2D vs 3d

of course 2d :)

3d is too technical..
artist can't pass his feelings,thoughs, to a computer like he can on paper using a pecile.

There are more hand drawings involved in 2D(which is why I like it). But that doesn't mean that 2D is better than 3D .Some people prefer 2D, and some more attracted to 3D....They both have great works ~~

Yes 3D animation do cause a lot more....but why???

2D vs 3d

3D is 2D

I think modern artists are realizing that there are many techniques that can produce the same result, and soon I think it will just be a matter of choosing the best solution for the situaton, rather than because you are biased against a particular art form.
Being around the musician scene (as an example), I quickly find that people are practically superstitious about what equipment, method, etc., what course it took to get something. They practically couldn't care less about the music that results. It's like : "I like this"
"it was done with a computer"
"oh really? It sucks then"

It is a pretty personal thing, I think. I've tried a few different approaches to 2D and 3D and I've found I'm more suited to 3D. Does it make it less art? I don't think so. It's just a different medium, much like a choice between which brush, pencil, or canvas to use.

I personally like the aesthetic values found in 2D, but my skill set seems more suited to 3D, I'm finding out. There's also something about time for me, where I can create stuff I can use over and over in 3D.

I don't have a preference. The technique is less important to me than telling a great story.

Well said, Beeble. I think that's what got me to come over to 3D. I really want to tell my story and I felt that being one man alone with a pencil was taking me too long. We'll see how I do.

This question or argument has been brought up so many times, why don't you guys/gals do a search first.

Actually in some ways 3d is cheaper than 2d, a character only has to be modelled once and rigged.

Neither is better or worse than the other, it's a matter of choice and fashion.

I think that's an ignorant question...

Actually in some ways 3d is cheaper than 2d, a character only has to be modelled once and rigged.

Thats what I was thinking, it just depends on the level, if you need motion capture actors, custom software solutions, extra hardware to lower rendering time, then that could cost a lot.

Then why not skip animation altogether and go with live actors?

"The people who are in 3D animation now, if they don’t get very familiar with 2D animation techniques—proportion stretch, spacing, timing, silhouette, that kind of stuff—they won’t have jobs in five years," Disa proclaims. "Knowing the software won’t be enough. Very soon, once everybody gets over the hump of making this technology work, it’s going to become about better acting. In five years from now, it’s not going to be about, ‘Gee, wasn’t it cool that they got Gollum on the screen at all,’ it’s going to be, ‘Hey, this Gollum doesn’t act as well as that Gollum.’ The technology is going to get invisible. That doesn’t mean that a 3D animator needs to know how to draw—not at all. But they need to know classic 2D animation techniques well enough to translate. What’s happening is the 2D guys are being trained in 3D and the 2D guys that have been doing it for 20 years and stuff like that, they’re going to transfer to 3D and they’re going to be slow and they’re going to be awkward and they’re going to fight it, and they’re never going to be a threat to anybody. But the guys who right now are training in both 2D and 3D—the kids who are bilingual, people who understand 2D techniques and understand 3D techniques and understand the software—are going to go out to the industry and they’re going to blow away the 2D guys who learned 3D and are fighting it and are awkward and are hating it because they‘re going be comfortable with the software. They’re going to be able to fix their own problems. And it’s fast. And at the same time, the guys who have been getting by just knowing the software real well are going to get left behind because directors are going to start giving the better and better scenes to the better and better actors with better and better technique. And what’s going to happen is, they’re not going to work. They’re going to end up doing effects. They’re going to end up doing particles and stuff.

http://www.animatedbuzz.com/WB/52.html source

Lord, save me...:mad:

I'm with DSB. Dan, how is the FAQ administrated? Not that some of these people would read it, but there are so many repeat questions, and so many non-clever pointless questions like this that at least we'd have a specific thing to yell at the people who contribute fodder....

And as far as that quote's concerned, I see more of a force than they reckon from the long-time 2Ders. What they've mastered takes more time, patience and skill than what the 3Ders have. It's a role that's harder to reverse.

No more of me in this thread...

i just found my hatchet... awww.

Low budget 2D is a lot more watchable than low budget 3D. We've seen how cheap 2D can get and still be compelling. As 3D charactors have to be rigged, some the huge advantages of animation: to be able to shove anything you like onscreen for just a couple of seconds, and to have anything you like happen to what is on screen, are lost.

2D vs 3D is personal taste. I like Claymation.

3D has it benifits,
2d has it's befinifits, personal taste ? hell yeah,
3d is based on 2d, so a 3d animator that doesn't know strong 2d is really not called an animator (atleast by me),
alot of 3d animators doesn't have a good strong art basis as well,
playing with a rigged model mesh (using ready tools,scrips, ik studios..etc) is easier that creating life on a piece of paper from nothing.. a simple line..
over and over again, 12-24 (depend on the inbetween) art frames per second.

3d costs high because u need to spend money on licences of the software being used, i.e: maya per each installed copy.
if a studio has 30 working pcs x $800+-, each year.. does bring high costs to the studio.
not to mention the high salary the animators gets each month/week

while in 2d u just spend most of the money on a low cost paper boxes + salary and some office related materials like peciles, erasers..etc.

over-all,
u can get the minimum money out of a 2d project, nicely done movie, and still win the jackpot in the theatre.

if u ask me personally,
3d is a waste of movie time,
2d is a waste of drwaing time, but hell worth it!!

2d wins, no doubt :)

Echi, please search the forum on this topic, rather than upsetting people.

Echi, it means that there are gigabytes of text concerning this debate in the forum already.

3d is based on 2d, so a 3d animator that doesn't know strong 2d is really not called an animator (atleast by me) ...

3D is not based on 2D. That's like saying that sculpture is based on painting (or vice versa). It's a ridiculous and uneducated notion.

Animated 3D and 2D are concurrent derivations of life action. Both formats originated simultaneously (3D, in the form of stop-motion, with people like Blackton, Cohl, Starewicz, and O'Brien).

I'm sick of know-nothings proclaiming that 3D sprang from or depends on 2d. They are independent art forms.

@echi

In My point of view, 2D animation is beter because comparitively low cost and effective.

If you want to know more about 2D animation Drawings check my website Pepcreations Studio

3D animation is harder. Making good 3D is extremely time-consuming and out of the budget. so I prefer 2D animation is better than 3D animation.

even though 3D animation is more attractive and has clearer graphics 2D animation still has its perks i personally prefer 2D animation when it comes to cartoons or videos 

.

.

.

.

.

.I think 2d. You can draw it to make it look 3d or anyway you want. I personally despise 3d animation. 2d is the best to me <3

2d for more than one reason. this is just one. in 2d you have 30 drawings pretending to be one person. in 3d you have a single model trying to do the work of 30 drawings.  that is 30 vs 1. 3d is never going to win that battle. now if someone were to make 30 models. not copy the model. but make the models over from scratch. each and every time. in the same fashion that drawings are done

3d would have something. but that takes too much time and no one wants to do that. 

I think 3D Animation is much more time consuming than 2D Animation. It requires a lot of hardwork & high budget. It also depends on your learning techniques & your basics in Animation. I'll go for 2D Animation!