Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Anim8tor Cathy wrote:Yes - "lifeless" was the word I was trying to think of. Much of the Flash animation I have seen appears lifeless. I agree there are good and bad in every mode of animation - but in my experience there is a very low percentage of "life-filled" Flash work out there. I've played with ToonBoom as well - but it's lacking something for me, almost feels too heavy-handed, if that makes sense.

I meant it earlier when I said 99% of the crappy animation out in the Internet is done in Flash

I realize that I may have come across as a quick fix to the true 2d animation creation process with rotoscope techniques. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I agree that just tracing over footage does lose it's 'human touch'. But...what I am trying to do is use my footage that I shot as a reference point and try to transform it into a moving painting. I thought that Mirage/tvp would be a good program rather than using Painter.....my other tool for my digital paintings. It has been a tedious process and I am trying to see if I can do it without making it look like painted video.

What is your thought about the work being done at http://www.flatblackfilms.com/? there is something I like about their style....especially their short films. But then again...they are using a program that does a lot of the inbetween work....but interesting outcome nonetheless. Probably not to the old timers though.

A crutch will always remain a crutch; some are just a pair of old sticks, others are slick metal adjustables. There might be some justifiable use for this in advertising, where being mildly annoying is part of the attention grabber.

I wrote quite a lot about A Scanner Darkly, so I will not repeat it here. My main point is: which part of your story cannot be told without rotoscoping? What dimension does it add to your story?

There is a niche for the use of rotoscoping in filmmaking as well as there's a niche for hand-held cameras or title cards. But I think you should have more tools in your toolbox than just this.

What do you have to do to make a coloring book Art? Tracing is about the same. I'm not sure what you learn by tracing something. Animation enhances the subject. It's not about being physically accurate, it's about life and character. You show the things you need, make them "more" and reduce what you can to the essence. ie: you don't need to draw 10.000 leaves on a tree if a line and circle will suffice.

Roto is the worst of both worlds. I find FlatBlack's stuff annoying and unwatchable. But if you like it, then that's great. Enjoy yourself-trace away. Maybe you'll come up with something good...

I used to work in the visual effects industry for a while and had my share of rotoscoping. I also play a lot of video games, many of which use motion capture.

Pros:

It's FAST.

You can be relatively mindless.

The movement is great, eerily realistic, even.

Cons:

It's mind-numbing to work with.

You have to be relatively mindless.

You're relying on movement from things in the real world. There are a lot of things that a guy in a monkey suit rigged with sensors and tracking markers cannot do without intense physical training. There are limits to what can be done in the real, physical world. A lot of times, people wearing the monkey suits aren't very good actors (or aren't properly coached), which is why often, mocapped animation in video games is hideous. You get a lot of characters that appear to be running around with giant awesome-looking weapons made out of styrofoam. Rotoscoping often suffers the same hubris. You'll get people who are improperly directed and try to "act" on screen rather than doing the simple things they should.

I think that maybe, what we should do with rotoscoping is to use it simply to snap the extreme poses, and then manually in-between the animation. This way you can get all the snap and bounce that traditional animation has, while the still images will help you with posing people with proper body mechanics.

The difference between moving pictures and animation (animus = "soul" or "spirit" in Latin) I would say.
All techniques are tools to get there for reaching the result of a good film / artwork is my point of view on the easthetics.
Maybe an exception on "Flash" and "Rotoscoping" in one:
http://www.hoogerbrugge.com

Hoogerbrugge's stuff is cool to look at not because it's rotoscoped. It's WHAT he rotoscopes and what goes on in his animations that makes it fun.

That's exactly what I ment.
It's what you do with it...

I don't see why it matters what you call it as long as you like it. If it's not art, that's fine as long as you like it. Those who don't like it, why you want to take it away from those who do?

idragosani wrote:...the recent Beowulf movie -- why did it need to be motion-capured CG?

Why can't it be motion captured CG? WHat if that is what they wanted to do?

idragosani wrote:There have been epic medieval movies made entirely without CG,

So why make another one? Why not do something different? There certainly haven't been enough realistic, motion captured, epic fantasy movies. When 80% of movies are realistic motion captured CG I might say, why don't they traditionally animated it? Until then, I want more and more and more. As long as Beowulf and Final Fantasy stand alone, we need MORE.

VARIETY is good for the industry. Every movie looking like squashy, stretchy Disney work gets old. In the same vein, I haven't watched the last few Pixar films and certainly don't care to see all the clones and rip-offs by other other studios trying to be them. I want something different.

The same goes for rotoscoped 2D. There is not enough. If it is not art, that is fine. If it is not animation, that is fine too. It is something though and I find it appealing and want to see more movies like Fire & Ice, or an even bigger epic fantasy in rotoscope.

idragosani wrote:Now, it is one thing to trace over live action versus using live action as a reference. We use photographs and models as references all of the time. We study how animals walk and how leaves fall to effectively animate them. And I think that is a more effective way to animate, because you, as an artist, are squashing and stretching reality with your own skills and experiences and making the art more vibrant and alive.

I agree, but there is nothing saying that's what a particular needs or that it will benefit from that. Every style has its place. I can imagine a few movies that would be destroyed by individual artists squashing and stretching reality with their own experiences.

If there is one point I understand most, it is that traditional animator wouldn't want to work on a rotoscope film. That would probably be exceedingly boring. That's fine too. By now they should be able to shoot the live action on green screen and write software to do the rotoscope automatically with little need for touch up. I think it is more of a special effect that animation anyway, and so no real animator should be needed in the process. Still doesn't change the fact that I wish there were so many more such movies to watch.

Maybe it is better to think of it as a look rather than animation. If the process could be automated, how different would a rotoscoped movie be from Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's Sin City?

Sure, it's a matter of opinions and tastes, but for you to make yourself believable to me you must convince me that in your view of the world there is no such thing as good music and bad music, good tasting food and bad tasting food, good people and bad people, good looking cars and bad looking cars, classical art and modern art -- there is just "is". Everything in life either is or isn't and to say there are degrees in between is nonsense. There are no values, no measures, no pleasures and all of life boils down to just is or isn't.

Unfortunately, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, and I can not convince you of those things. I think I can convince you, though, that Beowulf and Final Fantasy, and even Ralph Bakshi, while none a great success, all do have their following and loyal fans, so someone must like it.

I, myself, do not at all like a cartoon like Pokemon, but I fully recognize that it has a huge and loyal fan base. I would not deprive them of what they like by saying such should not be made.

There are great movies that I don't like. Citizen Kane is a great example. I had to study it. I understand why it is great. I understand why the script is considered a masterpiece. I understand why the direction is considered top notch. I still don't like it and have absolutely no interest in it besides some technical things. The same can be said of the latest Pixar movies I mentioned above. I know they are really good films, loved by millions the world over. I still have no interest in them and no desire to see them.

I would even go so far as to say that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is not that good of a film, but it was the first of its kind and they showed us new possibilities. I don't want the medium to die. I want to see more and better films made the same way. I want the medium to keep growing.

I don't know if that even comes close to addressing what you are talking about. I think about beets. Until someone tastes them, beets simply "are", right? By themselves they are not good tasting or bad tasting. Their taste offends my taste buds, so I don't eat them, but other people love them. What is the difference between what I like and don't like, and what is good or bad?

I can't see anyone in this thread wanting to take anything away. You keep repeating that theme. There are just opinions expressed here and there, about what some people think of rotoscoping as an art form.

Yojimbo wrote:. I think about beets. Until someone tastes them, beets simply "are", right? By themselves they are not good tasting or bad tasting. Their taste offends my taste buds, so I don't eat them, but other people love them. What is the difference between what I like and don't like, and what is good or bad?

So, what DO you like?

User 767 wrote: So, what DO you like?

Final Fantasy and Beowulf?