CGI based anime is the future, even if today still has its limitation (human models lack expression and hair is too stiff), with a little extra work, it can give great results
Also come with some handy pros
Animation is easier and faster
Animation cost goes down, so series dont need exorbitant number sales to pay off
which translate on more possible S2-3 etc from series and/or cheaper BD/ DVD
what does /a/ think about this kind of future? if I remember right, Japan kinda of accepted well Blue Steel anime
Fuck off, stop spreading lies. 2D will/should never be overrun by CG. They both shine the most when they support each other. I hate CG but IF they have to use this shitty technique (what I'm saying isn't that CG is bad (it is though...) but that 2D is objectively superior on everything except perspective and rotation.
>The costs are recouped is assets can be reused a lot but building things from scratch takes a lot of resources.
but..dont they already use CGI to cut on that? cars, stock people, Etc, most mecha, already do it CGI as all it need is copy paste
I pray for a future where all anime CG looks like that new Guilty Gear.
I don't expect those prayers to be answered.
>human models lack expression and hair is too stiff
What I like about Arpeggio is that they were able to get away with this by having Iona be a emotionless creepy staring mental image. You can't even tell it's the CG's fault since she have the same dead look in the original source.
the charm with anime is that it's hand-drawn.
CG-anime should be called... I don't know "unko" or something, so that the guys who like shit-CGI can watch it, and people who values the drawn qualities of anime, and the proper way of doing it, can watch it.
Arpeggio has an amazing manga.
But there was some pretty awesome scenes that would have noway been able to be drawn by hand. Take this one for example.
humans is where Cell shading fails the worst, but they can fix it
60 FPS anime
Even the Kancole use CGI
Yeah man could you imagine if they were able to draw like that.
>CGI based anime is the future
No it isn't.
>Animation is easier and faster
>Animation cost goes down, so series dont need exorbitant number sales to pay off
>The costs are recouped is assets can be reused a lot
It pays of more the longer the series runs I guess.
Basically higher initial investment vs. running costs.
The downside that variations like dress changes, alterations to rooms etc. are more limited.
Kill yourself, CG means everything will be half-assed, as doing it in higher quality is more expensive. Good CGI artists can work for westerners with unlimited money, but the west doesn't do hand drawn anymore so the anime industry can pay traditional artists peanuts.
Yeah, generic stock copy/pasted shit. Is that what you want for anime? You want to turn everything into boring stock copypasting? What's wrong with you? Do you just want trolling fodder to taunt anime fans with?
maybe someone will envetrually take the risk and make an engine dedicated for Cellshading, CGI.
current problem with today Cell shading is that most 3D render light is not codded to work for 2D effects but rather
The only CG I actually liked and thought looked better than it would have in 2D was the JoJo openings.
I can't even watch Akito because it just makes me wish I was watching original Code Geass mechs instead.
>Call me when CGI is completely indistinguishable from hand drawn animation. Then I'll start caring about it.
Pointless request. That's like asking that digitally colored and composed anime look like 80s shows with blotches of colors for moving parts and all that crap. Some things will obviously be different, that doesn't mean change is automatically bad.
60FPS anime is fucking pointless. That scene - a slow motion scene - is the dumbest possible thing to use. It looks like garbage. And even if it wasn't a slow-motion scene, it would still look like garbage.
Animation doesn't work the same way as capturing images on film. There is NO benefit to animating at 60FPS. The cost in terms of time, money and manpower are astronomical in exchange for fucking nothing. Video card marketing has no place here.
CG has been used in various forms for well over a decade now. Full CG anime is also nothing new, if you look at JRPG cutscenes. Even then, there are no signs it's "the future", and 2D is still the absolute dominant aspect of japanese animation, and will likely not change due to traditional practices, expertise if the animators, and most importantly, the budgets and work environments of most anime studios. A change to CG-only would likely be the death of all but 2-3 studios and 90% of yearly series, with 2D being only seen in awful shorts. So, like western animation, but still with the same small budgets, so it'd still all look crappy.
CG will never be indistinguishable from hand-drawn. Just like handdrawn can't look indistinguishable from stop-motion or something. They're built on entirely different principles.
inb4 some c/o/fag brings up paperman.
>CG means everything will be half-assed, as doing it in higher quality is more expensive.
Studios are cutting costs where they can with 2D animation too. Slow pans without much animated content, talking heads, faceless/low detail background characters, QUALITY, shaft slideshows etc.
>It looks like garbage.
I like how the hair flows
>No, but when the skill of drawing dissapears from anime, it's bad.
they still have to draw textures, draw prototypes before creating models etc.
It's a straight zoom with a simple perspective. There's nothing hard about it. The only real issue would be how much detail put into the ship's model, which would dictate how much time it took to animate. Even then, the motion of the camera is quick, so the frame count wouldn't need to be that large for the cut.
If anyone can pull it off, its CC2.
If only they make stuff other than .hack movies...
But they don't draw the fucking models, expressions, movements, or the fucking frames.
inb4 "the storyboards are 2D!" Yeah, so are storyboards for live action movies, that doesn't make them 2D.
I hear these terrible arguments all the damn time, almosts as awful as flash-apologists who try and say every studio, even Ghibli, that colours with some toonboom program is "showing how amazing flash animation can be!" or some horseshit. Fuck off /co/.
you'd stil need to be able to draw. You need to draw out the concept art for the character designs as detailed as possible. Then there is the process of storyboarding.
>But they don't draw the fucking models, expressions, movements, or the fucking frames.
So you're saying things like the in-between frames are good in anime?
Western 2D animation may die because it focused on things that CGI can now do better. You cannot beat CGI in framerate. Models can squash and stretch. Physics and particle effects are handled by software engineers instead of artists.
Anime is going to live on because its strengths are in its surreal, stylized qualities. Anime likes changing speeds and hanging on shots, using optical illusions instead of squash and stretch, and the Japanese audience have a preference for lines over shapes.
This means Western 3D will always have an edge over JP-made 3D because traditional Western animation concepts translate better to CGI. But it also means there will always be a place for 2D in Japan, because its goals are clearly distinguishable from CGI.
>You need to draw out the concept art for the character designs as detailed as possible. Then there is the process of storyboarding.
Model riggers and storyboarders are not fucking animators. Are you going to say puppet builders and live-action storyboarders are animators, too?
Which means you didn't. Into the trash with your opinion.
>I hear these terrible arguments all the damn time, almosts as awful as flash-apologists who try and say every studio, even Ghibli, that colours with some toonboom program is "showing how amazing flash animation can be!" or some horseshit.
Why the hate for Flash? A number of Japanese animators made it work well.
>Models can squash and stretch.
CG will never be able to do this.
>using optical illusions instead of squash and stretch
You don't know what you are talking about. Squash and Stretch is a basic tenet of animation. Just because you're not seeing the extremes of something like Looney Tunes slapstick visual gags doesn't mean it isn't being employed.
And Western cartoons are dying because they've never been able to escape the Saturday Morning Ghetto.
>The only CG I actually liked and thought looked better than it would have in 2D was the JoJo openings.
I'm mixed on those. They work fine as openings, together with the the rad music and quick storyboarding cuts, but if you extended them to a full Jojo episode, the problems would quickly become obvious.
>I can't even watch Akito because it just makes me wish I was watching original Code Geass mechs instead.
Can't say I truly agree with that. All the mecha look and act different, even the old ones, but I like the dynamic camera and action.
2D is still best, but I I am mostly fine with 3D robots these days, at least compared to 3D people, which is still a bit hard to pull off.
>Why the hate for Flash?
It looks like shit.
CGI is the future of animation. But Japan won't be making it.
Yes, I know. Ping Pong did some interesting things that weren't just flat reused assets spinning around on a skeleton like Johnny Test or Rick & Morty type cancer.
I was talking about braindead /co/fags who try and say anyone who compiles handdrawn frames into a software to colour and edit, call it "flash animation just like Wakfu" or some shit. It's really annoying.
Sidonia wasn't produced in 60FPS. Where do you think those extra frames magically came from? A Gauna did it?
Because that's the way animation works when things move. It's the very first thing learned by every animator ever.
make a code that deforme the model for "speed scenes"
as I said, the main problem I see is that there is not an Engine designed for Animation 2D, so animators have to use regular engines 3D and do works around to give that flat effect
CG is extremly frontloaded costwise.
Everything you want to do with CG must be finished in the pre-production.
After that it's way cheaper than hand-drawn animation.
Just this scene would eat up a large part of your animation if you want to drawn it. Any cuts where the camera moves through all 3D dimensions are hellish expensive - nothing can't be reused for the next cut and it would be jarring as fuck because anime animations are low-framerate animations.
There is a reason why sakuga cuts using static backgrounds or only move in one axis for the most times.
With CG you need only an animator and a guy who plans the movement of the virtual camera.
Virtually all anime are made in tiny office floors with no technology beyond some old computers. They're made with elbow grease and hunger. Anime would simply die just like western animation did if it went 3D, because it's small economy just can't sustain those budgets on a wide scale.
And television CG is pretty bad budget looking crap even in America, and they can barely pump out 2 shows a year.
The problem with that it you're trying to apply a 2D technique to a 3D model.
People don't actually turn into blurry lines when they run in the real world, it's not going to work when you strictly use CGI.
>With CG you need only an animator and a guy who plans the movement of the virtual camera.
And the rigger, and the lighter, and the set-builder.
> It can be used for animating frame-by-frame
By drawing? Then it's hand-drawn animation Flash animation is slang for software animation, ie. using tweening and vectors and such.
if that is a key, then that is pathetic. What I was getting at is that you are trying to say that the skill of needing to draw somehow vanishes just because you have to texture models. Its the same shit as people who think that people who use SAI Painter are somehow not artists, just because they don't draw it out on paper.
The entire point of using CG anime is that in theory, you don't have animation errors like this. In theory, you could possibly make it look indistinguishable from a 2D anime.
That said, the problem we have on our hands is that Cel Shading looks like shit for preserving an 'anime style.' Works decent for the Jojo openings because those are openings that mimic the panels of the manga, and Araki's artstyle lend itself well to cel shading.
Then you have the issue of models not even being completed. If you look at certain shots in Knights of Sidonia, you'll notice that some of the characters have white teeth floating in the red void of their mouth, not attached to anything.
It is not that CG is shit for the medium--- on the contrary. CG on anime would potentially be a thousand times better than what we have now. But Japan is shit at CG. They don't have the technology and unless someone gives them to it, we probably won't be seeing more of it due to production costs and animation limitations. If you wanted an anime in CG to look good, it'd ned to be animated at a bare minimum if 24fps per episode.
It's simply a matter of cost, talent and time, which Japan does not have. Give them ten times the regular budget and a few years, then you'd have a good CG Anime series. Why wait though?
As mentioned >>111752483 the transition to CG made the animation industry worse because of how time consuming it is. The only good CG shows I can think of in the west are Canadian and dated as fuck, being the first CG Television shows ever made (ReBoot, Beast Wars, War Planets).
tl;dr CG isn't shit, but they shouldn't use it due to cost and time.
>neither do people in real life
Move your hand back in forth quickly in front of your face. Look at the trail a sparkler makes when you move it quickly in the dark. That's called "iconic memory". We don't perceive and process visual information the same when watching an actual object in motion compared to watching something on film.
That's why 2D animators manually add motion blur and distort forms. The brain doesn't automatically add those things to something you watch on film. That's why the animator has to. If they don't, you end up with the surreal soap-opera effect on the motion and it just looks wrong and fucking disgusting.
Heh thought there was going to be some catch somewhere when they were going to make some card game into an anime.
Also you do realise how hard it is to animate a digital doll right? You have to build a human instead of just capturing an image of it. There are many times that models will have issues like clipping or outright deformations when you try to move them a certain way. You also have to move the model for every second of film time.
It's not as simple you think it is.
I enjoy watching scenes like this because I knew they had to draw every frame of movement. If I knew it was a 3D model of some car moving forward in a 3D set I'm rarely impressed. I might as well just be watching a youtube video of a car.
Western 2D is dying because the west thinks cartoons are for children. Children will watch whatever they're given because they don't know anything else. The west just doesn't care about animation quality anymore so they can just pump out the equivalent of music overloaded with bass thumping to make it sound "good."
>animation errors like this
That's not an animation error. It's there as part of the motion. That one exaggerated frame is an important part of the overall movement. Why are you so ignorant about the very fundamentals of animation?
It's a card game since it's based on probability and chance. Each girl has stats just like a Pokemon card, or a Yugioh card. It's not a skill based game, it's just fucking luck.
I've already had this arguement with some autistic tards that kept thinking it took skill to play the damn game.
Also I think the website that hosts the game calls it a "card game".
Otherwise what do you call it?
In toei we trust
Why care about the effort that went into it? It should only matter if it looks good. Whether they conjured it up from hell by sacrificing little girls or a computer spat it out has little relevance to the final product
It's much more simple than having to create each character by hand, then also create the objects they'll touch or even appear on screen.
Not to mention the backgrounds and scenery they'll be within, or how the lighting works.
You have to make pretty much their world to film it you know.
>Why care about the effort that went into it?
Well, Pixar and all the other big CG studios aren't even trying to emulate 2D animations.
You could see how Arpeggio and Sidonia were trying to emulate several limited animation techniques. That's jarring because that's not what we're used to see in CG - it's also completly pointless because CG can avoid all the limitations of low-budget 2d animations.
Start at the beginning, obviously.
If you're complaining about the mouth, they were obviously going for more expressive faces there, but that's a stylistic choice, that's why i posted both. the Doki ED has more anime-style tiny mouths.
EDs are not indicative of the actual quality. It's a kids show with pretty simple backgrounds and stuff.
And their transf-WHY DO I SUDDENLY WANT TO BUY A SPARKLY MIRROR sequences are jarring at times and endlessly recycled.
>Western 2D is dying because the west thinks cartoons are for children.
Western 2D is dying because it hasn't sold theatrically since what, Tarzan? Even the most godawful 3D movie sells shitloads. 3D cartoons are still all completely for children but sell millions more because, as you said, it dazzles with the technology, even though it's still nothing actually impressive. They spend millions on hair and snow programs but the character animation is the same old shit.
As for television 2D, well that's just a disaster area. Is any current 2D show even animated by any westerners anymore? For things like Adventure Time, all they do is storyboards and I believe animatics and all the actual damn animation is done by Korea. I 'blame' western animation standards themselves, which when budgeted, leads to Flash shit with those desirable high frame rates, or is just entirely outsourced.
But in my opinion, 2D animation is still popular. I know way too many complete normalfags who fucking love "Attack on Titan" and other anime.
>Why care about the effort that went into it? It should only matter if it looks good.
There's a difference between a nice painting and a nice looking 3D rendered image. Some people appreciate the unique kinds of effort and techniques that the different methods require.
CG is shit. The west isn't capable of doing good character CG. Despite having enormous amounts of money, plenty of time to work on movies, and state of the art technology, the best they can do is make characters look like plastic toys.
The girls have changeable stats (like six or eight of them total I think), levels, and equipment. These progress as you play the game and do not ever reset. The luck based elements are comparable to a hit percentage in any RPG ever.
Japan also calls DnD a board game, Nip naming sense is hardly comparable to English phrases.
3D got a foot in the door with adults thanks to Pixar and not having decades worth of history as children's musicals and Saturday morning toy commercials.
2D occupies two realms with western audiences. One is wacky comedy for children and the other is as a sitcom delivery mechanism. Neither of which places any real importance on the animation. Rather, most shows the animation looks like garbage. Even something like the Simpsons, which has plenty of budget, still looks like sterile garbage. The animation has no function of its own beyond just being a facet of the vernacular of the show. There's no life in it compared to the early years.
>make a code that deforme the model for "speed scenes"
But every frame of a handdrawn one will be unique and entirely up to the animator, not just programmed according to a script.
> not just programmed according to a script.
Those things take human input too. Lots of input.
They're just tools for the artist eliminating repetitive tasks, namely redrawing the same thing over and over again. Of course those tools need some improvement to give the artist more freedom, but that's an iterative process.
the mechs in aldnoah.zero are obviously CG in many scenes but they don't look too bad since they are blocky to begin with.
On the opposite side we have the CG from that song part in mekaku shitty actors which was the most inhumane thing I ever saw
>On the opposite side we have the CG from that song part in mekaku shitty actors which was the most inhumane thing I ever saw
Was funny because it was done by one of the best CG studios.
It goes up initially, but, as Pixar has shown, once you build a certain model, it becomes cheaper by just reusing an already created asset.
You think sameface is bad now, wait until 3D isn;t being used for effects.
>that new Charlie Brown CG movie made to look as 2D as possible
So why not just draw it? I get that they want a certain effect, but my guess is that they pitched the idea as a 2D but got told by some executive that they have to make it CG or else.
>As with the television series, the storyboarding, characters, background layout, and animatic parts of production, were done in America. The overseas studios completed the animation, in-betweening, and digital ink and paint processes.
Funny, even the Simpsons movie wasn't animated by westerners.
Sameface really shouldn't be an issue with 3D. Think of your average character generator in RPG. Altering face meshes is not that difficult.
Decent hair animation is more difficult, especially for long hair, but the simplified nature of anime helps there to some extent.
>Of course those tools need some improvement to give the artist more freedom, but that's an iterative process.
But you could've just drawn it and have absolute freedom and not have to improve or write any code for anything, whether it be 'deforms', physics, etc. Isn't it silly to spend millions to imitate something they could've done cheaper for the same effect?
One of the big problems I have with CG is that it doesn't do human interaction well.. Which is why a lot of anime these days have unimportant background characters walking the streets in CGI while the main characters in the focus are hand drawn.
Perhaps a poor example, but in >>111751276 picture, when the character's face is rubbing on the other's belly, there are no deformities whatsoever, whereas in traditional animation someone would have enough sense push a character's cheeks in if they're rubbing their face against something.
And for something like this >>111752951 , I suppose it's my personal opinion but it just looks so.. Uninspired. Downright lazy, and even a bit creepy. What I mean so say is, hand-drawn feels like there is more soul put into it.
One exception I'll make though is mechs and other weapon technology. It actually looks alright in CG form, provided they don't do something like CGI smoke trails.
>doesn't relize how fucking sameface Tangled and Frozen are.
Jesus, the reused the FUCK out of Tangled models in Frozen. I'm not saying it's had, but it's fucking easier to literally just reuse a model, slap on a soon to be stock hairstle, and call it a day.
I'll agree here, for the most part mechs and ships look the best in CG, mostly because that's what the fuck it was meant for, mechanical fucking shit.
What? Good 2D movies were always successful. Shitty 3D movies still fail. The switch in movies happened because everyone just follows Disney.
Disney got out of traditional animation because they were failing on the story side and Pixar was doing better writing, character design, and scenarios.
>With the success of Pixar, then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner decided that public tastes had changed, and that it was time to get out of hand-drawn animation altogether ending with Home on the Range. In 2005...
It's a case of business suits making creative decisions.
As for the last one,
>The Princess and the Frog (2009) began production under the working title The Frog Princess. It marked Disney's return to traditional animation, as it was the studio's first traditionally animated film since Home on the Range (2004).
The Princess and the Frog, which was largely well received by critics and audiences alike and a financial success (grossing over $267 million).
Well, why draw anything anymore when you can just make it in CG instead? Drawing things is for chumps.
I wonder how many trillions these few seconds would've cost to hire a team to program and render
>doesn't relize how fucking sameface Tangled and Frozen are.
I haven't seen either
>because that's what the fuck it was meant for
Maybe if you're thinking CAD. But CG for movies and games has been developed with characters and mechanical objects in mind. Organic things are just more difficult.
Most CG mech look bad though. Only recently have we gotten some good examples of them. Even though most 2D ones were bad too, I think the best of 2D still are better than the best of 3D.
>But you could've just drawn it
That's expensive because drawing requires humans. The better CG gets the more humans can focus on the artistic parts such as scene arrangement, inputting the movement they want, re-rendering it if they don't like it, etc. instead of needing a korean sweatshop to draw the scene.
It should also allow them to do QCing at later stages.
Bro, that's pretty much what it's meant for, hell it's the fucking reason it wasn't until recently that Disney-Pixar and Dreamworks went with what amounted to a no close-to-actual-humans rule. It works great for stylized crap, but even then you're looking ay needing a 4 year window to bot make it look like plastic. Lets stop trying to look at oh my goodness it'll be just like a disney movie (movies have always fared better at this) and compare fucking series to series.
Because brother there hasn't been a good looking 3D (Flesh or Cel Shaded) weekly show that hasn't been focused on animals.
Handdrawn animation is a special and impressive artform that's completely disregarded and ignored by the west now. But as long as anime still exists on Japan's little bubble of an island I don't really care what anyone else does.
>that's pretty much what it's meant for
To me, "meant for" means "primary purpose".
If it's developed with human models in mind (hell, there even is Poser) then you cannot deny that purpose. Thus it's meant for both.
Sure, it may not be that good at one of its tasks, but that doesn't mean "it's not meant for" that task.
Now here's the thing, you're going to have to stretch out the time, regardless of the program, or fall to sameface that makes drawn look positively unique.remember to stop thinking a Miyazaki film vs a Disney-Pixar film and think Generic Shoujo Anime v Strawberry Shortcake.
Basically what I meant, the thing is, you really shouldn't use it for what it fails at unless you have a rather large time constraint.
We're reaching the point where mech models look fine. The problem is their still failing at the animation. One of the biggest problems that 3D animation still has is that the animators ignore the weight and resistance of the models they are animating. Too often they even ignore even basic principles like slow in slow out.
>The better CG gets the more humans can focus on the artistic parts
But drawing is an artistic part of animation. And I said why not just draw it themselves, not just send it to koreans. They can just draw it exactly how they want it the first time without any expensive code and computers to render all the the physics, clothes, hair, lighting, deformations, trees, snow, wind, and everything else. All that becomes just slightly different strokes of pencil.
And if it frees up more time for the "real artistic parts", shouldn't that result in more freedom and variety? Maybe spending hundreds of millions QCing everything to pinpoint Pixar perfection doesn't make it more artistically expressive.
3D can cost cheaper or more expensive than 2D according to its quality model-wise and anmation-wise.
When it comes to inorganic things such as cars, trains, and buildings the animation cost is very low since its easy to animate.
The cost of modelling inorganic model varies on its complexity and quality level.
In most shows case, buildings and cars are very low quality and complexity-wise.
In the other hand, organic things are Very Hard to animate. This alone makes the cost of having a full 3D show very high.
>But drawing is an artistic part of animation
I wouldn't call korean sweatshop inbetweeners artists. They don't really add that much creativity to the process.
>And I said why not just draw it themselves, not just send it to koreans.
>physics, clothes, hair, lighting, deformations, trees, snow, wind, and everything else
Doing these things manually is fine if you want to focus on them. But you have to do it all the time for animation to look consistent, even if it's not an important part of the scene. Which becomes difficult when you factor in time constraints.
That's why we occasionally get QUALITY episodes. Remember psycho pass ep 18? Characters were fucking teleporting from pose to pose because they had to rush it.
>Evangelion was made with $65,000 an episode
>has made untold millions in profits for almost 20 years
How would it have fared with a huge CG budget instead?
>Expecting almost every episode won't be quality
Once again nigga, don't think Pizar, think Strawberry Shortcake, or any other kids show using 3D CGI.
would have been less episodes as they blew it all in the first 3.
>Studio Gainax: We're not good with money.
But japan animates it themselves. Kyoani are fucking ants compared to Disney, and pays their animators well, and still fucking draws things themselves.
Are they that completely unable to draw anything themselves these days, beyond some storyboards?
That mostly was a talking-heads episode in known locations. Doing that in CG should have avoided those atrocious off-model charcters.
>Anno: I'm giving you ALL the budget for this episode, we don't even have any paint left, just markers.
Also that guy is great
You can't get decent hand animators in the west for cheap. They expect much higher standards of living than the japs since moon animators are often crazy otaku who just want to draw cute girls all day. The current generation of western animators hasn't been trained to do it, so you'll have to retrain your entry level guys. It would take years to build up the kind of well-oiled machine the Japanese studios have.
See, if this was CG, it would still look cool, but it wouldn't be the same. The fact that the animator achieves the illusion of 3D space and objects, without having any actual 3D space and objects whatsoever, is what impresses me. If they were actual 3D models being played around with in a 3D set, the motions themselves would still have to be done and would still be difficult, but it'd just be manipulation of something that actually exists in the created space, like stop motion.
Stop motion is still incredibly impressive because of all the restrictions involved and hands-on quality that it requires, of course. But I never get the same feeling from CG, it either looks really cheap and awful, or too impossibly polished.
I would really love if some were to make an experiment
give 2 studios, a 1 minute script and tell em to make it
1 studio specialize in traditional animation
other tries to make 2D animation using 3D
then show the result together with the budget spent, time and personal used
That's not a good comparison though, since CG pays off more over time since you can reuse the models. For a 1 minute scene the initial effort of modeling everything will not be amortized.
Unless you stipulate insanely complex objects, camera movements and special effects as part of the script.
It's easily to skew it in the favor of one or the other.
lets say this, 1 city desing can be sold or shared among Animatos
there are many places in japan that are iconic and used many time
if one studio does hte render of lets say, Tokyo Tower, and other studio then wants to use an scene in the tokyo tower, then they can sell/ rent said render and then the studio add the post production effects to add its own style
now add this to stock characters, regular vehicles, etc
the idea still that we cant really judge a 2D vs 3D work, unless we see a work that uses both so we can pair em together
ok, lets put it easy, ask an studio to remake 1 scene of Blue Steel on traditional animation and compare em
That first shot is obviously 2D, isn't it?
>You can't get decent hand animators in the west for cheap. They expect much higher standards of living than the japs since moon animators are often crazy otaku who just want to draw cute girls all day.
They definitely are extremely enthusiastic about their cute girls.
But even well paid ones and good studios are the same way. On top of pay, I also think just the standard for animation is entirely different. Something actually hand-drawn animated by westerners, and minimally helped by koreans, would probably fit budgets just fine and have lots of cool stuff, but wouldn't have perfect frame rates. So they either aim high by sending off to Korean handdrawn for high frame rate, or aim low with budget Canadian flash for high frame rate.
>The current generation of western animators hasn't been trained to do it, so you'll have to retrain your entry level guys. It would take years to build up the kind of well-oiled machine the Japanese studios have.
This is what I thought. I can't think of much avenues that would even allow them to do handdrawn animation work in the first place, so there's no way for anyone to get any practice (or even incentive to practice, maybe outside of more youtube views for their shorts). Japan has a bit of this issue too, because older animators got most of their practice and worked their way up doing inbetweens, which are mostly outsourced now. But it seems westerners don't do inbetweens OR even keyframes. This sort of stuff is always on my mind because I feel bad for all those american handdrawn animators that must barely get any work.
If you want to compare time and budget than any such small-scale test is bound to fail since it's simply not realistic and largely depends on how you account costs and such.
And a shared model database does not exist as far as I know.
I think comparing some 2D and 3D gundam shows would be easier. But even then cost and success don't just depent on quality of the animation but also on the plot and what else is airing that season.
As much as I hate to say it. Maybe ponyfags are onto something with Flash being used. It's pretty much the best of both worlds when you look at it. The cost cutting of only having a once or twice rendered model, but without 3D's time investment to get past plastic toy looking models.
What's the deal talking about CG vs. handdrawn if people only cherrypicking the handful well animated stuff?
See all the FLCL scenes. First it was an higher budget bi-monthly released OVA and second the series is already 14 years old.
Most handdrawn anime does just fine with being time and cost-saving while not looking like shit all the time like Flash does. There would be no advantage towards using it at all. If anything, Flash is the worst of both worlds just above Hanna Barbera tier stuff, and it's rise is a result of Canada being dumb.and forcing it hard without any real skilled animators.
That wasn't the point of those. It was to show some of the unique qualities of 2D animation. How old it is doesn't matter.
By animators being given work, I meant them being given actual animation work. If I watch a western cartoon, I want to believe any of them actually animated anything happening on the screen. Isn't it just sad that it doesn't? Isn't there something wrong with the fact that western Animators don't even get to animate anything at all in their own western cartoons?
Don't forget things like different camera angles or characters that aren't in 3/4's profile on a flat plane with everybody else at all times.
I only said it was my preference. I admitted right there that most 2D ones were bad. Most 3D ones are too though.
I'm impressed by the KanColle CG because of the short production time.
They had maybe less than a year production time and there are less than 4 months to go until the first episode will air.
Time to watch the classics.
That cap blows this garbage out of the water
Step up niggas. This movie got the blend right. Not perfect, but it was on the right path.
But you're saying that anything done on cels is better than anything coloured digitally, so it's not cherrypicking. You're just saying that that frame is better than this.
In principle of course, there will always be high budget and low budget animation for any medium (including CG)
That being said, best of the best of cel >>>>>>>> best of the best of digital
>best of the best of cel >>>>>>>> best of the best of digital
No, you quite clearly said that that Gundam screencap is better than anything made in the digital era, regardless of quality. And that also no effort has been put into any anime made in the digital era.
3D CGI is fine in all-3D productions. Appleseed Alpha was pretty to look at (mind you everything else about it was lacking as fuck.) It's when it tries to look like 2D, or mesh with 2D then we have a problem.
I don't want to be apart of this future
There was no change of mind, cel animation will always be the superior medium, you can find examples of high quality digital and shit cel work but at the end of the day the cel work is superior.
>And CG anime is nothing new
full CG tv shows are relatively new. full CG movies have started to crop up a few years earlier, yes
who said it would be revolutionary?
It's usual for CGI productions to use handpainted backgrounds and only have fully built sets for special occations. In feature CGI everything past a certain point in the background is usually a 2d element as well.
That's a smear frame brah. Look it up, it's an animation technique just like squash and stretch.
In Paranorman they 3d printed physical smears for the dummies to make motions more dynamic.
>but at the end of the day the cel work is superior.
So again, you agree that you're saying that ANYTHING done in cel is better than ANYTHING coloured digitally.
But you said you don't want to be apart from it.
In the sense that I say ANY software that is free open source software is better than ANY proprietary software regardless of function or quality of code (sorry for the /g/, it's the best comparison I had)
Don't twist my words around! The future is bad and it stinks and I hate it!
As someone who studies both 2D and 3D (modelling and) animation, outside the anime industry
France, obviously, I'd say that animating is a lot simpler in 3D. Designing characters and drawing a few keyframes in 2D is obviously faster in 2D, but after you spend 12 hours modeling your 3D character, done rigging the bones for animation, then the animating process is a lot faster than drawing the entire thing. So yeah, CG animation is faster, you're wrong, murikans suck at it.
Maybe you meant "a part" instead of "apart"?
Can you prove why, and also that no digital anime has any effort put into them?
>chasing 2 people on a bike cause it's illegal
>getting into a dangerous high speed chase
>increasing the chances of a terrible accident happening
Cops in charge of being rational
ya, the thing is, when it's two people on a fucking bike and they're running from you, how else do you expect to stop them with a bike except to have them crash?
It was made illegal in nippon because it's dangerous, and that ass basically increased the danger tenfold.
The medium itself allows for/forces more care to be put into coloration and shading, and the effort that the artist puts into each individual frame shows through, more often then not we see more personal touches with cel animation, as well as a more impressive display of craft
Digital coloration breeds laziness, though not nearly as bad as CGI will
>That being said, best of the best of cel >>>>>>>> best of the best of digital
Since practically no more cel animation is produced there should be one prime example of THE best cel animation ever made.
Do you have one on hand?
Until I can't tell it's CG it's shit and going by current examples I'll probably be dead before it ever gets there
after the moon colonists drop moon rocks on earth and kill us all
you do realize that all colorization these days, even for 2D, is done digitally?
They have keyframe animators, inbetween animators, they scan the shit in, and they have CGI people who cleanup the lines and colorize the whole thing in Photoshop. Some studios actually use tablet monitors and never draw a line on paper.
So many good choices to choose from, it all really depends on if you're looking for fluidity or design
For example akira is a safe choice all around, but record of lodoss war makes me want to lick my screen it's so pretty
Honestly, it's up to personal preference when you get to the best of the best
Actually it is, if there is one thing digital animation has told us, less limitations breeds laziness not innovation
Being forced to hand paint every frame really made you want to put effort in a product
Can you imagine how bad it'll be when you can reuse assets?
>>Being forced to hand paint every frame really made you want to put effort in a product. >Can you imagine how bad it'll be when you can reuse assets?
You mean like in old handpainted anime where they reused the same animations over and over and over and over?
You realize Akira had a lot of CG which was then painstakingly traced onto cels to give that seamless fluid feel?
Stuff like the tumbling giant lego bricks and the scanning bed-thing...
Because you're asking the same thing over and over again
Regardless of incompetence on the part of the animators, if they had digital tools it would have looked even more bland and rushed, VERY few shows utilize the benefits of digital animation
>CGI is so cheap we might as well be addicted to it
>Even movies are using CGI more and more often now, where characters might as well appear as holograms or 3D models instead of the real hardcore cosmetics used in older movies
>Then some mad genius surpasses CGI and hard cosmetics both and everybody stops complaining
>But he dies because volcano
So in the end, nature is to blame for anything AND everything at the same time.
>Raisins in cookies
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT THIS IS FUCKING IT!
FUCK THIS FUCKING PLANET!
I don't know, but why does it matter? The scenes look pretty much identical to the character models.
>if they had digital tools it would have looked even more bland and rushed
So you're saying the best of digital is still worse than the worst cel animation that no effort was put into.
admittedly they look good, I guess I don't see why they didn't just cut out all the effort and techniques used to imitate 2D, and just do it 2D in the first place? I mean, those had to have been storyboarded and planned as 2D in the early stages?
Hand-painted cels aren't any sort of painstaking labor of love. They're made by people in sweatshops who are paid to paint as fast as possible. Digital paint makes this bit of grunt work more efficient.
They can do things like alter the camera angle or position and rotate it around characters like when there's a KO or an air combo. It also separates it from every other 2D anime fighter.
Looks so bad and animation a shit.
>Sidonia was pretty good
You must be blind, my friend. This crappy show looked like a student with a Down syndrome made it.
>pretty awesome scenes
3D will never be superior to 2D, because it just can't bedeformed like 2D to show face expressions and intence action animation. Remember FLCL, guys. Even Pixar can't make such a great thing without spending like 10 years and millions of dollars. beautiful 3D is extremely expensive, so it's non profitable.
Well, if they really gonna start making 3D onli anime sometimes, I have manga.
>In principle yes
No, you said it was better in practice as well. Even if they painted blandly, improperly, and with no effort put into them, it's still better than let's say a top quality digitally coloured film.
>For an equivalent budget? Yes
So now you're bringing budget into this? You simply said that everything in cel is better than everything digital, period, regardless of if it was painted badly or not, which is why you or someone else said Gundam 0079 is better than any anime production coloured digitally.
>Animation is easier and faster
>Animation cost goes down,
Stop spreading this bullshit. CGI is as time and money consuming in a different way, not easier. Often more so than the current method of animating if you try to go for anything over Blue Steel quality which was still pretty low.
The only reason some people are trying it is purely due to the fact that someone at the top of the production staff wants to do it that way and you have to retrain staff to make shit in CG so it's not taking over any time soon.
You don't want that. You don't need that.
More FPS doesn't equal better automaticly.
It will look like total shit to be honest.
But go ahead, you can interpolate any 24fps+ footage so it looks just like 60fps.
Ok, let's talk lodoss then. It certainly does look great, but it also does many things that modern animation does better.
- It's not animated one 1s, not even on some pans where it would avoid some judder.
- It suffers from the Conspicuously Light Patch effect as tvtropes calls it
- Some special effects are just terrible (pic related)
- The backgrounds are quite simple most of the time, we have better scenery porn these days
- Scene lighting/light cones are mostly absent except for a few scenes where lighting is an important effect
- Action scenes are at times quite underwhelming, basically consisting of "camera shake" over a character cel (static or looped at times), a looped background to emulate movement and then a black frame with two slashes symbolizing their swords clashing.
Even one of the big frigging dragons was just a static cel being moved over the screen, looking angry
In other words there is a very large variance in Lodoss' quality with the lows being quite bad.
Interpolation is not the same as genuine 60fps, it causes atrocious artifacts at times. that said, the interpolated sequence in >>111751401 looks quite nice. dat flowing hair.
MMD videos look nicer at 60fps than 30fps in my opinion. But the models are, well, MMD-tier.
>the power of cells
Sloppy coloring which only "worked" because of the low resolution.
And everything outside of light pastel paintings as background artworks wasn't easy to archive.
Oh, and I forgot to mention:
Zero camera movement through the scenes, only pan&zoom.
While complex camera movements are still quite uncommon in modern anime they at least happen occasionally, probably painted over CG scenes to ensure consistency.
It may give it some rustic flair, but that doesn't make it "good" on technical merits, just rustic.
Problem is, hair is interpreted as LOLPOLYGONS meaning you need to trash a fuckawfully big part on it for only slight quality increase.
With 2D, you just phone in a couple more hours.
Well, anime style hair isn't the same as real-world hair. They're more like sheets or lobes. So that makes it somewhat easier but still difficult to translate into 3D models since they're perspective-dependent.
Although the jelly blob style in >>111752951 looks surprisingly nice.
That's a strength of drawn animation, yes. You don't need to modify a 3D model to add on a few hairs without making things look weird.
Yes I know, it's just with CGI that it ALWAYS looks like shit. Hair in anime just doesn't work the same in CGI.
Agreed. Humans were disgusting for that reason (among others) in harlock.
But with anime mouths you can just go for a solid white thing or no teeth at all.
Well that's why I said CGI needs to fix it's fucking hair.
Until they make things less shit, I hope that CGI only is used for animation of machines.
CGI can be good. I guess it just costs alot.
Blizzard have always had good CGI, I remember I thought Diablo 2 cinematics looked amazing at the time, and say what you will about D3 but the cinematics still look damn good.
>Until they make things less shit, I hope that CGI only is used for animation of machines.
And even then it works best when there's an in-universe reason for the (almost) inevitable shininess.
Prime example: Mecha. You don't expect the material there to look in any way connected to reality, and in fact I'd say sleek mecha designs profit from 3DCG.
> Hair in anime just doesn't work the same in CGI.
They're working on that. I'm not saying that they're there yet, but they're working on it.
And there I thought i had seen everything.
Really? I like the A.Z mecha
>for the (almost) inevitable shininess
They could easily add some shaders to make them more dusty to emulate wear and tear
I was more bothered by the lack of inertia of those barrels.
TV and OVA backgrounds were pretty shitty and detailless the most times.
Most today's anime beat the old stuff quite easily. I don't even need to post Studio Pablo stuff.
>Rust/Dust filters probably wouldn't look very "anime" unless you're going for some gritty cyberpunk style where everything looks like it's in varying states of decay.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=nechronica So an anime of this?
The problem with CGI is that it can look nice in action and fast movements, and especially mixed with regular animation, it can be blended in very well. But when things slow down, and the scene takes place up closer, its easier to notice the stiffness of the animation, and the awkwardness of CGI.
They're still learning how to do it.
I personally don't mind it as long as they keep improving.
I'd give it a couple years until it actually looks good.
What I can't stand, however, is when they use really bad models with shitty walk animations for background characters and copy paste them everywhere.
Competent studios will produce good looking shows independent of full CG, mixed CG (like it's common) or full hand-drawn.
But CG will never look like hand-drawn animation. CG anime will evolve to it's own medium.
Fluid movement is something that can be done with CGI if you have the time and money, but the problem lies with collision.
This scene looks pretty good, but you can clearly see that when the barrels collide it lacks inertia and possible model clipping is covered with the spark effect.
Have you ever watched The Clone Wars? The production value because of the CGI was ridiclous. I know its not anime but CGI being "cheap" is a common misconception.
Look at Total Eclipse, the CGI sprites and models were expensive but the benefit was for the forthcoming VN for TE allowed age to recycle the models and sprites without wasting the time or resources or money to build them from scratch.
Also CGI in MJP was pretty gorgeous.
If the majority of retarded vidja players don't care about 60FPS, what makes you think the majority of retarded anime fans will care about it?
Maybe it'll be simpler, currently I'm investigating on how to create 2D pictures from 3D models (which means, I'm not creating shit, just learning until somebody brilliant actually do it). In the future maybe you will download pieces of software instead of video formats, algorithms could transform 3D graphics into 2D graphics in real time and add all sort of effects that imitate traditional animation, making it even easier than CGI for anime. So basically you'll be watching a video game, made by motion capture, 3D design and coding.
The good thing is, there's no reason to think it'll even look different from traditional drawing, and good artists(musicians, painters, writers, coders) will still be around, and you know what they say about artists and their tools.