Dog Eat Doug by Brian Anderson

Dog Eat Doug

Comments (8) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Three Steps Over Japan

    Three Steps Over Japan said, over 2 years ago

    Actually, for something 2 hours long, you can get by with 86,000 frames. Most cel-based cartoons were shot 12 frames/sec (on 2’s). If you don’t mind jerky action, you could shoot on 3’s and settle for 57,600 frames. But, that was when film was 24 frames/sec. Modern TV rates are 30 frames/sec. and if you shoot straight to TV, the numbers go up a little. But, shooting on 2’s or 3’s is still ok, as long as you don’t do much panning.

  2. Three Steps Over Japan

    Three Steps Over Japan said, over 2 years ago

    Art film! And the next Ray Harryhausen is not born. But, we might still get the next Warhol.

  3. KenTheCoffinDweller

    KenTheCoffinDweller said, over 2 years ago

    @Three Steps Over Japan

    As a software programmer who never did well behind a camera, would you explain a bit about shooting one 2’s, 3’s or other numbers?


  4. Three Steps Over Japan

    Three Steps Over Japan said, over 2 years ago


    Ok, imagine that you’re looking at a roll of super 8mm film. To make movement look natural, you’re going to play that film back 24 frames per second, which is fast enough to trick the eye into thinking this is real motion and not a bunch of photos changing really fast. Now, when it comes to animation (cel or stop-motion), you don’t need that much detail. So you draw one picture and expose 2 frames for the same picture. Then you draw a second picture, expose 2 frames, etc. In this way, you’re only drawing 12 pictures for 1 second of action, but you’re still exposing 24 frames total so that the film play back speed is still 1 second. This is “shooting on 2’s”. That is, you’re taking each picture twice. “Shooting on 3’s” means that you’re drawing 8 pictures per second, and filming 3 frames for each one. You could do the same thing for stop-motion animation – make one movement, expose two frames, make a movement, film 2 frames, etc.

    Now, things get a bit more complicated when you’re using a digital camera. I’ve yet to find a camera that lets you snap individual photos and then stitch them into a movie in-camera. I know that people do it, but I don’t know what cameras they use.

    If you watch something like Robot Chicken, they’re probably shooting on 3’s or 4’s, which results in really jerky motion, but you can finish making the film that much quicker.

  5. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, over 2 years ago

    @Three Steps Over Japan

    Thank you. Excellent comments like yours add a lot. I learn the darndest things and I Google a lot; it’s all interesting.

  6. tcar-1

    tcar-1 said, over 2 years ago

    @Three Steps Over Japan

    Which is why those old 40’s ad 50’s cartoons are so much better than 99% of what has been made since 1960!

  7. Three Steps Over Japan

    Three Steps Over Japan said, over 2 years ago


    Well, to be fair, what killed animation was the switch for studios to do 3-4 five-minute theatrical shorts a year to 3-4 thirty-minute TV cartoons a week. There just wasn’t a budget for it, or enough people willing to work for $5 a week to do the artwork.

  8. Hunter7

    Hunter7 said, over 2 years ago

    If Ray Harryhausen were still with us – you could ask him for help. I remember that one eyed, one horned creature. He was a master of the miniature models and full length feature films. Think Sinbad and Jason and all those sword battling skeletons. And our one eyed, one horned friend up there.

  9. Refresh Comments.