a scanner darkly look. how to begin?

[seantree]

Just looking for some basic info on the look utilized in the upcoming "a scanner darkly" film. I've been wanting to utilize a look like this only in black and white. are the VFX guys painting over each frame of the footage? god, i hope not. I read that they have some in house software to assist. So is there a certain technique i should be looking into? I can use both AE and combustion. thanks

[Policar]

I think they're painting over each frame pretty much, though there's probably a bit of keyframing meaning it might only be every few frames for slow moving stuff and backgrounds might only be painted once for non-moving shots.

Pretty crazy, but they have a lot of money. I'd recommend tracing using flash or something; no plug in will achieve this look. (Unless you want to dress your actors in black and white only with white make up and black lipstick, etc, in which case a really bad aproximation would be possible in AE with greenscreening.)

[seantree]

thanks. I thought that is what they were doing, but was not sure. I may try combining some photoshop layers using the find edge tool and various other tools to acheive what i'm after. I'm not sure I want to roto that many frames :/ thanks again.

[Rich Lee]

yes, the scanner darkly guys are using a piece of software that aids in getting that look. from what i hear there is a definitly some hand holding that people have to do to keep it going.

i was thinking about this as well...how could you do this in a low budget way.

if you light your actors and sets a certain way, with hard shadows...no fluorescent. and have all the characters in makeup..nothing drastic, just to smooth out the skin and get rid of the imperfections and changes in skin color...kinda like a maxheadroom kinda thing i guys. i bet then you might be able to up the contrast and add some edge enhancements...you mighe at least get a bit closer to that look. you would still probably need to trace some of the edges to enhance it.

[thisiswells]

The word around Austin's film community -or- running joke per sey is that if you can draw a stick figure they would probably hire you to work on Scanner Darkly as an animator!

Only means they're a little short handed and have been for a while. That's the word, anyways.

[Rich Lee]

hey seantree...i just tried messing around in after effects to see if i could get anything that has a sort of scanner darkly kinda vibe...heres what i got...i call it ghetto darkly.

http://www.rich-lee.com/temp/sdtest_01small_CD.mov

http://www.rich-lee.com/temp/sdtest_02small_CD.mov

first i just did some minmax adjustments to a layer on the bottom, this sort of blends all the detail together...then its basicly just extracting different colors or messing with luma keys, then doing a edge enhancment on each bit of color you have pulled out and adjusted, that gives it the pencil outline thing. bluring the color after you have keyed it or extracted it will help smooth out the edges as well...which will help to get rid of the jaggies. the ae cpmosition gets pretty complex even for something like dis...anyway, i dunnoo...oh, and also grain makes the color flicker so thats kind of a bitch...but it looks kinda cool...so whateva...

its not great...but i kinda sorta works...

peace

[seantree]

rich, looks very cool to me. thanks for the tip. I'm working on a scene right now but gotta hit the sack. I should have something to show after working on it fo a few hours tomorrow. thanks again.

[Nick Adams]

I've been thinking about that look to, unfortunetly I haven't had AE since version 5 over 4 years ago..... I've been thinking about using the look in a future music video, Rich your stuff looks good, all I've been able to come with is more of a cartoonish thing which takes forever, I have to output each frame then apply the filter indiv... then bring it back in... I know scanner darkly uses a program from this company but it's not for sale until 2006 aparantly

[seantree]

those look great. I'm thinking I'm going to be stuck painting over each frame manually. I am looking for more of an anime style than anything. I did some tests in C3 last eve, still have a few things to wrap up then i'll post screens

[uhrgl]

Very cool, Rich.

[dvpixl]

Wow Nick, those look really good.

[xl70e3]

Was playing with AE a bit...

This isn't anything like SD, but looks kinda cool

www.xl70e3.com/1.jpg
www.xl70e3.com/2.jpg

[monte]

Here's a little screengrab from something like this I've been wroking on - basically the face grows from start to finish - gonna comp in a backround soon ... god so painfully slow...
http://img146.exs.cx/img146/3627/vectoring29la.jpg

[tazak]

export your footage as a tiff or png footage from after effects, open as a sequence in photoshop, first convert to grey scale and adust your levels and brightness/contrast using an action, then create an action to apply cutout filter to each image (you will have to do some fine adjustment) create another action to filter accent edges
then save your sequence. You may have to go back and touch up some frames, but this should save you some time.

[oneinfiniteloop]

The software they used is call Rotoshop and it's developed by MIT graduate Bob Sabiston. Wired had a good article on all the troubles they have encountered, and still are. Here's the link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/scanner.html.

Silhouette FX makes some paint and roto software that I've used the demos for and it looks promising and it's able to achieve these looks. Scanner was shot with 3-4 DVX's and was traced over by the artists frame by frame. One of the DP's posts here on the board, but I forgot his name.

Link to Silhouette FX: http://www.silhouettefx.com/index2.htm

[Angrius]

Why bother with all this crazy software?
Here is a better solution.

Paint directly on your actors! Think of the time this will save. No rotoscoping to do..just hit record.
I bet those idiots at Scanner Darkly never even thought of that. HA.

[Hkyplayr10]

I read an article in Filmmaker magazine that said the animators for a scanner darkly worked on getting that look for over a year

[alpha54]

www.fxhome.com

They have a product called CompositeLab Pro; the preset library includes a Scanner Darkly look. Just fyi... ;)

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

here's my ghetto versiom

http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/ghettoscanner.mov

exported each frame as tiffs, opened in photoshop

applied the Poster Edges filter to a frame and tweaked to the following settrings
used the Edge thickness 2
Edge intensity 0
Posterization 2
then opened a bunch of frames and
hit
Apple F (apply filter with settings again)
Apple W (close)
Enter (after save prompt).
104 times.

It would probably look better if I applied it to footage with Infinite Depth of Field.
This filter likes hard edges so it wasn't sure what to do with thingst that were out of focuse due to 35mm adatpor.

Not too bad for ghetto version.

[-zach-]

Pretty crazy, but they have a lot of money.

They actually had almost no money, and employed anyone who had basic drawing skills. The "basic drawing" people then were given a strict set of guidelines on how to draw the scenes, and some scenes were even shot without backgrounds or anything- because the whole thing is being Rotoshopped.

Rotoshop is a software that was developed for an indie film that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Some have said that they leave some frames out. That isn't exactly true. About every five frames, the artist will trace everything on the frame, and color it to match, but with their style added. There isn't just some filter, it actually includes drawing. Then, they skip a couple, (if there's a lot of action, they'd probably have to trace every frame) and the Rotoshop software kind of fills in the blanks off of the template the artist has just traced. It's complicated.

The many established actors such as Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Robert Downey agreed to take a large paycut because, they're technically not in the movie. Everything is pretty much animated. I suggest if you really wanna go for the feel of "Scanner Darkly" you can do this:

1. Get a Tablet
2. Import your video at the highest setting, finished editing, into Flash 8 Professional.
3. Trace every frame on your tablet with the many features of Flash 8
4. Delete the video and export your animation as a DVD compatible burn format.

That takes alot of time. The thing that would take even more time is, do John's idea. For like 3 seconds of video he had 140 (nice looking, by the way) frames and it probably took him like 40 minutes to apply all the filters. You could export your final edited movie as frames and then trace them a la the Flash 8 method, or you could do John's method, just applying a filter, which I have to say did look wicked cool in its own "Scanner" inspired way.

Further educate yourself with the article from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/scanner.html?pg=1&topic=scanner&topic_set=

-zach

[pixelpusher]

Check out www.synthetik.com

an automated approximation of roto.

[Duct Tape Films]

Just looking for some basic info on the look utilized in the upcoming "a scanner darkly" film. I've been wanting to utilize a look like this only in black and white. are the VFX guys painting over each frame of the footage? god, i hope not. I read that they have some in house software to assist. So is there a certain technique i should be looking into? I can use both AE and combustion. thanks

I shot the behind the scenes for "A Scanner Darkly" from pre-production all the way through post, including the months and months of animation. It will be on the DVD whenever that comes out. They use a propriatary software they use for all the rotoscoping, which is pretty much specifically geared toward that look. It functions kind of like Flash and After Effects got in some wicked car crash, and came out some sort of mutant child. The single coolest thing about the software is the tweening algorithm, which is what gives it it's "flowy" movement.

Some tweening aside, they did have to draw much of it by hand, because you can only tween so far, a few frames at the most. Rest assured, there is NO technique that you can use to specifically emulate this look 100% accurately, other than the program itself which is not for sale unfortunately, and I'm not even sure that the name of the program is supposed to be public knowledge, so I'll keep that to myself for right now. That said, what they did is incredibly labor intensive, everywhere I turned there were animators, I kept thinking to myself I was going to find animators in the closet. If you want to know more, I'm hoping the DVD will answer a few questions.

My suggestion would be to find your own way to animate using other available methods. Perhaps even your own look, rather than something based on theirs. That's actually what I am personally doing for my own upcoming film. My "off-the-shelf" weapons of choice: Studio Artist & Twixtor. Hope that helps out a little.

[rorytmeadows]

There are a few different methods to achieve the effect. You can take video editing software and tinge the lighting and color until you get blur and reflection, but it does not have the 'cartoony' aspect to it whatsoever. The more accurate way is the more labor intensive.

I can create cartoony Scanner Darkly pictures from photos using photoshop and a tutorial described on the net here:

http://www.macmerc.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=209&page=1

You can take pretty much most video files and decomplile them into frames using this program:

http://www.am-soft.ru/aviedit.html

However this is extremely labor intensive, so much, that I'll probably never get to it. You can use the AVIedit to convert the edited pics back to video as well. The longer the video, the more pictures. I think I had a 1 minute video, decompiled 600 pictures. Although you can change the number that results by increasing the interval time between frames. Looks choppier, however.

You can check out some of the comic photos that I've converted on my rorytmeadows myspace account or by IMing me at rorytmeadows and I'll send you some cool examples. I hope that I stop drinking long enough to have some time to compile a nice video.

[E_D_N]

Whatever they're using, they better keep improving on the technology cause I don't think it came off all that well in Linklater's first film using that look (can't remember the title)... now, that was what I call flat animation! Even Japanese anime characters are imbued with a less stiff and more lifelike animations.

And to make it all worse... that first Linklater film featured an endless array of talking heads spouting off some obscure philosophical concepts for minutes on
end. Boring and Pretentious.

Total stasis.

If I hear Ethan Hawke blabbing about Quantum physics with various and sundry loser hangers-on in a coffee shop booth again, I'll shoot myself!

Let's hope there's more action this time around -- though judging by the trailers (that have been running in theaters for over a year BTW) this looks just like more of the same.

[aravance]

I believe it is called Waking Life.

[spidey]

yeah and waking life is great and won many awards and writing is superb came of quite will i suppose.

[Noiz2]

You might try looking at the apps on this site
http://fxhome.com/

Very cool nd might be close
SK

[Andrew Brinkhaus]

Yeah, I just tried a little of the roto technique by drawing a frame, this took my about 20 minutes with a tablet, just to trace it accurately, and that is still low detail!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/InvisionProductions/CoryAnimated.jpg

[Blaine]

I believe it is called Waking Life.
If you rent Waking Life, there's a good bts on how they actually do the roto work. It was very interesting.

[rawfa]

Check out www.synthetik.com

an automated approximation of roto.


That looks pretty cool. Anyone try this yet? Too bad it's for MAC only. Anyone knows if there's a similar software for pc?

[Blaine]

That looks pretty cool. Anyone try this yet? Too bad it's for MAC only. Anyone knows if there's a similar software for pc?
I've been running the demo and it looks nice but I've not been able to contact ANYONE at Synthetik to answer some questions I have. I've left several messages and sent a couple of e-mails. :undecided

[Duct Tape Films]

I talk to the developer all the time (I 'm autorotoscoping a feature length documentary right now), and they are getting ready to make a port of Studio Artist for Universal Binary, but behind the times me (all PPC Dual G5's in my studio), I dunno if that makes a difference for Windows or not. Insert shrug here....

[Blaine]

I talk to the developer all the time (I 'm autorotoscoping a feature length documentary right now), and they are getting ready to make a port of Studio Artist for Universal Binary, but behind the times me (all PPC Dual G5's in my studio), I dunno if that makes a difference for Windows or not. Insert shrug here....
Really? I tried again today, three times. Still unable to reach anyone and no one is returning my calls. I've got, like three questions, and if they can answer them to my satifaction, I'm ready to pop for the software.

[Duct Tape Films]

Really? I tried again today, three times. Still unable to reach anyone and no one is returning my calls. I've got, like three questions, and if they can answer them to my satifaction, I'm ready to pop for the software.

I know they're really slammed right now trying to finish the Universal binary port. Still, I found a problem with the batch processing, and the dude, in the course of four days, sent me something like six new builds of the program trying to fix my problem. He takes it seriously making sure his program works right for the customer. You might want to go back to email, or the message board, both of which are faster methods to get a hold of him. (I think he writes his code on the beach?!? They are in Hawaii you know - oh, yeah, what time of day are you calling - time zone difference....) At any rate, from what I've heard, he's actually the dude who invented Pro Tools, although I've never confirmed that. He's about the most concerned developer of any program I've EVER used. When was last time you were anxiously emailed by the guy who invented Final Cut to make sure it was running alright? What are the questions you have? Have you posted them to the synthetik.com message board? I don't work there, but I have been using the program since it came out, kind of know it inside and out, maybe I might be able to help you....

FWIW I would recommend this program for nearly anyone involved in Film/Video production, and/or graphic and web design. It has some limitations, but it is truly one of the most original, and functional, programs, out there, and is under constant development. The things that he has planned for the future of the program, most of which are based on user suggestions are really cool, and are almost mind bending. The last update, from 3.0 to 3.5 (their first .5 upgrade with any fee) was so huge you could see why they had to charge, what with adding Supersizer, Batch Processing (now fully functional), a complete reworking of the paint synth (everything in the program using audio paradigms), and a WHOLE freaking 'nother program (which I'm not into, but many are - it can generate controlled abstract video art on the fly - a little outside my taste/uses - although probably "bitchen'" for the VJ crowd). To be quite honest, I'm still kind of shocked the user base is so small, however it does have a real community vibe around this program. If you do get it, I'll be glad to help you get going on designing your own PASeq's (the macros that allow guided autorotoscoping).

Here's the trailer for the animated documentary I'm doing with SA 3.5

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3594052906572694578

If that link doesn't work, I've got it a few other places. Still getting the site up for the movie....

[Andrew Brinkhaus]

I watched your trailer, and I was hoping for more of an animated look. It still felt VERY live action. Most of the time I couldnt tell if it was animated, though, I loved the content.

[Drew Ott]

Yeah it didn't look animated enough to call it animated...

[Duct Tape Films]

It was animated at 12P, in the style of 20th Century American Painters of Realism (Hopper, Wyeth, Sargent, & Homer), not like a cartoon look, which is what I'm thinking you may have been expecting - this is more like natural media (watercolor, oil, graphite) - so there are no big black outlines or flat cartoony areas, like in a "cel animation" - everything is blended like a painter would; afterward then I used Twixtor to get it back to 24P, thus the "realistic" motion, instead of the strobing inherent of doubling 12P.

Online it's harder to see since you're looking at 320x240 instead of 1280x720, I do guarantee you it's 100% animated, blended strokes and lines, NONE of the original source is actually still present. The look is kind of based on a visual trick in John Singer-Sargent's paintings, whereby the further away you get from the picture, it looks VERY realistic, the closer you get, you realize that it's just a freaking mass of strokes. The same effect exists with this projected onto a big screen, or even on a television. Online, it's certainly less noticeable, but still present. Glad you enjoyed the content....

[Viserys]

That effect for the documentary trailer just gives the impression that it was filmed with a twenty year old camcorder. The people look like when you paste an image onto a background in Photoshop with the contrast and lighting completely off. It also reminds me of special effects from big-budget 70's movies, in my opinion that style of animation is moving backwards instead of progressing into new visual territory. That said, I think it can be used effectively to draw a viewer's focus to where you want it to be, which is especially useful for a documentary. I am assuming the trailer is not fully edited footage, so I look forward to seeing the finished film at the proper resolution!

[Duct Tape Films]

Sure am glad I made my movie for viewers, and not for filmmakers.

Again, the effect, is not an "effect". It is animated, a method whereby each and every frame, well every other frame or even every third frame, is drawn. So to repeat, animation is not a "look", it is a method. Have any of you here actually looked at American Realism paintings before, which IS the actual "look" I'm going for, and actually came quite close to succeeding at, if I might say so myself? Almost all of it looks, well, 3D-ish, & flat simultaneously, complete from a distance and kinda messy as you get closer. The complaint that it doesn't look like animation enough to call it animation is so much nonsense, as animation itself doesn't have a look, people. Walt Disney CARTOONS have a look. "A Scanner Darkly" has a look, a stylebook even, which I saw first hand shooting the behind the scenes for. That comment (by bballplaya283) makes about as much sense as saying a movie doesn't look like a movie, because it REALLY looks like just a bunch of still pictures shown one after another. You don't like the style with which it was animated, because in your mind an animation should look like a cartoon? You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, as all tastes are different, but your own personal preferences don't make it an animation any less, as that was the method by which it was accomplished, frame by freakin' frame. Is claymation not animation because it uses clay instead of cels? Stepping down from the soapbox, people....

The NEXT person that wants to know how to freakin' look like "A Scanner Darkly", as this subject seems to be coming up daily, lookey here....

1) Shoot your movie.
2) Code your own rotoscoping software that does what Sabison's software does, or more realistically, use Flash, After Effects, Studio Artist, Illustrator, Toonboom Studio, a pen, some ink, & a pile of tracing paper/cels, or any combination thereof. I recommend Studio Artist, as it's all laid out right there, designed specifically for rotoscoping, and you can use it any style you want to.
3a) Get your own "look", or "style" or....
3b) Rotoscope it using flat colors, and bold, equally weighted, outlines to get that "cartoony" anime' look.*
4) Do it THE SAME WAY for every frame drawn.
5) Interpolate smooth motion, either with vectors in the program you're using if capable, or use Twixtor. Repeat and rinse.

It's that simple, and that complicated. Enjoy....


*It was the intention of a certain producer on "Scanner" to get it to look like anime'. Did they succeed? Quite close enough as a reference point, but they came out of it with something different, something entirely THEIR own, which is ALWAYS a better result, IMHO. Is it anime'? No, it's even better, it's its own thing.

[Blaine]

Take a deep breath, Duct Tape. When you put something up for others to see, not everyone is going to feel the same way you feel about it. This is a filmmaking community. You're going to get feedback. Take from it what you will. Best not to get too defensive...:)

[Duct Tape Films]

Blaine,

Not really concerned about criticism at all, couldn't care less, it's more that a personal pet peeve of mine was hit - refering to animation as a look, when it's nothing more or less than a method. In fact, I don't see any real criticism there, as the things being describing are actually the very things I set out to accomplish - I am quite proud of the fact that I have something that looks almost live when I know full well that not even a single pixel of the source is left, it means I did what I set out to do right.

No, what irked me are the misconceptions about animation. There is no "animation" filter in FCP, or Vegas, et al for a reason, nor should there be. Studio Artist, with it's PASeq's come the closest to that, but it still has to go frame by frame, requiring a good deal of input from the user as to the final look. This seems to be a common misconception folks are having, that there's some magic way to turn your stuff into an animation, that it's an effect, and not a method. That's all I was saying. This being a filmmaking community, one I have been part of for years (had another name before, but got a new one), I just thought that maybe trying to raise the level of discourse/understanding about rotoscoping & animation, that there's no magic "animation look" filter you can place on your timeline in FCP (at least right now), and that it's not any one particular "style", any more than there's any one camera style, these things seemed to need to be clarified. This site is far too informative in other aspects for this to not be corrected.

But, again, it is just a pet peeve. Some people don't like it when people use the word "ironic" incorrectly, this is just my own version of that. Sorry for the neurosis....

[Ogrus]

studio artist is amazing! but only for MAC grrrrrrrr!!!!!
i hate mac!!!! they get some kick ass software we dont

[Duct Tape Films]

studio artist is amazing! but only for MAC grrrrrrrr!!!!!
i hate mac!!!! they get some kick ass software we dont

It does really kick arse. I'm still really shocked at how small the user base is, seeing as how it incorporates nearly all the functions of After Effects, Flash, Illustrator, Photoshop, Painter, Instant HD, and then some things that don't really exist anywhere else into one program, like it's basic design for autorotoscoping. It is a huge timesaver going to one program and doing nearly everything I have to within the one interface. I could live without all of the forementioned programs, but not without Studio Artist. Yeah, too bad about you being a windows guy. Have you thought about one of the new Core Duos? Even the Mac Mini's are sporting Core Duos now, almost putting them in league with my Dual 2.7 G5 PPC's. Damn that Rosetta stuff though, slows clock speed by a half for things that haven't been ported to "Universal". I did hear that by the end of the year you should be able to, on startup, choose, from a start up screen, to run Windows or Mac, natively, no emulation going in either direction, or at least that was my understanding. How in the world they're going to pull that off, I dunno.

[Drew Ott]

I'm rendering my take to the scanner darkly look, even though its a little too drastic.

[Drew Ott]

rotoscoping test3.wmv (http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/15868/1154566992.wmv)

[Drew Ott]

I made it 320x240 so I could upload it onto DVXuser.

It's 8 fps and that actually helps it look more animated.

Tell me if you'd like to get a walk-through of how I did that. It's just some effects in Vegas and I think they look pretty good.

[Duct Tape Films]

I made it 320x240 so I could upload it onto DVXuser.

It's 8 fps and that actually helps it look more animated.

Tell me if you'd like to get a walk-through of how I did that. It's just some effects in Vegas and I think they look pretty good.

So, you found the edges, turned 'em black and white, slapped them over a smart gaussian blurred and/or diffused source, oversatured the result, and turned the frame rate to 8P? Nice effect, but it ain't animated. It's a "cartoon" EFFECT, done within an NLE.

Just something to help you get over your 8P=animation preconception: "A Scanner Darkly" was actually animated at a HIGHER frame rate than the source footage as opposed to the other way around, due to requirements of the editing system they were using. It's the flat areas, with their inherent hard edges, and Sabison's interpolation algorithm, that give the image stability.

Anime', which is the look they were going for, is actually done at various speeds, 8P (trips), 12P (twos), all the way up to 24P for extremely high speed movement. 8P=animation is akin to the thinking that used to exist in the early stages of the DV community that 24P=film look. It may be part of it, of a look of a certain type of animation, but it certainly goes much deeper than that, as animation is dependent on many other variables as well, not the least of which is the fact that it's actually drawn, be it interpolated, by hand, or somewhere in between like Sabison's software.

As for your look, if it were that easy, there's no way they would have taken so long to put the film out, hired close to a hundred animators, who slaved away for long hours, tirelessly to get this animated film in the can. Trust me, if some filters in Vegas, and a slowdown in speed would have done the trick, the producers would have done it that way. That's why it's a pet peeve of mine when someone, especially filmmakers who ought to know better, refers to animation as a look or effect, and not a method. What you've got is a cartoon effect, a good one, but an effect nonetheless.:dankk2:

[Drew Ott]

I guess I forgot to mention it was just a lot of effects. How you think I did it was wrong, but it doesn't really matter. I'm aware I did not rotoscope it truly and it is not "exactly" like the film did it, but I think it has a pretty cool animated look.

I also did the 8p so it would look more like animation, because the 24/30p was way too smooth for the look I was going for.

Edit: Not an animation, more like a cartoon.

[Drew Ott]

I would like to add that it does look a lot like a bad quality version of A Scanner Darkly in my opinion. If I were to make a short that way, I would use that effect, but rotoscope the person because the person doesn't look very good.

[Duct Tape Films]

I guess I forgot to mention it was just a lot of effects. How you think I did it was wrong, but it doesn't really matter. I'm aware I did not rotoscope it truly and it is not "exactly" like the film did it, but I think it has a pretty cool animated look.

I also did the 8p so it would look more like animation, because the 24/30p was way too smooth for the look I was going for.

I'm not getting on you for the look at all, I thought it was good for effects. Try this method of phrasing instead about your reasons for 8P though, as it's nearly giving me a freakin' coronary.

"I also did the 8p so it would look more like a CARTOON, because the 24/30p was way too smooth for the look "I" was going for."

My point is, just like a film can be shot a dozen different ways, each with their own characteristics, the one thing they all hold in common is not the frame rate, nor the depth of field, nor the lighting, but a progressive frame, all the way from 8mm to 35mm; animation's joining glue, what separates animation from something that has been just simply been processed is the fact that it has been drawn/molded/interpolated, frame by frame, in order to acheive it's final look and motion. Just as with the multiple looks of film, the frame rate is irrelevant, so is the style, and finally, so is the medium. If it's been animated, it's animation. What I'm getting at is please do not confuse the method (animation) with the look (cartoon). Just trying to bring the discourse about animation around here to the level that the filmmaking discussion's are at....

Also about 24/30P being too smooth, only if you have good interpolation, or freaking meticulous animators or both, can it be too smooth, otherwise it goes exactly in the opposite direction being too frenetic. One of the advantages to 8P or 12P is it gives you the illusion of a longer static image. This may work well in situations where the subject is static, however if you have a moving camera or quickly moving subject, trips or twos will quickly look strobey. Congrats on discovering one of the tools....

[Drew Ott]

I am not saying that all animation is 8p. I am not saying something that has a high frame rate is not animation. I know what animation is, and I know what cartoons are. My real life video is not an animation. It is a video with effects on top of it to make it look more like animation.

What I meant by my comment that is close to giving you a heart attack, is that by giving it a lower frame rate, it makes it look less life-like. Hence, looking more like an animation. It is not an animation because it is 8p, no. I agree with you there.

If you would like me to post my video with the exact same effects in 30p, you can decide with me which video looks closer to the look of something that actually is animation; 30p, or 8p.

Before posting my video, I made a conscious decision that by giving my experimental try at an animated look a frame rate of 8 frames per second, it would look closer to something drawn, than something that was taken directly from real life.

[Duct Tape Films]

I am not saying that all animation is 8p. I am not saying something that has a high frame rate is not animation. I know what animation is, and I know what cartoons are. My real life video is not an animation. It is a video with effects on top of it to make it look more like animation.

What I meant by my comment that is close to giving you a heart attack, is that by giving it a lower frame rate, it makes it look less life-like. Hence, looking more like an animation. It is not an animation because it is 8p, no. I agree with you there.

If you would like me to post my video with the exact same effects in 30p, you can decide with me which video looks closer to the look of something that actually is animation; 30p, or 8p.

Before posting my video, I made a conscious decision that by giving my experimental try at an animated look a frame rate of 8 frames per second, it would look closer to something drawn, than something that was taken directly from real life.

You're not trying to look like an animation, as there is no such "look". Examples: "A Bug's Life", "American Pop", & "A Scanner Darkly" are all animated, but look considerably different; you're trying, more specifically, to look like a CARTOON, which does have more of a set specific "look", thusly bold lines, flat areas, and even 8P or 12P can contribute to that look. Specificity is at issue here. If I say I'm going for a film look, does that mean a beat up Super 8mm, or pristine 35mm? Big difference there. It's a matter of proper descriptors, which in most of the rest of this board as it deals to film and DV, are used.

If you put your footage at 30P, without any interpolation a la Rotoshop, yeah, you're exactly right, it ain't gonna look like a cartoon, as you're aiming for, it's going to like more like processed video, as generally speaking, cartoons are done at 8P when they can get away with with it, 12P when they can't get away with 8P, and 24P only when they can't get away with 12P. None of those speeds make it LOOK LIKE an animation, as there is no such thing as an animation look. A drawn or interpolated cartoon just IS an animation because that is how it was generated.

[Drew Ott]

I wanted my clip to look as if it was actually drawn. I realize that FPS has nothing to do with this. Once I had my "animated" look down, I wanted to make it look further from reality, so I gave it unnatural motion: 8fps.

What we are debating really doesn't matter at all though. I don't know about animation and I just gave it a shot.

I realize you live in Austin, Texas.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=35299

Check it out, we're going to have a get-together.

I'm sort of acting as the organizer right now, but I don't know why because I'm 14 years old.

[Duct Tape Films]

I wanted my clip to look as if it was actually drawn. I realize that FPS has nothing to do with this. Once I had my "animated" look down, I wanted to make it look further from reality, so I gave it unnatural motion: 8fps.

What we are debating really doesn't matter at all though. I don't know about animation and I just gave it a shot.

I realize you live in Austin, Texas.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=35299

Check it out, we're going to have a get-together.

I'm sort of acting as the organizer right now, but I don't know why because I'm 14 years old.

It's a good shot you gave. I do suggest that you try the Studio Artist demo (if you have a Mac, or have access to one via a friend - but not the new ones, the older PPCs G4,G5, etc.). Despite the fact that the look I went for is non-cartoony look, more like a moving realism painting, you will find that it is quite capable of doing cartoon looks exceptionally well. The paint synth section basically work off the bezier curves, analyzing what is on the curve, and what is not, thus determining where a line is, and where a color area is. Not to mention it's natural media capabilities, like Corel Painter that moves. There's also the supersizer, which is an uprezzing command in SA that works pretty well too. Also, many of the functions on SA are resolution independent, so once it's rotoscoped, you can scale to billboard size if you want. The program is specifically designed for rotoscoping. And no, I don't work for them, although I would in a second - they're out of Hawaii.

There are some other (at least there used to be) good digital filmmaking groups in town, although they general meet in bars, which generally excludes me and my wife at this point since we have a two year old daughter. If you're looking for a good place to have a DVXuser meeting, I would check out Cafe' Caffiene over on Mary off S.1st. It's owned by the Unemployed Democrats Company (the black background and white letter bumper stickers across the freakin' country), right across the street from Alex Jones' new digs. The guy there actually gives away free coffee for film and video shoots, like you bring in your large coffee container, and he'll fill it free. I'm going to be having my screening there on September 16th.

[Drew Ott]

I guess I forgot to mention that I am not doing some rotoscoping piece right now, I just tested out Sony Vegas to see how close to that cartoony look I was going for, since there had been lots of discussion about how to pull off a "poser rotoscope" look.

There is a thread in the Vegas forum about how to get sort of a look-a-like rotoscope within Vegas and I made that video to show my attempt in that thread, and decided it would pertain to this one also.

I live sort of in the Northwest Austin area and am not quite familiar with the places you are talking about downtown, but if you give me some info on the place you are having your screening at, I would really like to come check it out.

[Drew Ott]

Also yes, the whole meeting in bars thing also excludes me because I don't have an ID/drivers license, and the whole, "Mom will you drive me downtown tonight to meet some people I met over the internet in a bar," typically doesn't work.

[Ed Kishel]

well here is my go at it:

http://www.imperialrabbit.com/scannerhardly.mov

Ed

[Duct Tape Films]

Also yes, the whole meeting in bars thing also excludes me because I don't have an ID/drivers license, and the whole, "Mom will you drive me downtown tonight to meet some people I met over the internet in a bar," typically doesn't work.


That's too damn funny. I'm pretty freaking sure I'd not be letting my daughter do that either in twelve years, or even twenty years. Although I'm a pacifist by nature, I'm pretty sure whoever that first chap is who comes pick up my daughter for a date is going to have to have a little chat with me while I meticulously clean the shotgun I won't even have bullets for.

On the opposite end of things, it is hard to find "family friendly" places to go, although most coffeehouses are pretty accomidating these days. It might be a overall good idea to use a kind of neutral place like that for many folks, and caffeine would probably work better to keep a meeting on track....

[Drew Ott]

That's too damn funny. I'm pretty freaking sure I'd not be letting my daughter do that either in twelve years, or even twenty years. Although I'm a pacifist by nature, I'm pretty sure whoever that first chap is who comes pick up my daughter for a date is going to have to have a little chat with me while I meticulously clean the shotgun I won't even have bullets for.

Hahaha.

Yes I can't really think of anywhere other than a place like that, but we aren't making much progress so I think we will have a little while before we decide.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Sorry for ressurecting this old thread, but this new plugin is able to do this now easily, samples and settings here: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/11/30/a-scanner-darkly-look/

[samuel]

I know this is old news, but I thought I would put my two cents in. There's a technique where you bring a JPG sequence through AI and render out multiple passes which you later composite back in AE. Here's an example I pulled together:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v603/igd/?action=view&current=test10.flv

Here's some basic info about the clip. I reduced the frame rate by half (12-15fps). The clip I rendered has 4 passes (1 color, 1 dark shader, 1 faded color outline, 1 dark detail outline). The process destroyed face detail, so I took the original footage and overlayed just her face at a low opacity (just enough to make out eyes, lips, etc.) The process itself takes an extraordinary amount of render time (especially through AI) but considering the alternative of drawing each frame by hand..... eh, i'd rather set an overnight render.