Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnstorm
Thanks. I enjoy reading posts like this one, even though I have to read them a couple of times, since I don't immediately "get" it.
So if I get this right, it's like this: They have a highly detailled background, but they just have to do one (or 1+X) picutre(s), because they can copy shifting parts of it. On the other hand, the objects (such as the people) that are actually themselves moving, have individual pictures for each frame. Together that gives a fluid movement for background, but a not-so-fluid movement for people. (Which makes me wonder about how they treat shadows, since they're sort of the interaction between object and background. Can't check right now.) Hyouka, on the other hand, also uses individual pictures for the background, or uses a more "composite" background with more animated objects.
So a detractor might say that what Aku no Hana gets wrong is the balance of all the animated objects? It's not that the so much that the people move in a jerky manner, and more that they move jerkily in comparison with the surroundings, which feels odd.
Did I miss or misinterpret anything? Talking about animation is frighteningly hard for me.
|
You've got the basic idea. They paint a picture (physically or electronically, makes no difference) for the background, in this instance the view of a street that the guy walks down. For each frame of the animation they would move the background image ever so slightly, for slower motion, such as walking, or move it more aggressively for faster motion. On top of this for each frame they would overlay whatever image that is supposed to be "animated." The old-fashioned method was done with sheets of crystal clear acetate on which the animators would actually draw (and the lackeys would paint in). These would be placed over the background image and the whole thing would be photographed. Frame by Frame.
The images in the following spoiler are the first nine frames of the animation, which lasts only 3/8 of a second in real time. Although it may be hard to tell, the background is "moving" ever so slightly in each of the nine frames (it's easier to tell in a video editor). This gives the
background very fluid, slow motion as Blobbo is walking along.
Blobbo's movement, on the other hand,
appears to be not as fluid, partly, I think, because, our eyes are being tricked. Other than bobbing up and down, he doesn't really seem to be "moving" from one place to another. The background moves side-to-side, and the objects in the distance are getting farther and farther away (a trick of the "camera"), but Blobbo remains basically the same size, in the same place, throughout the whole sequence, which is 20 seconds long (480 frames). He keeps walking towards us, but never gets any closer.
The jerkiness usually is the result of using the same "animation" for two or more consecutive frames. Whereas the background of this particular sequence is always "in motion" (each frame from one to the next is different) the part that should be animated, Blobbo, does many sequences of repetitive frames, usually about three in a row. Hence the vaguely erratic behaviour. This is pretty normal to the animation process, even for sequences where a character is moving. Time is money, and it cost 1/3 the money to use one frame three times in a row as it does to animate three separate frames. At 24 frames per second, that's 34,560 frames for 24 minute episode.
This is a completely separate issue from the other complaint about the lack of detail in the characters faces, but I'm not going down that street right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroz
It does make me wonder, if the background is also done in the simple fill-in with no shadows and no grainy effects, would it have such a massive jarring effect? If the art style is consistent across all aspects, maybe it wouldn't look as distracting.
|
Good question. My immediate thought went to the Warner Brothers Looney Tunes that were produced during the 1960s. For a while (or perhaps it was just one director), they seemed to have been of a more simple or "flat" design, some of which seemed even avant garde. The characters were drawn the same as before, so it didn't really detract from the experience.
So, maybe, if the backgrounds were as "flat" or "drab" as these characters, we
might not be hearing so many complaints. I tend to doubt it, though, as it seems that many, if not most of the complaints are related to the differences between the artistic style of the source material and the animation style of the episode.