Waking Life - Howd they do it?

Cafe Society
1

The animation technique used in this independent film is amazing and completely indescribable. I would like to know exactly how it was done… the way it can look so real and so fake at the same time… For anyone who doesn’t know anything about the movie - it is a film based on philosophical conversations taking place between people about life, dreams, goals, attitudes, etc. Some of it is very interesting, some of it isn’t. Most of it goes completely over your head. But during these times, the viewer can just sit in awe at the pictures in front of them. I swear to God, each frame could have been a work by Picasso. This movie is just insane.

Anyone know anything about how the animation was done? Anyone have anything else to share about the movie?

2

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,47433,00.html

3

It’s just computerized rotoscoping. That’s the main reason it wasn’t nominated for best animated film.

Rotoscoping goes way back to silent films: You projected images on a sheet of paper, sketched them, and then animated the sketches. Disney used it to give some of his human figures a more lifelike appearance. With a computer, you can just do it better than by hand.

4

Aren’t these kinda contradictory? Would Snow White have been disqualified for rotoscoping?

5

I read an article about it in Modern Painter magazine when it was in production.

The technique is called interpolated rotoscoping, because the software is keyframe driven, so you don’t have to do each in-between frame manually.

It’s spline-based, rather than pixel-based, so each element is a seperate object which you can assign different values to over frames of time-- scaling, wiggliness, chromatic variance, luminance, transparency, etc. A vast improvement over physical rotoscoping, which usually gives you a kind of unsatisfying “we-did-this-as-an-alternative-to-creativity” kind of appearance. (See Ralph Bakshi)

6

[snob]
Maybe over your head. <sniff>
[/snob]

:wink:

7

I saw the ad for this on a tape recently and it REALLY caught my eye…

As the original poster says - it looks worth a watch just for the sheer hypnotic quality of the images!

TTFN

JP

8

I saw the ad for this on a tape recently and it REALLY caught my eye…

As the original poster says - it looks worth a watch just for the sheer hypnotic quality of the images!

TTFN

JP

9

if you are really interested in the technique, you might
want to look into purchasing or renting Waking Life on dvd.
Although slightly tedious at times, one of the artists talks in great detail about how the film was made and shows the process of how some of the scenes were created. There is also a test short that was created before work began on the film, to see if the process was actually managable. As yet another bonus, you get to watch the source of a few of the scenes, so you can actually see what the artists had to work with. All in all, it’s pretty fascinating, considering it’s less than $10 new at a reputable on-line place.

10

Different times. It was an acceptable practice in the 30s, but as time went on, it was considered a shortcut and a cheat. People were wondering why “Waking Life” didn’t get an Oscar, but once I heard the word “rotoscope” in connection with it, I knew that was the reason.

Plus there wasn’t an animated movie Oscar when Snow White was made.

11

Oh, so this is a theory of yours.

:rolleyes: Thanks.

12

Or, it could be, that it is a dense, philosophical work aimed at a limited audience with little conventional plotting leading up to an ambivalent resolution. Yeah, the Academy just loves shit like this, if only they hadn’t rotoscoped it!!

I loved it, by the way, and highly recommend the DVD.

13

Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with Hodge–given the choice between a movie that conforms with your expectations of an animated film (cute characters, family-friendly humor, traditional story-telling) and one that rigorously challenges it (no easy narrative, philosophical under-pinnings, unapologetically adult, zero pandering), there’s little doubt that the Academy will choose a Jimmy Neutron over a Waking Life–which is exactly what it did.

14

Disney never rotoscoped. The closest they came was drawing while looking at filmed actors frame by frame, but never true rotoscoping by tracing over the top of film frames.

Don Bluth, on the other hand, is a complete cheat about rotoscoping; he does it a lot and doesn’t admit it.

Personally, I think of rotoscoping as a lazy excuse, when there are thousands of incredibly talented artists and animators out there who can do a better job with handdrawn art.

Animation should be used for its strengths, for what it can do that live action cannot. Rotoscoping completely disregards that and really just creates a cartoonified reality.

Waking Life is even worse - there’s no reason for the fancy arty look at all, beyond some personal experiment by the filmmakers. It may as well have been pure live action for all the difference it would’ve made.

Either film it live, or draw it from fantasy. Don’t combine both in such a lame-ass way and try pass it off as originality.

15

I disagree-- I think that the technique matched the script perfectly. It was, well, dreamlike.

Disney never rotoscoped? They sure as hell did.

This attitude about rotoscopy is commonplace because bad rotoscoping is so obvious and unsatisfying.

In the hands of creative animators, it can be a valuable tool. See: Fleischer Bros.

16

Well can you give me an example? And maybe a cite?

Not in my case. I think of it as just tracing; it’s diluting creativity.

Didn’t they do Popeye? I’m not too knowledgable about cartoons of that era, as I’ve never had much of a chance to see them.

17

I had always thought they did rotoscoping for the visual effect; that was the whole POINT of doing it in the first place. I don’t see how it is diluting creativity; Waking Life was a very creative film.

Would you also consider computer animation that used motion-captured actors to be “diluted” ? How about the dozens (if not hundreds) of games that do the same? Does the fact that they are using live motion instead of doing the animation manually make a work of art less significant? I don’t think so. It is a technique, and I don’t understand why the hell people bash it. That’s like saying photography isn’t a true art form, because its based on facsimilies of reality.

18

Not quite. If you use motion capture in something along the lines of Toy Story, I think it is definitely the wrong way to use the tool. But if you use it for special effects work, which is where it is used most often, thats a different issue. Effects are intended to emulate and exaggerate reality, seamlessly, whereas Pixar are telling an imaginary tale in a fantastic world.

In the Matrix and Spiderman they hand animated, and I thought that was the wrong way to do it - they should’ve used motion capture, because that’s the right tool for the job, to be able to make us believe the fantastic was real. Whereas Pixar isn’t trying anything of the sort, they’re saying this is a tale of talking toys, it isn’t real, no need to try to make it look real, it’s stylised from head to toe.

The same with rotoscoping - you can use it for effects work where you are creating occlusion masks for compositing, but you shouldn’t use it to tell an animated tale.

Animation should play to its strengths, i.e. do what can’t be told in live action: Exaggerated expression, fantastical settings and characters, over-the-top violent slapstick, etc.

If all you’re doing is emulating live action completely, then do it in live action!

This is why I don’t like cartoons like King of the Hill, but really love things like Futurama. One utilises the tools of animation to great effect, and the other is just a sitcom that happens to be drawn for no good reason.

I’ve only seen clips of Waking Life, but what I saw didn’t seem to me to warrant the weird rotoscopy colourisation. Maybe there was a good reason for it in the story somewhere that I’m unaware of.

This is, of course, all my opinion. There isn’t really a right or wrong way.

19

I personally don’t care how they get the image onto the celluloid. Whether they “cheated” or were “lazy” makes no difference to me; I only care about how the finished product looks. This reminds me of the people who claim that electronic music isn’t “real” music since the people who make it aren’t using “real” instruments.

I loved Waking Life…even when it was flying over my head it was interesting to look at.

20

The story takes place in a dream. The shifting edges and warping faces/objects are similar to what one might see in a lucid dream, or while under the influence of psilocybin mushrooms. One character in the story mentions that dreaming influences serotonin levels (as does psilocybin).