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

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by waloshin, Nov 25, 2010.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    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.
     
  2. dj2mc macrumors member

    dj2mc

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON [CAN]
    #2
    Ah, us Canadians have it good, don't we? :)
     
  3. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #3
    We do.
     
  4. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #4
    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.
     
  5. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
     
  7. martinX macrumors 6502a

    martinX

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    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
     
  8. brucem91 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #8
    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.
     
  9. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #9
    Most cartoons run at a slower frame rate than live action TV. This runs at the same speed as live action.
     
  10. AnimaLeo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    #10
    That animation looks awful. I don't understand what's so appealing about it.
     
  11. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #11
    No one ever saw Shrek, Finding Nemo or happy feet... I think Happy Feet was one of the best IMO in terms of quality.
     
  12. brucem91 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #12
    Well of course, when you have three years to make it. Most weekly animated shows don't have that much time per episode.
     

Share This Page