What defines good animation?

What defines good animation?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_basic_principles_of_animation
youtube.com/watch?v=kHpXle4NqWI
youtube.com/watch?v=dDMQ3tXNKgM
youtube.com/watch?v=f5cmP-7xaGw
youtube.com/watch?v=uKuPLVNsZzY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

animation that isn't bad

It's gotta be aesthetic.

...

It depends.

Would this be considered good animation then?

Flame of Recca. Its Yuyu Hakusho tier

That water fountain could be better.

Reminder that Baki is getting a new OVA with good animation.

I know OP's webm isn't Baki.

If you want to talk about anime animation, go to .

So it's amazing?

This applies to western animation as well.

The ability to convey fluidly/accurately in an aesthetically pleasing manner I guess. Though it probably all depends on what you're animating
Whatever that bar thing is beautiful The sun glass reflection looks cool but the animation was likely very simple but I suppose that isn't bad in itself. It just wasn't difficult to pull off. That girl running is shit.

What about this then?

It's good, but still has stuff like when the glass on the first building breaks, you can see that the windows glass is still there as well as having shards flying off.

Yeah that's gorgeous.

>Turn a couple feet of rope into several dozen yards of rope

Impressive

And lastly, what about this? It focuses more on character acting than anything else.

This animation isn't great. It has a "nicer" style and "cinematic" "camera" moves, but the animation is pretty basic.

Craftsmanship, quality, attention to detail, basically anything by Ghibli or Disney.

Yeah it's good.

R O T O S C O P E D
Probably.

Rotoscoping isn't the problem, it's what you do with it.

>that
>rotoscoped
nigga

It's good animation, for the girl.
But look in the background. Completely motionless. You see the 2 people inside the store don't move at all.

wow that's so weightless :/

How is it weightless?

He's meming you dolt. Look at the emoji.

Appropriately-weighted movement and consistent character models.

>consistent character models
But going off model was popular in animation back in the 40s and 50s.

>AKA only anime counts as good animation

>anime doesn't use inbetween smears
Riiiight.

That's good, but does use smears.

Why is every example you post Sup Forums? You trying to mine crossboard bait?

The thing is people get won over by the simplicity of the actual animation. Anime uses a lot of tricks like moving around static images or putting most of the effort in a scene or two and then do a bunch of really low quality scenes. There's also prolonged staring and people standing completely still while talking, flashbacks (sometimes of a scene in the same episode), or reaction scenes involving minimal animation.

Anime is efficient and shifts around quality. Even Disk Wars did this a lot, they had a lot of well animated fight scenes and then basically paper cut outs flying around the screen.

I don't have too many examples of good western animation on me atm

Consistently on-model doesn't always mean completely on-model. It means still abiding by the design so that it remains recognizable and reasonably proportioned according to the art style.

Pic related.

If you're going for realism, sure.

Grab Thief and the Cobbler webms. That's usually one of the highest regarded Sup Forums works in terms of animation.

>like moving around static images
I noticed Ken Burns doing this all the time in his baseball and civil war documentaries. I never really thought about it before, but then it hit me.

>Flame of Recca
Holy shit, it's like I'm 15 and discovered that manga is superior to anime

That guy is just flailing comically across the ground by the end of the webm, even though it's supposed to show him being seriously injured.

Although I do like that webm you posted, really reminds me of Steven Universe :)

This guy may be onto something.

What's wrong with smears?

...

...

...

not by white people in 20ish years

Christ, Hiroshimoot is killing Sup Forums with these post timers.

How the fuck do I learn to animate like this?

Bob Clampett's era of Looney Tunes didn't really have good animation. Fluid, yes, but also directionless and needlessly spastic.

Chucks Jones knew this and corrected it by using frames for both subtle and exaggerated actions so that the delivery of jokes would have more build-up and impact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_basic_principles_of_animation

Animation-wise, absolutely not. There is very little to speak of here.

Years and years of training.

And I mean actual training, not whatever finger-painting passes in modern art schools. That little webm you posted took a team several months to make.

...

Draw pretty much every day for the rest of your life

Where was that scene from user? I'm kinda interested in what you're showing.

Bob Clampett's era of Looney Tunes actually felt "looney" though.
Sure, the later areas are far more developed in terms of animation, more grounded into, but Clampett's was so off the wall that it's the best desu

These were animated by a Jap, whose name I can never remember.

>Bob Clampett's era of Looney Tunes didn't really have good animation. Fluid, yes, but also directionless and needlessly spastic.
>Chucks Jones knew this and corrected it by using frames for both subtle and exaggerated actions

Fucking this.
Anyone who's into judging this kind of stuff should watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=kHpXle4NqWI

Animation is not just about frame count but also discipline and restraint.

No idea

...

That scene was animated by Yoshinobu Michihata of TMS.

>Bob Clampett's era of Looney Tunes didn't really have good animation
>Fluid, yes, but also directionless and needlessly spastic

They made every frame worthwhile, for zany characters like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny (sans Jones) the ridiculous amount of movement and facial expressions fit the character.

youtube.com/watch?v=dDMQ3tXNKgM

...

They had a model do the movements in front of them and they used it as a reference.

Think of it as proto-MoCap.

Can someone post that anime scene of the rocket launching into space?

>That's good, but does use smears.

Nigga are you implying using smears is a bad thing?

This?
I still can't believe that Anno animated this entire sequence by himself

You start and you dont stop
ever

...

>otaking_animation.webm

good staging, timing and spacing along with strong drawings >>>>> 'fluidity'

...

does this count?

good acting is good animation.

whether its on 1s or 3s.

south park is well animated, fucking fight me.

you can't just post that webm and not tell who animated that scene

Stop with all the anime.

God I hope this is bait.

What about HOW character's move. Not fluidity. For example if they just make an undynamic body turn around vs subtly looking back, quickly move just their torso a little, and then actually do a full turn around complete with good ankle and joint turning?
Detail. Different from fluidity, not really timing either as it could have the same timing if desired, and not artstyle detail as you can have this with something as simple looking as BB and lack it in something as complex looking as KOTH. Not those actual shows, just detail examples.

>there are people who think Mistuo Iso is a good animator

One that contain one hour of sine wave.

Mitsuo Iso

Yeah, he's a great animator.

okiura is better

That's a vastly different conversation.

What's the most ultra realistic and fluid animation out there?
I'm thinking of this black and white film about war made by one guy but I don't remember the name.

Dont blame them, America doesnt put effort into animation anymore

Probably this
youtube.com/watch?v=f5cmP-7xaGw

Looks like Adam and Dog
youtube.com/watch?v=uKuPLVNsZzY

That is false, Clampett was a excellent director, 2nd only to Avery.

Anyway, this is the only webm I have.

why is tms so based

...

>YEEART

who did the 101 dalmations show?

Yeah, its pretty terrible. Focusing too much one one thing and letting the rest go to shit just makes it look out of place and ruins it.

They're Termite Terrace 2.0, thats why.

I remember when this guy posted his first video on Sup Forums and now I watch it ever time a new one comes out, what a cool user.

>warners bros. animation
>good

Why would you want too? Its honestly more effort than its worth.

Just to throw out an example; I find something like wander over yonder (Just an example, take your pick of just about any modern cartoon that puts effort into character design) a hundred times more interesting to look at with its more exaggerated characters following stretch and squish cartoon rules than some stiff "on model if the model was a real human" animation like this.

On top of that, just about every animation that was made in this format the characters have sameface almost to the degree of anime. Their "hair" is the only thing that sets them apart. Boring as hell.

>being an actual competent animator isn't worth doing
Fuck you.