Is rotoscoping like tracing in the way that if you rotoscope you wont learn anything?
I believe that you don't learn anything if you trace a picture, I guess it could be different for animators though.
What is the majorities thought? and you're own opinion
Thanks in advance for any help/answers
I thought rotoscoping was essentially tracing. There is something -if not much- to be learned, everytime you create something.
I am strongly against the use of rotoscoping a/o tracing for any of my personal work. The reason being that I am not using my own knowledge of anatomy & movement when I do it. (of course, one could just as easily apply this argument to the use of parody not coming from your own imagination but the use someone else' creation, which I condone in most cases. But I digress... |D) My work falls somewhere between realistic and exaggerated because of applying realistic shading & motion to less-than-realistic characters. The end result winds up looking rotoscoped, but still gives the freedom of skewering the anatomy further and allowing the subjects to move as exaggerated as necessary.
For this -among other reasons- I am just fine if other artists choose to rotoscope.
It really works for some films: Disney's Pocohontas, Snow White, and especially Alice in Wonderland (although there is a marked difference between how the realistic and non-realistic characters move!) It leaves me, as the viewer wondering how it would have turned out if the motion hadn't been traced, which I guess is a general reason for why so many people frown upon it.
"Trolls are people who long ago gave up the will to live worthwhile lives, and now dedicate themselves to tormenting others, in attempts to drag victims down to their level."