Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why don't all cartoons have this quality of graphics/art style.

waloshin

waloshin

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 9, 2008
3,564
398
This show has been the best cartoon I have ever seen when it comes to graphics and reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_5GEeHEkQI

You may have seen the show before, while your children watched, it's called Jane and her dragon.

The reason why I choose the video as still images don't do the show justice.

And I don't mean movies, I mean mainstream weekly showed T.V shows.
 
waloshin said:
This show has been the best cartoon I have ever seen when it comes to graphics and reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_5GEeHEkQI

You may have seen the show before, while your children watched, it's called Jane and her dragon.

The reason why I choose the video as still images don't do the show justice.

And I don't mean movies, I mean mainstream weekly showed T.V shows.
Click to expand...

Ah, us Canadians have it good, don't we? :)
 
That's not a cartoon, that's 3D animation - and a pretty average one by todays standards. Sadly there exist less and less real cartoons, as it seems to be cheaper to go with some form of 3D stuff, and most of this is done quite poorly in TV series. Your example is actually one of the better ones, but you can find better quality 3D sequences even in some modern computer games.
 
chaosbunny said:
That's not a cartoon, that's 3D animation - and a pretty average one by todays standards. ...
Click to expand...
The Dictionary.app that shipped with your Mac(s) and Dictionary.com disagree with your assertion that Jane and Her Dragon is not a real cartoon. However, you are correct that it is 3D animation and pretty average 3D animation at that.
 
We get that one in Australia too. Looks good, though all the textures look a bit repetitive to me.

Regardless of technical merit, still can't beat Roger Ramjet :D
 
eh, could be better. However, it is for a TV show, probably aimed at little kids, so I guess it is okay.

As to the OP's question, the reason is due to time constraints. 3D animated tv shows actually take quite a few shortcuts. For example, most people use Mental Ray to render stills/animation out of Maya, but most TV shows will use the Maya Software Renderer, because it is quicker. FYI, it takes about 6 hours to render one frame of animation for a Pixar film. If you figure 30 frames per second, that takes a while.

Source: In school for computer animation, plus been a hobby for a long time.
 
waloshin said:
The reason why I choose the video as still images don't do the show justice.

And I don't mean movies, I mean mainstream weekly showed T.V shows.
Click to expand...

Most cartoons run at a slower frame rate than live action TV. This runs at the same speed as live action.
 
No one ever saw Shrek, Finding Nemo or happy feet... I think Happy Feet was one of the best IMO in terms of quality.
 
puckhead193 said:
No one ever saw Shrek, Finding Nemo or happy feet... I think Happy Feet was one of the best IMO in terms of quality.
Click to expand...
Well of course, when you have three years to make it. Most weekly animated shows don't have that much time per episode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back