Talk:Traditional animation

message: "The last major feature film to use traditional ink and paint was The Swan Princess (1995); the last animated series to do so was Ed, Edd n Eddy, Allthough The Simpsons still uses traditional ink and paint."
This statement is contradictory. Which part is correct?12.107.224.195 20:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Simpsons

message: Would it be worthwhile to add to this article a section explaining the terms used in producing japanese anime? Douga/Genga/key cel,book cel... those kinds of terms.
Gront 09:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those belong better in the anime article. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point?  The process behind creating an anime is generally the same. KyuuA4 09:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Terms?

message: Aren't large parts of Futurama cel-shaded 3D?
boffy_b
:A certain amount of it is. The opening titles are almost entirely cel-shaded 3D, and 3D gets used a lot for vehicles (spaceships particularly), as well as the backgrounds of some establishing shots and "glamour" shots. I'd estimate maybe two or three minutes of cel-shaded 3D per episode tops (excluding the titles). ~ Matticus78 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ''
One note of digital animation, is the Pepper Ann series, where the opening title scenes are regular cel work, but the episodes from season two shows the final scene in digital ink work.''
...I don't really see the point of its inclusion. What cohesive point does this trivia fact have with this article? --FuriousFreddy 17:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cel-shading

message: Like rotoscoping, this method is rarely used, but when it is, it can be done to terrific effect, leading the audience to believe there truly is a world where humans and cartoons co-exist.
I'm not quite sure of the validity of that statement.How many people truly believe this there's a world where humans and cartoons co-exist? Optichan July 8, 2005 21:18 (UTC)
:I thionk the implication is that your belief is suspended so that you think humans and cartoons coexist in the world presented in the film. No sane person believes there's a REAL world cartoons & humans actually exist, but films create worlds of their own. --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
:That was indeed my intention. But I'll go back and clarify that phrase in the article. Thanks for the suggestion. Garrett Albright 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
It seems the person attempted to describe cases when animation and live-action film are mixed.  For example, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Mary Poppins. KyuuA4 09:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live-action hybrids 

message: It is said that David W. Spencer was awarded an Oscar for his development of the APT (Animation Photo Transfer) process, which was a technological breakthrough in cel animation andin 1986 the most important one since xerography. So why is there so little information about the subject and no description of the process?
All I have found so far is this;
"The Animation Photo Transfer (APT) process is a lithographic means of generating images used in animated motion pictures. Cells, ready for inking, are created with improved dimensional stability at considerably lower cost than through means previously available. Multiple exposures can be made on the same plate without deteriorating the drawing and thereby a broader range of painting styles has been available."
: I have added and modified some items in the ATP section. Please expand and modify as you see fit. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantasia 2000 was composited digitally, thus no cel copying at all. That technique was first used in the final sequence of Mermaid, and all features from Rescuers D/U used it exclusively. --Janke | Talk 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There really weren't that many technical innovations in the original Fantasia other than Fantasound. Multiplane and other camera effects had already been used on SW and Pinocchio... --Janke | Talk 21:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The APT process

message: Is it xerography they mean, or something else? "1960 - Technical Achievement Award to Ub Iwerks for the design of an improved optical printer for special effects and matte shots." and "1959(32nd), Class III, Laboratory, UB IWERKS of Walt Disney Productions, for the design of an improved optical printer for special effects and matte shots."
Yes, "Xerox" copying precisely. This accounts for the more pencil-like line of later Disney features, since the old-fashioned inking could not copy a feathery line.Jim Stinson 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Xerography?

message: I don't have the time to pull it together myself, but this article needs a separate section for the history of the use of these techniques, especially considering the way it is titled ("traditional animation" vs., say, "hand-drawn animation"). GreetingsEarthling 05:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: could someone make a reference out of this topic. I am making a citation about anime; Mahoromatic to be more precise, being this one the last anime to be animated using traditional animation (cell animation) but I don't know how to explain that japan now uses computers to illustrate and animate since "computer animation" is refered to 3D animation more than computer illustrated animation.
thank you Minako-Chan* 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CG animation (using computer instead of cell animation) 

message: I don't know that the camera itself ever moves laterally. Instead, the top and bottom peg bars are set in tracks and moved in very precise increments by mechanisms analogous to lathe controls. To move everything in "space," the cels remain in place and the background is shifted frame-by-frame. To move one or more character off screen, the Acme- or other punch holes of its cels are pegged separately on one of the bars and moved in the same manner.Jim Stinson 22:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  panning techniques 

message: I made a minor edit on this. Animation transparencies, like movie film stock began as cellulose nitrate -- celluloid, which was highly flammable and degenerated badly over time. Somewhere shortly after WW II, cellulose acetate replaced it. I have a vague memory that other media (mylar) came in, but was then bypassed by the digital cell process.Jim Stinson 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cels" 

message: We need discussion on how this article should be titled. I moved the article to Hand-drawn animation, but I was reverted quickly. (See the page history for details.) Please note that Traditional animation is a today-centric term. Georgia guy (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses a subject's most common name to title its article. If the most common way of referring to this type of animation in 2013 is to call it "traditional", then that is what Wikipedia does. Second-guessing the far future to decide what people might call the subject in the future (but do not at the moment) is plainly at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. --McGeddon (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article says that both names are used today. Georgia guy (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a professional animator, I'd say that "Traditional animation" is the correct and more common term for hand-drawn animation. The fact that hand-drawn animation often is inked/painted on computers doesn't alter the fact. --Janke | Talk 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how you know which term is more common. Georgia guy (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the common term used in books, articles and websites. Besides, hand-drawn redirects here, so, what's all the discussion about, really? --Janke | Talk 10:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be an example of "Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive"?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

text: If you believe that the term "hand-drawn animation" is more commonly used, or that the two terms are so closely equal in usage that we should compare and discuss them on their own terms, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The Anime News Network page for Ponyo lists credits for digital paint. Also, the website for Toonz (the digital ink and paint package that Ghibli has used) lists Ponyo on the gallery page. As for their later films, Anime News Network just has credits for "paint" for all of them, without specifying digital or traditional paint (but some have credits for CG, which would mean that digital paint would likely have been used at least for cuts that include CG). The Wikipedia article for Toonz lists both Ponyo and Arrietty as being made with it, although there are no citations there unfortunately.
I think the reason it is sometimes thought that they went back to traditional cels for Ponyo is because Miyazaki said they were going to use traditional animation exclusively, which doesn't necessarily imply that they used traditional cels. Also, it might be because it seems to be somewhat common to refer to the finished inked and painted drawings as "cels" even when they are actually digital. 199.126.219.162 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Ghibli does not appear to have gone back to traditional cels 

message: What exactly is so "traditional" about using "digital ink"? The very act of using it is literally creating imagery on a computer. I'd simply edit the page, but it seems a lot of people these days don't seem to understand the difference. In fact, Wikipedia is full of blatant misuse of the terms "CGI" and "traditional animation". Something needs to be done about this. Mattwo7 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing traditional about drawing on a computer! Also digital ink is CGI! Flash is definitely CGI! It's barely any different from rendered 3D! Mattwo7 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that it then? I'm just going to keep being ignored with a single reply from someone who can't even apply proper logic to the situation and just ignores me when I debunk what he says? Janke, by the way if you're reading this, you failed to properly explain how using digital medium as opposed to physical medium is still traditional even after I asked "What exactly is so "traditional" about using "digital ink"? ". The reason you failed to do so is pretty simple: You can't. Applying basic logic to the situation dictates that digital mediums are modern and physical mediums are traditional Mattwo7 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to discuss two different things here. You are talking about the medium, I'm talking about the animation. Even though I scan my hand-drawn animation drawings into a computer and paint and composite them there (I haven't used cels since the early 1990s), the animation I produce is still traditional. --Janke | Talk 06:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm talking about both the mediums and the animation. You however are talking about the processes that leads to the animating here, not the animation itself or mediums. Scanning traditional mediums into a computer then animating it with a computer makes the processes of animating it both digital and modern. Your medium is still traditional as it's a physical one though and the processes leading up to the actual animation is also traditional. Traditional animation used analog formats such as film. Of course we could be operating on two different meanings of the word "medium" but it still all boils down to digitally animating the animation, which is in no way traditional.  Mattwo7 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem, or wish, to understand what I mean: If I produce 12 or 24 hand-made drawings per second, using pen and paper, and scan them into my computer only for painting and compositing, there is no computer animation involved, the movements are made completely traditionally. This is how Disney's Frog Princess was made, i.e. hand-made drawings. --Janke | Talk 08:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused then, because as I see it now, you never actually said how you animated, I had assumed that was what you meant by compositing, but clearly I must have been mistaken on the matter. That said, there's still a key difference between independent and big name animation. Big name animation companies use top of the line technology as an industry standard, just as big names in any industry utilizes bleeding and/or cutting edge technology. This is why rendered 3D is now an industry standard for animated movies. You're indy, aren't you? Mattwo7 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not indy, but retired. I even animated Disney characters years ago - not for features, though, but for TV commercials. Some were shot on film, others scanned and composited with CGI, but always traditional animation. So, to reiterate: hand-drawn vs. rendered 3D are completely different, the former is traditional, regardless of how it is composited. The important thing is that the animator's pencil drawing is seen on the screen in traditional animation (modified in any conceivable way, but still a pencil line), but that is not the case in rendered 3D. --Janke | Talk 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When I talk about hand drawn animation not being traditional, I'm not talking about pencil drawings, I'm talking about digital ink. I'm still confused when you say "Some were shot on film, others scanned and composited with CGI, but always traditional animation." It sounds like you're referring to the drawing part and not the actual animation processes again. The drawing part is the part that leads up to the animation, it is not the animation itself. I don't know how you're failing to comprehend this. If it's animated on a computer, that's digital animation, not traditional. It doesn't matter how it's drawn, because the animation is done on a computer. Mattwo7 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, animation is the basic art of creation of movement, either by hand, with pencil, or any other means. The rest is just mere technology. Even a simple flip book is animation - you cannot deny that! When I'm sitting in front of my light table, making drawings, I'm animating... --Janke | Talk 06:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Digital ink" is CGI, not traditional. 

message: would it be possible for us to add more citations here? I have a few right now that could help contribute to the page. Otherwise this would be a very informational page that I would happily cite back to. it seems like most of the stuff that people are citing are from books to when you could just go to the Disney Television Animation website, and find all the animators/background arts/producers they need to create a tv show, ten with that information look up what X job is and find a reliable source that explains it. what do you guys think? would this be a good idea, in the sense we could all look the citations over to before putting them in the page?
(Starwarssith (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some citations? 

message: King of the Elves is an upcoming traditionally-animated film produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released by Walt Disney Pictures for Thanksgiving 2027 only at a theatre near you. It will be Walt Disney Feature Animation's 65th animated feature and the 5th traditionally-animated film, that Walt Disney Feature Animation's 35th animated feature Hercules will be celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2027. (Now your Talking.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.226.32 (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source, and/or a point in posting this? Trivialist (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably hype placed by some otherwise useless intern at Disney, in order to stir up public curiosity (see Astroturfing) that can be used to re-re-launch the project, seeing as The King of the Elves#Film adaptation (there's this new thing called "Wikipedia"…) says the project already cratered (as a short) in 2009 then AGAIN in 2011. If thousands of hand-drawn cels have been produced (probably in some Third World sweatshop), Mickey Inc can just keep throwing directors and writers at the wall until something sticks. Maybe that's why the 2027 date was chosen: it gives the project three or four more times to fail massively before becoming "an overnight success."Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''King of the Elves'' (Traditionally-animated film) 

message: Hi all. Over the past few weeks I've been doing a lot of research into the use of multiplane cameras and similar devices. Here are some conclusions I've drawn over the course of this time: 
#  
# There is some considerable debate in the animation community concerning the definition of a "multiplane camera". This debate centers around the usage of the name "multiplane camera", as well as the functionality and count of individual planes in the device as qualifiers for the title.  
# While the "multiplane camera" designed by Ub Iwerks (and Disney, depending on source material) is the first device to use the title, it is not technically the first or only device to use the concept of multiple, separated planes for animation.  
# Current articles and definitions describing the multiplane process center only around the multiplane camera, and give little to no credence to predecessors or the evolution of the concept. 
In my edit to the "traditional animation" article, I have taken the section titled "Multiplane Camera" and expanded it. The title, changed to "Multiplane Process", serves as a somewhat less limiting introduction to the concept. The section now addresses the process of using multiple, separated planes of artwork to achieve depth or parallax in general, and discusses the evolution of the method over time. Instead of attempting to classify Reiniger's device as a "multiplane camera", which it is not, I have described it as a multiplane animation device. This clarification helps to avoid the heated debate I have seen here and on other talk pages, while still including Reiniger's contributions to the concept of using multiple, separate planes to achieve certain effects. There is also a more thorough explanation of why the multiplane process was needed, and how it works. This was included to give clarity to the subject, and provide the curious with a better picture of what the process involved. As this is an article dedicated to traditional animation, I have included only slight references to stop-motion and silhouette animation as necessary. 
I feel that, going forward with historical animation studies, this subject should have its own article and be richly explored within it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLLobdell (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplane Cameras and the Multiplane Process 

message: Hello! I wanted to let anyone still active on this page know that I am a student at Texas A&M University working on an editing project assigned by User:Etherfire. I have chosen this page to work with specifically to help formulate potential organizational and structural edits (i.e. heading changes, re-organization of sections, edits to aid the essay-like format issue). Any edits I’m considering will first be communicated on this talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutellatoastt (talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future editing plans 

message: Hello! I've created a sandbox for this article that is still in the works for potential edits. Its focus is on organization of information and structure of sentences. I will be looking into implementing some of these edits within the next couple of days should anyone wish to provide input beforehand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutellatoastt (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox