ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2021
- What if RoboCop and RoboCop 2 had smoother stop-motion animation for its effects scenes made featuring iconic stop-motion enemies such as ED-209 and Cain? I used an AI program to interpolate the scene to a higher frame rate to see what that would look like.
What do you think of the results?
✨ Programs used:
-I used Flowframes with RIFE to interpolate the framerate from 23.98 fps to 191.74 fps and then used FFMPEG to reduce that back to 60 fps. Flowframes is free (older version, newest version is paid) and you can find it here: nmkd.itch.io/f...
I'm #captrobau and I like to make interesting videos about AI. Don't forget to like this video and subscribe to my channel if you want to see more videos like this. I regularly upload AI upscaling examples, reviews/tutorials for AI software and more.
You will need to watch at 720p or above to see videos at higher framerates. So check your resolution first, if you can't see the difference.
Also, this is the first video where for the "8x Smoother" parts I mixed normal framerate for parts of the frame with of people and high framerate for the stop-motion. I did this with some clever masking. Tell me if you think this look better than my previous videos.
Can you try Terminator (1984) stop motion? It would be interesting. The scene were the Terminator chases Sara and Kyle through the factory was scary as hell when i was a kid
Lol, yea.. People are so dumb..🤣🤣🤣
@@PerplexEdel I looked that scene up because people kept asking but there's hardly any stop motion in it. It's mostly just close ups of a robot amimatronic. So there's not much to smooth out.
@@CaptRobau Are the shots were the Terminator is in the hallway and the one it's fighting Kyle stop-motion or is it a robot? I think it's stop-motion
I think I suggested this on another video. You mentioned that you masked people's frames to make them look "normal", that is 24fps I suppose ? And that is because if you go above normal framerates the animation looks fake or unnatural. The same could be argued with the robots ! Is it possible with your software and skills to smooth the stop-motion on par with the real people, let's say 24fps instead of 8x ? It might make things more real and you won't have to waste time and energy with the "clever masking". It might be worth a shot, the result might be amazing 😮👍
Honestly the jerker stop motion gives Ed 209, robocain, and the rejects that extra creepy vibe. Like when the first reject pulls out the pistol and shoots the scientist, the original stop motion makes it feel more like a malfunctioning machine, while the fixed stop motion makes it look a bit too fluid and smooth to be a machine , but hey. Just my opinion
Totally agree. Jerky stop motion is actually perfect for gigantic, badass robot cyborgs
I agree.
Yes, that's why they are robots. If they had a smoother movement then they wouldn't be like a robot at all.
Agree, an actual person crafted stop motion so it has a unique accentuated look to it, it’s so hard to take your eyes off compared to all the CGI crap we have now.
I support your comment!
Ex-animator here. It’s a quite common technique in classic animation to “lower the framerate” (i.e. Leave one still for 3, 4, 5 frames) deliberately to give the feeling of roughness, heaviness to the animated object.
like how when objects stop it'll look like it's jerkin around for a second?
Somehow the smoother version looks more fake. I have no clue why🤷🏻♂️ I'm perplexed
@@trolojolo6178 I think part of it is what @ThorTyrker is describing, where in the stop motion they'd keep the same frame hanging for a while to give it more weight, where as the AI will start to interpolate between that image and the next (because it's generating the in-between frames to make this higher FPS) immediately. So the timing of the motion is off from what the original artist intended.
There may also be some weird human stuff going on where our brains fill in the blanks on the lower FPS version. 😅
Animating on 3s to give that effect? Nice. I think as animation framerate goes up that 30fps gives that vibe for me these days, moreso with online media being recorded for 60fps. Maybe it'll depend on the recorded footage the animation is paired with e.g. 12-15fps for movie-grade 24fps.
Thank you for sharing your expertise! I've seen a couple of these videos now and have consistently said something about the 'smoother' animation makes it look weird to the eye. I described it as if the remote was stuck on fast-forward but you explained it perfectly, they lack a sense of weight with the smoother animation.
The stop motion effect made it more scarier.
I have to agree. I'm sure this took a lot more effort than just adding in frames; OP did a wonderful job on this video.
just *scarier.... grammar police out!
@@ampecsu I get what he's saying. Check it out: The enhanced visuals made it scarier than the original which was scary, but in comparing them both the new one becomes more scarier than the other. You see what I'm sayin'? I'm former grammar police, and I'm proud of you for keeping the English language afloat. I'd imagine in the next 200 years we're going to be talking in a much, much different way than now.
@@Ivegotwormsinmemore scarier
Mate the wrong trousers is bloody terrifying
stop motion effect made the machines feel more robotic as if they didn't move naturally and weren't as well coordinated, while having Robocop moving smoothly helped distinguish him still being a person
Yeah, I think that's why a middle ground between 1 and 8x frames would work best for the one scene where Robocop's being smashed around.
Yes it looks a lot smoother but I think the old-school stop motion gave it somehow more of an authentic feel and that extra creep factor we all miss.
The problem with the smooth version is mostly that it simply wasn't meant to look that way and that's why it often looks odd. Most motions are way too fast and frantic for its size if you smooth it out. That's why the robot often appears to be smaller and more toy-like in the edited version.
@@TheOldMan-75 absolutely especially that hallway scene with Cain
it's nostalgia. I find the stop motion in every movie to completely take me out of immersion. ( it's bad) it only works when its not used with real actors.
I think the smoothed-out version looks too fast. If they slowed it down 10%, I think that would help.
@@Shinobubutotally agree. I watched Robocop 2 recently and it was so painful.. the stopmotion bothered me the whole time..
This is really interesting because it reveals that the lack of smoothness wasn't really the problem. I think it's the lack of mass. Even smooth, they still just seem like plastic models. They just don't look heavy. Like the inertia is off so it doesn't look right. I agree with other comments that the janky original motion seems better sometimes because it masks the mass issue a bit.
For me, I think its the motion blur in each frame that comes naturally with film. 1/24th second is a long time for objects in motion. Even a 10 km/h walking speed is motion over 11 cm in each frame at 24 fps. And much worse if animation is just 12 fps, with each frame doubled (common to save expense).
It's close to impossible to replicate motion blur in stop-motion animation. A common technique was to interpose a glass plate between camera and subject, and with each frame, add vaseline/mineral jelly to just those parts of the image that should have motion blur.
But high frame rate interpolation by AI and downsampling/averaging 8 frames (at 191.74 fps) to 1 frame (at 23.98 fps) goes a long way towards making stop motion look more like the surrounding live action film.
Mmm you made me realize something.. it sounds like any modern motorcycle and “cheap” car. Which, are painted with non metallic paints, like a toy
I think a real Robot will also not look heavy in its way to walk also if it realy is. Its because its build to walk with this heavy as when its normal. Like us humans, as long as we are not much overweight we also not walking as if we weight 70 or 80kg or more (depends on the hight and muscles you have) we walk as if it is not that much because for our body its normal to have that weight. And i think the same will also be on a Robot also when it weights a few tons. You know what i mean? :) (sorry my english isnt that good)
But both look good, i like the original more because it looks more scary :D
The smoth one is sometimes a bit too smoth.
The lack of blur
I just noticed what you are saying here, since I never really studied their movements to notice it before now. It's definitely not the choppiness in the animation, but the fact they don't really have any "impact". They don't move or sound with weight or heft and have little to no effect on their environment.
Old Eddie was terrifying to watch as kid in the 80s. The jittery glitchy movement combined with the awesome sound effects was a winning combo. The way he moved just made him seem unpredictable, almost like you were expecting something to go wrong at any moment.
Ed and Cane are still my favourite robot villains
I always thought it was funny, I always looked at the Robocop filmes as dark comedies. Just like Total Recall and Starship Troopers
The ED-209 not only has an impressive appearance but remains genuinely frightening.
Robocain scared me more as a kid but 209 will forever be a classic
With ED-209, the choppy stop-motion actually works in its favor.
Agreed. I think the reason for it, is that the size of it allows for that type of movement to be convincing. The smoother framerate simulates real time movement, and film is intended to show the illusion of movement, this clashes tremendously. Looks good, but definitely doesn't look better.
Lies again? Slow like turtle
I remember the hair standing up on the back of my neck in the theater the entire time that thing was stalking around with the headlights on. I can't imagine the terror the global south is going to feel when we start deploying these kinds of weapons IRL for American profits. It's going to be a wild show!
The movies are satiricial in nature. I think it absolutely adds to it on multiple levels. Much like the over the top violence.
Look up boston dynamics robots extremely smooth moving.
The choppy motion of the original gives the machines a more “Imperfect” feel to them when compared to Robocop who is the better among them. It’s visual storytelling in this case.
Nah
Natural tension.
Robo-suspense.
Also, the big issue here is that he upped the framerate and got rid of all motion blur. That's hurting the look significantly. Higher framerate is never the answer. If he had smoothed the footage at 24fps and added some motion blur, it probably would look great.
@@Dr.TJ_Eckleburg Yeah, the difference between the robot and the rest of the movie in terms of framerate is jarring.
@@damage6836 for the year and tech they had: yah
The "choppiness" of the originals gave a unique, creepier look. The same goes for the first Terminator movie - it made the T-800 look more terrifying. Also, in the original IT movie, when the clown came out of the bathroom floor it looked very creepy because of that kind of animation. And remember Medusa, from the old Clash of the Titans? She was so scary that way, kind of like the jerky movements of an insect.
Cowardly, slow, wu mao hacker "daegnax" (below) damaged the thread.
@@yeahright5227 Oh! That's right. I was getting a little mixed up with Attack On Titan.
@@HowlingMoonCinemas smh weeeeeb
@@CrabTastingMan Wow. You don't even know what that is 🤦♂️.
I remember in the first IT remake movie, the dead boy from the Kitchener Ironworks explosion moved in that stop-motiony almost spider-like gait that was extremely unnerving. It worked great.
it looked scarier and so?
It's not the lack of frames that makes stop-motion animation jerky; it's the complete lack of motion blur. If you want to make it fit in with the rest of the film, you have to emulate 24fps motion blur
Classic stop-motion has a unique inhuman horrifying motion that just cannot be surpassed.
Exactly
Oh come on it looks terrible in RoboCop and lets the film down.
it's unnatural that's why its creepy
It looks better than bad CGI I'll give it that@@Shinobubu
There's also bad stop motion, but they did it well in Robocop.
But I like when Ed falls down the stairs you can tell it's not stop motion in that moment and they actually rolled him down lol.
Strangely I think the uncanny valley effect of the limited technology of the time contributed to how unsettling the robotics looked. It actually enhanced the horror because it seemed unnatural.
i get what you mean but its unsettling in a stylized way, when you contrast it with the non-stylized/realistic parts of the film such as the real people it ruins your immersion. thats why stop motion movies that aren't mixed with other mediums like Guillermos Pinocchio, Coraline, Nightmare Before Christmas, etc. work so well.
also the stop motion in the movie is pretty bad even with high fps, way too cartoony.
facts
Couldn't agree more! The way it is, is perfect for it's time. I both love Robo and completely terrified of him at the same time lol. The movements add to that terror lol. I'm more likely to run away from Robo than I would T-800 Arnie. 😂
Jesus Christ loves you and all 😊😊😊😊
@@Immortal_BP Smoothing everything here didn't work for me. If anything it made the macquettes pop out more and feel likely poorly comped in CGI by being extra clean. Of course, given tech limitations at the time, the image compositing is probably the hardest part with the originals.
I think I like the original stop motion better.. also as a mechanic engineering type person, I really appreciate the fact that the ED-209 has a constant electric whirring noise when operating from what I would imagine as a hydraulic accumulator or pump that provides pressure for all the moving hydraulic pistons and motors..so cool on the details in these old movies
I think what this shows is that the original stop motion was, although a little jerky, pretty damn good and doesn't need replacing
Personally, I think it being a little choppy actually makes it seem more robotic
That's 100% nostalgia and 0% objectivity. I have never seen any Robo Cop and came here from a Terminator 1 (1984) stop motion overhaul with AI. Both reworks are infinitely better and T1 is my favorite movie of all time - not even nostalgia can overpower me recognizing blatanlty obvious facs over being ignorant.
@@47Mortuus dude… I have an opinion, and you have an opinion… it’s ok… get a hobby, join a community service program, find something worth being passionate about… cause this right here is nuts lol.. if you like the original version that’s TOTALLY fine with me
@@SankofaNYC I know it's your opinion - that's why I rephrased it as "nostalgia", which is _also_ completely subjective and not objective. If you saw the new version first, you'd like that one more. We're all flawed, some more than others and some in different ways than others.
@@47Mortuus how are you going to tell me what I would like more??? They literally remaster video games and movies ALL the time. And In the majority of those cases people prefer the remastered version. No one says “When I play Grand Theft Auto 5 on my brand new computer I make sure to turn the settings all the way down so it doesn’t look good and moves choppy, because I love the nostalgia!” No one says “I want to watch some of my favorite old movies, I wish they weren’t in HD though, I original saw it on a low resolution tube TV and that’s how I prefer it!” Lol you literally don’t know wtf you are talking about but you are trying to hard. So yea you are very flawed but I’m not holding it against you. I still do think you should find something positive and to be passionate about though. Good luck out there man lol
@@SankofaNYC I know it because I regularly experience it with music and music only.
Games are a completely different story because no frame is set. When you replay a game, nothing has to look EXACTLY like it did the previous playthrough. But when, suddenly, there is a single new voice actor for a very minor role in the game, it will stick out like a sore thumb to you and you know it.
I actually love how classic stop motion looks. It ads a heavy layer of creepy to it all.
yeah other best example was the Jason and the Argonauts 😁👌
The T-800 from The Terminator (1984) has a more machine like movement with the choppy animation
@@brad_hensil Well then your idea of "robotic" or "machine like" is unfounded.
As seen here th-cam.com/video/P7fi4hP_y80/w-d-xo.html robots move 100% smoothly. They stop abruptly once they reach some intermediate position, which is completely different from starting and stopping each tenth of a second while still moving into position B from position A.
For the Terminator especially, the AI interpolation looks more realistic and is more robotic and thus objectively better than stop motion. You may like it more - but hey; flies literally eat shit cuz they like it. Taste differs from person to person.
@@47Mortuus It's not contextually realistic to compare a pre-programmed, pre-ordained, comercially and industrially optimised factory machine movement designed to suit tensile, spacial and inertial requirements for a single specific task, bound entirely in linear actuations that will repeat without change a hundred times a day even if the surrounding circumstances were to change drastically - to a fictional, autonomous AI responding in real time to an ever changing circumstance where it's supposed legitimate decision making would not have been pre-ordained enough to smooth out a pre-programmed path of absolute efficiency. It would very likely be constantly reassessing every movement multiple times a second to confirm it needed to continue with it's movement. There would very likely need to be an almost inperceptable lag every millisecond in the event it needed to change it's intent using a straightforward 'if _ then goto' style code in it's architecture. This is where stop motion's jittery x factor resonates with people. Boston Dynamics experiments would be a closer comparison to objective real-time robotic responses, complete with momentary adjustments and the necesary abruptness that accompanies them no matter how smooth the hydrolics and pneumatics have become between each actuated decision. And even Boston Dynamics are still working within the boundaries of finite environments mapped out in virtual software for the hardware to respond to upto a certain point.
Interpolated frame manipulation might improve certain movements where they tween from point A to point B, but not consistently over the whole shot - whereby point A and point B get cmnpletely obfuscated and overtly smoothed as though over a series of lazy key frames, much like poor CGI artists often do with regards to the portrayal of visual weight and inertia. Used sparingly though, interpolation can help so long as it is a compromise with the orginal stop motion.
@@24secondsperframe68 Dude you know that you haven't made a single point, right? Apart from confirming _exactly_ what I've said ("imperceptible"). Plus, as a professional programmer, listening to you talk is so cringy. You have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about ("if then _ goto style code"? What kinda style is that? - Virtual software? What the f is that supposed to be?). It took you two entire days to write that piece of crap that - again, to summarize, a) doesn't make a single point and b) shows that you have no clue and use terminology you don't understand
Dang dude the smoother stop motion you made for the robots in Robocop 1 and 2 is incredible man I love it, but the smoother stop motion’s for Ed 209 and robocain is the one I love the most but dang the way they move like that with the smoother stop motion version is completely spectacular.
ED 209 is like Jurassic Park's T-Rex to me. I love the character, the look, and kindof root for it whenever I see it.
Honestly, the original looks better. The slower frame rate (or however the specific terminology is) makes the machine look heavier, more hulking. Same trick as the final boss of Ocarina of Time. It runs at a lower frame rate because of the hardware limitations but that makes Ganon seem enormous, brutally massive and slow with it.
Great comparison. Just remembered Ganon and you are totally right.
yeah, same thing here, the choppiness makes the robots look bigger. Halfway through this vid, I was thinking, you know what the smoother framerate is making the robot look kinda like toy.
Well said already
@@theclaybeartravels3596 looks cartoon ish
I get what you mean but to me, it moves like a miniature either way. I think I've seen mention before that in filming miniatures for scenes in moves, a lot of care has to be taken into accounting for how unique the inertia of small objects is compared to big ones. It's a subtle thing conceptually but so instinctively noticeable
It certainly makes it feel more like modern CGI but not necessarily for the better.
Soap opera effect.
I feel like the jankiness fits more because it’s a robot, robots aren’t known for having smooth movements, more so mechanical and binary movement, like animontronics.
@@evanrutledge-sz4yo I know what you mean although modern robots like those from Boston Dynamics move pretty smooth in my eyes.
it looks too perfect to be machines in a real world with physical limitations, it looks like something simulated in a computer. this is why cgi absolutely objective sucks for 90% of things. they use it because it's cheap, not because it's better. but dummies think it's just "nostalgia" lol
@@cagneybillingsley2165 CGI is great at doing things that aren’t physically possible, like giant behemoth monsters, stuff that’s otherworldly. It can do stuff realistically when the artist have enough time to put attention to the details (though they never do because companies push them with deadlines, and at this point they practically make the entire film), but I don’t see why an CGI artist would want to recreate something physical when they could be making something unique.
Looks way better! Everyone calling out a "je ne se qui" of the old framerate... meh... When I was a kid it was flagrant stop-motion, and this fixes it a bit.
It just works so well. ED209 is the rushed to market product with bugs and errors. RoboCop is more finshed and from a the superior team. They used the clunky animation well.
The original comes across as actually more menacing. The smoothness has a more synthetic feel. But I also love the stop motion of the original Simbad movies too from the 50's and 60's.
Yeah.... believe it or not the original is the best.
I highly doubt that if this was the movie you saw (the 8x), your opinion and feelings on it would not change at all.
Jason and the Argonauts is amazing.
Ray Harryhausen, the master of stop motion with the famous skeleton fight, or the cyclop 👍
me 2
The original feels like something out of a nightmare.
The new version makes it feel like full sized props rather than miniature puppets.
Both are great.
Wow! I always dreamed of making these scenes from classic films smooth.
To this day every time I see these I'm like, "Why would anyone use live ammunition in a test demonstration? Especially with humans RIGHT THERE and not behind bullet proof glass?"
It is impressive what you were able to do increasing the fluidity of the stop motion, but I think the general consensus (judging from other commenters) is that there's a charm to the choppiness of the original. Phil Tippet is a master of his craft, and while current special effects are more realistic, old school stop motion is just fun to look at.
Phil Tippett did such an amazing job with ED-209! One of the best stop motion artists in the industry.
He made it way too choppy in all honesty. C+
This isn't simply a matter of smoother framerate. The problem is that when smoothed, the flaws of the original animation look become more pronounced. At least in the original framerate, our minds can fill in the gaps and make the movements seem plausible.
Our mind can fill in the gaps?? The gaps in framerate? That's not how any of this works.
@@flybeep1661 Yes it is. It's literally how rapidly sequenced images work to produce animation. Nothing is actually moving. Our mind approximates motion by filling in gaps with what we think is supposed to be there. The higher the frame rate, the less wiggle room there is for our brains to do the work. What we see is what we get.
@@MansMan42069 I dunno man I always hate stop motion because all I see is choppy movement. My brain isn't filling in anything.
@@dchawk81 but you still see movement. That's your brain doing its job.
Have you ever seen a professional use a crane vs new kid on site? hell our first cars were like that jerky mess we are bless to have such flexibility in automobiles
Answer: It would look like a cheesy soup opera.
What if I told you this could be done and still have the 24p cinematic look?
Personally, I think it only really works for Robocain simply because he was already so fluid to begin with. With ED-209, there are a lot more frames that have to be "filled in" by the AI, leaving it looking quite odd in comparison to the original. Robocain had so many more frames of animation that the AI you used didn't actually need to do much.
Original, purely because the animation terrified me as a kid. Same with the T800 walking down the hallway. It’s just something about the movements that’s so creepy.
F* yeah! The T-800 with the broken leg walking on that Hallway. Hated That scene when i was a kid
Even today, after countless viewings, that last shot of Kyle and Sarah desperately trying to haul the factory door shut with the endo relentlessly bearing down on them in the background still puts my bowels in my throat...
Please don't forget about the depressing soundtrack.
Somehow, the smoother stop motion breaks the illusion and makes the various robots and cyborgs look like toys. What an interesting side effect. Thank you for this video! Good job!
I was going to say that the smoother motion makes them look more like miniatures somehow. You stated it well. That said, it's a really interesting video and gives insight into how movies work.
I think it is actually the other way around. That cheap looking low frame rate makes it obvious that those scenes are created with toy models and stop motion. It was the only thing I disliked about this movie.
@@elultimopujilense They weren't toys and they weren't cheap. Cinema grade articulated modelwork cost a fortune to construct, and the the time consuming and highly skilled demands of stop motion animation make it a major drain on a film's budget. CGI is the cheap option - which is why it replaced stop motion work overnight in the industry once it came of age - it did a better job for less money. If stop motion FX were a "cheap" option it would surely have stayed around longer!
Although there were a few arthouse uses or classic homages using stop motion after 1990, the Robocop franchise is essentially the last time the technique was used in anger in mainstream movies.
@@CountScarlioni dude, did you really thought I meant a toy that kids plays with? I love movies. I love practical efects. I know the amount of effort that it takes to make those things. I thought It was obvious, but you are too focused in trying to be percieved as smart. I mean, I think we all do that, but you need a good reason for it. Cant believe you wrote that whole comment because you misunderstood my use of the word toy.
@@elultimopujilense No, it was your use of the word *cheap* that provoked me into responding to the comment!
Obviously I didn't think you meant "toy" in a literal sense, but you did choose the word as a dismissive term - to classify something as being of lesser status.
Anyway, it's good to hear we're on the same page when it comes to appreciating old film techniques. If I had you wrong, then I apologise. I guess I've become way too twitchy after seeing soooooo many comments in the past where people ridicule pre-ditigal era films for their FX work. Sadly the one thing they usually say is that it looks cheap when of course that was seldom the case.
The stop motion achilles’ heel has always been that there is no motion blurring. Each frame is sharp, which is one of the reasons it looked kinda fake, or even creepy. I remember hearing that was one of the main reasons why Spielberg pushed for Jurassic park to use ANYTHING but stop motion. Lucky that CGI was able to pull it off, otherwise JP would’ve not been nearly as scary, IMO.
Motion blur added to stop motion was already invented 10 years earlier with Return of the Empire Strikes Back's Walkers.
I think a bit of motion blur as an additional effect could have also made it look a bit more realistic, since we have gotten used to that as a whole for the past several decades.
To think that adding motion blur to stop motion was already invented ten years earlier with the Empire Strikes Back's Walkers.
The smooth version somehow looks cheaper, not that it isn't well executed, but it demonstrates how different tools require different techniques.
Also the fact that the footage is 60 fps instead of 24 doesn't help to make it look more cinematic, with extra frames to the animation it should have looked smoother even when restored back to the original 24 fps. The overall feeling with the smooth version is that the machines are not that heavy or sturdy and thus not dangerous.
Very nice experiment, well done!
Agreed, the 60fps decision was a mistake, dropping it down to 24 might improve it.
@@JustinJ 😐
*_Charles Schwab ova here..._*
"Also the fact that the footage is 60 fps instead of 24 doesn't help to make it look more cinematic,"
This! If you watch it in 480p it looks better, since the whoile video isnt 60 fps anymore.
@@JacquesMesrine94 Listen to the man. He can tell you a couple of three things.
The smoother version feels like CGI and to me, it's actually more artificial feeling. There's a suspension of disbelief that I think we, as humans, employ when we watch something that's pretending to be real. It's why theater will always be held in the highest regard. It is literally a combined effort between the artist and viewer to achieve the effect.
Not everyone has such a powerful suspension of disbelief.
I understand your point of view, but for me the smoother motion made the scenes way more immersive.
no that's cope. both look like shit but at least the smoothed one isn't a ps1 game level of animation
i think people are looking at this like its just a "replacement" but i think of this as a tool to really apreciate the stop motion, but not in a "the stop motion looks better" way, but becouse wat this is allowing us to see is the motion WITHOUT the stop motion "filter" as it were. we just see the raw motions portrayed.
so in some shots it doesnt work as good as the choppyness is what gives it a lot of its robotic feel and it starts to feel a bit too light and fluid.
but then there are the shots where it DOES still work, and those are the ones that really impress me, becouse that means that even without the choppyness they still NAILED the motion to give these characters that robotic weight and stiffness.
its a tool to let us apreciate the motion they accomplished without the other factors, and my god does it reveal how well they did some of these shots.
It's like transforming your favorite old music from scratchy vinyl into a digitized mp3 file. It's not the same but the effort is appreciated.
Ya know if they brought back Stop Motion with this level of smoothness, I wouldn’t mind! It honestly looks better than some CGI today
Flimakers use CGI because it's cheaper, look at all the old movies, the effects are better because they use these techniques instead of CGI.
Jurassic Park used both. As in they had a physical prop (pistons and joints) that they used to simulate the motion of the dinosaurs and simply overlayed it with a CGI skin for the big screen.
I would rather have the pinnacle of stop-motion animation, than what looks like mediocre CGI. If it were redone with modern CGI, it might look superior, but then again, it might just look more uncanny.
@@TrueMohax
I recon that's the best way to go imo.
Combination of practical and CGI, with CGI subtly enhancing the practical.
@@shaneofthehillpeople Forgive me for mention it, but Robocop 2011 had good CGI ED-209s.
The problem here, is that you have the jerky motion replaced by the 'soap opera' effect which is another problem. The motion should be interpolated and given some motion blur and kept in 24fps
This is it. The framerates don't match, so it looks terrible. The original effects could benefit from some carefully used motion blur, but making it super smooth is the wrong choice.
Totally. And then we watch it at 60fps here on youtube and get a soap opera, like this crappy AI smoothing in TVs
Wow you can really see the difference in the last scene shown. And tbh, its still stop motion animation so it doesnt really lose any of the charm and detail. Pretty awesome.
Robocop 1 & 2 are among my most favorite films of all time. So many things were done right and the chemistry of the characters were perfect. It’s rare to see this quality of cinema produced nowadays. I prefer the choppy stop motion. Awesome work putting this together, helps me to further appreciate that tech alone is not what makes s great movie.
There's a soap opera effect thing going on with the 8x version, and I think it's exacerbated by the higher res frames, which makes the scale model used seem more apparent.
Same problem that older shows/movies on 4K screens... oversaturates the image & just looks so much worse/cheap
Bingo! Couldn't have put it better myself.
Yes, it makes it look like video tape instead of film. That’s definitely the “soap opera” effect he’s talking about. Plus, the lighting is different. But I don’t care, because it’s a classic style, just like watching old Ray Harryhausen movies. It’s part of the charm.
there are some sacred basic rules in filmmaking, for professionals and amateurs alike, one of them is "set 24 fps and forget about 30 and above".
@@wingstrongwingstrong exactly. It was like the time Peter Jackson did that to his Hobbit films. 60 frames per second. The movie looked like a video tape presentation with a “live” feel to it. Just awful.
The older stop-motion, makes them seem more "Mechanical" and gives off that machine menace mystique.
For some people it may, but for me its the other way around. The problem here is that people are just too nostalgic and will never admit that some changes are for the better.
The one that DEFINITELY looks much better is Robocain smashing Robocop around. Since Murphy normally moves smooth, it does suit him better. Overall, I think this works very well with Robocain, because he's supposed to be formidable, but ED-209 actually feels much better with the original choppy movements. Try maybe smoothing it out a bit less? Sometimes the robots move smoother than the actual people in the scene.
It just needs a bit of motion blur between animations. As is it looks too much like a toy over imposed.
Old school stop motion add a creepy element. Removing it kind of takes away the creepiness. The same goes for the stop motion at the end of the original Terminator. It makes it so much more scary.
Still amazed at the amount of detail on these models down to the wires. It still adds a sense of realness, because they're actual physical objects unlike CGI
It's endlessly fascinating to me how props can seem so much more detailed than cgi models. The designs in Alien, for instance, feel lifelike and tactile, because your brain is able to tell that the objects you're seeing are real. Also, I think that working on physical objects has a psychological effect on film makers. We are keen and perceptive with something we can grasp, touch, and turn around in our hands, more so than any 3d model.
@@dadrumma8608 we have to thank geniuses like Stan Winston for that
Placebo effect
The issue with layering stop motion on live footage is that the lighting does not align. With modern CGI we can create a HDRI map while filming live footage and import that to recreate the same lighting. It allows for a more seamless transition. Take off the rose tinted glasses. The issue with CG characters is that you need actors to interact with something that will be covered up in post. That's the problem with movies like the star wars prequels and starship troopers. Even in robocop the interaction is a little awkward and inconsistent. Telling someone to react to something that isnt there leads to inconsistent interaction because there is no reference. If you look at the making of the first avengers movie. They had people in green suits interacting with the actors. Then in post the CG characters were animated and placed over the green people in the footage. CG isn't the problem, it's a lack of instruction leading to footage not lining up after layering it all together. A great well organized scene that combines live action and stop motion is the skeleton fight in Jason and the Argonauts
People don’t talk about CGI that worked perfectly. There are more than people realize. CGI has perfected realism down to the grain of smoke. Anyone who says otherwise are ignorant to the extreme
Im just amazed how good this still looks so many years later.
I'm Polish. Once done it's done. No remakes. No reboots. No reimaginings.
This same thing happens when I go from blocking to spline in 3D animation. it's quite a struggle tbh. Sometimes the smoothness takes away from rhythm and feel of the action. Perhaps another pass reinforcing the Keys would return the snappiness to the robotic movement. That said, this is quite the achievement! Great work.
Interesting. Depending on the scene, sometimes Smooth Stop-Motion makes it better, and sometimes make it worse.
The smooth motion reveals to me just how great of an animator Phil Tippett is. For some reason, his choices, knowledge of movement, and ability to create characters through body language are revealed better with the smooth movement.
I thought the opposite. It shows that it wasn't animated well in the first place. There's no weight to the movements.
@@aniquinstark4347 animation has a lot of „cheating“ distancing and timing to accentuate movement. A lot of it can be screwed up by frame interpolation and lack of motion blur.
Is it the same Phil Tippet who had one job supervising dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movie?
@@IvanVazquezS yes
@@G_de_Coligny Notice that all of the machines you're talking about are bolted to the floor unlike a walking robot
I was never happy with it as a kid and seeing this is like closing the gap between stop motion and just plain CGI. It looks great.
fully agree, i remember my child disappointment.
dafuq???
Only way to make this look less like stop motion would be to rotoscope every frame of the bot, place hit over the original footage then apply a blur motion. That’ll blur up the faster moving sequences.
What you really need to do is match it to the film's framerate, then it won't feel so uncanny. Watching in 480p made it match nicely. Also, some scenes work better than others. The hallway shadow scene worked well. The quality of the original animation shines through, while in others, the rushed animation gets exposed further.
This. Exactly.
There is a reason why movies have such framerate. High framerate can lead to a "soap opera effect" And here is exactly what is happening. It should be tried with a 2X instead of 8X.
I tested and I think you are correct, looks really nice at 480p, I prefer it over the original version, but that 60fps version looks poor compared to the original.
Exactly, I don't know wtf the creator was thinking. Not a fair comparison
I suspected as much, saw your comment and decided to go with dropping it to 480p
It looks so good that way. It even helps keep up a hint of the uncanny valley feeling from the original technique, and it does not give any of that HD Soap Opera look that the 1080p res has
Agreed, 480p is the way to go, actually looks better but still robotic enough
The original had a jankyness to it that made it feel mechanical, and heavy.
The smoothened version is unnaturally smooth, and feels like something you'd see in a nightmare.
both are very intimidating auras.
edit: why the fuck are you fighting about this in the replies? what do you hope to gain? a brief sense of self-satisfaction?
True
Nah. Look at real robots moving. They don't look stop-animated lol. Stop motion animation is really one of those effects that were always tolerated because it was the only option in a lot of cases but stop motion never looked particularly real. Even when using robots like this.
@@Juel92 Finally someone who isn't nostalgic
I've seen plenty of jerky robots. Especially the older ones. You are just not looking.
@@greenman5229 No I 100% am. Stop this. Robots might move in bursts but they don't skip throughout space like stop motion does. Also even when they move janky it's still smooth motions, it's not like they move with gears.
I mean those jerkies and unsmooth moving really made those robots scary just like the first the time I saw terminator, got a lot of chills on my spine.
The smoothness somehow removes the weight of the robot. I have no other way to describe the feeling
Yes, you are right. Smoothness motion made them like small toys.
Just like the “improved” version of T2, perfecting the effects in Robocop takes away all the charm.
What improved version? :c
Maybe you meant T1? T2 doesn't have stop motion afaik.
Honestly it wouldn't so bad if they interpolated it to fit the framerate the movie was recorded in, especially if the AI could simulate something like motion blur (or if fake motion blur was added in with like After Effects or something). Doing it higher gives you the Soap Opera Effect, and yeah something about that on live action makes it look real uncanny valley
@@Bonez0r They have one during the Future war scene where there's terminators shooting before one of the Rebels finished one off. It's just hard to notice.
Motion blur would help a lot. There's still a bit of choppiness to the 8x smoother versions.
I still remember that scene where the robot tries to stand on the steps and slips down, lmfao. It was an epic scene.
I wonder if it’s possible to dial back the smoothness a bit to match the frame rate the film was shot in. Having it 8x smoother kind of makes it look like the “True Motion” setting some TVs have to artificially increase the frame rate, making it seem a little bit unnatural.
I think it would look great if the smoothness of the stop motion matched the smoothness of the live action shots.
Just watch it at 480p.
the problem is that you don't have the extra footage you will need to make it ACTUALLY smoother, so the video creator accelerated the video, forcefully increased the frame rate to kinda make it look "smoother"...
The 8x smoother effect is exactly the same as the software processing that televisions use to make "True Motion"
Just about to say something similar. Some scenes are clearly sped up just a little too much. Coincidentally, some could use that extra speed like the scene where Cain smacks Robocop before slamming him into some pipes. Both scenes need a little variable speed added at just the right time to better sell the visuals. The smack is especially slow feeling.
@@manusoftar There are AI assisted programs able to account for those missing frames and draw them in. I can't recall what they're called off the top of my head, but the channel 2 Minute Papers has shown a few during their development.
I applaud your efforts but I am wondering about the framerate. The movie came out at 24 frames a second, smoothing it out and rendering it back to 24 would make it match better. Here the stop motion is smoother than the rest of the footage, breaking that illusion. Matching the framerate to the original grounds the footage.
This
so, I'm not the only one who thought that those 8x shots have over 24 fps? Shure! They gotta be movie standart. Not those "gopro" stylish xD
24.9 frames persecond. to be precise . movie standard frame rate is 24.9 not 24 . i know i'm a nerd.
@@DenverStarkey Negative. Film runs at an even 24 fps, and is converted to 23.97 fps to prevent frame roll when transferred to NTSC.
Agreed. The frame rate was never the issue; lack of motion blur was. There are a bunch of really good motion blur plugins out there. I’d be curious to see how it’d look being run through one of those.
Thing about the original Robocop movie was that,
Some robot sequence scenes were SO well done that you could actually smell the fried electronics some how.
I like this better. Makes both ED209 and Robocop 2 look realer and therefore scarier. It doesn't "break immersion", the way the lower framerate does.
For the first part, I think the jerky motion made everything seem a bit more tangible, as if there was mass to all the machines. However, the Kain shots looked better, with the smoother animation.
Kain was a more elite machine too, so i think the richness compliments him better.
Yeah, the smooth animation would need slowed down.
The original jerky stop motion doesn't necessarily break the suspension of disbelief for me, but the smooth stop motion immediately breaks that and puts me into uncanny valley.
Aren't they supposed to be uncanny?
I salute the hard work done is smoothing out the animation, but if it appears in more than the first movie, it's almost-certainly an artistic choice. I can only guess at why.
it helps alot to overcome that old school cheesiness
Love it.
But the unnatural look of stop-motion actually made them scarier.
Terminator 1 had the same effect. Stop motion is creepy
The jerky slow movements makes it feel heavier and more mechanical. Due to ED being a prototype also gives it a more incomplete feeling too
Proving that the stop motion actually looks pretty damn good
The original just has that look to it where it just feels so real
You know what would be simple yet interesting to do is to simply add frames to the animation to match the film - so 24 FPS instead of what I’m guessing is 12 FPS stop motion. Only thing missing would be the motion blur, but I think there was a little already from Go Motion.
This. Exactly. I have no idea why they always try to go for 60 fps, it just does not work for the film most of the time. It would be way more interesting to see the movie play out entirely in its designated fps (which is most of the time 24 fps).
Agreed
If I recall correctly, Tippett himself said (at least for Robocop 2) they did 24 shots for each frame to match it with the film’s FPS, which is why there isn’t much of a difference when smoothing it.
Dude I was about to comment the same thing.
Exactly! Looked like eastenders they way it was overly smooth. Movies are 24fps.
The first Robocop holds up because no CGI. Add smoother Stop Motion and it looks even better
*Terminator 2 enters chat*
Try to make jurassic park, the abyss and T-1000 with stop motion then. Also make it better!
Yeah the Robocop 2014 effects were worse
Robocop 1 and 2 has amazing effects
Robocop 2 (the movie and the character) had much clunkier stop motion i feel
I love the first reject this smooth becayuse with the original stop motion, he looked like a malfuctioning robot. With the smooth animation, him shooting the scientists absolutely looks deliberate
Actually 16x may be more life like, but the original jerkier motion gave the scenes a scarier feel due to the bigger difference between a more lifelike Robocop and the earlier prototypes. Seeing Robocop on the street would be cool, see the porotypes on the street would see me running in the opposite direction.
The original gives it a great creepy vibe! ED-209 terrified me as a kid and still does
The more frames actually makes some scenes worse, like when Robocain smashes RoboCop against those pipes. It has a slowdown effect and takes a lot of the "whoomp". Also, makes the robots overall move more in a "organic" way which is weird.
The machine bitchslap looks better with stop motion, combined with real recorded sound of impacting metal.
The stop motion adds a creepy unstable look to the motion of the robots especially kain, which is what a robot in motion should look and move like. Kain's motion is what makes him look and feel intimidating
This strange and unreal feeling when you see they moving in stop-motion is part of the fun.
I think the way it’s made: unstable and wobbling around makes it look like it’s interacting with real objects. More smooth looks more like a video game.
That's part of the problem, honestly, as Noodle pointed out a while back. A lot of people got it in their heads that 60 fps is the gold standard for gaming and should be for everything else, even though animation has always used 24 fps as a standard and even at that rate can look incredibly smooth in the right hands and if the animators feel the need to put in the work.
@S. D You took the words right out of my mouth.
You have to "pair" it with the frame smoothing pace of the rest of the film - otherwise it would look like an amateur stuff _("soap opera" effect)._
And increase _(reduce the value)_ the motion vector precision _(ideally paired with the lowest grid possible, with dynamic decrease further on)_ - otherwise small details will be quite literally washed out _(same way it happened with bullets on __02:07__)._
They "motion flowed" or whatever TV manufacture labeled this so the entire movie was smoothed. The obvious stop motion would dial in the most notice. I personally love it but there are times when artifacts become apparent. Also there are times when it looks too real in that I feel like I'm on set watching the scene being recorded thus less immersion.
Never have I witnessed graphics that have set off the "uncanny valley" so reliably for me then your 'Smooth Stop-Motion'. I'm can cope with a lot of bad graphics, but this just... unnerves me. Your video was well done, and interesting. Even if it's cannon with the original stop motion graphics, everything just moves... unnaturally wrong. *thumbs up*
Oddly the more smooth the more it feels like a animation instead of a posing threat
Absolutely stellar work, no idea how you did this. Recently I watched the Robocop movies again and while the stop motion is dated, it works for what it’s meant to be. Film-making techniques have come so far that a layman like me can still see that the frames weren’t the problem, but as another has already said, the motion itself. Inertia and momentum are hard to pull off at the scales they were trying to.
1:11 AAA-
The motion smoothing that accompanies the video interpolation gives the new scenes that typical soap opera effect, which is kind of jarring. Although it's very nicely done, also feel like the old style gave it a more artificial, i.e. robotic, feeling.
I see a lot of people talking about how they prefer the "choppy" original better, and personal preference here is very subjective. But I just wanted to mention that the choppiness is not due to a difference in frame rate of the stop motion and the actors. The original film was shot at 24 fps, stop motion included. The choppy feel is due to the very slight imperfection inherent in moving the model's limbs and features. In 2d animation, you can create frames in any order, and often first and last frames are drawn before in-between frames are added (pose to pose). But stop motion animation is really only done in a continuous sequence of frames (straight ahead). So guessing what the next position should look like without having a clear idea of what the following position will be, I think that is partly the source of some of the surreal movement, but also just the inherent human error in aligning the limbs and features is never going to be perfect (and I think it's incredible that they can make it look as good as they do). So while 24 fps is smooth enough for film to capture real objects in motion, the stop motion animation will look choppier by comparison just due to the inherent imperfections in positioning the model each frame. Adding in-between frames using inhuman frame interpolation, hides some of the imperfection and smooths out that choppiness a bit, but not completely. Also, boosting to 60fps gives a "soap opera effect" that many people don't like, and prefer a 24fps cinematic feel (even if there wasn't stop motion involved, some people just prefer 24fps). Also, aslo, boosting to 60fps from 24fps, so it's not a straight doubling so something will always feel a little off compared to interpolating 60fps from 30fps.
So, all that said. I personally don't like the stop motion jitter unless the whole film is stop motion. Combining stop motion with the real world just bothers me the way that bad CGI bothers most people. The 60fps smoothing hides some of it, and I'm one of those people who isn't bothered by "soap opera effect." So, looks a little better to me, tho I still doesn't look that great. That's just my subjective experience, and I know I'm not in the majority that either don't like the soap opera effect, or simply like the out of place feeling that the stop motion brings making the robots feel otherworldly, or for some other reason just think that the original just looks better.
Nicely done. was fun watching the scenes with Cain again. My Father use to work for Houston Studios, a company that built and prepared sets for movies based in Houston, Texas. I remember getting a tour by him seeing these sets and the props and what not. I was so scared to death of ED-209, that he had to pick me up and make me touch it to realize it wasn't real. I mean I was balling as he moved me toward it, but ofcourse I calmed down when he made me realize it wasn't going to come to life.
A funny story. The scene where Cain punches Robocop through the wall. when you build a fake wall, your suppose to leave it noticeably unfinished and marked so the stunt team know where to set up. They did that, but some message got mixed up and someone went in behind them and finished the wall so they couldn't tell the fake from the real. So when they did the stunt, the stunt actor got thrown into a real wall and was knocked out. I don't remember him being seriously hurt. My father's boss was none to happy that someone had messed with their work, and had to go to bat for his team when there were threats of legal action.
Still, It always made me and my dad laugh when he would tell the story.
I can't imagine being a kid and seeing ED-209. That thing is a nightmare! It still frightens me! No wonder you were crying! Poor kid!
I'm glad the stuntman wasn't seriously hurt, but I guess carpenter's gonna....uh, carpenter? And finish a wall when they see an unfinished one.
I don't have a fun story to trade about a model in a movie, except this one: a friend of mine grew up in LA and a friend of his had a dad who worked in the biz. He had the Pimp Bot from Ice Pirates in his garage.
What did your father move onto after that?
@@te9591 They worked on various films The chase with Charlie sheen, Sidekicks, and commercials. Eventually, the business dried up and the guys went their own ways. My dad was adaptable.
@@swistedfilms It was scary up until the moment when my father showed me the difference between what is real and what is fake. Once i realized it was fake, I began to learn what a Character was, and that to face your fear is can leave you stronger. now if only I get that to work with spiders. the facing the, not the touching *shivers*
@@talisredstar1543 that is awesome
This blew my mind! The smoother animation somehow made it much more apparent that we are seeing models and toys. In some cases, it even made it looks like very bad (SyFy level) CGI. I would never have guessed that!
I do think some of it might have been helped by simply slowing down the smoother footage. ED209, for example, suddenly seems to be moving too fast and lacks weight. Smaller bots seemed to fair better. But, in no case would slowing the footage have actually solved all the issues.
SO - is this an across-the-board thing about how the human brain interprets what it sees? OR is this a generational thing - because we grew up with jerky stop-motion so seeing it now is just uncanny valley to our eyes?
I really likes this comment. That question is very good, unfortunately, I don't know the answer.
Except for Cain walking towards the elevator. It at least looked like to model had mass due to the hip movement. Have you ever seen the Jurassic Park Advanced Stop Motion T-Rex? It'll blow your mind. I think it's because of the muscle groups that move with each step that seem to give the illusion of weight. If it could be refined even more this would blow any CGI out of the water. Well in the end nothing gets realer than a real thing I guess. Here:
th-cam.com/video/uEK9mitagS8/w-d-xo.html
@@EbonyPope seems you don't know how complex cgi models are nowadays. Even in 2005 I had complex model options on 3d models. With muscles skin etc.
If setup correctly, it looked great. There is the point. Cgi doesn't make it easy. You still need to do it correctly. And that takes time and experience.
In the past cgi looked like crap sometimes because of a lack of experience and effort.
Also lack of knowledge. Often programmers were used. They aren't expert in anatomy.
Artists aren't either, but they can see if something looks weird a bit better.
Too make it look good, you need people that knows, physics, anatomy, lighting, programming, artists, etc etc.
Most cgi in movies is almost invisible. Or really invisible.
That's good cgi.
@@MrSpacelyy Nope. Even the best CGI is still very visible to me. Prometheus had one of the best concerning the spaceship models but it was still very obvious. It's only people who are used to seeing it that claim that it's very realistic. Yes good CGI at least looks decent. But it doesn't get more realistic than using something real. That's why people are absolutely amazed at 80's movies explosions because there is that quality that you cannot reproduce with animation. CGI no matter how good should be used sparingly and preferably in the dark where it's harder to spot. Animatronics by the way have made huge jumps in development too. The problem is that using CGI makes work easier for directors. It's about convenience not about realism.
I think one of the issues is, like you said, the animation is played at too many frames per second. It's kinda like watching a movie at sixty frames per second, it just doesn't look right.
It's more obvious that it's small when smooth. They look like toys. The "rougher" framerate gives it a sense of weight and scale.
I really don't know how to feel about this. It looks amazing, but that weird, herky-jerky look really is timeless
I feel like there is a sweet spot between the original and this smoothed version. The original is very jarring but the new one is so smooth I think it goes a little too far which makes it look fake in a different way. Somewhere in between I bet it would look fantastic.
They look like if they were videogame cutscenes, not like a movie -even if they were done with obsolete vfx.
The defect that just walks out and pulls it's helmet off to reveal the screaming skull will always be peak dark comedy 😂😂
amazing, it looks so good
I wish now movies had stop-motion, I love it
There's just not the same care and effort put into movies these days. 13 people write the script, another half a dozen revise it, they throw an AI at it for good measure to remove all artistic direction that may have been left over after the script got worked over by almost twenty people, sound editing is artificial, all the effects are rendered on computers...Hell, most movies are entirely or at least in large parts, shot on green screen.
Doing even 12FPS is an incredibly hard thing to coordinate and choreograph to make it look even half decent.
With software rendering, you can make things superficially look much more real.
...as for my own personal opinion, I think it's some sort of a scam how they claim that 10 secs of CGI costs dozens of millions of dollars to make. I'm not an animator, but I'm pretty sure that using already existing assets and algorithms has massively cut down on the actual costs of production at least two decades ago.
The thing with stop motion is that it was never gonna become cheaper. You always need precise hands and a skilled brain and a lot of love and care and attention. You can't automate it using machinery.
With CGI, it's very probable that they've already automated large parts of it and the actual animators just touch up what the abominable intelligence produced.
With all the animated movies coming out each year, there should be entire cities made up largely of the programmers and animators and the people who cater to them if the figures they claim are even remotely in association with the reality us, the great unwashed, reside.
Games today, especially their prerendered cutscenes, look almost photorealistic these days. Games that have only a fraction of the budget of Hollywood animated movies.
Anyway, it's a conspiracy that goes all the way to slightly below the middle.
@@evanharrison4054 even though the movies sucked the CGI team behind the transformers movies spent countless hours making the CGI real as possible
There are movies now that use stop motion that are pretty cool
Even though they are mostly just stop motion movies
Stop motion is even more expensive than CGI, but it has its how charm when it's done. Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio is full stop motion and is a masterpiece.
@@evanharrison4054 there is definitely some kind of scam going on with the budgets considering the number of effects houses that have gone bankrupt after completing work for major Hollywood productions.