What is Animation?

[lupercal]

Boy, that's a dumb question, you might say. But is it? This is something which has been playing on my mind for months, and I was going to wait till I could write it as an article, but I just feel like getting it out today.

When I did film studies at university, the very first thing that I can remember having rammed down my throat, was, roughly speaking, this proposition.

Film and movies are not real. They are an optical illusion caused by playing a series of still images (which themselves don't exist, but are only projections of light) onto a screen, so quickly that they give the illusion of natural movement.

Now, here is a definition of animation from the web:

A simulation of movement created by displaying a series of images through frames.

and here's another

A collection of static images joined together and shown consecutively so that they appear to move.

So at a fundamental level, how is animation different from 'live' photography? Each of them involve a series of seperate images played quickly enough that they give the illusion of natural movement. The idea that animated images are 'static' and live ones aren't seems false to me. Each of the frames in a 'normal' film are still static images. Film, of any kind is animation under this definition.

You could argue that animation inmvolves drawing, but it doesn't. It can be computer generated, or it can be stop-animation - and the difference between stop animation and live photography is merely that the flow of movement is more contrived and less natural. By which I mean that the objects in the frame are re-arranged before the next frame is taken, rather than allowing the camera to keep rolling and taking frames while the objects keep moving.

And perhaps that's the only really useful definition. Here's another one from the web

Animation is the technique in which each frame of a film or movie is produced individually, whether generated as a computer graphic, or by photographing a drawn image, or by repeatedly making small changes... and then photographing the result.

To me, that's the only difference I can point to with any degree of certainty as a difference between 'animation' amd normal film. Animation involves freezing time, re-arranging the things to be photographed, and then taking the next frame. Regular film doesn't interrupt the movement of the objects between frames.

However, even then, I'm still not 100% satisfied there's a real difference, because whatever the method of production, the end result is the same thing. A series of static images giving the illusion of movement.

Thoughts?

Loop

[starlac]

Ah this immortal question, what constitutes animation and what is the difference between what we consider animation to that of live action. I've never been keen on what the web states as fact, as some (not all) of the “research” seems erratic at best and at worse completely erroneous.

However, this is also not a question that this animator can take lying down. Personally I have NEVER seen animation as a mere projection of images…

The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition.

Animation – noun – 1. Liveliness. 2. The technique of filming a sequence of drawings or positions of models to give the appearance of movement. 3. The creation of moving images by means of a computer. (From: Animate – verb: To Invoke Life… from the Latin Anima – noun – meaning: breath of Life / Soul)

To animate is to invoke life... Of course it is impossible to invoke life in something that is already living.

A live action film’s job is to record life (factual or fictitious) as it happens. The actors’ play their parts in front of a camera and microphone in real time, as if they were in a theatre. Even after the film has been edited together and the final mix of the sound added, it is still, in essence, a recording of (mostly) actual events (Sometimes [and more and more often] mixed with animated GCI for special effect elements).

Outside of the SFX, a film of this kind cannot invoke life, only record it. Once the combined master negative has been created it is then projected onto the screen. And that is all it is, a projection, a re-showing of things that have happened; they may be fake things, but they still happened.

Film and movies are not real. They are an optical illusion caused by playing a series of still images (which themselves don't exist, but are only projections of light) onto a screen, so quickly that they give the illusion of natural movement.

Quite… Having handled film, I can safety safe that the images are on the film and not from the blinding white light of the projection unit.

However it is true that film and movies are both optical illusions caused by the projection of still images at such a rate that the human eye cannot differentiate between one image and another. A phenomena caused by the persistence of vision, the way that the eyes’ retinas can retain the image they saw last.

Animation, be it done with drawn, stop-motion, computer techniques (and anything else you could named) has a unique difference from live-action. Animation does not simply record life, it invokes a feeling of it. Nothing in animation is in essence real in the same way that an actor is real, the drawings and models may physically exist but only as a collection of stills or lifeless puppets in storage.

It is animation’s and (more personally) the animator’s job to invoke the life through the manipulation of the drawing, puppet etc. To turn something which is lifeless into something that seems to live, to literally give the thing life; however this “Life” only occurs after the film is finished and projected.

Charles Solomon, a highly respected animation historian, speaks on this subject in the beginning of his epic book: Enchanted Drawings - The History of Animation


"…Two characteristics distinguish animation from live action: the image is recorded on film frame by frame; and the illusion of motion is created, rather than recorded.
In Live action, film is exposed in “Takes,” which may last from a few seconds to several minutes. The result is usually projected at the same speed at which it was recorded… In animation, each frame is exposed individually. Between exposures, the artists must change cels, alter the positions of puppets, and so on.
In animation, the motion exist only on film: Bugs Bunny didn’t ask “What’s up, Doc,” the California Raisins didn’t dance and King Kong didn’t scale the Empire State Building until the film was projected…"


He goes on to talk about how the distinction between live action and animation have blurred since the seventies and how this kind of debate reflects how animation gained acceptance as both a art form in itself and as part of the mainstay of film making.

Maybe the end result means that they both end up being Projected; but IMHO being projected isn’t being animated, it is just the work of a cold and (ironically) lifeless machine, which simply shows the film as it was intended.

[Magnus]

Hello,

I think almost any interpretation of this question can be correct in one way or another, but the way I see it is this:

By simply making a technical comparison between film and animation, where does the difference lie? Using hand-drawn images that spun fast enough to invoke our persistence of vision, the early forms of animation preceded film, so perhaps film is more accurately a form of animation, i.e. an "Animated Film" would more accurately be called a "Filmed Animation." But in more modern terms, as I see it, the technical aspects of the two forms are essentially identical.

Between film, digital video, and animation: All of these use varying means of projecting images in rapid sequence (of course), which requires the projection of light in one way or another. But whether this light is cast through a transparent film onto a white screen, beamed onto the face of a television, or broken down into the pixel projections of a computer monitor makes little difference to me. In all cases, you have a two-dimensional plane that changes to create an illusion. In my opinion it is not so much the means as the ends that define these categories.

For example, film, whether or not it's black and white, generally has a greater contrast ratio in brightness than digital video. Digital video, on the other hand, is becoming more and more adept at capturing vibrant colors in its final image. But both of these use live-action, whereas animation does not...at least, not in the same way.

First of all, animation is not bound by the restrictions in contrast or color that distinguish its live-action cousins. But the way I see it, the real signature of animation is the fact that it takes the art of illusion one step further than any other visual media. All forms of animation not only produce an illusion of a reality, but an illusion of physical existence. In film or video, a false reality is portrayed using items and actors that do (or did), in fact, physically exist during the film's / video's creation, whether or not they existed in the way in which they are portrayed. Animation, however, goes beyond this and creates (through its illusions) items, actors, and entire worlds that have never existed and never will, in any physical reality at all, except within the depths of our own imaginations.

And also: Sorry about my absence of late, I'm trying to figure out where I stand academically these days. Thanks to all editors who have been adding anime profiles...I have more in store myself, as well.

[MonkeyFunk]

Now here's something interesting: in "traditional" animation, be it 2D or stop-motion, each frame is either drawn (in 2D) or otherwise manipulated (in stop-motion) by the animators. I suppose until recently animation could be clean 'n' neatly defined as that.

But in CGI and most 2D animation made on digital software such as Flash, isn't it leaning more towards a kind of virtual puppetry? I mean, they don't re-draw the character and background for every frame, nor do they truly move-it-a-bit-save-image-move-it-a-bit-save-image like in stop motion. It's not so much frame-by-frame as movement-by-movement.

No wonder things are getting blurred, with debates about whether or not puppetry can be considered a form of animation popping up...

[Magnus]

On the subject of animation vs. puppetry, here's an interesting case-in-point:

Cartoon Network is airing a puppet-samurai show called "Wulin Warriors" that is apparently a huge success in its home country, Taiwan. Also, while it's being reformatted to appeal to younger audiences here, they say that most of its Taiwanese watchers are young- to mature- adults! They even have fans getting costumes to look like the characters, and homemade...er..."interpretations" of the series that can be found in certain fan stores. Sound a bit like the fanatics of anime? It does to me. From what I've seen of the series, it even LOOKS like anime.

Except...they're basically dolls, moving around and just generally looking very stiff and fake. I just can't get over it. It really seems like a terrible show to me, and I'm having a hard time understanding the appeal. Granted, puppetry like this is more unusual here than in Taiwan. But just wait until you hear some of the music. Bleh!

I tried to find the pilot episode that I watched but I'm having trouble locating a version that will work. For now, this is the longest clip I've found...apparently it's the intro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8zmeHz0KBI