Project started by some Polish guys on kickstarter.
Every frame of the movie will be painting. 12 paintings/sec. The director is Danuta Kobiela with help of Hugh Welchman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk
Movie will be made out of 56 000 paintings.
What do you think of this?
i'd watch it
he should use camera, it would be quicker
I heard nothing about it.
>>66635213
Looks pretty rad tbqh. Convincing Van Gogh style
Alexaandr Petrov's been doing this for years, on glass
But since it's only him and his son animating it all he's never done a feature length
>>66635213
Looks impressive.
Why do Brits call him Van Goff?
Looks cool, but some of the black and white shots look too similar to normal camera, like they're almost just filtered. I understand the need to paint over photographs but they could make it less photorealistic. Especially the closeups of van goghs face are guilty of this.
>>66635782
underrated post
Looks absolutely gorgeous. Really hope I'll be able to see it in theaters, this is the kind of stuff I want to give money to.
looks like shit
>>66635782
kek
>>66635213
>Every Frame a Painting
POTTERY
>>66635698
That's not the point.
>>66635213
why not 60fps?
So they have to repaint every frame, like animation? How long would that take? Do they like trace the frame?
>>66638553
not entirely, it looks like
probably just paint over certain frames when animating it
I'm sure it was all storyboarded in advance too
this is more an impressive feat of endurance. It must have taken at least a year, working hard each day to make this
somebody has some serious dedication
>>66635782
Post-impressive, idiot
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
12 fps is the bare minimum required to provide the impression of motion rather than slideshows
They just invented animation and now want scamstarter money
>>66635213
Most of this looks like the watercolour filter on photoshop. And if it isn't they should have just used that instead because this looks shitty.
>>66635213
Two thoughts:
1. Fascinating animation style, looks beautiful for however much that's worth.
2. Making it in the 'aesthetic' of van gogh is a shit ploy. Incredibly weak and disappointing, because these are all just fascimile paintings emulating a style' in the cheapest way possible. While as an animation technique its a fine strategy, as a conceptual move for a film about Van Gogh's life, it's a ham-handed awful gimmick that will only satisfy flick-consuming plebs who think Van Gogh's work is a triumph of style.
I'll watch it, but wish they had used the animation technique for something less literally wrong
>>66635213
Motion sickness: The movie
>>66638981
>2. Making it in the 'aesthetic' of van gogh is a shit ploy.
i disagree 100%, it is a fine idea and a swell homage. it fits for animation, being quite vivid.
>>66639124
another anon here.
i totally agree with his points
you aren't van gogh, mimicking his aesthetics serve no purpose other han attract the plebs
the movie should be painterly but only switch to his style at particular moments and even then it would still be kind of pointless.
>>66635213
Is this rotoscoped? No offense to the artists, but the movements look way too fluid to not be from a human reference.
Looks good though, will watch.
>>66635847
They're retarded. Just listen to one of them try to pronounce "Prius"
>>66638996
I think that would be that entirely first person 3D movie.
>12 oil paintings per second, all done by over 100 painters trained in the same style.
>100 people with no creativity trained to copy someone else
>>66635213
Art-wise it looked fucking great from what I saw, and I think it's a biopic. Van Gogh had an interesting life so I don't think it'd be hard on the writing end
I went to the Van Gogh museam last week
Iv never seen such beautiful art before
He was pretty based t b h
>>66635213
Honestly, it looks like they just applied a cheap photoshop filter at times. Also it's a cartoon, not a movie.
>>66635698
He should just not make the movie, would be finished instantly
Was Van Gogh the original JUST?
This is rotoscoping right?
>>66638981
>>66639368
I don't understand, why is it bad to animate it in his style? Other than "plebs like it."
It seems like a really nice way to celebrate his art.
>>66635847
At least it's somewhat of an attempt, unlike the American "van Go"
Most anglos can't pronounce "Gogh" at all.
>>66642569
I think you can find more merit in it then 'celebrating his style'
It's a new perspective and interpretation to his work and could potentially bring more understanding to it
>>66635213
>12 frames per second
Why is our technology going backwards?
>>66642790
There literally painting every frame
>>66642700
How do you pronounce his name phonically?
British plebian here
nothing new here, folks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914
>>66642819
Rotoscoping is not a new concept. Other rotoscoped films don't run at half the regular framerate because the artists are too lazy to do every frame.
Whys everyone being so salty
>>66642857
Like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceo7E1R78yo
>>66642857
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0xcvFeYipJZ
>>66635213
>Every frame of the movie will be painting. 12 paintings/sec.
So its a cartoon? lol how is this some new thing?
>>66642819
They're literally not. That shot of the dude running into the field (along with many others) is clearly cel/limited animation, the background is static. If you want to see every frame being a new painting, check out Alexander Petrov's shorts.
>>66642860
LITERALLY came here to post this
>>66642950
I know what rotoscoping is
I was under the impression that the whole film was literally being painted frame for frame ,whitch I think is impressive 12 frames a secound or not
However I don't think this is the case ,as some of the clips I just watched have them brushing on a computer so perhaps your right
>>66635213
looks nice but also very gimmicky. wouldnt watch unless recommended by friend
I'd still rather watch this then some shitty Disney film
Parts of it looks cool as fuck, other parts look like normal film footage run through photoshop filters
>>66643040
I'm struggling to do that ,so basically clear my throat with a G at the front
>>66635213
This looks like one of those movies you only ever hear about when you watch the oscars and they get to the animated category and they name off a few random arty fartsy eruopean cartoons before they give the award to whatever Pixard made that year
>>66642860
Congratulations, your knowledge that rotoscoping exists is entirely based on an 80s music video
>>66643398
Only if they keep the part about him slicing off his ear and giving it to his favorite hooker
>>66643456
I apologize for not being a master of your very specific animation technique, lord autismo.
>>66643513
>I apologize for being a pleb
At least you learned something today.
>>66643513
This guys been spreging the whole thread ,don't worry about it.
>>66638074
Then what's the fucking point? If I want to see Van Gogh, I'd go to his museums, which are overrated by the way, he was not that good and the art really is reflective of something produced by mental illness. He's no genius like Picasso for one thing.
I'm sorry, van Gogh is a touchy subject for me.
>>66643562
I won't apologize for not learning about how cartoons are made on an academic level.
>>66643399
just phlegm it up at the beginning and end
>>66643620
>cartoons
>academic
![A-Scanner-Darkly-2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rhIla9o.jpg "A-Scanner-Darkly-2[1].jpg")
>>66643168
It's rotoscoping and then painting over it.
It's very similar to the film A Scanner Darkly. Live action and animated at the same time.
>>66643685
yeah would you believe some people actually spend thousands of dollars and years of their lives to study this shit in great detail? crazy right.
Looks great, but I've always loved van gogh's style. Would watch for sure
>>66643581
Humans love a tragedy story
Do you think he would be as famous if he hadn't killed him self
van Gogh is the Michael Bay of painting
>>66643784
If you want to be a animator I don't think it's so crazy
>>66643954
yes I was being facetious.
too obnoxious
are his paintings going to look like normal life? kek
since Van Gogh was a depressed man his viewpoint should probably look a bit dreary with some moments where they whimsical filter is applied or used as sfx
>>66635213
It's shit
Just photoshop my shit up f a m
>>66643168
by the look of it, the characters are rotoscoped and the background (usually a still image) is painted. The whole thing was probably done on a sound stage with greenscreens.
Is Lust for Life any good?
