>>1296764>By 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's, and 6's did you mean the length of time between frames?Yes. 24 FPS doesn't mean 24 drawings. It can be 12 drawings held longer, which would be twos. Eight drawings would be 3's, 24 is ones and so on.
>at 80k a minute a 90 minute film would cost 7.2milI don't know the numbers from memory, but the point is that there's a huge gap in the costs. Anyway, I remember that a shitty Yu-Gi-Oh! movie I liked in the 00s costed 20 million to make, so maybe my numbers were actually too cheap.
>>1296765>You're comparing a film to cheaply made anime series.This is also a thing that matters. If you're animation for theaters then you do the whole thing on 1's, because some famous animator said that "reality is on ones", so it is accepted that you can't compete in theaters with 2's or worse. This means it's more expensive.
Then you have "limited animation", which is when you have budget and/or time constraints, so it doesn't look as good. Most of the stuff that's not for theaters is limited animation. Now, if you compare Bugs Bunny (an acceptedly bad western cartoon, because they were always on a rush to meet deadlines) with a bad seasonal anime, Buggs still looks better. So the point still stands that low quality western anime > low quality anime.
>>1296771>Surely they could match an animation made in 1960I'm sure they could if they wanted to and it made sense in their budget and business plan. It just doesn't.
