Commercial With Rotoscoping

It appears to me that this is done mostly with compositing software, with the exception of the rotoscoped black line, outlining the character.

Cheers

For either broadcast video or Internet streaming video, rotoscoping is the rotated projection of a sequence of usually photographed action image frames so that the artist can trace from the frame or create an image to superimpose on it. It can be thought of as "painting on movies" efficiently. Prior to computers, an animation stand called a Rotoscope was used to project a sequence of action frames against a surface so that a set of animation frames could be traced or created. The same work can now be done with digital images and special computer software. Tools that provide efficient ways to rotoscope include Digital Magic and Elastic Reality. Rotoscoping is frequently used as a technique for combining (compositing) cartoon figures with realistic settings in television commercials and is also used for special effects in feature-length films. A rotoscoping texture (sometimes called a sequence map) is the use of video within an animation, something like an animation within an animation. For example, in a cartoon animation, the television set could show a program containing another animation. Or in a background to an animation in the foreground, you could include some clouds that slowly changed during the foreground animation. The frame rate for both the main animation and the "animation within the animation" must be the same. source: http://searchsmb.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid44_gci212923,00.html

Basically they are recreating a filmed sequence of frames based on a live action film, no matter what software they are using. To me this particular style is thoroughly nauseating. Now that I've re viewed the damn things, the written content is pretty good, if they had left it as live action. Watching the rotoscoped crap from hell, and seeing them during the olympics I didn't even focus on the content.

What was the point of doing those rotoscoped? They would have looked BETTER in live action.
James :cool:

The more I look at these, and I don't know why I do, the more I know some old Flash addict sold them a bill of goods. The way the titles dance in at the end is a very old Flash gimic. Maybe they are using fancy new compositing software now, but it's old school Flash to the hilt. And it's the type of Flash most non-animators resort to, they want realism or "wow" without the effort.

This is a wierd little site I came acrossed researching the "Talk to Chuck" ads. It's kind of a cool little blog type place if you are into advertising with multiple categories:

http://www.dhadm.com/index.php/dhadm/C36/

United did 2 rotoscoped ads i think

one is available on the united site now with the Dragon ad and another one was done some time ago.

it wasnt strictly rotoscoped, there was plenty of post op treatment and those ads really worked with style but failed with content.

I didn't even know the dragon ad was rotoscoped. They have that whole behind the scenes thing you can watch that doesn't let on to it...they only covered the 3D and the stop-motion aspects.

I didn't even know the dragon ad was rotoscoped. They have that whole behind the scenes thing you can watch that doesn't let on to it...they only covered the 3D and the stop-motion aspects.

The dragon wasnt rotoscoped. there is another commercial before the dragon one which was.

They are running a whole series of those rotoscoped things during the olympics coverage, they suck big time. They flicker, they lag, they are just plain bad. For the money I could have traced some avis for them in Flash and come up with better.

To the uninitiated, though (such as moi), the whole style gives a "wow what the hell's going on?" kinda feel, and it captures your attention despite any disinterest in the commercial itself. The general public doesn't know anything about if it's not done right, so I suspect you'll end up seeing it more often until it becomes so commonplace, it loses its wow factor. Which shouldn't be too far away, really :P

All I can say is "wow" some folks have bad taste. This stuff has been going on in Flash circles since version 3, and none of what I've seen ever made me catch my breath and utter those famous words, and this stuff certainly doesn't either, somebody is selling their advertising clients a bill of goods that's based on sh**T.

well since i dont watch or care bout the superbowl nor do i get it since i am about 10 hours + EST.

is there a link phacker?

Hello,

Rotoscoping is a cheat and it is off. Copying live action leaves you with an unweighted pile of images...and forget about exaggeration and showing forces on forms- it goes right out the window...

Thanks,

Hello,

Rotoscoping is a cheat and it is off. Copying live action leaves you with an unweighted pile of images...and forget about exaggeration and showing forces on forms- it goes right out the window...

Thanks,

cheating?

thats crock.

it is what it is. some people use it as a stylistic choice. has nothing to do with cheating.

I think he meant cheating if used with the intent of replacing or trying to create animation.

I think he meant cheating if used with the intent of replacing or trying to create animation.

well in that case as well, its a stylistic decision, some people dont like Bakhsi, some do.

I've been unable to find a link for them, and for the life of me I can't remember the content of the damn things. I remember one was of a woman on a chair lift in ski gear talking about something. But see what good campaign it is, I can't even remember what they were selling. There were two of men, but I remember even less about them. They were basically talking head shots.

I've been unable to find a link for them, and for the life of me I can't remember the content of the damn things. I remember one was of a woman on a chair lift in ski gear talking about something. But see what good campaign it is, I can't even remember what they were selling. There were two of men, but I remember even less about them. They were basically talking head shots.

One of the guys said something about making his own investment descisions without a broker... Then I think he mentioned a dog... :confused:

I thought the commercials were cool-looking, though the visuals and colors were distracting, obviously. My personal opinion is that just regular video, or regular animation would have been more effective.

If I was the sponsor that footed the bill, I'd be very disgusted with the outcome.

I have to add though the rotoscoped ipod things apple puts out seem to fit the merchandise. I don't have a problem with them, they aren't trying to be anything but what they are. A sort of hi-tech silouhette technique. Which is kind of stylish in a way. So my opinions are full of contradictions.

the only ones i have seen are the United ones. Both of them work on a tech level and i enjoyed them as animated pieces. But on a campaign level one was ok and i think the other was really weak conceptually

Hello,

Rotoscoping is a cheat and it is off. Copying live action leaves you with an unweighted pile of images...and forget about exaggeration and showing forces on forms- it goes right out the window...

Thanks,

What about pseudo-rotoscoping (which is using live-action footage as reference but not tracing it)?

Is it possible to achieve subtlety (or naturalism) in an animated film without resorting to cartooniness? I certainly think it is.
And on a similar tangent, what about frame-rate modulation, which is practically nonexistent in the U.S.?

And on a similar tangent, what about frame-rate modulation, which is practically nonexistent in the U.S.?

What do you mean by this? Can you define it further?

What do you mean by this? Can you define it further?

Varying the number of drawings per second in a scene in order to heighten action or drama. It was invented in Japan by Yasuo Otsuka. One of the best examples would be the early Toei Doga film "Horus, Prince of the Sun", which is actually done in full animation on the 1s and 2s throughout, but the rock giant Moog is animated on the 3s and 4s, in order to express its great weight. You can watch the trailer here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iOmBXjVGHqU

Damn! Does anyone have the link for the commercial in question? Now you have all gotten me curious...

Hello Wade,

Nice to see you are still around....

Hey Konan,

Rotoscope for reference is different- as is watching live action itself for reference...with either the animator still has to work their magic.

As John Lassiter says, "There is no substitute for research".

Thanks.

Anytime I see rotoscoping on a student reel I ask them to remove it...everyone KNOWS it is just liveaction copied.

I finally found a link of sorts. It doesn't show the commercial, but there is a still to show you what that crap looks like. Turns out they were for Charles Schwab. I couldn't remember a thing about them except they were horrible.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2006-01-16-schwab_x.htm?csp=N009

Here you go Wade found a place where you can view two of them:

http://www.slate.com/id/2131287/

Here's part of the review over there at Slate:

Animation seems an incongruous choice for Schwab (as I can't imagine the investor class is brimming with manga-philes), but Stuart says the cartoons force us to focus on what we're hearing. I think he's right. Somehow, washing out the real-world details present in a live actor's face, and in an actual background set, lets us move past what we're seeing and shifts our attention onto the dialogue. This was true with Waking Life, and it's even truer in these 30-second rotoscope bursts. (I remember thinking it was amazing that Waking Life could sustain my interest in all those ornate, existential conversations its characters were having. Turns out that rotoscoping can hold my interest in conversations about mutual fund portfolios, too.)

Certainly didn't hold my interest, I couldn't even remember what they were about. Not even the dog one.

I guess I'm biased, but I have nothing against rotoscope animation. Granted, Linklater's style of rotoscoping does make me feel motion sickness at times, but I'm still fascinated by Fleischer's Koko the Clown.

Varying the number of drawings per second in a scene in order to heighten action or drama.

Thanks for the clarification. First off, what you describe isn't "frame rate modulation". Frame rate is a function of the playback device, not the number of drawings per second.

Second, western animation does use varying numbers of drawings to achieve varying effects, which sounds like what you're describing. That's where terms like "on 1's, on 2's", etc come from. It's a vital part of any animator's toolkit, so to say it's practically nonexistant in the U.S. isn't accurate.

I finally found a link of sorts. It doesn't show the commercial, but there is a still to show you what that crap looks like. Turns out they were for Charles Schwab. I couldn't remember a thing about them except they were horrible.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2006-01-16-schwab_x.htm?csp=N009

Here you go Wade found a place where you can view two of them:

http://www.slate.com/id/2131287/

Here's part of the review over there at Slate:

Certainly didn't hold my interest, I couldn't even remember what they were about. Not even the dog one.

wow. that does look like crap

Whats the point of doing that for that kind of comercial? I can understand using it for Waking Life or Scaner Darkly where people will kinda morph into things, but if it's just some guy sitting there talking. Just show the guy you just filmed. It's like trying to recreate photo realistic CG humans. Whats the point?

Aloha,
the Ape

Whats the point of doing that for that kind of comercial? I can understand using it for Waking Life or Scaner Darkly where people will kinda morph into things, but if it's just some guy sitting there talking. Just show the guy you just filmed. It's like trying to recreate photo realistic CG humans. Whats the point?

Aloha,
the Ape

i reckon someone made a lot of money on this.
it truly is appalling.

That's the "Waking Life", "A Scanner Darkly" treatment that's so popular just now. Personally, I don't see the point, but the "bad" rotoscoping is part of the style.

First off, what you describe isn't "frame rate modulation". Frame rate is a function of the playback device, not the number of drawings per second.

I actually looked it up after the fact, and while not animation-related, the results were interesting. As far as I understood, it talked about alternating whether or not a particular pixel was displayed on a monitor at any given moment, and how the difference between a used pixel and its specific color could be sped back and forth with an unused pixel in that same location at such a speed as to change the perceptible hue, leading to millions and inevitably a virtually infinite number of displayable colors.

Flipping drawings to maintain an illusion. Sorry to get off-topic ;)

And the flicker and shift of layers just makes me nauseous. Some people seem impressed by it like it's something that takes skill, believe me even beginning Flashers have done better.

In Animator's Survival Kit, the author says (my interpretation) that pulling your drawings, your timing, etc. straight from reference makes it look underweighted, wonky, wrong.

I wonder if that near-toonshaded look outlining live-action steals away any impact from the live-action weight or acting.

I finally found a link of sorts. It doesn't show the commercial, but there is a still to show you what that crap looks like. Turns out they were for Charles Schwab. I couldn't remember a thing about them except they were horrible.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2006-01-16-schwab_x.htm?csp=N009

Here you go Wade found a place where you can view two of them:

http://www.slate.com/id/2131287/

Here's part of the review over there at Slate:

Certainly didn't hold my interest, I couldn't even remember what they were about. Not even the dog one.

Thanks, Phacker. Admittedly, the first of the two commercials did not bother me that much. It is an interesting look, and probably caught the TV audience's eye, just for the mere fact that it is different looking. That is what these things are inteded to do, so I figure, mission successful. While we may not agree with the method of rotoscope, etc., that is really secondary. Primarily, the company wants the public to notice their brand.

It appears to me that this is done mostly with compositing software, with the exception of the rotoscoped black line, outlining the character.

The "Dog Meter" commercial bothered me a lot more. When casting for this commercial, could they not have looked for an actor who had a mouth that actually MOVED when speaking? This guy speaks like he is from Paris, hardly moving his mouth at all, which does not lend itself well to this medium.

Cheers