This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Film:Filmmaking This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see lists ofopen tasks andregional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to theguidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by theFilmmaking task force. AnimationTop‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide toanimation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you canedit the article attached to this page, help out with theopen tasks, or contribute to thediscussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Top This article has been rated asTop-importance on theproject's importance scale.

"however rotoscopy is still used on subjects that aren't in front of a green (or blue) screen, due to practical or economic reasons."

Artists very very frequently still need to rotoscope subjects, or portions of subjects, that are shot on a green or blue screen. Green screens are far from perfect in many situations.— Precedingunsigned comment added by66.207.201.114 (talk)20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bit about2001: A Space Odyssey using rotoscoping. 2001 was notable for extensively using a two-pass motion-control matte technique, with a black-and-white matte pass, and a second beauty pass with the same move. This was done in preference to bluescreen or rotoscoping simply for the very high quality of the final composite. I can't say definitively that there wasno rotoscoping used, but if it was used, there was very little of it, and I can't see it. Perhaps we should askDouglas Trumbull -- he would know.

--The Anome

Don't know if you have seen this article which covers the topic:[1]Kubricks 2001]. Talks about the team that went on to do the rotoscoping for Yellow Submarine.— Precedingunsigned comment added by12.104.140.9 (talk)14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't actually that helpful in terms of explaining what a rotoscope actually is... I read the entire artice and still only have a vaugh understanding of what it is and does. Could someone whodoes know please add a simple explanation at the beginning of the artice as to what a rotoscope is and how it works? A picture of one might also help to clear things up.Oracleoftruth16:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed (Guidofd04:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed. I'd also like to know what exactly it is. -James Foster09:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the current version of the article states that "A rotoscope is a device that enables animators to trace live action movement, frame by frame, for use in animated cartoons. Originally, pre-recorded live-film images were projected onto a matte windowpane and redrawn by an animator."

Did this "original" process involve a rotoscope, or did the rotoscope replace this process of projecting live-film images onto a matte windowpane? What does the rotoscope itself actually do? Can someone supply a picture or diagram, as I think those would possibly improve this article a lot. The image of the running horse doesn't really seem to have much to do with a rotoscope, even if it was created by one. -James Foster10:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think rotoscoping is more of a technique rather than an actualdevice. I'm going to change the article to reflect that. --MisterHand14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rotoscope is the device,rotoscoping the technique, the latter can be done in many ways. I added a picture of Fleischer's Rotoscope, with a short description in the caption. --Janke |Talk19:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :) -James Foster13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lists should be significally shortened tonotable films, videos & games, just a few per category. Anyone care to do it, or shall I? --Janke |Talk07:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the list of movies is quite large for the word notable. Movies with lesser or uninportant usage should be removed, but I recommend contacting a movie maniac for the judging of the exclusion.

Also I addedAnother World to the game list, I guess it´s just as notable as it´s "brother"Flashback, and to prevent the game list from also growing, I sugest we mantainHeart of the Alien out of it, It´s not very significant since it´s amidquel. It just adds scenes and facts toAnother WorldNarcotic Dream01:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (just read your userpage), I guess you are fit for the editing of the list after all!Narcotic Dream01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes to the list because they seemed to be pruning out the genuinely notable films, while leaving many that aren't. I've heard of almost all of the films that were removed, but only a few that were kept. I (prematurely) assumed somewhat poor faith and reverted the change. I think that we should discuss which films should be kept. Certainly Star Wars is notable. I think that such removals should be considered more carefully. Is there any particular reason why the current list was kept? --Eyrian07:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. But if you feel competent to edit the list, please do so. I have no knowledge of music videos or games myself. I reverted you because I feel the lists are too long - not because of any particular examples. It may have been too hasty a revert, sorry! I do agree that Star Wars belongs in the list, for instance. I suggest we change the title to "Some notable examples" and keep them down to, say no more than half a dozen per category. Furthermore, I suggest the "films" category is split into animated and live action films. Care to do it? --Janke |Talk09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I took the bull by the horn and did it myself. Further pruning might still be done in the games section. --Janke |Talk09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I just wanted to make sure that the lists were being looked at carefully. --Eyrian20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is digital rotoscoping? I have heard the term being used a couple of times. Sin City is said to have used digital rotoscoping.

SeeWaking Life. CGI is also considered a form of digital rotoscope. Andmotion captureIS digital rotoscoping as well. (Ibaranoff2403:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The animated gif shall NOT be of the original Muybridge photos, it is of the animationrotoscoped from it. This was the original upload by me. The "tampering" referred to in the recent revert (see article page history) was changing the original animation (which I uploaded to this page) to the Muybridge photos, which I naturally reverted. This article deals with a technique for producinganimation, and the animated gif is an example of ananimated cartoon made by rotoscoping. The Muybridge photos have their place in theEadweard Muybridge article, not here. The photos themselves have nothing to do with rotoscoping, which was invented decades after the photos were taken. --Janke |Talk14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Hopefully this explanation will end the confusion. --MisterHand14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand corrected, with apologies.Mooveeguy17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first film to use real computer generated effects wasWestworld in 1973. It was used in the gunfighter robot's POV shots. the effects took so long to do, a frame at a time, that the preview screenings had to be shown without the computer graphics.

Later films like Monty Python's The Meaning of Life and TV series like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy used simulated computer graphics that were traditional hand-drawn animation.

It wasn't untilThe Last Starfighter in 1984 that real computer graphics would make another appearance as film effect, being used both for complete exterior space scenes and composited with live actors.

There are simply too many examples - half the article! I pruned it down to one or two in each category. If you feel some important one was removed, put it back, but we should NOT have a very long list - Wiki guidelines says so... --Janke |Talk19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the technique used in Who framed Roger Rabbit?Jigen III16:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the linked list. The answer is yes. --Eyrian17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article really need two versions ofEdweard Muybridge’s galloping horse? I should think one would be enough. —Frungi18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Suggest we keep the brown cartoony one (not because it was made by me, but because it was votedfeatured picture). --Janke |Talk17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An anon. editor removed the wrong horse... ;-) I put it back... It's the other one that had the wrong description. --Janke |Talk07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of aFree Software (at the moment, quite basic, but the only one I am aware of) rotoscoping program:http://www.toonyphotos.com/.If I wasn't the author I'd add it to the External Links section myself, but since I am, I thought I might just mention it here and leave it up to other editors to decide whether or not it should be linked to. -James Foster15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime ago I mention your software in the spanish rotoscope article.

I deleted the following two sentences in the opening of the technique section:

"Rotoscoping is decried by some animation purists but has often been used to good effect. When used as an animator's reference tool, it can be a valuable time-saver."

I believe that the first part of the first sentence would need at least some sort of reference, and the rest is just opinion.Molerner (talk)23:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE--I felt bad about sending away an unsourced sentence just like that, so I looked, and lo and/or behold, a reference for animation purists against rotoscoping. "Animation; The Power Of Animation" The Washington Post, November 26, 1978, Sunday, Final Edition, Style Show; H1, By Joseph McLellan. It's availablehere on Washington Post's archive. The quote reads:

"...(the movie's director, Ralph Bakshi, calls this process "moving painting"; there also is a more old-fashioned and less dynamic term: "rotoscoping.").(J. Michael) Barrier points out that this is not really a new idea: "When 'Snow White' was nearly ready, they wanted to get it finished and keep the costs down, so they shot and traced the role of the prince in the same way - which may be one reason why the prince is the least vivid character in the picture. If that were a good way to do animation, it would mean that the highest form of art is tracing a photograph. Realistic motion for a human actor on film is not the same as realistic motion for an animated character." ..."

However, I haven't figured out a good way to fit it into the article. It certainly doesn't belong where it originally was. If someone could pleasebe bold and (if appropriate) place it where it needs to go.Molerner (talk)23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"One classic use of traditional rotoscoping was in the original three Star Wars films, where it was used to create the glowing lightsaber effect, by creating a matte based on sticks held by the actors. To achieve this, editors traced a line over each frame with the prop, then enlarged each line and added the glow."

From what I've read, seen and heard the sticks the actors held glowed (and had power cables out the bottom), it was the color that was added later. In several scenes in the un-retouched versions you can see that the light sabers are white, devoid of color, though you usually don't notice since it's easy to chalk up to washing out. I don't know of any hard sources for this information though (I know it was mentioned in some documentary or commentary that came with some set of DVDs, but I couldn't tell you what it was called or what set it came in). As that section doesn't mention sources anyway I'd suggest just removing that line unless someone can find some reliable source.StarkRG (talk)08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the visual effects industry, the term rotoscoping refers to the technique of manually creating a matte for an element on a live-action plate so it may be composited over another background."

Source? And when did they start doing this? To me, this smells like Adobe trying to hijack the word --Stormwatch (talk)13:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'd suggest that more people have seen this technique in the Charles Schwab brokerage ad series than anywhere else in recent times. Is anyone expert in who is behind these ads, specific techniques used, what inspired them, etc.? Verifiable info on this would add much to the article.75.252.134.58 (talk)03:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a before and after could demonstrate this wellBrando26000 (talk)21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to license this image as necessary. Only provision is that it must be attributed with a hyperlink to -----deleted----- -James Foster (talk)13:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would be happy to place some no-cost sales promotion here for your product. But Wikipedia is NOT an advertising opportunity. So thanks but no thanks! --93.135.106.205 (talk)13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to license an image that would be useful to the article under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia, and I did it on this page (not the article) so that it could be added in a neutral way. In your opinion that means you need to edit my comment on the discussion page and delete parts of it, but I doubt many Wikipedia editors would agree that attributing an image is advertising. -James Foster (talk)05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the second paragraph seems to be about a completely different device. If it's a completely different thing which just happens to have the same name, this belongs on a different page.JIMp _talk·cont23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of notable examples mentioned in the text prior to this section. They then appear again on this list along with some less "notable examples" I really don't see how this list adds to the understanding of the topic. I move that it be deleted.Van Vidrine (talk)19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I deleted it.Van Vidrine (talk)20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the second paragraph seems to be about a completely different device. If it's a completely different thing which just happens to have the same name, this belongs on a different page.JIMp _talk·cont23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think there should be 2 articles, nop)Dombov89 (talk)10:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class filmmaking articles
• Filmmaking task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Animation articles
• Top-importance Animation articles
• C-Class Animation articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Animation articles