"Titan A.E." character animation
Leigh Hanlon
Goldman make several references to voice performers' body language being
valuable in animating their characters.
Was any rotoscoping or motion capture done for the film? The reason why I
ask is that the human characters walk and move especially well. Even subtle
pelvis motion while shifting weight during a few steps are in evidence.
Leigh Hanlon
Chicago, USA
Hobbes gy
>Goldman make several references to voice performers' body language being
>valuable in animating their characters.<<<
Sure its valuable.. otherwise what would they trace :>}
ANIM8Rfsk
Uh, yeah, like Anastasia, Titan was more traced than animated. No MoCrap
though.
GrapeApe
>though.
What is mocrap?
Sometimes I actually enjoy the authenticity rotoscoping can provide- and it has
been handled with much less aplomb than when Bluth does it.
I wonder if the cost savings from rotoscoping (faster animation of some complex
scenes) make up the cost of having to shoot the movie twice, and hire a mime
AND a voice actor.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
Serack
>has
>been handled with much less aplomb than when Bluth does it.
>
>I wonder if the cost savings from rotoscoping (faster animation of some
>complex
>scenes) make up the cost of having to shoot the movie twice, and hire a mime
>AND a voice actor.
>
What's the point of doing animation if you're going to rotoscope? Unless it's
done creatively like that Earthlink commercial with close-up personal
testimonies (that was rotoscoped, wasn't it?).
-Serack
Skeleton Man
> What's the point of doing animation if you're going to rotoscope? Unless
it's
> done creatively like that Earthlink commercial with close-up personal
> testimonies (that was rotoscoped, wasn't it?).
>
Because you get the motion of the ballroom dance in Sleeping Beauty...
Disney used to roto human motion.... this does not mean TRACE....(ala
American pop there IS a difference)
I know a lot of purist think Mocap and roto are BAD.. but they ALL have
their place...
Anastasia had better motion and dance choreography than any Disney film ever
will and referencing human actors makes that possible. Titan A.E. needed
MORE in my opinion...
Should they rotoscopr Donald Duck?! NO! It depends on the movie and the
effect the director is going for. I guarantee you a movie like Final Fantasy
BETTER be Mocap! It's absolute necessity. Same goes for serious martial
arts... if the effect is accuracy of form, then you will Roto in 2D or Mocap
in 3D. There are some things animators will simply NEVER be able to
capture... look at one of the Wu Shu sword Exhibitions in Soul Calibur on
the Dreamcast and tell me who can animate that.
Mocap is a good thing!
If Toy Story was Mocapped, that would be BAD!
If you have realistic human CG characters, you might want to think about
Mocap and facial capture!
If your 2D drawn characters are liek Mickey and Donald, don't use Roto....
If they look like the realistic designs of Anastasai or even more so Jin-Roh
or Memories - then think about Rotoscoping.. or very heavy referencing for
pose matching...
Using a live action reference doesn't always mean "tracing" either.. Disney
still shoots them today.. somethings in human motion simply cannot be
visualized. especially twisting motions...
I say if you're doing more serious or realistic animated films(read:
properly proportioned human characters) .. rotoscoping is a must!
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
I should've used roto in here....
ErnieChan9
>Because you get the motion of the ballroom dance in Sleeping Beauty...
>Disney used to roto human motion.... this does not mean TRACE....(ala
>American pop there IS a difference)
Ther is a difference between using rotoscoping as a guide or as a means of
getting a film done faster. True Disney has used it in the past and live
action reference is still shot today, but it is merely used as a reference for
the animators. Most use it for character placement, and maybe acting
suggestions only.
Bluth, at least recently, seems to use it as a crutch. I've heard rumors that
during Anastasia, the live action plots were actually given to the clean up
crew(many of which had virtually no animation experience) along with model
sheets and completely skipped the animator.
ernie
Mozeman
news:938105$hqt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In the directors' commentary on the "Titan A.E." DVD, Don Bluth and Gary
> Goldman make several references to voice performers' body language being
> valuable in animating their characters.
>
Whether or not rotoscoping was used, it is not what Bluth is referring to in
this case.
Often with the voice-performers (sometimes big name stars), their recording
session is recorded on video. This is not for the purposes of rotoscoping,
but so that the animators can study the body language of the actors for
characteristic gestures or movement. Since the actor is usually standing
stationary behind a microphone, the video would be useless for rotoscoping.
Moze
G&L
What rotoscoping there seemed to be I thought was better than Anastasia. IMO
Anatasia's tracings were way to literal as if they said let's just trace
every other frame and get this thing out, without plussing (or perhaps even
totally missing) the extremes that occur naturally in human action.
Rotoscope's a good tool when used a reference with an action analytical mind
behind the pencil. In Anastasia it was used as a crutch.
Gerard
GrapeApe
Nah, if you want to see BAD rotoscoping, watch a Bakshi flick.
Bluth is from the Disney school, and uses rotoscoping in the same way, mostly
for timing cues. The extremes of the action itself are often exagerated for
emphasis.
But perhaps there are cost savings- where time is money.
Randy Simcox
>
> >Sometimes I actually enjoy the authenticity rotoscoping can provide- and it
> >has
> >been handled with much less aplomb than when Bluth does it.
> >
> >I wonder if the cost savings from rotoscoping (faster animation of some
> >complex
> >scenes) make up the cost of having to shoot the movie twice, and hire a mime
> >AND a voice actor.
> >
>
> What's the point of doing animation if you're going to rotoscope?
Many feel the same about computer animation added to the hand drawn stuff... If
you can't do it free hand then scrap it.
Randy
ErnieChan9
>>Bluth, at least recently, seems to use it as a crutch.
>
>Nah, if you want to see BAD rotoscoping, watch a Bakshi flick.
Agreed!
>
>Bluth is from the Disney school, and uses rotoscoping in the same way, mostly
>for timing cues. The extremes of the action itself are often exagerated
>for
>emphasis.
>
>But perhaps there are cost savings- where time is money.
>
Well he may be from the Disney School but he most certainly does not use it the
same way, at least in his latest efforts. Anastasia and Titan relied so heavily
on roto they stunk. Absolutely no sublety, characters moving all the time.
Well , even if they didn't move it didn't keep their facial features from
moving. Horrible stuff.
ernie
ANIM8Rfsk
>Disney used to roto human motion >>
Sleeping Beauty uses reference, but it's NOT rotoed; the characters don't THAT
closely resemble humans, while the characters in Anastasia are direct tracings
in many cases.
<< I've heard rumors that during Anastasia, the live action plots were actually
given to the clean up crew(many of which had virtually no animation experience)
along with model sheets and completely skipped the animator.>>
No rumour, fact. I was offered the 'animator' test and refused to take it. It
consisted of a paper print from video tape, and a model sheet, and you were to
trace the live person - period. No keys, no tweens, just trace the live. I
didn't consider this animation, and had NO interest in spending years just
tracing live stuff.
I'm told Bluth uses it both as a control issue and a cost savings issue - it's
cheaper to hire guys to just trace than to animate. And it saves a LOT of
argueing - if you make something up, all the suits will try to tell you to
change it, but if you can show them the a live action photo of the EXACT SAME
MOTION then they'll feel it's right and back off.
Skeleton Man
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> No rumour, fact. I was offered the 'animator' test and refused to take
it. It
> consisted of a paper print from video tape, and a model sheet, and you
were to
> trace the live person - period. No keys, no tweens, just trace the live.
I
> didn't consider this animation, and had NO interest in spending years just
> tracing live stuff.
Well I doubt the live action reference actors had THOSE heads on them, so
there had to be SOME degree of animation going on....
Yes I could see traces in some dance choreography, especially in the far
shots, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I can imagine you as an animator
not wanting to DO it, but what about the effect on the movie? There are some
things NO ONE can animate (I have some martial arts Mocap to prove it) If
you want that stuff in your movie, 2D or 3D what do you do?
Don't get me wrong, I think straight tracing is BAD. Still, I saw no motion
in Titan A.E. that I could say was traced, cuz if that was the case, these
guys apparently couldn't even trace right! The walks and runs in Titan A.E.
were pretty much all arse!
I guess I am saying there are degrees of roto... starting with psoe
matching all the way to straight tracing... Anastasia is somewhere in
between, because Anastasia is NOT American Pop! There IS a difference.
What do you say about the Tarna sequence in Heavy Metal?
I will not say Roto is bad. Only straight tracing. (meaning losing the
character design for the live action reference)
Unless you think there are some guys who can animate Anastasia's complex
dance work with NO reference, then we're not in disagreement on use of
reference, just the degree of use...
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
There's a new project in the works....
ErnieChan9
>Yes I could see traces in some dance choreography, especially in the far
>shots, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I can imagine you as an animator
>not wanting to DO it, but what about the effect on the movie? There are
>some
>things NO ONE can animate (I have some martial arts Mocap to prove it) If
>you want that stuff in your movie, 2D or 3D what do you do?
You get Glen Keane or Andreas Deja or James Baxter or Nik Ranieri or Tony
Fucile or many other great animators. James animated the big moving
camera/Ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast with nothing more than computer
plots and computer dummy "stand ins" for placement. I'm sure he watched
reference of people dancing, but he didn't have to use live action plots to
trace over.
To say there are things that no one can animate without roto is just untrue.
In this field which is filled with more and more mediocrity, there is still a
bundle of talent.
ernie
Jack Bohn
>If your 2D drawn characters are liek Mickey and Donald, don't use Roto....
If you're rotoscoping Cab Calloway, don't draw him as The Old Man of
the Mountain or a long legged ghost?
--
-Jack
SPAMblock *sigh*
can be reached through jackbohn at bright dof net
Skeleton Man
> You get Glen Keane or Andreas Deja or James Baxter or Nik Ranieri or Tony
> Fucile or many other great animators. James animated the big moving
> camera/Ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast with nothing more than
computer
> plots and computer dummy "stand ins" for placement. I'm sure he watched
> reference of people dancing, but he didn't have to use live action plots
to
> trace over.
>
When I see someone animate one of Jet Li's Wu Shu sequences without
reference or roto, AND get all the body twists and timing correct, I'll
believe it!
I'd be impressed to see one of the guys you mention animate one of the Soul
Calibur exhibitions by hand. Ballroom dancing, even with a moving camera is
NOT Kung Fu - there are some very different requirements here....
Let me say one more time... I agree with you that "tracing" is BAD.
There is huge canyon between NO reference at all, and "traced". I'm betting
these guys would fall somewhere in it. I can say with great certainty that
NOT ONE of them could animate it with NO reference. They would have to at
least SEE it. I would go as far as to assume they would need a reference
video on hand at all times during animation.
> To say there are things that no one can animate without roto is just
untrue.
> In this field which is filled with more and more mediocrity, there is
still a
> bundle of talent.
> ernie
Not saying you're wrong, but having seen animated martial arts SUCk every
single time I have seen it put to the screen, whether 2D or in 3DCG, I have
a hard time believing there are some guys sitting around who can just whip
it out, especially without heavy reference, or at least a live action video
and POSE MATCHING.... If roto means "trace" to you and nothing else, then I
should use a different term. I'll say using a reference video for Pose
Matching...
You look at the Mocap of one of these things ans things totally change in a
single frame. It's unbelievable! I am an animator and have been for over ten
years. I'm not the best liek these guys you mention, but I am not the worst
either. The reason I bring it up is to say that I have some idea what's
realistically achievable in animation. Martial arts without reference, is
not achievable... Martial Arts in 3D, equal to Soul Calibur, is not
realistically achievable by anyone I have ever seen, worked with or read
about.
The only I could believe it's possible is if the animator spent years
learning to animate that kind of stuff, just like the Wu Shu artist spends
years learning to do it.
--
Skeleton Man
Skeleton Man
"Jack Bohn" <sv...@blacklion.net> wrote in message
news:ld4h5toih7sdv2t2n...@4ax.com...
> Skeleton Man wrote:
>
> >If your 2D drawn characters are liek Mickey and Donald, don't use
Roto....
>
> If you're rotoscoping Cab Calloway, don't draw him as The Old Man of
> the Mountain or a long legged ghost?
>
Well certainly don't "Trace" him as people seem to think that's ALL roto
is... He won't look much like a long legged Ghost after tracing the live
action plate.
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
K dub K
> There are some
>things NO ONE can animate (I have some martial arts Mocap to prove it) If
>you want that stuff in your movie, 2D or 3D what do you do?
>
You've got to be kidding! There are some things no one can animate? Hogwash.
On the other hand, there are plenty of things that a human body cannot do, and
therefore that mocap is useless for. But are there animal and human movements
that cannot be animated without mocap or exact reference? Nope. A great
animator who fully understands the creature he or she is animating will give
you results that will put to shame anything that relies on mocpa. You and I
may not be able to do it, but I've seen people who can.
Skeleton Man
"K dub K" <kd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> You've got to be kidding! There are some things no one can animate?
Hogwash.
> On the other hand, there are plenty of things that a human body cannot do,
and
> therefore that mocap is useless for. But are there animal and human
movements
> that cannot be animated without mocap or exact reference? Nope. A great
> animator who fully understands the creature he or she is animating will
give
> you results that will put to shame anything that relies on mocpa. You and
I
> may not be able to do it, but I've seen people who can.
>
Rather than see the people who can do this, I would be happy to see the
results of their ability. What movie are these scenes in? What game? Where
can I find it?
Fully understanding the creature would, in itself, require some pretty heavy
reference...
I am a huge fan of animation, which has been around for nearly 80 years.
(animation not me) I have yet to see comlpex human motion (martial arts
etc.)animated convincingly in 2D without heavy live action reference/roto,
or animated in 3D without Mocap. In fact, I have never seen martial arts
animated convincingly period!
Like I said, when I see the guy that can animate a Soul Calibur exhibition
by hand without reference, I am a believer!
Mozeman
Reference is about capturing the essence of a pose or movement of using the
reference to fill in difficult poses or movement. Rotoscoping is simple
tracing. Reference is artistry; roto is technical (and sometimes necessary,
most effectively used in effects).
Also, I agree with almost all of what K dub K said.
Moze
"Skeleton Man" <skel...@planetbone.com> wrote in message
news:t5ir3t1...@corp.supernews.com...
Blah, Blah
> << >Because you get the motion of the ballroom dance in Sleeping Beauty...
> >Disney used to roto human motion >>
>
> Sleeping Beauty uses reference, but it's NOT rotoed; the characters don't
THAT
> closely resemble humans, while the characters in Anastasia are direct
tracings
> in many cases.
What proof do you have that they were direct tracings? None. If you do,
please tells exactly
which scenes are traced and what is the proof. If they are direct tracings
I would like to meet these actors
that have cartoon heads and inhuman body proportions.
<< I've heard rumors that during Anastasia, the live action plots were
actually
> given to the clean up crew(many of which had virtually no animation
experience)
> along with model sheets and completely skipped the animator.>>
Another assumption based on rumor and some peoples bias towards Bluth. If
anyone has proof
that this occurred let's hear it. I can hear some people already, "well the
proof is the movie just look at it."
That excuse is played out. It would be impossible to skip the animators.
Things like the timing of the animation,
the exaggerations of the body and clothing, and facial expressions have to
be done by the animators.
You could not get all that from some photo reference and model sheet.
FRED__No rumour, fact. I was offered the 'animator' test and refused to
take it. It
> consisted of a paper print from video tape, and a model sheet, and you
were to
> trace the live person - period. No keys, no tweens, just trace the live.
I
> didn't consider this animation, and had NO interest in spending years just
> tracing live stuff.
I know of that test. It was not to see how well a person could trace. If
you traced you failed.
It was to see how well you can push that pose and make an animated drawing
from a static reference.
Disney does that same thing, they just keep it under wraps. If you want a
modern example of them doing this
open your Aladdin the making of an animated film, turn to page 73. There
they show a comparison of the live action
reference for Aladdin next to the pushed drawings. One of the few times
that kind of stuff has gotten out.
> I'm told Bluth uses it both as a control issue and a cost savings issue -
it's
> cheaper to hire guys to just trace than to animate. And it saves a LOT of
> argueing - if you make something up, all the suits will try to tell you to
> change it, but if you can show them the a live action photo of the EXACT
SAME
> MOTION then they'll feel it's right and back off.
As a cost saving issue shooting live action is a bust. Not only would you
pay your animation crew, but a whole team of people would have to be added
to shoot live action. If showing live action shots makes the suits back
off, then what about all the live action films that get changed around and
redone because of some guy in an suit disliking it?
Fred, I am so glad it's 2001 and you're finally done dishing out that lame
Gregorian Calendar Crap!
>
Molly
>
ANIM8Rfsk
Gregorian Calendar Crap! >>
Gee, thanks for the kind words. :=P
ANIM8Rfsk
take it. It
> consisted of a paper print from video tape, and a model sheet, and you
were to
> trace the live person - period. No keys, no tweens, just trace the live.
I
> didn't consider this animation, and had NO interest in spending years just
> tracing live stuff.
I know of that test. It was not to see how well a person could trace. If
you traced you failed. >>
That's not what I was handed. I was told to trace the pose, period, making
sure it didn't wander off Anya's model, and that the job was just rotoing the
live, no keys, no tweens.
Skeleton Man
"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
news:Grf66.26700$eo5.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> I think there is a VERY big difference between roto and reference.
> Reference is about capturing the essence of a pose or movement of using
the
> reference to fill in difficult poses or movement. Rotoscoping is simple
> tracing. Reference is artistry; roto is technical (and sometimes
necessary,
> most effectively used in effects).
I disagree.....
example: You're doing an animated film about Muhammad Ali. Except in your
film, Ali is a BLACK ANT.
The director comes with some clips of his fight with George foreman and says
"look at hose moves, we MUST have that in the film. See that step? I want
that exactly!"
So you take the plate of one of Ali's moves and you roto it to get perfetc
timing, hip swing, steps etc. You are NOT tracing because YOUR Ali is a
BLACK ANT and NOT a human.
Rotoscoping is NOT tracing, though it can decsend into that.
>
> Also, I agree with almost all of what K dub K said.
>
> Moze
>
I agree with ost of what K dub said too... I think there may be a guy or two
out there... still have yet to ever see it though.
I don't think there are enough to justify attempting to do an animated
martial arts film, without Roto (or Mocap if a 3D film)
I also know if there was an animated martial arts film, I would rather see
Chinese or African Martial arts (easily the hardest to recreate) DONE RIGHT
on the screen. I would rather see animated sequences that blow away the
Matrix fighting. That to may says it will be heavily heavily referenced
(pose matching) or Rotoscoped, and not traced because as was said, you can
still have stylized or non human characters doing the moves.
ANIM8Rfsk
Gregorian Calendar Crap! >>
I take it you use the terms 'crap' and 'truth' interchangeably from what you
claim about Bluth and Roto. :-)
ANIM8Rfsk
Actually, rotoscoping is the act of doing something using a rotoscope, which is
a physical device that projects film down onto the the compound of an animation
stand, reversing the usual path of the lite. I dare say I'm probably the only
one here with a actual 'rotoscope' (a patented, specific device) sitting in
it's lovely little original box next to him. :-)
That being said, animators generally use the term 'roto' to mean 'direct
tracing'.
DishRoom1
>reference for Aladdin next to the pushed drawings. One of the few times times
>that kind of stuff has gotten out.
>
I don't know; I agree from what I've read about Disney animations long before
coming on this newsgroup, that Disney used the live action for reference than
the retroscope technique. The Aladdin photos in question may still be used in
refrence than retro.
I remember reading a book on the history of animated Disney films about when
Walt Disney himself was ready to produce his first full-lengh feature, "Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs". At the time "Snow White" was being produced at a
time when animators were not yet skilled in bringing a character that resembled
a real-life human. According to the story in the book, some of Walt's animators
suggested of retroscoping live action to animated Snow White and other
realistic characters, but he balked at the idea. Instead he settled on using
live action as just a guide for caputuring the essence of the poses or
movements for the real-life characters for "Snow White". In the book Walt was
quoted as saying that the live action should be used as a guide for animation,
not as "a crutch" (as refering to retro).
Besides, the Disney cartoons look too lively and animated to be retroscoped,
even with the realistic or semi-realistic characters. They're full of life
compared to the retro humans in Bluth's Fox films.
Besides, I find it rather fishy about this idea that Disney used retro and is
covering it up. Why? Suppose that if Disney uses retro. Why the heck would they
go through the trouble being hush-hush about it when Bluth, Bakshi (Lord of the
Rings)and Max Flesher (the Superman movie Shorts) had no hang-ups of admiting
that they used or experiment with retro? Why the secretcy?
J. Shughart
Stephen W. Worth
(K dub K) wrote:
> You've got to be kidding! There are some things no one can animate?
> Hogwash.
There are things that are more work to animate than it's worth.
Hyper-realistic animated humans no matter how well animated
usually pale in comparison with a real live action actor.
See ya
Steve
--
Visit Spumco's Wonderful World of Cartoons:
http://www.spumco.com alt.animation.spumco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Learn about animation art (without going BROKE!)
Vintage Ink & Paint http://www.vintageip.com
Stephen W. Worth
<skel...@planetbone.com> wrote:
> Rotoscoping is NOT tracing, though it can decsend into that.
Rotoscoping is *by definition* tracing. There is nothing
wrong with tracing. At design school, a professor had a
saying pinned to his board. It said... "Never draw what
you can trace. Never trace what you can copy. Never copy
what you can cut out and slap on."
Roto is a useful tool for doing things that would be too
much work in animation. It isn't a replacement for animation
though.
ANIM8Rfsk
It is fishy. It's so fishy, I'd be willing to bet that Molly is a Picses,
working for scale.
Skeleton Man
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Besides, I find it rather fishy about this idea that Disney used retro and
is
> covering it up. Why? Suppose that if Disney uses retro. Why the heck would
they
> go through the trouble being hush-hush about it when Bluth, Bakshi (Lord
of the
> Rings)and Max Flesher (the Superman movie Shorts) had no hang-ups of
admiting
> that they used or experiment with retro? Why the secretcy?
>
Well I never thought they currently use it and hide the fact... But I had
read that they did defintiely used it on earlier films like Sleeping Beauty
and Snow White, but then dropped Roto in favor of using the live action only
as a guide...
They do not currently use it at all....
Skeleton Man
"Stephen W. Worth" <big...@spumco.com> wrote in message
news:bigshot-0801...@10.1.1.8...
> In article <t5jsnpm...@corp.supernews.com>, "Skeleton Man"
> <skel...@planetbone.com> wrote:
>
> > Rotoscoping is NOT tracing, though it can decsend into that.
>
> Rotoscoping is *by definition* tracing.
See ANIM*Rfsk's defintintion of Rotoscoping.....
With that in mind, you could use it to achieve my previous Black Ant example
(roto the motions of Muhammad Ali) and NOT be tracing... (unless you mean
just tracing the motions, of course... still your ANT will not LOOK like
Ali, just move like him)
G&L
> In article <t5jsnpm...@corp.supernews.com>, "Skeleton Man"
> <skel...@planetbone.com> wrote:
>
> > Rotoscoping is NOT tracing, though it can decsend into that.
>
> Rotoscoping is *by definition* tracing. There is nothing
> wrong with tracing. At design school, a professor had a
> saying pinned to his board. It said... "Never draw what
> you can trace. Never trace what you can copy. Never copy
> what you can cut out and slap on."
>
> Roto is a useful tool for doing things that would be too
> much work in animation. It isn't a replacement for animation
> though.
>
> See ya
> Steve
>
That said; like freehand drawing the understanding or lack of
understanding of the subject by the tracer will show in the tracing or
copy. i.e: Is the tracer just tracing an outine or tracing the form? IMO
many scenes in movies like Anastasia seemed to be outlining then
awkwardly placing a face with no transerferal of whatever design theory
may exist on the model.
Gerard
G&L
I have an impression it was up to the animator how far they were willing to use it
at Disney. I remember reading about Art Babbit and Roto in Snow White. He said to
the effect he looked at the live action, got an impression, sat down and animated.
Their stuff to this day seems to be an appropriate blend of impression,
exaggerating extremes and tracing.
Gerard
Gerard
Stephen W. Worth
> I remember reading about Art Babbit and Roto in Snow White. He said to
> the effect he looked at the live action, got an impression, sat down and
> animated.
That isn't exactly correct...
They would use roto reference film to establish ruff timing,
then they would use photoroto printouts to trace off the key
poses. The animation would be ruffed over the roto tracings,
and from that point on, the scene would be handled as usual.
ErnieChan9
>"Mozeman" <tmo...@moserbrothers.com> wrote in message
>news:Grf66.26700$eo5.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> I think there is a VERY big difference between roto and reference.
>> Reference is about capturing the essence of a pose or movement of using
>the
>> reference to fill in difficult poses or movement. Rotoscoping is simple
>> tracing. Reference is artistry; roto is technical (and sometimes
>necessary,
>> most effectively used in effects).
>
>I disagree.....
>
>example: You're doing an animated film about Muhammad Ali. Except in your
>film, Ali is a BLACK ANT.
>
>The director comes with some clips of his fight with George foreman and
>says
>"look at hose moves, we MUST have that in the film. See that step? I want
>that exactly!"
>
>So you take the plate of one of Ali's moves and you roto it to get perfetc
>timing, hip swing, steps etc. You are NOT tracing because YOUR Ali is a
>BLACK ANT and NOT a human.
This is simply untrue. I know animators who can study tapes of these fighters
and with proper direction, be completely succesful without the use of
rotoscoping.
>I agree with ost of what K dub said too... I think there may be a guy or
>two
>out there... still have yet to ever see it though.
>
>I don't think there are enough to justify attempting to do an animated
>martial arts film, without Roto (or Mocap if a 3D film)
You seem stuck on the martial arts thing. I'm sure if any of the animators I
mentioned (and I'm sure many more I didn't) happen to get an assignment that
required animating a martial arts master, they would do a heck of a job. Maybe
you know the stuff so well that you could never be satisfied, but to say it
couldn't be done successfully w/o the use of roto is nonsense.
ernie
ErnieChan9
>I know of that test. It was not to see how well a person could trace.
>If
>you traced you failed.
>It was to see how well you can push that pose and make an animated drawing
>from a static reference.
>Disney does that same thing, they just keep it under wraps.
This just isn't true. Disney has never said it doesn't shoot live action as
reference, and you would never hear a Disney animator deny it either. The way
it is used by Bluth (at least from the looks of it) is vastly different from
the way disney does.
If you want
>a
>modern example of them doing this
>open your Aladdin the making of an animated film, turn to page 73. There
>they show a comparison of the live action
>reference for Aladdin next to the pushed drawings. One of the few times
>that kind of stuff has gotten out.
Well you're kind of disproving your own satement. If Disney kept it under
wraps, why would they put it in a book?
ernie
Blah, Blah
worked at Fox and was one of the last 60 people left. I have no love for
Fox as a company, but believe in the artists who made the films. No doubt
Fox as a company is not that great, but that doesn't not translate into the
right to bash their artists or question their abilities. I wish I was on
somebody's payroll, but I still dwell in the valley of the sun. I am not
saying Bluth is the greatest, some of his films (Nimh) inspired people to go
into animation and others (Pebble) inspired people to jump out windows.
On the subject of rotoing. Nothing was rotoed, ever. Live action was
used a reference material. There is a big difference between rotoing and
referencing. Just because stuff was shoot does not mean it was used. You
use it only when you cannot get a movement to look right. You view the live
footage to see what path action or weight distribution you might be missing
in your drawing. Find it, rough it out and figure out how to use in your
drawings.
I know of that test. It was not to see how well a person could trace.
>If
>you traced you failed.
>It was to see how well you can push that pose and make an animated drawing
>from a static reference.
>Disney does that same thing, they just keep it under wraps.
This just isn't true. Disney has never said it doesn't shoot live action as
reference, and you would never hear a Disney animator deny it either. The
way
it is used by Bluth (at least from the looks of it) is vastly different from
the way Disney does.
If you want
>a
>modern example of them doing this
>open your Aladdin the making of an animated film, turn to page 73. There
>they show a comparison of the live action
>reference for Aladdin next to the pushed drawings. One of the few times
>that kind of stuff has gotten out.
Well you're kind of disproving your own satement. If Disney kept it under
wraps, why would they put it in a book?
My response is that there is no conspiracy, just that some things you do not
make wide spread knowledge. With Disney it is all about the "magic" that
goes into films. It sounds better if everything is animated comes from the
imagination of it's incredible animators, which they are. If people knew
that not everything comes from their heads, but some times from reference,
some of the magic is lost. I never said that Disney hides this fact in a
vault, just that they do not go around talking about it. One time on an old
mickey mouse club show where they introduced the live action reference for
some of their films.... showing footage of it though.
The Anya live action test was simply given out with the instructions I
mentioned..... they probably asked that the foot placement match the live
action, but that's cause the scene moved with the camera a little if I
recall. she walks up the steps and turns to face the way she came... that
one right?...... many people failed that test. Thinking it was a roto
test. You had to just make sure the feet where close to the same so that
character was in the right angle and placement for camera moves. The rest
of the body language and animation was left to the animators.
Stephen W. Worth
Jiu-Jitsu moves animated entirely without the use of
rotoscope, see...
http://www.spumco.com/rangersmith/fight-indexmov.html
ErnieChan9
>Well, I will lay it out right now. I know what I am talking about because
>I
>worked at Fox and was one of the last 60 people left. I have no love
>for
>Fox as a company, but believe in the artists who made the films. No doubt
>Fox as a company is not that great, but that doesn't not translate into
>the
>right to bash their artists or question their abilities. I wish I was
>on
>somebody's payroll, but I still dwell in the valley of the sun. I am not
>saying Bluth is the greatest, some of his films (Nimh) inspired people to
>go
>into animation and others (Pebble) inspired people to jump out windows.
Well, I really don't think I was bashing the individual artists per se.
I don't know you and you may be extremely talented, and I'm sure many of the
artists on Anastasia were talented as well, but the character work (with the
exception of Bartok) was consistently weak. Blame it on clean up, blame it on
the animators or blame it on the production managers cracking the whip, but it
was weak.
The artists there could be the greatest people in the world, but anyone with a
few years of feature animation experience under their belt can't honestly look
at that movie and say the final result( of the animation) was good.
And lets be honest, pretty much every animated film(traditional that is) has
scenes that are dogs, Disney included. I'm just saying they are not as jarring
as Anastasia and to a lesser degree Titan AE. This has nothing to do with Fox
or Bluth, both who produce(or have produced) product I love.
>>It was to see how well you can push that pose and make an animated drawing
>>from a static reference.
>>Disney does that same thing, they just keep it under wraps.
Your original quote above, and what you wrote below contridact each other. In
my book "keeping it under wraps" and "hiding it" are the same thing.
> I never said that Disney hides this fact in a
>vault, just that they do not go around talking about it. One time on an
>old
>mickey mouse club show where they introduced the live action reference for
>some of their films.... showing footage of it though.
Well in addition to this, they talk about technology on about every "making of"
they do. I think Disney is just the opposite insomuch as they love to talk
about all of their technical acheivements associated with their animated
movies. Whether its CAPS(which used to be top secret), live action reference,
computer animation, deep canvas, etc. you can't turn on a Dsiney "making of
special, or pick up a "making of book" where they DON'T discuss their process
and methods. To many, this would be considered blowing the magic. Heck,
Sherri Stoner got her first touch of celebrity for being the live action
reference for Ariel in Mermaid.
ernie
GrapeApe
Was it a secret before the release of The Rescuers Down Under? Or the Great
Mouse Detective or Oliver and Company? That is when I remember reading about
it. I seemed pretty obvious in the promotion of GMD and RDU. Oliver and Company
seemed to be more about -hey we are using modern pop soundtracks in its
promotin.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
K dub K
>Rather than see the people who can do this, I would be happy to see the
>results of their ability. What movie are these scenes in? What game? Where
>can I find it?
About a year from now you'll see DreamWorks' "Spirit." Some of those scenes
will have used heavy reference. Most of the most amazing scenes of horses and
cougars, however, will NOT have used reference in the way you referred to. Let
me remind you that your statement was that there are things that could NOT be
animated without mocap or exact reference. You were clearly NOT talking about
an animator using random reference footage to understand an animal or a type of
movement before they start -- you were claiming that reference footage or mocap
that exactly matched the intended animation was the ONLY way to do some
animation. That is false. Obviously no one can animation a creature they've
never observed, nor animate a dance or a martial arts technique that they're
unfamiliar with. But there are in fact talented animators who, once they
understand the fundamentals of these actions, can animate invented scenes for
which there is no reference whatsoever. I see it done everyday.
K dub K
>example: You're doing an animated film about Muhammad Ali. Except in your
>film, Ali is a BLACK ANT.
>
>The director comes with some clips of his fight with George foreman and says
>"look at hose moves, we MUST have that in the film. See that step? I want
>that exactly!"
>
>So you take the plate of one of Ali's moves and you roto it to get perfetc
>timing, hip swing, steps etc. You are NOT tracing because YOUR Ali is a
>BLACK ANT and NOT a human.
That's one way to do it, and it would look pretty good. There are also
animators who have the skill to watch the video of what Ali was doing,
understand it, and, without needing to see the reference once they start,
animate the black ant doing the same kind of move, simply (if only it were
really simple!) because they understand the movement in a fundamental way.
That animator (who isn't using the photostats) can go on to make the ant move
like an ant, (e.g., with hips and shoulders in completely different places than
Ali's) and also animate the same scene from a completely different angle and
perspective than the reference footage, and have it be vastly more convincing
than the version that was dependent on the reference footage. It's an order of
magnitude harder, but there are people who do it.
>> Also, I agree with almost all of what K dub K said.
>>
>> Moze
>>
Thanks.
>I agree with ost of what K dub said too... I think there may be a guy or two
>out there... still have yet to ever see it though.
There are some people at DreamWorks and Disney I'd like to introduce you to
sometime.
Blah, Blah
happy with the final product.... in most cases it was simply that they
weren't given the same reasonable amount of time to do a scene that a Disney
animator would. On comparison with fellow animators who worked at Disney,
Fox animators were required to do at least 10 feet of animation (sometimes
4-8+ characters in Anastasia), while Disney people were expected more of 4-5
feet..... those numbers are approximations and of course there are always
exceptions.... but that was what was quoted from them at the time.....
Since they had a large staff.... and frankly, had a company that planned
better, they were able to focus on their animation making it the best it
could be. Fox Animators often felt down because they weren't allowed the
fair amount of time to really show their abilities....
There were many cases where the animators weren't happy with the final
cleaned-up product of their work as well.... but it's fair to say there were
scenes that were improved by the amazing clean-up artists too.
A lot of the scenes that look crappy were the ones that were farmed out
to small studios to get the work done.... the would come back incomplete or
completely off model; leaving it up to the animators or assistants to fix
up.... sometimes there wasn't time to have them do it, so the key clean up
artists would use the key drawings that were sent back and put them more on
model... then handing them to the assistants or inbetweeners to put new
drawings between. The only reason, in my opinion, that the work was farmed
out was to meet the unreasonable deadlines, to show the suits in LA some
numbers so they could see we were getting the numbers out.... that's all
they cared about, as they most often didn't see the films for the first time
until they were 2/3rds done.... and partially complete in color. More than
half of the work that came back from these studios was re-done as much as
time permitted. It would have been faster to have the assistant animators
do the work...as it would have helped train them more as well..... but
training people to be better for the company was not a priority at the
time.... the footage was.
This thread is getting away from the original post. All I want to say is
that nothing in Titan, Bartok, or Anastasia was
rotoed or traced. Live action was shot for some scenes and used as
reference.
The biggest reason in my opinion, that the live action was used, (in Titan
especially) was because of all the computer-environment camera work..... the
animators have no choice to work from either live-action reference that a
computerized background camera is matched to also.... or a 3D computer model
put into place as a size reference only (as it never moved from it's
starting position), so the animators knew how big the director wanted the
character to be in the 3d scene....
An example of this was the scene during the nightmare sequence on the
boat in "Anastasia".... where Anya walks to the side of the ship during the
storm and climbs up the edge to jump into the ocean.... It was a flying
rotation from a distant shot to a close-up front shot of her on the edge of
the boat. The original computer printouts had simply a rough wire-frame of
the boat with a simple 3d wire-model of a human biped..... which was frozen
at her starting point for the entire stack of print-outs.
In order for the characters to look like they were walking through the
3D moving environments in Titan AE, the animators had to at least match the
foot placements of the live action... except in the case of the character
Stith, with whom the foot placements were useless, as her character had a
completely different skeletal structure than a human.... and a unique walk
to go with her double-knee legs.
I did not mean that you where bashing the artist personally, but some emails
I have received where not very kind.
So the people who sent them know that comment was geared towards them.
Molly
Skeleton Man
"K dub K" <kd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> That animator (who isn't using the photostats) can go on to make the ant
move
> like an ant, (e.g., with hips and shoulders in completely different places
than
> Ali's) and also animate the same scene from a completely different angle
and
> perspective than the reference footage, and have it be vastly more
convincing
> than the version that was dependent on the reference footage. It's an
order of
> magnitude harder, but there are people who do it.
OK, there are defintely certain martial arts moves etc. that I've animated
enough times that I can do them from any angle, anytime now... So I guess
that makes sense... Still took me years to get there though...
ANIM8Rfsk
mentioned..... they probably asked that the foot placement match the live
action, but that's cause the scene moved with the camera a little if I recall.
she walks up the steps and turns to face the way she came... that one
right?...... >>
Nope. It was ONE stat of Anya, probably dancing, hard to tell because it was
only one frame, and you were to trace it, keeping an eye on the model sheet.
One stat, one drawing, trace it, period.
<< but that doesn't not translate into the
right to bash their artists or question their abilities. >>
Neither I nor Ernie (to the best of my knowledge) has done that. We stated a
technique was used, period. A technique that's used all the time. I certainly
never made any judgements about the technique or results.
<< On the subject of rotoing. Nothing was rotoed, ever. >>
How about the sequences where they used stats to run things like necklaces
through a cgi process, and the live costumes had to be rotoed EXACTLY so that
the jewelry could be dropped back in?
ANIM8Rfsk
exception of Bartok) was consistently weak. >>
I think the direct to video 'Bartok the Magnificent' is by FAR the best
character animation that came out of the studio, and showed the least evidence
of tracing live. It's too bad more of it wasn't done this way.
<< anyone with a few years of feature animation experience under their belt
can't honestly look at that movie and say the final result( of the animation)
was good. >>
That's a hard call. While I agree with Ernie, I'm amazed how many 'civilians'
really really like the animation in Anastasia. And if you define 'good' as
'popular with the masses' then I guess it's good. But my friends in the
business all tend to cringe.
Skeleton Man
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>
> That's a hard call. While I agree with Ernie, I'm amazed how many
'civilians'
> really really like the animation in Anastasia. And if you define 'good'
as
> 'popular with the masses' then I guess it's good. But my friends in the
> business all tend to cringe.
>
Yeah, but I am in the business with a few others I've worked with and we
like it.... (being a Pheonix native I went there, some friends worked on
Titan)
I will admit I like a wider range of stuff than most people, but I think the
motion in Anastasia is great! It all depends on the "look" of the film to
me and I can never believe that ALL animation must be done ONE way. I like
the comic/cartoony stuff like the Spumco Yogi vs. Ranger fight, AND I like
totally realistic stuff. The more realistic your human characters, the more
realistic they better move and act.
If you make something look as real as Final Fantasy, you can't get away with
hand animation on the human character (at least I can't stand watching it
anyway. The illusion falls apart). Same goes for Soul Calibur....(video game
but still applies)
Basically saying that if your movie looks like THIS:
http://emotion.bandai.co.jp/dbeat/jinroh.html
It should move like real people as well. That is to say it should play on
screen like a "live action" movie and NOT a cartoon. You can't exaggerate
this type of character in THIS type of movie (this is not a comedy ). The
motions must be as down to Earth as the near realistic backgrounds and
character designs.
I'm sure this is what Final Fantasy is going for as well... It's meant to
play like live action and not a cartoon (big difference than Shreck or Toy
story where I'd say mocap would be wrong). Maybe it is when you pass this
line that things like roto and MOcap become necessary. It's not like I've
worked around a bunch of worthless animators for the last ten years. No one
has shown me convincing human motion on a realistic proportioned human
character, done by hand even with reference. It can be GOOD... but it's not
something that would work in something that has to play like "live action".
Of course that brings up the question of why make it animated at all...
I say "Perfect Blue"
ANIM8Rfsk
Well, that's a major problem in Anastasia. The Chuck Jones lesson is, never
animate anything you don't have to. Road Runners and Coyotes need animating.
Realistic people sitting in trains talking sort of don't really call for it.
:-)
Stephen W. Worth
<Moll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fox animators were required to do at least 10 feet of animation (sometimes
> 4-8+ characters in Anastasia), while Disney people were expected more of 4-5
> feet.
I once asked Irv Spence how many feet a day he was required to do
on the Tom & Jerry cartoons of the forties. He would work real hard
Monday through Thursday, so he could look at his dailies Friday
morning and then go play golf after lunch. His average weekly total?
25 to 30 feet a week of full animation!
Skeleton Man
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
Yeah I know how that goes.. but the more realistic, the better I seem to
prefer..
People look at movies like that and say "They should've done it
live-action"...
To me, what's great is that they didn't!
ErnieChan9
>I will admit I like a wider range of stuff than most people, but I think
>the
>motion in Anastasia is great! It all depends on the "look" of the film
>to
>me and I can never believe that ALL animation must be done ONE way. I like
>the comic/cartoony stuff like the Spumco Yogi vs. Ranger fight, AND I like
>totally realistic stuff. The more realistic your human characters, the more
>realistic they better move and act.
But in real life, peoples facial features don't tend to swim around on their
face constantly. Also, characters don't have to move constantly to be
realistic.
ernie
Blah, Blah
> << On the subject of rotoing. Nothing was rotoed, ever. >>
>
> How about the sequences where they used stats to run things like necklaces
> through a cgi process, and the live costumes had to be rotoed EXACTLY so
that
> the jewelry could be dropped back in?
>
Those scenes with jewelry where done like this. After the lead animator was
done with the character, either they or an effects animator would go back
animate the jewelry. This was done on a second level and was usually done
as a simple line, for a necklace. Then both levels, character and
effects(jewelry), would be scanned in. Combined in Toonz and out put to a
pic sequence to be brought into Softimage so that the 3D guys could use the
simple line(with the character animation) as reference in animating the
jewelry. The CG level would then be just dropped in on top of the character
animation and the reference level taken out.. If the necklace went behind
clothing or body parts those areas where masked with either madador(I
believe that is the spelling) or PhotoShop. So nothing had to be rotoed..
Pain in the arse, but that is what it takes.
ANIM8Rfsk
realistic. >>
There's one of the big problems I have with MoCrap - the direction. The people
tend to look like seaweed, waving in the current constantly . . .
Thomas E. Reed
wrote:
>No rumour, fact. I was offered the 'animator' test and refused to take it. It
>consisted of a paper print from video tape, and a model sheet, and you were to
>trace the live person - period. No keys, no tweens, just trace the live. I
>didn't consider this animation, and had NO interest in spending years just
>tracing live stuff.
>
>I'm told Bluth uses it both as a control issue and a cost savings issue - it's
>cheaper to hire guys to just trace than to animate. And it saves a LOT of
>argueing - if you make something up, all the suits will try to tell you to
>change it, but if you can show them the a live action photo of the EXACT SAME
>MOTION then they'll feel it's right and back off.
I'm shocked. I understand the need for saving costs in animation (it's
horribly expensive) and I think I have a higher tolerance for things
like "motion capture" (which answers the question of the guy who
started this thread) than most animation fans.
Still, there's a line between cheap and cheese, and it sounds like
Bluth crossed it with those movies.
Come see my new, personal and hopefully non-sucky site...
Tom Reed's Off Model (http://www.off-model.com)
Jon Hooper
"Blah, Blah" wrote:
The problem with the above technique is that the Jewelry boxes etc. ended up
swimming all over the place. A better method would have been to follow the
same process, but after the CGI was done it should have been printed out and
Clean-up should have tied the hand animation more closely to the CG objects
using the printouts as reference. The CGI printouts either could have been
then scanned into toonz and inked and painted (or the original CGI renders
could now be combined with the new cleanup which is now in perfect register).
This way a much tighter integration could have been achieved.
This is how we worked on Cats Don't Dance and it worked really well. You need
that final pass in Clean-up to get things to reg. , using the method you
describe is a pain for the CG guys and won't be as tight.
GrapeApe
>Still, there's a line between cheap and cheese, and it sounds like
>Bluth crossed it with those movies.
Rather than going on hearsay, watch them and decide for yourself.
I have seen worse violations of rotoscoping that Bluths examples (going from
the trailers of Anastasia, where it was a bit obvious in the long shots (that
amount of movement was not needed for background extras) , and Titan A.E. where
it may have not been so noticeable every time it was used as a technique, in a
film mixed with 3D wehteer keyframe or mocap.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful archive again! Where are messages older than 2 yrs?