Why is so much charm lost when animation goes from hand drawn/analogue to digital?
>>122375871
I prefer Birdy's new design.
So we call the lack of detail "charm" now?
I'm tired of explaining how digital era animation has awful use of color.
It's not about shading you fucking cunts, it's about COLOR. USE OF COLOR.
>>122375871
>>122375959
I prefer her old one but Decode 02 is incredible.
>>122375981
Looks fine to me mate.
I don't see any charm lost here.
Looks more like it gained some.
>>122375871
>no collarbones
I think I'll take digital to be honest.
>>122375988
bunny had it worst
>>122376042
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was bothered by that.
>>122375981
This, animators need to relearn how to do a proper shading.
I prefer cel animation but it all boils down to the style of the artists/animators. Budget and talent also help.
>>122375871
It's gotten better since 08 though.
Early digipaint (03-06 or so) looked like complete shit
>>122376071
In OP's picture the digital one is the one with better shading though.
>>122375981
We are going to have tons of full 3D series in like 2 or 3 years so you probably have bigger things to bitch about
If painted cels are so good, why did Disney abandon them in favour of digital paint?
>>122375988
new jojo looks so dull.
>>122376136
Dull designs for a dull series.
>>122376136
It's a good thing the show is anything but dull.
I blame the color scheme, who thought black and gray would look better than blue and purple?
>talking shit about muh birdy
get out
>>122376061
It wouldn't have looked good with that design. It would have been two lines directly underneath her necklace thing, and you wouldn't have associated them with collar bones.
>>122376136
He looks way more like the manga than OVA Jojo.
>>122375871
I prefer the old design, and the old style, but 2008 has better drawn PLOT
>>122375981
I miss that kind of "grainy" feeling the old one had.
I get the new one has perfectly colored and uniform tones thanks to the digital, but the imperfection gave the past animation a kind of charm.
>>122376129
Because no way would digital be cheaper and less labour intensive, right?
Just wait til full CG becomes the new standard in nipland.
>>122376192
>I miss that kind of "grainy" feeling the old one had.
It was always filmed on actual film.
Live action film has also lost grain because cameras are all digital now.
>>122376061
Collarbones are sex as fuck. Of course it bothers me.
>>122376197
>cheaper and less labour intensive
That's not the problem.
The real reason is that people associate non-CGI cartoons with the really silly kids stuff, while CGI flicks are family entertainment.
>>122376197
I, for one, am looking forward to the day Japan fully embraces CG animation.
>>122376186
>>122376156
>>122376167
>>122375988
The old OVA looked weird as fuck. It quickly throws the manga artstyle oiut the window, and the entire thing is a dull shade of brown and yellow.
The new anime is brilliant, and looks brilliant. It is a 10/10 adaptation.
Again OP?
Like I said in the other thread, just watch fucking Dennou Coil.
New Jojo looks great when you watch the show instead of a still image.
New Sailor Moon looks terrible regardless.
New DBZ doesn't exist outside of OPs, and it looks bad anyway.
>muh grain
>muh noise
>muh shading
>muh nostalgia
>>122375871
>hand drawn
Those are both drawn by hand.
The only thing I hate about digital coloring is that animators seem to insist upon that unnatural sheen.
None.
>>122376071
>This, animators need to relearn how to do a proper shading.
Animators don't do the colors, fuckwit. They have another person to do that job.
>>122375981
Care to elaborate more?
Cause I don't see how hand drawn anime had better use of color. It looks overall dimmed but nothing too special to me.
>>122375871
if charm is lost, I would think it be on the animators back, not the tools.
Though having said that, the charm of animation can come from it's materials. However, materials can be digitally replicated, thus accusing digital products for any loss in charm would still be incorrect, as it would be the worker who made the fault, not the digital software itself.
The snowman was animated on a material that no longer exists today, but can be recreated digitally, so even then, if you wished to replicate something like that, you could very easily do so.
Final Fantasy Tactics, the War of the Lions version used 3d models, but had a pencil draw look at the same time, which made a very unique and charming visual scene.
overall, however, charm comes from overall execution, not one single factor. If tools are ever to blame....:
>recreating old Disney classics with 3D hollywood effects.
It's something like that.
>>122376352
Because the noise and grain of cels are natural?
>>122376233
>spend years defending digital against film on /p/
>find out the charm of old anime is that they were actually on film
life is ironic
>>122376468
No, but that's just a side effect of it being recorded on film. The sheen is something they do consciously.
I really hope this becomes a meme
Where were you guys in 2007 when I was trying to argue that cels will always look better than digital paint?
>>122375988
Good job cherrypicking the one episode of the OVA that actually looked on model.
>>122375871
Bad example anon, and it's easy to cherry pick from both sides of the argument, but I am still inclined to agree.
>>122376694
Is this for real?
>>122376554
I'd say it's just a side effects of not being recorded on film.
They use the same colors as they used before to but the image isn't dimmed or grainy anymore.
>>122375871
I do like the original better but you gotta admit the new one's cleavage is better.
>>122376468
>muh black and white
>muh 480p
>why are images so needlessly rectangular? upboat for square master race
>>122375988
Why does Goku have grey hair? I thought ghosts don't age.
>>122376794
I am not sure what you are trying to say.
I've noticed that the drawings on paper look a lot better before they're coloured digitally. Why is this?
>>122376842
You're liking objectively worse specs for muh nostalgia.
"Everything was better when you were twelve" syndrome.
>>122376842
People tend to resist progressing technology.
>>122376885
>worse specs
>not watching high budget chinese cartoon classics in ten eighty pee
>>122376872
The lines stand out more. Anyway, it's just not exclusive to digital paint, even cel painted stuff tend to not look as interesting as the raw key animation.
>>122376842
le 10-bit face
>>122376694
>>122376694
what the fuck is wrong with his neck?
You know I know everyday is repost day on /a/ but has it ever been to this extent?
I swear this and like 50% of the catalog really are just the exact same threads being made over and over and over again.
>>122376885
Widescreen is objectively better than 4:3?
>>122376872
More contrast between white and black.
>>122376965
Post 2008 newscum has no fucking clue how to generate new discussion.
>>122376980
This is true.
>>122376870
Disgusting.
I wonder if Chrollo will remain a pretty boy in Togashi's new style if we ever see him again.
>>122376999
Care to provide reasoning?
>>122375871
It's mostly in the coloring and shading.
>>122375988
Does anyone actually like the new DBZ style? All the characters look a lot thinner in my opinion.
>>122377034
>still watching DBZ
Seriously?
>>122377032
Do you agree that digital era coloring is unnecessarily desaturated and filtered, and there is an overuse of pastel colors?
>>122376980
>liking 4:3
Unless you're surfing the web using an old-timey CRT or boob tube TV as a monitor, yes.
>>122376794
>muh b&w
Black and white allows for greater use of shadow, certain kinds of film, film noir especially, is really hard to get right with color
>muh 480p
If it's not remastered it looks better on a CRT, fact
>muh aspect ratio
Original aspect ratio >>>>>>>> stretched or cropped
>>122377034
>All the characters look a lot thinner in my opinion.
You probably just watched the original DBZ stretched to 16:9.
>>122377034
Vegita's new image from the movie looks thin as fuck.
>>122377089
So your only reasoning is that it fits the monitor better?
>>122375871
Only thing that modern anime is missing is soft and non-angular shading, everything else is better.
>>122377034
Rob Liefeld, pls go and stay go.
>>122377016
It just gives it a better look unless I'm watching it on an old CRT. Obviously I'd be perfectly fine watching 4:3.
>>122375871
Nah dog, new Birdy kicks the shit out of the old OVA's. Even thedubis better.
![[HorribleSubs] Tonari no Kaibutsu-kun - 09 [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.57_[2014.01.13_17.16.01].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4gERH0V.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Tonari no Kaibutsu-kun - 09 [720p].mkv_snapshot_23.57_[2014.01.13_17.16.01].jpg")
>>122375981
>awful use of color.
Nope.
>>122376694
This is technically on model as well. It's just that they went with awful potato people designs when they animated stuff prior to N'Doul.
>>122376870
Nice cherrypick.
What do you think of mine?
>>122377034
I fucking hate it with a passion.
>>122377152
Then please don't add it to your list of objective improvements.
The widescreen monitors and TVs came after the widescreen video material.
>>122377123
Crisper lines, bigger image, more detail, and good for HD.
Of course, if you want postage-stamp-sized images and noise over your images, that just showcases how much of a savage you are who prefers a blunderbuss over guns.
>>122377068
I do not.
>>122377117
Yeah, glad I'm not the only one that noticed. I guess it doesn't matter though since everything after the Cell saga was pretty bad.
>>122375981
>implying new Birdy doesn't have more subtle and natural tones.
>>122377160
Opinion safely discarded.
>>122377229
Oh well. No one seems to understand. I can't enjoy watching most new shows because they have such bland and weak colors.
>>122377209
>Crisper lines,
Completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.
>bigger image,
Sort of, I agree. Though that is because people abandoned 4:3, not because widescreen is inherently bigger.
>more detail,
Only if it's related to the previous point.
>and good for HD.
What?
I think you are talking about something completely unrelated.
>>122377091
>Black and white allows for greater use of shadow, certain kinds of film
But not as a standard for modern shows, though. Nice try.
>it looks better on a CRT, fact
>using CRT
>Original aspect ratio >>>>>>>> stretched or cropped
>using the originals instead of superior reanimation
I do find newfags pretending to be oldfags hilarious, though.
>>122377205
Yes, it's also the current standard. Everything is in HD (widescreen) format. So why are you even trying to debate such?
>>122376830
It's reflection of the light retard
>>122375871
Birdy is a terrible example because it is one of the few instances where the digital remake was better.
>>122375871
Flashy colors. Clean lines.
>>122377281
How is crisper lines, better detail, and better, more accurate representation of the art "irrelevant" exactly?
>>122377309
It actually mocks the OP and shows that digital is superior to old shit.
>TFW videofags think artifacts like film grain make shows more appealing.
>TFW audiofags think the snap crackle pop noise of records makes the audio sound "Warmer"
What the fuck? Film grain is a video artifact, it is NOT the animation or the cinematography. It's like saying moldy sandwiches are better because they add flavor.
>TFW frenchfags think mold makes cheese taste better.
>>122375988
Actually looks like the original character designs and doesn't look like the brightness on your TV is fucked.
>>122377288
Something being the standard doesn't make it inherently objectively better.
>So why are you even trying to debate such?
Because it irritates me when people call old stuff bad because of 4:3 rather than, for example, because it's 240p.
>>122377363
>Something being the standard doesn't make it inherently objectively better.
Yes it does. Or else it wouldn't be the standard.
>>122377320
Because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Are you retarded?
>>122377354
Let's not forget lens flare doesn't actually happen in nature without a camera and to add in lens flare is an exercise in making the shot more artificial.
>>122377346
The colours in Casshern Sins looks really nice.
>>122377346
90s Casshern was better.
>>122377346
Truly modern anime are shit compared to oldies goldies
>>122377396
We're talking about how old technology is inferior to new technology.
Or are you arguing that by "charm", you mean "inherently objectively inferior"?
>>122377389
>Yes it does.
Standard treatment for pretty much everything used to be to put some leeches on him and have him lose blood until he maybe got better.
Was that actually objectively the best treatment?
You are stupid.
>>122377426
Yeah.
>>122377354
Clean surfaces in animation look off because you don't find that shit in real life where everything has some kind of texture. There needs to be a grain like effect.
>>122377451
And it worked during its time when better treatment wasn't available.
However, you're arguing against better treatment that's available right now. You always default to the best possible standard.
>>122377448
>We're talking about how old technology is inferior to new technology.
No. We are discussing 16:9 vs 16:12.
That is the only thing I asked about. Learn to fucking read.
>>122375981
Pokemon then and pokemon now.
>>122377455
Woah blooms gradients how INNOVASHUN
>>122376980
I like more old style, but this is objective.
Widescreen is closer to human field of view, thus incrementing immersion.
This isn't even debatable.
>>122377487
No, we're discussing
>>122375871
>Why is so much charm lost when animation goes from hand drawn/analogue to digital?
Stop being so confused and spergy.
>>122377485
>And it worked
No, it didn't.
>you're arguing against better treatment that's available right now.
That's why I am asking. How is widescreen better than 16:12?
>>122377286
>modern shows
Yeah because modern shows use color :^)
>not using CRT for SD media
:^)
>reanimation over original
:^)
Next you're gonna tell me fantasia 2000 supasses the original because it's newernice Sally pic "oldfag"
Visual arts aren't medicine, you're not going to 'cure' storytelling by using digital technology. Please cease making retarded analogies.
You're like that guy who argues that films are hamburgers and you eat them with your brains.
>>122377516
Yes and your shitpost won't change that.
>>122377527
You need to learn to follow quote chains.
>>122377545
>Yeah because modern shows use color :^)
They don't?
>:^)
And that's how I know you've run out of arguments.
>>122377209
>blunderbuss over guns
what's up with weird analogies? As far as I understand blunderbusses were rather powerful alright, their anachronism have more to to with their accuracy and reload/firing mechanics
>>122377574
You need to stick to the topic of the thread.
>>122377624
I am.
There is such a thing as a subtopic.
Educate yourself.
>>122377610
>As far as I understand blunderbusses were rather powerful alright,
You also need to fire it at point blank range to work because otherwise you'd have the accuracy of a Stormtrooper when using it, with less reloading abilities to boot.
>>122377610
Isn't a blunderbuss a type of gun and not an entirely separate category? Or are guns and firearms not interchangeable?
>>122377662
So what do you mean by "charm"?
Is it pic related?
>>122377591
You can't argue against shit taste anon if you prefer shiny washed out digital shit that's, like, your opinion man
>>122377527
No, you were discussing what started with this comment >>122376980
Get 4chanX for your own good.
>>122377706
>You can't argue against shit taste
I agree. I can't argue against your shit taste, anon.
![the.tale.of.the.princess.kaguya.2013.1080p.bluray.x264-psychd.mkv_snapshot_01.13.59_[2014.12.10_11.19.49].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KFYqpVC.jpg "the.tale.of.the.princess.kaguya.2013.1080p.bluray.x264-psychd.mkv_snapshot_01.13.59_[2014.12.10_11.19.49].jpg")
Look at this soulless digital shit.
>>122377714
Hmm.
>>122376980
>Widescreen is objectively better than 4:3?
>>122377487
>No. We are discussing 16:9 vs 16:12.
One of these things is not like the other...
>>122377703
Charm is that good feeling I get when watching shit I like and feeling like I'm above plebs like you
>>122377769
Ghibli works are automatically objectively literally S.H.I.T.
>>122377784
It's a simple expansion.
Surely you are capable of Elementary school math.
>>122377706
>I want inferior technology because I find grain, noise, and smaller pictures "charming"
Isn't that the definition of shit taste? Settling for less?
>>122375871
Design has little to do with animation method.
>>122375988
Toriyama's art looks like shit now too.
Outsourced slave labor.
Line thickness.
>>122377769
>comparing a high budget movie with TV anime
>>122377363
I didn't necessarily call it bad. I just said I prefer watching anime in a widescreen cinematic version like how the DBZ remastered DVDs are. I mean I'm probably a bigger fan of 90s anime more so than most of the people on this board.
>>122377456
You could apply that effect intentionally to objects which are supposed to look gritty. Should be particularly easy with digital coloring.
>>122377784
Widescreen is 16:9
16:12 is 4:3
Did you even study fractions?
Are you 10 yo?
>>122377809
>Charm is that good feeling I get when I look at old animation using primitive technology
Then watch Speed Racer.
>>122377824
No it means that you are a pleb who likes thing just because it's shiny and colorful
I bet you like Transformers too you little shiteater
>>122377769
shitty style
Why are people so surprised?
Early digital (2002 to around 2007) looked like absolute shit too.
Same thing with anime.
The real problem with digital anime today is the lazy use of color, the added sheen, and the disgusting use of 3DCG in 2D series.
>>122375871
New Birdy is adorable.
>>122377854
>like how the DBZ remastered DVDs are.
You mean the ones where they cut off half the image?
Also, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I didn't mean that you were the one who irritated me. It just comes up too often for my liking.
>>122377824
Perfection has a feeling of fake, while imperfection, being more similar to real world, has its charm.
Be wary of the difference between imperfection and animation being totally shit.
It has to be the final touch on something otherwise already good.
>>122375871
There's not a single anime, old or new, that actually looks good.
>MAN NEW SHOWS JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE SHADING. LOOK AT THIS SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF A HIGH BUDGET 3 EPISODE OVA FROM THE 80s NEXT TO A LOW BUDGET 2 COR SHOW FROM THE 2000s!
>WHY DID ANIMATORS FORGET HOW TO USE MORE THAN 2 COLORS FOR SHADING?
>there is people in this thread not owning also a 4:3 monitor to watch old shows
plebs
>>122378000
This. Compared to the high standards set by western animation, anime is a joke.
>>122378000
Why are you here?
>>122375871
Too much post processing and bland colors.
>>122377822
>>122377866
>simple expansion
>16:12 is 4:3
If you do that to a 4:3 image, you'll end up with a blown up mess, FYI.
And yet you'd complain when something is blown up for newer TVs.
Also, there are no older TVs left.
It's like wanting horses back forgetting all the shit they left on the road.
>>122377971
>Perfection has a feeling of fake, while imperfection, being more similar to real world, has its charm.
Then watch Gigli, you'll have loads of imperfection there.
>>122377908
Well UFOtable seems to handle CG in their series well for once
It is but a matter of how LQ and ugly it looks when it does, not glorious 2D vs CG
>>122377866
You do know what happens when you blow up a 4:3 image, right?
Are you the one admitting your age there, anon?
>>122375871
Celfags are so biased.
>>122378112
Is that from deviantart?
Makes you wonder how today's generation are going to complain to future generations when more digital changes are put forth in anime.
>>122375988
I think early DBZ is the prime example of the less is more.
>>122378090
>>122378174
Oh
My
Fucking
God
my sides.
You are literally so ignorant and retarded that you don't know how fractions and aspect ratios work!
I love you, you just made my day with this comment.
Man, I can't believe this shit.
>>122377809
>Charm is that good feeling I get when watching shit I like
Not our problem you like old shit with postage-stamp resolution.
>>122378218
>>122378243
>You are literally so ignorant and retarded that you don't know how fractions and aspect ratios work!
>wanting lower resolutions on their anime
>>122378276
Nice meme!
>>122378090
>If you do that to a 4:3 image, you'll end up with a blown up mess, FYI.
We're discussing format, not resolution, so I tried to depict them in a way where one wasn't clearly inferior to the other (I failed, by the way, since 12 is larger than 9).
If you prefer, we can discuss the merits of 4:3 vs 4.619:2.598.
That would give about the same amount of pixels on either side.
>>122377826
>>122378220
They are going to complain that new CGs don't look 3D enough
>>122378090
>>122378174
It's a ratio it says nothing about the number of pixels or resolution.
60fps or burst
>>122378312
>>122378334
Resolution comes with the territory of the 4:3 aspect ratio since anime was filmed back then.
That was the technology available back then. Don't back up and go with HD cameras for 4:3 ratio just to suit your argument.
Or are you now discarding resolution from the charm argument because it defeats it?
>French animation industry
>Japan animation industry
>American animation industry
>Three major animation industry in the world
>All of them have embraced digital tools
>But somehow some random schmuck from /a/ is the go-to for opinions on how animation should look like
>>122378377
We never discussed resolution. You are the only one incapable of splitting aspect ratio and resolution. They are not the same.
We were talking about the benefits of different aspect ratios.
>>122378312
>4:3 vs 4.619:2.598.
Why reduce the ratio when anime nowadays is filmed digitally instead of as a blown up film image?
Why are you cherrypicking technology? I thought you loved old technology?
>>122378380
In general animation quality is much better now than it was then, specially for tv shows.
I personally prefer older shows first, because I like the artstyle better, second they have a certain intangible quality about them that is more enjoyable. Perhaps newer shows are too overstimulating
>inb4 nostalgia, objectively, it's all the same
Yeah, yeah I've heard it before
Keep bitching about lack of shading in new anime when it's gonna replaced by 3DCG shits in a few years.
>>122378380
>muh 3DCG
>>122378429
>We never discussed resolution
It comes with the territory of the old animation, though. You can't gain 16:12 with the film of past technology. Nice cherry picking.
"I like old technology except when it inconveniences me."
>>122378435
>Why reduce the ratio
I am not. Look up what ratio means.
I made the numbers smaller. That's all, so you could imagine smaller pictures. The size of the pictures really doesn't matter because we are not discussion resolution.
>I thought you loved old technology?
No, that was you projecting.
>>122378429
>We were talking about the benefits of different aspect ratios.
Wide screen means more of the art is being featured and the movement isn't boxed in. With a tube look, it's restricting your vision with blinders.
>>122377936
You must not be watching them correctly because there wasn't any cut off for me. Of course you're probably some retarded pleb who doesn't know how to adjust resolutions correctly.
>>122378276
What happened to Pepe? Is he some kind of big shot businessman now?
>>122378487
>I made the numbers smaller.
But the numbers aren't smaller for the present ratio, though.
Are you discarding the fact that the filming technology for cells back then before HD cameras limits the image size and clarity now?
I though you loved imperfections.
Please, backpedal some more.
>>122378473
>You can't gain 16:12 with the film of past technology.
I'm going to pretend you said 1920x1440. Actually, you can. But nobody wants more than 1920 points in the horizontal, which is why it's not on the market yet.
You are retarded.
>>122378506
>>122375871
I enjoyed the newer Birdy.
>>122378497
>Wide screen means more of the art is being featured
No. It means the box is wider.
>>122378487
>No, that was you projecting.
see >>122376192
>but the imperfection gave the past animation a kind of charm.
Playing politician now, are we?
>>122378429
Don't even try to teach them
>>122378435
>>122378473
that a ratio is independent from resolution since it's just the relative size of one side in respect to the other and it's not related to how many pixels long a side is.
If a real teacher was unable to teach them math, there is just no hope for them.
>>122378568
That wasn't me. That isn't even part of the quote chain. Are you retarded?
>>122378506
>>122376965
People like arguing, and when you are arguing about opinions the argument literally can't end.
>>122378522
>Are you discarding the fact that the filming technology for cells back then before HD cameras limits the image size
What? Not him, please explain further.
>>122378557
The box is a rectangle, which means wider movement and you get to see more of the backgrounds. You're discarding the benefits and simplifying things because it defeats your argument of old tech being more charming.
>>122378589
>limits argument to ratio because when you talk about resolution and all its benefits, their arguments get blown out of the water
Read you loud and clear, postage-stamp captain.
>>122378620
>The box is a rectangle, which means wider movement and you get to see more of the backgrounds.
The box is a rectangle which means you see more of the characters.
>>122377316
94 is the best
>>122378616
>>122378320
>Early Toriyama
>middle image is GT Toriyama
>>122378642
And the background. And the pans. And the sweeping camera movement allowing for certain scenes to have a cinema-like quality to them.
Do you even animation?
>>122378649
I disagree vehemently. 2004 is the best.
>>122378589
>it's not related to how many pixels long a side is.
It is related to how much cleaner the lines and more detailed the art is when compared to boob tube ratio and old filming technology that involves blowing up pictures from postage-stamp-sized negatives.
Man, 3D is so shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFT-lPzuOr0
>>122378568
you are quoting two different guys, you know?
>>122378528
>doesn't understand elementary level math
>calls other retards
kek
>>122378620
except it is all part of the quotechain that started here >>122376980
which is only about aspect ratios
>>122378660
So you can't explain further? Because you don't know what you're talking about?
Filming technology for cells never limited the image size.
>>122376192
>>122376233
>>122376471
>nostalgiafags
it's pretty embarrassing that we have 40 year old cunts bitching ON /A/ about how their old shit was better, fucking kill yourselves.
>>122378522
How ironic that you are accusing me of moving the goalposts while that is exactly what you are doing.
We are discussing aspect ratio, and all that you insist on is that larger images are better than smaller ones. No one is detesting that, But the size of images has nothing to do with aspect ratios other than the fact that 4:3 has fallen out of favor lately.
>>122378727
But that was all in a quotechain that started from a post discussing only aspect ratios.
Do you even 4chanX?
>>122378731
>kek
Opinion discarded. Thanks for playing.
>>122378733
>he doesn't know how to use google
>>122378694
>And the background. And the pans.
Sure, everything's possible with 4:3.
>cinema-like
You mean widescreen-like?
The advantage of widescreen is that it's like other widescreens?
>>122378598
What is this image even trying to convey? Most of those phrases are only used on 4chan and are incredibly shit and just as meme-y as anything said anywhere else- in fact, 4chan is the single most obsessed with memes place in the fucking internet. It's not like this is some bastion of good taste and behaviour. And nothing in that picture makes sense in conjuncture with one another.
I bet this shit is from /r9k/.
/r9k/ is fucking bizarre. And stupid.
>>122378750
>>122378778
>arguing about ratio alone and discarding the obvious imperfections of the filming technologies back then to support his point that old technology standards are better
>not knowing what irony means
>>122378787
>he doesn't know how to use google himself
Laziness and lack of talent
>>122378731
>>>122378528
>>doesn't understand elementary level math
What do you mean?
>>122377189
The old one is more colourful.
>>122378795
With a smaller ratio, less of the movement is seen, so you're focused more at the center and you're missing out on the grandeur of the scene.
You can pan on 4:3, but 16:9 provides a more dynamic look because of that extra space and breathing room.
There's nothing more depressing than watching old Lupin stuff and then taking a glance at the TV specials and Fujitits.
>>122378831
But we are not discussing old technology. Old technology is old and busted.
I am saying that the old standard is being treated unfairly. That's all.
>>122378806
That you are a loser you loser
>>122378834
>he wants to be spoonfed this bad
Opinion discarded due to ignorance.
>>122378876
>less of the movement is seen
How so? Because looking through a letterbox slut gives you a good overview of the world?
Which anime has the best nose?
>>122378886
>I am saying that the old standard is being treated unfairly. That's all.
Not really.
>>122378914
>implying you aren't the one wanting to be spoonfed
The question was merely a ruse to lure you into proving you don't know shit.
>>122378952
What else am I saying, then?
>>122378938
no contest
>>122378967
MD Nose
>>122378938
inb4 staple nose
>>122378806
I have no idea what it means either. Something like Pepe is above 4chan and its memes? He's a successful meme and he won't help out the homeless ones?
>>122378887
>>122379015
What is a meme?
>digital
>analogue
>hand drawn
It's like you just spout these buzzwords and don't know what they mean.
Nothing has changed about anime production up until the finished linework, since the early 80s. NOTHING. NOT A FUCKING THING. It's still hand-drawn, still hand traced, hand tweened and hand cleaned. In the west they've switched largely to tablets, but in Nipland they still do pen and paper. PEN AND PAPER. Pic related.
So before you bitch about how "digital" anime is worse than "hand drawn," remember that ALL anime is hand drawn, and that "digital" is a meaningless buzzword. Shading has shifted from cel to digital, but all that means is that they're using a paint bucket tool rather than actual brushes.
The change in style isn't indicative of anything other than, well, a change in style. The production has barely changed at all.
Fucking neo-/a/.
>>122378838
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzk3fNeFG-8
You kidding me?
Honestly, I feel that choreography and general animation quality has improved over the years. Otaking shading was nice, but too often the price was stiff movement and lack of onscreen action - it would be simulated with quick cuts instead.
>>122375981
There is so much retardation in that post, Jesus.
>>122377769
How is that digital? It's literally all hand drawn. The heavy lines, the brush-like strokes. They're literally brushes and strokes.
This aspect ratio debate is fucking silly. I like it.
Pic related.
>>122379034
a miserable little pile of secrets!
there's nothing wrong with that Birdy example. modern Masami Obari (that fucking SRW OG show), Rebuild of Eva and the new Hunter x Hunter anime are much worse about it (so yeah, good job to the anons who posted HXH).
there are legit points to be made about traditional vs digital but the the typical criticisms are pure technophobia and "old school" pretentiousness and don't come to a place of knowledge.
it's not like it even requires any research or 'special knowledge' to grasp what goes wrong with shitty digital coloring most of the time; it's actually EXTREMELY simple and anyone can understand it: traditional coloring is going to look more natural most of the time because THE COLORS ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. picking colors thoughtfully from a color wheel is much more difficult.
FLCL had digital coloring but it looked good, because the colors were thoughtfully chosen to be natural.
>>122377189
but to be honest the left drawing looks like a shitty vector to me, not an anime screenshot.
>People honestly defending 4:3 aspect ratio
I have truly gazed into the abyss.
>>122379135
>and that "digital" is a meaningless buzzword.
Not necessarily, there's still the huge point where your original material isn't on film any more and is now in a digital resolution in terms of pixels.
This is why you can achieve higher levels of clarity/quality with remastered anime that have their masters on film rather than on some computer hard drive or disk.
>>122375871
Am I the only one who thoughts Birdy was wearing some kind of bonnet for half the series?
>>122379161
I think a proper director would do either of those two. He'd probably show less sky.
Horizon shots are great with widescreen. People look better in 4:3 (because they usually are erect).
>>122379135
>There is so much retardation in that post, Jesus.
You're never going to provide a good argument, are you.
>>122379246
>would do either
*neither
>>122379135
>all that means is that they're using a paint bucket tool rather than actual brushes.
Exactly. Digital is shit. Before, every frame was like a nice, warm moving painting on a canvas. Now we have lazy paintbucket tool shit. Painting on canvas will never be phased out in the art world but sadly, it did for the animation industry.
>>122379162
sound m8
>>122379246
No fuck you that's not what the image means
4:3fags hate 16:9 because they think the image's upper or lower part is cut
16:9fags hate 4:3 because they think the image's right or left part is cut
It's the same exact thinking
Old birdy seemed to like fighting more than new birdy
>>122379282
Holy shit
Which part of old anime CELS are painted on CANVAS
