DVDizzy Forum

Anybody else thinks the CAPS digital paint doesn't look anywhere as good as good ol' hand inked characters? I was looking at screen captures of disney films and the one with hand inked looked better

You know what, I've never noticed any difference between characters that were hand-inked and ones that were digitally painted. How can I notice the difference? enlighten me please

I've often felt that everything pre-TLM was more appealing (superficially speaking) than the post-TLM films. It's obviously not the quality of animation, because most of the 90s films have excellent animation. So I've always guessed it must've been connected with the change to CAPS, but I can never really pinpoint exactly why they looked different from one another to me.

I always found hand-inked films like Little mermaid boast a slightly grainy look in the paints. just barely noticeable amounts of noise that's akin to moving that brush around. I agree with the filmmakers about the Dog's gray hair being the pinacle of such happenings.

now, I personally might prefer the CAPS for it's cleaner look, but I'm not one to go against the old-fashioned technique.

ajmrowland wrote:I always found hand-inked films like Little mermaid boast a slightly grainy look in the paints. just barely noticeable amounts of noise that's akin to moving that brush around. I agree with the filmmakers about the Dog's gray hair being the pinacle of such happenings.

I agree, except sometimes I find CAPS too clean. If I had to choose, I'd go with ink-and-paint, but I really don't hate either one.

Hmmm...interesting topic.

Before giving my opinion, I would like to point out that the films pre TLM were not hand inked, but were indeed photographed under a camera. Every film from 101 Dalmatians through TLM were done with the xerox process, duplicating the rough or cleaned up animation drawings.

Now...if I have to choose between xerox or inked/caps animation (both produce colored lines), I def prefer the latter....for the cleaner look and colored lines, which give everything a softer look, and make the characters blend better with the oil-painted backgrounds.

As for the hand-inked versus CAPS...I admit I prefer CAPS. With the dvd restaurations I dont really see any graininess in hand inked films, and i would say the visual quality is the same (I do find some graininess in certain xerox era films).
Here are my reasons:

1) CAPS films are cleaned up with a pencil, which flows on paper better than whatever they used for inking. It also allows for corrections easier, which ink doesn't.
2) One less step between the animation drawing and the final product: in a hand inked film there was the rough drawing, then the cleaned up drawing, then the ink. For CAPS films, its just the first two steps.

This in no way means the animation in CAPS made films is better than hand-inked ones.

I love them both. The hand-inked ones are a little grainy, but warm and inviting. The CAPS ones are so smooth and appealing... They both have a certain beauty to them, and I appreciate both.

With Disney's latest restorations, the difference between CAPS and cells is merely the sharpness of the picture, as they both look digitally painted. I honestly don't prefer one over the other .

While I can't actually see a difference I'd say that CAPS is superior, it is digitally stored so providing that some sort of disaster doesn't destroy the files then it won't degrade and have the imperfections that film has (grain etc.). I know some people actually like grain and while I agree that it looks good on a small minority of films I don't think it suits animation which I like pin sharp.

I like the textures and fine details the ink-and-paint seem to have, perhaps just brush strokes, but whatever it is, it seen as noise today and removed artificially by the evil "restorers". CAPS I like less but CAPS can also do shading and lighting that ink-and-paint cannot do that I wish ink-and-paint could do, I think, even though ink-and-paint can do some shading and lighting.

Marce82 wrote:1) CAPS films are cleaned up with a pencil, which flows on paper better than whatever they used for inking. It also allows for corrections easier, which ink doesn't.
2) One less step between the animation drawing and the final product: in a hand inked film there was the rough drawing, then the cleaned up drawing, then the ink. For CAPS films, its just the first two steps.

Don't these contradict each other? You said CAPS are cleaned up with pencil, but so are hand-drawn!

ajmrowland wrote:I agree with the filmmakers about the Dog's gray hair being the pinacle of such happenings.

What?

"the textures and fine details the ink-and-paint seem to have, perhaps just brush strokes, but whatever it is, it seen as noise today and removed artificially by the evil "restorers"

Exactly.

That's why the Cinderella DVD looks lika a computer generated film too.
While the laserdisc has all the fine details. It's the difference between a hand painted look and a computer painted look.

This is what creates a huge "syle clash" and that's why I can't watch Snowwhite or Cinderella anymore. The whole feel of the original film is gone. The difference between those films and newer films (like Aladdin), is that they were created this way in the first place. And that shows.

^But what's wrong with the grain being gone? I agree that changing the original colors is ANNOYING but restoring the picture so it would look cleaner is just moving on with technology from my point of view - most people watch these DVDs/BDs on plasmas or LCDs and the picture needs to look clean enough and not grainy.

rodis wrote:^But what's wrong with the grain being gone? I agree that changing the original colors is ANNOYING but restoring the picture so it would look cleaner is just moving on with technology from my point of view - most people watch these DVDs/BDs on plasmas or LCDs and the picture needs to look clean enough and not grainy.

Grain is what the information holds. If you remove the grain not correctly, then the picture gets all blurry. Watching it on a television has nothing to do with it. Movies were shot on film, and film contains grain. Now I prefer if they would just leave it alone, but Disney's way of removing grain isn't bad either. However, if you look at Blu-rays like The Longest Day, or Patton, then you'll see clearly how bad it is if grain is removed too severely.

KubrickFan wrote:Grain is what the information holds. If you remove the grain not correctly, then the picture gets all blurry. Watching it on a television has nothing to do with it. Movies were shot on film, and film contains grain. Now I prefer if they would just leave it alone, but Disney's way of removing grain isn't bad either. However, if you look at Blu-rays like The Longest Day, or Patton, then you'll see clearly how bad it is if grain is removed too severely.

I don't like grain and I get tired of the argument that: "if it's there, then it was intended." The majority of the times they are just using the cheapest film stock or some new technique or filming under harsh conditions that result in the grain. For years people assumed Aliens was supposed to be grainy, to lend the the gritty atmosphere, but Cameron just let it out that it was unintentional and that he corrected it (hopefully it won't look overly scrubbed like Predator).

So to me, if the grain wasn't purposely put there, then I have no problem with them removing it, but ONLY if they do it right. Too much scrubbing and you get mannequins with painted backgrounds. As for cell animated films, grain is a side-effect of the process, so I love these newly scrubbed films from Disney that show us the art and not the film. I beleive this is how the filmmakers would've wanted it. Keep in mind, Disney does it the best, as you can even screw up a cell animated films with improper use of DNR (observe Gulliver's Travels).

I'm hoping one day they develop technology that can remove unintentional grain while retaining the detail and information.

jpanimation wrote: I don't like grain and I get tired of the argument that: "if it's there, then it was intended." The majority of the times they are just using the cheapest film stock or some new technique or filming under harsh conditions that result in the grain. For years people assumed Aliens was supposed to be grainy, to lend the the gritty atmosphere, but Cameron just let it out that it was unintentional and that he corrected it (hopefully it won't look overly scrubbed like Predator).

So to me, if the grain wasn't purposely put there, then I have no problem with them removing it, but ONLY if they do it right. Too much scrubbing and you get mannequins with painted backgrounds. As for cell animated films, grain is a side-effect of the process, so I love these newly scrubbed films from Disney that show us the art and not the film. I beleive this is how the filmmakers would've wanted it. Keep in mind, Disney does it the best, as you can even screw up a cell animated films with improper use of DNR (observe Gulliver's Travels).

I'm hoping one day they develop technology that can remove unintentional grain while retaining the detail and information.

I wish we would stop altering movies to make it fit our view. Why would grain need to be removed if it was already there? Why do we demand sound of all 7 speakers we own, when the original was simply mono or stereo. Why do special effects get CG updates when they're not needed?
Can't we leave a movie for what it is, and restore it the way it was originally without updating it? De-graining simply is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and in the worst cases it makes the movie look like crap.

KubrickFan wrote: De-graining simply is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and in the worst cases it makes the movie look like crap.

Like I said, I'm totally against color alteration but grain just doesn't look aesthetic and if it's possible to get rid of, why not? It's not like they're adding new detail to the drawings.

jpanimation wrote:I'm hoping one day they develop technology that can remove unintentional grain while retaining the detail and information.

I do not understand why removing the grain and thus removing the tiny details that make the film more than just flat color is a better thing to do than leave the grain in.