Warning, this is a flaming rant. Delete immediately.
I am sick and tired of 3d. Take a look around you and you will see it becoming more and more like real life. Watching Tears of Steel production brings tears to my eyes. Not knocking mango, its flippin’ awesome. But where, oh, where is my beloved bunny?
Seriously, 3D is so saturated in today’s market. We all want it, we all turn to it to solve all of our problems. The truth is, 2D work gets so much more attention, IMO. Who do you have more respect for, David Revoy or some jerk that can model perfection? Good 2D work stands out these days, in an industry mired with same-o, me-too, realistic renders.
I am calling for a resurgence of 2D work. Lets all sit down and learn to draw. :RocknRoll:
Telling 2D is dead is surely a bit harsh although the movie industry tends to highlight 3D more than 2D. Why ? You know the answer, money !
Many devices, materials are sold just because they use 3D, It’s just a fashionable phenomenon, most people immediately find a movie good, or a game, just because It has 3D. That’s a “new” technology after all… but that’s a bit stupid to think this way.
However, as an artist, It’s highly recommended to have 2D skills, if you look at the portfolio of a character artist for exemple, often you’ll notice the greatest of them have as well good 2D skills… It’s linked. And above all even in the pipeline of an animated movie, they use at first 2D, to sketch, to find ideas etc…
That’s why I’ve tried to enhance my 2D skills as well. Even if one of my friend working as 3d artist professionally tells me, all the matter is the technical aspect, how far you master your application. I don’t agree…
Just watched Ratatouille again last nite for the umpteenth time. I’m still in awe at how painterly much of it is. How soft and warm the lighting is. And cinematography that “reads” like an encyclopedia of the language of film. After multiple viewings, it still is awe-inspiring.
3D is just a tool, a means, to an end. Its up to the artist to use whatever tools he needs to set his mood and tell his story.
Besides, you can call it 3D, but TV & projection screens as well as the printed page, are still rather 2D IIRC.
You’re missing the point. It costs less to go with 3D than 2D. Think about it. A production company wants to run a series of cartoons. Once all of the characters and environments are modeled, that’s it. Animators can do their job; lighting can get done, and voice-overs are done. If it were in 2D, the company would constantly have to draw, draw, draw each frame over and over again all season long. It costs more money to do this.
I love 2D, but 3D costs less for production companies. It would be better, in my opinion, to combine the two forms into something really good. Family Guy does this often.
[sarcasm]that’s right… because no 2D animation app has layers, and no artist has ever inked a clear mylar cell for a multi-plane camera system (Disney circa 1933).[/sarcasm]
Dude, you really don’t know how 2D animation is done do you?
The Simpsons, IIRC, is still done all 2D by keyframe animators, with 'tweening done overseas (S.Korea, I think).
I don’t think it’s a question of one form, 2D or 3D, being better than the other, it’s more to do with style and execution. The problem I have with a lot of 3D work these days is that the push towards photorealism seems to be sucking the individuality out of the final animation/image. Perhaps it’s just a matter of time, people will come to realise that being capable of producing photorealism doesn’t come with an obligation to actually do so. Put the individuality back, folks!
