Is rotoscoping cheating?

Is rotoscoping cheating?

Attached: 7c75f5ee-a044-4982-93c5-11d823c5f3c1.png (1200x1200, 274K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914
youtu.be/cKOSJ5AAwfc?t=4m17s
youtube.com/watch?v=orLz433Cf-g
youtu.be/dDMQ3tXNKgM
m.youtube.com/watch?v=xOf3MVMPGOc
youtube.com/watch?v=DadH3KjHZws
youtube.com/watch?v=bYCk2udVFvo
youtube.com/watch?v=f7ewdrHU6to
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not unless you use it for everything. A guy breakdancing is fine. A walk cycle is not.

My view is this: if you're gonna do it, either do it entirely or be absolutely transparent about it. If you're mixing traditional with rotoscoping trying to pass one off as the other, that's cheating.

What if you successfully pull it off? Is it still cheating?

If you're honest about it, that's fine. Like CG movies that admit to using mocap.

what are the best examples of rotoscoping?

youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914

Not really
Buts not really an animated technique as much as it is a stylistic choice
It’s more to do with direction and choreography than actual animation

its a tool. if the artist uses it to cheat that's their decision

What the hell does it even mean to cheat?

Cheat at what? It's not plagiarism.

Given the amount of work animation needs regardless, its not a cheat. For instance its hard to make rotoscoping look good by animating in twos like you mostly do with traditional animation, so you might have to draw twice as much with a permanent 24-25 framerate.

youtu.be/cKOSJ5AAwfc?t=4m17s

Attached: betty_boop_snow_white-853668774-large.jpg (350x391, 28K)

If it's your own footage, no?
But traced live-action lacks weight, looks wrong. Artistry is required to make it look right.
youtube.com/watch?v=orLz433Cf-g

No rules just tools.

Just don't act like a faggot about it,

>what if waifus are real

its a means to an end like most things

>
>youtu.be/cKOSJ5AAwfc?t=4m17s
That was pretty rad.

No, if you made the liveaction yourself. But if you do it, you have to use it correctly and not just as a cheap way to animate without using experienced animators, because it will look like shit then

that clown solo was the greatest thing ive ever seen

youtu.be/dDMQ3tXNKgM

The greatest animation ever used rotoscope.

I'd say no cause you're really just copying the movements. As long as the character is different i'd say theirs skill involved

rotoscoping is a sign of bigger problems within the development of an animated film usually. If they cut the budget enough for the rotoscoping to stand out, the animated work itself is probably pretty bad.

It's a valid technique and genuinely gives your work a certain feel and look that some people like, so most of the time it's fine.

The problem is when animators don't admit that they're doing it or try to cover it up.

Not really but it's pretty uninteresting.

Woah, Hitler was the first to animate Superman?

Nothing is cheating in art if it gets you the end result you want.

Hitler, 1932.

fucking horrible speaker
im pissed
is his dad sleeping or something?
what an insult to the material
unprofessional schmuck

No proper use of rotoscope is working with original source material. When you animate a character, you are the actor. You are giving "life," to what character you want to move, so by using your own footage its fine. Rotoscoping other refrences may not work well but usually people just keyframe the reference instead.

>hurr i'm intelligent

Asking if something is cheating is something retards from /ic/ do. You're not one of those social rejects are you, OP?

PROFESSIONALS concern themselves with whether the result looks good, and it often doesn't. Bakshi's LOTR has everyone looking like spastic drama queens because the reference was a bunch of terrible hammy actors that the artists followed to the letter.

GOOD rotoscoping should be filtered, processed, and redrawn to smooth out the jitteryness and over-detail of real life. If necessary it should be INTEGRATED into the animation process, not a replacement for it.

Everything I've said applies to Mo-Cap as well.

as a reference, no
if you're literally tracing then thats called tracing

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xOf3MVMPGOc

Rotoscoping looks fucking garbage unless you're being very very self-aware and playful with it ala .

Now I want to rewatch all of the superma cartoon.
youtube.com/watch?v=DadH3KjHZws

It's a tool.

You can use it as a reference, that's really the best use of it.

But you can also use it to trace live-action. That can be good or bad depending on how skillfully you animate what you trace.

Attached: Junglebook526.jpg (1888x1080, 478K)

"funny" how those crap technique appologiy threads exploded in popularity when that OKKO fag started to take the passice aggressive "I'm a pro a dindunothin" attitude toward the criticism of his poor quality job.

You think technique apology threads are anything new? They've existed since before the fucking internet.

I should add, not only did they exist, they're a perennial discussion topic for animation and art nerds.

...and even before then, some Greek philosopher bitched about how books are "cheating" because all these whipper-snappers don't have to memorize speeches and keep all the information they learn in their head. They'd become "educated fools" because they have access to books!

oh of course you are a revisionist. It matches the profile.

>It's Plato, writing about Socrates, talking to Phaedrus, telling him about Thoth and Thamus:
>...for this discovery of yours [writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.

Same thing with rotoscoping. You can rotoscope and know how to draw and animate, or you can rotoscope and not know how to draw and animate.

What am I revising?

Not Sup Forums, but

Attached: 3a91ddeccbd72cad8f410daeb314c35610f0a26e.gif (286x234, 196K)

rotoscoping done by the non-drawer/animator is going to be lower quality.
Understanding of weight, timing and shapes shows.

>Understanding of weight, timing and shapes shows.
What if I told you, that just like you can use writing to remember stuff and still understand why you wrote it and what you meant, you can use rotoscoping to animate motion and still understnad weight, timing, and shapes. The problem is not rotoscoping, the problem is not knowing how to animate. You can rotoscope and know how to animate, and you can rotoscope and not know how to animate.

Are you posting that as a good example of rotoscoping or as a bad example? 'cause I'd say it's painfully bad. The "actor" conveys nothing in their motion, and the head is copy-pasted and frozen.

The motion might be physically accurate but a fake smile is also physically accurate but fake.

The scenes of the students running to the hall were not rotoscoped, even though they look like they would be. They were also made by a foreigner (working in Japan), Bahi JD.

youtube.com/watch?v=bYCk2udVFvo

...What?

I wouldn't really call it cheating, and you can do some cool shit with it so I don't it as a problem either.

there's been plenty of Disney rotoscoping
I think much of Snow White's animation was rotoscoped (namely the dance sequence)
there's also been some in Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc.

a non-disney example that I like was when Merrie Melodies hired a stripper to do a strip tease for animating this
youtube.com/watch?v=f7ewdrHU6to

Star wars lightsabers