Difference Between Nu-Type and Old School

Rev. Takahashi Fan · Post by **Rev. Takahashi Fan** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:56 am

Cels not only that NO CGI. How do you tell on a DVD.

With TV Anime it is easy to spot. Watch the frame sides for movement. See it. Those are the individual cel frames moving. Also the cels made by different artists wil have slight or major differences ie: in season 2 of Ranma 1/2 Girl Type ranma's hair turns black (color of boy type) or character faces are distorted. This is because all the animation (everything) was done by hand. Couple that with a weekly deadly and you've got some glitches that end up in the show. Variable quality.

Nu-Type

High consistancy, no glitches. Everything is computer animated. Still drawn by hand. CG background and seemless integration between and artists can work right up to the deadline and get a high quality product out.

Rev. Takahashi Fan · Post by **Rev. Takahashi Fan** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:57 am

FOR those WHO are truely new to anime in general.

Chocobuddha · Post by **Chocobuddha** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:56 am

Of course, there are many who prefer the old-style animation, due to the fact that the new stuff has a flat, sterile look to it, overall.

Meh, there are pros and cons for each.

Rev. Takahashi Fan · Post by **Rev. Takahashi Fan** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:00 am

I just worry about how the content plays out though, alot of good and bad anime from both houses.

Jebadia · Post by **Jebadia** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:18 am

This is why I prefere the combinatin of cg and hand drawn elements. Both can work together well when used for different tasks.

EmilLang1000 · Post by **EmilLang1000** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:44 am

The way most cartoons are done these days are first, the key animation is doen in country X... it's then shipped to Korea for in-betweens... afterwards, it's colored in with computers and assmebled in something along the lines of Final Cut Pro.

I admit, there's something to be said abuot the physical look of classic cartoons, but I think that has much more to do with how they're recorded than how they're assembled.

Let me explain. Lupin, way back in the day, was colored with paint. This, of course, led to problems of colors changing, etc. Nowadays, though, Lupin is nice and pretty and the colors are a constant; no clashes in continuity because of different vats of paint. This is the "assembly."

What HAS made a difference, often on the bad side, is how it's recorded. Back in the day: Lupin was recorded, frame-by-frame on a camera using 16mm color film; now, however, the frames are bulk-scanned into a computer and assmbled this way. While transferring from digital-to-digital-to-digital is 1000 times better than film-to-film-to-digital, digital is, from the beginning, of inferior quality. No digital camera nor codec out there is as good as film. Some, like Mpeg2 and Mpeg4, are close, but nothing ever quite matches the visual quality of film. Where film IS superior, however, is when transferal and transcoding come into the mix.

If you take Film Stock A, and transfer it to Film Stock B, there is loss in the image. Not a grotesque amount, and nearly invisible to the eye, but it's there. Now, transfer from B to C, C to D, D to E, and finally E to F, and you will see a SUBSTANTIAL loss in quality on the film. Using the correct codecs, however, you can take Digital Stock A, and transfer and-retransfer all the way down to ZZZ, and there will NEVER be any loss (this is, of course, only when lossless codecs are used, which tend to be biiiiiig).

Consider this - yes, the colors at first look sterile and flat, but that's only because digital coloring has only been in use for a little over 10 years. Cell shading had been used and perfect for well over 70 years before computers replaced them. They will get better, and they are. Compare some of the first ones to use computer coloring back in the mid 90s to shows like Fullmetal Alchemist, Monster, and Metropolis. Some, yes, still look flat, but blame that on inferior production companies doing the work.

If you compare Evangelion from the VHS days to when it was rereleased on DVD only a few years ago, with digital touch-ups, there's a world of difference. The old Eva was grainy, and the colors weren't vibrant at all - rather, they seemed way to desaturated and dull. When you compare them now, oh lordy it's orgasmic! The vibrancy, the contrast!

I'm all for computer coloring; it makes the process exponentially faster, and the outcome nine-times-out-of-ten looks better.

AJip · Post by **AJip** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:03 pm

EmilLang1000 wrote:The way most cartoons are done these days are first, the key animation is doen in country X... it's then shipped to Korea for in-betweens... afterwards, it's colored in with computers and assmebled in something along the lines of Final Cut Pro.

I admit, there's something to be said abuot the physical look of classic cartoons, but I think that has much more to do with how they're recorded than how they're assembled.

Let me explain. Lupin, way back in the day, was colored with paint. This, of course, led to problems of colors changing, etc. Nowadays, though, Lupin is nice and pretty and the colors are a constant; no clashes in continuity because of different vats of paint. This is the "assembly."

What HAS made a difference, often on the bad side, is how it's recorded. Back in the day: Lupin was recorded, frame-by-frame on a camera using 16mm color film; now, however, the frames are bulk-scanned into a computer and assmbled this way. While transferring from digital-to-digital-to-digital is 1000 times better than film-to-film-to-digital, digital is, from the beginning, of inferior quality. No digital camera nor codec out there is as good as film. Some, like Mpeg2 and Mpeg4, are close, but nothing ever quite matches the visual quality of film. Where film IS superior, however, is when transferal and transcoding come into the mix.

If you take Film Stock A, and transfer it to Film Stock B, there is loss in the image. Not a grotesque amount, and nearly invisible to the eye, but it's there. Now, transfer from B to C, C to D, D to E, and finally E to F, and you will see a SUBSTANTIAL loss in quality on the film. Using the correct codecs, however, you can take Digital Stock A, and transfer and-retransfer all the way down to ZZZ, and there will NEVER be any loss (this is, of course, only when lossless codecs are used, which tend to be biiiiiig).

Consider this - yes, the colors at first look sterile and flat, but that's only because digital coloring has only been in use for a little over 10 years. Cell shading had been used and perfect for well over 70 years before computers replaced them. They will get better, and they are. Compare some of the first ones to use computer coloring back in the mid 90s to shows like Fullmetal Alchemist, Monster, and Metropolis. Some, yes, still look flat, but blame that on inferior production companies doing the work.

If you compare Evangelion from the VHS days to when it was rereleased on DVD only a few years ago, with digital touch-ups, there's a world of difference. The old Eva was grainy, and the colors weren't vibrant at all - rather, they seemed way to desaturated and dull. When you compare them now, oh lordy it's orgasmic! The vibrancy, the contrast!

I'm all for computer coloring; it makes the process exponentially faster, and the outcome nine-times-out-of-ten looks better.

[img][img]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/JauntyHat/Doc.jpg[/img][/img]

EmilLang1000 · Post by **EmilLang1000** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:36 am

Sorry, I just finished a Film/Video Tools final here, so I've kind of got film terms and techniques on the brain. Film & Animation major, what can I say?

Jebadia · Post by **Jebadia** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:12 am

EmilLang1000 wrote: No digital camera nor codec out there is as good as film. Some, like Mpeg2 and Mpeg4, are close, but nothing ever quite matches the visual quality of film.

Varicam and CineAlta could challenge film quite well, and the upcoming RED camera rasterizes at 4k ( 4520x2540 progressive), and if it delivers what Jannard has been boasting, it'll push the rest of the market forward. In the next 2 years or so, film will meet it's digital equivilent in the motion picture world.

But anywho, lets try to stay on topic. Depending on the budget you want to toss at something. Either CG or Hand draw, or the combo of the two, can turn out some outstanding results. In the Animatrix segment "World Record" the first time I watched, I could of swore up and down there were cg elements, but it turns out Madhouse did the whole thing by hand, which is amazing considering the whole keychange scene in it. Time and money determines a lot on how something will turn out most of the time.