Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

Guys, I'm not talking about whether or not RWBY is anime style or not, I'm talking about the simple fact that this discussion was/is about bad CG in anime, with the specific anime referenced being done by low-budget Japanese studios.  So something like RWBY, which was not made by one of those low-budget studios nor even in the country where the anime with the bad CG is from, is not a viable example of CG being 'done right' for the purposes of the conversation.

From Japan I have seen good CG very rarely, examples including .Hack//Trilogy, Godeater, Gargantia, and Heroic Age.  And I have also seen from Japan horrific abominations of CG work such as Appleseed and Tank Police (the newer ones specifically) Macross Frontier, and more examples than I can even begin to list reasonably.

From my perspective it appears that for whatever reason Japan's CG art is stuck firmly in the early 2000's alongside the numerous abortive attempts made in the US, France, Canada and other nations.  The difference is that those other nations have improved for the most part, but Japan has not.

[Reelya]

Compare Macross Frontier (2008) vs American Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles (2006). Then consider that they were putting out an episode of Macross weekly, vs at least two full years working on the 90 minute Shadow Chronicles. Shadow Chronicles doesn't come across looking very good.

Though it would be helpful if state specifically which American productions you're comparing these things to. Since there are American CGI-based productions from almost the same years as these Japanese ones, about similar subject matter, that looks the same or even worse. Let's compare apple and apples in other words.

A weekly kid's show isn't going to have the same level of CGI as a feature film by Pixar for example. Doesn't matter what country.

[NullForceOmega]

Shadow chronicles had all of its CG outsourced to the same bargain basement CG studios in Korea and Singapore that most bad CG is made at.  And Frontier's CG is freaking terrible, the lighting is trash, the movements aren't fluid, but are sped up to hide it, it doesn't even match the color template of the rest of the animation.

[Reelya]

Well which regular kid's shows from the USA would you hold up as examples? Obviously like I said if it's Pixar-type feature films, that's not a fair comparison. I can point to the few Japanese CGI feature films I've seen and state that they're at least competitive in that regards:

http://myanimelist.net/anime/5998/Hottarake_no_Shima__Haruka_to_Mahou_no_Kagami
http://myanimelist.net/anime/317/Final_Fantasy_VII__Advent_Children

BTW, Appleseed 2004 had a $10 million budget. The same year, Pixar put out The Incredibles with a $92 million budget. Of course The Incredibles looks heaps better. Rather than "they're behind the times" it makes more sense to say that an ambitious project with tight budget constraints lead to the quality issues. So comparing that to a Pixar film (which now costs $200 million) is not a fair comparison. Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is a fair comparison to a Pixar movie, because they had a budget in the same general range.

[Flying Dice]

Actually, just thought of one which wasn't too jarring: the CGI in Gundam Unicorn. Though it was helped because of the circumstances in which it was used, mainly the total disassociation from everything except a starfield, leaving nothing for it to clash with.

[NullForceOmega]

I might consider FF Advent Children to be a ringer in this case, as its built using the tech for FF Spirits Within.  I haven't seen the other example there, but it does look well done.

I've got a couple simple rules for what I consider good CG, most mix & matches (where part is CG and part is hand drawn) won't meet these basic criteria.

1: Coherent color palette.  All parts of the animation must mesh color-wise, if they don't there is a problem.

2: Consistent lighting, when the lighting is coming from the front on one model and from the side on the model right next to it without an apparent source, there is a problem.

3: Fluid movement, if it's jerky, twitchy, floats, or is otherwise not fluid there is a problem.

Some examples of western CG that I feel do it right:

Dragon Booster: 2004  Smooth, though they use stills to fill out time just like most animation, good color, lighting is almost universally consistent.

Max Steel: 2000 While badly dated by current standards it mostly holds up to my requirements, animation is occasionally twitchy, but not often, color palette is consistent, lighting is very solid.

Jimmy Neutron: 2002  Another one that is definitely somewhat dated but meets criterion, animations are very smooth, color palette is extremely consistent, lighting is basic but also very consistent.

I can go dig up a lot more if you want them.

[Reelya]

I might consider FF Advent Children to be a ringer in this case, as its built using the tech for FF Spirits Within.

... so is your argument here that any CGI film made by a company that previously made a CGI film doesn't count because they already had the infrastructure to make it, hence it's cheating to mention it? ... that logic only makes any sense if you consider all Pixar movies after Toy Story as ringers too, since they do exactly that. Reusing the software developed for the earlier movies is a big part of Pixar's success.

EDIT: In the end, I'm going to call out budget as the big difference here. There are just many more English-speakers out there than Japanese-speakers, so the immediate sales potential for movies and shows is much greater. $10 million to make Appleseed is pretty much an average budget for a Japanese CGI feature film, whereas $150-200 million is the typical average from most American CGI feature films of the last decade or so.

When a Japanese studio invests a reasonable amount on a CGI film you get comparable animation quality, it's just incredibly rare that any Japanese CGI film gets even 10% of the budget of your typical Pixar or Dreamworks film. This is where I'd recommend checking out Production I.G's Oblivion Island. It's still a small fraction of a Pixar movie's cost, but it's getting there.

[NullForceOmega]

My point about Advent Children and Spirits Within was that they were made with bleeding edge technology and systems that are still not in widespread use through the industry.  comparing it to Pixar is like comparing a Ford GT supercar to a stock Mustang.  Pixar has nice tech but Square has access to some of the best stuff on the planet.

[Flying Dice]

So we should count the products of cost-cutting second rate studios as valid examples of CGI used by the industry, but not the inverse?

[Reelya]

So, let's get this straight. USA CGI only counts when it's made in-house with good ol' Murrican know-how, and anything America outsources to Korea or Singapore doesn't count (ala Robotech Shadow Chronicles). But for Japan, we only count the stuff outsourced to the same studios we discounted for America, and discount stuff made in-house because they had an unfair advantage in having software nobody else had. News Alert: Pixar built their entire empire based on bleeding-edge software nobody else had.

But we're back to the main problem of comparing shows with massively different budgets. Pixar movies are probably 10-20 times as expensive as most CGI films made in Japan, per minute. A typical anime budget is ~ $100,000-300,000 per episode, whereas the most expensive CGI TV show in America to date was $1.6 million per episode. The typical nickelodeon show costs $600,000 - $700,000 per episode, or around three times the typical anime TV show. Here, it's again a matter of economics rather than talent. Sure, they could triple the costs of the typical anime and have as good CGI as the best CGI shows in America, but would that triple their audience? It's debatable.

[Orange Wizard]

Studio + budget = quality

[NullForceOmega]

So, let's get this straight. USA CGI only counts when it's made in-house with good ol' Murrican know-how, and anything America outsources to Korea or Singapore doesn't count (ala Robotech Shadow Chronicles). But for Japan, we only count the stuff outsourced to the same studios we discounted for America, and discount stuff made in-house because they had an unfair advantage in having software nobody else had. News Alert: Pixar built their entire empire based on bleeding-edge software nobody else had.

Reelya, if something I said offends you I apologize, but I do not appreciate being misinterpreted this way.

My previous point was completely separate from the main discussion and was in fact an offhand comment.  I don't care about where it was made or by who, only the effort that goes into it.  Frankly I'd be vastly happier to see poorly hand drawn art than any CG at all, but those days are long dead.  But if you want to talk about bad CG in anime, then talk about bad CG in anime, and leave outside elements out of it.

You want to discuss budget?  Here goes: USA>all.  That's the whole damned argument and has nothing to do with anything at all.

Good CG exists, and has done so for almost two decades, there is no excuse for bad CG at all.  I'm not arguing styles, cel-shaded is equal to realistic in my book fantastic is equal to mundane.  Bad is bad.

[Orange Wizard]

USA>all

Hng

[Cruxador]

USA>all

Hng

When it comes to media budget, it's unquestionably true. I agree that in some regards they're incomparable, but I also feel that there's a reason why CG is only really widely used by Americans: It only really looks good at America-scale budgets.

[Reelya]

@NullForce: you haven't offended me, I'm just perplexed because your arguments on the pros and cons of each side seem to be contradictory. Dismissing poorly-made low budget American CGI as irrelevant, and then dismiss well-made high-budget Japanese CGI at the same time. Sure, you can prove just about anything if you ignore all contradictory examples.

Oblivion Island (2009) by Production I.G. is a good example of average Japanese CGI. It was made entirely in-house by the company, and was the first full-CGI film they ever made, so they didn't have any tech to fall back on, just talent. I'm guessing that the budget was similar to Tim Burton's 9 (also 2009), about $30 million, and the results are comparable. The Final Fantasy CGI films are in the same budget range as Pixar films, and those are also pretty comparable. Appleseed 2004 had a per-minute budget similar to Father of the Pride, an American CGI TV series by Dreamworks also from 2004, and while Appleseed is lacking vs Pixar, I wouldn't necessarily say it's lacking vs Father of the Pride. (of course, Father of the Pride leveraged all that tech they developed for Shrek, which Appleseed couldn't do).

So, it's entirely untrue to say we can't compare things that came out in the same year and had similar budgets, because we can totally do that. My general verdict is that when they have similar budgets, you can't really make any distinction and it just comes down to whether you like the American or Japanese character designs and aesthetic better.