Rotoscoping help

[oroboros]

Hi all, I'm brand new to VFX and have been reading a ton about it lately. I find myself wanting to get into compositing and most things I've read gave the advice to start by mastering rotoscoping, so that's where I'm going to begin my education.

I have After Effects, and I'm wondering if this is good to learn to roto on. Also, one of my friends has Shake and Combustion, so I have access to these for learning purposes; would you recommend one of these over AE for a beginner to get down the concepts and build a solid foundation?

Any other tips on a path to take in learning this will be helpful. Thanks.

[Andy]

don't ever use after effects for rotoscoping! go with nuke, shake, combustion, silhouette, etc.

greetings

[aaron zander]

Andy, you can't always get what you want.

Why shouldn't you use AE for roto, Hmm..I can think of a lot of reasons. But I can also see how not knowing how to could..well Cost you a lot of time.

I hate doing it, but I Can and DO do it at work now and then, it sucks, a lot. but here are some tips : Roto tutorial

Note-

Before using any of the apps you are interested in, do your self a favor, READ THE MANUAL, and don't post here with questions that could be answered quicker by opening the manual than trying to make a new post. Then you waste your time and My time by me having to read said post, and then reply RTFM to said post.

just an fyi

[Andy]

yeah of course you can use ae for rotoscoping. i just dont recommend it. its the last tool i would recommend for roto. in ae there is no individual edge feathering out of the box (which for me is the killer argument) and no attaching individual points or the whole rotoshape to trackers (well you can attach the layer with the rotoshape to a tracker but thats not actually the point of tracking a rotoshape).
bottom line, if you want to work as a roto/paint artist go with the tools most shops are using.
as far as i know there are several companies offering tryout versions of their tools just try some of them and use the one which you feel most comfortable with, but do yourself a favor forget ae and roto. but thats just my opinion.

[Vinteg]

Don't limit yourself to just AE, Combustion or Shake. Learn them all. At least the roto part of the program. Once you pick up the technique and theory of rotoscoping, transfering that skillset to another UI is pretty fast. Granted some of these apps have features that others don't, it doesn't take to long to learn the differences.

That being said, it also depends where you live and where you wanna work at. If you wanna be a flame artist, focus primarily in Combustion. A big facility for features would be Fusion, Shake or Nuke, AE for motion graphics. Silhouette is used alot in different areas. These are just generalization, but hope it helps. Find out what the companies you wanna work for uses and focus primarily on that program, however make sure you know a few other ones just in case an opportunity elsewhere arise.

[oroboros]

Excellent replies everyone, thanks! I'm wanting to get into features, so I guess starting learning on Shake sounds like the way to go.

The only thing I've heard is that rotoscoping in Shake is bad compared to some of the other programs. Do you think it will hinder my fundamentals by learning with it?

[scrimski]

No.

Be sure to make backups of your script though, Shakes rotoshape nodes tend to corrupt files(at least that's what I was told).

don't ever use after effects for rotoscoping!

I would go for AE over Shake when it comes to roto.

[Vinteg]

IMHO, if you're looking for a hardcore roto package, go with silhouette or combustion. Seems like alot of features companies are asking for either one of these packages all the time.

[Matt P]

I agree with above,

AE will get roto done, though if the plan is to tool yourself up with knowledge to see you in to the industry I would focus on Shake and Silhouette as those are what you are most likely to be expected to use.

That said, I hate Shake for roto - perhaps through inexperience with the keyframes. Silhouette is just so easy. Though it costs more for just the roto package than the whole of Shake.

-Matt

[aaron zander]

in ae there is no individual edge feathering out of the box

That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

A you CAN feather in Ae, there are also many tricks to accomplising this like rotoing on a solid and using blurs etc.

but the most powerful thing AE has over almost any other program is the ability to automate motionblurr. Using the Incomp motionblur tools you can get some very very good results. and highly consistant at that.

[Yossarian!]

but the most powerful thing AE has over almost any other program is the ability to automate motionblurr. Using the Incomp motionblur tools you can get some very very good results. and highly consistant at that.

Never really seen any difference between the mask motion blur in AE vs Shake myself. I kinda prefer the interactivity of Shakes' sliders actually. AE is fine to rotoscope in, but like others have said it wouldn't be many people's first choice (or second, third, fourth or fifth, for that matter).

My main gripes are the lack of DIRECT linking between trackers and mask points (I know there are scripts that act as workarounds), the fiddlyness of the masking interface (I'm always selecting the background by accident), the lack of individual point feathering although I personally rarely use this feature, and the difficulty in getting into detailed matte work (specific eroding, blurring, etc). But its what I started on and the rotoscoping principles will be no different no matter what you use so jump right on in!

That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

A you CAN feather in Ae, there are also many tricks to accomplising this like rotoing on a solid and using blurs etc.

There's workaround for most of the above drawbacks in AE but they're exactly that - workarounds that aren't directly at your fingertips as you rotoscope.

[julievive]

I use mocha and AE for rotoscoping. With AE alone, rotoscoping was really a chore however when we started using mocha as an aid for AE, rotoscoping is more tolerable and easier.

AE has a smart interpolation roto feature that lets you replicate natural motion by taking control of mask transitions. The only limitation of AE is its inability to view mattes directly unlike in Mocha and Silhouette.

Mocha is a program dedicated for rotoscoping, more or less like Silhouette only more affordable and although the program is not as powerful, you get the job done quick.

[Andy]

That statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

A you CAN feather in Ae, there are also many tricks to accomplising this like rotoing on a solid and using blurs etc.

well if my statement is so wrong than please show me where i can feather my edges INDIVIDUALLY (as i said) in ae without plugins.

rotoing on a solid? if i'd see someone doing this doing production i'd certainly fire him hehe :-)

but the most powerful thing AE has over almost any other program is the ability to automate motionblurr. Using the Incomp motionblur tools you can get some very very good results. and highly consistant at that.

actually you can do roto moblur in shake, fusion and nuke too...

@oroboros: as many people posted earlier, just try different packages and see how it goes. i have no problems rotoing in shake even without undo.

[oroboros]

OK, thanks for the advice. A couple more questions for those with experience in this area.

I've decided to start learning to roto with combustion then jump to shake when I get more into full on compositing. What would be the main things that should be perfected as a rotoscoper when working with compositors. I've been making a list on things to work on:

Precise rotoscoping for mattes
Keying
Rig/wire removal
Tracking

What other techniques and skills should I be focusing on?

Another thing I was wondering is if anyone knows a good way just to rip certain shots from DVD's. I have a bunch of them with behind the scenes type stuff (green screens, CGI, ect...) that would be great to practice with. Is there anyway to do this, I know how to convert the whole thing and then cut out the portions I want but it takes forever to convert a full DVD, when I only need a shot here and there. Any ideas or programs that will do this?

Thanks again.

[aaron zander]

well if my statement is so wrong than please show me where i can feather my edges INDIVIDUALLY (as i said) in ae without plugins.

Yes this is a problem, but you give and take in the roto world, Shake is missing, by far, the most important tool to roto period. NUDGE shake is at the bottom of my list for roto, period, i'll take AE and it's faults vs no nudge. Not that AE is far up on my list.

rotoing on a solid? if i'd see someone doing this doing production i'd certainly fire him hehe :-)
.

[begin ass reaming]
No offense, well actually that statement doesn't really work. But that, is the most idiotic statement i've ever heard. period. In fact, i'd like to take away any membership to any guilds/unions/societies or organizations based on vfx for this statement. that statement is By far, the DUMBEST thing i've ever heard. Please turn in your badge and your weapon (Ie your wacom pen) for that one.

If i was working with you and saw you NOT rotoing on a solid and instead rotoing directly on the footage, I'd point you how to roto correctly in AE. now this doesn't apply to almost any application BUT AE. Simply put NOT rotoing on a solid is One of the WORST things you can do. Period.

[insert your doing it wrong image here]

Now I don't mean to tear you a new asshole without giving you some bandages. So basicly here's why you fail epically with that statement.

1. Rotoing on footage means you have to use that footage for ever as your matte
2. rotoing on footage in ANY version of ae (cs3 allows expression linking of masks and there by allows for tracking of points natively inAE w/o any crazy scripts) means you can't track your mask, add effects too your roto matte, and you loose a lot of control of your matte.
3. rotoing on footage is difficult to quickly judge your roto while rotoing on say a purple solid, allows you to turn the solids opacity up and down and use a differentiating color to see how your motionblur/feather/blur/edge is lining up to your roto
4. Rotoing on footage and using it as a mate for I don't know. Say another piece of footage is a damn good way to slow down a comp vs copy/pasting a solid with your roto on it into a comp, leaving 1 less peice of footage for your roto.

that being said there are reasons/times/places to roto on footage, but, If I'm doing it wrong, then The Emmy nominated lead compositor for Jericho is doing it wrong, as is the BBC hit show VFX comper (well sole vfx artist) for the highly acclaimed show Atilla, is doing it wrong, If I'm doing it wrong, SO is the Emmy nominated battle star (the first few seasons) crew doing it wrong. As is the Emmy nominated crew for Sarah conner Chronicles.

now I could keep listing shows/moves proving you just made the stupidest statement I've ever seen, or you could just accept it.

Now please, Please, Never make a statement like that again.


-edit, sorry also had to add this. If I'm doing it wrong, you might as well take the emmy nom/win away from stargate digital and heroes as well.

goes back to rotoing NBC's Chuck in Combustion
[/reaming]