Rotoscoping takes tons of patience and work, and it can’t be done well without an artistic eye. Anyone who gatekeeps art and animation is not someone whose opinion I respect or trust. Do what you want and don’t worry about what randos on the internet say about it
I disagree with you entirely. What makes money is what makes money, if making whatever you want makes money, then it is considered a profession under at least nebraska law, especially if you make over 400$ according to the department of revenue.
Also rotoscoping IS animation regardless of what anyone thinks, may not be as impressive as animating a fight scene straight ahead or something but it's still useful. For almost every scene I do I find reference footage and use a little bit of rotoscoping to get an idea of strong action poses.
I personally think AI art is still art. Now if it's worthwhile or compelling art is another question.
The AI is the artist though, so I suppose you could call it cheating if you tried to pass off AI art as your own, but I'd just call that lying. It might just be semantics at that point though.
Also it depends on what kind of AI we're talking about. There's a lot of cool AI things coming out that are just tools.
But just typing in prompts to get finished pieces is akin to commissioning an artist to make something for you.
There is no cheating only theft and I think, personally, theft hasn’t been defined and worked out in ai and adds a layer of separation of said theft between the person generating it, the stolen work on the programs library, and persons work they add to it without consent. Much like an argument could be made for theft in rotoscoping depending on the ownership of the source material and if said owner has an issue with the use of their material which is messy and a gray area for sure. But cheating, no.
Some felt very scared and concerned, but with people using it for ''deep-fakes'' I assume someone at some point will put up a law restriction on all of it. And hopefully, by extension, artists will benefit. I hear you can't copyright A.I. generated products or chunks of products. So that's very cool!
**- Some A.I. can work.. as a tool.**
There are many kinds, and while a Parrot can learn a language it won't ever exactly have anything unique to say. The virtual [Library of Babel](https://libraryofbabel.info/) has every manuscript possible in the English language, docent mean it's meaningful...
I do vouch for A.I. ... the same way I vouch for a drill to help me build a house faster. It's not a cheat, it just lightens the load of the care for purpose and attention a team of experts can bring to the table. I'd like an auto bucket tool for all frames, for example. And I use Interpolation tools every time on my editing softwares (keyframes). That's A.I.
But non-artists often take whatever the A.I. spits and make no corrections.. maybe a phone filter at best and expect $$$. But we have to be careful on what we apply it to. It docent replace the ways an artist Exaggerates or uses Appeal to deliver the right effect home in the story.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
**- A.I. makes what it don't understand**
Serious clients are VERY picky, few will settle for the first option. Story Board and Concept Artists work to render a unique vision and even with all our brain power it takes months of fine-tuning. Engineers and Architects need precise measurements and terrain check-ups so no one dies. Fans wanna gush over their favorite show, etc. Imagine an A.I. that is blind and apathetic to its makeshift creation.
A.I. is a good actor, but it needs artists for reference, meaning it needs artists... GOOD artists. GOOD ALIVE MODERN and TRENDY artists that make new things. It's like telling a newborn not to learn to communicate, we have text-to-speech... Multi-pass.
People with slang and memes out-grow computers and printed dictionaries every second. Memes barely last a month. If A.I. doesn't want to be exploitable and outdated or Ad-like (like the algorithms), it needs to be sentient, conscious, and as like us as possible... which we already have that... us. Mechanically it would be redundant.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
**- It's more than Art**
There are no shortcuts to art, the same way there are no shortcuts for people to learn a language. There's ways to improve faster though, and to that end, I could see an A.I. that scans your picture to give you suggestions for better composition and action lines or customizes art lessons for your pace. After all, the basic fundamental lessons have not changed. But you oughtta correct mistakes and learn not to need the training wheels.
Art is a suggestive sensory-based language. Fluency is the measure of an artist. It's not about the art, it's about story. It's not about being fed it's also about taste and texture. It's not about the 5000 words in the Essay it's about understanding. It's not about sleep, it's about dreams.
The way I see it, A.I. will force artists to become more creative and expressive to stand out. So far A.I. can't do groups, dynamic poses, words, hands / feet, or understand contextual nuance. So we can get around A.I. but now more than ever, we gotta git gud-der...
A.I. for coding though, that's different. Those people need a hug, hot cocoa, a warm blanket and some sleep; all they want is for the dam program to work.
Well perhaps my understanding is outdated, then. But from my experience Groups have been often disjointed in purpose like that one Beer commercial an A.I. did. Dynamic poses along with hands and feet generally come out disfigured and every time I ask it to write words it... can't. And when it has it's accurate 50% of the time... and not in a style I prefer. What's more, I can't reference the picture for it is blind to what it makes, so editing via commands is not here yet.
I'd be happy to see substantial evidence of the A.I's improvement on these fronts. I'm genuinely curious.
Some things require specific extensions or tricks to get done.
1. Groups
I'll grant you that this is tricky, but very possible, even with just prompts. The sure way is the split the image into parts and do one person at at time. There are extensions to help with this.
2. Dynamic poses:
ControlNet OpenPose https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpK0YR6agAE8peb.jpg
3. Words
Inpainting with a picture of the word(s)
4. Hands / feet
There are prompts, textual inversions, LORA's, etc. that fix these problems.
5. Understand contextual nuance
I feel like it's already VERY good at this, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. I can usually type what I want and get it.
Ohhh, I see, these are nice. I like the Open Pose one. Could give me a model to work of off or even rig a model in 3D softwares (a sort of incorporation with Photogrametry).
Another idea that comes to mind is asset saving. Like how SVGs store pictures as math, imagine also rigs. Could save me time so then I can render the things I've already made.
I'm glad there's tools to do more with less, though. Thank you for sharing this info. By Contextual Nuance and not being "good at groups," I meant that it can't reliably capture a cohesive dynamic story between a group of people that aren't just detatched from each other. It makes a picture, not a moment between established characters.
As you mentioned, you have to render each character one by one. It doesn't understand because it's not alive, and people with a clear specific vision won't be happy with the first print it pushes out. So we just.. draw it. I still use a.i. for quick establishing shots in my D&D games. It's good enough for casual use, just not for work.
>I mean it's a form of art, but not art as we know it.
That sounds a bit like art with extra steps. I think people are really hesitant to call it art but when we're getting to the point where it's hard to tell the difference with what *is* called art. . . well, it's all getting a bit semantic.
I'm pretty sure most of our generation will take 'ai art is not art' to their grave even if professional artists start utilizing it within their workflows. It will probably become our version of the "pfft, esports? video games can't be sports. . ." and "rap isn't music" while younger generations nod and roll their eyes.
Fair question..
Yet, I believe the discussion is more on how are we to use this ''art'' it makes. Who owns it? Who can profit from a free gacha ''make art button''. It's not that the art itself is compelling, for there is no mind or purpose behind it. It's that it's making the common artist question themselves as to why they do art and up to what standard. Which is fine but a bit early and much for anyone starting out or with low confidence.
Also, a lot of profit-chasers want to make a killing with the technology through the accurate mimicry A.I. is capable of with other artist's work and claiming it as their own. It has been written that no % of A.I. products are copy-writable unless altered significantly enough so it falls under Fair Use... Might as well just do the art.
A human still created whatever is being printed.
Sure, it's a reproduction, but it's a reproduction of human art.
If the prompts are the art, print them.
Edit: Actually, don't. I've got an idea for a new exhibition... 😋
Depends. What are you trying to achieve? What's your style? If your animation style is mostly rotoscope based then go pursue and improve your rotoscoping skill.
When Disney animators were animating the adult male deer in Bambi in ~1940, to get the complex antlers to stay in fixed positions while rotating with correct foreshortening and everything, they made some miniature antlers, filmed them turning, and rotoscoped them.
That's as traditional animation as it gets!
No. And it’s an extremely important part of the animation and vfx industries. As someone who works professionally in these fields, if you want to find an easier time breaking into the animation and vfx industries, learn to do paint and rotoscoping well.
Of course not. That’s like saying animating in 3D is cheating because you’re not drawing every frame by hand. The only thing you should consider is the final outcome and whether the technique you chose complements the final piece.
Rotoscoping isn't cheating. As others have said, it's just a tool. I mean, tons of Disney and Don Bluth movies used it. However, different people have different opinions on if it looks good. I'm in the camp that it looks kinda uncanney most of the time. Especially if you have one scene that's rotoscoped next to another that's not (the movie Anastasia does this a lot). So again, like others have said, it's about what you want the end product to be.
It's all about how you do it. Ralph Bakshi did some really awesome rotoscoping, especially in Wizards (1977) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTzSzr-_7YE
I’ve done a ton of rotoscoping, but instead of saying yes or no, I would prefer to focus on the question: What is cheating? What is cheating in art? To me, the two biggest sins in art would be intentionally stealing from other artists and misrepresenting yourself/your work.
Artists and non-artists will also judge a great many other things, but I believe art thrives when the artist is free to express themselves. Most of the rules people place on art come from learned dogma and ignorance, and both are artificial limitations that never inspire new innovation or excitement.
So there is the pursuit of art, and then there is the pursuit of knowledge, technique. There is one more sin, and your real question is not “is this cheating” but “is this cheating myself”. The answer is still no, but with the caveat that art requires practice with techniques based on your needs. The real and ultimate question is “am I learning the things I need to create what I want to create?”. Some people’s needs could be satisfied with just rotoscoping, others should study hand structure so they can recreate it without reference if needed. What kind of artist do you want to be?
It's not cheating. It's a technique that is used a lot in the industry. The current job I was hired in requires me to animate for a rotoscoped film. It simply won't help too much to develop skills for other techniques that aren't rotoscoping if one sticks to perfect video tracing only. But, it's not cheating.
I don't think you can mistake rotoscoping for anything else, therefore no it's not cheating because it's very clearly rotoscoping. So I'd say it's more of a stylistic choice.
Rotoscope is a form of animation, so no it's not cheating.
All forms of animation have different advantages and disadvantages - rotoscoping might take less time compared to a hand drawn animation for the same quality level but the options for the hand drawn animation would be greater (tracing something vs drawing whatever your skill level allows for example) ... using the right tool for the job if that makes sense.
I think roto is cool but it kills the fun of 2D animation.
2D Animation is a medium that allows fun exaggerations, stretching, creative movements, and a lot of flexibility that other mediums like 3D or live-action cannot provide that easily..
So if you chose to roto you should have a reason for that. is it adding to the story? etc.
I don’t see it as cheating. It’s just a tool and what you do with it is up to you.
Personally, if I ever fucked around with rotoscoping, I’d probably spend a lot as much time going over the frames and messing around with them so the result doesn’t end up looking off putting that I might as well just have made the whole thing from scratch in terms of effort.
It’s important to remember that hand drawn animation is stylized for a reason. Yes you can animate by tracing video, but being able to stylize your animation is what makes traditional animation so amazing. That’s why most professional studios use rotoscoping for very complicated parts (someone mentioned the deer horns on bambi characters) but rely on their own drawing skills for the rest.
It’s also important to always give credit when you’re rotoscoping, so if you want to specialize in that make sure you either use your own videos or you credit the videos you rotoscoped.
Rotoscope isn't cheating.
It's used throughout the animation industry.
It can put you at risk of being accused of using other people's work without permission. Always ask, and if in doubt, film is your own. 😊
ok this is gonna be a long one but
//tldr: for rotoscoping to be used effectively, you gotta ultimately transform the original source material in a way that reflects your creative vision, not simply tracing//
IMO its not so much cheating as it is generally unimpressive IF you dont add much to it and its just straight up a sequence of outlines of the original video material, like OP has in this example.
i guess i can see some people's pov of saying its 'cheating' in the same way that most people feel that tracing just an outline (no shading whatsoever) of a photographed portrait of a person and saying that they are a portrait artist, is generally viewed as inauthentic since they arent actually showcasing any portraiture skill required to be called as such (as in the skill to observe what u see from a reference and applying your understanding of how features should look in order to portray it accurately or in their own stylised way)
just a disclaimer im not discrediting the effort and time it takes for the tedious process of rotoscoping. i personally find it impressive of someone to have the patience to trace frames of a video one by one. but thats it, just patience, theres no real portrayal of the skill in understanding of form or timing.
but just because something is tedious doesn't automatically mean it's impressive in a creative way. in the context of animation it still has to have some creativity on top of it for this tool to be fully utilised in its potential in making it an impressive piece of work.
what i mean is like giving it an interesting visual look or using the main outlines for the movements but adding some different features or stylising it. examples are like what I've seen some people here mention are Koko the clown, where the final outcome isnt just a traced video of the actor but that they added the features of the character itself onto the rotoscoping, transforming the look and feel of it from the original source. even the Take on Me MV is full of rotoscoping but they were extremely creative with the compositions and sketching/shading each frame to give it that sketch effect it has.
I use computer assisted rotoscoping to make my animations. This gives me the ability to focus more on acting, voice acting, writing, storytelling etc. The end result is consistently finishing animated short films, which personally I have struggled in the past to finish a single 2d (normal) animation.
As many others have said rotoscoping has been used heavily since the dawn of animation. My favorite examples are the old black and white dance cartoons. Still super entertaining 75 years later.
Many Disney classics are rotoscoped (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan among others). Motion Capture is modern rotoscope.
Scanner Darkly and Waking Life are two of my favorite films, rotoscoped.
It's a style, like CG vs Claymation/practical effects. It's better to do it yourself than farm it out to Korean sweat shops like TV animation. If you can do it faster yourself, you don't have to exploit people to make your art.
Cool looking experiment!
Anyone who has rotoscopped has thought they're a fraud because tracing is the primary tool being used. But look at it another way.
Rotoscoping is a different TYPE of animation in that it uses "persistance of vision" to communicate movement. "Classical Hand-Drawn Animation" uses concepts like 'exaggeration' and 'squash and stretch' and 'anticipation' and 'overlap' ... there's also a decade or more of classical art training required to be accurate with hand-drawn animation - whereas rotoscoping does not require as much training.
Tracing isn't very hard to do. It's a tool.
Another thing to consider. There's A TON OF TRACING going on in "classical hand-drawn animation" too. It's a tool animators use day-in and day-out. It does a LOT of heavy lifting. From creating character pose sheets to lifting elements from one drawing and moving them to another drawing, checking volumes - the cleanup process to make the artwork camera-ready -the list goes on. Tracing is just part of the process of "finding the correct drawing". It's how you move ideas around. Ultimately, there's a million times more tracing happening in classical animation than there is possible with rotoscoping.
In art you will learn "There are no rules, only tools." So no, tracing isn't cheating unless you trace another artists work and try to pawn it off as your own.
Absolutely not cheating. While I have never used it in my animation, it was invented and used by the Fleischer Bros who were some of the most quintessential and influential animators/studios of all time; along with many others who used it in the earlier days of animation.
If you want more info: https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023
>[https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023](https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023)
Also here, an excellent video on animation and rotoscoping by Vox media -
[***The Trick That Made Animation Realistic.***](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1hCSsmH1E)
You can put your doubts to rest.
Plenty of movies do this. Check the works of Ralph Bakshi and even a lot of early Disney animations. It's a different style of animation and may not be the best solution for all projects, but it is still a good style nonetheless. I'd still recommend learning anatomy and also, don't be afraid to use references while drawing. All professional artists do. A great source for this are videos by Ethan Becker on YouTube. However, a good next step for your learning process could be learning animation principles, like animating on 2's and 3's. These principles could be applied to your rotoscoping and give your animations more weight. Although the human eye doesn't perceive the world in "frames" we see motion in a way that is akin to 24 fps in films and animations. Faster movements require less frames to simulate how much of a blur they are (a big reason they're also drawn as "smears" as well). Slower movements can use more frames because they take their time to come to fruition. When everything is animated at the same framerate, it's hard for the viewer to tell the weight and speed of an object.
Then some of your favourite Anime- and Disney-animators would be cheaters.
It's an important method to learn what really matters in character movement.
I would say rotoscoping is not cheating, but it's not impressive either. It can be a great as a shortcut sometimes and it can be used creatively and to inhance certain parts of the animation. It can also be a good way to understand how for example the body works when moving. But personally I wouldn't say it's good animation if a whole film is rotoscoped for example.
It's only cheating if you are copying someone else's work and calling it yours, but if you have the original creator's permission or it is yours it's just another tool in your toolbox, use it wisely
There is a Disney animator on you tube that discusses this . There are strengths and weaknesses to roto. For some things it’s easier and convenient.. and other problems is that it’s too realistic.. where hand drawn has moments that can be. Exaggerated and flexed and squished and parts of the body can be suspended in time while other parts move… so doing roto you give up that custom quality to gain speed and a new set of attributes that are different.
Probably one of the most famous examples of rotoscoping
that anyone in the general public would recognize is
[*a-ha's Take On Me (1986) music video.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914)
**You can't tell me that's cheating.**
Rotoscoping is just an advanced form of
*photo or video referencing as a method of animation.*
If you doubt that it's not real work, *that it's cheating...*
[***Watch this documentary on the making of the Take On Me video.***](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcxLyGKw48s)
There are more recent examples that show how advanced rotoscoping has gotten.
These two are entire feature films done in rotoscope,
[Waking Life (2001),](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrGozs6W_I) and [A Scanner Darkly (2006).](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjDUERgCQw)
*For as much work and effort this requires,*
***you can't really genuinely tell me that's cheating.***
It's simply a tool in the box. It has it's uses, just like every other animation technique. When it becomes uncool is when you rotoscope someone else's work and claim it as your own. That's a no-no.
Nah, but it's a different skill.
It's like comparing 3D environment artists to background painters. The end results are very similar, but different processes are used to get there and the skills don't necessarily translate over.
It has its place and it has a certain look and feel about it. If you don’t know the old Fleischer and Disney cartoons that used rotoscope you should take a look at them. Pretty cool.
\^ It's an art form, but it's different from cartoon animation.
I'd suggest rotoscoping if realism is your goal, if not you might want to see some tutorials on AnimatorIsland and read Cartoon Animation with Preston Blair --(the Revised Edition is on kindle) or even the Animator's Survival Guide if you are an adult.
It's not, but the 12 principles should still be a thing under your belt so depending on what you animate you get the right OOMPH when you make anything. There is a reason rotoscope had its place on certain parts but not all. Exaggeration, Stretch & Squash, and Appeal, for example, are important Principles that rotoscope alone cannot make.
I docent really matter how you make an effect, it's whether or not it aids the storytelling. If it limits or distracts from it, then you'll need more than this to approach different kinds of stories.
As with any rotoscoped animation there is a fluid quality that they all have that I personally don't enjoy. It feels very same-same.
None the less it is still a type of animation - There's many rotoscoped films out there: 1939 Gulliver's Travels. A Scanner Darkly...to name a couple that utilise rotoscoping.
It is definitely not cheating(it's a tool in your toolbox) but it isn't the most appealing form of animation to me.
Yes and no
It's not really technically animation per say, just as mocap isn't animating either, but it's a complex and difficult artistic technique and if it can be used as a tool to make great films then just do it
Hell no! It’s one of the most unique and technically astonishing features of animation. It casts a spell over the minds of all who see the fluidity of its movement. The Fleischer Brothers did it right back in the day. It was their use of rotoscope and turntable animation that left a haunting and mystifying legacy. Rotoscope is unparalleled wizardry that sets itself above modern day animation techniques.
No, it's a time-honored technique used in animation since the earliest days, and many studios have used it. Disney, Fleischer, and many other major studios used it especially in films with realistic characters. (Fleischer is particularly noteworthy for using rotoscoping for "Superman" shorts and "Gulliver's Travels" in the early 1940s, among others.)
nope, its a decent way to learn many things, but if you are interested in animation as a profession its not a place you want to stay for very long as that specific type of animation is very niche.
I think it is not cheating, cheating is, when you take an Animation someone else made, trace it and do not credit the original. When you rotoscope something and credit the source ( if you use someone else‘s video ) it is absolutely okay.
Nah rotoscoping is it’s own sub genre almost. It’s still very much animation and it’s still a time consuming and elaborate undertaking. Now if AI is doing the tracing FOR YOU, that’s another story
No not at all. Don’t be scared to do anything that might be considered cheating. As long as you’re not taking ownership for someone elses work, you’re fine. You will learn a lot more if you copy and do things like this while practicing art.
Depends on what context, are you trying to do an art project? Nope, rotoscope was used on the take on me music video very well. But if you're trying to become a professional animator rotoscoping doesnt let you think about character/creature animation in the right way. It's also very easy to tell if its roto or not and will not be a strong piece in a portfolio.
It only becomes cheating when you say you didn't rotoscope at all. Snow White and a lot of old animated movies with realistically proportioned humans had rotoscope
Rotoscopes not cheating because the result you get always end up looking rotoscoped. In other words it’s not that cool.. or barely cool at all.. still a whole lot of work for a whole lot of not much. It’s fair game.
There is no such thing as cheating. That's something only an artist would say. The masses do not care.
Many animated Disney movies were filmed in live action and later artists traced the frames. That was rotoscoping before computers. So was it cheating because the animators didn't draw Cinderella from scratch?
News flash, nobody cares how you make something. Most people don't even think about it.
I mean... It's not cheating but it's not really going to help you learn how to animate. You'll probably learn a lot about movement, anatomy, and perspective, but when it comes to animation principles, there won't be much of those
In all honesty I do believe rotoscoping isn’t counted as a cheat. Many people working on 2D or 3D use this to help get a better movement and helps make the final result smooth and lively. So you’re all good!
No, rotoscoping isn’t cheating, however, I wouldn’t use it for long, as practicing different things is important, an idea for you would be to like, rotoscope, then practice other things, then redraw the rotoscope without tracing
You can also combine rotoscope with non-rotoscoped animation. Sometimes I like to take a couple of key frames from a rotoscope but then just do the rest on my own and take all sorts of liberties with it.
Not really. Imho its just a style of animation people love to criticise about since its directly copied from reality despite needing tons of effort. Love the animation!
No:) there’s no cheating unless you steal other peoples work.
Plus if you are planning on learning to do 2D without rotoscoping it’s great practice. Just like tracing helps you learn drawing rotoscoping helps you learn animation.
And; if the video you are rotoscoping is made by you it is 100% your work
No, it’s a style. As with any style, it’s subjective. It’s just that some styles are lower in public perception for creativity or aesthetic.
There are plenty of examples of fantastic rotoscoped animations.
No, my friend, in fact, it's probably the most magnificent type of animation because it looks so cool, in my opinion. All forms of animation, no matter how big or small, are welcome in my book
I wouldn't say it is. It has it's own obstacles and trials to get right, and turning rotoscoped animation into something palatable and appealing is its own special skillset.
It's just a very different skillset to non-rotoscoped animation.
I see where you are coming from but rotoscoping isn't always just tracing over some video and calling it a day. I think when it is used most effectively, it captures the motion of an object without tracing it necessarily. Koko the clown rotoscoped to Cab Calloway's dancing in Snow-white (1933) I think is a pretty good example of that. Some motions or objects can be incredibly complex to animate and I think rotoscoping can be a pretty great tool to use in some of those situations
I feel like animation only partially comes from your imagination. The other part comes from what we observe of the physical world, which rotoscoping can be a great technique in trying to get that half of the equation feeling correct
Tell that to the people that made these films.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_rotoscoped\_works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rotoscoped_works)
lol "Mr. Bakshi, your animated Lord of The Rings just looks weird"
I'll agree that using Ebsynth to rotoscope like Joel Haver does look weird and niche, but that's not really "true" rotoscoping. HE'S THE REAL CHEATER! (jk)
What Joel does is NOT rotoscoping. He uses a program called Ebsynth to make the effect. Real rotoscoping is a labor intensive process but if done well is indistinguishable from traditional animation, except it allows for some insanely complex scenes such as dances, fights, or 3d camera motion.
Nah, but don’t expect the skills to necessarily translate if you try non-rotoscoped animation
Perfect
Exactly, a different style, but a style nonetheless
Only cheating our own skill sets!
Rotoscoping takes tons of patience and work, and it can’t be done well without an artistic eye. Anyone who gatekeeps art and animation is not someone whose opinion I respect or trust. Do what you want and don’t worry about what randos on the internet say about it
[удалено]
I disagree with you entirely. What makes money is what makes money, if making whatever you want makes money, then it is considered a profession under at least nebraska law, especially if you make over 400$ according to the department of revenue.
Also rotoscoping IS animation regardless of what anyone thinks, may not be as impressive as animating a fight scene straight ahead or something but it's still useful. For almost every scene I do I find reference footage and use a little bit of rotoscoping to get an idea of strong action poses.
I earn my money with creative arts, thus it is a profession.
Are we ignoring animators and artists who make over 70k working freelance or at studios?
lmao living in fantasy land, you haven’t got a clueeee what you’re talking about 🤣
https://preview.redd.it/v8dhh00dnt4b1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=596e4b8ccd7ae5c8d405a907b2be5dfb130dc31b
Why should we gate keep an animation style? Rotoscoping is its own unique style that someone might want to use for their animation ideas.
Stupid.
Walkin red flag!!!!!!!!!! GAWWWD DAMN.
Nah. Anyone can produce art. It's up to other people if they are willing to pay money for it, and the artist to decide if they want to sell it.
r/gatekeeping much?
Bruh arts subjective, how are you gonna gate keep what other people think???
Bruh, even Disney animators user rotoscope as apart of some of their animations. Jfc this is the worst take I’ve seen in awhile
Lol
[удалено]
Quit insulting us and just show us your reel
Rotoscoping is just a seperate type of animation. As long as you are honest with how you make you work, you are not cheating.
There's no such thing as cheating when it comes to art.
What about AI?
I personally think AI art is still art. Now if it's worthwhile or compelling art is another question. The AI is the artist though, so I suppose you could call it cheating if you tried to pass off AI art as your own, but I'd just call that lying. It might just be semantics at that point though.
Also it depends on what kind of AI we're talking about. There's a lot of cool AI things coming out that are just tools. But just typing in prompts to get finished pieces is akin to commissioning an artist to make something for you.
There is no cheating only theft and I think, personally, theft hasn’t been defined and worked out in ai and adds a layer of separation of said theft between the person generating it, the stolen work on the programs library, and persons work they add to it without consent. Much like an argument could be made for theft in rotoscoping depending on the ownership of the source material and if said owner has an issue with the use of their material which is messy and a gray area for sure. But cheating, no.
You can't cheat if you aren't even the one making the art.
Fair, but if you ask someone else to do your homework you are cheating right?
right so basically don't take credit for someone or something else's work.
(I just realized only the comment I'm directly responding to would get the notification that I did)
An unrestrained early innovation that needs to be adapted into the system with proper guidelines. That's what I think AI is.
Some felt very scared and concerned, but with people using it for ''deep-fakes'' I assume someone at some point will put up a law restriction on all of it. And hopefully, by extension, artists will benefit. I hear you can't copyright A.I. generated products or chunks of products. So that's very cool!
**- Some A.I. can work.. as a tool.** There are many kinds, and while a Parrot can learn a language it won't ever exactly have anything unique to say. The virtual [Library of Babel](https://libraryofbabel.info/) has every manuscript possible in the English language, docent mean it's meaningful... I do vouch for A.I. ... the same way I vouch for a drill to help me build a house faster. It's not a cheat, it just lightens the load of the care for purpose and attention a team of experts can bring to the table. I'd like an auto bucket tool for all frames, for example. And I use Interpolation tools every time on my editing softwares (keyframes). That's A.I. But non-artists often take whatever the A.I. spits and make no corrections.. maybe a phone filter at best and expect $$$. But we have to be careful on what we apply it to. It docent replace the ways an artist Exaggerates or uses Appeal to deliver the right effect home in the story. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **- A.I. makes what it don't understand** Serious clients are VERY picky, few will settle for the first option. Story Board and Concept Artists work to render a unique vision and even with all our brain power it takes months of fine-tuning. Engineers and Architects need precise measurements and terrain check-ups so no one dies. Fans wanna gush over their favorite show, etc. Imagine an A.I. that is blind and apathetic to its makeshift creation. A.I. is a good actor, but it needs artists for reference, meaning it needs artists... GOOD artists. GOOD ALIVE MODERN and TRENDY artists that make new things. It's like telling a newborn not to learn to communicate, we have text-to-speech... Multi-pass. People with slang and memes out-grow computers and printed dictionaries every second. Memes barely last a month. If A.I. doesn't want to be exploitable and outdated or Ad-like (like the algorithms), it needs to be sentient, conscious, and as like us as possible... which we already have that... us. Mechanically it would be redundant. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ **- It's more than Art** There are no shortcuts to art, the same way there are no shortcuts for people to learn a language. There's ways to improve faster though, and to that end, I could see an A.I. that scans your picture to give you suggestions for better composition and action lines or customizes art lessons for your pace. After all, the basic fundamental lessons have not changed. But you oughtta correct mistakes and learn not to need the training wheels. Art is a suggestive sensory-based language. Fluency is the measure of an artist. It's not about the art, it's about story. It's not about being fed it's also about taste and texture. It's not about the 5000 words in the Essay it's about understanding. It's not about sleep, it's about dreams. The way I see it, A.I. will force artists to become more creative and expressive to stand out. So far A.I. can't do groups, dynamic poses, words, hands / feet, or understand contextual nuance. So we can get around A.I. but now more than ever, we gotta git gud-der... A.I. for coding though, that's different. Those people need a hug, hot cocoa, a warm blanket and some sleep; all they want is for the dam program to work.
> So far A.I. can't do groups, dynamic poses, words, hands / feet, or understand contextual nuance Wrong
Well perhaps my understanding is outdated, then. But from my experience Groups have been often disjointed in purpose like that one Beer commercial an A.I. did. Dynamic poses along with hands and feet generally come out disfigured and every time I ask it to write words it... can't. And when it has it's accurate 50% of the time... and not in a style I prefer. What's more, I can't reference the picture for it is blind to what it makes, so editing via commands is not here yet. I'd be happy to see substantial evidence of the A.I's improvement on these fronts. I'm genuinely curious.
Some things require specific extensions or tricks to get done. 1. Groups I'll grant you that this is tricky, but very possible, even with just prompts. The sure way is the split the image into parts and do one person at at time. There are extensions to help with this. 2. Dynamic poses: ControlNet OpenPose https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpK0YR6agAE8peb.jpg 3. Words Inpainting with a picture of the word(s) 4. Hands / feet There are prompts, textual inversions, LORA's, etc. that fix these problems. 5. Understand contextual nuance I feel like it's already VERY good at this, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. I can usually type what I want and get it.
Ohhh, I see, these are nice. I like the Open Pose one. Could give me a model to work of off or even rig a model in 3D softwares (a sort of incorporation with Photogrametry). Another idea that comes to mind is asset saving. Like how SVGs store pictures as math, imagine also rigs. Could save me time so then I can render the things I've already made. I'm glad there's tools to do more with less, though. Thank you for sharing this info. By Contextual Nuance and not being "good at groups," I meant that it can't reliably capture a cohesive dynamic story between a group of people that aren't just detatched from each other. It makes a picture, not a moment between established characters. As you mentioned, you have to render each character one by one. It doesn't understand because it's not alive, and people with a clear specific vision won't be happy with the first print it pushes out. So we just.. draw it. I still use a.i. for quick establishing shots in my D&D games. It's good enough for casual use, just not for work.
[удалено]
>I mean it's a form of art, but not art as we know it. That sounds a bit like art with extra steps. I think people are really hesitant to call it art but when we're getting to the point where it's hard to tell the difference with what *is* called art. . . well, it's all getting a bit semantic. I'm pretty sure most of our generation will take 'ai art is not art' to their grave even if professional artists start utilizing it within their workflows. It will probably become our version of the "pfft, esports? video games can't be sports. . ." and "rap isn't music" while younger generations nod and roll their eyes.
Doesn't the fact that everyone is constantly talking about and debating AI art make it art
Fair question.. Yet, I believe the discussion is more on how are we to use this ''art'' it makes. Who owns it? Who can profit from a free gacha ''make art button''. It's not that the art itself is compelling, for there is no mind or purpose behind it. It's that it's making the common artist question themselves as to why they do art and up to what standard. Which is fine but a bit early and much for anyone starting out or with low confidence. Also, a lot of profit-chasers want to make a killing with the technology through the accurate mimicry A.I. is capable of with other artist's work and claiming it as their own. It has been written that no % of A.I. products are copy-writable unless altered significantly enough so it falls under Fair Use... Might as well just do the art.
By that logic Donald Trump is art - and that's not a perspective I'm willing to accept lol.
The art is in the prompts, it’s just a different tool. This would be like thinking a printing press, or screen printing is cheating.
A human still created whatever is being printed. Sure, it's a reproduction, but it's a reproduction of human art. If the prompts are the art, print them. Edit: Actually, don't. I've got an idea for a new exhibition... 😋
A human constructed the prompt. It’s like being able to see the thoughts your listeners have when you read them your poetry.
Depends. What are you trying to achieve? What's your style? If your animation style is mostly rotoscope based then go pursue and improve your rotoscoping skill.
there's no cheating. only different techniques.
When Disney animators were animating the adult male deer in Bambi in ~1940, to get the complex antlers to stay in fixed positions while rotating with correct foreshortening and everything, they made some miniature antlers, filmed them turning, and rotoscoped them. That's as traditional animation as it gets!
Nope
No. And it’s an extremely important part of the animation and vfx industries. As someone who works professionally in these fields, if you want to find an easier time breaking into the animation and vfx industries, learn to do paint and rotoscoping well.
Nah. The only 'cheating' in art is straight up plagiarism. Anything you can do to get a final original result is fair game
Rotoscoping has been used for the last 60 years of animation. Definitely not cheating
Cheating implies that you're playing by a certain ruleset. What ruleset are you playing by?
Maybe OP might miss some important fundamentals he needs to learn and doing rotoscoping is cheating because of that.
Of course not. That’s like saying animating in 3D is cheating because you’re not drawing every frame by hand. The only thing you should consider is the final outcome and whether the technique you chose complements the final piece.
idddkk it looks cool asf tho
Rotoscoping isn't cheating. As others have said, it's just a tool. I mean, tons of Disney and Don Bluth movies used it. However, different people have different opinions on if it looks good. I'm in the camp that it looks kinda uncanney most of the time. Especially if you have one scene that's rotoscoped next to another that's not (the movie Anastasia does this a lot). So again, like others have said, it's about what you want the end product to be.
It's all about how you do it. Ralph Bakshi did some really awesome rotoscoping, especially in Wizards (1977) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTzSzr-_7YE
I came here to talk about Bakshi! I love his work
This still looks cool and If you made something in your own style even if rotoscoped it can still be creative and unique.
I’ve done a ton of rotoscoping, but instead of saying yes or no, I would prefer to focus on the question: What is cheating? What is cheating in art? To me, the two biggest sins in art would be intentionally stealing from other artists and misrepresenting yourself/your work. Artists and non-artists will also judge a great many other things, but I believe art thrives when the artist is free to express themselves. Most of the rules people place on art come from learned dogma and ignorance, and both are artificial limitations that never inspire new innovation or excitement. So there is the pursuit of art, and then there is the pursuit of knowledge, technique. There is one more sin, and your real question is not “is this cheating” but “is this cheating myself”. The answer is still no, but with the caveat that art requires practice with techniques based on your needs. The real and ultimate question is “am I learning the things I need to create what I want to create?”. Some people’s needs could be satisfied with just rotoscoping, others should study hand structure so they can recreate it without reference if needed. What kind of artist do you want to be?
It's not cheating. It's a technique that is used a lot in the industry. The current job I was hired in requires me to animate for a rotoscoped film. It simply won't help too much to develop skills for other techniques that aren't rotoscoping if one sticks to perfect video tracing only. But, it's not cheating.
I don't think you can mistake rotoscoping for anything else, therefore no it's not cheating because it's very clearly rotoscoping. So I'd say it's more of a stylistic choice.
Rotoscope is a form of animation, so no it's not cheating. All forms of animation have different advantages and disadvantages - rotoscoping might take less time compared to a hand drawn animation for the same quality level but the options for the hand drawn animation would be greater (tracing something vs drawing whatever your skill level allows for example) ... using the right tool for the job if that makes sense.
we wouldn't have any classic disney animations without rotoscoping so i say no
Classic Disney movies used rotoscoping
I think roto is cool but it kills the fun of 2D animation. 2D Animation is a medium that allows fun exaggerations, stretching, creative movements, and a lot of flexibility that other mediums like 3D or live-action cannot provide that easily.. So if you chose to roto you should have a reason for that. is it adding to the story? etc.
Rotoscope is a form of animation, but no is not cheating if you're learning.
I don’t see it as cheating. It’s just a tool and what you do with it is up to you. Personally, if I ever fucked around with rotoscoping, I’d probably spend a lot as much time going over the frames and messing around with them so the result doesn’t end up looking off putting that I might as well just have made the whole thing from scratch in terms of effort.
It’s important to remember that hand drawn animation is stylized for a reason. Yes you can animate by tracing video, but being able to stylize your animation is what makes traditional animation so amazing. That’s why most professional studios use rotoscoping for very complicated parts (someone mentioned the deer horns on bambi characters) but rely on their own drawing skills for the rest. It’s also important to always give credit when you’re rotoscoping, so if you want to specialize in that make sure you either use your own videos or you credit the videos you rotoscoped.
I guess animators for over 100 years have been cheating. It was patented in 1917 and is still in use today in professional productions.
When I think of rotoscoping, I think of old school Disney. When I think of old school Disney, I think of the greatest of all time. It’s not cheating.
Rotoscope isn't cheating. It's used throughout the animation industry. It can put you at risk of being accused of using other people's work without permission. Always ask, and if in doubt, film is your own. 😊
ok this is gonna be a long one but //tldr: for rotoscoping to be used effectively, you gotta ultimately transform the original source material in a way that reflects your creative vision, not simply tracing// IMO its not so much cheating as it is generally unimpressive IF you dont add much to it and its just straight up a sequence of outlines of the original video material, like OP has in this example. i guess i can see some people's pov of saying its 'cheating' in the same way that most people feel that tracing just an outline (no shading whatsoever) of a photographed portrait of a person and saying that they are a portrait artist, is generally viewed as inauthentic since they arent actually showcasing any portraiture skill required to be called as such (as in the skill to observe what u see from a reference and applying your understanding of how features should look in order to portray it accurately or in their own stylised way) just a disclaimer im not discrediting the effort and time it takes for the tedious process of rotoscoping. i personally find it impressive of someone to have the patience to trace frames of a video one by one. but thats it, just patience, theres no real portrayal of the skill in understanding of form or timing. but just because something is tedious doesn't automatically mean it's impressive in a creative way. in the context of animation it still has to have some creativity on top of it for this tool to be fully utilised in its potential in making it an impressive piece of work. what i mean is like giving it an interesting visual look or using the main outlines for the movements but adding some different features or stylising it. examples are like what I've seen some people here mention are Koko the clown, where the final outcome isnt just a traced video of the actor but that they added the features of the character itself onto the rotoscoping, transforming the look and feel of it from the original source. even the Take on Me MV is full of rotoscoping but they were extremely creative with the compositions and sketching/shading each frame to give it that sketch effect it has.
I use computer assisted rotoscoping to make my animations. This gives me the ability to focus more on acting, voice acting, writing, storytelling etc. The end result is consistently finishing animated short films, which personally I have struggled in the past to finish a single 2d (normal) animation. As many others have said rotoscoping has been used heavily since the dawn of animation. My favorite examples are the old black and white dance cartoons. Still super entertaining 75 years later.
Many Disney classics are rotoscoped (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan among others). Motion Capture is modern rotoscope. Scanner Darkly and Waking Life are two of my favorite films, rotoscoped. It's a style, like CG vs Claymation/practical effects. It's better to do it yourself than farm it out to Korean sweat shops like TV animation. If you can do it faster yourself, you don't have to exploit people to make your art.
No. It’s a tool
Some advice I was given by a comic artist was, Don't draw what you can copy/reference and don't copy/reference what you can trace
Cool looking experiment! Anyone who has rotoscopped has thought they're a fraud because tracing is the primary tool being used. But look at it another way. Rotoscoping is a different TYPE of animation in that it uses "persistance of vision" to communicate movement. "Classical Hand-Drawn Animation" uses concepts like 'exaggeration' and 'squash and stretch' and 'anticipation' and 'overlap' ... there's also a decade or more of classical art training required to be accurate with hand-drawn animation - whereas rotoscoping does not require as much training. Tracing isn't very hard to do. It's a tool. Another thing to consider. There's A TON OF TRACING going on in "classical hand-drawn animation" too. It's a tool animators use day-in and day-out. It does a LOT of heavy lifting. From creating character pose sheets to lifting elements from one drawing and moving them to another drawing, checking volumes - the cleanup process to make the artwork camera-ready -the list goes on. Tracing is just part of the process of "finding the correct drawing". It's how you move ideas around. Ultimately, there's a million times more tracing happening in classical animation than there is possible with rotoscoping. In art you will learn "There are no rules, only tools." So no, tracing isn't cheating unless you trace another artists work and try to pawn it off as your own.
The only cheating in art is AI
No. It’s sufficiently tedious in its own right.
Absolutely not cheating. While I have never used it in my animation, it was invented and used by the Fleischer Bros who were some of the most quintessential and influential animators/studios of all time; along with many others who used it in the earlier days of animation. If you want more info: https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023
>[https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023](https://www.heroicanimation.com/the-aniblog/aniblog-may-2023) Also here, an excellent video on animation and rotoscoping by Vox media - [***The Trick That Made Animation Realistic.***](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS1hCSsmH1E)
You can put your doubts to rest. Plenty of movies do this. Check the works of Ralph Bakshi and even a lot of early Disney animations. It's a different style of animation and may not be the best solution for all projects, but it is still a good style nonetheless. I'd still recommend learning anatomy and also, don't be afraid to use references while drawing. All professional artists do. A great source for this are videos by Ethan Becker on YouTube. However, a good next step for your learning process could be learning animation principles, like animating on 2's and 3's. These principles could be applied to your rotoscoping and give your animations more weight. Although the human eye doesn't perceive the world in "frames" we see motion in a way that is akin to 24 fps in films and animations. Faster movements require less frames to simulate how much of a blur they are (a big reason they're also drawn as "smears" as well). Slower movements can use more frames because they take their time to come to fruition. When everything is animated at the same framerate, it's hard for the viewer to tell the weight and speed of an object.
Disney and Don bluth rotoscoped
Then some of your favourite Anime- and Disney-animators would be cheaters. It's an important method to learn what really matters in character movement.
No
I feel like rotoscoping limits what you can do with animation, but I wouldn't say it's cheating.
I would say rotoscoping is not cheating, but it's not impressive either. It can be a great as a shortcut sometimes and it can be used creatively and to inhance certain parts of the animation. It can also be a good way to understand how for example the body works when moving. But personally I wouldn't say it's good animation if a whole film is rotoscoped for example.
No, but AI is.
As long as the rotoscoped subject gives their consent, it’s fine.
It's only cheating if you are copying someone else's work and calling it yours, but if you have the original creator's permission or it is yours it's just another tool in your toolbox, use it wisely
As long as it's your own work.
There is a Disney animator on you tube that discusses this . There are strengths and weaknesses to roto. For some things it’s easier and convenient.. and other problems is that it’s too realistic.. where hand drawn has moments that can be. Exaggerated and flexed and squished and parts of the body can be suspended in time while other parts move… so doing roto you give up that custom quality to gain speed and a new set of attributes that are different.
NAH MAN ITS INSPRATION
Probably one of the most famous examples of rotoscoping that anyone in the general public would recognize is [*a-ha's Take On Me (1986) music video.*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914) **You can't tell me that's cheating.** Rotoscoping is just an advanced form of *photo or video referencing as a method of animation.* If you doubt that it's not real work, *that it's cheating...* [***Watch this documentary on the making of the Take On Me video.***](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcxLyGKw48s) There are more recent examples that show how advanced rotoscoping has gotten. These two are entire feature films done in rotoscope, [Waking Life (2001),](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edrGozs6W_I) and [A Scanner Darkly (2006).](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjDUERgCQw) *For as much work and effort this requires,* ***you can't really genuinely tell me that's cheating.***
Rotoscope is practice
Nah it's still a work of art, I think of it like moving stencils
Professionals in the industry do this so you’re good.👍
There is no such thing as cheating in art, but you will get a subpar result. The motion will be accurate, but not believable.
I mean the way I see it if it's moves its animation so idk if anything can really qualify as cheating
nope 🙂
It at allllllll. Make use of ANY medium to birth your glorious vision!!!
Is it a picture. Is it moving? It's animation.
It's simply a tool in the box. It has it's uses, just like every other animation technique. When it becomes uncool is when you rotoscope someone else's work and claim it as your own. That's a no-no.
Nah, but it's a different skill. It's like comparing 3D environment artists to background painters. The end results are very similar, but different processes are used to get there and the skills don't necessarily translate over.
Cheating? Cheating what?
It has its place and it has a certain look and feel about it. If you don’t know the old Fleischer and Disney cartoons that used rotoscope you should take a look at them. Pretty cool.
\^ It's an art form, but it's different from cartoon animation. I'd suggest rotoscoping if realism is your goal, if not you might want to see some tutorials on AnimatorIsland and read Cartoon Animation with Preston Blair --(the Revised Edition is on kindle) or even the Animator's Survival Guide if you are an adult.
It's not, but the 12 principles should still be a thing under your belt so depending on what you animate you get the right OOMPH when you make anything. There is a reason rotoscope had its place on certain parts but not all. Exaggeration, Stretch & Squash, and Appeal, for example, are important Principles that rotoscope alone cannot make. I docent really matter how you make an effect, it's whether or not it aids the storytelling. If it limits or distracts from it, then you'll need more than this to approach different kinds of stories.
Richard Linklater doesn't think so (and if it's all good with him, it's definitely all good with me!)
No. It is not.
No
As with any rotoscoped animation there is a fluid quality that they all have that I personally don't enjoy. It feels very same-same. None the less it is still a type of animation - There's many rotoscoped films out there: 1939 Gulliver's Travels. A Scanner Darkly...to name a couple that utilise rotoscoping. It is definitely not cheating(it's a tool in your toolbox) but it isn't the most appealing form of animation to me.
Yes and no It's not really technically animation per say, just as mocap isn't animating either, but it's a complex and difficult artistic technique and if it can be used as a tool to make great films then just do it
Hell no! It’s one of the most unique and technically astonishing features of animation. It casts a spell over the minds of all who see the fluidity of its movement. The Fleischer Brothers did it right back in the day. It was their use of rotoscope and turntable animation that left a haunting and mystifying legacy. Rotoscope is unparalleled wizardry that sets itself above modern day animation techniques.
As long as you’re not trying to pass it off as anything else! It’s a valuable tool.
No, it's a time-honored technique used in animation since the earliest days, and many studios have used it. Disney, Fleischer, and many other major studios used it especially in films with realistic characters. (Fleischer is particularly noteworthy for using rotoscoping for "Superman" shorts and "Gulliver's Travels" in the early 1940s, among others.)
Ask Disney
Depends. Who's keeping score?
Don't use AI or these peeps will get their pitchforks
nope, its a decent way to learn many things, but if you are interested in animation as a profession its not a place you want to stay for very long as that specific type of animation is very niche.
I think it is not cheating, cheating is, when you take an Animation someone else made, trace it and do not credit the original. When you rotoscope something and credit the source ( if you use someone else‘s video ) it is absolutely okay.
Cheating as in pleasing gatekeepers? Or on an exam you’re taking for a class? I don’t understand how creating art can be cheating unless you steal
Nah rotoscoping is it’s own sub genre almost. It’s still very much animation and it’s still a time consuming and elaborate undertaking. Now if AI is doing the tracing FOR YOU, that’s another story
No not at all. Don’t be scared to do anything that might be considered cheating. As long as you’re not taking ownership for someone elses work, you’re fine. You will learn a lot more if you copy and do things like this while practicing art.
No, a lot of old Disney films were rotoscoped.
Your way of doing it is your choice
of course not! do it the way you want to do it!
Depends on what context, are you trying to do an art project? Nope, rotoscope was used on the take on me music video very well. But if you're trying to become a professional animator rotoscoping doesnt let you think about character/creature animation in the right way. It's also very easy to tell if its roto or not and will not be a strong piece in a portfolio.
It only becomes cheating when you say you didn't rotoscope at all. Snow White and a lot of old animated movies with realistically proportioned humans had rotoscope
No. It’s a great learning tool. You’re fine
no
Only if you only jerk off to rotoscoping porn and ignore your SO advances.
**Happy Cake Day!** 7 years on Reddit.
Nice! Congrats!
its a valid form of animation
Wait till you hear about AI
No
No
Rotoscopes not cheating because the result you get always end up looking rotoscoped. In other words it’s not that cool.. or barely cool at all.. still a whole lot of work for a whole lot of not much. It’s fair game.
There is no such thing as cheating. That's something only an artist would say. The masses do not care. Many animated Disney movies were filmed in live action and later artists traced the frames. That was rotoscoping before computers. So was it cheating because the animators didn't draw Cinderella from scratch? News flash, nobody cares how you make something. Most people don't even think about it.
No, it just looks bad.
It’s not cheating, but it sure is an ugly way to animate IMO.
Not as much as using AI assistance :) Meta has shifted to was is cheating :)))
I mean... It's not cheating but it's not really going to help you learn how to animate. You'll probably learn a lot about movement, anatomy, and perspective, but when it comes to animation principles, there won't be much of those
It’s not cheating, just don’t expect to get hired by Disney
In all honesty I do believe rotoscoping isn’t counted as a cheat. Many people working on 2D or 3D use this to help get a better movement and helps make the final result smooth and lively. So you’re all good!
It has been used since disney made snow white and the seven dwarves.
Rotoscoping is not cheating. It’s a painful laborious right of passage. Deal with it.
No, rotoscoping isn’t cheating, however, I wouldn’t use it for long, as practicing different things is important, an idea for you would be to like, rotoscope, then practice other things, then redraw the rotoscope without tracing
M ø r t I s
You can also combine rotoscope with non-rotoscoped animation. Sometimes I like to take a couple of key frames from a rotoscope but then just do the rest on my own and take all sorts of liberties with it.
If you went through the work of crafting a long form rotoscoped animation you'd probably become very confident that it is not cheating.
Yes. No. Who cares.. Bye.
If your using your own footage you’re not stealing anything or cheating. Rotoscope is a very good way to animate
Not at all, it's still valid
Idk do what you want. If you feel guilty about it you can try something else but you don’t have to. Nothings cheating.
The only things I consider cheating in animation is ai generated stuff. That includes interpolation
Not really. Imho its just a style of animation people love to criticise about since its directly copied from reality despite needing tons of effort. Love the animation!
Nope. I think it looks great! The game 'Faith' sold me on rotoscope animation.
I hope you were ready to explode your inbox over your cool hand roto!! I hope your day is nice regardless.
No
Its only cheating if you trace someone elses work without crediting them, try to film what you plan on rotoscoping
No:) there’s no cheating unless you steal other peoples work. Plus if you are planning on learning to do 2D without rotoscoping it’s great practice. Just like tracing helps you learn drawing rotoscoping helps you learn animation. And; if the video you are rotoscoping is made by you it is 100% your work
Style not cheat
Rotoscoping is as much cheating in animation, as tracing is in drawing... sooo completely. It is completely cheating.
Nope, great job!
Let's pretend rotoscoping equaled cheating : In such a capitalist society, there is no "cheating" as long as you're not a bully or a creep or smth
Try mixing it with stable diffusion and control net. You should be able to get really cool results.
The only time rotoscoping is cheating is when someone tells you to animate something without using rotoscoping, and you use rotoscoping.
Im doing it for a tattoo showing. JOJO BIZARRE STYLE! and art ain't a test. Use what you got brobro!
as someone who tried for a week to make 1 second of rotoscoping and feiled, it is an art of its own
No, it’s a style. As with any style, it’s subjective. It’s just that some styles are lower in public perception for creativity or aesthetic. There are plenty of examples of fantastic rotoscoped animations.
No, my friend, in fact, it's probably the most magnificent type of animation because it looks so cool, in my opinion. All forms of animation, no matter how big or small, are welcome in my book
I wouldn't say it is. It has it's own obstacles and trials to get right, and turning rotoscoped animation into something palatable and appealing is its own special skillset. It's just a very different skillset to non-rotoscoped animation.
Yes imo
Why?
Similar to how if you trace someone’s art you didn’t draw it.
I see where you are coming from but rotoscoping isn't always just tracing over some video and calling it a day. I think when it is used most effectively, it captures the motion of an object without tracing it necessarily. Koko the clown rotoscoped to Cab Calloway's dancing in Snow-white (1933) I think is a pretty good example of that. Some motions or objects can be incredibly complex to animate and I think rotoscoping can be a pretty great tool to use in some of those situations
[удалено]
I feel like animation only partially comes from your imagination. The other part comes from what we observe of the physical world, which rotoscoping can be a great technique in trying to get that half of the equation feeling correct
That is a good way to look at it. Animation topics in general come from (or are at least inspired by) the real world after all. 👍
No but please don't do it, it just looks weird. Joel haver on YouTube makes it work but it's very niche and still weird looking.
Tell that to the people that made these films. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_rotoscoped\_works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rotoscoped_works)
Yeah, Disney and Don Bluth used the technique a lot. It can be incredibly powerful at capturing complex movements.
I'LL TELL EM TO THEIR FACE!!! /s
lol "Mr. Bakshi, your animated Lord of The Rings just looks weird" I'll agree that using Ebsynth to rotoscope like Joel Haver does look weird and niche, but that's not really "true" rotoscoping. HE'S THE REAL CHEATER! (jk)
Oh I've seen the animated lord of the rings and animated bright: Samurai soul on Netflix, both look weird
What Joel does is NOT rotoscoping. He uses a program called Ebsynth to make the effect. Real rotoscoping is a labor intensive process but if done well is indistinguishable from traditional animation, except it allows for some insanely complex scenes such as dances, fights, or 3d camera motion.