Why is the skill gap between western "pro" cartoonists

>>2709347
Because you are a cherry picking shitpster

>>2709347
Bottom is what we call photobashing round these parts. It's not really all that impressive.

>>2709347
Because Adventure Time is for children. It's meant to be simple, colorful and humorous. The picture you linked is clearly aimed at a more mature audience, hence instead of dumbing things down to grab the attention of kids with a one-track mind, it's able to go more into detail without losing appeal.

It's not that the cartoonists aren't talented, it's just that they have an audience to appeal to.

The top is animation.

The bottom is not meant to be animated.

>>2709347
Because cartoonist take the easy way out. Real artists do the bottom. Sure it might be photobased, but you still gotta have skill to do what he does. Cartoonist rely on shapes and flat color and little to no creativity.

>>2709347
Episode of adventure time is about 11 minutes, or 660 seconds.

It likely runs at a frame rate of about 24 frames per second. So that's potentially 15840 individual images in an episode.

Do you seriously think your reasonably going to get 15840 images of bottom quality, nevermind being able to be fluently played together in an animation? Even if they mostly cheat? Can you imagine how much it could cost?

>>2709397
>It likely runs at a frame rate of about 24 frames per second.
Very unlikely.

>>2709378
2/10 apply yourself next time

>>2709378
>Because cartoonist take the easy way out. Real artists do the bottom. Sure it might be photobased, but you still gotta have skill to do what he does. Cartoonist rely on shapes and flat color and little to no creativity.
you're retarded

>>2709378
ngmi

File: 1469572722857.png (49KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 604x453px

>>2709378
>Because cartoonist take the easy way out. Real artists do the bottom

>>2709347
The top is from a kid's show. Adventure time appeals to kids with colorful and simple designs. On top of that it's meant to be animated so the designs being as simple as they are makes it easier for the animators.

The bottom isn't supposed to be animated at all so it can look as detailed as it wants to be.

There's nothing that says someone who works on adventure time couldn't pull off something like the bottom picture just because one is more simple than the other.

The problem with video games is that the people who make them think they are artists, art isn't games, games are meant to be fun, tetris is just stacking blocks, and so you get this whole indie videogame movement where games arent fun anymore and its about the story and stupid shit like that.

If you want to make a successful game that extracts the wealth of casuals you make tetris, you make angry birds.
The masses dont care about the aesthetic quality, they are there to play, get addicted.

You look at pong, people play that because its addicting, its just two sticks and a dot, its like the equivalent of an abstract painting but in video game form

>>2709401
24 is standard isn't it?

>>2709419
Is your head comfy up there?

>>2709423
Not really, no. Probably 8 fps

>>2709419

what a shitty bait

adventure time is animated in south korea 0.1/1 made me reply

File: tangled concept art.jpg (1MB, 3031x1997px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3031x1997px

>>2709355
yep basically.

feature film concept art is just as good as video game concepts.

>>2709563

My thread is clearly talking about the picture quality of two stills, not animation. Sod off.

Where's that bottom concept art from, OP? That's quality wallpaper material

>>2709575

craig mullins

>>2709378
>little to no creativity

ohh shit nigggaa.

>>2709423
>>2709433
24 is usually standard for feature animation, but TV animation is at 12 FPS.

>>2709623
I was under the impression that the fps is not exactly static ie. there might be 12 fps for a scene of two people talking, and then 24 fps for an action scene. Can any animators verify?

File: 13254391_1045829802162640_9146938022887795088_n.jpg (12KB, 456x320px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 456x320px

what even is this thread

itt: people unironically defending stephen universe

>>2709630
a troll thread with a mix of people biting the bait and more trolls trying to troll trolls

>>2709627
This is true

wtf
drawing simple is ez
those animators are just shitters
not even real artists

>>2709403
>>2709404
>>2709410
drooling retards

>>2709632
I hate when burgerboos go retarded and try to defend "muh animation industry".

File: tumblr_nlwj0qevs11t2ae3oo1_1280.png (1MB, 1052x679px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1052x679px

>>2709347
You are at the beginner level where you are easily bamboozled by realistic lighting and lots of texture, even if the painting is utter shit from any draftmanship standpoints. Cartoonists are generally far more skilled than video game concept artists, you just aren't good enough yet to appreciate actual draftmanship, stylization and good design.

File: alberto mielgo.jpg (113KB, 992x703px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 992x703px

>>2709378
>>2709347

What are you even comparing here? You realize that cartoons also have concept artists and background artists, most of which are far more skilled than those working for video games, right? Are you comparing video game concept artists to the animators and characer designers who draw and animate the stylized characters for cartoons? Why? Why not compare them to background and concept artists who work on cartoons?

>>2709347
difference of goal

>>2709649
post work

File: IMG_3753.jpg (74KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x500px

>>2709649
You're just upset because you have no imagination

File: 1471033670975.gif (208KB, 323x221px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 323x221px

>>2709347

Because making animation with complicated forms and shapes is fucking hard.

>>2709769
Is that from Jin Kim's childrens book app or whatever it was he was selling?

File: your a wizard harry.png (225KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 500x281px

>>2709363
>It's meant to be simple...and humorous

>>2709627
You're right, and I should've clarified. By and large though animation is on "ones" (24 FPS) or "twos" (12 FPS). Actions/ scenes that are faster and maybe require more frames so it doesn't appear choppy will be on ones, though not as common in TV shows because of budget and time constraints. But more normal kind of actions are usually on twos, as it saves time and money, but the movement still reads just fine to the eye without being choppy. Which ever though, you can also hold frames for a pose to "read" better, so it's not always moving exactly according to 12 or 24 fps.

>>2709988
this plus every major animation style uses held and cut paste poses, like the frames is still save for the eyes or mouth in some moments so fewer frames and actual motions are added. In general most western non tweened animation will be on 12s excepts for money shots and some complex action scenes. Anime is more varied in that it depends on an episodes budget the lead animators decisions and the scenes importance and complexity as sometimes it may drop as low as 8fps and other times jump to 24fps, in general unless absolutely necessary they will go with a 12fps average even for action scenes hence why some anime looks so choppy and pose to pose like despite the dynamic drawings.

>>2709769

You're full of shit and completely failed to provide any compelling reasons as to why you think cartoonists are generally more skilled than video game concept artists.

Elitism isn't going to cut it, sweetie.

>>2709815
Japan does it for cheaper and in greater volume, for hundreds of series every year, and does it with much tighter profit margins

Face reality that "animation" in the west isn't just a dead market and art form, but an aborted one.

>>2710031
did you get sick of shitposting in the animation thread?
pls stop

>>2709355
>>2709347

You don't animate oil pantings. Animations are 24 individual frames per SECOND. that means literally a new, uniquely hand crafted image every single frame. That's thousands of images per minute. I mean, I don't see how this kind of thing isnt clear enough. Can you even make one image as good as that picture? Do you PERSONALLY know ANYONE that can? Have you ever made an animated short even as good as adventure time? You have no idea what you're talking about

File: PF071.jpg (295KB, 1487x1150px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1487x1150px

>>2710014
Because they can actually draw.

>>2709378
Congrats on the (yous)

>>2710539
>you don't animate oil paintings
Look up "Loving Vincent"

>>2710862
Congratulations for pointing to the exception proving the point.

Yeah, we all know about that one.

No cookie for you.

Did someone move this thread to /ic/? This is fucking retarded.

>>2709347
Because TV animation is not treated seriously in the West.

>>2709347
>comparing a cartoon to a painting
Fucking genius!

>OP looks like a shitty /v/ or /co/ thread
>its a shitty /v/ or /co/ thread

you have to go back