Is Akira the only anime film where every animation sequence is done in full 24 frames per second animation, purely on 1s? That's what I often hear but I've done som cel counts and it seems lots of ghibli films have enough cels implying they could have been done like that as well.
>>140159743
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXRvzjbw6z4
"Miyazaki didn't originally plan to draw the entirety of Akira at 60fps, but after somebody showed him Rozen Maiden running at 60fps through SVP detailing the difference in fluidity, he could not resist."
>>140159945
I see quite a bit of still frames there.
Akira isn't full 1s though. At least the release I have isn't.
>>140161210
1s means, there is a different frame per each 1/24 of a second during animated sequences.
>>140159743
wrong, mostly 2s and sometimes 1s for detail actions scenes, just checked just then.
animator/gifmaker fag here
>>140161487
Well, that's the information I give me, so I can't say for sure. But I kind of doubt for you because I made the math. If you take the number of animated frames and divide by the length of the movie you get about 22.5 frames. I didn't subtract the time for the ending signs and title sign so it might be even closer to 24. If you take into account that some scenes will probably just be pure backgrounds it just confirms that it has to be mostly 1s.
>>140161688
I don't think you understand how video works
If something doesn't move for a whole second, that's still 24 frames of footage, but it isn't animation on 1s.
>>140161688
Spend a few minutes frame stepping through the movie.
Large portions of the movie are on 2s, and many of the parts on 1s either reuse frames from earlier in the scene or alternate between panning over a background on one frame and drawing a new frame for the foreground on the next.
Some parts of the movie have an entirely new frame drawn every frame, but they aren't the majority.
>>140161487
>>140161688
Ok, I went a head and took into account the ending signs and if I do the equation then it adds up to 23 frames per second on average. I jumped around a bit and it seems the are scenes with just moving backgrounds. So if you subtracted those it would be very possible it would add up to 24.
Also, they say the movie has OVER 160,000 animation cels. And I just took the pure number as a given.
>>140159743
It's stupid to draw cells the eye can't even see.
I prefer limited animation with important moment better animated for emphasis, to full animation all the time.
>>140161851
But we're talking not about the movie in general. Just the animation. Not the backgrounds.
>>140161896
Then how do you explain the math? Just do it yourself.
The movie has at least 160 000 animated cels. So take those and dive them by it's running time (121 minutes) and take into account that every minute has 60 seconds. See what number you get.
>>140161912
This isn't what the discussion isn't about.
>>140162022
Oh shit, you better report him for that.
>>140161983
>Then how do you explain the math?
I don't know, I didn't work on animating the movie. Maybe they made a load of cells and ended up not using them.
Forget the cells, look at the movie. It is abundantly obvious that the majority of it was not done on 1s, your maths is irrelevant.
>>140162058
I just don't want the discussion to lose focus. Since the previous one hasn't ended yet.
>>140161983
160000 cels / 24 frames per second = 6666.2/3 = 111 minutes.
That's ten minutes short of the running time.
But you should also bear in mind that many scenes will have multiple animation cels on the screen at once.
>>140162097
I thought the japanese don't do that.
>>140162224
Why on earth would you think that? Every time an anime character speaks, there are at least two cels visible in one frame. Anything that moves separate from anything else is painted on another cel. It's why they're made of celluloid, so they can be layered over each other. The more complicated a scene, the more cels on screen.
>>140162363
I know that's how it works in general. But I always heard that while in the west there's a tradition to have each character animated seperately by a different person, in Japan it's more that one animator does the same scene. But yeah, it might have been a misinterpretation on my part.
So another thing, can Akira still be considered the anime with the biggest amount of conistent fluid animation? Do any titles come close or surpass it?
>>140162454
>But I always heard that while in the west there's a tradition to have each character animated seperately by a different person, in Japan it's more that one animator does the same scene. But yeah, it might have been a misinterpretation on my part.
It is a misinterpretation. You're right that, for example in Disney movies, they assign different characters to different animators, and Japan doesn't do that kind of thing - but that does not mean a Japanese animator who is animating tow or more things in a single shot wouldn't separate them out. If they didn't do that, it would actually be MORE work for them, and obviously needless work. For example you seem to be thinking that if one character in a scene is moving while another character is sitting still in the background, that the sitting character would still be a new drawing every frame the moving character is moving, which is pretty obviously not what they do. The sitting character would be on his own cel - the same cel the entire time.
>So another thing, can Akira still be considered the anime with the biggest amount of conistent fluid animation? Do any titles come close or surpass it?
Akira was a massive undertaking and it's true nothing Japan has produced really matches it, not even Miyazaki or Oshii's output - but they're not far off.
Stop saying "fluid", it's a vague, untechnical term.
>>140162716
>For example you seem to be thinking that if one character in a scene is moving while another character is sitting still in the background, that the sitting character would still be a new drawing every frame the moving character is moving, which is pretty obviously not what they do. The sitting character would be on his own cel - the same cel the entire time.
This is so obvious I really feel dumb for not having thought of it.
>Akira was a massive undertaking and it's true nothing Japan has produced really matches it, not even Miyazaki or Oshii's output - but they're not far off.
Miyazaki seems right, but Oshii? I like his works, but they usually seem pretty static to me. There are some dynamic scenes in GITS like during the intro and the fight scenes. But overall there is rather an emphasis on slow paced visuals.
>Stop saying "fluid", it's a vague, untechnical term.
So I should just say "animation on 1s"? I think I'd confuse most people with that.
>>140162716
>Miyazaki or Oshii's output
What about Redline?
>>140159743
It's a fucking anime movie, you fucking moron. We usually discuss TV anime here. Fuck off to /co/. Akira is shit tier writing too
>>140161912
>It's stupid to draw cells the eye can't even see
That's why no one does more than 25 frames per second.
>>140164023
>being this fucking contrarian
I know you're an intellectual and all, anon, praising moeshit above all else, but acting this superior is silly.
>>140164023
Wow, you're useless scum.
>>140159743
Ghibli is well known for redrawing the same frame dozens or even hundreds of times to increase cel counts artificially.
>>140164177
Nice try consolefag.
>>140164283
Why wouldn't they just reuse them.
