could “pop” the knees in the situations
where the animators needed a more visible and
defined knee shape. This was especially helpful when
the characters were surfing as the legs were often
scaled beyond their default length to achieve the
desired poses.
Knee poppers
Cuff controls
SIGGRAPH 2007 23
SURF’S UP
3.3.2 Face Rig
3.3.2.1 Muscles vs. Blend Shapes

Surf ’s Up face rigs are a hybrid between a blend-shape system and a muscle-based system. The muscle system was
used solely for the brows and eyes of the characters. The blend-shape system was used for the beaks and cheek area.
Due to the “relatively” rigid beaks of these characters, the non-linear-in-between nature of a simple blend-shape
system sufficed. The muscle system used on the brows provided a fleshy feel to the character’s skin that came across
nicely in the final result. By splitting the face into two system regions, the workload was more efficiently distributed
between the Rigging and Modeling departments.
24 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.3.2.2 Beak Rig

The initial face rig was based on penguin anatomical studies and reference. The beaks of real
penguins are rigid, but the emulation of a real penguin’s beak was quickly deemed the “Muppet
Mouth” due to its puppet-like performance limitations. Coupled with the natural, off-beat voice
work by the actors, the rigid beaks could not achieve a believable level of expression. Even so, the
anatomical approach to the rig was the basis for these characters, and the first step toward converting
the essence of a real penguin into a more artistic/stylized interpretation. The goal was to infuse more
deformation controls into the beak rig that would allow for more “humanistic” behaviors.
This implementation introduced such features as:
• Controls along the length of the beak to sculpt the curvature of the lip-line.
• Controls to position the mouth corners in multiple directions.
• Controls to deform and roll the end of the beak.
• Controls to deform and shape the length and curvature of the mandible.
• Controls to deform the entire beak volume up, down and side to side.
• Controls to puff up the beak to simulate air pressure inside (to accent hard consonants in dialog).
Although the beaks didn’t deform in a truly anatomical nature, the acting performance was much
more successful with the added level of articulation.
SIGGRAPH 2007 25
SURF’S UP
3.3.2.3 Eyelid Rig

The foundation of the eyelid rig is a series of scaling joints located on the edge of the eyelid. There is one joint for
every poly edge that flows into the eye. This seemingly overabundant level of control provided animators the ability
to adjust every span of the eyelid to achieve any desired eye pose.
The eyelid rigs also had two distinct features that were designed to both enhance and simplify the process of
animation. They are the “Sum-Of-Ten Blink System” and the “Eyeball Follow Feature.”
The “Sum-Of-Ten Blink System” helped animators ensure that the character’s eyelids are completely blinked
regardless of the existing eyelid pose. Each eyelid control contains an upper eyelid and lower eyelid blink attribute.
The logic of this system is as follows: As long as the sum of the upper and lower eyelid attribute value is 10, then the
mating edge of the lids will meet precisely. Animators can control the location of the lid convergence by altering the
bias of the two numbers. The default value of each attribute is 0. For example, a value of 9 on the upper eyelid
attribute and a value of 1 on the lower eyelid attribute would result in a low blink line. The value of 9 means that
the upper eyelid travels 90% of the distance and the value of 1 drives the lower lid 10% of the distance.
The “Eyeball Follow Feature” was created to infuse more human-like qualities into the penguin characters. When a
human eye looks up, down, left or right, the eyelid stretches and contracts, folds and unfolds to track the motion of
the eyeball. Without this deformation feature, the eyeball looks like a marble rotating inside the head of a rigid
mannequin. This feature has become a standard feature in the Imageworks character rigs.
26 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.3.2.4 Facial Animation UI (Surfshop)

“Surfshop” is a User Interface for the facial animation system. It organizes all of the facial controls in a logical,
accessible interface for the animators. Leveraging off of Maya’s channel box widget, Surfshop displays multiple
categorized columns of attributes. Only the chosen facial control nodes are displayed in the UI. With this interface,
animators can easily view every keyable attribute in the facial rig at the same time. This interface eliminates the need
to traverse through different facial controls and node hierarchies in search of desired rig functions. In Surfshop’s first
channel box column is the facial rig’s pose node. The pose node houses a dynamic list of animator-created-and-named
pose attributes. The facial poses driven by these pose attributes differ from the rig’s other attributes in that they are
constructed solely from the rig’s other facial controls represented in the remaining columns.
SIGGRAPH 2007 27
SURF’S UP
3.4 Character Development
3.4.1 Development Tests

The first animation tests got underway in January
2006. Tests were done with scratch tracks from various
recording sessions by Jeff Bridges so that the animation
style for the film could be explored. A marketing shot
was also produced for ComicCon in March 2006 that
featured the Glen character, voiced by Brian Posehn.
Much was learned about what did and did not work
through these tests, and the style of the animation
began to take shape. The ComicCon shot was
ultimately used in the film, although it had to be
reworked to suit the animation style that had evolved
(see Section 3.2). While the performance tests defined
the acting style, broad movement of the characters had
not yet been fully explored. It was then time to see
how the characters walked, moved and got around.
The first character test shot
28 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.4.2 Cycles
As animators began rolling on to the show, each one was
assigned the task of animating cycles of various types. In
addition to the usual walks and runs (and attitude
variations for each), paddle cycles on surfboards were done
as well.
Much can be learned about a character through the way it

moves, and walk cycles are notorious for revealing who a
character is, and how it sees itself in its animated world.
Surprisingly, the way that a character paddled through the
water (and popped up onto his board) revealed just as
much about that character as any other performance test
that was done. The animators brought great life and ideas
to the table that ultimately defined who these characters
were.
In addition, a whole series of “sitting, talking, cheering,

clapping, pointing” cycles were animated as well. There
was even a collection of “stand-around-and-do-nothing”
cycles which consisted of little more than breathing and
looking around. Each of these cycles was between 300 and
1000 frames, and could be used anywhere within the
context of a crowd. A single cycle would look great in a
crowd if all you did was offset the timing for each character.
The result was a very natural looking mix of behaviors.
On the flip side, much was learned about the animators,

and what their strengths and capabilities were. The cycle
development phase of the project ultimately became a great
casting tool for the shots that followed.
SIGGRAPH 2007 29
SURF’S UP
3.4.3 Cycle Library

The cycles were initially compiled into a web-based archive
with paths to the various Maya file curves for each cycle.
By mid-show, a more elegant interface was developed in
Maya. The interface allowed users to choose a cycle from a
list of choices, and preview the rendered version of the cycle
in Imageworks’ animation media player. From there the
user could import those animation curves onto the selected
character (even if the character was not the same as what
was used in the original animation), and specify offsets and
insertion points for the animation cycle.
30 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.5 Performance Animation
3.5.1 Premise
Surf ’s Up was structured like “Survivor-style” reality
TV with lots of “unrehearsed” interviews and
impromptu performances along the way. The
camera was often “hand-held” to produce very
organic moves with the natural bumps and bobbles
of a live camera operator. There was a magic in this
imperfection, and that was what the Surf ’s Up team
tried to capitalize on in the animation as well. The
performances needed to be portrayed as off-the-cuff,
spontaneous and real. The result was an honest,
voyeuristic glimpse into the true nature of these
characters as they played out their lives before
(and off ) the camera.
Dialog was recorded with multiple actors

improvising and playing off of each other (and
talking over the top of each other as well). This is
very unusual for an animated film where the
recordings are generally more pristine and directed.
The voice tracks in this film included microphone
bumps, feedback, verbal fumbling and dialog quirks
that made the voice performances feel raw and
spontaneous. An interesting discovery was that the
words people use don’t necessarily articulate what
they truly mean. If you transcribed the dialog from
some of these tracks you would end up with a lot of
verbal clutter that really makes no sense. True
communication is not in the words, but in the
phrasing, delivery and most importantly, the body
language that supports it.
The documentary format allows the characters to

drive the scene. The illusion is that the camera just
“happens” to be there to capture the moment.
Animators rarely get the opportunity to play out
such long, extended performances where the
characters carry the shot completely. From an acting
perspective, it was an animator’s dream come true.
SIGGRAPH 2007 31
SURF’S UP
3.5.2 Body Language

Body language reveals the emotional state of the character behind its words. It is the posture, subtle eye shape
changes, the eye darts, the direction of the gaze, a lift of the brow, a tilt of the head, and orchestrating the delicate
timing between all of these elements. Animators manipulate the body language to reveal a character’s emotional state
and the direction of its thoughts. Body language can reveal things about the characters that they may not even be
aware of themselves.
In general, the goal of animation is to embellish the dialog with body language that directly supports the delivery of
that line. In Surf ’s Up, animators are going for subtext beyond the obvious. What the character is saying and what
he is thinking (or what he really means) might be two entirely different things. There is another layer of complexity
here because the documentary camera is running, and characters might have different agendas that they reveal (or
hide) depending upon whether the camera is rolling. Are they self conscious in front of the camera? Are they using
the camera to shamelessly promote themselves? How does that personality change when the cameras are off?
32 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.5.3 Acting
The acting challenge was to deliver performances that felt spontaneous and unrehearsed. It could be categorized as
“behavior animation.” It is the business that actors might do between takes when they stop acting and become
themselves. If the camera caught them off-guard, then the team would animate through those awkward moments
and try to capture some magic in the process. The audience must believe that the character is telling the truth or at
least being true to himself at that moment (even if he is being true to a lie). Again, this is where the subtext
comes through.
What appears “spontaneous” in animation is a result of crafting the performance down to the last little eye-dart. The
subtlety of execution is evident down to such things as the breath that they take (another “body language”
fundamental that defines the character’s emotional state). The goal is to create something fresh and unique with
every shot without relying on standard acting formulas.
The difference between a believable performance and one that is “overplayed” is often incredibly subtle. It can be a
bottom eyelid raised just a touch too high. Backing off that lower-lid by 10% can change the emotional state of the
character entirely. There are very fine lines in the subtle acting style portrayed in this film. The goal is to make the
acting clear, but not hit the audience in the face with overly dramatic character clichés.
SIGGRAPH 2007 33
SURF’S UP
3.5.4 Style
The animation style of this film could be called “caricatured reality.” It is real-world dynamics pushed to caricature
without breaking the fundamental rules of physics and gravity. Although the style is generally not pose-to-pose with
cartoon physics, that line is sometimes crossed to keep certain performances sharp and punchy for comic value (like
the natives, for example). Even so, there is a respect for the physics of the world that the Directors established up
front. Most importantly, once the rules were in place they had to remain consistent throughout the entire film.
Physics could not change to suit a certain animator’s style, regardless of how interesting that performance might be.
The naturalistic animation style is attributed in large part to the documentary format of this film. The natural feel
of the “hand-held” camera was integral to that style. Snappy cartoon physics in the characters would certainly conflict
with that reality. The human touch in the camera gives audiences a sense that a crew is present, who are just as much
a part of the action as the primary characters (although behind the scenes). The characters often engage with the
unseen crew, which reminds us that this film is being shot on location (rather than being created in the dark corridors
of an animation facility). It was important to support that naturalistic style in the animation as well, or the two
worlds would disconnect.
Cartoon physics, and the broad performances that go with it, tend to be more forgiving on the “believability scale”
because it is a world where rules are made to be broken and everyone knows it. As we push closer to reality, the fine
lines need to be considered. If a gesture or expression is pushed just a little too far, then the performance may not
ring true, and it may feel a touch too dramatic. If you don’t go far enough then you miss the mark on the other side.
The goal is to hit the sweet spot where everything undeniably gels.
34 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.6 Layout / Animation Pipeline
3.6.1 Rough Layout

When a sequence was completed in storyboards and timed in Editorial it was launched into Layout. The Layout
launch was a meeting led by the Directors and the Layout Supervisor and attended by the Production Designer, the
Animation Director and the Visual Effects Supervisor. The object of the launch was to determine the cinematic style
of the sequence and for any creative issues and concerns about the sequence to be voiced and addressed before moving
the sequence into full production. The digital handoff was represented by an editorial cutlist which included timings
for the storyboard panels and an audio track. It was Layout’s responsibility to arrange the panels into shot cuts. A
tool was developed that allowed the panels to be grouped into individual shots but also allowed the shots themselves
to be grouped into scenes. A scene represents a group of shots that share the same environments or the same
characters. This data was exported into Maya which loaded the editorial information on a scene basis. By grouping
multiple shots that share similar elements into one Maya file, Layout could effectively choreograph the shots and
make sure that modifications to the camera, character blocking or set dressing were automatically carried through into
subsequent shots. Rendering, camera animation and shot length changes were all taken care of through a single
application launched from within the Maya session. When the sequence was approved and ready to move into
animation, this same interface allowed Layout to launch a process which automatically broke the scenes into
individual shots ready for animation.
SIGGRAPH 2007 35
SURF’S UP
3.6.2 Layout / Animation Interaction

Several sequences in this film consisted of little more than
two or three characters interacting with dialog, and not
much else in the way of specifically defined business. One
example was “Making the Board,” where Cody and Geek
are standing in place and interacting without any obvious
broad actions that could possibly allow Layout to define the
best placement for the cameras up front. What would
ultimately drive the camera placement (as well as the
camera moves and cuts) would be the subtle looks and
exchanges between the characters during their performance
(which had not been defined yet). Again, the goal was to
make this film look like it was shooting live footage and the
camera operators needed to respond to the performance of
the characters – not the other way around. To solve this
problem, the Animation Director and the assigned
animator worked out the acting for the entire sequence and
then staged the performance so that Layout could shoot it
on video. Four cameras were typically used for these
sessions, with the sequence audio providing the audio cues
for the acting. The reference video was edited by Layout
as if it were a live-action shoot. Once the edited sequence
was approved by the Directors, the camera angles were
recreated in Maya, and the sequence was broken into shots
as described in Section 3.6.1.
36 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.6.3 Animation Pipeline
3.6.3.1 Shot/Sequence Launch

Once a sequence was completed in Rough Layout, it was
launched into Animation. The animation launch meeting,
led by the Directors and the Animation Director, was
attended by the Lead Animator for the sequence and the
animators that were cast to the sequence. The object of the
launch was to get a complete download from the Directors
about the goal and intent of each shot. It was during these
sessions that animators would pitch performance and gag
ideas back to the Directors as well. It was a very interactive
and creative process, and the Directors were receptive and
responsive to all of the creative input they received. What
came out of the sequence launch was clear direction on
what was important to the Directors in each shot, and in
which areas the animators had flexibility to experiment
and explore.
SIGGRAPH 2007 37
SURF’S UP
3.6.3.2 Blocking Techniques

The animators on Surf ’s Up came from different
backgrounds, each with their own personal workflow
and blocking methodologies. Many came from a 2D
background, and they would pitch their ideas by
drawing all the performance beats by hand before
committing to them in Maya. Other animators would
videotape themselves acting out their shot and use that
footage as their performance reference. Blocking styles
varied as well. Most typical was stepped curves,
especially from those with a traditional background in
animation. Other animators were very efficient with a
layered-animation approach. There was no mandate
on how the blocking was presented, provided that
changes could be easily managed and turned around
quickly. It was important that the animator did not go
too far before showing a first-pass that clearly defined
all of the acting beats in their simplest form.
38 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.6.3.3 Approval cycle

Morning dailies and afternoon rounds were held with the
Animation Director and the crew. Once the blocking for a
shot met the performance goals established in the launch, it
was put on the list for afternoon review by the Directors.
Additional notes would be acquired at that time, and the
animator also had the opportunity to pitch additional ideas
that may have come to him/her in the process of blocking.
Again, these ideas were highly encouraged and generally
received with great enthusiasm by the Directors. Once a
shot was approved in blocking, it was kicked forward to the
Layout department so that a new camera could be set up to
support the animation (see Section 3.6.4).
Blocking approval marked the beginning of the “Primary
Animation” phase where the performance was fleshed out
in greater detail so that the subtle acting nuances could
come through. “Works-in-progress” would continue to be
presented to the Leads and the Animation Director each
day. Once approved, the shots would be presented to the
Directors for “final” approval. After the shot was tagged as
“final,” by the Directors, the animator generally had a day
(or two) to fix penetration problems, animate accessories
such as Cody’s medallion, and general cleanup – like fixing
arcs, etc. Once the Animation Director approved the final
cleaned-up version, the shot was published and moved
forward to Effects and Lighting.
SIGGRAPH 2007 39
SURF’S UP
3.6.3.4 Annotation Tools

Imageworks’ animation media player, itView, includes the
ability to draw on top of rendered images (on a layer) with
either a mouse or tablet. The tool incorporates all of the
versatility that an artist would expect from a tablet-based
drawing package including pressure sensitivity and an
unlimited choice of colors. This way, the Animation
Director and/or Leads could make annotations on top of
any frame in the rendered sequence. The annotated layer
could be saved as an annotation file and linked to that
specific render. The animator could call up the layers for
reference at their workstation, and also load the layers on
top of new rendered versions to assure that all the notes
were being addressed.
Annotations in itView
3.6.4 Final Layout

The hallmark of most reality film making is the apparent
spontaneity of a hand-held camera that responds to the
actor’s movements. This made the placement and
manipulation of the “rough layout” camera impossible
before a performance was actually delivered. Until
animation blocking was complete, the rough layout camera
was regarded as exactly that – “rough.” Once the blocking
was approved, the camera was kicked forward to Layout so
that a final camera could be produced that responded to the
performance of the characters in the blocked animation.
The goal was to produce a shot that felt as though it was
filming (and reacting to) the action of the characters as the
performances played out.
It was vitally important to lock down the camera before

proceeding with Primary animation. Any time the camera
changed (even in the slightest way), carefully designed
silhouettes fell apart, undesirable tangents in the
composition were revealed, and any cheats to that
particular camera were exposed. By locking down the
camera before entering into the Primary Animation phase,
the animator was able to spend the rest of their animation
time refining subtleties (including the cheats) to a camera
that would not change.
40 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.7 Animating the Shape of the Wave
3.7.1 Goals
One of the most important elements in Surf ’s Up
was the waves that are seen throughout the film.
Without waves there wasn’t a story to tell. In the
early stages of production the team was confronted
with the fact that the waves defined the sequences
they were in. The waves were a moving environment
created and animated in layout, similar to a standard
set that would be built and dressed. The waves
included hollow tubes for a sequence in which the
main characters enjoy a perfect day in the surf, as
well as powerful, monstrous 60 foot waves that are
showcased in the finale. With that amount of
diversity in mind it was important to be able to
define every feature of the wave and create several
different types and styles of waves. When coupled
with the challenging process of animating a wave
with the specific interaction of a surfer, it was
ultimately decided that it was best to treat the wave
as a character instead of a procedural effect.
SIGGRAPH 2007 41
SURF’S UP
3.7.2 Rig Builds and Wave Types

Characters that are built at Imageworks, like Spider-
Man and Boog from Open Season are built using the
same rig-build process. Surprisingly, fitting a wave into
this system was actually one the smallest hurdles to get
over in building the wave rig. By using the same
techniques employed for other more standard
characters, the rig would work within Imageworks’
layout and animation pipeline and fulfill the creative
and technical needs of the production. The basic
components of the rigs are animation controls and
geometry. The rig that drives the geometry and the
wave was no different.
Knowing that an entire ocean surface with an arbitrary Pipeline wave

number of waves was an impossible workflow to
manage, a wave surface created in the rig was built that
would eventually be connected to the ocean through a
surfacing operation in Houdini. In an effort to
simplify the process even further a decision was made
to build only two rigs, each very similar but offering
different levels of control that would allow the
animators to create multiple styles of wave types. These
two rigs served as the base that defined a set of three
distinct wave types that would populate the film. The
“pipeline” wave was modeled after the Banzai Pipeline
in Hawaii; a fast, hollow wave that breaks over a
shallow reef. The massive waves seen in Big Z’s archival
footage and the movie’s final contest were based on the
infamous “Mavericks” in Half Moon Bay, California --
Mavericks wave
a giant, deep water wave that breaks over a rocky point.
The “spilling breaker” was a beach break wave that does
not tube.
42 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.7.3 Animation Rig

The waves breaking/cresting motion was animated
using control rings whose rotational data drove a
series of predefined target curves, which were
blendshaped (morphed) together to “evolve” the
breaking wave. Each blendshape target represented
a period of time in the breaking motion of the wave.
The blendshaped curves were lofted together to
form the surface of the wave. Major control rings
moved multiple curves or sections of the wave, and
minor control rings could control a single curve.
This level of flexibility allowed animators to have
very fine control of the wave’s contours. Other
controls allowed for the wave’s profiles to be
manipulated into the desired type. By changing the
size, shape and timing of the wave, the rig was
flexible enough to evolve a wave from a 3 foot
spilling breaker into a 60 foot behemoth.
3.7.4 Animation Tools

During the layout process, the wave’s type settings
were defined using a tool dubbed the “Wave
Wizard.” This tool allowed for the layout artist to
set one of the wave types, choose from a stored
library of wave animations and turn on and off
visual cues that accompanied the wave rig. The rig
was updated based on the attributes that were set
using this interface.
SIGGRAPH 2007 43
SURF’S UP
3.7.5 Visualization Aides
3.7.5.1 WhiteWater
One of the most informative visualization tools created
for the wave rig was the whitewater plug-in node.
Running in real time, animators could see the amount
of whitewater that the wave was generating as it was
breaking. The white water node was especially helpful
in determining when and how fast the wave was
breaking and also aided the animators in knowing
whether the character was interacting with the
whitewater properly, or whether it was completely
obscuring the character. (This element is discussed in
further detail in Section 4.4.7.)
44 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.7.5.2 Wake Trail

When a surfer is riding the face of the wave the
surfboard is displacing a volume of water as it glides
along the surface. To aid the animators and layout
artists in determining the surfer’s connection to the
wave, a wake trail node was created. This node
created a lofted plane that was attached to the
surface of the wave allowing the artist to visualize
whether they were penetrating the surface of the
water. The lofted plane looked like a ribbon on the
surface of the water that allowed animators to clearly
see the path of travel over the surface of the wave
and orient the board correctly along the path
defined by the wake trail. Before having the ability
to visualize this path in animation, effects renders
would often reveal that the board was sliding
sideways along the surface of the wave (not tracking
properly), and would be kicked back to animation to
make the fix (a time-consuming and costly step
backward). An interesting side effect of the wake
trail was that it also allowed the animators to see the
speed at which the wave was traveling. If the wake
trail moved too quickly up the face of the wave, the
speed of the wave would need to be adjusted. (This
element is discussed in further detail in
Section 4.4.6.)
3.7.5.3 Z-depth Water Render

Because of the waves complexity it was virtually
impossible to completely visualize the wave’s look
inside Maya with geometry alone. A z-depth image
process was developed to allow the animators to
interact with a rendered version of the wave from a
specified camera. The render clearly showed the
amount of displacement that was being generated
from the shaders applied to the surface of the wave.
The animators could move the characters in and out
of the z-depth image on the camera’s imageplane.
This proved to be a very valuable and versatile tool
that sped up the process of knowing whether the
surfer was interacting with the wave properly.
SIGGRAPH 2007 45
SURF’S UP
3.8 Surfing
The physical dynamics involved in surfing can be very
extreme and acrobatic. When surfers move they
engage their entire bodies from the tip of their fingers
to the tip of their toes in order to throw the board
around with great finesse.
An archive of surfing reference was compiled and

studied to get the feel for how a surfer manipulates the
surfboard, and how the board responds to both the
surfer and the water. The live-action reference became
the pre-visualization tool. After receiving turnover
notes on a surfing shot from the Directors, a collection
of surfing clips were assembled that met their criteria.
These options were pitched back to the Directors, and
a clip would be chosen. Once the surf move was
approved on video, the animator could proceed with a
layered approach in animation (which seemed to work
best for surfing), and the reference was the basis from
which the animation was built and then caricatured.
46 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.8.1 Rig Configuration

Surf footage shows that wherever a surfer puts his foot (whether it is front or back); the board will pivot around that
point. As a result, the animator needs many different pivot points on the surfboard to work with. With this in mind,
the surfboard rig was built with four major pivot points. From the back to the front they are “master, body, cog” and
“tip.” Each of the four nodes has their own offset nodes (clean channels) with movable pivots on each so that the
animator could rotate the board precisely from any location.
The body of the character (penguin) is constrained to the “body” node of the board. The IK-handles for the hands
and feet are constrained to the “tip” of the board so that the animator could add turbulence and jitter to the board in
the final steps of animation without affecting the overall performance of the character. The hands and head are in a
“master rotation” space so that when the board is rotated, the hands and head automatically counter those rotations
to remain balanced to the world space around them. Offsets on these nodes gave the animator complete control over
the hands and head, but the rotation constraints kept counter-animation to a minimum.
The adjustable pivot on the reverse spine of the characters (described in Section 3.3.1.1) was also used to great effect
in the surfing shots. When you watch a surfer you will see that the upper body is relatively stable while the board is
being thrown around underneath them. The energy emanates from the chest and drives downward. Imagine if the
character were simply attached to the surfboard, and the spine controls rotated upward from the pelvis as they do in
a simple forward-kinematic spine rig. Executing these kinds of surf moves would require an enormous amount of
counter animation in order to keep the upper body stable while the board is kicked around and twisted from
side-to-side.
Because penguin legs are so short, it was difficult to achieve the effect of the legs being the source of energy that drives
the surfboard under the penguin. To achieve more dynamic surf poses, the legs were scaled a bit longer than normal,
and “knee poppers” (Section 3.3.1.2) were used to sculpt more pleasing knee bends.
SIGGRAPH 2007 47
SURF’S UP
3.8.2 Constraint System

It is challenging enough to execute convincing performances on solid ground, but on a wave there is a moving
“ground plane.” The shape of the wave (the “stage”) is constantly changing and traveling forward great distances
(relative to the surfer) over time. Early surfing tests had animators tracking and chasing the wave through space, while
at the same time trying to execute convincing surf poses and dynamics. It worked well enough until the animator
was asked to alter the timing in any way. The smallest adjustment to the timing at any point would bury the surfer
in the water (or cause him to fly off the surface of the water), and everything from that point forward fell apart. The
same problem occurred if any parameter of the wave had to be changed after the surfing animation began. The
animator had no choice but to delete all of his animation beyond the area in question and reanimate from that
point forward.
Since animation is all about timing (and even more so about changes), a better system had to be developed. The
solution was a simple constraint system with local spaces that travel forward with the wave and laterally (down the
axis of the board) along the face of the wave. In essence, the master node of the surfboard is constrained to the
forward translation node of the wave.
48 SIGGRAPH 2007
ANIMATION
3.8.3 surfing Technique

With the constraint system in place, a keyframe was set on the board’s “master” node on the first frame and another
on the last frame of the shot (but only on the forward translation). With only two keys and a constraint, the surfer
would then travel (and track) along the face of the wave for the duration of the shot. At this point it was important
to confirm that the speed of the surfer was within certain acceptable limits. The surfboard itself would drive the
simulation of the water effects, and any errors or cheats in the speed of the surfer would be revealed later in the water
simulations. It was difficult to assess whether the speed looked good in animation with flat-shaded water surfaces,
and hence the need for the z-rendered water surface discussed in Section 3.7.5.3. It would be a costly mistake to
move forward without confirming that the overall speed was acceptable for downstream departments, otherwise there
would be no choice but to reanimate if the effects revealed that the surfer was simply traveling way too fast
or too slow.
With the “master” node constrained to the wave, all other nodes (and offsets) remained in local space relative to the
board which would then travel forward at the correct speed. The remaining nodes were used as offsets to deviate from
(and return to) the master path. As an example, a bottom turn would be executed by animating one of the board’s
offset nodes off of the master trajectory path, down the surface of the wave and then cut back up to where it originally
started. The same idea applied to timing changes (accelerations and decelerations) from the master speed that was set
up when the two initial keyframes were defined (as described above).
SIGGRAPH 2007 49
SURF’S UP
50 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
MAKING WAVES
SIGGRAPH 2007 51
SURF’S UP
4.1 Introduction
Surf ’s Up required a reworking of the production
pipeline and a new set of tools to achieve the film’s
most technically difficult character, the Wave. This
non-standard character required close collaboration
between the Animation and Effects departments and
re-thinking the pipelines normal flow of data between
all departments. Imageworks had many challenges:
create a visually realistic wave, allow for a high level of
direct-ability, handle the unique interdependence and
overlap between Animation, Effects and Layout, and
design a production pipeline to produce the wave as
efficiently as possible with the goal of delivering over
twenty minutes of surfing footage.
52 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.2 Goals and Challenges

The Directors wanted the waves to be quite realistic
and set a target at eighty percent real. Though most
of the film’s characters are quite stylized, the
Directors felt the waves should behave accurately to
give the audience the sensation of real surfing while
introducing stylization in the color palette and
surface patterns. Simplifying the complex surface
properties of the wave helped to seat the stylized
characters and the waves into the same world
visually. In the initial research to establish the look
of the waves for Surf ’s Up, it was observed that real
waves are quite varied in shape, color and motion;
and that it would be necessary to narrow the focus
to target just a handful of wave styles and features.
Based on Art department concepts and renderings,
four wave styles modeled after real waves were
settled upon: Pipeline, Mavericks, Spilling Breaker,
and the Swell. This gave the Surf ’s Up team a more
focused set of goals to meet in order to pare down
the overwhelming variety of looks and motion that
exist in the real world.
4.2.1 Slow Motion

Observing the nature of surfing documentaries, the
Surf ’s Up team knew that slow-motion shots were
going to be an important element in the film. All
wave animation systems and particle effects systems
needed to behave properly at extreme slow motion.
In order to accomplish this, it was necessary to mind
and track the camera speed through the entire
pipeline (as mentioned in Section 2.4.1). This
information was not typically tracked on previous
shows at Imageworks and warranted extra care when
designing the effects systems. As a result every
effects system needed an extra level of development
and complexity to animate at arbitrary
camera speeds.
SIGGRAPH 2007 53
SURF’S UP
4.2.2 Control vs. Simulation

A big goal from the start was to make the wave motion direct-able and predictable. At first blush it appeared that
breaking waves would be handled by the Effects department by running physical simulations; but the team knew
from experience that simulations, while visually rich, are notoriously time consuming and difficult to control and
tweak. Early investigation into existing work on simulating breaking waves was done, however, to make sure every
possibility was explored. Although some impressive work was found, none of it appeared mature enough to do on
a large scale in a production friendly way. The team needed a simple wave rig that animators could interact with,
and adjust if necessary, in real time. As a result, a conscious decision was made early on to simulate as little as possible
and to design an animation rig that would satisfy the needs of the Layout, Animation, Effects and
Lighting departments.
Early simulation tests
54 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
First wave test shot
SIGGRAPH 2007 55
SURF’S UP
4.2.3 Wave Verification

While a non-simulated animation rig can provide a lot
of control, it can also have the downside of being too
flexible. It would be possible to animate waves in very
non-realistic ways and change wave speeds from shot to
shot. This could potentially cause problems with shot
continuity as well as big problems for the Effects
department which used the wave surface and motion as
a source for dynamic, simulated secondary effects.
Imageworks needed to put several measures in place to
police the wave animation and insure consistency
across shots. In this way, the team could avoid, as
much as possible, passing unusable animation data to
the Lighting and Effects departments. The wave Water Texture
animation was verified using pre-visualization tools of
various wave features including the following:
• Water Texture (also referred to as Wave Trains) -

to evaluate surface stretching and compression.
• Wake Trails - to further evaluate the surface motion
as well as the character speed relative to the wave.
• Whitewater Simulations - to ensure the wave was
crashing properly.
All of these visualizations were available in the Layout

and Animation stages and helped to give a more
complete picture of how well the animation was
working. It was essential to the secondary dynamic
Wake Trails
effects that the waves not deviate too much from
plausible behavior or they would not simulate properly.
Many times, animation would look good from a
particular camera angle but could conceal problems
that were not visible until Effects or Lighting
attempted to work with the element. Various key
features that were scrutinized included: forward motion
speed, the rate the wave crashed down the line, the
falling speed of the wave lip, and surface texture
squashing, stretching and motion. Because of the
challenge of creating a single wave that worked well for
all departments, a library of verified wave animations
was set up to be used as a starting place for new shots.
A lot of time and care went into designing a proper
wave animation. Whitewater
56 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.2.4 Establishing Waves Early in Pipeline

Beyond the obvious visual challenges of animating and
rendering a realistic wave, the Imageworks team had to do
so in a production friendly manner. Because so many
aspects of a shot hinged on the shape and motion of the
waves, they needed to be defined very early in the life of
that shot. In fact, on Surf ’s Up, final wave animation was
approved in Rough Layout, the very first department in the
shot specific pipeline. The wave’s shape, motion and other
prominent features, such as the whitewater explosion,
directly affected the actions of the surfing characters as well
as camera placement, action and composition. In the end
the Surf ’s Up team learned that designing a working wave
pipeline was as challenging, if not more so, than achieving
the wave visuals themselves.
SIGGRAPH 2007 57
SURF’S UP
4.3 Wave Shot Pipeline

The life-cycle of a typical surfing shot flows though the
following departments:
4.3.1 Rough Layout Department

• Articulate/Final wave animation was designed to
match storyboards.
• Rough character animation was done to block in
surfing characters.
• Whitewater and boardwake pre-visualization tools
were turned on and checked.
• A wave train style was chosen and published to
the shot to define the character of the ocean texture.
• A shot camera was animated to complete rough
blocking of the shot.
• A wave check render was done to validate the wave’s
motion, surface stretching, and ocean texture.
Rough Layout (early stage of shot)
It was essential that Production sign off on the wave
animation and ocean texture at this very early stage. A
small change in the wave’s animation or limit surface
created huge ripple effects downstream for camera
placement, surfing animation, and secondary effects
animation. This was a big reason why the team built
so many pre-visualization tools to help us more
completely evaluate the wave prior to moving out of
the Rough Layout department. The whitewater and
boardwake tools were used by the camera operator, to
help compose the shot; character animators, to design
the characters motion; and the Effects department to
validate that the wave was moving in a plausible way to
support secondary dynamic effects. The wave train
style was published and each wave train system (built
into Maya, Houdini and RenderMan) used this
information to describe the ocean texture, in order to
keep everything in sync.
58 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.3.2 Animation Setup Department

• The wave, camera, props, and surfing characters were all prepped for animators.
• A z-depth render of the wave was generated to give animators an accurate visualization of the exact
ocean surface.
• The wave geometry was translated to disk along with support assets used later by the Lighting and
Effect departments:
• Whitewater particles.
• The Crash Curve which described the lip of the wave (position, energy, velocity,
wave time, etc.).
• Utility images were created to marry the wave patch with the greater ocean surface at
render time.
The z-depth render was simply a depth-based image of the wave surface rendered from camera through
RenderMan with full displacements turned on. This, coupled with the “beauty” wave check render, was
loaded into an animation scene and “z-composited” with the character rigs. In this way an animator
could check the exact intersections of the character against the displaced ocean and wave in near real-
time. The whitewater system, described in more detail later in this document (Section 4.4.7), could
use the extra data translated at this stage to animate and tweak the whitewater without loading in the
wave animation. Everything the whitewater system needed to do its job was baked into the
Crash Curve and stored on disk.
Z-depth Wave Check Render
SIGGRAPH 2007 59
SURF’S UP
4.3.3 Animation Department

• At this stage, the wave was more or less considered a “static” environment.
• Rough surfing animation was polished to final.
• Characters were baked and translated to disk in Imageworks’ proprietary geometry format.
The wave rig was originally designed to be tweaked by animators at this stage; however, after discovering how
easy it was to deviate from plausible wave motion, it was decided to lock down the wave prior to character
animation. On rare occasions a decision was made to change the wave at this stage and the approach
depended on the impact to production. If it was a minor change it was done in place, but if it was larger, the
wave character was kicked back to the Rough Layout department to execute.
4.3.4 Final Layout Department

• Final camera was touched-up.
• Camera and static environment was translated and published for Lighting and Effects.
The Surf ’s Up pipeline was specifically designed to keep data moving downstream. It is very easy on an effects
heavy film to get into a feedback loop where one department is constantly kicking animation back to the
previous department to fix problems. The goal was to minimize this as much as possible through
visualization tools and production procedures. Front loading and locking down the wave animation in the
first department in the pipeline was critical in keeping the shots moving forward.
60 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.4 Wave Rig

The waves of Surf ’s Up were not simulated, but
instead constructed using a procedurally driven
animation rig designed by both the Effects and
Animation departments. The rig was built in Maya
and needed to satisfy specific goals for each
department. Animation needed quick feedback,
intuitive controls, and to conform to rig standards
set up for all character rigs at Imageworks. This
allowed the wave to flow through the animation
pipeline like any other, more traditional, character
using the same methods and tools to import,
upgrade, animate and export the wave character.
The Effects department had its own set of
requirements as the wave surface drove several
Basic Wave Rig dynamic and non-dynamic effects such as
whitewater, lip spray, and wake trails. The Lighting
department relied on consistent topology and
secondary attributes to work hand in hand with
surface and displacement shaders designed
specifically for the wave.
SIGGRAPH 2007 61
SURF’S UP
4.4.1 Wave Geometry

A single cross-section of the wave was modeled by hand using a NURBS curve profile along with several target
blendshapes to simulate that profile’s life-cycle over time. About eleven blendshape targets approximated the full life
of a breaking “pipeline” wave from birth to resolve. A single 0-1 time attribute was rigged to drive the wave though
all of these targets. In addition to the life-cycle shapes, other blendshape curves were introduced to further shape the
wave; controlling aspects like lip thickness, depth of the trough, wave height, slope of the front face, etc. At the heart
of the Surf ’s Up wave is this single curve with multiple blendshape targets to mimic various wave shapes and behaviors.
Not only was the curve shape important, but the placement and interpolation of the CVs over time was critical for
driving how ocean texture moved, stretched, and compressed over the wave surface.
A series of these blendshape cross-sections were placed in a row and lofted to form the single wave surface.
Independent control over each cross-section’s time attribute was maintained allowing different parts of the wave to
be more, or less, evolved. In the beginning of the wave’s life (time = 0 at every cross-section) the geometry was simply
a rectangular patch. As time along the length of the wave patch was increased the wave shape began to evolve and
deform out of the center line of the patch.
Imageworks built a custom lofting plug-in to pass attribute data stored on the cross-sections to the resulting surface.
The time attribute was passed to each point on the surface as well as an energy attribute. Each blendshape target
marked a particular moment in the life of the wave from first formation, to spilling over, to closing out. An arbitrary
energy value was assigned to each stage of life to approximate the amount of power the wave possessed at each moment
in time. This attribute was also passed down to the wave surface to be used later by the whitewater system. This fairly
simple system was the basis for the wave surface; the next step was to create simple controls to manage and animate
the large number of cross-sections in a coherent manner.
Wave Curve Profiles Lofted Curve Profiles used to make wave
62 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.4.2 Animation Controls

Effects and character TDs designed a hierarchy of
control rings to drive time at different levels of
granularity allowing large areas of the wave to evolve
with a single control, or allowing for fine grain
tweaking of small areas. The time attribute was
splined between control rings allowing for a nice
transition between crashing regions and newly
forming regions. Simply by rotating these rings
forward and back an animator could intuitively
shape and animate the wave by evolving or
devolving various sections. At each control ring
other aspects of the wave could be modified as well;
Coarse and fine control rings secondary blendshape modifiers could be
introduced, or noise to procedurally vary the profile
of the lip. The wave mesh was dense enough where
not every cross-section was directly controlled by
time or other shaping attributes. Some cross-
sections were simply shape interpolations between
the nearest two procedural ones. It was found that
simple point-based shape interpolation, in
combination with edge-length and angle
interpolation (as outlined in the SIGGRAPH 2000
paper, As-Rigid-As-Possible Shape Interpolation by
Marc Alexa, Daniel Cohen-Or and David Levin)
worked best to minimize the shape collapsing in
areas of extreme twisting, caused by quick changes in
time between adjacent cross-sections.
The control rings drove the local shape and

evolution of the surface but the overall forward
motion was simply a parent transform used to move
the wave though space. The wave could be bent by
translating control rings forward or back relative to
this parent transform.
The animation controls did not place constraints on

the artist to design plausible motion. The wave
could certainly be tweaked in unrealistic ways. The
team relied upon a careful testing phase to mimic, as
best as possible, how waves move; analyzing the
forward speed, rate they break down the line, speed
Translation and bending of wave through translation of control rings the lip pours over, etc. This testing was done for
each wave type, and the result was stored in a library
as a starting place for shot animation.
SIGGRAPH 2007 63
SURF’S UP
4.4.3 Wave Space

Because the Surf ’s Up wave geometry was a single patch moving though space, a special system was set up to show
how water surface features moved over the wave. Attaching a simple ocean texture map is not very telling if it is
simply locked to the local UV coordinates of the patch. The texture needed to slide over the surface as the wave
progressed forward. The team built a secondary animated reference space on a point attribute called Pref (position
reference). Pref for the Surf ’s Up wave was a version of the wave that was completely flat (time = 0, devolved) but
moved though space at the same rate as the wave. World space point positions of the Pref wave were used as UV
coordinates to map ocean texture to the primary wave geometry. In this way, the ocean texture appeared static as the
wave current moved under it. By flattening the wave in the reference space, streaking was avoided on the Y-axis that
would have been seen with a straight world space texture look-up. Any texture, particle effect, or object that was
bound to the waves used this Pref space to approximate what happens in reality when waves pass under
floating objects.
Pref space on a moving wave
64 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.4.4 Wave Trains

Wave Trains refer to Imageworks’ system for generating the open ocean texture. They are the surface patterns that
travel over, and displace, the waves and ocean; the details of which are described in the next Section of this document.
Wave Trains do play a roll in all departments, beginning with Rough Layout, because they have a significant effect on
the ocean and wave displacement. Tools to view Wave Trains were built into Maya to allow the camera operators and
animators to see an accurate representation of the surface, in order to make sure surfboards had adequate contact with
the ocean surface and that the camera didn’t dip below the water line, unless directed to do so.
A custom deformer node was built to access the Wave Train system and was applied to a small, high resolution grid
which was displaced on the fly within Maya. This small grid could be placed anywhere on the wave or ocean surface
to reveal a section of truly displaced Maya geometry. The Wave Train system spanned RenderMan, Maya and
Houdini. The RenderMan plugin was the primary tool used to displace the ocean surface at render time, while the
Maya and Houdini visualizers were tools to pre-visualize and match the final rendered surface. Each plugin linked
to a common external library to ensure the wave surface position was identical across packages.
Wave Train examples
SIGGRAPH 2007 65
SURF’S UP
4.4.5 Wave Riders

Wave Rider was a term used to describe special locators
constrained to the wave patch using Maya’s geometry
constraint. The geometry constraint allowed the
locator to move freely over the surface, but not off the
surface, and turned out to be an ideal tool to aid in
attaching rough character or camera animation to the
wave. This was generally not used to drive final
animation but was a good tool to block out animation.
Attached to the Wave Rider was a Wave Train patch
which was a convenient way to slide the Wave Train
surface over the broader wave surface. In addition, a
tool to visualize the surfboard’s wake was also attached
to the Wave Rider locator.
66 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
4.4.6 Wake Visualizer

The Wake Visualizer was a simple dynamic system
that dropped a single particle per frame behind the
Wave Rider locator node. Each particle ray-
intersected to the nearest 3D surface location on the
wave patch and anchored itself to the corresponding
location in Pref space. In this way, each particle slid
over the surface of the wave as if the wave were
rolling under it. The particles were then lofted into
a line to give an accurate geometric representation of
how the surfer’s board wake and wake history would
look. It was important to have this tool when
animating the characters in order to gauge the
Wake Visualizer
relative speed of the surfer vs. the water surface. If
a surfer crossed the wave too slowly the wake trail
would travel up the wave very quickly, perpendicular
to the board’s direction. This was caused when the
wave’s forward motion was too fast relative to the
surfer’s lateral motion. If the surfer’s speed and
wave speed were more in line the wake would trail
roughly parallel to the board’s direction.
The Final Render
SIGGRAPH 2007 67
SURF’S UP
4.4.7 Whitewater System

Imageworks felt it was essential to lock down not
only the wave geometry, but also various wave features
that would dictate camera and surfing motion early in
shot production. To achieve this goal, a custom Maya
plugin was written to visualize whitewater at the time
of wave animation. This allowed for much more
complete pre-visualization in the early Rough Layout
stage, which resulted in more accurate and dynamic
camera moves and compositions. Placing a dynamic
simulation in the hands of the Layout or Animation
departments was not usual practice; instead, the team
built a non-dynamic particle system that responded in
real-time to user input without the need to do run-up
simulations. The goal was to build a decent
approximation of the general volume and motion of
final-quality whitewater, while keeping it speedy
enough to not hinder animation. The system ended
up being not just a good approximation, but particles
generated from this plugin were eventually used as a
source for final quality whitewater renders.
The Maya plugin was written to draw particle sprites

directly to the Maya view-port without creating any
geometry. This was achieved by writing a custom
locator node in Maya which allowed OpenGL calls to
be sent directly to the view-port. All controls to tweak
the look and motion of the particles were built into this
single plugin node. By handling all the drawing and
dynamics inside a single plugin the team was able to
maximize the speed of simulating thousands of
particles. In order to keep the system fast and
interactive, some inputs were cached while others
remained dynamic. The two primary inputs to the
plugin, a pre-baked particle clip and the crash curve Whitewater in Animation Rig
were cached in memory over time by the
whitewater plugin.
68 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
The particle clip was a simulated cross-section of a

larger whitewater system. A clip’s size was quite small,
only about 500 centimeters across, and its behavior was
dialed to have the explosive, clumpy, and staccato
nature of whitewater. Clips were created in Houdini
at the origin and once approved baked to disk as a time
loop-able simulation with gravity forces removed. A
clip typically consisted of about 150 frames of
animation and somewhere on the order of two
thousand particles.
The crash curve was a NURBS curve that acted as the

emission source for whitewater with special attributes
(energy, wave time) stored at CV locations to control
where, and how strongly, particles should be emitted.
The crash curve was generally supplied by the wave,
running its length and bound to the lip. Its energy
attribute was controlled by the size and impact
locations along the wave, in addition to energy
modifiers placed on the control rings of the wave rig.
Using these sources, the whitewater plugin cached up

this data, over time, in memory. Once cached, the
particle clip was instanced end-to-end along the arc of
the crash curve, transformed to the position, rotated to
the curve’s normal at each location, and scaled by the
curve’s energy. Consequently, particles only appeared
where energy was non-zero or areas where the wave was
actually crashing. The particle clip was not simply
deformed to the curve; each particle contained a life
attribute which told the system how many frames it
had been alive. Using this information the plugin
attached each particle to the crash curve’s location at
Crash Curve intersection the time of that particle’s birth, not the curve’s position
on the current frame. For example, if a particle’s life
was 10 frames old it was transformed to the crash
curve’s position at time current frame - 10. Since the
entire history of the curve’s position over time was
cached in memory it was relatively quick to look this
information up on a per-particle basis. The age of the
particle was used to apply other dynamic forces as well:
gravity, the curve’s velocity, drag, wind, energy noise, etc.
All of these attributes could be tweaked at any frame in
SIGGRAPH 2007 69
SURF’S UP
4.4.7 Whitewater System cont’d

real-time without the need to re-simulate previous frames,
all the dynamics were applied analytically. In this way, it
was possible to stop on any frame in the simulation, dial
the gravity or drag, for example, and see the affect in near
real-time. Another bonus was that baking the particle
system out to disk did not have to happen in a linear
fashion and could be distributed over several machines.
Under the hood, the system was fairly complex, but in

practice the team built the wave rig to handle the details
fairly automatically. The animation rig came with a crash
curve built in to collect data about the wave’s position,
energy, velocity, and impact areas. The wave’s crash curve
derived the energy attribute at each location along the wave
based primarily on wave time. Each blendshape target for
the wave was assigned a particular energy value; as the wave
evolved and crashed so did the energy value. This value
was multiplied by a second Boolean value which identified
areas where the wave actually hit the bottom, or trough, of
the wave. This was done by a ray-intersection test of the
lip to the trough. As a result, a wave could be animated,
the whitewater turned on, and the animator would see a
fairly convincing whitewater animation without any
adjustment to the plugin parameters.
The resulting particles were translated and used directly by

the Effects department to produce final quality whitewater.
These points acted as seed points to a custom instancing
plugin in RenderMan that produced many millions
of points.
70 SIGGRAPH 2007
MAKING WAVES
SIGGRAPH 2007 71
SURF’S UP
72 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
WAVE EFFECTS
SIGGRAPH 2007 73
SURF’S UP
5.1 Introduction
The goal of the Effects team was to create water and waves
more realistic than not; and to do so, with regard to the
surface motion of the waves, in a non-dynamically simulated
manner in order to enable maximum flexibility in the Layout
and Animation stages of production. While this approach
circumvented the difficult task of figuring out how to
physically simulate a tubing wave, it created its own set of
technical and aesthetic challenges, especially concerning the
creation, synchronization and integration of primary wave
features. These features included whitewater, lip spray, the
foam ball, surface stretching and the distinction between the
wave and the surrounding ocean. What follows is an overview
of the key technical strategies the Effects team used to create
the surfing waves of Surf ’s Up.
5.2 The Wave and the Ocean

The animation wave rig produced a deformed rectangular mesh representing the shape and motion of an isolated
surfing wave but not of the entire ocean surface visible in a given shot. One of the first decisions facing the
Effects development team on Surf ’s Up was to determine what kind of surface or surfaces would be employed to
render the hero waves and surrounding ocean. Did it make more sense to render the wave geometry output from
the animation rig directly or to build a method of modifying an ocean surface by that geometry? After some
initial testing trying to arbitrarily deform large ocean grids by the wave geometry coming from Animation, it was
decided that the best solution would be to consider the hero surfing waves and the surrounding ocean as separate
objects that would seam together. Although initially there were fears about problems at the transition between
the wave and ocean, it soon became clear that having a rectangular wave patch that was easy to navigate
parametrically was highly desirable and that seaming the wave and the ocean together could be achieved
relatively simply by rendering an opacity hole in the ocean where the wave was, while insuring a small geometric
overlap between the surfaces. This was achieved by rendering, from an orthographic camera, a map of the UV
space of the wave patch cast into the flattened space of Pref (more on Pref later). Included in these tiff-encoded
UV projection maps was the transform matrix of the camera which was used in the shader to position the
textures correctly back onto the geometry during render time. Using the projected UV space of the map, the
shader cut a hole in the ocean surface and managed the opacity overlap between the wave and ocean creating a
seamless transition between the two.
In a division of labor that evolved over a period of months, development of the water displacement shader was
handled by the Effects department while the Look Development team maintained responsibility for the water
surface shader. As a result of this arrangement, patterned wave surface features, such as foam, were defined in
the displacement shader and passed along to the surface shader for distinct material property definition.
74 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
5.3 Wave Trains

The function of the wave rig was to provide the gross
animation of the surfing waves but it was not
designed to provide the small, higher frequency
waves of the water surface. That was another
assignment for the Effects department. Inspired in
part by Tessendorf ’s work, a Houdini and
RenderMan based system for simulating open ocean
waves was developed for the overall displaced surface
of the water. The system employed “wave trains,”
simply defined as the sum of continuous wave
patterns of varying period, amplitude, direction and
speed. By creating sets of Gerstner-style wave trains
whose speeds, by default, were physically based but
whose frequency ranges and angles of propagation
were hand-tailored, several water surface “styles”
were settled upon. These ranged from almost dead
calm to stormy and chaotic. The frequencies of the
wave trains were segregated into three ranges: low,
medium and high; each with individual control over
amplitude, cuspiness, and speed. Provision was
made for general noise-based and specific hand-
tailored control of areas of amplitude reduction of
the wave trains for a more varied and natural look of
the ocean surface. The peaks of waves could be
determined and isolated in the shader to create areas
of aerated water or to be used as the source of
emission for particle effects. Data, output from the
simulation system, describing the frequency ranges
and propagation angles and speeds of the wave trains
was input into the water displacement shader for
rendering. Alternatively, tileable displacement maps
of the wave trains were created and employed for
both final rendering and pre-visualizing of the wave
trains in Maya during Animation and Layout.
Three styles of wave trains: calm (top), choppy (middle)

and choppier (bottom)
SIGGRAPH 2007 75
SURF’S UP
5.4 Foam
Foam, ambient or created from crashing waves, splashes,
surfboard wakes or shore break, was a critical component of
the look of the water in Surf ’s Up. From the start it was
important to create methods for general and specific foam
placement, erasure, dissolution and animation. Used not
only to create a more realistic look, different foam patterns
and formations were employed to distinguish wave styles
and locations from each other. Three distinct patterns of
foam were designed from live action reference and
consultation with the Visual Development department: A
patchy foam used for choppier water and splashes from
rocks and characters, a more elegant graphic style referred
to as web foam taken from specific photographic examples
and used with calmer water at the North Beach location
and a convected bubbly foam used with the beach break
system of small waves lapping at the shoreline.
A distinction was made between “standing” foam, foam

that was generated with procedural noise functions in the
shader, and “interactive” foam, foam that was specifically
placed or the result of a specific event like a splash or wake.
Interactive foam used the same noise functions as standing
foam but was placed on the water using point clouds
sampled in the reference space of the water with attributes
describing search radius and density. Once enough points,
collected in the reference space, crossed a density threshold,
foam would appear in the additive space of the points’
search radii on the corresponding part of the wave surface.
Additionally, and similar to the methods of amplitude
reduction of the wave trains, areas of foam could be erased
or reduced procedurally with noise fields or specifically
with artist-designed maps projected onto the ocean surface.
76 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
Patchy foam generated from the

interaction of the water
and the bone yard rocks
Standing web foam on a tubing

Pipeline wave
Convected foam in the beach break
SIGGRAPH 2007 77
SURF’S UP
5.5 Wave Geometry Spaces

The surfing wave geometry was essentially a hand animated blend shape solution modeled and moved in such a
way as to appear to generally obey a narrow subset of real-world wave characteristics such as forward velocity, lateral
break speed, a lip that fell at a speed close to gravity, plausible volume preservation and corresponding surface
stretching. A handful of driven parameters output from the wave rig provided essential spaces in the wave
geometry for the Effects team to generate whitewater, foam features and surfing effects. These spaces were
represented by the following attributes:
• Pwave - the world space coordinates of the wave geometry;

• Pref - a flattened reference space that moved along with the wave;
• Wave Time - a varying value in the evolution of the wave at any given cross-section parallel to the
forward motion of the wave;
• Wave V - the V direction in the parametric space of the wave mesh typically perpendicular to the forward
motion of the wave;
• Shoulder - a value at a given cross-section of the wave parallel to its forward motion representing the portion of
the wave patch, at its lateral extremities, that does not break;
• Energy - a value assigned to each cross-sectional blend shape in the wave rig and propagated through to the wave
mesh representing the force of the crashing wave; this was used primarily for producing whitewater.
A mapping of Pwave (the curved wave shape on top) to flattened Pref space below
78 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
Separately and in combination, these spaces were employed in creating a wide variety of effects and surface features.
The two dimensional space of Wave Time vs. Wave V was especially useful for many effects such as creating
“lip spray,” the spray of water ripped back off the falling lip of the wave. The lip of a wave was a constant value in
Wave V and would vary in Wave Time through the evolution of the wave, making it easy to segregate part of the wave
geometry as a source for particle emission. This wave space was also used in creating region specific foam features
like “curl foam,” one aspect of the forward falling part of wave, and “back foam,” the region of foam on the back of
the wave after it crashed.
A particularly difficult problem in creating a convincing-looking crashing wave from a series of cross-sectional blend
shapes was designing the way surface features, such as wave trains and foam, moved and stretched as the wave traveled
through the water. Pref solved this problem by providing a reference space where anything cast into it could be
projected onto the wave surface and, given plausible wave animation, would result in realistic stretching and
movement across and up the deforming wave. In a process similar to the tweaking of UV texture spaces for animated
characters, hundreds of hours were spent hand tailoring Pref spaces for each wave style (Pipeline, Mavericks, Spilling
Breaker and the Swell) to produce realistic motion of the surface features of the wave. In order to achieve a seamless
blend between the character wave and the surrounding ocean the Pref position at the edge of wave equaled the Pwave
position of the ocean ensuring that no discontinuities between the two would occur.
The space of Wave Time (red) vs Wave V (green)
SIGGRAPH 2007 79
SURF’S UP
5.6 Creating Correct Motion Blur

Creating correct motion blur for the wave was also
problematic because the motion of the character wave
was not physically based and, more importantly,
because though the animated geometry represented a
plausible shape of the wave it did not represent
plausible motion of the surface of the water as the wave
moved through it. Traditional deformational blur or
simple trailing velocity calculations would not provide
correct results in all regions of the wave. The water on
the inside vertical face of a tubing wave was moving
forwards and upwards but once the wave had tubed
frame-to-frame the vertices of that section of the
geometry simply moved forwards and thus would not Incorrect motion blur vectors produced by a deformational
blur correctly. The boundary of the character wave blur of the surface
moving forward in space is best thought of as a moving
window on a static ocean, so in order to achieve correct
motion blur the surface velocity vectors were computed
as if the geometry were static with a wave deformation
moving through it. Having both current and next
frames’ wave shapes (the waves’ position in Pwave
space) and undeformed shapes (the waves’ position in
Pref space), the mapping from the next frame’s Pref
shape to its Pwave shape was used to deform the
current frame’s Pref shape to the next frame’s Pwave
shape and produced more accurate velocity vectors for
the surface motion of the wave. The area of exception
was the forward falling face of the wave which, with the
technique just outlined, would appear to be blurred in
the opposite direction desired, up and backwards over
Corrected motion blur vectors
the wave instead of forwards and down. To get around
this, for only the vertices of the forward falling face, a
vector representing the overall forward motion of the
wave was subtracted, the resultant vectors reversed, and
the forward wave vector added back in. A similar
computation was done in the shader to the texture
space on the falling face of the wave to give the
appearance of downward motion.
80 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
5.7 Wave Particle Features

There were three primary features of aerated water of the
tubing waves in Surf ’s Up:
• whitewater, the large forward explosion in front of the
wave caused by the lip crashing into the trough,
• lip spray, the spray ripping back off the lip as it falls,
• foam ball, the backwards explosion of the water inside
and around the tube.
While each of these features were rendered in similar ways,

producing the particle simulations required distinct
methods that relied on different sets of the attributes and
wave spaces described in the previous two Sections.
SIGGRAPH 2007 81
SURF’S UP
5.7.1 Lip Spray

The lip had an additional wave train displacement,
called lip trains, introduced at a certain time in the
waves’ evolution to roughen up the surface as if the
lip was beginning to break apart as it fell over the
wave face. The peaks of these lip trains’
displacements were colored brighter in the shader as
if the water was beginning to aerate. These lip train
peaks were the source of the lip spray. Because the
low resolution wave geometry did not include wave
or lip train displacements and the lip spray particles
had to align perfectly with the lip surface, increasing
the resolution and pre-displacing the source
geometry of the lip spray was required. This was
accomplished by carving, in Wave V space, and “up-
rezing” a strip of the wave around the lip, rendering,
in the normalized UV space of that carved strip, a
map of its final displaced position and then
deforming the carved strip by that map. The result
was a hi-resolution strip of geometry representing
the final wave and lip trains displaced surface that
also included a lip trains peak attribute. The lip
spray particle simulation was birthed from this
geometry with emphasis placed on tight, densely
clustered particles close to the lip, dispersing into
mist as the spray was carried up and over the wave.
Integrating the particle simulation with the wave
surface so that it appeared as if the wave was actually
breaking up into spray was difficult especially on
Pipeline waves, the smaller of the tubing wave styles.
If the lip spray was too dense right at the wave
surface it could appear pasted on, but not having
enough particles would give away the fact that the
“water” was not really breaking apart. In addition,
on many shots, the waves were moving very quickly
which made it tricky to get just the right density of
lip spray correctly matted by the wave surface at the
lip. To help the transition from wave to lip spray, a
technique to vary the amount of occlusion of the
wave over a short initial span in the life of the
particles was implemented.
82 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
5.7.2 WhiteWater
Because the whitewater explosion was such a large visual feature of the wave, pre-visualizing it in Maya during Layout
and Animation, for timing and composition, was a requirement from the beginning of the production. Another
requirement, though little utilized, was the ability for character animators and layout artists to affect the behavior of
the whitewater, adding or subtracting energy from the explosions. Because of these specifications the development
and methodology of creating the whitewater particle simulations was radically different from the lip spray and foam
ball, and its particulars are outside the scope of these notes. Some general concepts are worth discussing, however.
The source of the whitewater was a line, carved along the lip of the wave, called the “crash curve.” The vertices of
the crash curve held an attribute, energyMult, which would toggle on wherever the lip had crashed into the trough.
Those vertices also held an attribute, energy, which represented the potential energy of the wave that was greatest when
it first crashed and lessened the further it evolved. Multiplying energyMult times energy would provide the initial
velocity magnitudes for the whitewater simulation. The specific motion of the whitewater, the direction of dispersion
and pulsing nature of the simulations, as well as the addition of a second lower section of whitewater called “the skirt,”
which helped integrate the effect with the wave and ocean, were all artistically directed and not physically based.
Gravity, drag and the speed of the whitewater were manipulated in non-real world ways to enhance the size and
impact of the waves. An additional element called “whitewater mist” was also created to help diffuse and soften the
sometimes hard particulate nature of the whitewater renders. A secondary particle simulation birthed from the
whitewater, the whitewater mist was designed to drag and hang in the air above the wave and was rendered using
Imageworks’ proprietary sprite-based renderer, Splat.
SIGGRAPH 2007 83
SURF’S UP
5.7.3 The Foam Ball

Similar to the whitewater, the particle simulation for
the foam ball was birthed from the crash curve. But
because the foam ball swirls around the inside of the
tube of the wave, a different approach was taken in its
construction. For some of the surfing and wave effects,
the forward velocity of the wave made it difficult to
have precise control over the particle simulations. One
solution was to halt the wave, create the particles, and
then add the forward velocity of the wave back into the
simulation and adjust the velocities accordingly. This
was done with the foam ball with the additional twist
that the simulation was done in the flattened space of
Pref and then warped back into the curved space of the
wave. This was done primarily to simplify the collision
calculation of particles with the wave, it being easier to
collide with a static, flat limit surface than the
deforming tube of the wave, but also to have better
control over the speed of the foam ball. Moving the
crash curve and particle simulation back and forth
from wave space to Pref was done with some custom
barycentric deformation operators.
Early foamball testing
Final rendered frame
84 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
5.8 Rendering a Lot of Points

All the spray effects in Surf ’s Up, the whitewater, lip spray, foam balls, surfboard
sprays, character splashes, rock splashes, etc., were rendered, entirely or in part,
as dense clouds of RiPoints calculated at render time in RenderMan.
To accomplish this, a proximity-based particle instancing scheme, called
Cluster, was developed as a RenderMan DSO. The instancing algorithm
produced new points along and around the vectors between pairs of seed points
from sparse particle simulations with many parameters controlling point size,
distribution, density, opacity fall off and attribute blending. Because the final
particle counts required for whitewater or lip spray in a given shot would most
often exceed the memory limitations of the machines on the render farm,
methods for rendering subsections of the elements had to be developed. A
scheme for slicing Cluster renders into layers based on distance from the camera
plane and managing the compositing of those layers was implemented. Shadow
renders also required the slicing scheme, despite the use of techniques for
reducing the point counts, and increasing the point size. However, as they were
rendered without motion blur twice as many points could be generated. A
screen space dicing scheme, to increase the point count of a single render, was
introduced later in the show and added an optional approach that would, under
certain circumstances, allow passes to be rendered without slicing. The trade off
of dicing versus slicing was that although dicing could render a frame in one
pass and often faster than the cumulative render times of the sliced renders,
since it was a singular process it couldn’t be parallelized. Throughout the show
the Cluster DSO was optimized in an attempt to render as many points as
possible and ultimately was capable of rendering without dicing or slicing about
45 million motion blurred points. For a big Mavericks wave shot in Surf ’s Up,
the combined point count of the whitewater, lip spray and foam ball could
easily reach 500 million points.
The clustered effects were lit using deep shadows which were rendered from
each light; typically a key, rim and fill. The final beauty render of the element
was a “utility” pass with equal contributions of the key, rim and fill lights
segregated into the RGB channels of the image to be balanced and color
corrected into the shot during the compositing stage (see Section 6.4). Extra
passes for specular glints, particle life and density variation were also provided
to increase the detail of the element. To save time, especially during sliced
renders, matting of other objects was handled by rendering deep shadows of the
occluding geometry from the shot camera and sourcing them into the
whitewater and spray shader for opacity variance.
SIGGRAPH 2007 85
SURF’S UP
5.9 Summary
In retrospect it seems odd that a computer generated
movie with so much water in it would have been made
without the use of a fluid solver at any point. But that
fact underscores the overall methodology used by the
Effects and Animation teams on Surf ’s Up which was
initiated in response to the following quandary: how to
efficiently create a lot of realistic looking surfing waves
in a production pipeline where the primary animation
of the waves occurs during Layout and key features of
the wave need to be pre-visualized and altered during
Animation. As more sophisticated ocean simulation
techniques become available, CPUs become faster and
memory more expansive future answers to this
question may not rely on many of the strategies
outlined above. However, given the demands of an
animated feature, where keeping creative and technical
options open for as long as possible throughout the
pipeline is strongly desired, the approach of layering
linked, yet discreet solutions to the primary wave
features proved highly successful.
86 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE EFFECTS
SIGGRAPH 2007 87
SURF’S UP
88 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
WAVE SHADING
SIGGRAPH 2007 89
SURF’S UP
6.1 Introduction
Water and waves were an integral part of Surf ’s Up. Waves were not merely
a part of the environment, but almost characters themselves. This chapter
focuses on the role of the Look Development department and the techniques
used to render the wide variety of wave and water styles. The rendering and
compositing techniques used to achieve the documentary style of filming the
surfing action will also be presented.
90 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING
6.2 Artistic Goals: Realistic vs. Stylized

Although the characters in Surf ’s Up are quite stylized,
they live in a realistic and believable world. In order
to capture the excitement of surfing it was important
to achieve a fairly high level of realism. The viewer is
in the action, surfing with our characters, and
experiences the beauty of being in the perfect tube as
well as the horror of wiping out on a monster wave.
In addition to this realism, the movie contained a wide

variety of waves, water and locations. The wave styles
ranged from the cold dark waters of Antarctica to the
tropical waters of Pen Gu Island and finally to the
stormy and ominous waves of competition day. These
waves were also filmed in many different lighting
situations.
The style of the waves was inspired by surfing and

outdoor photography and the conceptual art created
by the Visual Development team. The following
images represent a sample of this reference imagery.
SIGGRAPH 2007 91
SURF’S UP
6.2 Artistic Goals: Realistic vs. Stylized cont’d

Examples of reference photography
Select images reprinted with permission from © Tim McKenna 2004.

All rights reserved. www.tim-mckenna.com
92 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING
Examples of Visual Development artwork
SIGGRAPH 2007 93
SURF’S UP
6.3 Rendering the Water: Wave Zones

Various physically based rendering techniques were considered but it quickly became obvious that the film required
a more flexible way to render these waves in order to achieve the visual style and variety required.
A shading technique was developed that made it possible to render realistic waves with a high degree of art direction.
This technique employed a local coordinate system in which a series of wave zones were calculated using the
cylindrical coordinate system of the wave and the parameterization of the wave surface. These zones were separated
by angle and represented the various parts of the wave during its life cycle. Each zone could be shaded separately and
all zones could be animated and blended. Lighters were able to manipulate these zones in a way that allowed them
to almost paint the color of the waves. The image below illustrates these zones.
Diagram illustrating wave zones
This method was developed based on the observation that waves break in a similar way and that they have a similar
shape when considered from a profile. The angles formed by the normal of a surface point and the Positive Y axis
are similar across the waves types. Wave zones were created based on this angle. The parameterization of the wave
surface was normalized with the 0.5 value being equal to the leading edge of the breaking wave. Values less than 0.5
represented the bottom of the wave and those greater than 0.5 represented the top.
Each wave zone was treated as a separate (albeit simplified) material. These material zones were combined in the
shader through blending regions. The surface color derived by these zones ended up being a good approximation of
the diffuse and ambient lighting components of the wave. This was combined with other more physically based
techniques for the reflection and refraction to achieve a high degree of realism.
The foam patterns were created in the displacement shader by the Effects team (see Section 5.4). This procedural
foam pattern was “message passed” to the surface shader. In the surface shader, the top foam (above water) and under
foam (below water) were treated as separate and unique materials.
94 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING
Composite of beauty renders adjusted using wave zones as control maps.
Bottom map pass Diffuse pass
Incandescence pass Translucence pass
Color correction pass Specular pass
Cast shadow pass All layers composited
SIGGRAPH 2007 95
SURF’S UP
6.4 Rendering the Particles

Particles were rendered for all spray and whitewater
elements including the following:
• Lip Spray
• Surf Board Spray
• Wave Whitewater
• Paddle Splashes
These elements were rendered as RiPoints in very large
numbers as described earlier in Section 5.8. Many of these
particle elements were rendered by the Effects department Individual particle renders lit by 3 lights – each
using Z-depth images as holdouts and then passed along to light rendered to a separate R, G, or B channel
Lighting for final integration.
96 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING
Proximity and time attributes for the particles were used to

transition the particles from clear refractive water to a white
aerated appearance. This was especially useful for the
interactive splashes and sprays from the characters and their
surf boards. The images below show the elements that were
used by the artist in the composite to create these splashes.
Composite of all particle elements
An additional finer and softer mist element was also often

rendered using Splat, Imageworks’ proprietary sprite
renderer. These elements were used for fine wave spray
or fog.
SIGGRAPH 2007 97
SURF’S UP
6.5 Compositing: Putting It All Together

A great deal of integration of the wave elements was done
during the compositing stage. RenderMan’s Arbitrary
Output Variables (AOVs) were used to render utility passes
at the same time as the primary (or beauty) render. These
utility passes typically consisted of masks and lighting
components including the following:
• Normals: Surface point normal. This was often used

in the composite to add additional specular highlights Diffuse
or reflections and for the refraction of the bottom
map render.
• Z-Depth: Distance in Z away from the camera plane,
used for atmosphere and depth-of-field simulation.
• World P: Position in world space of the surface point.
• Fresnel: Used to mix the ratio of reflection and the
amount that we see into the water
(refracted bottom map).
• Reflection Occlusion: Render pass used to hold out
the reflection pass.
• Top-Foam Mask: Used to color correct the foam on Incandescence
top of the water surface.
• Under-Foam Mask: Used to color correct the foam
under the water surface.
• Bottom Map: Render of the bottom of the ocean.
The following images demonstrate the individual layers

that make up a typical wave:
Translucence
Individual layers that make up a typical wave composite

(rendered as AOVs)
Reflection
98 SIGGRAPH 2007
WAVE SHADING
Bottom Map Fresnel Utility Zone
Reflection Occlusion Under Foam Top Foam
World Space Position
Final Composite
SIGGRAPH 2007 99
SURF’S UP
6.6 Filming Waves Documentary Style
6.6.1 Underwater Camera Housing

The well worn adage that “invention is the child of necessity” was true for rendering the water and led to the
visual concept of an underwater camera housing.
In the quest for an authentic documentary feel, there were very few restrictions placed on the camera and
filming of the action. The Layout department was free to do anything with the camera in order to attain a
documentary feel and to simulate how a crew might actually film in a given environment, like water.
Allowing the camera to be partially submerged however caused problems when rendering the ocean and waves
because the water surface intersected the camera plane. This situation resulted in long render times with very
large memory requirements.
One typical solution is to push the rendering clipping plane forward and away from the camera. This
rendering requirement led to the idea of simulating an underwater camera housing in which the glass of the
camera housing is further away from the film plane than the camera lens. By simulating a distant plane of
glass this allowed the artist rendering the water to push the camera clipping plane far enough to prevent the
rendering problems. This turned out to be an aesthetically desirable choice as well. The split screen imagery
created by this camera housing felt more intimate and emphasized the documentary style by the fact that the
characters where being filmed with a “real” or physical camera.
The following are several of the elements that went into creating the look of the underwater camera:
• Water Split-Screen: Separate underwater and above water renders divided by the water line.
• Underwater Look: Various elements such as light rays, particulate material and murk (loss of light
underwater) were used for the portion of the image that was underwater.
• Lens scratches: Including lens flaring based on light angle.
• Lens splashes: Water drops and sheeting on lens.
• Underwater Housing: Light falloff from imperfect camera housing.
The following shot build demonstrates how these elements were composited together to create the
final image:
100 SIGGRAPH 2007

WAVE SHADING
Above water pass Caustics
Characters Lens scratches
Water drips on lens Reflection
Underwater particles Underwater light rays
Refraction Z depth
SIGGRAPH 2007 101

SURF’S UP
6.6.1 Underwater Camera Housing cont’d

Composite of underwater camera elements
Water surface Under water
Under water light rays Characters
Characters underwater Caustics
Depth of Field Lens vignette
102 SIGGRAPH 2007

WAVE SHADING
6.6.2 Board Mounted Video Camera

The concept of an underwater camera housing was extended to create the look of a surfboard
camera, similar to that used in sports footage. In this case the idea was to visually simulate the
immediacy and excitement that is characteristic of filming with a small camera mounted to the
surfboard. The elements in the images on this page were composited to create the look and
feel of a cheap servo operated video camera. As Dolly Parton once said: “It takes a lot of money
to look this cheap.”
Some of the individual elements that were characteristic of this look are listed below.
• Little motion blur (step printing for slow motion and skip printing to speed up action)
• Larger depth-of-field to simulate small, cheap lens
• Video lines
• Video dropouts
• Simulated servo controlled movement
• Video color
• Vignette from cheap camera housing with imperfect fit
• Splashes and water drops on lens
Rear facing camera
Forward facing camera
SIGGRAPH 2007 103

SURF’S UP
6.7 Examples of Waves

Variations of the techniques described in this Section
were used to light and render all the waves in Surf ’s Up.
The next few pages contain several of the more
memorable wave moments in the film.
104 SIGGRAPH 2007

WAVE SHADING
SIGGRAPH 2007 105

SURF’S UP
6.7 Examples of Waves cont’d
106 SIGGRAPH 2007

WAVE SHADING
SIGGRAPH 2007 107

SURF’S UP
6.7 Examples of Waves cont’d
108 SIGGRAPH 2007

WAVE SHADING
SIGGRAPH 2007 109

SURF’S UP
110 SIGGRAPH 2007

BIOGRAPHIES

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
BIOGRAPHIES
SIGGRAPH 2007 111

SURF’S UP
7.1 presenters
7.1.1 Rob Bredow

Rob Bredow is a Visual Effects Supervisor at Sony Pictures Imageworks who recently
completed work on Surf ’s Up. He is currently supervising the upcoming animated
movie Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. While at Sony, Rob has been involved in
creating many of the complex visuals featured in The Polar Express, Cast Away and
both Stuart Little films. Rob’s other credits include the feature films Megiddo,
Independence Day, Godzilla and others. Rob is experienced in the field of effects
animation, shading and rendering and has presented his work in SIGGRAPH
Courses in 2000, 2002, 2005.
7.1.2 David Schaub

David Schaub is an Animation Director at Sony Pictures Imageworks who recently
completed work on Surf ’s Up. He was also the Animation Director at Imageworks
for last year’s The Chronicles of Narnia. Schaub was the Animation Supervisor on
The Polar Express, receiving a VES nomination for “Steamer” (one of the traditionally
animated characters) and received a VES award in 2002 for his animation work on
Stuart Little 2. Other film credits include Stuart Little (1), Cast Away, Evolution,
Patch Adams, Hollow Man, Godzilla and The Craft. Schaub has also acquired
producer and director credits on several award-winning independent video projects.
7.1.3 Daniel Kramer

Daniel Kramer is a CG Supervisor at Sony Pictures Imageworks. Prior to Surf ’s Up
Daniel was Effects Animation Supervisor for The Polar Express and presented his
work at SIGGRAPH in 2005. Daniel first joined Imageworks in 2000 to work on
Spider-Man® where he acted as Lead Effects Animator. Other projects include
visuals for feature films and television including Godzilla, Star Trek: First Contact and
Independence Day.
112 SIGGRAPH 2007

BIOGRAPHIES
7.1.4 Danny Dimian

Danny Dimian is a CG Supervisor at Sony Pictures Imageworks and has recently
completed work on Imageworks’ second animated feature Surf ’s Up. Danny started
at Imageworks as a shader writer on the Academy Award® nominated Hollow Man.
Other Imageworks projects include Spider-Man® , Stuart Little 2, The Polar Express
and Monster House.
7.1.5 Matt Hausman

Matt Hausman is a CG Supervisor at Sony Pictures Imageworks where he recently
completed work on Surf ’s Up as Effects Animation Supervisor. His previous credits
at Imageworks include Stuart Little, Spider-Man® , Cast Away, What Lies Beneath
and The Polar Express.
7.2 additional contributor
7.2.1 R. Stirling Duguid

CG Supervisor Stirling Duguid joined Sony Pictures Imageworks in 2000 as an FX
Technical Director on Robert Zemeckis’ Cast Away and What Lies Beneath. He
recently completed work on Surf ’s Up, and prior to that on the Academy Award®
nominated film The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Some of Stirling’s other film credits include Dr. Doolittle, Stuart Little 2, The Polar
Express, and The Matrix: Reloaded.
SIGGRAPH 2007 113

SURF’S UP
114 SIGGRAPH 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SIGGRAPH 2007 115

SURF’S UP
8.1 Acknowledgements
A special thanks to all those who helped in the writing,
rendering, compiling and correcting of these Course Notes
(in no particular order):
Deborah Carlson
Michael Muir
Nicola Lavender
Bert Van Brande
Mike Ford
Sande Scoredos
Lu Kondor
Susie Oh
Jordan Soles
Lauren Matheson
all the SUR PSTs
Noé Padilla
and all those involved in creating the images here in...
116 SIGGRAPH 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
8.2 Imageworks Credit Roll

Co-Producer Lydia Bottegoni CHARACTER SETUP
Visual Effects Character Setup
Supervisor Rob Bredow Supervisor Michael Ford
Wave Setup Lead Erick Miller

Senior Animation
Supervisor David Schaub Character Setup Leads
Stephen Candell Keridan Elliott
Digital Producer Chris Juen
Character Setup TDs
Andrew Anderson Kyudon Choi
Supervising Animators Renato Dos Anjos Ramiro Gomez Michael Kuehn
Chris Hurtt Peter Samuel Tieryas
Peter Nash
Chad Stewart
LAYOUT
CG Supervisors Danny Dimian
R. Stirling Duguid Layout APM Lauren Prince
Daniel Kramer
Lead Rough Layout Artist Lisa Suzuki
Bert Van Brande
Wave Animation Lead John Clark
Executive Producer,
Imageworks Jenny Fulle Rough Layout Artists
Stephen Childers Allen Foster
Harald Kraut Hiroshi Mori
Digital Production Managers Dani Morrow Carlos Pedroza
David Kalbeitzer Garrick McLaughlin Christopher Poplin
Pipeline Supervisor Henry Vera Lead Layout

Camera Operator Michael Condro
Final Layout Artists

MODELING Juan Gonzalez Andres Martinez
Joseph Thomas Pete Upson
Modeling Supervisor Marvin Kim
Final Layout Coordinator Michael Killoren
Lead Character Modeler Moon Jun Kang
Character Modelers
John Butiu Luis Labrador ANIMATION
Lead Environmental Animation APM Patrick G. Ramos
Modeler Greg Galliani
Animators
Environmental Modelers Anders J. L. Beer Josh Beveridge
Justin Diamond Richard Lee Jamaal Bradley Benjamin I. Cinelli
Justin Marshall Gastón Ugarte Jeffrey Croke James Crossley
SIGGRAPH 2007 117

SURF’S UP
8.2 Imageworks Credit Roll cont’d

Robert Fox Kevin Freeman LIGHTING & COMPOSITING
Derek Friesenborg Rick Glenn
Steven Pierre Gordon Bill Haller Lighting APMs
Dave Hardin Jordan Harris Lea Lambert Evangeline Monroy
Alan Hawkins Nicole Herr Miguel A. Oaxaca Paula Tudorof
Seth Hippen Ethan Hurd
Michael Kimmel Eric Lees Jeff Lin Lead Lighting Artists
Joe Mandia Gavin Moran Karl Herbst Michael Muir
Matthew J. Munn Patrick Osborne Michael Sandrik Douglas James Smith
Keith Paciello Brett Paton
Jayson Price Andreas Procopiou Compositing Supervisor JD Cowles
Tim Ranck Gwendelyn Robson
Sandra Ryan-Moran Denis Samoilov Lighting & Compositing
Henry Sato, Jr. Jeff Schu Jesse Andrewartha Leslie Baker
Brian Scott Sue Hyunsook Shim Joachim Bärnreuther Lynn Basas
Keith A. Sintay Ron Smith Jean-Paul Beaulieu Jorge Bobadilla
David Stodolny Jeff Vacanti Scott Bogoniewski Erik J. Borzi
Pepe Valencia Roger Vizard Grady Campbell Georgia Cano
Michael C. Walling Christopher Walsh Onny Carr Alan Chen
Larry White Alex Whitney Amy Christensen David Conlon
Dougg Williams John Wong Bertrand Cordier Robert W. Crain
Frederick Durand Patrick Finley
Animation Coordinator Jack Finlin Darren Fisher Jason Galeon
Shane Glading David Godwin
Svetla Gressak Kevin T. Hahn
CHARACTER PIPELINE Todd T. Hara Dave R. Howe
Ian Jenkins Kurt Judson
Character Pipeline Miku Kayama Kenny Lam
Supervisor Sumit Das Michael Lasker Dan Lavender
Nicola Lavender John J. Lee
Animation Support Lead Brian Coffee Daniel Leung Kimberley Liptrap
Tim Llewellyn Christine J. Lo
Animation Support Shannon McGee Enrique Muñoz
Stefaan Contreras Jason Doss Erik Ober Winston Quitasol
Chris Gallagher Dae-Ho Han Matthew Rampias Priyes Shah
Bryan Lentenbrink Raj Naiksatam Kenji Sweeney Eric Tablada
Daniele Tosti Mike Webster
Character Pipeline Craig Welsh Mark Wendell
Frank Müller Terrence Robertson-Fall Douglas Yoshida Melva Young
Carolyn Oros
Motion Graphics Nori Kaneko
Animation Support
Coordinator Amy R. Gordon Additional CG Supervision Walter F. Hyneman
118 SIGGRAPH 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EFFECTS ANIMATION MATTE PAINTING
Effects Animation Supervisors Matte Paint Supervisor David R. Bleich

Matt Hausman Carl Hooper
Matte Painters
Effects Animation Leads John Bevelheimer Joseph DiCesare
Steve Blakey Deborah Carlson Allen Gonzales Nick Hiatt
Matt Cordner Tom Kluyskens Steve Matson Noelle Triaureau
Stephen Marshall David R. Davies
Effects Animators LOOK DEVELOPMENT

Steve Avoujageli Todd Boyce
Dipankar Goswamy Victor Grant Look Development Leads
John Han Andrew Hofman Onny Carr Karl Herbst
Jeffrey Kember Seunghyuk Kim Michael Muir Michael Sandrik
Zsolt Krajcsik E. J. Lee Douglas James Smith Kenji Sweeney
Carlos Donis Lemus Fredrik Limsater Daniele Tosti
Franklin Londin Gustav Melich
Daniel Patrick Naulin Siegfried Ostertag Look Development TDs
Tom Pushpathadam Gregory Wade Reynolds Jean-Paul Beaulieu Alan Chen
Jeremy Squires Mark Story Kevin T. Hahn Piotrek Krawczyk
Chris Wachter Jeff Willette Erik Ober
Aaron Wilson Matthew Kiyoshi Wong
Shader Lead Laurent Charbonnel
Effects Animation Coordinators
Keiko Koyama Beth Tyszkiewicz Shaders
John B. Anderson Ryan S. Heniser
Aaron Lawn
HAIR & FEATHER
Texture Paint Lead Nori Kaneko
Hair & Feather Supervisor Rodrigo Ibanez
Texture Painters
Hair & Feather TDs Suzy Brown Matt Hollingsworth
Chris Bolwyn Brian Casper Kerry Nordquist Brian F. Ripley
Oscar Castillo Joong Choi Mike Yazijian
Saba Roufchaie Sean White
SIGGRAPH 2007 119

SURF’S UP
8.2 Imageworks Credit Roll cont’d

PRODUCTION SOFTWARE
Digital Resource APM Jordan Soles Sr. Pipeline Producer Brian Keeney
Production Office Coordinators Sr. Software / R&D Supervisor Bill Villarreal

Lia Abbate Gredel Berrios-Calladine
Software Supervisor Leslie Picardo
Production Accountant Marc Ostroff
Pipeline Producer Tok Braun
Assistant Accountant Nicole Koop
Pipeline Supervisors
Assistant to Directors Jason Cooper Rene Limberger John McLaughlin
Sam Richards
Production Assistant Miguel Gardo
Lead Pipeline Developer Steve Lavietes
Production Infrastructure
Suzanne Labrie Regaye Fulcher Technical Production Managers
Mitch Dobrowner Brian Hamblin
Erik Strauss
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Pipeline TDs
Lead PST Lauren Matheson Ron Bublitz Amy Hronek
PST Night Supervisor Troy Moore Team Leads

Armin Bruderlin Moti Cohen
Production Service Technicians Brian Hall Bruce Navsky
Jeffrey Benjamin Sean Corzo Michael Frederick Wilson Blair Zajac
Noel Vaughan Eaton Jonathan F. Garcia
Jason Madsen Jonathan S. Swartz Engineering
Michael Ball Christopher Burdorf
Development Specialist Jennifer Cranfill Matthew Chambers François Chardavoine
Clint Chua Pablo Collins
Manager Andrea Lackey Pace John Flynn Albert Golembiowski
Jeff Hill Junko Igarashi
Digital Asset APM Jeffrey Pohl Manson Jones Cottalango Loorthu
Ken McCloskey Lucas A. Miller
Sosh Mirsepassi Hiroyuki Miyoshi
Kishore Mulchandani
Dhasarath Ravindranath J Robert Ray
James Salter Jeremy Selan
Mathew Selby Peter Shinners
120 SIGGRAPH 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Joseph Slomka Geo Snelling SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

Andrea Solis Nicole Tester
Bond-Jay Ting Victor Wang Supervisor Alberto Velez
Dan Weston Brian Wong
Ted Alexandre Charlie Boster
Coordinator Leslie MacIver Garrett Cox Gerardo De La Cruz
Tyler Franks Olin Kimberly
Alex Lostaunau David Perry
TRAINING & ARTIST Jeremy Simpson Michael Trujillo
DEVELOPMENT Daniel Villarreal Ken Williams
Scott Williams Peter Wright
Sande Scoredos J.C. Cornwell
Adriana Jaroszewicz Samantha N. Brown
SYSTEMS R&D
DIGITAL PRODUCTION Dean E Miya Nicholas Bali
MANAGEMENT Suri Denduluri Bruce Dobrin
Stephen Kowalski Daniel Lake
Ken Maruyama Diane St. Clair David Simas
Bill Anastas Sharon Berlin
Jill Shane Butler Jana Day
Camille Eden Wendy Mashburn SONY PICTURES IMAGEWORKS
Rachael Phillips Karen Sickles SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Dana Pettit-Vanhove
Tim Sarnoff Debbie Denise
Tom Hershey George H. Joblove
ANIMATION PRODUCTION Don Levy Stan Szymanski
MANAGEMENT Barry Weiss
Lauren Ann Littleton Robin Alan Linn

Anett Gough Mary Rachel Thompson
Chad Hellmuth Charlene Maryland
SIGGRAPH 2007 121

SURF’S UP
122 SIGGRAPH 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

San Diego, CA, USA
SURF’S UP
Sony Pictures Imageworks, Culver City, CA, USA
Surf ’s Up images courtesy of Sony Pictures Imageworks and
Sony Pictures Animation
©2007 Sony Pictures Animation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Body: Adobe Garamond™; Headlines; Confidential™;

Layed out and designed by Noé Padilla in Quark™ 6.5 on Apple Macintosh G5
SIGGRAPH 2007 123

Siggraph 2007 Surfs Up Course Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siggraph 2007 Surfs Up Course Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siggraph 2007 Surfs Up Course Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Course # 13, SIGGRAPH 2007

San Diego, CA USA

The Making of an Animated Documentary

Written & Presented by:

Sony Pictures Imageworks, Culver City, CA, USA

About these notes

This document is best viewed in “Facing Pages” mode if viewing digitally.

iii SIGGRAPH 2007

Course # 13, SIGGRAPH 2007

• Integration of a live action hand-held camera

• Development of the wave system and its

• Animation techniques and choices made to

• Novel effects animation techniques created to

• Look development and lighting techniques

1.2 About the Film

Course # 13, SIGGRAPH 2007

MAKING AN ANIMATED DOCUMENTARY

2.1 The Premise

2.2 Found Footage

The filmmakers also “found” footage from modern

The primary types of footage that Imageworks

2.2 Found Footage cont’d

The various film and video looks used throughout the

2.3 The Live-Action Camera

2.3.1 The HandyCam System

2.3.2 The Hardware and Software

Example of complex scene data from Big Z's beach

The second major improvement was the hardware and

For these requirements, the Visual Effects Supervisor

The Imageworks team also installed encoders onto the

2.4 Slow Motion and Time Manipulation

2.4.1 High Speed Photography

2.4.2 Step Printing

For Step Printing on Surf ’s Up, the production again

The difference between the two types of slow motion is

2.4.3 Ramped Camera Speeds

Course # 13, SIGGRAPH 2007

3.1 Animation Team

It was the goal of the Directors to create a film (and

The Layout, Animation and Effects crews were joined

3.2 Character Designs

By January 2006, the designs for all of the characters

3.3 Cody’s animation rig and controls

3.3.1 Body Rig

3.3.1.1 Reverse Spine

Reverse spine pivot

3.3.1.2 Knee Poppers and Cuff Controls

3.3.2 Face Rig

3.3.2.1 Muscles vs. Blend Shapes

3.3.2.2 Beak Rig

3.3.2.3 Eyelid Rig

3.3.2.4 Facial Animation UI (Surfshop)

3.4 Character Development

3.4.1 Development Tests

The first character test shot

Much can be learned about a character through the way it

In addition, a whole series of “sitting, talking, cheering,

On the flip side, much was learned about the animators,

3.4.3 Cycle Library