>There will never be hand painted glass slides on a multiplane camera rig ever again
why live?
![Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.55.19_[2015.05.29_21.12.23].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HsHKirs.jpg "Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.55.19_[2015.05.29_21.12.23].jpg")
bump
Classic golden/silver age thread?
![Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.55.42_[2015.05.29_21.13.29].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wR9IWNu.jpg "Fantasia (BDrip 1080p ENG-ITA-GER) Multisub x264 bluray (1940).mkv_snapshot_01.55.42_[2015.05.29_21.13.29].jpg")
>>84130981
Their multiplane work wasn't even very good from what I've seen.
![Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_01.13.40_[2015.07.10_00.01.29].png](https://i.imgur.com/CGQBPE8.jpg "Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_01.13.40_[2015.07.10_00.01.29].png")
I love these background mattes jesus christ
![Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.58.52_[2016.04.12_21.41.45].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OiRkpkb.jpg "Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.58.52_[2016.04.12_21.41.45].jpg")
>>84131225
Its easy to overlook the the amount of artistry of Disney up until the late 40's in the Shorts and Features because of how we know Disney now as the giant worldwide cooperation
But jesus christ a lot of that stuff that Walt produced was pure art. Fantasia and Pinocchio come to mind as far as features..Flowers and Trees and The Old Mill as far as shorts. Plus they are doing alot of groundbreaking stuff in the Mouse, Dog and Duck shorts.
While I still consider the parks in Cali and Fla works of art ESP Disneyland from being walts vision due the amount of detail. The stuill do pretty ok work. Not great but hey better then most
>>84131225
>>84131238
Why does every other Blu-Ray except Pinocchio look like shit?
>>84131225
>>84131238
Disney's backgrounds were too vague.
>>84131225
>>84131238
The Backgrounds in Pinocchio are fucking stunning
>>84131410
I don't understand what you mean.
>>84131448
There's just not a lot of detail or sense of place. The immediate background behind the characters is reasonably detailed, but beyond that it's really wishy-washy or there's some mysterious fog. It's like whatever, they're in a forest or something. Doesn't matter.
They aren't all like that but it's what I've noticed.
>>84131501
>>84131501
Okay, I can see that. But what would be a better example of a background?
>>84131568
Here's some quickly taken shots from Whisper of the Heart (early 90s, pre-digital) for example. It seems like the characters are in a real place that exists well beyond their immediate surroundings.
>>84131917
Most of those compositions aren't so good though, except for the one on the bottom right.
>>84134604
They weren't chosen for their composition (I was talking about backgrounds), and Disney was cinematographically very weak due to their cartoon animation basis.
>>84134762
>cinematographically very weak due to their cartoon animation basis
Say what? 90s Renaissance crap yes, but there was a lot of brilliant stuff going in the classics and it got very refined in the 50s.
I don't know how anyone can classify clear staging as bad cinematography.
>>84134976
Cartoon animation is uncinematic. Disney's features weren't cartoons, but they were heavily based on them.
>I don't know how anyone can classify clear staging as bad cinematography.
It's not necessarily bad, it's just flat, simple, boring and repetitive.
>>84131917
Ghibli is pretty much the studio for the best backgrounds, so it's not a big surprise they'd do it better than Disney.
Also shit I love this movie, the shot of the city when she first walks to the back of the shop is literally breathtaking.
>>84135138
Even most TV anime these days have better backgrounds than Disney did. Disney didn't emphasize backgrounds for the same reason that stage plays don't emphasize sets compared to movies.
>>84135037
They used animation's advantages and downplayed it's disadvantages. With what you are asking for, you might as well try to film a live-action film like a cartoon. What's the point? Needless work for something what won't work.
>>84135264
Animation has many advantages, not just the ones that Disney chose to focus on, and there isn't anything disadvantageous about employing cinematic techniques in animation.
![Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.08.19_[2015.07.09_19.36.36].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SvJhxHs.jpg "Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.08.19_[2015.07.09_19.36.36].jpg")
>>84131410
you high niqqa
![Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.14.23_[2015.08.14_18.26.09].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BRIrYIb.jpg "Pinocchio (1940) 1080p.Molpol.mkv_snapshot_00.14.23_[2015.08.14_18.26.09].jpg")
>>84137093
Disney from 30s to 1959 is the best they ever were and ever will be.
>>84131501
It is almost as if cutting down the detail in the background was a conscious choice that has to do with emphasizing the relevant visual elements in the foreground instead of trying to maintain a mathematically exact sense of geography because it's a fucking movie.
>>84140961
There's no emphasis on backgrounds because all the emphasis is on the "performers" the same way it would be in a play or vaudeville show.
Cinema does not work like that, so you can't use "it's a fucking movie" as a reason for it. Look at Blade Runner for example.
>>84141073
So are old live action movies not movies either because they have stylistic similiarities with stage plays? Are movies with simple/minimalist sets not movies? Do you use a scoring system to determine when an environment has enough detail to quality as 'cinematic'? Anon please.
>>84141073
>Cinema does not work like that
It sort of does though, things are in focus or out of focus for a reason.
>>84141277
What we now think of as cinema and take for granted didn't appear overnight. The earliest movies looked a lot like stage plays and were very simplistic. They are "cinema," but I wouldn't call them "cinematic." Nor would I call cartoon animation cinematic, because it's even more stage-like. Disney's features are based on cartoon animation which makes them cinematically lacking.
In cinematic filmmaking it's not just the actors or the "performers" that matter, there's emphasis given to everything else in the scene too. The scene may also be given more emphasis than the actors, or the actors may not even be on-screen.
>>84141325
We aren't talking about camera focus.
>>84141454
You're conflating a style or a movement with an entire medium.
>>84141946
It's not a style or movement, it's just what cinema is fundamentally like. Have you not watched any live action movies?
>>84131917
now modern ghibli just takes pics from google maps and rotoscopes them into landscapes.
>>84142029
>Have you not watched any live action movies?
I have, and they don't all look the same.
>>84142055
Not likely. They have high production standards and they make movies, not TV shows (Miyazaki himself went all the way to Wales and Sweden to prepare for Laputa and Kiki). And even TV productions go on location to take photos of where the story is set in.
>>84142102
Where did I say or imply they all look the same? Do you even understand what I'm talking about?
