EditorialThis year animation: an interdisciplinary journal celebrates its tenth anniversary. Founded at a time when academic publications on animation filled only half a shelf in libraries, in the ten years since, hundreds of scholars have contributed to the journal's 30 issues that, lined up, add a modest ¼ metre to library stacks. These ten volumes contain a terrific density of aesthetics, history and theory of animation in film and media studies, as well as interdisciplinary fields, in articles written by our discipline's best and brightest scholars. In this year's remaining two editorials, we will present the journal's main developments and impacts, as well as some self-reflection on the journal's genesis and the scholars who have shaped it, making significant inroads into expanding animation studies in English language areas and in their own national contexts; this issue is a good example of the latter.Similar to 20th-century painting's shift from mimesis to abstraction, animation filmmakers have long taken advantage of the possibilities for undermining and bending physical laws, including space -Euclidean, hyperbolic, Cartesian -and perspective. This subject has been approached by many scholars over the years, and it is complicated by the increase in digital technologies and the animation-live action debate. Through a set of proposals including what he describes as the 'false problem of the "awkwardness-of-fit between the live-action camera and the animated "camera'", in 'Whole-screen metamorphosis and the imagined camera (notes on perspectival movement in animation)', Ryan Pierson, who received his PhD from the University of Pittsburgh in 2012, makes a significant contribution to understanding what is notionally known as camera movement. He undertakes meticulous analyses of moving image works -from Émile Cohl through Caroline Leaf to contemporary advertisements -and the technologies, camera and materials they work with to create what he terms 'whole screen metamorphosis'. The viewer/spectator is never far away in Pierson's argument that is developed in a convincing framework of a range of philosophers and film studies theorists, from Gilles Deleuze to Stanley Cavell, and he ends his article by introducing a new conundrum to solve.Sharing an interest in one that Pierson addresses, namely the indistinct boundaries between photochemical and digital film, in 'Hybrid image, hybrid montage: Film analytical parameters for live action/animation hybrids', Franziska Bruckner sets up a typology of live action/hybrid animation films for which she develops a set of analytical parameters. Like Pierson, she works with a wide historical range of works, but what is especially helpful is that she embeds her theoretical concepts in German film scholarship that, unless translated, remains virtually unknown in English language contexts, including authors Barbara Flückiger, Dominik Schrey, Erwin Feyersinger and Nicola Glaubitz. Bruckner's clearly developed and applied methodologies investigate techniques, image planes, dispari...