>>11932290
>Rotoscoping is literal tracing of the figure over a still

Lol. Just imagine all the trouble animators had directing all sorts of animals - never mind dinossaurs and dragons - so they could literaly trace their frames to put on those outstanding old school rotoscoped animations.

>>715411283
Disney used live actors all the time. Usually they had the theater actors dress up in costumes and act out the scenes in front of a camera, then the "live reels" would be copied for each animator who would run them on constant loop and playback as reference.

And it makes sense, because not only does it make it easier to animate clothing, professional theater actors also know how to express better body language and have better ideas for expressions than some middle-aged animator sitting in front of paper all day. Disney studios also used plastic cast miniature rotoscoping for very rigid objects like deer horns in Bambi and Cruella De Vil's car in 101 Dalmatians.

>>715045060
Ironically AI is simultaneously good enough to take odd advertisement illustration jobs from animators but not good enough to create actual animation. And animators would only be happy if AI could take over at least 50% of Inbetweening or other boring ass tasks like coloring (clicking the paintbucket colors in 1000+ pictures).

Back in 2000's many art schools kept saying that "Photoshop is not REAL art" and "Wacom and Cintiq boards are not REAL art tools.". Animators saw those tools and immediatly adapted them because photoing or scanning every single fucking frame is tedious as fuck and those frames have to be compiled and edited in a computer anyway. Drawing directly into the computer screen skips a painful process in animation so animators embraced it.

The South Park scene where the boys try stop motion animation describes perfectly the reason why animators both love and hate their craft.

https://youtu.be/S70z4vC1mYY?si=SG5XeDUKSP1y2D2F

>>149107822
>It's just cheaper.
But its not. When its more time-consuming, it is automatically more expensive. To make a full length traditionally animated film within deadline of 1-2 years you need an entire army of animators to do it on time. Doesn't matter how minimum wage they're paid, thats still a lot of people working. 3D animator is easier to animate, therefore its less time-consuming overall, therefore you have to pay less monthly wages to animators.

In both methods you have real life actors acting the scenes, difference is in 2D they act as reference clips for the animators to create more human movement for their characters. In 3D they use motion cap so the actor does 80% of the animation work without the animator needing to lift a finger.
>>149107855
>Dragon Ball Super Broly had a budget of $8.5 million
Dragon Ball Super Broly also had mediocre animation 90% of its length like a lot of talking head scenes. They were cutting corners in quality because keeping top quality throughout the movie would've been too expensive.
Why do you think anime shows have a lot of episodes where characters just talk and do fuck all else? Is it because the writer really wanted to convey his deep story to you? No, its because the studio has to stretch its budget between many episodes, so you're going to get filler episodes of characters sitting around with only their mouths moving, talking a novel to the screen.

Those "deep" episodes where animu faces talk about the meaning of existence and their feelings? They're not deep at all, those episodes are there to save money. The animator can do multiple scenes of mouths moving in 2 repeated frames a week. The moment those characters start moving around, opening windows doing dishes, making food or smoking cigarettes while talking it becomes more time-consuming.