Did people literally just draw thousands of pictures that looked almost identical and then they stitched them together, like a flip book? How did they do it, and how was it even remotely cost-effective and worth the effort?
In: 40
The breakdown for your traditional Disney-style animation is basically such (I’m simplifying for clarity):
A character animator would do keyframes (the most important drawings) on white animation paper.
An inbetweener would fill in the frames between the keyframes on some more white animation paper.
Someone in the ink and paint department would trace and color in these drawings on a clear celluloid acetate, or “cel”.
Photography would then lay the clear cels over the background images and expose the resultant image for one frame, or two if they want to slow down the action a bit.
The film negative would get developed and sent to the editor who would do his editing process with scissors, guillotine splicers, and paste.
Then they’d send that film to get duplicated into the various prints that would be sent to theaters.
As for your question on how it’s worth the effort, watch some of the films that were made at the height of the technique’s golden age: Fantasia, for example. The craft on display is undeniable.
As for cost effective? Well animated movies have traditionally needed a big return on investment in order to be profitable—this is true even today with computer animation because, even if the computer does the inbetween process for you, it’s still backbreaking labor—and 3D animators also have to contend with things like lighting and hair/cloth simulation as well as camera movement.
Why would anyone put themselves through such pains?
Animators are masochists. That’s what I’m going with.
Latest Answers