Tuly Roy Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 hi! just reading about this film called "scanner darkley". there they have used a technology called internal rotoscopy . can anyone pls elaborate. tuly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anshul Chobey Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 hi some parts of it are covered in the july issue of american cinematographer..that is all i have read.. regards anshul chobey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 It was shot on DVX-100s and in post the animators hand drew a line outline and animated the colors inbetween. In adition to filling in the lines, they also animated the highlights as well. The colors step slightly, which has a nice effect, and the apearance is sureal and lifelike. The animations motion is so true to natural life that its sometimes quite interesting. I saw the film projected in 35 print and it looked really good. It was easy to loose yourself in the world. The only problem I noticed, and this wouldn't be so bad if you saw it on DVD, is the rotoscoped colors interpolation sometimes made weird shapes inbetween keyframes that called attention to themselves. The interpolated rotoscopeing is basicly where they draw a vector shape and animate it ever few frames, and the computer interpolates the shape inbetween keyframes. Maybe it was just me...but did it seam to anyone esle that there were several parts in the film where they just used the video? never in the people, but sometimes there would be like a radio in the background that looked to me like video footage of the prop, not a drawn image. I found that kind of jaring. It reminded me the video was creaping behind this sureal world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saurabh Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Has this(interpolated rotoscopy) been done before or was this the first time? Secondly, I don't understand if there was a need of shooting it with a camera, couldn't this be done completeyl through computer animation? Or would it be more difficult in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 The directors other movie 'waking life' used that technique. I am sure it has been used other places. It could have been animated through typical animation routes, like computers or hand drawn, but it would look like any other hand drawn animation, where animators try to imagine how different moves would happen, frame by frame. In this film, the motion is strikingly realistic. Its a cartoon, but simple things like taking a suit off, flipping it in the air and putting it away might seem aqward if hand animated. In the movie, subtle things are animated, such as facial motion that could never had been captured anyother way, including with motion capture. See the film, you will understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A. Whitehouse Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Same Film makers as Waking Life. Its also been used in a few Anime that Ive seen including "Tokyo Godfathers" and "Appleseed" (The new Appleseed, not the old one). Often used to create lifelike human movement on a cartoon background or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizar Jawad Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 it is nice movie i like it i to much :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizar Jawad Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 It was shot on DVX-100s and in post the animators hand drew a line outline and animated the colors inbetween. In adition to filling in the lines, they also animated the highlights as well. The colors step slightly, which has a nice effect, and the apearance is sureal and lifelike. The animations motion is so true to natural life that its sometimes quite interesting. I saw the film projected in 35 print and it looked really good. It was easy to loose yourself in the world. The only problem I noticed, and this wouldn't be so bad if you saw it on DVD, is the rotoscoped colors interpolation sometimes made weird shapes inbetween keyframes that called attention to themselves. The interpolated rotoscopeing is basicly where they draw a vector shape and animate it ever few frames, and the computer interpolates the shape inbetween keyframes. Maybe it was just me...but did it seam to anyone esle that there were several parts in the film where they just used the video? never in the people, but sometimes there would be like a radio in the background that looked to me like video footage of the prop, not a drawn image. I found that kind of jaring. It reminded me the video was creaping behind this sureal world. Oh really is that ture they are shotting on DVX-100s wow so we can make low film :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Oh really is that ture they are shotting on DVX-100s wow so we can make low film It was shot with a DVX-100, but as for film-making on the cheap, probably not the best method. It was said that it took over 500 hours per minute of film, and took 15 months to animate. That would either cost you a ton of money, or take you 25 years to complete it on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Hanrahan Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Maybe it was just me...but did it seam to anyone esle that there were several parts in the film where they just used the video? never in the people, but sometimes there would be like a radio in the background that looked to me like video footage of the prop, not a drawn image. I found that kind of jaring. It reminded me the video was creaping behind this sureal world. I noticed this as well in some parts of the movie. I think that since the objects in question (the radio, the woodgrain wall in the diner) were largely inanimate, or if they moved the entire object moved as one, they appeared sharper than many of the other elements, which tended to flow more (and as a result were softer). In my opinion, this is what caused the distinction between some of the props and the actors, although I agree it did create a very surreal effect (especially in terms of perspective/DOF). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizar Jawad Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 It was shot with a DVX-100, but as for film-making on the cheap, probably not the best method. It was said that it took over 500 hours per minute of film, and took 15 months to animate. That would either cost you a ton of money, or take you 25 years to complete it on your own. aha i see . but how they are transfer from DVx 100 to Cinema ? THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPALY :) aha i see . but how they are transfer from DVx 100 to Cinema ? and why they use dvx 100 why they didn't use HDV Z1u :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now