Talk:Traditional animation

The Simpsons
"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)

Is this statement intended to refer to US animation only? For example, Inuyasha was cel animated (at least in the early series,) and it aired in 2000, whereas Ed, Edd n Eddy began in 1999. Fio Vaya 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement is wrong. The Simpsons uses digital ink and paint. --FuriousFreddy 09:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the South Park movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Japanese Terms?
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)
 * I think those belong better in the anime article. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the point? The process behind creating an anime is generally the same. KyuuA4 09:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cel-shading
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)

I removed this:

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)

Live-action hybrids
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)

Digital Cell Animation
I think its important to note that Digital Cell Animation is another important feature that has been around since the early 90's, which was introduced with movies such as Ghost in the Shell. Digital Cell Animation doesn't rely on the same methods that Digital Ink & Animation does, because it is almost a combination of 3D Animation and Digital Ink together. Digital Cell Animation (DCA) is first wireframed like a 3D Animation, and multiple layers are used to create a 3D effect that traditional cell animators would do, but in this case it is done digitally. An animator would then flesh out the cells with further digital inking and coloring. Finally, any additional 3D compositing is applied, and combined to form the final product.

With today's computers, DCA can be produced in a shorter timeframe than that of a true 3D movie/show such as Appleseed, but still retain the high quality product that one would expect from a animation. DCA is primarily used by studios such as Production I.G. (the original co-develoeprs) in Japan and their offices worldwide, and various other companies.

--DaisukeNiwa 06:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are referring to is called cel-shading, which is already mentioned in the article. --FuriousFreddy 13:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this has been done already by using this technique, but what about making a computer animated movie in 2D with an even more traditional look? Instead of using 3D objects that looks like they are the real thing in 3D, why not make the objects look like just simple black lines? Just like a cel from for instance One-Hundred-and-One Dalmatians would look before being colored? No tones or colors, just black lines. And just as a computer working with 3D characters remembers how the characters backs looks like if we turn them around, even if we are only seeing their front for the moment, the computers would be able to show how the characters made of black lines would look from a different angle and distance (since they already are 3D objects made up of simple lines). Remember the ball-room scene in Beauty and the Beast? Not just characters, but also the other objects, surrounings and backgorund and so on. Doing this by hand would be impossible, but with the help from computers it could work. And then everything is toned and colored by using the CAPS process or something. Each single frame would look like it was made by using traditional animation, and it would still look like traditional animation when seen as a movie. But there would be much more depth and such in it. If this could be done, I don't think it would be possible to improve 2D animation more than this without turning it into 3D animation. --15 January 2006 (UTC)

The APT process
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)

Thanks, I will if I should find some interesting information. I don't know what was going on in another animation studios at the time, but if the APT process replaced xerography, would it mean that The Fox and the Hound was the last Disney feature to use xerography (I have also heard that The Fox and the Hound was the first animated Disney feature since The Jungle Book that didn't use line overlay)? Oliver & Company, which was made later, seems to have been made in an old style, like using line overlay again. Then we have Fantasia, where it was used a lot of new animation techniques. Did any of those new techniques became a standard for the following movies?
 * 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)

Well, it was actually Fantasia from 1940 I had in mind. Any way, just a little sad a new version of Fantasia wasn't made earlier. Then we would have a Fantasia from all the most important eras in Disney animation; hand inking, cel copying and CAPS (and later maybe a pure CGI version).


 * 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)

I havn't read the book myself, but a book written by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston is quoted like this when it comes to some segments in Fantasia:

"If there's one thing the book makes clear, it's that there's a lot more to animation than just drawing little animals and cartoon characters and having them hop around. The artists experimented for weeks with the fairy sequence, and eventually used a whole arsenal of techniques to get the desired effects: not only straightforward drawing and traditional animation, but foreground and background matte paintings, gels, trick dissolves, multilayered paintings and other special effects. The effortless magic of the sequence hardly suggests the painstaking work that went into it."

I understand that most of these techniques were used as special effects, but I just wondered if there were some who meant a new step forward in how to animate. It probably wasn't.

Xerography?
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)

History section
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)

CG animation (using computer instead of cell animation)
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)

panning techniques
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)

"cels"
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)

Article title
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)
 * 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)
 * But the article says that both names are used today. Georgia guy (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Please explain how you know which term is more common. Georgia guy (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This must be an example of "Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive"?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Traditional animation → Traditional animation creation methods – Rationale: to make it consistent with the following: Animation creation methods include the traditional animation creation methods and those involving stop motion animation of three-dimensional objects ... - See this. The proposed expression can be found in many books as can be seen by googling books here. And most importantly, the article is not about the results of such animation (i.e. animated films made using such methods, in other words the traditional animations covered by Cartoon animation), but the process and techniques only; methods in one word. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 13:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also note the discussion of this issue above. And what of the suggestion of the title "hand-drawn animation" made above? —  AjaxSmack   00:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me review the meaning of me wanting the article at hand-drawn animation:

The title traditional animation implies that it is more traditional than computer animation. To us who grew up when or before computer animation was in its infancy, this term makes sense because it is more traditional. However, to people who grow up when computer animation is no longer in its infancy, the term would be less natural because to them, both kinds of animation are equally traditional to their life. Georgia guy (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article is mostly about the most traditional animation style of them all, "Cel animation". If push comes to shove, I'd move the article to that, and have all the redirects pointing there. There are separate articles about stop motion and clay animation too - they are also "traditional", but in all my literature, I've never seen the moniker used for just those types. Janke | Talk 06:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment this doesn't actually cover the most traditional forms of animation, flipbooks and the zoetrope -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This seems to suggest that this article should have a short section about the results of the creation process. --McGeddon (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead, rename to List of animation techniques. This is not a real article, it is a list.  No good reason to separate traditional from others.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a list in the ordinary sense; IMO it's a proper article describing the techniques used in traditional animation. In a typical hand-drawn feature film of the 1930-1990 era, almost all these techniques were used. --Janke | Talk 08:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Studio Ghibli does not appear to have gone back to traditional cels
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)

"Digital ink" is CGI, not traditional.
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)

Ok fine, ignore me, see if I care! I was just posting this in this section because the proposal was already closed by the time I got here! Mattwo7 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, my opinion is that any animation where the movement is hand-drawn, or made by shooting, say, clay figures, is "traditional" regardless of the medium - be it film, video or computer. Thus, taking simple examples, "The Princess and the Frog" would be traditional, while "Frozen" is not. All are digitally processed, but the former started out as hand-made drawings. Aardman's "Pirates!" is kind of both, being primarily stop-motion, but with a lot of CGI. So, let's say, if I see something that really could have been done with paper, pen, cels and multiplane camera, I'd call that "traditional". Maybe I'm old-fashioned in this opinion, but I've been an animator for over 40 years now... --Janke | Talk 21:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Some citations?
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))

King of the Elves (Traditionally-animated film)
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)


 * Do you have a source, and/or a point in posting this? Trivialist (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 (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)

Multiplane Cameras and the Multiplane Process
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:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * Agree. Thank you for your contributions! If you're interested, I suggest you add some info about Disney's "Deep Canvas" process also. See your talk page for more comments. --Janke | Talk 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"imagine seeing a sequence of drawings of a mountain, each one slightly different from the one preceding it." I might be wrong, but a wikipedia article telling you to "imagine" something just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.175.138 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Future editing plans
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)

Sandbox
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)