Look at this CG from 12 years ago.LOOK AT IT.
Wow... That was actually pretty good...
Holy crap
You're doing it right.
dang, I have to focus to actually notice that it isn't traditional..THIS IS HOW CLASSIC CARTOONS SHOULD BE RENDERED!!!!
Never going to happen because people can't get along without getting the lion's share of the money.
Oooooh!
Apparently achieved by doing 2D animation first, then copying the frames with the CG model.
>>94144WHY DOES NO ONE DO THIS NOW?!
>>94155Probably because it'd be considered either expensive or redundant and unnecessary.
>>94155Because that would be expensive. Part of why CG is so popular is that it's less labor intensive then 2D animation. Doing things the awesome "Yo dog, I heard you liked cartoons so I put cartoons in your cartoons" method in OP is expensive.
>>94158 That and there was an unwinnable legal quagmire that had anything dealing with the Filmverse Roger Rabbit deeply entrenched in when they could have done this. Is there still talk of a sequel or has that quieted down again?
>>94162Which was mostly because of Michael Eisner's douchebaggery. It's also why it took so long for new Star Tours.
>>94158Though beautiful.
>>94175New guy isn't any better sadly. Least he leaves most things alone. Speaking of which has the New Jimmy Two shoes been upped anywhere?
>>94158This reminds me of SNK's method of making CG models and animating over THAT for the new KOF game sprites. I'm curious about how much that costs them now...
>>94238>making CG models and animating over THATCG rotoscoping...I think they did that for a part of the great Mouse Detective.