Is cel animation dead?

>>86394678
there is no such thing as dumb questions

>>86394678
Yes, digital animation is far easier (can undo, and there's shortcuts like tweening) and less resource intensive.
You'll only see it again in independent productions wanting to capture the "feel" of cel animation (much like the directors and DPs who still like to shoot on film) but functionally for big budget productions it's been superseded by 3D animation.

>>86394941
oh, digital 2d animation is faster too, plus you don't have to ship physical cels to corea

>>86394941
>who still like to shoot on film
Why? I've never noticed any real difference between film and digital.

>>86394970
these people are obsessives, they think it's better for colour reproduction, plus good film stock like 70mm can be upscaled to at least 8k in post-production

File: Capture.png (163KB, 315x172px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 315x172px

Cel is indeed dead.

>>86394970
Color

>>86394970
The color in digital looks cold and sterile. You have to saturate it in editing. Plus, film has a higher resolution than digital.

>>86394678
pretty much, digital ink & color is just more efficient, same as cel xeroxing killing off inking cels by hand

File: 1462898984631.jpg (875KB, 1594x2000px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 1594x2000px

>>86394970
The difference is that the animators would draw a scene on paper and then would use a transparent "cel" to trace over it then they'd take it to the people who color it in with acrylic paint (if you flip the cel over you can see the paint strokes and such) and they'd make dozens just for the characters mouth movement or objects that's why when you watch older cartoons and see a character interacting with a object in the background the shading is different because they have other people draw the backgrounds. That's far as I know. They make dozens of frames of the characters moving and nowadays people are selling animation cels.

File: 1462899552640.jpg (2MB, 3588x4606px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3588x4606px

>>86395096
and here's what it looks like before they traced over it with acrylic

File: ed_edd_n_eddy_production_cel.jpg (130KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x600px

>>86395096
and here's another example with Ed Edd & Eddy, it was the last cartoon to be animated with cels.

>>86395096
>that's why when you watch older cartoons and see a character interacting with a object in the background the shading is different because they have other people draw the backgrounds
I've actually been wondering why that was for years, I always assumed it was an animation errors like western 80's cartoons had (like that GI Joe gif with the dinosaurs glitching through the wall), thank you.

>>86395096
>that's why when you watch older cartoons and see a character interacting with a object in the background the shading is different because they have other people draw the backgrounds.

Thats actually interesting. I always noticed it in older cartoons when a background object was shaded differently I knew it was going to be used or something by the character.

File: 9484221_1_x.jpg (30KB, 750x627px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 750x627px

>>86395242
Yeah, it's amazing how back then that was the thing to use to animate. Even the first season of Spongebob was animated this way too before they changed to digital in the second season.

File: 10124761_1_x.jpg (40KB, 750x479px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 750x479px

>>86395364
And here's another frame from the same scene but with the background, even Kricfalusi and Spumco were giving away there Animation Cels.

File: 9834700_1.jpg (46KB, 700x565px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 700x565px

Here's a backdrop from R&S.

And here's a video demonstating how they would animate with cels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULP5qZMBYt4

>>86395553
Thanks