Rotoscoped Animation of Filmed Parkour
moral.net.au
moral.net.au
Very humble conclusion, I think its a great result and I'd be more than proud it that were my first work of any kind.
https://www.fxguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/09Sep/d9/...
to me at the time it informed me that there was mocap going on, or a dumb cg artist/director deciding that the robot had to react in a more humanlike fashion.
of course now that i think about it, a military robot with auto-flinch-reflexes could actually help it avoid hits (similar to why our flinch reflex evolved i suppose) so that puts me in my place!
Basically, whenever some sort of "dumb" design decision in a movie annoy you, try to come up with a decent explanation for why it's actually an intelligent design decision. It's a lot of fun!
> The most interesting lessons from sci-fi come when you assume, for the sake of argument, that everything is in sci-fi is there for a reason–even things that look like mistakes. There’s a word for this, apologetics, which usually refers to the act of attempting to close logical loopholes in theology.
> Take Star Wars, for instance, in the scene when Luke and Han Solo are in the Millennium Falcon blowing up TIE fighters.
> If they’re fighting in the cold vacuum of space, why do we hear the ships exploding? Sound doesn’t exist without air.
> George Lucas probably figured that a silent gun fight would probably have been way less dramatic. He wanted to make the scene feel real to the audience, even if it was less true to reality. And if we move from the point of view that what works for the audience will work for the user, we can ask ourselves–could this make sense? Is there an explanation that can warrant hearing ships exploding in space?
> Well, what if the sound is the interface? Audio is a much more efficient gauge of surroundings, since it spans 360 degrees, whereas vision only covers 120 degrees. It might be that there are sensors on the outside of the Millennium Falcon that provide 3D sound inside the gunner seat. So when we hear ships blow up, we’re actually hearing an augmented reality interface that Luke and Han hear. Maybe?
> With design thinking, there are logical excuses for every interface discrepancy. And it makes sci-fi that much more fun to watch.
So, I agree that augmented reality is probably the most realistic idea. But, even without that space battles could be very loud.
You get to see nebulae and moving starfields, explosions gives of sounds, and you can steer as if you're driving a plane, pretty much. But everything that isn't "real" is described in the manual as assistance provided by the in-ship computer to assist human navigation, and can be turned off if you prefer the more austere and genuine look and feel.
Even the way the ship handles - if you look at one of the outside views, while the ship is handling like a plane, you'll see directional boosters fire accordingly; turn it off, and you have full control and can e.g. rotate the ship and fire backwards at ships pursuing you, while continuing to coast away from them.
Much like Karateka, Mechner's first game, Prince of Persia used rotoscoping for its fluid and realistic animation. For this process, Mechner used as reference for the characters' movements videos of his brother doing acrobatic stunts in white clothes and swashbuckler films such as The Adventures of Robin Hood
More interesting, IMO, is http://www.jordanmechner.com/backstage/journals/, which links to his journal which got published as "the Making of Prince of Persia" (preview at http://www.jordanmechner.com/downloads/makpopsample.pdf) and to the Apple ][ source code for Prince of Persia (http://github.com/jmechner/Prince-of-Persia-Apple-II)
In media, you're always challenged - implicitly - to discover a good workflow for doing something, to craft a structured approach so that the bulk of it is a matter of "coloring in the lines" or "filling in the blanks." Being considered a "professional" is mostly indicative of having some flexibility, and not staying stuck in a one-note style. For visuals like this, sometimes that means a very technology-driven approach like rotoscoping, mo-cap, 3D and procedural rendering, other times it means relying on basic conceptual drawing and animating skills.
And it's turtles all the way down. Before you can draw a character you have to design a character. And you need a process for designing the character so that they make sense in the context of the world or story. And then the world needs a design, and so on, and so forth, until you're looking at basic principles and philosophies driving the intent of the work. At least, that's how it would work if you built all of culture from scratch. In practice, creators start borrowing elements on whims or as they fall out of their comfort zone, hence why most of culture is remixed.
What you buy when you hire an artist is a "package of familiarity." Some artists are really great illustrators but are uncomfortable with designing original characters; some are good at comic book scenes with dynamic poses, others at portraits and fashion drawing. A Bob Ross landscape is defined by a process that is so straightforward that anyone could pick it up just by watching. And what defines "programmer art" is mostly that it has no particular workflow or structure in mind, it is entirely whimsy guided by pragmatic efficiency. Other media like music, storytelling, game design, and, of course, programming share these same qualities.
Here the author downplays technical drawing and drafting abilities, but those are as valid a form of presentation as any, and they help push the focus back towards the interesting part of the material, which is the realistic motion. A character cluttered with detail detracts from movement - this is true even if you look at the different versions of the first Prince of Persia and how they translate the same motions to higher fidelity platforms. Same frames, but they become more wobbly with colors, outlines and higher resolution. [0]
Aside: "Another World" (aka "Out of this World") is available on Steam.
Read The Illusion of Life, Animators Survival Kit and the Preston Blair book if you're serious about including animation in a project -- or befriend an animator. Animators don't let other animators rotoscope.
Want to elaborate?
These do not appear on rotoscoped footage because they do not occur in real life. If you rely on rotoscoping the result is bland movements which lack a "spark of life".
In other words, rotoscoping creates an "uncanny valley" for motion.
Rotoscoping, tracing back each frame, is more what you will find in A-Ha's Take On Me music video, or Ralph Bakshi's film Fire and Ice. It is limited with poor line quality, and used primarily because the labor is cheap.
It is amazingly smooth and so pleasant to watch, and this is the first time I've noticed that !
I never actually played the game, but saw the animations, and they certainly stood out.
Not to belittle the technical achievement, of course.
I spent several years learning to draw and paint, it was a great hobby. BUT, I didn't get to the point of being able to draw character-type art. That level of drawing is hard, due to the uncanny valley.
Also, I think it's also cool that he decided to try a different technique than hand-drawing, and went on to (A) get good results and (B) document it clearly. Doesn't feel to me like a "afraid of part of your hobby", more like "how do I get around my own limitations?" thing.
"Balls" here does not refer to courage, but is used roughly as a synonym for "bullshit" or similar terms.