>CGI is shit and 2D is objectively better in every way
Why do people say this?
nostalgiafags
>>80964102
The anti-3D bias on this board is disgusting
>>80964102
probably because people have been studying how to depict people in 2d for thousands of years
while cgi's designers still have no god damn idea what theyre doing, and seem to just picasso up terrifying faces
people talk a lot about uncanny valley this and mocap that but really the problem is one of pure proportion. 2d has always had ugliness (klasky csupo and shit.. john k..) but 3d does it almost exclusively. They seem to do it intentionally, they think taking the guy who did the gross looking Iron Giant can somehow make good 3d designs.. but theyre just as gross looking.
at the same time they also have their own unique kind of laziness. like, cg doesnt let you just change and warp things without ruining the texture, so generally you treat cg like puppets. and that is fucking boring. as boring as the utterly flat 2d shit from the no-budget hanna barbera 'necktie' era
>>80964229
3D is pig disgusting tho
>>80964102
Because it's true
>>80964102
>posting an image of a very great looking short that used both 2D and 3D
>>80964129
/thread
>>80964567
All CG incorporates 2d
>>80964102
Hello, memeposter.
I still wonder if that one office worker that was so happy to receive the paper airplane only to be told it wasn't for him hung himself.
We've spent over 80 years perfecting, tinkering and stylizing the use of 2D and in comparison, CGI is very young. That plus the idea that it has more or less taken over all forms of animated entertainment, mainly in movies, is probably a reason as well. But also mainly nostalgiafags
I must say though I would like 2D to make some kind of comeback so that it could live in harmony with CGI, not just one dominating the other
>>80965449
Naw... he jumped off his office window ledge later.
...Because it is?
I don't know what you want me to say, man.
Great short. My fave one.
>>80965621
How is it?
Because CG is new and took a while to perfect.
I see less people say it today now that 3D animation had become more fluid and natural looking.
It should be considered another medium of animation like stop motion, 2D, puppet, etc. I have an issue with trying to replace 2D animation with it, though Paperman was nice.
>>80964102
I'm sure they do and they phrase it like that; I just hope you aren't using that picture as a counter argument, OP
The value of hand-drawn animation doesn't lie in *looking* hand drawn
If the person animating a scene like that felt that it'd work better with maybe another character in the background / a different outfit for the character on focus / rain outside instead of sunlight / glasses, a locket, a wristwatch, office papers or folders under her arm or any other prop added / or maybe it's the first scene they animate and she feels the character would look better with a different facial structure, or hairstyle, or looking completely different, or whatever: in 2D, you just fucking do it. You draw her eyebrows bushier; you draw her holding a hammer; you do whatever the fuck you want, and you do it right that moment.
Correction, you don't "do" it; but you could do it. Granted, in an actual collaborative production there's steps to retrace: back to layout, back to storyboard, back to character designs, and so forth. But in a simple, core level, if you could polarize all creative decissions towards the last link of the chain (or simply, if you're doing a piece of animation on your own), you can see the margin for expression is on a completely different level. Or, it actually exists at all
CG makes detail aggregable and animation skills fully compartmentalizable; erases the limits for either perfect evenness or -literally- calculated chaos; and packs a mean visual punch if done right. It has its own set of qualities, only a subset of which overlap with traditional animation. They aren't that different, but they are different things. Invoking objectiveness isn't a self-validating license to place any two things in a bidimensional escale, and neither is "dude nostalgia glasses lmao" an actual argument against anything by itself, children
Can the same thing be applied to 2d vs 3d videogames as well?
>>80966094
No, because 2d and 3d games have existed for the same amount of time basically and some genre's hinge on being in 3d
>>80966094
No. Both have experienced major advancements and video games aren't as old as animation
>>80964102
the guy who made this short is also making Hullabaloo.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/hullabaloo-steampunk-animated-film#/
does anyone know what has happened to it?
I think Green Lantern: The Animated Series is a good example of the advantages of TV-budget CGI. That show had loads and loads of very subtle facial expressions and gestures that wouldn't have been possible for 2D on a similar budget, as well as sweeping set pieces like asteroid fields that would have limited their choice of camera angles.
>>80964102
People wouldn't be giving cgi as much shit if movie companies and general audiences didn't pretty much consider 2D an inferior artform for big budget blockbusters. CGI has its own advantages, you have studios out there going the extra mile for a 2D feel despite everything, and its getting to the point where its hard for it to age poorly.
When is Disney going to be able to apply that tech from paperman in a movie though? I really hope they're using it for Gigantic.
>>80967751
the lead guy hung himself. apparently he couldn't handle all the people asking "what has happened to it?"
>>80964102
I like 2d more.
>>80966140
The hand drawn water colored rpgs were badass back in the day of ps2.
Hand drawn art has more attention to detail.
I wouldnt watch rick and morty or dethklok if it were 3d.
>>80971147
>Hand drawn art has more attention to detail.
This is wrong though
>>80970473
Probably not. When Paperman was made, the technology was still pretty buggy. It's in black and white because they still couldn't get it to work right in anything besides greyscale. Don't expect to see it used in a full length movie until they use it for a few more shorts to make sure they've actually got it working right.
CGI ages like milk.
I'm waiting for the movies that actually play in real-time on your computer, and let you look from different angles and shit. (Not up Elsa's dress though, pervs!)
>>80972405
it'll be quite a while before we have hardware that can render stuff like frozen in real-time.
No one has made characters that can magically transform their bodies and faces in 3D animation... Yet. Unfortunately no one cares about being off-model anymore.
That and in a post-Disney age, stupid people still think animation was originally conceived as family-friendly form of entertainment.
>>80972221
They blueballed us with it a few times
>Tangled was supposed to use it
>Zootopia was supposed to use it
>Moana was supposed to use it
>>80972405
Not gonna happen for another 30+ years
>>80972460
>switch to real-time mode
>movie switches to PS3-quality graphics (but still 1080P)
It could work anon.
>>80972552
Just wake me when it's here. *enters cryochamber* *goes to sleep*
>>80972405
while an amusing gimmick it would never take off because half the time you'd do shit like fail to notice the whistleblower's tattoo that indicates they work for the hero's former rival which is important to know for a later scene to make sense, because you had the camera at face level during the conversation
>>80972529
>>80972221
Don't expect it to be used in a disney movie at all, the director who was basically all the support behind the tech left Disney and is heading up Paramount's new animation wing.
>>80964102
Because when 2D animation is bad it's usually considered a "style" and not judged too harshly, but when 3D and CG are done poorly it's really noticeable and gives people a gut reaction of "Wow this is shit."
I personally don't care for 2D over big budget CG, if it looks good it doesn't matter how they did it. That being said, some of the artistry from old cartoons and movies is really impressive
>>80972317
Fucking this. Pinocchio was made in 1940, way before your own father's and mother's were even sperm cells, yet the movie has not aged a bit. The way the puppet playing the trumpets were animated is goat-tier.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMdijnTMWXs
Yet I can watch a CGI film from the 2000's and I can already see its age. Maybe its just me or who knows maybe its my own generation. Us millennials are so used to CGI effects that its no longer as impressive as it was in lets say 1995. Its very hard to say, that movie was beautifully animated, when PS4 graphics blow it out of the water.
>>80972613
First
>whistleblower
>tattoo
we're still talking about Pixar and Dreamworks right? Second, I think a real version would probably constrain the camera in each shot to ensure that you don't miss anything too important. In your example maybe one shot would allow a free moving+rotating camera, the next shot would focus on the tattoo, then it jumps back to your previous camera. Not saying I think it'll happen, just musing here.
>>80964229
Get rekt faggot. 2D Master Race
Hand drawn stuff has more detail
CGI is coming along well, but it's still to clean and perfect. You look at something like a city, and actual artist will put the extra effort into giving the city a lived in look, small imperfections and blemish's, while a CGI city even if they try to capture the same thing that the former did, it will still come off to clean and lacking in detail, like the objects were carefully placed there rather than just tossed in aimlessly.
>>80972585
it would require that every model get additional LODs and textures and (probably) structure their particle effects very differently, because there very likely isn't any room right now to 'turn them down'
>>80972758
ok that's just blaming bad artists and saying you're blaming the medium
>>80972711
honestly I was just thinking of some vidya games that have psuedo-free camera in one for or another. Though now that you mention it I just remembered that most of them have an on-screen prompt to zoom in on something important when it gets revealed
>>80972221
I don't know why people act like it's especially hard to do. Several games and anime studios use a similar technique to emulate 2D with 3D models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSOMeOHgQ2A for example. Barring one scene towards the end, you'd be hard-pressed to notice which scenes were drawn, and which ones were rendered.
>>80972811
Sorry, but I don't follow.
>>80964102
>CGI ages like shit in comparison to 2D since it's so reliant on tech. Films released only a few years ago look spotty.
>While it's not a fault of the medium itself since there's loads of cool shit you can do with it most companies just copy Pixar's approach so all of it looks samey. There's much more variety out there in 2D because it's been around for over a century.
>There's an oversaturation of 3D while 2D is dying in the west and fans of animation are mad about it.
Those are the main reasons.
>>80973110
a cg artist has just as much ability to make an environment look natural as a traditional artist has to make a hand-drawn environment.
saying that a cg city will always look sparce is like saying everything 2d looks like a caricature, it might be true for some examples but that doesn't mean it's universally true for the medium
with proper technology and filter thingies
3d artists can make 3d look like 2d
>>80967751
He missed the Steampunk wave by quite a few years.
It would be nice if we got both. But we mostly just see CGI now.
>>80972529
Literally only the first is even half-true. Tangled was going to use an experimental type of cel-shading, but it was something very different than what the developed for Paperman (looking more like a painting than traditional animation).
>>80972883
You should've pulled up a clip from XRD if you wanna talk "3d that looks like 2d"
>>80972680
2D animation as close to it's inception as 3D is now has visibly aged, too.
3D's faults are also more obvious because it's closer to reality, and thus we have a clearer idea of what it's supposed to look like.
>>80972758
>Hand drawn stuff has more detail
This is the exact opposite of true.
2D and 3D have different pros and cons, but 3D overwhelmingly has the edge on detail. It's not even remotely a contest.
>>80973498
The technique was further developed in the paperman technology
also:
http://collider.com/disney-animation-studio-moana-paperman/
>>80973541
>3D's faults are also more obvious because it's closer to reality, and thus we have a clearer idea of what it's supposed to look like.
That can only be said about films that use CGI for effects, like those shitty Hobbit movies.
3D animation is too perfect, and too easy in certain ways, and doesn't have the raw creativity, personal signature and flexibility of 2D animation. This is at least the case from the perspective of anime. From the perspective of Disney animation the difference might not be so meaningful. That could be one reason why American animators were quick to embrace 3D animation while Japanese animators have mostly subjugated it under 2D animation.
>>80975941
but that's wrong, dumbass
3d in general makes the uncanny valley way easier to hit
>>80972317
the toys in toy story 1 still look really good. even the humans, while stylized, have what I would deem an "appropriate" appearance
>>80975941
No, it applies to all 3D.
>>80976559
Oy vey, not this faggot again.
>>80976617
>>>/Reddit/
>>80964102
Because CGI doesn't hold up to aging for some reason. You can watch Bambi and not realize it was made 50+ years ago, but you can tell when a movie was made with how the CGI looks.
2d was always able to be more detailed too. CGI's been slowly catching up. But stuff like Clone Wars and The Green Lantern series bother me with these CGI blocks that never move, no hair moving, no cloth moving with the wind. Maybe 2d captures that stuff better?
>>80964389
That seems like a good explanation too.
>>80966063
It still hasn't gotten there yet.
Clipping alone is still an issue even for big companies like Disney.
>>80965621
>Are you really asking me to explain my reasoning?
>>80976698
Physics like moving hair and clothing might not be present in cheap 3D, but they're also not going to be present in cheap 2D. 2D is probably still better at doing them though.
>>80973447
I can't wait for this future.
I feel we're getting close to that.
>>80973447
most 2d is ugly now too though
ugly has won. and with anime having somehow lost its soul, and serious action shows having died, along with any kind of quality disney movies, it's harder to find beauty in animation anywhere
![[Hiryuu] Hai to Gensou no Grimgar - 06 [1080p H264 AAC][44DC2396].mkv_snapshot_12.24_[2016.03.16_20.23.15].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/itwF3W8.jpg "[Hiryuu] Hai to Gensou no Grimgar - 06 [1080p H264 AAC][44DC2396].mkv_snapshot_12.24_[2016.03.16_20.23.15].jpg")
>>80977212
The production quality of TV anime has increased massively since the 90s, and it hasn't somehow lost its soul just because they color it digitally now.
>serious action shows having died
There's ten or more action shows this season. How is that not enough for you?
>>80977357
>There's ten or more action shows this season.
Half of those are those shitty Marvel commercials with about as much "action" as Clutch Cargo.
Then there's Star Wars and...What the fuck else is there?
>>80977396
I was referring to this anime season.
>>80977421
We're not talking about anime.
>>80977454
Really?
>ugly has won. and with anime having somehow lost its soul, and serious action shows having died, along with any kind of quality disney movies, it's harder to find beauty in animation anywhere
>>80964102
CG has its place, I just wish studios would stop trying to erase 2D out of existence, but I guess the general audiences just see it as kid suff.
as an aspiring 2D animator, the future looks grim.
>>80977488
Anime was being listed there as a separate category.
you cant do what 2d does in 3d animation.
for example you'll be hard pressed to do something like this in CGI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF_C7BvAf_A
>>80977501
>as an aspiring 2D animator
You might as well have chosen to be an aspiring lamplighter.
>>80977516
Even if "action shows" didn't refer to any specific form of media, they're still being done in anime. So they haven't died.
>>80977557
s-shut up...
>How 2Dfags think 3D animation works
>>80977531
I mean it could be done, but it would end up being you stretching and altering the models manually for every frame and take 4x the time
>>80977607
They all take effort however 3D is more interesting from a programming perspective rather than an artistic perspective. We tend to marvel at what the technology can do rather than what it has brought.
>>80977623
im not convinced you could do it. for example the smoke transforms into characters, and exists as a solid black on the canvas here. how would you emulate that in 3d without it just looking like smoke?
im having a hard time conveying what I mean.
>>80977631
The persistent idea that 3D involves any less creativity or artistry is not only ignorant, but disrespectful as hell.
so where should I go to learn 3D animation?
>>80977657
Never said it took less creativity, all I'm saying is more people appreciate the tools the programmers create rather than the people who actually use them.
>>80977657
It does involve less creativity and artistry.
>>80964229
It is, but there are legitimate complaints about production studios using it as a cheaper, quicker alternative to traditional animation. It's like all those shitty 80s cartoons running at three frames a minute - it's not an indictment against 2D animation, just a symptom of a diseased industry.
CGI as a whole is abused by Hollywood and I have nothing but sympathy for the people who somehow make something beautiful despite the shit they have to put up with.
>>80977531
And you can't do what 3D does in 2D animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmJCCDLGKvU
They both have strengths and weaknesses. 3D allows for much greater detail and lets animators fine-tune every little detail individually, while 2D allows for easier transformation and breakage of forms.
Neither is inherently superior or has greater artistic merit. I don't mind CGI dominating right now because it's got far more room to grow and experiment.
CGI is still new and people hate new things
It's honestly as simple as that
>>80977737
I like CGI movies however I hate it's over use. Why is it so terrible for animation based companies to release 2D and 3D films?
>>80977712
>production studios using it as a cheaper, quicker alternative to traditional animation
It is neither of those things.
3D is vastly more expensive than 2D unless you get a TON of mileage out of your assets (as in, having sequels or 50+ episodes). It's more popular with movies because 3D brings in much bigger audiences, and is easier to make changes to after you're done.
>>80977737
I don't hat CGI, but when I think animation, I think of someone going paper by paper capturing the pure thought of movement on a canvas. When I saw the process of 101 dalmatians I nearly cried for how hard they worked for that quality.
>>80977756
Also this
>>80977725
yes 3d can do things 2d cant, but most of that is look pretty. It cant abstract nearly as well, and you can depict the same scene you just linked in 2d. it wont look the same but you could do it. you couldn't make an abstract, surreal animation like the one linked before in 3d.
Although I will say, I think one of the biggest reasons why CGI gets shit is because so many movies just use that one style Pixar developed where everyone looks like theyre made out of soft clay or something.
>>80977756
Because if they spend that time and resources on all 3D movies, they make more money.
>>80977756
2D don't make no money no more
There's stil a bunch of 2D shit being released anyways, it's just that 3D dominated the American studios
>>80977764
>you couldn't make an abstract, surreal animation like the one linked before in 3d.
You absolutely can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zl2NQ1nHPg
>>80977675
I'd like good info too
>>80977805
thats more stylized than it is abstract or surreal.
either way, its not what I mean. Though I appreciate the art style
>>80977805
I have to grant I'm happy independents at least understand a sense of style. Hollywood truly is poison when it comes to creativity. However I don't think this expresses abstract in the same sense that anon was talking about, it is a bit expressionistic though.
>>80967751
>does anyone know what has happened to it?
It takes a long fucking time to hand animate a film, especially when you're a tiny studio working off crowdsourcing.
>>80977725
>Neither is inherently superior or has greater artistic merit.
2D is artist-driven in a way that 3D isn't.
>>80964102
Because with a couple of notable exceptions 3D is not slick enough to not look awkward as fuck most of the time.
Also offer/demand, I think people don't hate CG as much as they feel that there's a disproportionate amount of it compared to 2D.
>>80977856
I disagree, I would say 3D is more akin to sculpting, then again there are a lot of tools that basically ease up on the sculpting process.
Don't get me wrong though I prefer traditional 2D animation over 3D because of how it can look.
>>80977764
Ahem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PIHomnlIJM
>>80977856
It's really not. 3D involves all of the same principles and then some.
>>80977920
impressive but not quite what I mean.
>>80967751
>5 characters with goggles
I can see why soome people hate steampunk
>>80977939
then why is CGI always less expressive?
>>80977920
>Posting Shaders
If you like that you should check out this website. https://www.shadertoy.com/
Really cool code that goes into making these effects. I've made a couple but I always enjoy reading up on how they get those shapes.
>>80977958
It's not. You're just viewing it through a biased lens.
An animator's skill and creativity will shine through in 3D just as much as it will in 2D. You just recognize 2D artists more because you're more familiar with them.
>>80977958
It isn't, most of the time. I'll join the other guy from another thread in asking where the fuck do people get that notion.
The most expensive 2D movie of all time doesn't crack the top 30 most expensive animated movies.
>>80977762
The thing that people have trouble wrapping their heads around is how difficult it is to build assets in 3D. When they think 3D animation they picture in their head that the animator just kind of goes in and jerks off with one hand while entering poses with the other and letting the computer tween it for them, which is true to an extent. Animators don't have to redraw every frame, which certainly does speed up their part of the development. But while the animator's job is somewhat easier, the background jobs are much much harder. There's now jobs for character modellers, world modellers, texture artists, skeleton riggers, light riggers, shading engineers, background asset creation, physics modelling, etc. etc., all of which get completely forgotten by the people who are focused only on the moving characters in the foreground.
>>80978004
if that were true I would've actually been impressed by the multi million dollar CGI projects. But im not. Im impressed by both professional and indeppendent 2d animators.
>>80978014
>It isn't
>>80978025
Prove that CGI is less expensive, faggot.
Protip: it isn't.
>>80978019
That's because you don't seem to have any understanding of the skill involved in 3D animation. 2D animation is easier for your to picture being done (as it's a much simpler process), but you underestimate the skill and creativity involved with 3D because you have no idea of what it actually takes.
>>80977963
https://www.shadertoy.com/view/4sS3zG
>>80978053
because it is.
>>80977887
>>80977939
>>80978004
A sculpture is normally made by one artist, working directly with his hands to transfer his vision onto his medium. 3D animation is broken down into many subtasks that are divided among a team and can be performed in a very iterative way across the entire production. Frozen has credits for many people whose only job was to do the lighting.
If someone like Shinya Ohira dropped dead in the middle of animating a cut, someone else would have to redo it and it would look different. And if he didn't die you could look at the cut and see that it was made by him because it has his artistic signature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BosH9d56SsM
>>80978065
I dont care how much effort it takes if the result isnt actually visually interesting.
I know full well 3d animation isnt easy, but if it fails to be an interesting visual medium, that effort doesnt somehow compensate for it.
>>80978069
>trying this little
I have a few hundred hours in SFM and shit's fucked yo. so pedantic and intricate.
>>80978069
Go look at the budgets for Disney's movies. The 3D ones are much more expensive.
>>80978086
Personally I find it visually interesting only from a technical standpoint rather than artistic, then again I have a bias because I studied computer science.
>>80978104
but they arent.
both 2d and 3d have their places, there is room enough for both
>>80978105
and thats exactly the point >>80977631 was trying to make.
>>80978071
Out of curiosity do you have the same issue with live action movies?
Besides 2D animation involves teams aswell, it's never just the one guy.
>>80978108
>>80978108
Budgets in millions, according to Wikipedia's data:
Big Hero 6: 165
Frozen: 150
Ralph: 165
Tangled: 260
Bolt: 150
Winnie the Pooh: 30
Princess & Frog: 105
Tarzan: 130
Mulan: 90
Lion King: 45
>>80978159
hold on we're talking past eachother. I said EXPRESSIVE. not EXPENSIVE.
sorry I only just noticed that.
>>80978025
The budgets of Disney's most expensive 2D movies:
>Atlantis - $120 million (high estimate)
>Treasure Planet - $140 million
>Brother Bear - $128 million
The AVERAGE budget of a 3D Disney movie:
>$173 million
Disney's 2D movies from 1990-onwards typically had budgets between $50 million and $100 million.
>>80976698
>>Because CGI doesn't hold up to aging for some reason. You can watch Bambi and not realize it was made 50+ years ago, but you can tell when a movie was made with how the CGI looks.
Bambi was made 50 years ago. It was also made 50 years after 2D animation was invented as an artform.
Shrek was made 15 years ago. It was also made 5 years after the first CGI movie and around 20 years after the first proper floundering steps of CGI (The Adventures of Andre and Wally B).
Comparing how long ago the movie was made says nothing, you have to compare how long the artform had a chance to mature. You can't compare Bambi to Shrek, you'd be better off comparing it to something like Steamboat Willie, which has aged like moldy bread.
>>80978086
For you.
The vast majority of audiences disagree, given that 3D is a much bigger box office draw than 2D.
>>80978222
>if it makes more money it is better
that might have something to do with the western stigma against 2d animation and its association with children's cartoons.
it stands to reason that if CGI costs more to make, you spend more on marketing to get a return on that investment.
>>80978120
>there is room enough for both
I don't think the American animation industry agrees with this assessment.
>>80978129
Live action feels different to me. There is something about doing things on computers that just rings false.
And part of my objection to 3D animation is also how it's typically done by American studios, and not just what it's inherently like as an artform.
>Besides 2D animation involves teams aswell, it's never just the one guy.
In anime production, a cut (a scene or a shot, seconds or minutes long) is given to one animator to animate by himself, with varying degrees of creative freedom (up to and including planning an entire scene by himself). There's also in-between animators, but they just fill in what the key animator already did, and work according to his instructions. Of course the director and animator could also be the same person.
That's hugely different from how 3D animation is done.
>>80978246
I'm not saying it's better. But people are clearly more drawn to it.
>>80978209
What I get from your post is that CG is in its infancy, not yet a fully developped technique, while 2D is.
So why should we think that something that isn't fully developped is better. I don't mind CG out of principle, it's just not entirely there yet.
>>80978268
>There is something about doing things on computers that just rings false.
But... 2D animators have been doing that for the past 30 years.
>>80977710
Why? Qualify your statements, anon.
>>80978278
that doesnt mean its visually particularly interesting. it means it has a big marketing budget.
Michael Bay's movies bring in money, that doesn't mean they are well written.
the money a movie brings in doesnt reflect on anything other than the hype generated for the movie. Not artistic merit, not writing, not acting. just the hype.
>>80978268
If you prefer that approach, it's fine, but there's nothing inherently more artistic about one guy doing it himself than a group effort.
Plus the anime approach leads to extreme shifts in quality, which is jarring for an audience and 99% of the time takes the form of a few well-animated moments in a sea of lifeless garbage.
>>80978305
Anime didn't switch to digital production until the turn of the millennium, and what digital production means is that the animation is still done drawn the same as before but is colored and composited digitally.
I was also comparing 3D animation and live action cinema. People have talked a lot about how much of the Star Wars prequel trilogy was done on computers and how lame that was compared to the original.
>>80978314
See >>80978071 and >>80978268.
>>80978326
Yes, it is inherently more artistic and I already explained why that is.
>Plus the anime approach leads to extreme shifts in quality
You're confusing it with the way anime varies its framerate, which is mostly applicable to TV anime.
>99% of the time takes the form of a few well-animated moments in a sea of lifeless garbage
This is a myth.
>>80977763
>When I saw the process of 101 dalmatians I nearly cried for how hard they worked for that quality.
That's funny because 101 dalmations was actually done in the cheapest, laziest, most cost saving way possible by photographing their pencil sketches and xeroxing that shit straight to print. Walt Disney hated it but they had zero cash and needed to pump something out for the cash, he couldn't just pull the plug. It was a fluke that it turned out more popular then expected, sort of like how Frozen is technically garbage and looks like a video game from the 90's in some parts of the background art but ended up being enormously successful anyway.
>>80978399
>People have talked a lot about how much of the Star Wars prequel trilogy was done on computers and how lame that was compared to the original.
I'm partial to practical effects myself but that was the least of the prequels' problems.
Yo hold on there buddy, didn't that Max Res Default film in your picture prove that mixing 3D and 2D together produces some pretty snazzy shit?
>>80978071
>>80978268
I think it's totally possible to allow a creative person's individual style show through on a CGI movie. For example with something like Hotel Transylvania, it's possible to see how they aimed to go for that Genndy look. The movements of the characters just had this specific feel to it. They worked on the characters' rigs to make sure they could emulate 2D animation tricks in the movie.
Lately there have been other CGI works that have been experimenting with their tools, too. Paperman combining 2D and 3D much more smoothly than in a lot of older animations, Lego Movie pulling a stop-motion-like look, the Peanuts movie mimicking claymation animation techniques in order to stay faithful to the comic's look, that Popeye teaser doing very nimble old-school noodle arms.
I used to dislike CGI because I thought it lacked the kind of life and soul that 2D animation had, but recent movies have changed my mind on that. I've come to believe that there's a lot of untapped potential in CGI, and I'm feeling pretty hopeful for the future of animation.
>>80978014
>>80978053
>>80978104
He originally said expressive, you nincompoop.
>>80978720
Anyone in this thread who doesn't know what rigging is or doesn't fully comprehend how important and difficult it is should really read up on it.
>>80978720
A shot in a 3D movie isn't done by one person, it's done by a whole team of people working on their own separate tasks like modeling, texturing, shaders, animation, physics, lighting and the camera.
In anime, that same shot is animated by one key animator. Different animators have different ways of drawing characters, movement and lighting and shading, and different ways of framing shots. At best the animator has complete control over the shot, and you can tell by looking at it that he made it. But even when that's not the case, it's still one animator drawing it himself. If there's some complex camera work, lighting or physics involved (or even all three at once), the animator has to draw all that.
3D animation is a lot more like live action filmmaking than it is like 2D animation.
Shit, nigga, cuz it's expensive.
Drawing or painting the same setting in a dozen different perspective shots is still less costly than digitally rendering the whole setting. Animating a the gestures of a 2D character can be done in the flow of the work process, but animating the gestures of a 3D character can often involve more complicated rendering and even developing separate specific models.
3D turns 2D into the middle man of an expensive animating process that frequently surpasses itself due to factors outside of animator's controls.
>>80979489
What was the point of going 3D when it's so stupidly expensive?
>>80972523
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhaGG7Wb7PI
>>80964102
Because when a movie is made with CGI everyone gets lazy, there are very few exceptions.
Final fantasy, is an example of CGI done right for the time. You also have to remember that 90% of Avatar is CGI.
The reason why they shifted from 2d to CGI is simply because it's much easier to do.
>>80964102
Because there are no bad angles in 2d
>>80977587
>anime
He wasn't talking about anime and anime discussion doesn't belong to /co/.
>>80979539
Higher profit. Initial investment is higher, but the eventual payoffs more than off set this.
>>80980041
someone hasn't seen a QUALITY thread before.
>>80979539
it has a higher initial investment but once you have those models and hair software and shit you can go through hundred and hundreds of hours of unused 'footage' before settling for a final cut and ultimately spend less money per hour than if it was life action and you were paying for film plus props plus the hyperoverpaid actors coming onto set nine to five every day
I like how it looks. It seems timeless to me. A good drawing will always be a good drawing. I can watch a good animation from any time in the past and, assuming it was a good animation in the first place, it will still look good today. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't obvious which cartoons were made in what years, but I'm saying that doesn't detract from the visuals the same way I feel it does for 3D animation. 3D animation, you go back fifteen years and you're already getting into some gross-looking territory. And, y'know, maybe we've already passed the hump on that, maybe fifteen years from now it won't be the same, and current 3D animation will still look good, but I'm just not sure.
On top of that, I will readily admit there is a sentimental quality to it. As far as I'm concerned that's why I've always loved cartoons, and wanted to be ensconced in their presence all the time. It's like magic- make your drawing come alive and talk and jump and dance. 3D doesn't have that undefinable spark to me.
Just to be clear, I love plenty of 3D cartoons, and places where 3D is used in traditional animation. I thought Rango was fantastic. But do I think something like this: https://vimeo.com/72625639 visually looks better? Shit yeah. And that's not even the greatest example of smooth traditional animation.
tl;dr fuk u i lik it
>>80980042
His discussion specifically included anime as being included as items alongside serious action shows and quality disney movies where beauty in animation is harder to find. So while he wasn't talking directly about anime, the fact that he brought up the point made it fair game for the other anon to bring up a counter point to his assertion that it is harder to find beauty in animation, at least with respects to anime.
