style, bitch.
At this point it's just what kind of tone you want to convey.

>>2476190
anything you can do in 3d you can do in 2d. Just would take an incredibly amount of time to do a lot of 3d shit in 2d and that's including style. 3d is very hard to get a 2d look. Even the paperman video was very obviously 3d. As well, if you tried to do a 3d style in 2d it would take an insane amount of time doing all the paintings to be fully rendered the same way 3d is.

There is that and also pre-production and production differences. You can easily change the camera angle in 3d movies while you would have to completely redesign the scene if you want changes in 2d. Also producing a 3d stereoscopic image is only possible in 3d movies unless you wanted it too look like paper cut outs.

So hows that school homework going? Want us to write anything in particular for this assignment?

quickly animating highly detailed characters at a high framerate

once you have all the models and textures made, you only really have to worry about armatures bugging out or artifacts in your final render (provided you're competent enough)

for 2d animation, it's going to take a long time to animate fully rendered pictures at upwards of 60fps or more

>>2476227
Oh great thanks. I was asking cause im going to study in an Art School soon and well, the thought of not being able to do some stuff in 2D but only in 3D was kind of triggering me.

>>2476283
This plus editing. To edit acting with 3D models doesn't take as long, but to do it in 2D, you'll need to re-draw frames, sometimes entire sequences if something is off.

The exchange is that render time for CG is much longer, but it's much easier to sit around and wait for your fixed animation to re-render than to have to redraw half the thing.

It's easy to make 2D look good where as even well-animated CG, unless it is stylized or has good lighting renders and textures, can easily look unfinished and lacking.

You have full control of a camera in CG space. You have to create the illusion of a camera in 2D space.

2D with CG mix usually looks horrible, like 2D characters getting into a CG car. However, the reverse is not true. CG characters usually look fine spewing 2D fire or water. Kung Fu Panda 3 looked like it used quite a bit of matte paintings in their backgrounds to achieve a nice look.

CG you run into more mathematical and program-based problems. A rig causing an arm to clip into the body poorly,or like how Rapunzel's hair always went flying. In 2D, you have full control of the lines and can cheat anatomy if needed. You'll never run into "The teeth keep clipping out of the jaw for some reason, ugh".

You can focus way more on the acting with CG compared to 2D. If you want a shot where the camera is above the character, you don't need to worry about how to draw them in perspective with CG, just focus on the acting.

Micro actions are also much easier to do with CG. They are possible in 2D sure, but easier in CG and sometimes, VERY subtle actions are only ever really readable in CG. Slight eye twitches, soft gulps, soft pupil movements, etc.

That's the gist of it.

>>2476190
realistic textures and lighting are easier to manage on top of that tweening and editing in general is free unlike in handrawn where if you want to change something you gotta go frame by frame. basically just cheaper and faster. still prefer 2d tho for the line quality and what not

Cheaper and faster.

>>2476227
Paperman was certainly not "obviously" 3d. Ask any common person and im sure most would think its 2D

To me a 3d/2d comparison is meaningless. What's more significant in animation is the 2 different methods, let's call them puppeting and frame by framing.
Puppeting in 3d would be animating with your standard rigged model, basically a 3d puppet. In 2d it would be using a rigged 2d puppet with bone tools and stuff in software like flash and toonboom. This method is cheaper and faster but pretty limited as you can only move around a preset puppet.
Frame by framing allows for more creativity and freedom but it's much more time consuming. In 2d obviously you draw every frame and I guess you could do it in 3d too, where you would model each individual frame but that would take an insane amount of time. Does anyone know if it's been tried before?

>>2476190
>Is there something you can't achive doing normal drawings that you can in 3D?

at the moment? making money
jokes aside, if you go look at film budgets it costs a lot more to make a 3d cgi film look that Disney/Dreamworks/whatever level of quality as opposed to their 2d features but their 2d features don't tend to make as much at the box office. many speculate this as thanks to shrek for making 3d films seen as more all ages appealing where as 2d films in the US are seen as more kiddie fare, not that the vast majority of western animated films (both 2d and 3d) aren't still targeted at children, just that the general populace of adult movie goers seem to expect that 3d films will cater to their tastes as well as the kids (read: jokes that fly over kids heads)

>>2482156
Common persons are aesthetically retarded though. They don't count.

>>2478054
3d is NOT cheaper or faster

basically you can do a lot more in 3d. more subtle acting, more details and also more freedom with moving the camera