>All the people who still animate on paper will die in your lifetime
How does this make you feel?
>>83902633
>Muh dead medium
I wish you'd die in my lifetime. Specifically within the next three minutes.
>>83902633
Remember Bobby's World?
>>83902633
Really bad. I watched richard williams latest short film "Prologue" last night, it was really great, but it makes me sad that he's so old and that will probably be his last work.
>>83902633
when you have photoshop, why bother using paper?
>>83902774
When you have CG animation, why bother doing stopmotion?
>>83902633
I would animate on paper, but i just love my layers and undo functions too much.
>>83902803
When you have a video camera, why bother doing CG?
>>83902645
Are you saying 2D is dead, or are you saying paper is a medium?
>>83902633
At least I'll outlive Stan Le- *audibly dies*
>>83902633
>All the people who still animate on paper will die in your lifetime
No they won't. They still teach it as foundation in every animation school ever. Even if you're majoring in 3D you have to learn how to use paper.
>>83903373
Very few of the students continue to use paper after they're allowed to move on digitally.
>>83903459
I'm convinced only people who are god tier at drawing will still do stuff on paper.
Theres this kid in my class who wants to do his entire senior film on paper and his animatic looks fucking amazing. I wont be surprised if he wins best overall.
>>83902660
It was a good show
>>83903565
>looks fucking amazing
Westerners like yourself have low standards though, so I'm pretty sure it looks like dogshit.
>>83902633
Animating? On paper? In 2D?
It's 2016.
>>83903724
(You)
>>83903724
oh yeah definitely, it doesn't beat "animated" eastern creations at all
>>83902633
I feel nothing. People die. Some people are older than me. Some people are younger than me. It doesn't matter. There's no wrong year to be born.
These threads about MUH LIFETIME are as insipid as "things only 90s kids will remember" threads. What am I supposed to feel?
Do you have any response to this that isn't a picture of a fedora?
>>83903806
Kill yourself, dumb gaijin.
>>83903823
>>83903823
get your autism diagnosed
>>83903857
I already know about my autism.
Please explain why I should be sad about people dying in my lifetime in general, not just people I've personally known and will miss.
Hell, I'm pretty sure I haven't watched a cartoon animated entirely on literal paper in decades. They mostly used clear plastic when I was a kid.
>>83902633
Why would anyone animate on paper when you can do it digitally?
>>83903995
>people dying in my lifetime in general
It's called sympathy.
>feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
or alternatively, empathy, since you yourself have lost someone.
>the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
No one is telling you to break down and cry over every death in the world you autistic fuck, but if an actor you used to watch all the time dies, you don't need to personally know them to be sad. It's just a signal in your life that your childhood is definitely over and you'll always miss it.
>>83904441
Because you can't flip frames as easily digitally as you can on paper. Pressing "previous" and "next" keys rapidly is no where near the same as actual flipping. And pencil sketches naturally look good just because that's how they are, computers strive to have that natural appeal in their linework.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0oeHIjLvoQ
>>83902633
Jokes on you, I have cancer.
>>83902633
>saying this while posting an example of hand-drawn animation on paper of an extremely recent show
Do you think there's only old people working on this stuff, or what?
you mean hirsch? good, hopefully soon.
would almost be as happy to see him six feet under than redwood's dead parents
>>83902633
All the people who animated on cave walls are already dead.
How does that make you feel?
>>83904499
But why should every death in the category "people who still animate on paper" make me sad, let alone the knowledge that they WILL be dead in the future?
I really can't remember the last time I watched a cartoon animated entirely on literal paper, not cels, and I'm 28 years old. I have no connection to these people.
>>83904731
James Baxter animated that bit. He's 50.
>>83904912
>I really can't remember the last time I watched a cartoon animated entirely on literal paper, not cels, and I'm 28 years old.
That alone is sad, for industry-related purposes. Maybe if life is so boring for you anon, you should just end yourself and try again.
>>83903995
>>83903823
>>83904912
no one is asking you to feel bad the fucking thread is how do you feel. you said nothing, you should have just left it at that rather than trying to turn this into your angst-ridden livejournal.
>>83904532
Having the curve of the paper distort the image seems like it would be a much bigger issue than the relative speeds of looking through it on a screen.
Pencil sketches will have lost all of that appeal by the time the animation is finished, so that should count against them if anything.
If you care so much, why don't you learn to animate in paper and keep paper animation alive?
>>83905012
But evidently I'm not allowed to feel nothing. If it was okay for me to feel nothing, no one would have replied to my initial post.
No one makes animation on literal paper anymore! Oh the humanity! Animation is dead because technology changes! Anything animated on a non-paper substance is not real animation!
I suppose I should also mourn the milkman, the chimney sweep, and the boy who sells newspapers on the sidewalk saying EXTRE EXTRE READALLABADDIT!!
>>83905222
just because one person responded to you doesn't meant the whole world is telling you what to do you attention-seeking faggot. quit thinking this anonymous image board is your tear-stained diary.
>>83905222
>>83902633
Wdll, that's not true at all, is it?
>mfw all it takes for technology to be BTFO all the way to the day's of the lamp is for the sun to sneeze in our planets direction.
>>83906571
What's a mere century in the great scheme of things?
>>83906372
Unless there's a young group of animators out there, most of the people who still religiously use paper because they're so used to it are all old Disney animators. It's still going to be about 30 - 40 or so years before they're all completely dead (Some of them are not that old), So it is -technically- true.
>>83907687
I'd imagine paper won't ever go truly away, it'll just go the way of the horse, used for novelty.
>>83902633
you're retarded for thinking this.
>>83907726
I 100% understand why studios went digital and I'm not about to tell them to start using cels again just to please me, but I do miss the old cel look. That slight graininess and kind of muted coloring was a lot more organic and pleasing than super HD. I mean, HD works for CG stuff or 2D with high production value (Like, some shots of Gravity Falls have great coloring and the backgrounds are gorgeous), but it's a little too perfect for flat brightly colored cartoons like Spongebob or Fairly Oddparents. I wish someone would develop a really good filter for cartoons to just put that graininess back in.
>>83907921
Looking at that image, it seems like differences go a lot further than just the coloring. The one on the right looks stiffer and blockier compared to the one on the left, which makes it look a lot less lively as a result.
Though I'm not sure if that's entirely due to the switch to digital so much as the way studios implement the technology. A lot of them seem use digital as a shortcut to be lazy/cheap with rather than its own medium.
I get what you're saying OP, but I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that traditional animation didn't have its fair share of stinkers.
The medium doesn't make quality, the talent behind the tool does, be it a pencil or a tablet pen.
I like Flash animation.
