3 ms·

I always thought that after photoshop/illustrator a lot of work is done with computers (layers and separating parts for movement etc). For example, if someone i

by wapz 10y ago

I always thought that after photoshop/illustrator a lot of work is done with computers (layers and separating parts for movement etc). For example, if someone is running through a field I presumed the grass/trees would be 10-20 frames repeated, the clouds would just be "shifted", and the sun's change in colors would be "automated" with a computer. Do artists still have to redraw large parts of every image still?

dagw 10y ago
Almost all 'traditional' animation you see is put together almost entirely using computers. Even pre-computers people would paint a background once and then paint each part that moved on transparent plastic or glass and layer it all on top of each other (sometimes each body part of each charter would be on its own layer so that you could keep the body still while just moving one arm for example). There is however a movement that rejects all that for entirely artistic reasons, and insist on painting each frame from scratch by hand. Doing so gives the animation a really unique (and in my opinion cool) look that is hard to mimic using computers. However it is extremely labor intensive and is basically only used for short animations done entirely as labors of love.
- dagw 10y ago
  If you want to see an amazing example of what hand painted frame-by-frame animation can really do take a look at The Old Man and the Sea from 1999 by Aleksandr Petrov [1] Almost 30,000 frames, painted by hand on glass, producing probably some of the most visually striking animation you are likely to see. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    First thing that came to my mind. I remember, when it won an Oscar, seeing it and thinking 'no f way'.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> Even pre-computers people would paint a background once and then paint each part that moved on transparent plastic or glass and layer it all on top of each other Older cartoons are easy examples of this. The ones where you can spot the parts to be animated because they are lighter in color than the rest of the frame. This is due to the layering of animated over background. Modern workflows in computers has more-or-less eliminated this visual flaw.
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    Reason isn't technological. It has to do with background being static and shaded (painted like that) while animation cels are painted flat and overlaid like that. Cels could be shaded as well, but getting the shading right for each and every frame would be extremely time intensive task and a big if if it could be done at all by hand. Newer cartoons have opted for more flat shading in the background, so it kind of looks the same to the animated parts.
    - talmand 10y ago
      >> Reason isn't technological. I would say that was the technology of the time. A common cause of this problem was that the cells were often not completely transparent. So the differences became more apparent as more layers were stacked. I guess we could agree that maybe they used a cheaper version of the technology. Newer cartoons don't have to use the flat shading on backgrounds method because today's technology is different than the past. Cartoons of today can be drawn and shaded however the artists wish and they will not be limited by the cell layering method. Unless, their production methods force the issue, which is still possible. But you are correct there ways to overcome the problems of the layering method, but it wasn't worth doing for most projects at the time.
      - Keyframe 10y ago
        It isn't due to transparency of cels. They were transparent back then too (you can buy ye olde cels from productions and see on youtube how it was done in ye olde days). I did in-betweening and later layout for years, first by hand and later on computers. It's simply due to when you paint your cel, you can either paint it flat (like a bucket fill) or shade it when you paint. You get an inked one (photocopied) where ink is on one side, you flip it over and paint behind the ink lines. When you paint, you paint as anything else, thus you can shade it. However, keeping shading consistent and in motion between each frame (frame, not keyframe, since you're painting in-betweens as well) is mission impossible task. It's extremely intensive process which is 'dancing' around because you can't keep shading consistent. What you will get is what someone else has linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 this was oil painted/shaded per frame.
Keyframe 10y ago
Depends on the animation style and needs. In general though, hero animation is not repeating, except in few cases where you can recycle walk cycles or other animations - where you recycle whole animation of a 'cel'. For everything else, that's not hero, everything's game. If it looks good and you can get away with it, you do it.

by wapz 10y ago

dagw 10y ago

Almost all 'traditional' animation you see is put together almost entirely using computers. Even pre-computers people would paint a background once and then paint each part that moved on transparent plastic or glass and layer it all on top of each other (sometimes each body part of each charter would be on its own layer so that you could keep the body still while just moving one arm for example). There is however a movement that rejects all that for entirely artistic reasons, and insist on painting each frame from scratch by hand. Doing so gives the animation a really unique (and in my opinion cool) look that is hard to mimic using computers. However it is extremely labor intensive and is basically only used for short animations done entirely as labors of love.

dagw 10y ago
If you want to see an amazing example of what hand painted frame-by-frame animation can really do take a look at The Old Man and the Sea from 1999 by Aleksandr Petrov [1] Almost 30,000 frames, painted by hand on glass, producing probably some of the most visually striking animation you are likely to see. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0
- Keyframe 10y ago
  First thing that came to my mind. I remember, when it won an Oscar, seeing it and thinking 'no f way'.
talmand 10y ago
>> Even pre-computers people would paint a background once and then paint each part that moved on transparent plastic or glass and layer it all on top of each other Older cartoons are easy examples of this. The ones where you can spot the parts to be animated because they are lighter in color than the rest of the frame. This is due to the layering of animated over background. Modern workflows in computers has more-or-less eliminated this visual flaw.
- Keyframe 10y ago
  Reason isn't technological. It has to do with background being static and shaded (painted like that) while animation cels are painted flat and overlaid like that. Cels could be shaded as well, but getting the shading right for each and every frame would be extremely time intensive task and a big if if it could be done at all by hand. Newer cartoons have opted for more flat shading in the background, so it kind of looks the same to the animated parts.
  - talmand 10y ago
    >> Reason isn't technological. I would say that was the technology of the time. A common cause of this problem was that the cells were often not completely transparent. So the differences became more apparent as more layers were stacked. I guess we could agree that maybe they used a cheaper version of the technology. Newer cartoons don't have to use the flat shading on backgrounds method because today's technology is different than the past. Cartoons of today can be drawn and shaded however the artists wish and they will not be limited by the cell layering method. Unless, their production methods force the issue, which is still possible. But you are correct there ways to overcome the problems of the layering method, but it wasn't worth doing for most projects at the time.
    - Keyframe 10y ago
      It isn't due to transparency of cels. They were transparent back then too (you can buy ye olde cels from productions and see on youtube how it was done in ye olde days). I did in-betweening and later layout for years, first by hand and later on computers. It's simply due to when you paint your cel, you can either paint it flat (like a bucket fill) or shade it when you paint. You get an inked one (photocopied) where ink is on one side, you flip it over and paint behind the ink lines. When you paint, you paint as anything else, thus you can shade it. However, keeping shading consistent and in motion between each frame (frame, not keyframe, since you're painting in-betweens as well) is mission impossible task. It's extremely intensive process which is 'dancing' around because you can't keep shading consistent. What you will get is what someone else has linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0 this was oil painted/shaded per frame.

Keyframe 10y ago

Depends on the animation style and needs. In general though, hero animation is not repeating, except in few cases where you can recycle walk cycles or other animations - where you recycle whole animation of a 'cel'. For everything else, that's not hero, everything's game. If it looks good and you can get away with it, you do it.