>>12458880 Super tight (cross)hatching for the purposes of creating another color when viewed from afar because you aren't allowed to have a second color of ink is shading. A bunch of tiny detail lines to make something look busy when you're sitting at a computer that can fart out millions of colors isn't.
When we talk about shading, and especially when Otaking is invoked, we mean using several distinct SHADES of color, and usually not just a black shadow and/or a highlight in conjunction with a single shade. Chirico's hair >>12458909 has several different SHADES of blue visible there. His face is shadowed by hatching. Either way, postcard memories aren't usually brought up in discussion of shading.
Shading deserves more respect than just throwing all forms of detailing into the same pile.
>>12459037 Two tones isn't SHADING. Practically everything has two tones. Even Hosoda does two tones and he forgot what pens are. If two tones was SHADING we'd never have started bitching about shading to begin with.
>>12459134 >I really wouldn't call this SHADING, though. That's because the eighties and nineties had a different style of shading. I dunno how I'd describe it. Heavier? Harsher? I'll probably damage my point if I go on.
Even when modern animation goes three-tone, it looks different. Three-tone shading was reserved for movies and OVAs anyway. So a lot of the time it's reviling modern art styles in general.
The modern equivalent of SHADING as far as studios are concerned is GRADIENTS AND FILTERS which /m/ thinks are the devil.
>>12459158 No, I'm saying that SHADING does not literally refer to shading, as QUALITY does not literally refer to quality. They have their own meanings here, and when we talk about shading, it's usually 3+ tone.
>>12459151 Gradients and filters can look nice when they have some character to them. JJBA uses both heavily, and while I haven't seen Rolling Girls, I've heard that's the case as well. Gradients look best when used at interfaces or to spice up what would otherwise be a very large, single-tone blob.
And three tones isn't restricted to just OVAs. You can find it in TV anime, but not to the extent of, say, Stardust Memory's 3+ tones with animation. It's all over the close-up panning shots in Saint Seiya and a lot of other shounen stuff, for instance (though in the former's case it's usually two tones + shadow).
What's up top isn't eighties shading. That's lots of crosshatching ala Votoms. It reminds me more of the seventies with how it does the lines, really. That picture has two tones for each colour, as pointed out here. >>12459066
SHADING involves heavy, harsh shading and at least three tones. It makes strong use of lighting and alternates between tones heavily, making a higher level of detail and is often accompanied by more detailed lineart.
This is why Obari is considered the king of mecha shading, he makes extremely heavy use of this style. Compare your image to this sample image.
The detail in that one comes from all of the lines and crosshatching. The shading is very strong, but it's not SHADING.
>>12459208 Yeah, I sorta forgot how often shows would go three-tone for higher detail shots, usually just pans or closeups.
>>12459211 >not really, it could do easily without them David Production is just getting those part3bux Season one would look mediocre without it. The use of gradients gave the show a lot of unique style and helped compensate for the fact that it was practically a motion comic at times.
My point with "are the devil" is that people on /m/ tend to blindly reject visual styles and improvements that are possible through use of digital techniques, often accompanied by violent eighties high-budget OVA masturbation.
Just to further illustrate >>12459212 's point. Three clear tones plus a highlight (white or near it) and shadow (black or near it) tone. That's five tones.
Another good indicator of SHADING, and well-pictured here, is that the different tones are not solid blobs. The lines that distinguish between shades are are often wavy. There are spear-like protrusions of one shade into another. Shades repeat, so if you draw a line straight across, there will be times where you step back up (or down) a shade. The thin yellow line across the bottom part of that central chest bump goes 2, H, 2, H, 2, 3, 2, 3, S.
>>12459212 So, it is still an old-school style of shading then, just not the type /m/ tends to talk about. I see. The 70s and 80s styles kind of blend together for me, largely due to all the drugs, so I guess that's why I got confused. To be honest I used the filename simply because I found it to be very heavily shaded, not out of any knowledge of /m/ vernacular.
>>12459520 TBQH I'd prefer a faithful but "poorly paced" (if you can really call properly following the book's pacing a bad thing to do) adaptation to one that is well paced but makes cuts left and right.
>>12459529 I'd say yes to all of those personally, but it's the most subjective fucking thing ever. Which is why watching and deciding for yourself is always the best way to go, even if it's something everyone hates like Mars of Destruction.
>>12459607 I was gonna make a thread about this show, but I'm surprised there's not already a thread. Why is there no thread for it? It was very yeeart. Amusingly, this also relates to the discussion about animation.
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.