Poll: Do you consider rotoscoping and motion capture animation to be actual animation?
Wednesday March 12, 2008
Recently, a forum reader brought up the topic of rotoscoping and motion capture, asking if these techniques constitute actual animation since one is retraced from live video, and the other doesn't actually animate; it just applies captures of real motion to virtual objects. While by the strictest definition of the word "animation", anything that moves is animated...
Do you consider rotoscoping and motion capture animation to be actual animation?
- Yes. It doesn't matter how the moving images got on the screen; they're still animated.
- No. Actual animation requires the animator to animate, rather than use real life captures of any kind.
- I consider rotoscoping to be animation, but not motion capture.
- I consider motion capture to be animation, but not rotoscoping.
- Other/will explain in comments.
Have you voted in last week's poll?
Comments
In my opinion, comparing a sequence obtained from rotoscope (or motion capture) to a sequence conceived by an artist is like comparing man to a robot: man has got life, robots don’t. Just watch the difference between Disney’s Pinocchio character and the Blue Fairy in the same film.
I meant rotoscoping is related to robots, man to traditional animation, of course..