Talk:Rotoscoping

message: "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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.201.114 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect either/or between chroma key and rotoscope 

message: I removed a bit about 2001: 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 was no rotoscoping used, but if it was used, there was very little of it, and I can't see it. Perhaps we should ask Douglas Trumbull -- he would know.
-- The Anome
Don't know if you have seen this article which covers the topic: Kubricks 2001].  Talks about the team that went on to do the rotoscoping for Yellow Submarine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.140.9 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001 

message: What is digital rotoscoping? I have heard the term being used a couple of times. Sin City is said to have used digital rotoscoping.
:See Waking Life. CGI is also considered a form of digital rotoscope. And motion capture IS digital rotoscoping as well. (Ibaranoff24 03:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digital rotoscoping?

message: The animated gif shall NOT be of the original Muybridge photos, it is of the animation rotoscoped 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 producing animation, and the animated gif is an example of an animated cartoon made by rotoscoping. The Muybridge photos have their place in the Eadweard Muybridge article, not here. The photos themselves have nothing to do with rotoscoping, which was invented decades after the photos were taken. --Janke | Talk 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muybridge 

message: 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 | Talk 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the technique used in Who framed Roger Rabbit? Jigen III 16:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the linked list. The answer is yes. --Eyrian 17:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive number of examples 

message: Does the article really need two versions of Edweard Muybridge’s galloping horse? I should think one would be enough. —Frungi 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horses 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Star Wars 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  New meaning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Talk to Chuck" 

message: I think a before and after could demonstrate this wellBrando26000 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Image

message: 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·cont 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthoptic training device

message: 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)
replies: text: No objections, so I deleted it. Van Vidrine (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Examples Section is Redundant 

message: 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·cont 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthoptic training device

message: Think there should be 2 articles, nop) Dombov89 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big size