>>137509850 Most anime that has any sort of intense scenes use obvious CGI these days, and it looks like ass. I do quite like the animation quality of those rare few modern anime that don't use excess CGI that are also animated at a proper framerate. It looks good, even if they've had to sacrifice some texture quality and shading to get it.
>>137510041 The issue isn't CGI, it's CGI that clashes with the 2d. Take Sentou Yousei Yukikaze: It's blatantly using 3dcgi, and looks amazing in doing so because they actually understood how to make it fit in.
What? You directly contradicted yourself right after trying to prove me wrong. Even recent anime with "good" production values has shit tier texturing and shading. I can't think of a recent (past five years) anime that has both more than two tone shading and textures onf the characters at the very least.
And the few times an anime does have those things, it turns out to be terrible fucking CG like >>137510041 said. It's downright painful.
>>137510426 You're right that CG can look pretty awesome when there's minimum effort to make it fit in. Usually this requires two things: 1) CG is NOT used for anybody human/humanoid. Anime hasn't reached the point where they can make these look anything but fucking hilariously terrible, and it's always obvious. This includes trying to "simplify" background characters by making them CG puppet clones. It's painful to see, and sticks out like a sore thumb every time.
2) not making any attempt to make the CG creations match the art style in use. In the image you posted, the plane looks very good (though I don't know how it would look in motion) largely because they not only made an attempt to not make the plane seem CG, but because they tried to matte the colors, add textures, and match the style designs used elsewhere.
Bad CG is mainly from laziness and shitty budget, but so many animators are fucking lazy so it's gotten a really bad rap.
>>137509624 The late 90es. Just before mass migration to digital production, the cell animation reached its peak of beauty. Still my favourite over latest stuff. (example: To Heart, Words Worth, Irresponsible Captain Tylor).
>>137511584 I also got BGC Vol 2 &3 at the same time as Dual. Turns out that was a bootleg too. Dangaioh vol 1, Yamamoto Yohko complete, and The Twelve kingdoms Vol 8 were normal dvds and were like $1-2 each so just sorta put together a sampler basket for shits and giggles.
>>137510100 This is a good thing. Try staring at your nose in a mirror for a little while. Once you start paying attention to it it looks really weird and awkward. It's better for noses to go unnoticed.
>muh shading >muh noses bodies in general are drawn much better these days. boobs are drawn with more complex and natural shapes, nipples are more detailed, hips and thighs are fatter, vagina bones are drawn, etc. only a tiny handful of ovas 20 years ago had the overall quality even shitty battle harems have today. just go back and look at screencaps from tenchi. girls have narrow hips, wide shoulders, simple dots for nipples, and generally undetailed bodies.
>>137509624 Each decade has its own merits, but i hate the transition era (from cell to digital) the most. At that point anime lost lots of its detail, because the industry seems not quite ready. Pic related.
When it comes to drawing cute girls, 2010's is the best to me. They look very clean and soft. The round iris and the almost removed lower eyelash makes them look energetic. I also like the soft shading and light colors, but in the next decade I would like to see 90's level dark colors and contrast of the shadows. like in Crest of the Stars to name an example.
>>137517811 We're not talking about animation though, that's where these threads always get derailed so let's avoid that. Anyway the Evangelion designs are not good examples because they were very organic to begin with, and are also only slightly updated 90's designs. I also would like to point out that I don't think anatomy has gotten better, they have only gotten better at catering to people's fetishes. You can easily tell by a glance, that an average animator 20-30 years ago had spent much more time studying real humans, and thus was better at drawing abstracted charicature versions as well. The faces pretty much always come down to taste, they've never been bad at that, but when people started to learn drawing by studying manga, and made derivatives of charicatures, you can tell how the general anatomy is no longer made abstract in any convincing way. For example, look at hands in anime today compared with 20 years ago. I don't mean to bash you, but I think you're focusing too much on fetish details like vagina bones.
>>137521001 >You can easily tell by a glance, that an average animator 20-30 years ago had spent much more time studying real humans This is actually bullshit. Specially considering we didn't have an unlimited supply of porn 3 decades ago.
>>137521174 They studied people in real life and used the general learning materials that would have been produced for traditional art. Once anime fans who learned only from studying anime and manga entered the industry, the poses and angles they could handle drawing convincingly dropped on average. This is what Miyazaki meant when he said young animators hate looking at real people. I'm not that big a fan of his, but he's right here.
When did anime get "modern" like what year? Stuff from the 2000s looks like ass, Onegai Sensei, Air, Love hina, etc. When did things start looking good? Was it Haruhi? Even that looks a little rough around the edges by today's standards. What caused the change? Was it the switch from traditional animation to digital?
>>137521420 >Was it the switch from traditional animation to digital? That was already in place in the early 00's. It just took until the later 00's for the digital look to become refined and not be blurry ugly shit.
>>137521354 >Once anime fans who learned only from studying anime and manga I firmly believe this is fucking impossible unless you want to take 100 years to learn anything, that's just not how drawing works. It's even harder if you want to animate.
>>137521420 The switch to digital had a tendency to look shit at first. Air was an adaptation of a Key VN so that's bound to look somewhat bad. Also in the early 00s there was a minimalist trend apparent in pretty much every original show, which I tend to associate with modernity.
I'm gonna go with a lot of the other anons and say late 80's to early 90's.
I'm not 100% certain about the technical aspects, but I really, really, loved the darker edges and shading that older anime had- it made it look somehow more natural and more like a "movie manga" and less like an adaptation... If that makes any sense.
I still love what they do with Anime today, but often times it comes off a little over-saturated.
But I've been lead to believe that, that aesthetic wasn't a conscious decision but a technological limitation? Because they used film and nowadays we use computers??
At any rate: I like a good spread between late 80's all the way through the 90's and into the early 00's I think was a good period.
>>137521542 You can learn how to create poses by drawing a sort of doll or skeleton underneath the character without really looking at people too much. There are plenty of guides on this that ensures you will never have to study muscles and stuff on real humans. Also, many styles have drifted further from real people over time, which requires more skill to pull off in a nice way, something that these people just don't have. If you haven't studied things to the point of intuition, when the character is highly abstract and normal reference points don't work, you're going to place shit wrong if you don't have it in your marrow.
Completely new Anon coming into this that has been trying to learn to draw for a couple years now:
If you study what things, people and animals actually look like and how they move you WILL be able to replicate a more realistic product.
If you study "translated references" or basically "images of an image" you're not understanding what something looks like 100% in reality- it's like the atrophic cycle in nature: The plant absorbs 70% of the suns energy and then the mouse that eats the plant absorbs 40% and so on and so forth.
Producing art is about communication, style is about producing "symbology" through art and so forth. When you learn to draw from studying pieces of art work you run the risk of learning "symbols" as opposed to understanding communication. Lots of artists stagnate or become worse because Art ceases to be about communication for them and becomes a process and they stop learning.
>>137522086 >When you learn to draw from studying pieces of art work you run the risk of learning "symbols" This is true, but you can also learn a lot from watching other people draw and the techniques they use. Studying Loomis is arguably more productive than going to the park and looking at people.
>>137521974 I dabble, but that has absolutely no fucking relevance. I have studied a lot of guides and there are different levels at which you can study something. You can learn to construct the abstract skeleton of a human used for sketching, and from there you can learn to make a very bland and average anime character. If you spend a shit ton of time practicing drawing real humans and looking at real anatomy with muscles, you will obviously be better at abstracting this shape convincingly as well. Young creators do not spend as much time refining their craft by doing the latter, they learn only as much as they have to until they can get away with not looking at people anymore and drawing moe girls.
>>137522145 >but that has absolutely no fucking relevance Yes it fucking has, criticizing the final product is one thing, criticizing how it was made is another.
>you will obviously be better at abstracting this shape convincingly as well. No, you will not. Learning to draw real people won't magically teach you stylization. That's a whole different thing on it's own, and when you are animating you won't even have to use your own character design, you have to imitate someone else's art-style.
>Young creators do not spend as much time refining their craft by doing the latter Can you actually prove this?
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 shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.