Questions about rotoscoping.

[sonickel]

It's alright, though it was a bit weird to be referred to as "he"...

I'll have a look at Vegas 5 tonight to see if footage can be captured frame by frame, and printed. If so, I will be very happy!

(I was dreading crouching over a dim viewer to trace 800 frames by hand.....)

[ccortez]

Please do post clips/frames of whatever you end up with. I've seen some really fun examples of rotoscopy...

[Daniel]

Hola,

Thanks jaxshooter for the detailed story, it's quite impressive to read that a technique like this was used based on super8 orginal media.

Kathleen may I suggest you to do a digital print to photographic paper (RA-4) instead of printing through ink-jet.
Digital printing to photochemical paper can give really good images, and at a similar or much lower cost than ink-jet cartridges.

If you are concerned with final resolution, you can still use the same set-up Roger explained, and just put a mid-range digital photo camera instead of a SDTV camcorder. You would be able to work uncompressed in TIFF (or even RAW).
The fact that those digital photos do have a secuencial name composed of digits, that is increased by one for a each new still, means that you would be able to import the files directly as a sequence and not individual files and work upon the frames in a software like Adobe After Effects or Discreet Combustion at full res (there are many other software than can do that also).
If you proceed like this, you may want to check-out the file name before shooting as some camera, do reset the file name to a default starting number, each time you reset the memory card or for other factor. The idea is to avoid to get different pictures with a same file name that may cause confusion.

Daniel

[discs of tron]

if your original reference stuff will be done in video, it's really easy to output your movie at 12 fps. usually with animation i shoot on twos-moving the cel/object/etc once for every 2 frames exposed. for most animation type stuff, (especially rotoscoping,) 12 fps is usually good enough. the majority of the animation you grew up watching was usually done on 2's. the reason that this method is especially appropriate for rotoscoping is that with hand-drawn stuff, the level of variation from frame to frame is big enough that seeing the images in 1/48th of a second increments can be overwhelming (even nausea-inducing.) try it out- do two 7-second tests- draw/trace/whatever- 168 images from your 7 seconds of avi or other video file (you have to output a 24fps file.) for test A, use your movie camera to shoot each frame. for test b, throw out half of the frames (odds or evens,) and shoot two frames for every print. both films will be compatible with standard 24fps projection (or playback.) that way, you can watch both. i think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you watch the 12 fps material. especially when you consider the fact that the work will occupy approximately 1/2 of the time that the 24 fps method requires.

[Evan Kubota]

Was anyone suggesting that she work at 24fps? 18 is definitely OK, if not 15 or 12... BTW, with a standard variable speed projector, is there any way to check the frame rate without some kind of counter device?