>>70614600 I'm not so sure it was a comment on the quality of the animation. The character designs do look oddly off-model in the older intro, and the footage itself doesn't look as sharp or crisp as the HD one. The new intro is more consistent with the show's current look, even if its animation is so stiff.
>>70614852 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKi34AGMVlI Those are all pretty average. Yes, even the TMS animation. They're not terrible but they're not very good either. They barely understand what they're animating. Plucky's mouth-agape when he realizes he's been had, Plucky tearing out his feathers, it all looks dead, like the people animating don't understand why the character is doing what it's doing. That "eye looking back, mouth left hanging" is supposed to be EXPRESSIVE, instead it's robotic like that stiff Marge Simpson up there.
Not sure how simpsons does it. But if it's like family guy It's way cheaper and faster to use canned animations posed onto models and work in after effects than to actually go through the effort of frame by framing digital work.
There is literally zero appreciation for the animation itself among its viewers, it's purely the vehicle for the dialogue and few sight gags. Why would you work hard making something when people are actually gravitational toward the cheaper option?
You can with a proper amount of focus on animation, a touch of old effects like smear frames, and a willingness to not stick too strongly to models. Animated sitcoms today though realize they don't need animation in the same way a lot of live action sitcoms realize they don't need cinematography or lots of sets or anything. Anyone tuning in is there for a few dumb stand up jokes, half won't even look at the screen while it's in the background. Nothing in the background matters in live action sitcoms the same way nothing they animate in family guy really matters. Simpsons is just cutting corners where it's target audience will never notice.
>>70614457 >The reason why the show has stiffend up is because there was an era when fox would tell directors that we had to draw every pose we drew perfectly on model. No distorting of the forms of any kind. It has slowly been dieing down the past couple seasons but they still insist on making the show more about the writing and less about the looks.
>Every once in a while we'll get let loose and we can do some fun stuff but on the whole don't blame the artists please. Believe me all of us working there would love to express the characters in more ways but there's just so much we can do. I'm just happy to be working, I can't complain anyway I'm on the longest running show ever.
The variations in shape and line weight of hand drawn frames, when coupled with a high number of drawings, naturally impart a liveliness to the animation. Imperfection and unpredictability is a large part of feeling organic. The lines in digital animation are too constant unless you put some extra effort into making them varied.
The problem of digital perfection isn't limited to the animation aspect. 3D didn't start looking good until algorithms for noise/film grain were developed. Modern 3D rendering has multiple passes of atmospheric effects that dirty up the image. Digital painters use texture layers and chalk-like brushes for the same reason.
>>70618563 The problem is that they constantly overdid it to the point of sloppiness. In one instance, a Kennedy episode was so rife with errors that it had to be sent to another animation studio for (several) revisions.
>>70615582 >I think Studio Ghibli and Miyazaki trained animators are average. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? They're god tier for a reason. >>70618079 Simpsons (as well as Family Guy) is still done in Korea. >>70618450 So does TMS but at least they are shaped like what a 14 year old will have in real life. >>70618563 They were sloppy, but they're much better then Mir thats for sure >>70618486 Explain how most of Korra's market is "that market", they care about animation.
Explain why TMS is doing that Zooey Deschanel show announced last year.
TMS will propel Teh Sampsangs to its formerest glory with a LilPri crossover due in 2018.
It will only be costing 200 bajillion pesos.
Yu should all be glade and greetful it is not Mecuy Filmworks (Canada) doing the lions share of the gränfañgcional munqunjion or else Estudio Mir (Vietnam) will don the kid gloves and boots like they did with Avatar seasons 2 and 3.
>>70626294 To Cal-Arts grads, they will say Rough Draft because they do what they say but their animation is very stiff & stilted, they were ok in the cel era but got worse once digital ink & paint came into being.
The Moi people came from normal art schools which they are trained to build normal human bodies but Moi's animation is very lop sided (say a character's neck is 2 inches away from the center of the body) and is not as good as Rough Draft.
In the end, TMS is TMBest as theirs a reason why Ghibli uses them in almost ever film they ever did.
>>70624162 Nice projecting, but I'm not from Cal Arts nor do I think Ghibli's animation is bad, quite the opposite really. Hell, I even thought comparing Ghibli's animation quality to that of TMS is more of an insult towards the studio than it is a complement to be frank.
>>70626614 Then why the TMS hate? People like Kazuhide Tomonaga, Yoshinobu Michihata & Toshihiko Masuda put their heart & soul into their productions; Why hate on them? They're the Ghibli of TV/OVA animation.
>>70618486 SU doesn't have the best animation either, but at least it tries. You can really tell during the action scenes where most everything feels really floaty like they don't actually see how real humans move
Nah, it's more that the obvious way to do a ceiling of tiles in digital art is to do it neatly, so to do the effect of the original hand drawn version you'd have to start out by having someone free handing the tiles on the master cels for the inbetweeners to copy using the same digital tools they'd use for the straighter tiles.
But neither's per se "more expensive" than the other, in large part because the original is done "on the cheap" - see how the lines indicating tiling aren't entirely drawn and are a single color with just black lines?
The same goes for the larger amount of body motion marge is doing - in the original there's no shading and fewer frames used, so the bodies have to move more dynamically to convey motion, and again that weird twirl the hair does is just a little bit "easier" in hand drawn stuff, because the bulk of the master cels aren't being C&P'd from frame to frame digitally, you have to draw it all by hand ANYWAY, so you can deviate more easily that way and add weird flourishes... but the pay off is that you have to use fewer cels to finish the product on time, where as the digital animation can massively increase the number of frames the animators can do per day, meaning you can use more frames per millisecond, or free up time for them to animate more of the "new" or "unique" bits of the simpson title sequence.
And thus we get to the real problem here: It's not "handdrawn vs. digital animation" it's "zombie simpsons has gone on so long that instead of using one very well drawn title sequence with 2-3 unique bits per episode, they now have upwards of 5, not counting the couch gag, in part to help pad out the episodes, and thus to meet this increase the overall quality of each bit is less than in the old days, so maggie looking at the monobrow baby is basically 2 frames of jerky animation lasting at most 10 milliseconds that loops for almost a whole second."
It's not really just The Simpsons, I think it's an issue with all cartoons.
Uncle Grandpa is probably the cartooniest thing I watch on TV right now and even that is rife with bad, stiff animation and drawings.
I think the problem is two fold. It is NOT that the animation is digital, because many shows, including The Simpsons, aren't made in Flash (or with similar techniques of motion tweening symbols around on the screen), they're still drawn frame by frame by actual people with their hands. The problem however does stem from this digital age we've entered, which imbues everyone with a notion of, "there must be a quicker, cheaper and easier way to do this". Back when animation was shot on film, there were no real ways of making shortcuts, it wasn't even an option, everything had to be hands on. Not so much anymore.
Which I think brings us to the second problem, the fact that the creators who are (this is up for debate, but) actually able to draw/animate are so far removed from the final image on the screen. Even the special scenes they do rough animation for still get pushed hard through a Korean filter that removes all the skill and nuance from the drawings. It just deadens everything.
There's no more passion, no soul, no life in the animation as evident with Marge's flourishing momvent in the original intro to her now robotic, lifeless turn. Cheaper, expensive, whatever. They just don't care anymore and got lazy.
>>70627010 This is what happens when non-animation becomes the norm. People who want to make it proper no longer have the skill or money. And then the audience forgets what that skill even looks like, and so on.
I miss all those imperfections the detail the animation had. But even if they could still have it animated like that it wouldn't save it from how bad the newer episodes are. I mean would we care if the episodes actually had good writing from ages ago, but still adapted to the newer crisp lazy HD animation?
>>70630765 >I mean would we care if the episodes actually had good writing from ages ago, but still adapted to the newer crisp lazy HD animation? It would be better, but really good writing would demand that the characters emote. How many classic-style jokes would be ruined by lack of expression?
John K is right, the script-based mentality is dangerous.
>>70632016 After seeing this image 10 trillion times I don't think it's so erroneous. I mean it's true, AT is a good example of character design that doesn't allow for the same 3D cartoony expression as a good old Looney Tunes character. It's designed for ease of drawing but is also stylish, and the style is then copied, perpetuating laziness.
That said I love AT to death and I still think it looks beautiful when they really TRY. It's not technically good animation, but at its best it's creative and vibrant and that's what cartoons should be.
>>70632291 And it look like shit. I remember being a kid and being baffle about always the light colored bush moving, and knowing that the floor was going to break because the different color in the animation.
Guys, I have a confession to make. Animation isn't a huge deal to me. I recognize that the animation better back when Loony Tunes were a thing, but between about 1970 and 1990 the animation was shit. As for today, I think some flash shows (in particular Steven Universe, Star vs Evil, and Gravity Falls; see >>70618486) have in parts very fluid animation and good palettes. If these are bad, then what makes for good animation? Can someone explain this to me?
>>70632106 Why is it that I want to fuck every single character in this show. Shiny Chariot first and foremost but the MC, the dozy alcehmist, the nerdy friend, the uptight priss, the priss' possy, I mean good lord there are way to many fuckable underage girls in this show.
>>70632452 a lot of modern animation is stiff because someone sold the industry the idea that characters need to look on model 100% of the time. During rapid movements the eye blurs shit together, you can see it in VHS tapes that run at a lower framerate, too. In animation, you need to mimick that effect or things will look... awkward. The steven universe animated bit you quoted is an example of fluid animation, because it actually makes use of smears. it isnt bad, but it isnt particularly impressive either. It really *should* be the standard. But it isnt.
Instead the standard is more on the level of budget flash animations. and having used flash personally, the programme is actually pretty good. But it offers a lot of tools animators exploit, use as a cruch, or use to cut corners and keep the budget down. The biggest culprit being tweened animation. You know those shows that look kinda like paper puppets, where they have pictures for the limbs and have those move across the screen? Those are tweens. and theyre always incredibly obvious because human beings dont move like that. Wakfu tried its best with them but even that looked kinda awkward half the time.
they've recently been doing more and more frame by frame animation, and it always looks better.
>>70632452 They aren't bad but the animation isn't technically rigorous. Great animation looks extremely lifelike, even when exaggerated. You can feel motion and momentum and it's very exciting to look at. Looney Tunes is pretty much the gold standard of western animation as far as I'm concerned.
>>70629230 >But most of Ghibli's movies uses them. So? They used a fuck ton of other decent quality studios to help them out on the animation as well; like Oh! Production for example.
Doesn't really transfer much to the quality of their own in-house works though, which like other studios varies a lot more in terms of animation quality.
>Are you one of those types of people that only like feature animation?!? No, I like TV animation as well and I honest think it has its strengths over feature animation, I just don't think TMS is that great a studio in my opinion. That said, I still enjoyed their work on Bamham though.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.