So why has this style only existed for 2 movies?

So why has this style only existed for 2 movies?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rre15ckcocY
youtube.com/watch?v=DVUfV0oNKqc
youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Its expensive as fuck and it takes a shitload of time.

Plus the effect is very...specific. In the context of a film about dreams, and a film about mind-altering substances and people with constantly-shifting people-suits it makes a lot of sense. For the vast majority of films it would be completely wrong.

What's the second movie?

Because it's ugly.

It doesn't look like real animation or illustration.

youtube.com/watch?v=rre15ckcocY

Here's one from the 1950s:

youtube.com/watch?v=DVUfV0oNKqc

They shot it at two high a frame rate, it should be 12fps to look like animation.

Roto has the same problem mocap does- it's floaty. Animation is about precise motion.

Isn't that just a filter that's on everyone's iPhone nowadays?

Sort of. They use a combination of photoshop filters like cutout and they use illustrator to vectorize the edgesto make the outlines )like on his arms), then they animate the edges on a separate onion skin from the colors.

They compile the layers together and the Linklater would tell the effect he wants. "This shot should be very conservative, in this one make it more trippy with the edges off balance with the colors," etc...

How do you know how expensive a proprietary technique is?

But still interesting, and no one's used the style for anything but dreams and drugs, since there's only been 2 films. It doesn't mean you can't do a romantic comedy like this, considering you just

you just need a cell phone to film it, instead of expensive camera and lighting and settings. the money saved on poor set design would be worth it. If you saw the raw footage for the movies it's like home movie quality. it's really like a trumped up youtube video

You guys understand Scanner and Dreams were both done with a unique computer program. They had a 6 million dollar budget for RDJ, Keanu, and Woody. How expensive do you think Rotoshop is?

...

Good rotoscoping is expensive. Cheap rotoscoping will leave you with garbage like Aku no Hana

Scanner Darkly is a unique program that does it easily. At most it takes time more then money though, even still people have taken bad CGI and made it look much better. classic rotoscoping is different.

that only happened because the auther hated anime

Because it's pig disgusting? It looks like garbage.

Rotoscoping is expensive and time consuming
But if you pull it off you get some timeless classics like the old Superman cartoon shorts from the 30s and 40s.

Superior:
youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk

Because not many people drop acid and pay for theatre tickets. There's no money in this rotoscoped shit.

>rotoscoping is expensive

The fuck are you guys talking about?

The entire point of rotoscoping is to be a cost-effective way to animate things. Why do you think two of the major rotoscoping films (Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly) were done by Linklater on indie film budgets?

Sure, it bumps up a movie's budget if it's already on a shoestring budget. But it's not "expensive", certainly not in film terms.

The reason why they don't do it is because no one wants to and, at the budget where someone might consider it, it's probably simpler to do without it. Plus, it's not as if people are clamoring to see those types of films, anyway.

NOICE

it's supposed to make animations simpler, not less expensive

>Sup Forums is a group of expert professionals with 40 years of experience each in unique fields that cover 100 different fields

It's true, it's more time expensive not money expensive, I can trace a movie frame by frame. It's even easier with the rotoshopping of scanner darkly and waking life which is unique.

All art is a balance of quality, time and money. you sacrifice budget to make the movie come out in less then 2 years.