safe to assume this is some onodera cgi shenanigans so ill tag for now

https://twitter.com/pinuett/status/1733134238294417555

flashback part is most likely Eri Irei judging from this illustration

ONODERA AWOOOOO 🐺🐺🐺🐺

I hope that people won't assume that this is AI generated, great work.

Why cgi tag?

Also, is it weird that I thought this is road sign?

People would rather lie to themselves and claim that this is CGI than accept that this is rotoscoping.

you may replace both "ren onodera" and "rotoscope" by tag "cgi", then everyone may be happy, lol.

Rotoscoping is strictly about tracing live-action footages. As far as we know, no one was filmed flying in the sky for this sequence.

The CGI tag is debatable but it's a compromise most people agreed on so that's the one we will use here.

Be warned that if you keep adding the rotoscope tag, you may get banned.

Tracing live-action video is called rotoscope but tracing 3d cgi is not, that's too bookishness

Mobi said:
Why cgi tag?

Onodera commonly uses cgi in his animations (he makes the models himself, animates them and then draws over them to achieve a traditional look).
Although i have no sources on this, the fringes on the end of the scarf, the wand. and the short camera lens are a dead giveaway that this is traced over cgi (everything else too but some animators are cample of achieving a very 3 dimensional realistic look traditionally).
Using 3d models as reference doesnt always warrant a tag, but Onodera uses cgi so prominently that it would be misleading to allude that this animation is completely 2d.
Also no, this is pretty obviously not rotoscoped over live action footage lol

Excuse me but there is a problem here that needs to be solved. The reason the definition of rotoscope is strictly related to live-action is because the term was invented before 3DCG became a popular tool in the world of animation.

I believe we need a term for 2D cels that trace over 3D animated figures.
In my opinion, we should neither use the term CGI, nor the term rotoscope here.
Because the 3DCG elements are technically not visible here in the rendering since they were traced again by hand.

Technically something was filmed here before the 2D cels were drawn. The CG character was filmed with a virtual camera and that is something which is close to rotoscoping.
I suggest the community of animation to invent a new term for these kind of works, otherwise there is going to be confusion for a long time.
Perhaps a word that combines the terms 3D and rotoscope together. Maybe CGscopy?

obariisoursavior said:
I suggest the community of animation to invent a new term for these kind of works, otherwise there is going to be confusion for a long time.

Personally, I think the term mixed media is all we need for now, cgi is being used at every step of the animation pipeline now, and it would be impossible to keep track of what was strictly used as reference, directly traced or integrated into the animation seamlessly.
Onodera's process is unique, and I dont see the industry moving towards similar pipelines in the future.
Also, I can just imagine the hellish comments debating whether something was tracing over cgi or just heavily referenced.

Tzur said:

Ondoora's process is unique, and I dont see the industry moving towards similar pipelines in the future.

I have to disagree. This technique has been used before in the past, it's just that people are starting to notice it now.

Tzur said:
Also, I can just imagine the hellish comments debating whether something was tracing over cgi or just heavily referenced.

As long as people discuss it in a civilized manner there is no problem.
Each specific animation technique needs a name and this is one that has not been defined yet.

CGI tag doesn't make sense to me if there is no cgi in the actual cut. Should have a new tag or be treated in a consistent way across all posts using similar technique.

Like Tzur said, drawing over CG is ubiquitous in today's anime industry

Nearly every time you see an indoor setting you can safely assume it was modeled first in CG which is not all that different from Onodera's process
https://www.sakugabooru.com/post/show/126273

Onodera takes action scenes and scenes that feature a lot more than your average anime classroom, so this bothers some people. Regardless, both the CGI and rotoscope tag are inappropriate since both those terms already have clear meanings and what Onodera (and the rest of the industry) is doing is neither of those things.

CG reference or CG assist are the correct terminology for it but the reason it doesnt have a tag on this website is that it's impossible to tell with certainty if a finished scene is using a CG assist

PurpleGeth said:
Like Tzur said, drawing over CG is ubiquitous in today's anime industry

Nearly every time you see an indoor setting you can safely assume it was modeled first in CG which is not all that different from Onodera's process
https://www.sakugabooru.com/post/show/126273

Onodera takes action scenes and scenes that feature a lot more than your average anime classroom, so this bothers some people. Regardless, both the CGI and rotoscope tag are inappropriate since both those terms already have clear meanings and what Onodera (and the rest of the industry) is doing is neither of those things.

CG reference or CG assist are the correct terminology for it but the reason it doesnt have a tag on this website is that it's impossible to tell with certainty if a finished scene is using a CG assist

Wouldn't it make sense to remove the cgi tag on this post then? or am I missing something

Yes it would but angry people keep adding it back, checkout the post history
https://www.sakugabooru.com/history?search=post%3A244153

I don't want to seem excessive, but I'd like to learn more about Onodera's process.
He mentioned using CGI as reference, but to what extent?
Did he create a fully functional Frieren rig or just use a 3D mannequin as reference? While I have no doubt that he is capable of creating an excellent model, I wonder if he went to such lengths for this relatively small segment. On the other hand, the fringes look like they were simulated in 3D.
Also, did he animate frame-by-frame on CG software, or did he use the software's tweening like you would in traditional 3D animation? There is a difference between using 3d for a static background and using computer-generated timing. (not that one is more impressive than the other, the animation is great regardless)
Sorry if I'm being annoying