Realistic animation Options

[Peloquin]

In the golden age of animation the most famous studioes produced some animation of very high quality. This was cartoons made for the cinema, and there were as far as I know no shortcuts like less than 24 frames each second and such. In the early years of the golden age the drawings were perhaps a little simple, but it kept improving for each year.
When limited animation was introduced by UPA this affected the whole business, and the realistic animation had a decline. Not that there is anything wrong with limited animation. The often surrealistic surroundings, the Duck Dogders advunteres by Chuck Jones and the more stylized style in Sleeping Beauty is good work, but it is another style (which costs less time to make). When limitied animation is overused because of less money or time (like when television was introduced) or maybe even because of laziness, there is also a huge decline in this style too.
I guess you all know all this. But what I'm just curious about is when realistic animation was at its best. In Disney animated features it seems to be with Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi (and Silly Symphonies like The Old Mill, Farmyard Symphony and Wynken, Blynken, and Nod). But what about the other studios? When did they make realistic animation of the highest quality? What is the closest we are coming to these cartoons today?

[Ray Pointer]

In the golden age of animation the most famous studioes produced some animation of very high quality. This was cartoons made for the cinema, and there were as far as I know no shortcuts like less than 24 frames each second and such. In the early years of the golden age the drawings were perhaps a little simple, but it kept improving for each year.
When limited animation was introduced by UPA this affected the whole business, and the realistic animation had a decline. Not that there is anything wrong with limited animation. The often surrealistic surroundings, the Duck Dogders advunteres by Chuck Jones and the more stylized style in Sleeping Beauty is good work, but it is another style (which costs less time to make). When limitied animation is overused because of less money or time (like when television was introduced) or maybe even because of laziness, there is also a huge decline in this style too.
I guess you all know all this. But what I'm just curious about is when realistic animation was at its best. In Disney animated features it seems to be with Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi (and Silly Symphonies like The Old Mill, Farmyard Symphony and Wynken, Blynken, and Nod). But what about the other studios? When did they make realistic animation of the highest quality? What is the closest we are coming to these cartoons today?

There were short cuts used in the Golden Age such as the use of animating on twos and threes, cycles, pan
cels, and "slash" overlays of body parts and mouths of the type used in television animation by the 1950s and afterward. What you are sighting is the illusion of fluid animation resembling realism. But this was not actually realistic because it was still cartoon caricature instead of consciously naturalistic drawing. It was realized that attempting to slavishly imitate reality was self-defeating since live action photography does this. Therefore drawings of a caricatured nature seemed to work more successfully in the animation medium which is not bound to the physics of reality.

Cartoons are a simplified "stylization" that is representational or symbolic, but not literal. This form of "stylization" was necessary for a number of practical reasons related to the ability to mass produce the drawings handled by many assistants, inkers, and painters. The combination of figures painted in flat colors placed against highly illustrated backgrounds gave the "impression" of realism and a form of moving illustration, although the characters were not as highly illustrated in the same manner. This was the complaint from formally trained artists, that there was a stylistic conflict between the elaborate detailed backgrounds and the cartoon figures painted in flat colors, which came about due to practical reasons related to the production process and limitations of the cel technique of those times. This desire unifiy the animated image on an art direction level brought about the more stylized cartoons that came out of the 1940s, largely influenced by UPA, and became the standard for theatricals after 1955.

While stylized animation appeared to contain fewer drawings, this was not necessarily due to lazyiness, but for a clear understanding of the essential movement required for the scene, not movement for its own sake. This requires a great understanding of strong poses that communicate, which is the core of good limited animation. This, combined with a good sense of timing and good story work is what makes limited animation successful. At the same time, budgets also dictated many of these conditions, and the effectiveness of the best limited animation was due to experienced animators and directors who knew how to convey the illusion effectively with the minimum number of drawings combined with various mechanical camera techniques. Looking back at the early Hanna-Barbera television cartoons, one can see this, although the quality varied among animators. Many of these early television cartoons were not as stiff and limited as their later product of the 1970s and 80s. The stylization of the early H-B animal characters worked well within the limited animation realm because they were not realistic. But as the focus shifted to more naturalistic characters, limited animation did not seem as effective since limited animatin was in conflict with the stylization. Non-realistic stylization does not require realistic animation, so various exaggerations and symplifications are tolerated. But once the characters approached a more naturalistic, or realistic form, their animation required animation of that nature, and the shortcommings of limited animation became more apparent due to this stylistic conflict.

This post has been edited by Ray Pointer: Apr 25 2006, 02:30 PM

[Peloquin]

Interesting. I don't doubt short cuts were used back then either, but I was talking about the generel evolution in the direction some studios had at the time, putting more hard work, details and fluid movements into the cartoons than what would become the trend later. Im not quite familiar with the exact terms, so I just called it realistic animation since much of it actually was much more realistic than later cartoons. And I don't mean totally photorealism (who would care to see Tom and Jerry if a photorealistic cat was chasing a photorealistic mouse?). There has to be some kind of cartoonish or exaggerated characters in cartoons. Yet there is no doubt that Bambi is one of the most realistic animated features ever made, realistic within the frames of traditional animation. And Disney and tried to copy some part of reality as much as possible, which obviously is the reason why they invented the multiplane camera.
(Althought even using live action photography will never replace attempts in making the animation as realistic as possible. The Nutcreacker segment in Fantasia and The old Mill could probably have been done even better if modern tools were available back then, and there would still be a difference between animation and live action photography. Each of them can offer something the other can't. And animation can still do a lot what live action can't. Even if Madagascar was totally photorealistic, you could never have trained real animals to behave like that.)

It seems logic to adapt the characters to match the background, but even the characters became simpler over time. I was just wondering when both the backgrounds, movements and characters and so on were on their top when it comes to details, work and degree of realism (and who only was known within a handful of studios) combined with bigger budgets. I guess you are saying that it was the 40's where this trend was at its strongest before the style started to evolve in a new and more stylized direction as seen with UPA.

This post has been edited by Peloquin: Apr 27 2006, 11:54 PM

[Brandon]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. The non-dwarf characters anyway.

[bigshot]

You need to read John K's recent blog posting on the two styles of cartooning that all the rest grew out of...

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/04/2-t...-origin-of.html

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/04/2-t...igin-of_26.html

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/04/2-t...6529368462.html

See ya
Steve

[Guest_JackSpit_*]

I just got a couple of drawings from the movie "The Man From Button Hollow"--They look amazingly lifelike and look exactly like Dale Robertson, this was his own production, I think--it's from the 60's and doesn't look like other work at the time, was it rotoscoped?

[Peloquin]

The Man From Button Hollow? Do you mean The Man From Button Willow? I havn't seen it myself, but it was mentioned in a thread not long ago. It is probably the first non-Disney animated feature to use xerography. In that way, the animation was a direct copy of his drawings. If he used rotoscoping, I don't kow.

Thanks for the links. The times where the characters limbs seemed to be made of rubber or spaghetti are probably gone for good (I have only seen it as a parody now and then in shows like Simpsons and Family Guy). It is sometimes difficult to see the difference between the two styles. I guess the main difference is how the objects in the cartoon style seems to be breaking the laws of nature that the other style ususally is following.

I don't completely agree that the reason for Disney's success was because he focused mainly on technology and details. Most of the audience for his animation were and still are children, and they don't care how realistic it as long as it is not totally awful. The most importent thing for them, and even for most adults, is a good and entertaining story. For me that goes without saying, and when I'm talking about techniques and realism in animation, I'm mostly ignoring the story. And when I'm talking about movies where the story is the main subject, I'm ignoring the technology unless there is something very special about it. And there is no doubt there once was a period where much work was put into the cartoons and still was very entertaining.
I will admit some Silly Symphonies were boring, even if they are interesting in a historical point of view. But many of the Donald and Goofy movies were funny, and the old cartoons who contains the trio of Mickey, Donald and Goofy was not always funny, but they were entertaining.

But I like most categories of animation, each of them have their own charm. Still, the very realistic cartoons from Disney may not be funny or contains an actual story, but they represent a style which is very rare compared to others (as well as the extinct rubber hose already mentioned). I wouldn't mind if an animated documentary series for children was made where the nature and small animals was represented in a very naturalistic way. A quote from Chris Sanders; "Paul is at the forefront of helping bring this into the computer, because he knows what makes a painting a painting; it’s not just how a brush stroke looks because we’ve gone way beyond that since Tarzan. It has to do with how light and paint interact with each other… that luminosity, the layering, which makes a huge difference." And with modern technology, this would be possible. Still, it will probably never happen.

Limited animation is interesting too, but it often lacks the fluidity and life we see from the earlier cartoons. The characters often seems stiff and flat. But as mentioned in the article, cartoons wasn't taken serious before the fun was removed from it with UPA. And because so many did what UPA did, they lost much of their life and humor. Not that everything should be funny, but it should be possible for fun, action and other genres to coexist instead of just one genre replacing the others. That's why I don't mind computer animation at all as long as the movoes are not clones of each others (or are replacing traditional animation completely).

Even many of the series from the 80's have a look which is not found today. Compare Thundercats or Dungeons and Dragons with modern series like Justice League or Star Wars.

[bigshot]

Even many of the series from the 80's have a look which is not found today. Compare Thundercats or Dungeons and Dragons with modern series like Justice League or Star Wars.

OH GOD! Do I have to?!

Steve

[Peloquin]

If you don't want to, I guess you don't have to. But if you have cable and are surfing though the channels, you will come over Justice League or Star Wars now and then. And the style has changed a lot since the 80's. I havn't seen Thundercats or Dungeons and Dragons for ages, except for a couple of images I have stumpled over on the net. Yet these were a part of the entertainment I grew up with, so I remember them well.

[Guest_JackSpit_*]

While they were not written as well as newer super-genre cartoons, the production values of the 2 80's series you site were exceptional, and produced by some of Japan's top animators--- and D&D featured the comedic voice talents of Donny Most--TV's Ralph Malph!--Ok, the last comment had a bit of sarcasm to it-- but I do think Thundercats and D&D bear a second look on the art side---

PS-Thanks, it is Button Willow--

[Ray Pointer]

Again, I believe that the nature of the original question about "realistic animation" is one of the illusion of realism. The word you may be reaching for is "fluid animation," over "realistic. As explained at GAC when this question was raised, you cite the illusion of realism which is actually a stylized synthasized movement.
When earlier attempts were made to duplicate realism in animation it was found that the results were not always what would have been expected. They came out looking stiff. Even the early Rotoscoping done by Fleischer required some amount of "guess work," or interpretation, especially when dealing with fast actions that did not register as clear silhouttes. And while the live action reference would be used as a guide, it was found that the poses would have to be enhanced, or "pushed" in order to communicate in animation. This was largely due to the fact that animators were dealing with hard lines on a two dimensional surface.

I believe the concept here about "realistic animation" relates to the smoothness and gracefulness that was the result of more inbetweens and a slower timing style that permitted this quality of animation. This was possible due to the economic conditions of The Depression where studios could hire large staffs because wages were low. The cartoons of this era consisted of as many as 10,000 to 20,000 or more drawings for a seven minute cartoon. This is an average based on the fact that there are 1,440 frames in a minute, and a full ten minutes equals 14,440. These are averages because each cartoon could vary in the number of drawings made due to cel levels, and repeat art, which could add or reduce the required number of drawings. Cycles were often a labor-saving device since their repeats in the photographic process help reduce the need to make more drawings of the same movements such as walks and runs. Various types of cycles and slash overlays could also be used to reduce labor as a production short cut. This was practiced by every studio including Disney's.

As the medium continued to advance, so did living standards. Workers demanding improved conditions and wages added to rising production costs along with overall costs as the economy improved. The result was an adjustment based on practical factors based on these costs. Cartoons that wold have cost $10,000 to $14,000 were costing $35,000 to $80,000 by the 1950s. Faster-paced animation required fewer drawings, took less time to produce, and cost less. But in the process of this economic adjustment, much of the skill acuired in the golden age was lost only to be rediscovered in the new golden age of the 1990s.

This post has been edited by Ray Pointer: May 5 2006, 02:30 AM

[Studio Toledo]

The Man From Button Hollow? Do you mean The Man From Button Willow? I havn't seen it myself, but it was mentioned in a thread not long ago. It is probably the first non-Disney animated feature to use xerography. In that way, the animation was a direct copy of his drawings. If he used rotoscoping, I don't kow.

Funny someone brought this film up. I have this on both 16mm and a DVD I recorded the film from an airing on Flix one night.

Not sure if it used xerography though, looked more like ink lines to me but I haven't seen it in a while, but the story and plot goes by too slowly and too much emphasis on the animals when it should be on the main point of the action, but it was the times and there were those that tried to outdo Disney.

[Guest_JackSpit_*]

My guess from looking at the drawings is that they used xerography because the marks on the paper look like it was positioned,clipped and shot as opposed to signs of handinked.

[Peloquin]

I have just seen a couple of pictures of The Man From Button Willow, and it looks a little rotoscoped to me. Maybe both rotoscoping and xerography are used?

And yes, I mean both fluid animation and detailed animation. Especially as seen in the Nutcracker segment in Fantasia. It is about improving the style in the direction that Disney had chosen at that time (UPA chosed as we know another direction) , and what was artistic and technical possible.

Most directions and stiles in the early animation is interesting, but as mentioned it seems it isn't too much focus on the one represented by especially Disney.
(The short cartoon in one of the links in this discussion, the one about Betty Boop, is an example of another. Back then the animators enjoyd playing with the medium and the possibilities much more than they do today, and creating more surrealistic cartoons. Two toes who suddenly gets arms and faces to hold each others is not seen very often today. As far as I know, it has only been made shorts cartoons of this sort of animation. A whole feature should be interesting.)


A little question at the end. Sleeping Beauty is probably the most stylized features of all the Disney movies. The film after that, 101 Dalmatians, has a style that is much simpler than earlier ones. But when did the new direction in Disney animation first became visible in its features? Both because of some influence from UPA and because of economical reasons, the style changed somewhere in the 50's. Did we see it already in Cinderella or with Alice in Wonderland, and does it include all the following movies from there to Sleeping Beaty? I'm asking because I havn't seen these movies in a long time, and neither am I an expert.

[Guest_JackSpit_*]

Rotoscoping has thrived during the xerography era, Bakshi used it often, and all his work has been xerox inked--quantizing is often used for cheap semirotoscoping effect, and the ASK CHUCK commercials use that software Linklater used when he made Waking Life---shoot your digital video--run it through the software--and voila! your live video is a cartoon!