That’s a great clip for what it reminds us of in general terms. The info and knowledge of classic techniques doesn’t have to chain you to old fashioned processes. Quite the contrary, it gives you the foundation to develop and expand on what technology now provides you with – it gives you an edge to sometimes steer the technology to accomplish things that even the people who developed the new approach didn’t know it could do.

wow, its so vital… i think that when computers came along all this technical process is completely void from new animation, especially hand drawn, which is what went together to make all the old time movies so magical. i hope that it can be preserved somehow…

these are great jeremy! thx for posting

I feel lucky that I started my career in animation when we had to create a final film entirely under the rostrum camera. I remember writing dopesheets on ones with 20, 30 or more passes, backlighting, by-packing and burning in, endless wedge-tests before shooting a 3 second scene that took 2 days to film. The trials and errors were so much fun, the excitement when running to the laboratory every morning to pick up the test prints and studying them on the Steenbeck. I really miss that today. There seems to be a button for everything now, the magic has somehow disappeared.
There are still quite a few people around who know all this stuff, it wasn’t that long ago…

Oh, here we go with this again, with the anti-computer Nazis. I’m all for the merits of preserving classic animation techniques, and I appreciate the history of animation and what it took to get to where we are now, but if you think any modern tool has taken the “magic” out of animation, I think you miss the point entirely of what makes animation a joy for people to watch or create. The only thing that can take the magic out of animation is YOU.

Computers are a tool, just like pencils and paper are tools. Computers are very effective at reducing the redundancy and monotony of repeated tasks that really only hinder progress. If you look at that as a drawback, or a degradation of the animation process, then clearly it’s not the quality or content of what you’re creating that drives you, but merely the time you spend on monotonous tasks that determines whether or not you’re satisfied with it, and I think that’s rather sad. What ultimately makes animation magical isn’t the process or necessarily even the technique, OR the time spent, it’s the content and the end result, because everything that leads up to that can vary wildly from person to person, to achieve the same thing. It’s the soul that you infuse into your work that makes it magic, regardless of the medium. Ironically, people who use computers today can STILL take 2 days to create 3 seconds of animation, but the end result looks that much better. Good animation takes time, but more importantly, it takes passion.

The fact that I use a computer to do animation doesn’t mean I don’t still value a pencil and paper. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a great deal of respect for people who can do animation by hand. Indeed, if you can do it by hand, you can do it on a computer and if done with passion and focus, it’ll only shine that much brighter. But don’t cry and whine that computers have “somehow” taken the magic out of animation. Only people who are lazy and have no passion for their work can do that. Computers are merely the latest tools and if I don’t have to spend more time than is necessary for making little stars twinkle, I won’t waste time doing it, unless I just plain enjoy doing it that way.

It’s good to know how people used to do it, but don’t act like we should still be doing it that way if we don’t have to.

Computers can be a tool, of course Matt. But not in the same way a pencil is a tool. Not even close. With a pencil, it is direct communication to the page – the pencil is merely an extension of the hand.

A computer interrupts the process. The communication requires side-steps, conquering the ‘tool’ itself, working out how one can get what they want out of the other side of the process. Of course if one masters the computer techniques, it is possible to get great results. Many have shown that.

But they are not the same.

And, on a huge number of productions, computers are not a tool for animators – they are a tool for producers. They don’t make animation better. They make animation quicker.

And the sad part about that, and I see it where I am (and even with myself), very quickly, the computer becomes not a tool for the animator, but a crutch.

A pencil and paper does not.

They are not the same.

I didn’t see the video yet but on first glance he kinda looks like he’s wearing one of those prison outfits.

Obviously a computer isn’t the same as a pencil. One is a computer and one is a pencil. Both are mediums of expression though, and neither is factually greater than the other.

A pencil may be considered an extension of the hand, but many traditional animation techniques aren’t. If everything was an extension of the hand, the traditional animators wouldn’t be coming up with such inventive and original techniques. Something not being second nature doesn’t make it inferior, it just leaves even more room for improvisation and creativity.

Now excuse me, I’m going to express my artistic vision using a tomato, a stick of gum, and some lint I found in my pocket.

Anyone who sets up a 36 hour render with multiple passes on a machine that’s crashed 4 times in one day knows the thrill of “is it going to work or not” – its as exciting as dropping that film off for the lab in its own right. The magic is different, but oh my is it there! While I don’t think CG glows look nearly as nice as underlighting, I’m dizzy with the possibilities that computer texturing, compositing and effects have allowed traditional animation to experiment in. Shame that design, not (often enough) feature animation, is pushing these boundaries. One thinks to the experimentation of PRINCE ACHMED vs. the post-Disney feature world to grow weary of the traditional style that, while beautiful, hasn’t really grown in leaps and bounds aesthetically over nearly a century (Snow White remains more daring than what Frog Princess seems to be offering). Digital is allowing a rapid evolution and metamorphosis of styles that TV series and films couldn’t hope to match! As for the element of surprise Steve S. mentioned – anyone who comes from a traditional model-making background knows that when modeling and texturing in 3d, those elements of surprise still exist. Its simply putting the same talent and attention to detail into the process, be it practical or digital, to create uniquely “surprising” effects. Artists do create textures from pratical means, or by copious collage work, and the results can be nothing short of magic. Every dip into a particle based simulation produced mathematically genenrated effects which, upon tweaking the parameters, create organic random effects that are usually different than the intent and often more magical by virtue of “surprise.” What I grow most weary of is individuals who have no doubt a long history of experience in the traditional means, but haven’t made the digital leap (imagine if Phil Tippet handn’t assisted the CG team in JURASSIC PARK!?!?!). Many of my peers have come from optical printing and traditional VFX backgrounds APPLIED to digital means – they have the most valuable insight I’ve seen into the digital process with that external knowledge and I owe them so much for opening MY horizons to the possibilities of the digital as an extension of the traditional.

Hi Steve,
I wasn’t responding to what you were saying, specifically… I totally understand the appeal in seeing what can be achieved with older, more traditional materials. That goes back to what I was saying about preference. Some people like the tangible nature of traditional materials and I totally get that. I would hate to see that die off.

I still think it’s fascinating how even to this day, you can still get the highest quality audio out of vinyl records if you have a good needle and turntable. I’m just using this as an example. I think it’s amazing how recording has been done about as well as it can be almost since the beginning, just like animation has. The fact that audio can be captured in such warm, crisp, high-fidelity on a physical, analog medium is still incredible to me. But there are also other ways of doing it now that aren’t necessarily better, but they do yield their own unique benefits and I think it’s a mistake and short-sighted to simply dismiss the new ways of doing things as merely irrelevant or disruptive to the process.

Animation is the same way. I much prefer the image of a hand drawn, rough sketch to a cleaned up, colored drawing alot of the time. It shows you the raw talent that went into its creation and it has it’s own appeal that can’t really be achieved any other way than by traditional means. I get that appeal, but I also love what can be done with a vector shape. I love the smooth interpolation between key frames that only computers can do. I love the dimensionality, lighting, depth of field and color correction that computers enable creators to do. I appreciate the entire spectrum of artistic expression and can’t understand why someone would deny themselves the pleasure of enjoying any and all forms of art.

Hopkins! Thanks man!

@ Matt

I don’t understand why you get so huffed and puffed. I was simply reminiscing about some of the fun I had when I got started, the cup of coffee early in the morning, waiting at the laboratory, while it was pissing down outside in Wardour Street.
None of this has anything to do with dissing computer animation or any other digital tools. You might reminisce about the cup of coffee you had chatting to your friends next to the render farm one day. I was also not talking about film making and content, just about the joy and the way we were putting those things together with sticky tape and rubber bands, a bit like you remembering building that model aeroplane when you were a kid.
Hope that clears things up :-)

@ Scott

I agree with you. In many cases backlit animation looks crass. I look back at my old demo reel (rarely) and I cringe. It goes along with the old role that 98% of everything in the world is crap.

That said, its that shining 2% that we, as artists strive for.

I agree with Uli’s comment about reminiscing about the good old days. Its fun to remember the way things were.

unless we write this down we won’t be able to have an animation Renaissance` later

I hope that the spirit of experimentation is kept alive in 2D and 3D.

I caught a few more of his Youtube clips, and I’m just happy that people such as Don are sharing some of their knowledge. I wish that was available when I was younger. It’s a great service to keeping the flame alive-Thanks Don Bluth!

Don Bluth and his partners Gary Goldman and John Pomeroy have made a great contribution to the whole animation industry, there is no denial about that.

They made beautiful films like The Secret of Nimh and American Tail and those video games they produced like Dragon’s Lair and Space Ace are still some of many people’s favorite animation and design.

They have been very important for the animation industry in the US and overseas and don’t forget that they gave steady employment to many artists as long as they could, including myself.

Also, there is nothing wrong about Don selling his merchandises or classes on DVD. There are dozens of animation schools all around making tons of money and not teaching half of what Don is teaching through his DVDs.

I wonder how many of these effects Ub Iwerks developed. I consider Disney’s Robin Hood as the last real Old School disney animated feature on the strength of its effects animation alone; the last one where there seemed to be care given about the ‘finish’.

It almost seems as if Bluth is more concerned about the nickname nomenclature for the effects disappearing more than the tricks themselves.

Many of the techniques moved to commercial logo houses before the computer revolution, and there was that indie film that showed at comic conventions all the time that was full of these optical effects (had wizard in the title, starring the film maker as the wizard)