Comments on: Everything Is Not Going To Be OK

By: Tom Fairweather

Tom Fairweather — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:51:38 +0000

Ok I think you've justified yourself. Key frame stuff is quite old too so I guess the equation is something like ancient process + old process = advanced new process.

By: David

David — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:48:48 +0000

Rotoscoping in traditional cell animation originally involved tracing over film frame-by-frame. Rotoscope animation in this case, however, makes use of vector keyframes, and interpolates the in-between frames automatically and that's the difference here I think – i.e. artists digitally trace over some frames of live-action footage by hand then custom software fills in the rest.

Btw… I'm not expert, but having seen the film, I've never seen anything quite like it before!

By: Tom Fairweather

Tom Fairweather — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:41:32 +0000

and imho i think photoshop was more “to the darkroom” than “to the paintbrush”

By: Tom Fairweather

Tom Fairweather — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:39:04 +0000

What's new about it then? Are they drawing over digital files instead of drawing over a projection of the image? If so what's the diff? Is it somehow automated?

By: David

David — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:02:10 +0000

Yes, rotoscoping is an ancient process but the way it has been applied here is new. As Wikipedia says “Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film.”

I.e. this new process is what photoshop was to the paint brush!

By: Tom Fairweather

Tom Fairweather — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 16:43:05 +0000

An advanced animation process? I can't decide whether one can justifiably label a technology as advanced if it is pre – first world war.
What do you reckon?

Looks cool though :p