In fact, a short time ago many western production executives expressly demanded that their shows be produced using traditional ink and paint and filmed under camera. The reason for this was two fold, many producers believed that Asian studios didn't have a fall back if their digital systems went down. With traditional production, studios could always ship out work to other studios should they fall behind schedule. The other reason was that certain clients (Disney and others) had internal policies that required a film negative for every show. This conservative approach was explained to me as a safeguard against the unknown life span of digital masters. When one considers the cost of creating a film negative from a digital source, one can understand why these clients required their work to be produced with traditional methods.

The first Asian animation studio to make a substantial commitment to digital ink and paint was Wang Film in Taiwan. In 1991, Wang Film struck a deal with partner, Hanna-Barbera Productions to acquire their proprietary digital system. This was a large, platform-based system that required a good deal of support to operate and maintain. It didn't take Wang Film long to conclude that the system was like a five hundred-pound can opener; it worked all right, but was it worth the effort? Wang Film immediately set out to redesign the system and develop something that was workable for the high volume production needs of their studio. Eventually they came up with their own proprietary PC-based system (ANIMAX) which they now market.

Now at Wang Films, digital and traditional artists work together to create the final product. Courtesy and © Jean Koo.

While Wang Films struggled to develop their own system through the early 90s, they continued to rely upon traditional ink and paint for most of their production work. The majority of other studios in Asia, while intrigued, made no serious commitment to the new technology. A few made token gestures by adding a digital seat or two (mainly SoftImage), but these were used only for special projects such as commercials or main titles, not in actual series production.

By the mid-90s, attitudes began to change. A number of companies were introducing new software and it became clear that this new technology would become the standard way to produce animated films in the very near future. The question for Asian studios was not if they should jump on the bandwagon, but when they should jump, and on which bandwagon to land. Any decision involved some risk, even if it was to stand pat and wait to see if any particular software emerged as the clear winner in the marketplace. The problem was that none of the major systems could be easily handicapped as the clear favorite. Of the major systems on the market, SoftImage Toonz had been around the longest but was expensive and viewed as being less user friendly than the new PixiBox (now Media Pegs) or Cambridge Animo systems. Also in the running were other systems such as AXA and Retass Pro from Japan. To add even more confusion was the rumored entry into the marketplace of US Animation (Toon Boom Technologies) software, which many stateside producers were familiar with in the production of high-end commercials.