2d art has a lot of styles, like abstract and such (I know 3d has that too) -but how comes 3d art seems to have really few styles?
-I think the bottle-neck that keeps the styles limited is a nonintuitive and thought demanding (know-what-you-want) process which 3d harbors. -you can’t just draw an object and erase-sketch-erase till you have it the way you want it (which is how 2d is).
-also, I think the next thing in 3d that has to be done is breaking down the (software indipendent) elements and teach those to people starting 3d…
-that, I think would accomplish the need of feeling like one has to completely understand the software just to get what you want… (I mean… 2d artists probably don’t notice much about their tools… -maybe they notice that the lead broke, or the eraser’s gone, but that’s about it…)
-What do you think needs to be done to get 3d art to be simple enough (elementalized) to be taught to begginers (so more 3d styles can come up?) -and probably animation :)?
I agree with D_structorr, the thing about 3D is that it works completely differently to 2D.
A four-year-old could pick up a pencil and draw a simple picture, but with CG you need a large amount of knowledge just to make a simple line (one single pencil stroke in 2D).
3D makes incredible realism relatively easy, but also makes something incredibly simple an almost impossible task to a newcomer.
More styles will develop as soon as CG itself develops, and making CG possible for free with Blender is the first step. Soon, everyone will be using 3D for everything (“Look mummy, I made a pink cube!”), but for now we have to wait for it to grow.
“Clever polygon manipulation” -since just about every 3d progg has these, so I guess one just has to learn a few key polygon arrangements to control shapes and manipulate contours.
-how about this: Make a polygon arrangement and post the wire (from top view). Sort of like a 3d sketch…
-here’s an example
the drawing:->
the wire->
(all quards btw…)
and the render->
In 2D you can use paint, pencil, water-based paint, a pen, a marker pen…
You can press hard, draw/paint with dots, use shades (you know, draw lines parallel to each other as to fill a surface), use thick lines…
Manners of representing characters like using round shapes, exaggerating features, using strong lines…
In 3D you don’t have all of that. Sure, you can try to emulate it, but the results are not always that great.
And indeed, in 2D you take a pen/pencil/painting brush… and you can get started.
In 3D however…
But once you get past the initial learning curve of 3D, you are able to create more realistic stuff. And once we have more options, we can emulate 2D techniques as well.
At any rate, we have post pro to make up for some of the lackings of 3D.
Why a design has a perticular style is dependant on the process involved to create that item. You can’t expect a sketch to look like a water-colour painting and vis-versa; the tools you use will limit what you can create.
On another note, what you are calling a style (Category of art), such as abstract you are also mixing up with the visual output of the piece (also refered to style). Many differernt pieces share the same catergory, but naturally look differernt. i.e. Ones an abstract piece done in water colours, another is an abstract piece done with a pencil /lead.
We could say strict rules decide on what is classed as a category, and what tool is used says what the style it will be (The person making the art would also affect the style:). Of course, certain categories means the style has to be in a perticular way.
3D art, for exmple allows us to have the Realism category, the style we could say is also realistic. Unfortunatly, If you expect a water-colours to fall in the Realism category then you will be mistaken to believe in so (photo realism this is).
3D has it’s limits just like anything else, and since the way in which it works i.e. creating pieces in limited details and letting the computer process all the complex stuff, it makes it more unpredictable.
In some sense, 3d can “sketch and erase till you get what you want” through the repetative use of rendering and alteration. The only reason it doesnt seem this way is due to the fact:
You can see certain details realtime and are constantly changing the mesh, texture and so on and you naturally don’t think of it as the same like a pencil since you are not really drawing on the final canvas
Rendering, testing and so on is an accepted process within 3D design, and only the final render counts, similar to doing practice sketches or doodles before the final.
You can’t expect to pick up something instantly and get fantastic results. It takes some people years to learn how to paint properly or how they like, not to mention make a basic photographic scene. Alot of people pick up 3D design very fast. But still, you all start somewhere and have to learn how to use it so that comment is irrelavent.
Your last coupleof paragraphs dont make much sense to me…
I wasn’t really comparing, just wondering why 3d art categories are so few compared to 2d -like this: comics can look very different depending on who draws them (yes, I read what you said about limitations -so I’m not talking about that) -I’m just wondering why 3d art always has that “look” (if you look at art from different parts of the world before globolization started polarizing their styles, you’ll see their differences, but their elements are basically the same)
-basically, all I’m saying is this: -the 2d discipline is a tree with many branches… 3d has very few in overall comparison… (unless you go to photorealism)
0.0… and no, my view is not retarded… -it’s quite justified (maybe a little one sided, but that’s about it)…
It was retarded in the sense that 3D does have most if not all the same categories as 2D. And it’s only naturaly that 3D generally looks differernt, the same reason why 2D vecotors look differerent to 2d water colours, 2d sketches, 2d charcoal darwings etc… We could say it was somewhat a distorted truth, if you don’t prefer the term retarded.
I understand what you mean by the 3D look, as ive seen many animes done in 3d which try to look authentic to the anime stlye, but just plain out-right looks like cheap 3d cel shading.
In the comic example of yours though, the reason is that 2D drawings can bend the truth much more easily than 3D. And as I said about limitations, a 3d model is more bulky to work with. Shadows appear more correct but hand drawn shadows, the artist can do it so it looks good rather than looks correct. That is to say, in comics artist manipulate the environment and other things to give better impacts, a better mood and so on and is not physically correct, Since renderer and even cel shader based one work off the principle of realism, you would need a very specialised and complex renderer to turly get good look anime renders.
Thats not to say a basic renderer cant achive the same results, but generally you wont very easily and the same settign wont work time and tiem again.
