High Definition did more to damage animation than digital or even Adobe Flash could ever hope to

>>149303974 (OP)
plenty of old cel animation is in absurdly high quality and looks great still. it's actually just digital animation that's the issue, not the definition.

>>149304000
They weren't meant to be aired in HD, they just got remastered if the film reels were intact
Plenty of 2000s digital cartoons looked just fine

>>149304012
digital has always looked ugly. always. going back and watching cel stuff makes you depressed because we can never go back.

>>149304031
Futurama wasn't ugly when it first aired
It sure as fuck is now, though

>>149303974 (OP)
Flash did zero damage to animation. It was entirely a bedroom industry to animate in Flash.

>>149304057
Flash rigging has always looked better than toon boom rigging and I don't know why

>>149304073
I disagree on that, Toonboom rigs are way more impressive

>>149303974 (OP)
A lot of cartoons and even live action flat out became worse the second they switched to HD. It's genuinely astonishing, not just referring to the look, the writing got worse on many shows too

>>149304031
Shut up tard

>>149304012
>Plenty of 2000s digital cartoons looked just fine
Cant say the same for most CGI animated films. I still enjoy ReBoot, but I understand an audience younger than I not giving a chance just on the perceived quality of animation alone. Voice acting, characters, and the themes carries that show.

>>149304348
CGI was still somewhat new at that point. At least for full scale productions.

>>149304057
>>149304073
A lot of problems with rigged animation can be solved by simply not tweening everything evenly or adding too much extra bounce or float.

>>149304393
>adding too much extra bounce or float
I don't understand why so many rigged shows do this shit.

>>149304262
digital looks like ass. always will.

>>149304012
>They weren't meant to be aired in HD, they just got remastered if the film reels were intact
Reading this after that stupid cel animation thread died just pissed me off. Do you actually believe old cartoons were meant to be watched in low quality? Were the 35mm film prints they were shot on just for show? Doesn't this make you think about the limitations of the time and whether old animators would have animated digitally if they could?

>>149303974 (OP)
Not really. Shows lately seem to know how to use it, the early adopters in the early aughts looked bad and weird at times though, and early flash definitely had it's own jerky weirdness you could notice in the Canadian shows. Smiling Friends looks fantastic most of the time, even if it is uglier. But that's the point, and they integrate both 2D and rigged stuff almost seamlessly now. A lot of shows have gotten good at it.

>>149304000
>>149305147
Cels can be beautiful but they often have a lot of ugly imperfections on them when you view them on Blu-ray that I don't like. Only the Disney films truly look great. Any other animated film or TV show looks grainy even up close, because of the technology and limited resources, like you said. It's 2D's version of >>149304348 , some 2D on cels can be as ugly and janky animation-wise as ReBoot to me personally. Although I do love the early 3D aesthetic and some of the animation on ReBoot has charm too. Both 2D and 3D have shit points, even if hand-drawn cel stuff is more "impressive." I don't think it being on cel is automatically more amazing than anything else though.

>>149305373
Fuck off. Grain is based.

>>149305373
What's wrong with film grain? It looks fine when the videos are encoded properly.

>>149304946
Nope

>>149303974 (OP)
High definition downsides:
>made a lot of existing shortcuts and corner-cutting unviable
>highlights flaws, meaning you can't just get away with errors as much as you could before
>makes it a lot harder to justify simpler backgrounds, background characters and animation
>includes widescreen, making you have to rethink screen structure and where everything goes
>limits what paints and inks you can use since their individual quirks are more apparent (for those still using cels, anyway)
>all this requires extra work and extra detail, meaning more staff needs to be hired and thus costs go up

Digital animation downsides:
>includes a ton of very enticing tools and shortcuts allowing speed and laziness (for better or worse, often worse)
>way the fuck easier to do puppet animation and do it lazily, also tweening too
>harder to justify doing proper lighting and shading because you're not making the art/cels by hand anymore
>most of the SOVL isn't automatic and has to be done manually
>not all traditional skills translate to digital well, meaning an overall lower skill level

>>149305147
They WERE made to be watched in low quality, you're just looking at it with rose tinted glasses just assuming everyone was making Disney theater-tier stuff. Half the time they only recorded on actual film because that's all there was, you couldn't just scan and digitize the cels, you had to set up this big-ass rigging set up to hoist an actual movie-tier camera about 10 feet in the air to then film downwards towards the cels and lighting and whatever layers you have.
Most animation back then had simple static backgrounds, looping simple backgrounds, zero bystanders in any scenes, lots of errors and shortcuts (mostly in the background), even characters often just looped animations (something that bled into anime). As theaters/TVs got better, more people noticed that shit, so it wouldn't fly anymore.
t. downloaded and played a lot of classic stuff for my grandparents

>>149305621
If tweening is such an issue to you, then why don't you advocate for frame-by-frame in digital animation?

>>149303974 (OP)
Explain.

>>149305928
I don't mind tweening that much as long as it's not stupid obvious like it was in the 00s.

>>149306593
no

>>149304104
i remember watching one of the law and orders when it first switched to HD, i think it was SVU, and you can tell they were completely unprepared for it
stray hairs flying everywhere, the makeup looked like cake, the colors were washed out, and the framerate made it look like VHS

>>149304104
There's an episode of the Always Sunny podcast where Charlie says they should have never gone HD or even 16:9.

>>149307820
aww cmon...

>>149303974 (OP)
pardon??

>>149307333
I actually like tweeting cuz it's can have it own style to it, but more times than not it's just used for cost-cutting measures

>>149309502
It's always used for cost-cutting measures, idiot.
You think companies prefer it over traditional animation for no reason?

>>149308156
Reminds me of how every release of Terminator 1 and 2 gets worse and worse with each new home media format.

>>149303974 (OP)
Nah, the ai tvs or whatever that do FPS upscaling is ruining animation, my Roku tv I got free does that and I always notice the fucking smearing and stretching. Shit takes me out of it

>>149310980
i think some of them are just republished like that regardless of the tv, the flintstones on hbo max have that shitty unnatural 60fps 1080p upscale blur