Why is so much charm lost when animation goes from hand drawn/analogue to digital?
I prefer the old design, and the old style, but 2008 has better drawn PLOT
I miss that kind of "grainy" feeling the old one had.
I get the new one has perfectly colored and uniform tones thanks to the digital, but the imperfection gave the past animation a kind of charm.
>cheaper and less labour intensive
That's not the problem.
The real reason is that people associate non-CGI cartoons with the really silly kids stuff, while CGI flicks are family entertainment.
The old OVA looked weird as fuck. It quickly throws the manga artstyle oiut the window, and the entire thing is a dull shade of brown and yellow.
The new anime is brilliant, and looks brilliant. It is a 10/10 adaptation.
if charm is lost, I would think it be on the animators back, not the tools.
Though having said that, the charm of animation can come from it's materials. However, materials can be digitally replicated, thus accusing digital products for any loss in charm would still be incorrect, as it would be the worker who made the fault, not the digital software itself.
The snowman was animated on a material that no longer exists today, but can be recreated digitally, so even then, if you wished to replicate something like that, you could very easily do so.
Final Fantasy Tactics, the War of the Lions version used 3d models, but had a pencil draw look at the same time, which made a very unique and charming visual scene.
overall, however, charm comes from overall execution, not one single factor. If tools are ever to blame....:
>recreating old Disney classics with 3D hollywood effects.
It's something like that.
Good job cherrypicking the one episode of the OVA that actually looked on model.
>not watching high budget chinese cartoon classics in ten eighty pee
You know I know everyday is repost day on /a/ but has it ever been to this extent?
I swear this and like 50% of the catalog really are just the exact same threads being made over and over and over again.
Black and white allows for greater use of shadow, certain kinds of film, film noir especially, is really hard to get right with color
If it's not remastered it looks better on a CRT, fact
>muh aspect ratio
Original aspect ratio >>>>>>>> stretched or cropped
>awful use of color.
What do you think of mine?
Crisper lines, bigger image, more detail, and good for HD.
Of course, if you want postage-stamp-sized images and noise over your images, that just showcases how much of a savage you are who prefers a blunderbuss over guns.
Completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.
Sort of, I agree. Though that is because people abandoned 4:3, not because widescreen is inherently bigger.
Only if it's related to the previous point.
>and good for HD.
I think you are talking about something completely unrelated.
>Black and white allows for greater use of shadow, certain kinds of film
But not as a standard for modern shows, though. Nice try.
>it looks better on a CRT, fact
>Original aspect ratio >>>>>>>> stretched or cropped
>using the originals instead of superior reanimation
I do find newfags pretending to be oldfags hilarious, though.
>TFW videofags think artifacts like film grain make shows more appealing.
>TFW audiofags think the snap crackle pop noise of records makes the audio sound "Warmer"
What the fuck? Film grain is a video artifact, it is NOT the animation or the cinematography. It's like saying moldy sandwiches are better because they add flavor.
>TFW frenchfags think mold makes cheese taste better.
Something being the standard doesn't make it inherently objectively better.
>So why are you even trying to debate such?
Because it irritates me when people call old stuff bad because of 4:3 rather than, for example, because it's 240p.
>Yes it does.
Standard treatment for pretty much everything used to be to put some leeches on him and have him lose blood until he maybe got better.
Was that actually objectively the best treatment?
You are stupid.
And it worked during its time when better treatment wasn't available.
However, you're arguing against better treatment that's available right now. You always default to the best possible standard.
Yeah because modern shows use color :^)
>not using CRT for SD media
>reanimation over original
Next you're gonna tell me fantasia 2000 supasses the original because it's newer
nice Sally pic "oldfag"
Visual arts aren't medicine, you're not going to 'cure' storytelling by using digital technology. Please cease making retarded analogies.
You're like that guy who argues that films are hamburgers and you eat them with your brains.
>blunderbuss over guns
what's up with weird analogies? As far as I understand blunderbusses were rather powerful alright, their anachronism have more to to with their accuracy and reload/firing mechanics
>As far as I understand blunderbusses were rather powerful alright,
You also need to fire it at point blank range to work because otherwise you'd have the accuracy of a Stormtrooper when using it, with less reloading abilities to boot.
So what do you mean by "charm"?
Is it pic related?
Look at this soulless digital shit.
I didn't necessarily call it bad. I just said I prefer watching anime in a widescreen cinematic version like how the DBZ remastered DVDs are. I mean I'm probably a bigger fan of 90s anime more so than most of the people on this board.
Why are people so surprised?
Early digital (2002 to around 2007) looked like absolute shit too.
Same thing with anime.
The real problem with digital anime today is the lazy use of color, the added sheen, and the disgusting use of 3DCG in 2D series.
>like how the DBZ remastered DVDs are.
You mean the ones where they cut off half the image?
Also, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I didn't mean that you were the one who irritated me. It just comes up too often for my liking.
Perfection has a feeling of fake, while imperfection, being more similar to real world, has its charm.
Be wary of the difference between imperfection and animation being totally shit.
It has to be the final touch on something otherwise already good.
>MAN NEW SHOWS JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE SHADING. LOOK AT THIS SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF A HIGH BUDGET 3 EPISODE OVA FROM THE 80s NEXT TO A LOW BUDGET 2 COR SHOW FROM THE 2000s!
>WHY DID ANIMATORS FORGET HOW TO USE MORE THAN 2 COLORS FOR SHADING?
>16:12 is 4:3
If you do that to a 4:3 image, you'll end up with a blown up mess, FYI.
And yet you'd complain when something is blown up for newer TVs.
Also, there are no older TVs left.
It's like wanting horses back forgetting all the shit they left on the road.
You are literally so ignorant and retarded that you don't know how fractions and aspect ratios work!
I love you, you just made my day with this comment.
Man, I can't believe this shit.
>You are literally so ignorant and retarded that you don't know how fractions and aspect ratios work!
>wanting lower resolutions on their anime
>If you do that to a 4:3 image, you'll end up with a blown up mess, FYI.
We're discussing format, not resolution, so I tried to depict them in a way where one wasn't clearly inferior to the other (I failed, by the way, since 12 is larger than 9).
If you prefer, we can discuss the merits of 4:3 vs 4.619:2.598.
That would give about the same amount of pixels on either side.
Resolution comes with the territory of the 4:3 aspect ratio since anime was filmed back then.
That was the technology available back then. Don't back up and go with HD cameras for 4:3 ratio just to suit your argument.
Or are you now discarding resolution from the charm argument because it defeats it?
>French animation industry
>Japan animation industry
>American animation industry
>Three major animation industry in the world
>All of them have embraced digital tools
>But somehow some random schmuck from /a/ is the go-to for opinions on how animation should look like
We never discussed resolution. You are the only one incapable of splitting aspect ratio and resolution. They are not the same.
We were talking about the benefits of different aspect ratios.
>4:3 vs 4.619:2.598.
Why reduce the ratio when anime nowadays is filmed digitally instead of as a blown up film image?
Why are you cherrypicking technology? I thought you loved old technology?
I personally prefer older shows first, because I like the artstyle better, second they have a certain intangible quality about them that is more enjoyable. Perhaps newer shows are too overstimulating
>inb4 nostalgia, objectively, it's all the same
Yeah, yeah I've heard it before
>We never discussed resolution
It comes with the territory of the old animation, though. You can't gain 16:12 with the film of past technology. Nice cherry picking.
"I like old technology except when it inconveniences me."
>Why reduce the ratio
I am not. Look up what ratio means.
I made the numbers smaller. That's all, so you could imagine smaller pictures. The size of the pictures really doesn't matter because we are not discussion resolution.
>I thought you loved old technology?
No, that was you projecting.
>We were talking about the benefits of different aspect ratios.
Wide screen means more of the art is being featured and the movement isn't boxed in. With a tube look, it's restricting your vision with blinders.
You must not be watching them correctly because there wasn't any cut off for me. Of course you're probably some retarded pleb who doesn't know how to adjust resolutions correctly.
>I made the numbers smaller.
But the numbers aren't smaller for the present ratio, though.
Are you discarding the fact that the filming technology for cells back then before HD cameras limits the image size and clarity now?
I though you loved imperfections.
Please, backpedal some more.
>You can't gain 16:12 with the film of past technology.
I'm going to pretend you said 1920x1440. Actually, you can. But nobody wants more than 1920 points in the horizontal, which is why it's not on the market yet.
You are retarded.
Don't even try to teach them
that a ratio is independent from resolution since it's just the relative size of one side in respect to the other and it's not related to how many pixels long a side is.
If a real teacher was unable to teach them math, there is just no hope for them.
People like arguing, and when you are arguing about opinions the argument literally can't end.
The box is a rectangle, which means wider movement and you get to see more of the backgrounds. You're discarding the benefits and simplifying things because it defeats your argument of old tech being more charming.
>limits argument to ratio because when you talk about resolution and all its benefits, their arguments get blown out of the water
Read you loud and clear, postage-stamp captain.
>it's not related to how many pixels long a side is.
It is related to how much cleaner the lines and more detailed the art is when compared to boob tube ratio and old filming technology that involves blowing up pictures from postage-stamp-sized negatives.
you are quoting two different guys, you know?
>doesn't understand elementary level math
>calls other retards
except it is all part of the quotechain that started here >>122376980
which is only about aspect ratios
So you can't explain further? Because you don't know what you're talking about?
Filming technology for cells never limited the image size.
How ironic that you are accusing me of moving the goalposts while that is exactly what you are doing.
We are discussing aspect ratio, and all that you insist on is that larger images are better than smaller ones. No one is detesting that, But the size of images has nothing to do with aspect ratios other than the fact that 4:3 has fallen out of favor lately.
Opinion discarded. Thanks for playing.
>he doesn't know how to use google
What is this image even trying to convey? Most of those phrases are only used on 4chan and are incredibly shit and just as meme-y as anything said anywhere else- in fact, 4chan is the single most obsessed with memes place in the fucking internet. It's not like this is some bastion of good taste and behaviour. And nothing in that picture makes sense in conjuncture with one another.
I bet this shit is from /r9k/.
/r9k/ is fucking bizarre. And stupid.
>arguing about ratio alone and discarding the obvious imperfections of the filming technologies back then to support his point that old technology standards are better
>not knowing what irony means
With a smaller ratio, less of the movement is seen, so you're focused more at the center and you're missing out on the grandeur of the scene.
You can pan on 4:3, but 16:9 provides a more dynamic look because of that extra space and breathing room.
There's nothing more depressing than watching old Lupin stuff and then taking a glance at the TV specials and Fujitits.
>he wants to be spoonfed this bad
Opinion discarded due to ignorance.
>implying you aren't the one wanting to be spoonfed
The question was merely a ruse to lure you into proving you don't know shit.
It's like you just spout these buzzwords and don't know what they mean.
Nothing has changed about anime production up until the finished linework, since the early 80s. NOTHING. NOT A FUCKING THING. It's still hand-drawn, still hand traced, hand tweened and hand cleaned. In the west they've switched largely to tablets, but in Nipland they still do pen and paper. PEN AND PAPER. Pic related.
So before you bitch about how "digital" anime is worse than "hand drawn," remember that ALL anime is hand drawn, and that "digital" is a meaningless buzzword. Shading has shifted from cel to digital, but all that means is that they're using a paint bucket tool rather than actual brushes.
The change in style isn't indicative of anything other than, well, a change in style. The production has barely changed at all.
You kidding me?
Honestly, I feel that choreography and general animation quality has improved over the years. Otaking shading was nice, but too often the price was stiff movement and lack of onscreen action - it would be simulated with quick cuts instead.
There is so much retardation in that post, Jesus.
How is that digital? It's literally all hand drawn. The heavy lines, the brush-like strokes. They're literally brushes and strokes.
This aspect ratio debate is fucking silly. I like it.
there's nothing wrong with that Birdy example. modern Masami Obari (that fucking SRW OG show), Rebuild of Eva and the new Hunter x Hunter anime are much worse about it (so yeah, good job to the anons who posted HXH).
there are legit points to be made about traditional vs digital but the the typical criticisms are pure technophobia and "old school" pretentiousness and don't come to a place of knowledge.
it's not like it even requires any research or 'special knowledge' to grasp what goes wrong with shitty digital coloring most of the time; it's actually EXTREMELY simple and anyone can understand it: traditional coloring is going to look more natural most of the time because THE COLORS ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. picking colors thoughtfully from a color wheel is much more difficult.
FLCL had digital coloring but it looked good, because the colors were thoughtfully chosen to be natural.
but to be honest the left drawing looks like a shitty vector to me, not an anime screenshot.
>and that "digital" is a meaningless buzzword.
Not necessarily, there's still the huge point where your original material isn't on film any more and is now in a digital resolution in terms of pixels.
This is why you can achieve higher levels of clarity/quality with remastered anime that have their masters on film rather than on some computer hard drive or disk.
I think a proper director would do either of those two. He'd probably show less sky.
Horizon shots are great with widescreen. People look better in 4:3 (because they usually are erect).
>all that means is that they're using a paint bucket tool rather than actual brushes.
Exactly. Digital is shit. Before, every frame was like a nice, warm moving painting on a canvas. Now we have lazy paintbucket tool shit. Painting on canvas will never be phased out in the art world but sadly, it did for the animation industry.
No fuck you that's not what the image means
4:3fags hate 16:9 because they think the image's upper or lower part is cut
16:9fags hate 4:3 because they think the image's right or left part is cut
It's the same exact thinking
To be fair to Lupin, some TV specials are actually pretty good. Some are complete and total horseshit with one frame of animation every minute.
Also the "Death of Jigen Daisuke" episodes are 10/10. Wouldn't mind more lupin focused stuff with the fujiko artstyle
modern applications can emulate traditional brush strokes pretty well
Kaguya is really blatantly not cell-animated (I assume that's what you mean by your dumb use of 'hand drawn') and the fact that you think it is is really telling
"tablets" do not exist, modern animation is made by putting money into a computer. if you put lots of money the computer gives you amazing objectively good animation like Hellsing Ultimate for true otaku who undestand the art of animation and if you put barely any money at all you get normal fag pleb garbage like Kaguya.
But the original material is physical. And honestly, if you can notice every pixel of difference between 1080p and analogue, props to you. You're a literal god. Considering most of us watch digital versions of old, cel-animated shows, this point is moot.
>This is why you can achieve higher levels of clarity/quality with remastered anime that have their masters on film rather than on some computer hard drive or disk.
While true, this isn't necessarily impossible for digitally composed anime.
That's not a problem then with digitally colored anime, but all anime in general. You tell me fucking Bubblegum crisis had natural looking colors.
When your argument is "COLOR IS BAD IN DIGITAL ANIME" (whatever the fuck "digital" anime is) with no evidence or backing, yeah, that doesn't deserve a proper response. You didn't give me any substance to respond to.
Color layers on moving objects were always flat textures. That's how cels were animated, blocks of colors layered on one another. As for painted backgrounds, they still do that. Most backgrounds are still hand-painted, hand colored, etc.
No, hand animated is hand animated. What the fuck is cell-shading, it has one L.
Jesus, it's not that hard to understand. Nips very rarely use things like PS or other drawing applications for animation. Why? Because it's incredibly difficult to maintain direct lines of motion with that shit. So even now it's usually pencil on paper, in flipbook fashion.
Inkbrush animation is nothing new,
and I highly doubt the brush textures were completely simulated. Maybe enhanced in post-production, or during composition, but definitely not computer generated.
That doesn't even look like inkbrush holy shit it's charcoal.
Because that isn't simulated texture. It's hand drawn
>And honestly, if you can notice every pixel of difference between 1080p and analogue, props to you. You're a literal god. Considering most of us watch digital versions of old, cel-animated shows, this point is moot.
It's very easy to see the difference in quality between remastered old shit on BDs and "1080p" BD rips of new shit.
>While true, this isn't necessarily impossible for digitally composed anime.
Yes but they don't seem to be hitting actual high pixel quantity for some reason, there's some signal noise site that measures the actual quality you're getting from an image, specifically for anime, can't recall the name but it's out there.
How come old anime look so much better in 1080p than new anime?
>It's very easy to see the difference in quality between remastered old shit on BDs and "1080p" BD rips of new shit.
That's an encoding issue more than anything else. That's why 1080p Funi looks so much worse than 1080p Commie.
There's more to digital quality than resolution, and the remasters are the result of tedious tweaking and direct access to the source. Fansubbers don't usually have the time or resources. That's why things like THORA, where they do take the time to go over everything, tend to look the best.
>Yes but they don't seem to be hitting actual high pixel quantity for some reason, there's some signal noise site that measures the actual quality you're getting from an image, specifically for anime, can't recall the name but it's out there.
Again, that's something that arises in the transition from TV into encode, rather than from the digital production.
Anons on /a/ watch lots of currently airing shows, so their sample of current anime is relatively random.
However they will only pick up old anime if they have at least some reputation here, after decades, and they will only have BD releases in case they were relatively successful.
So we have some very obvious filtering on one side.
But keep spouting buzzwords.
>That's an encoding issue more than anything else.
I'm talking about actual BD raws.
>There's more to digital quality than resolution, and the remasters are the result of tedious tweaking and direct access to the source. Fansubbers don't usually have the time or resources.
Actual BD raws.
I'm referring more to the fact that remastering from film produces far higher quality than what digital works usually put out, BD vs BD.
No, he's totally right. The evidence is right before your eyes.
>I'm referring more to the fact that remastering from film produces far higher quality than what digital works usually put out, BD vs BD.
To be fair, there really haven't been any remasters of digitally composed anime yet. I mean, it's only been 10 years. In any case, I suspect that it's not as bad as you think, the original image files and colors are usually saved as vectors, anyways. So remastering to a higher resolution isn't difficult.
It's hard to compare Remastered old BDs to current BDs.
In any case, I don't think it's a terribly significant difference.
Anyone who prefers the art of old anime is a hipster. Yes we have lost shading but look at what we gained:
-Much better animation
-Much more consistent quality
Just the difference in backgrounds alone is astounding.
Which one looks better and why is it the one on the
>I suspect that it's not as bad as you think, the original image files and colors are usually saved as vectors, anyways
That would be impressive if true, but until there's evidence of such a thing existing I'll still uphold that they were genuinely doing something right by putting their masters on film.
>much better animation
Should I bring up my naruto.gif?
Actual TRACED FROM PHOTOGRAPHY backgrounds?
How does moar resolution!!! helps you in enjoying anime more?
Sure, if fake lens flare and bloom what constitutes as "better coloring"
>much more consistent quality
Please just die
Can you not type like a retarded 12 year old.
>Should I bring up my naruto.gif?
Pain looked stupid but from a technical perspective, it wasn't half bad.
>Actual TRACED FROM PHOTOGRAPHY backgrounds?
Well, we're not talking about Dezaki here, so I dunno why you bring it up.
>Sure, if fake lens flare and bloom what constitutes as "better coloring"
Yes, shitty digital effects are bland and boring. And this is the one place where you might have a point, but as for the coloring, it hasn't gotten worse. Aftereffects don't even count as coloring, so I don't even know why you brought it up.
>high standards set by western animation
Go back to your tumblr colony and don't return, shitposter: >>>/co/
>but as for the coloring, it hasn't gotten worse.
Not him but I have to disagree, digital colours are worse than paints, mainly because most artists think that maxing contrast and oversaturating is good and your eyes have to bleed every time you put vivid colours on screen like red/ blue and purple.
Everyone knows that one thing digital art can't do well is colours, even when talented artists make wise decisions, it still looks inferior to paints or film, though of course almost nobody uses film anymore now.
I just went through the catalog and there are a total of 2 threads talking about old anime (not counting dbz). That's out of 150 total threads. What could you possibly gain from being here if you hate modern anime?
>muh altshit that nobody knows about
Too bad 95% of Western animation nowadays is garbage lazy shit made in flash or CGi.
>Not him but I have to disagree, digital colours are worse than paints, mainly because most artists think that maxing contrast and oversaturating is good and your eyes have to bleed every time you put vivid colours on screen like red/ blue and purple.
Then that's not the fault of the medium, just the artists. It's a shift in style, rather than a technical limitation. The two are different.
>Not him but I have to disagree, digital colours are worse than paints, mainly because most artists think that maxing contrast and oversaturating is good and your eyes have to bleed every time you put vivid colours on screen like red/ blue and purple.
That's a terribly broad, generalizing, and fully idiotic statement. There is literally nothing that cel shading can do that digital colors can't, the difference is that priorities and opinions have shifted away from that style.
Good point, but again, that isn't tied to the new medium. If an animator wanted to make something fully in cel style, he can. Look at Redline. So blame the animators, not the technology. Yes it's a shame that frescoes have died out, but you can't blame wallpaper for that.
>Then that's not the fault of the medium, just the artists.
Since a digitally colored show which doesn't make your eyes bleed is nonexistent and we're most likely not going back to the former style, fuck digital.
The American industry is riddled with things that stifles its animators.
But that image is still so very shit, and it would have been just the same in Japan.
The reason the budget for the left image is so much, much higher, is because the Simpsons made so much more bank.
He's probably referring to the golden age of Disney's animation.
He's not wrong, though of course in the present days Disney is shit compared to the past.
>That's a terribly broad, generalizing, and fully idiotic statement.
No, it's not.
You just don't know how computer programs render colours, it's a well known fact even among newbie photographers, digital colors are inferiors to actual colours or film, at least for now.
It's the same reason why CRT is still better than the vast majority of LCD or plasma tvs, it has much better colour capacity, this is a technical fact.
Yeah, mostly I think they're aesthetically very bland and uninspired. I'd take "bad but funny" (Legend of the Gold of Babylon) over generic and dull any day. Busterbeam made a really good picture comparing the old stuff to the TV "specialzzzz" but I can't find it anywhere (he deleted his tumblr).
Tokyo Crisis is one of the best Lupin films of all time, so you're right, not all specials are bad.
Fujiko Mine was actually not a bad show, I'm just pissed that they marketed it as a return to the roots. The manga was nothing like that.
No, he's sort of right. In the past the easiest way to add detail or intensity to a scene was by adding more layers of shading. Contrary to popular belief, Otaking 20 layer shading was REALLY EASY to do, while on cels complex motions and camerawork and choreography were extremely hard to pull off well. With digital composition and coloring, choreography all of a sudden became much easier, and so the focus went to that, rather than the shading. That's where net-kei comes from.
>You just don't know how computer programs render colours, it's a well known fact even among newbie photographers, digital colors are inferiors to actual colours or film, at least for now.
Not quite, film is better at CAPTURING colors, that doesn't mean it has better "color" in general. That's why it's still popular for photography.
>It's the same reason why CRT is still better than the vast majority of LCD or plasma tvs, it has much better colour capacity, this is a technical fact.
Don't compare hardware to videos. Even if a screen can't display it properly, digitally 0R 0G 0B will ALWAYS be true black. And on a CRT it WILL look that way. Digital files have just as much, if not more, color capacity as analogue film. Sometimes screens can't display it properly, but that doesn't change the content.
BRING BACK GRAIN
Of course it is you fucking faggot. Excuse me while I go to /v/ to post "why video games are boring" and /h/ to post "why hentai is pathetic." Because it definitely makes sense to go to a community to insult the things it was made for.
"The Evangelion TV series was the last great work of cel animation" Mohiro Kitoh, creator of Bokurano
>Evangelion is one work in the continuous lineage of robot works since Mazinger Z, so in that respect I don’t think you can divide works into pre- and post-Evangelion.
>I do think, however, that the reason Evangelion stands out from its peers is the immense enthusiasm the production staff poured into it. Only rarely can something be made with such passion. The Evangelion TV series was the last great work not to rely on cutting-and-pasting before the rise of computer graphics.
That pos technology is related to colors looking so off.
Color, and contrast reproduction is very poor and not only that, it varies greatly from screen to screen. I suspect it affects both the authors and the viewers. Probably culminates in a feedback loop of shit.
>He's probably referring to the golden age of Disney's animation
Still stupid to try to compare old Disney to regular anime. The budget of their shows/movies was a much, much higher than anything made in Japan at the time.
>I'm so cool for liking 80-90' anime, holy shit that shading, if I could fuck myself I would
call me again when this stupid trend of releasing beta-versions of lazy designed cheap unbalanced oldfag-pandering shitgames on steam is over
oh wait it's here to stay and old game were even shittier
I phrased it pretty bad, traditional colours as in acrylic paints and all that are usually better than digital colours.
>Not quite, film is better at CAPTURING colors, that doesn't mean it has better "color" in general. That's why it's still popular for photography.
Yeah, sensors still don't have the same performance as film.
>Digital files have just as much, if not more, color capacity as analogue film.
Is that so?
I'm genuinely curious about this, as far as I know certain hues are almost impossible to recreate digitally but I'm pretty much an amateur regarding this so I don't really know much.
>Sometimes screens can't display it properly, but that doesn't change the content.
Doesn't change the fact that CRT has better colours for now, I'm confident people will find a way for new displays to reach that kind of quality, but as things are now CRT is superior in that regard.
Even if you have more information it's useless if you can't convey it properly.
> I suspect it affects both the authors and the viewers.
They're still technically amazing, and don't forget that the contrary is also true like>>122380503 points out, I get the feeling /a/ is using budget as some kind of cheap excuse nowadays.
>I'm genuinely curious about this, as far as I know certain hues are almost impossible to recreate digitally but I'm pretty much an amateur regarding this so I don't really know much.
There's only so much color variation possible, from 0 to Max RGB. Digitally, all that can be stored, even more so than analogue since film is limited by chemistry. Digital is pure color information.
Displaying it is another issue, but technically the color capacity of a digital file is infinite.
Which reminds me
there are 2 GitS version, the original one and remake or whatever they called it with CG fish and orange color scheme for cyber-stuff
what's the difference with grain etc in them?
Some of the early features at Toei had huge staffs reportedly when they were trying to be Disney. I have read in several places that Hakujaden had more than 13000 people working on it.
>How many titles was there in 2014, that were made completely for kids?
In all of 2014? A lot of them. I know, because I like to watch them.
There was like 7 of them, new productions, that started at the beginning of the year. With almost double that number if you take into account older productions still airing. A lot of shows in >>122380734 premiered in 1991.
And 2014 had more shows aimed for kids starting each season.
And of course, if you take re-runs of finished productions into consideration then the number increases significantly.
And even this currently airing season has about 10~ shows aimed at kids. 4 card game shows, and 4 idol shows. As well as shows like pokemon and what have you. And yes these are all aimed at kids. Neckbeards watching precure does not make it not a kids show.
Kids aren't neglected. Kids generates lots of money, and have thus never been neglected.
If anything, there are more shows for kids today than in the past. It's just that there are now even more shows not aimed at kids. But all in all, there is just a whole lot more of animation in general.
>I can't enjoy watching most new shows because they have such bland and weak colors.
That's hardly an issue inherent to digital. It's an issue with the production values. Ufotable certainly has vivid colors (although I think their filters are a bit too much).
you retards can't enjoy something if there aren't a bunch of bright colors flashing in front of your face
>but muh nostalgia
They add grains in Zeta Gundam movies, but it still looks like digital paint.
There's no problem with digital animation.
The problem is shitty animators trying to hide the lack of shading or decent coloring under ugly after effects like the sheen they slap all over everything.
Cels were painted, with actual paint that needed to be colored with naturally available pigments.
With digital, you can just drag your mouse to any part of the color matrix and make your NGNL or any rainbow bloomfest abomination with colors even more divorced from reality than the characters in it are.
Are we going to have this thread everyday now?
I don't think using colours that don't occur naturally is a bad thing, it's just how they are used.
For what it's worth, I think anime has been improving its use of colour in the past few years. At the very least, the blandness of the 00s seems to be disappearing.
And F91 sure feel like cel anime
Digital shitters are just underage children whos first anime was SnK and can't watch older anime because "muh clean animation" and thus should be ignored.
We all know in the end hand drawn with painted cels look superior in every single way.
Digital may be fine for junk food anime like harem and sol/moe shows but when it comes to high quality shows that matter, it's just disappointing.
It's all because these movies were common before entire digital thing happened right?
People post Jin Roh, GitS, Sword of the stranger webm/gifs all the time because of all dat diversity for sure