From: dan@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Dan Parmenter)
Subject: Re: CAPS vs. Cels (was Re: Disney's "New Look": How?)
Organization: /home/fsg/dan/.organization
	<DAN.93Jan20180202@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1jl6bgINN9b6@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:20:22 GMT

In article <1jl6bgINN9b6@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> lerouxm@prism.CS.ORST.EDU 
(Mark Leroux) writes:

   I prefer the Disney style because characters can have conflicts with
   other characters, personalities of their own, and personal histories.
   Giant robots don't have these things.         

Have you ever watched a *single* giant robot show?  Even the very
early robot shows, such as Mazinger Z, had distinctive personalities
in charge of the robots.  To the Japanese audience the robot may have
been the visual selling point, but the people inside were what kept
people coming back.  Even the *incredibly* *overrated* Macross
(Robotech) had a soap-opera story that was about as "deep" as anything
in the last few Disney films.

[re: my assertion that Disney films are smoother due to the
elimination of physical ink-and-paint freeing up time and money for
smoother animation]

   I don't think so.  Maybe someone with more technical knowledge could
   specify but the whole nature of Disney animation creates the *smooth*
   look.  I beleive all Disney theatrical releases run at 24 frames per second.

Yes, bet so does Roger Ramjet.  *All* movies are projected at 24 fps.
Whether or not the animators draw 24 separate drawings per second is
another matter.  I happen to have a small amount of technical
knowledge on this as I've made several short animated films in my
life.  I have a good enough eye for animation that I can assure you
that not all Disney features are done in "ones" (ones = 24 fps, twos =
12 fps, threes = 8 fps).  Not even the canonized Fantasia or Snow
White.  You don't notice because the animation is so skillful and the
drawings are so beautifully rendered.  Typically, an animated film
will switch between ones and twos, using the 24 fps sequences to
emphasize certain actions or broad gestures.  Even the most primitve
animation uses this technique.  Disney seems to be moving towards
doing everything in ones, and I maintain that this is because they can
now afford to do so.  Interestingly enough, they still occasionally
"cheat".  Roger Rabbit had a few brief sequences in threes!  

   No way.  IMHO BatB is probably the best movie they've ever done.
   That goes for story, animation, voice work, soundtrack...  Everything.
   And the old movies had just as much of-the-moment quality and they
   became classics.

My criticism of Disney's attempts at "timeliness" were really
two-fold.  My specific complaint was with Aladdin for its excessive
pop culture references that I predict will age badly.  The more
general complaint is that each new Disney movie seems to be
constructed according to a very specific set of criteria that, to my
mind, is very "of the moment".  For example, people have praised the
new Disney films for having more erotically charged characters.  To
that, I say "bullshit".  What that really seems to come down to is
that Aladdin is a "hunk" and the princess is a "babe", which reduces
human sexuality to utterly banality.  It might as well be "Arabian
Nights 90210".  Compare that to the subtle romantic play in Rescuers
Down Under (a modern Disney film which defied many of my criticisms of
the current Disney look, as exemplified by TLM, B&B and, er..."A"), or
the spiritual, almost pagan eroticism of Bambi (Bambi is next in line
for stud boy of the woods).

Furthermore, the current Disney musical style is one that I think will
date horribly as well.  I love Broadway musicals too, but I have no
interest at all in what passes for same in 1993.  The Broadway-ization
of Disney has been a marketing bonanza (think of them as animated
Andrew Lloyd Weber productions), but aesthetically, it's been suicide.
Nobody seems to remember that the really meaningful and memorable
musicals had more than just flashy arrangements and "clever" lyrics. 

   Subtlety doesn't cut it in animation.  The objects on screen must be       
   *animated*.  They need to move with more action and more expression
   than real world objects in order to convey the illusion of life.
   Even Miyazaki uses this.  But he uses limited animation. 

"Subtlety doesn't cut it in animation".  Have you ever watched an old
Fleisher Popeye cartoon (non-colorized)?  They threw stuff in that I
simply cannot believe in terms of dialogue (some pretty salty stuff)
and little background details that you could see for less than a
second, all within what now would be termed "limited animation" (what
a useless term, as if the achievements of Tezuka or Jay Ward would have
been tremendously improved by 18 levels of modelling shot in ones with
everything backlit).  A lot of it is very subtle and you have to look
and listen for it, but it's there.

   On the opposite extreme, some anime stuff will
   include scenes of the character's face and only the mouth will 
   move.  The chin doesn't go down, the nose doesn't twitch.  Yech!
   These scenes can sometimes last up to 10 seconds (240 frames)!!!
   I am just not impressed.  Usually, the are the films that you
   for the combat scenes anyway.

If you really wanted to be critical you could point out that those
flapping mouths aren't even lip-synced in most Japanese cartoons!
It's only in the wake of movies like Akira that the Japanese are
finally getting into lip-sync.

[re: my assertion that Miyazaki's films are more "human scale"]

   Huh?  Naw.  I don't see it.

You see what you want to see.

   Could someone answer a question for me?  If the CAPPS system is used
   to ink the pencil drawings, then why can you not see the jagged 
   computer created lines when the film is shown on a huge theatre
   screen?

I can only imagine that the resolution of the system is high enough
that any "jaggies" are naturally smoothed out by the grain of the 35mm
film.  I wonder if the system is usable for 70mm?  Bear in mind that
feature films have been released that were originally shot on video,
such as 200 Motels and Norman is That You? and the documentary
Whatever Happened to Jack Kerouac?  If they can make video look good
at 35mm, they can make a digital image look just fine.  

- Dan

--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dan Parmenter       |"I'm waiting for a time, when I can do without these  |
| dan@gnu.ai.mit.edu  | things that make me feel this way all of the time"   |
|                     |                            - Spiritualized           |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------