Questions oh the questions...

[HannaBarberaGuy]

Hey Tony,

I have been doing some MAJOR copious research on Disney's original work, animation as an art form, the different technolgies used throughout the ages, and I've come up with a question. That being, (and this might be a ridiculous question to many but I don't care all too much) why oh why has the use of accetate cellulose better know as "cells" been forgotten and abandoned in a relatively short time over the decade? I mean, that was the way animation had been done over the years dating back to steamboat willie! It's just, what did the big wigs in the entertainment business get tired of the production costs to keep those "opaquers" and everything else at the studios? If you can give me some feedback as to why studios hung up the towl so to speak on producing cel animation it'd be much apprietiated as always.

-Thnx-

[Graphiteman]

During the cel era if there were a better way to have done it they would have. In fact it was always progressing through technology to make things easier. From nitrate to acetate, from inking to xeroxography (in which inkers were displaced), to bulk xeroxing to xeroxing achieving almost a soft hue ink-type line, then HB started experiementing with the first DIP on their 80s Jetson series. Cels scratched, got dusty and finger-printed. Constant blowin off dirt off the platen and cels under the camera. There was re-registering when the 'rox machine as at one studio would heat up and slightly distort the cels. There could only be like 6 levels. If you dropped a part of the character to another level they had to find a lighter paint as that part would darken. Not to mention drying time and the space required. It was less than perfect but it was wonderful and like much retrotechnology forced inventiveness. But you can see the expense was not merely the cel artists.

I for one am thankful for what the computer can do .

[HannaBarberaGuy]

"I for one am thankful for what the computer can do."-Graphiteman

So, what I am trying to ask of someone in the industry or maybe even you Graphite-man, is can the problem in the "flatness" of the computer coloring be fixed to make it appear more "life-breathed" instead of just one of the other thousands pretty-pictures out there that have also been computer rendered?
This is one of the things missed by many cartoon fans, how much life appeared in the "cel" cartoons, but ya, thankyou for the breif issues of cels and why they are no longer used by the animation industry.

[RRRivero]

Now it's not so difficcult to make CG images not so computer-ish. More and more animators are using textures instead of flat colors, or use filters that imitate brush strokes. the trouble is that many people when they start with computers, get dazzled by the bright colors. but the true artists do show.
I too agree that we must be thankful for what we can do with a computer nowadays. Otherwise I wouldn't be thinking of animation. Something that is never said enough is that computers are just a tool, just like a pencil. the way the picture looks will not depend on the MHzs in the computer, but on the person sitting infront of it.