Anime Photography in the Cel Era (2020)
alexswak.tumblr.com
alexswak.tumblr.com
They are literally the physical objects that's filmed for the production of animated shows/movies.
The live action production's equivalent to owning an animation cel would be owning the entire set, actors included lol.
Owning a single key frame from my favorite Anime movie has always been a dream of mine, that's why I was ecstatic to get my hands on this last year: https://i.imgur.com/WcWF7x8.jpg
I don't think that would be against HN rules.
If made by the company behind the anime, then maybe. If made by some third party in a copyright infringing manner, then that most certainly isn't applicable, which i've seen be a problem with the NFT space insofar.
> In that sense, I thought NFT also could appeal especially for those digital animes because there is no other way to get the same feeling.
How about physical collectibles? Plushies, keychains, figurines, posters, cosplay outfits, that sorts of stuff. Seems like many video games, cartoons and anime out there all have that in some capacity, unless it's very niche and merch is never made.
Actually, it seems like a pretty interesting space, for example, the Potekoro Astolfo bean plushies from the Fate anime series seem to go for about 300-400$ nowadays.
I agree that a lot of it is sentimental value, but i'm not sure that non fungible things will capture people's attention quite as much, or will feel the same as something physical that you can put on a shelf or whatever people do.
Just because people are buying something doesn’t make it a smart decision. I understand the technology but I’ve never come across an new idea for using NFTs that didn’t feel like I was just going to be scamming the person buying them. The fact others don’t have the same ethical compunctions I do does not in any way make me feel more like disregarding my own personal ethics.
With different forms of interaction.
The game IS the product and those items directly affect how you interact with it, for example, with different items or skins for those items or other types of customization. There, those things aren't necessarily all that different from a DLC that adds more content, though microtransactions are a slippery slope in an unregulated industry and sometimes ethically dubious.
Anime isn't necessarily like that, since getting a new item (NFT or otherwise) won't change how you interact with it directly. Your figurines, mouse pads, mugs, pillows etc. will probably spruce up your place a bit, maybe even a background image might... but that's largely orthogonal to it being on a blockchain.
Of course, NFTs are the new hotness, so i don't doubt that some will try to speculate, others will want to get on the trend and so on. Human perception of value is a curious mess.
ownership is just the legal framework and social norm we use to manage those activities, it is not those activities. NFT ownership provides none of the fun bits.
It gets a bit dicey if someone later decides to sell the physical art without passing along the NFT, or vice-versa, but then again the same thing could happen with a traditional (physical) certificate of authenticity. Presumably the artwork would still have some value even without the certificate, as there are other ways to establish its authenticity; the reverse may or may not be true.
But, to put it extremely mildly, those two things scratch entirely different itches.
I guess if you don't care about either of them, then they might seem superficially similar. However I don't think anybody interested in one of those things would consider the other one to be remotely similar.
NFTs are about proving you own something. "This is 'mine', and nobody else can 'own' it, until I sell it."
Owning a physical animation cel is about touching a piece of history; a physical artifact of a near-magical process. It's like holding one of Michaelangelo's paintbrushes, versus looking at a picture of one of Michaelangelo's paintbrushes. Again, nothing logical about one or the other, but we are not robots.
It is technically amazing, and the scene reportedly cost as much to produce as a regular Disney short.
I'm sure Orson Wells was inspired by this scene when he made Touch of Evil.
Just add some camera shaking to each layer in after effects!
My version was very simple. Instead of stacking the planes, I hung them from yardsticks spanned between two tables, so I could slide the planes forward toward the camera at different rates of speed.
Here is a short doc from Disney (1957) about the invention of the first multi plane camera:
She wasn't being coy; it just wasn't a big deal for her.
For me, that was like "casually" mentioning she'd had lunch with Jesus or Einstein or something. I've always been really fascinated with that aspect of animation, so Disney's big multiplane rig is something of a holy relic to me.
This is an interesting example of a parenthetical supplement being attached to a word which also has a grammatical particle attached to it. The particle has not been applied to the supplement, which messes up the way the sentence reads when the parenthetical is included.
On the other hand, if the parenthetical is conceptually excluded, it's perfect.
There are some other options:
- ...didn't only draw Kyoko's (the character's) eyes... [double marking]
- ...didn't only draw Kyoko (the character)'s eyes... [marking on the full phrase "Kyoko (the character)"]
- ...didn't only draw Kyoko's eyes (Kyoko is the character)... [circumlocution]
I'm curious what people think.
Perhaps more importantly, when said aloud it feels natural. This is a good rule of thumb for improving ambiguously good writing.
edit: another option:
... didn't only draw the eyes of Kyoko (the character)...
That said, leaving out the name of the character at first would have worked better, I believe. The parenthesis is a distraction from the topic of that paragraph, which is all about technique, and then later on the light note.
It's absolutely not a big deal here, but for most types of user documentations, it's important to go straight to the point and avoid distractions. Schools tend to train for the opposite (fill at least 2 pages etc.).
Digital animation sequencing lost the entropy from the shaking of the cel frames.
It can be added back in via simulation, during production. I think I would love that.
For example the surface detailing on the Star Wars ships can be viewed as a type of noise as they are not really representing anything of actual engineering, but rather are aesthetic addendums selected from a preset set of visual components.
The mathematical space for animation frames is of course different from that of a surface of a static 3d shape, or music, but the philosophical concepts are analogous, I think.
Perceptually - how human brain interprets them - there are of course larger differences.
But all in all, visual arts, music, regardless of the mathematical domain (space, time, volume) artistically used noise is not just a pathology.
I'm no luddite when it comes to modern animation; there is an absolute deluge of modern animation that I love. Most if not all of it would have been impossible with traditional animation techniques.
But as for the charm of traditional animation, the "charm" of those visual imperfections wasn't the aesthetic value of the imperfections themselves; it was the slight breaking of the "fourth wall" and how it reminded me that human beings physically arranged and photographed every single frame of animation. Digitally faking those imperfections would be silly to me.
As for something like artificial film grain noise in Hollywood, I suppose that perhaps some people love the fact that it reminds them of the physical filmmaking process. For most others I suspect it's a purely visual aesthetic charm, that is indeed ripe for digital replication.
Art is subjective (always a dangerous thing on HN) and I won't say anybody is wrong if they feel otherwise about this. However, it would be objectively true to point out that the appeal of "analog imperfections" goes far beyond their face-value aesthetic appeal for many.
I will argue a bit for the value of noise (visual or auditory) of causing you to stop processing each individual element and accept them as one whole though. I don't think that argument applies to pin registration shake on film animation, but if every element of a mix were perfectly dry it would sound unrealistic (even live, arguably the highest fidelity of music for this argument, has room characteristics).
Regarding hollywood it was originally a way to make the CG elements and live-action elements actually blend. Once they went all-digital it didn't make as much sense.
I didn’t grow up with those things so it is neither nostalgia or being “retro”, I like things that makes the consumer’s eyes and ears search
The entire “Lo-Fi Beats” niche-genre and it’s popularity would indicate that people do in fact enjoy that.
Not remotely what made it charming for me. Doesn't mean I'm right, though!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf0WjeE6eyM
"AKIRA: How To Animate Light"
They may have been referring to the glow/bloom effect created by backlighting the cel, which actually is "real light" and is used very liberally in Akira.
Regardless, very cool video!!
MI along with Kimagure Orange Road (also fantastic songs) were the standard setters in 1980s.
Or perhaps "dead arts" would be a better term, as in "dead languages" like Latin. It's not lost; it's just not a living, breathing thing any longer.
Yes, she is :)