This is background. I’ll have more to say about the Golden Age, the Silver Age, and the Sad Decline of (Western) Animation. And I have.. Opinions.. on (some Eastern) Animation. As for other kinds, I’d need to actually SEE them. For all I know, Suriname or Chile might well make some great stuff, but I’ve not yet SEEN such.

Film is, or was, generally 24 frames-per-second (fps). Early films might have been a mere 16 fps. 16 fps is “just enough” to appear to be ‘moving pictures’ rather than strobing photos. Analog television used 30 fps, which was done by 60 fields per second – half the lines (odd or even) would be sent, then the other half (even or odd) and the result interlaced to try to make things appear smoother without eating even more precious bandwidth (If you think digital compression is amazing, you’re right – but what was done with analog is ASTONISHING. ‘Vestigial’ SideBand (VSB) is simple, and yet GENIUS as it solved the Bandwidth problem AND the Complexity problem – without computation at the receiver. A President ‘won’ the Nobel for FAR less!)

Animation depends on pictures being displayed (whether by film, by TV, or some Other Means) in rapid succession. The VERY BEST animation is “shot on ones.” That is, EVERY frame is unique. Every 1/24 or 1/30 of a second is a NEW image. This is a LOT of pictures. Even with shortcuts (re-using background, using multi-plane cameras, etc.) it takes a LOT of effort – and effort is work, and work is expense AND time.

So, to make things faster and cheaper, much is “shot on twos” – every image is sent twice. Now the demand for new images is cut in half, but the price is that the image only changes every 1/12 or 1/15 second. This is UNDER the 16 fps of early film. The result is that if you look hard as the animation, it isn’t quite right. it’s close. With good writing and distracting score and dialog, it can suffice in many and even maybe most cases.

An example, let’s say Beauty and the Beast was mostly “shot on twos”… the scene with the swirling leaves where ANYTHING wrong would scream it was wrong? Shot on ones, for sure.

Then there’s “Limited Animation” – which brings re-use into extreme (gee, how many Scooby-Doo scenes look EXACTLY like other Scooby-Doo scenes?). And only what ABSOLUTELY needs to change is animated. The result is… passable, at best. This requires distracting dialog, distracting score, and a Suspension of Disbelief beyond the usual even for cartoons. That “limited animation” was largely aimed at youngsters is no coincidence. Limited Animation has been derided as “radio with pictures.”

And below THAT, is “shot on threes” which is, you guessed it, every image sent and displayed THREE times before a new image is displayed, again, THREE TIMES! So 8 fps for film or 10 fps for (analog) TV. It strobes BADLY. It looks cheap, because it IS cheap. This is, for many, not merely poor quality, but quite literally headache-inducing. And as crap as Hanna-Barbera and Filmation might have been, I do not recall them ever stooping THAT low.