y do people have to first cover the 2D in colleges and cant directly go for 3D animation even in the practical life? :confused:
—
sunny..........
Career Test
y do people have to first cover the 2D in colleges and cant directly go for 3D animation even in the practical life? :confused:
sunny..........
Career Test
When you're talking about animation, 2D is where you want to start. It teaches the basic principles of animation. Weight, timing, spacing etc. etc. And all of these things you have to know for 3D animation as well. But with this direction you wont have to spend countless hours learning a program.
And lets face it, being taught 3D animation in school is all about just that. Learning the ins and outs of the program. Not the principles of animation. (At least this is what I've gathered from my 3D classes I'm taking in school).
I hope that answers your question.
Ontiaous
Black Anvil Designs©
its also very important to get yr drawing skills oriented for animation and going through 2d and then shifting into 3d is the right way. Learning things like volume, weight displacement and gravity using 2d is a lot tougher, but you get into the details of it that way. using all these principles first in 2d, and then applying them to 3d will be a breeze.
www.devilsgarage.com
From the schools I've been to and talking with people from other schools, the 3D programs teach you how to use the program first, so you have to take classes in Modeling, Rigging, Shading and other stuff BEFORE you get to the animation classes. And this is usually your last couple semesters at school. Often they don't go over the basics in animation, like timing, spacing, and basic acting.
Pluss you don't have to be an amazing draftsmen for your traditional animation. You can learn all the principles with rough stickmen.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
Well, if you've been hearing professionals tell you its an asset to have 2D skills, then why would you want to deny yourself an asset that can help your career?
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I don't know what you mean by "in the practical life." In the marketplace, you can go directly to 3D. Studios don't force you to animate in 2D before they let you do 3D.
You should probably ask your professors. They might give you a BS anwser, but you'll have your school's reasoning nonetheless. In schools, they always teach you a bunch of crap that you'll never use. It's the nature of schools.
If you aren't in school yet, and you look hard enough, you can find a school that doesn't make you do 2D animation first.
3D animation has more in common with stop-motion, live action, and sculpture than it does with ink & paint illustration and animation. A CGI 3D animator shouldn't have to learn 2D animation first any more than a CGI 3D animator should learn how to do stop-motion animation or live-action filmmaking or sculpture first; or any more than a sculptor should learn how to paint first.
HOWEVER, you should know how to draw. You're going to have to use drawing to design your characters or lay out your scenes quickly.
Actually it's been proven time and time again that those who have a strong 2D background have a better sense of animating in 3D. As a real world example, for "The Incredibles", Brad Bird brought in a bunch of people that he originally worked with in the 2D industry to work on the project. They even wrote a GUI for the 3D interface so that it would be easier for them to animate in 3D using the 2D principles. You have to remember that even though computer animation is dealt with in 3 dimensions, it's still only a 2D image in the end.
Strong drawing skills are also very important for 3D, as many studios actually want to see your illustration, draftsmanship skills as well. If you are a modeler it's good for you to understand shape and form. Even as an animator, it's very, very important that you have a good understanding of anatomy and pose. Therefore life drawing becomes an standard part of any animation coarse.
The other reason is because 3D is way to technical and to learn how to animate easily. It's best to learn the principals of animation by drawing by hand because its much more simple. Once you have that then all you have to know is how to apply that to the 3D environment. Trust me, if you can learn to animate by hand, you have already learned 90% of 3D animation.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
I just wanted to comment on this as well, 3D and Stop motion have a lot in common yes, but the approaches to each style are completely different. In stop motion you are limited to streight ahead animation, where 3D you are not as limited. In fact you have the choice of strieght ahead, pose-to-pose, or both. Plus live action and animation are two very completely different things, which makes a lot of sence when you watch a lot of rotoscoped animation (drawn overtop live film). Examples of such are the animated Lord of the rings, Thumbalina, and Wakeing Life to a lesser extent. However certain aspects of live action film are used in animation, like frameing, composition, camera placement, and even lighting.
Also It's true that sculptures don't need to learn how to paint first, but they do need to know how to draw. The reason being is being is that they gain the fundimental principles that they need to apply to sculpture from drawing. Same way that someone would benefit from learning traditional animation first before going on to learn 3D. It's all about learning the basic principles in a simple form before going on to learn to do it in a more complex mannor.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Yes, I realize that 3D is not the same as stop-motion and live action. :rolleyes: My point was not that they were the same, but that knowledge of producing the other two 3D forms (LA & SM) would be more beneficial than knowledge of 2D.
And didn't I already say that drawing is important?
Certainly knowing how to make good 2D animation can translate into knowledge of making good 3D, but so can knowledge of stop-motion, live action, sculpture, engineering, tayloring, anatomy, botany, physics, acting, architecture, etc. Again, my point is that knowing 2D in not necessary for creating 3D, but that's not to say that knowledge of other crafts, including 2D, has no benefit.
And I'm not sure, but isn't identifying 2D as a "simple form" somewhat insulting to 2D animators?
Hello.
I received an email from Jason Ryan, supervising animator for Chicken Little. He draws out everything and makes the 3D characters and rigs match his animation.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
He mentors over at AM in the intro to acting term right now, but he provides a walkthrough of his process and it's really pretty amazing the retention between media.
I'd like to ask, are stop-mo animators truly limited to straight ahead? I thought the whole point of those Lunchbox style systems when used for stop-mo was carting frames around...and if they're using digital cameras now, you can certainly find a workflow for all your images in separate files...
I've used a lunchbox unit myself and it's pretty much limited to streight ahead. The problem with trying to do a pose to pose in stop motion is the fact that you can't reference two poses to find where to put a tween. 3D uses arcs for that, and with 2d you use a light table to draw in the tweens.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Yep, he's my mentor this semester at AnimationMentor and he animates a lot of his stuff traditionally in Flipbook first. He's even animated a scene for us in Flipbook durring one of our weekly Q & A's. It was amazing. Like peeking over his shoulder while he works.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
This is almost like asking, why do doctors learn biology before they focus on surgery.
There are basic fundamentals necessary to learn, and most 3D school programs focus heavily on the software and its capabilities, and leave out the fundamentals of MOVEMENT. Yes, you will be able to make things move, but will it have life and be pleasant to look at? Probably not.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
Okay, if 3D classes can't be bothered with teaching animation principles, then those students have no choice but to take 2D classes. The solution is better 3D teachers and more diverse 3D classes, not sticking 3D students in 2D classes. 3D students should be able to walk into a class that teaches only 3D character animation: no character designing, no modeling, no shading, no rigging.
Also, the biology and surgery example is a bad analogy.
Biology - particularly anatomy - is an integral part of surgery.
2D animation isn't an integral part of 3D. That is, if you try to 3D animate without knowing how to 2D animate, you're probably not going to kill a patient.
I don't know, if the animation is bad enough I might die ;)
Ontiaous
Black Anvil Designs©
all 2d purist argument rely on this principle-- that 2D HOLDS ALL THE
ANIMATION PRINCIPLES FOR ALL ANIMATION TECHNIQUES/TYPES TO
FOLLOW.
which again can be as arrogantly true or as growingly outdated as you
want it to be.
i am an animation director for 22 years. i hold disney traditional principles
as bible like everyone else here.
but isn't it time somebody realize that 3D holds a different set of principles
other than those by disney? for the simple reason that 3D is vastly different
from 2D IN NATURE. it is based on math-- on physics.
2D is based on cheating the physical laws especially with facial expressions
and turnarounds. that is the foundation of its creativity.
3D does not lend itself easily to that. you can stretch and squash as much
as you like but you can not cheat. heck you can't even delete a single vertex in mid-animation.
which leads us to the next supposition: for 3D to keep following 2D footsteps
and principles will be incompatible with its nature. that is why traditional
people think 3D IS BAD 2D.
a guy animating first before transferring it to 3D? isn't that a betrayal of both
disciplines? what's he really after-- only the globally illuminated render of
mental ray? 3D is more than texture. heck it even bent backwards and
offered cel-shading for those who can't get over 2D.
3D is about drama. It's not about comedy. That's for 2D
Have we seen anything 3D that even remotely touches Bugs' antics
(and he's not even fully animated) or any revolutionary gag that is
exclusively 3D in nature without its roots in 2D?
If we accept this then probably the Japanese have it pegged down.
They're using 3D for their drama-laden story structures.
Don't discard Harvey outright. It is close to live, sculpting and stop-motion
than anything.
Sometimes the reason people find a good tool too difficult
is when they're using it for the wrong job.
So learn whatever you like. if you plan to go to 3D just to do a 2D-based
animation, then leard 2D first. best thing you'll ever do. if you can sculpt
without drawing, or if you can act without animating, or if you can tell a
story without boarding it like a film director, good for you. maybe you can
do 3d without the staleness of 2D.
just have a good head for logic and structure. that is what directors do.
and keep an open mind. that is what artists do.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
Personally I don't think so. I feel the 12 prinicples, timing, weight, anticipation, and all that hold's true be it Traditional, Claymation, 3D or what have you. The main reason they work for all animation is because they were, for the most part, based on reality. You still have to have a character anticipate an action in 3D just like in 2D or it'll look wrong. It might be alittle more subtle but it should be there. I think different cheats need to be developed for 3D, as like you said, you can't cheat a characters face to make it work in 3D. I know PDI ran into those issues when they did the 3D Homer and Bart for one of the Simpsons Halloween special. As for what kind of cheats, I don't know, I'm still very new to 3D character animation. And all animation is based on physics. Unless it's abstract animation, weight, resistance, gravity, friction all apply to character animation, or at least it's up to the animators to make it look like it applies to the animated characters.
http://mp.aol.com/_dl_main.adp?stream=http://pdl.stream.aol.com/aol/us/moviefone/movies/2005/chickenlittle_018895/chickenlittle_clipbts_01_dl.mov&mediatype=video&size=large&_AOLFORM=w320.h315.p7.R1
This briefly show's Jason's technique in action on Chicken Little. He mainly uses it to get the timing and basic poses down, before he gets bogged down in all the 3D aspects of the animation.
I can't speak for others here, but the reason I think people should learn tradition animation first, is because most schools don't teach the basic principles of animation in 3D. I do feel you can learn them only in 3D, with out taking traditional animaiton first. Larry and I have discussed that here several times before. It might have been when I was Luau Lizard. I think I even mentioned that schools could give out stock characters for all the students to animate with.
Animation Mentor is one of the few schools that do this. They give you all the models and are already rigged and ready to go. They start you off with a ball, and you animate a bouncing ball. They go over timing, spacing, weight, squash and strech, overlapping action, anticipation, all that good stuff. They make it very clear that there is a BIG difference between things moving, and animation. I'm in the third semester now, and we've only now been given a human character with pupils, mouth, and fingers. They do it this way so the students don't get bogged down with all the bells and whistles right from the start. I don't know of any school that teaches in this style. There maybe one or two, but I haven't heard about it yet.
So new students should talk to the school and it's students first. Find out if they teach the animation priciples in 3D. If not, learn them traditionally first, then move into 3D. Oh and talk to the department head or teachers, not to the enrollment people, they just want your money, so they'll say yes to everything.
Aloha,
the Ape
...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."
As a clarification, there are two types of 3D animation, and the gamut inbetween.
There is the cartoony type of 3D animation used by Pixar and its imitators, which follows and sometimes extends the traditional cartoony animation principles begun by 2D and some stop-motion.
There is also the realistic type of 3D animation used in live action sci-fi/fantasy films, which follows and extends the stop-motion of Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen. This type of 3D animation usually ignores traditional cartoony standards and instead apes reality. Animators of dinosaurs and other monsters in these films look at the movement of real creatures like cats and birds, instead of the movement of Sylvester and Tweety.
There are similar extremes in illustation. Learning to draw bulbous noses and gigantic bulging eyeballs would be of no asset to the illustrator of medical books or most superhero comic books, and learning to draw comprehensive anatomy would be of little benefit to a New Yorker cartoonist.
I agree with Animated Ape, In a lot of cases 2D animation had to cheat because of it's limitations, or because it allowed for any type of character design that you can think of. However, no matter if your characters look realistic or not, it still looks strange to put realism into it. This can be seen in 2D with Rotoscopeing and in 3D with Mocap. Mocap, looks horrible in any type of animation. Even tho 3D is more realistic it still looks fake to us. The only way I've seen mocap done well is when it's used as reference rather then using it 100%. What they do is exagerate a lot of the movement, which in 2D is something that also has to be done. It seems thing do seem more real to us in animation, regradless of 2D or 3D, when the movements or motions or over exagurated over and above what they would be in real life.
2D animation set a foundation of character animation that uses the 12 principals to convay reality. The Disney way of animating has been used for so long becuase it works, and it works for 3D as well. I mean look at the movie "The Incredibles", the entire movie was done using the techneques founded in traditional animation. Even the Character design was conceptually 2D, and they did a hell of a job translateing that to 3D.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Why would you want to? ;)
Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Jimmy Neutron, Madagascar and others would seem to fly in the face of this statement.
Well there's a completely unfair comparison. The industry is significantly different now than it was during Bugs' heyday; the ability of a cohesive group of people working on the same characters producing seven minute shorts for years to refine that character just doesn't exist today as it did then.
3D has been around in significance for about 10 years. 2D animation started with the advent of motion picture film, around 1900. What was the revolutionary gag that 2D had produced by 1910?
Let's also keep in mind that the advent of 3D has freed the 2D animator from many of the restrictions that the medium labored under. Tarzan's tree surfing would not have been the same had Disney not had the Deep Canvas software at its disposal. Tarzan, hmmm...; a 2D drama... ;)
Couldn't agree more! :D
timing, weight, anticipation-- they can be learned without drawing.
motion graphics people (who thrive in After Effects) are masters of
timing.
photographers have a sense of design and composition.
sculptors have a sense of voulume.
actors have a sense of silhouette (John Wayne is a master of this).
film directors have a knack for telling a story without the benefit
of a storyboard.
these people don't draw.
i was watching a trailer of chicken little the other day. the same disney
principles and technique were all over the character animation-- the
squash, the stretch, the head shake... but you know what i realized?
it wasn't as strong as if it had been done in 2D. i finally realized:
WHAT 3D LACKS IS LINES-- INTERNAL LINES. the lines that are the
backbone and core of expression and line of action and squash and
stretch. you can do this in 3D sure, but it's lost/dampened by the
ABSENCE OF LINES. all you have are color areas against colored
backgrounds, and a diffused shadow that further diffuses the directionality
that lines would have emphasized.
it's really like watching live-- with a twist.
remember how walt so wanted to preserve his animator's strokes that
he had the cel xerox invented for dalmatians? lines. without this the
principles of expression and line of action are lost. the others, like timing, weight, anticipation don't rely on this.
toy story is a great story-- it's not great animation. is there any expression
that you remember you've seen for the first time in toy story? any pose,
or acting? any piece of great animation?
we need to keep a distinction between story and animation as a medium.
sure they all count as one when we evaluate a film, but we are animators,
not writers.
if we keep focusing on story, the film industry lives, but the medium dies.
as soon as everyone figured out the same story can be told in 3D,
they left 2D like an unemployed mother of five. and as soon as you're
just learned 3D, they've got another medium to be crazy about.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
Straw man. Is what you're saying here that any piece of animation, to be considered great, has to have something innovative in it?
If so, I guess that lets out most of the Bugs cartoons you cited in your previous post, since once the Bugs-in-drag thing or the cocky expression were established, every short produced after that contains these elements would be, by your definition, not great.
it's called character animation.
if you see the same acting done on a different film
by a different character without rationale, if you
find the same shaking head, sighing, dropping of
hands like nobody acts anymore but just drops by
the 'morgue'-- that's not good.
people like seinfeld season after season.
but another guy who looks and talks like seinfeld?
hand me the remote, please.
Don't worry. All shall be well.
I myself am a 2D animator, what I meant was that mentally it's easier to learn the principles by drawing by hand then to dive right into the logistics of 3D. For example, it's easier to under stand this: "To create a motion draw the hand in this position, go to frame 12 and draw the hand in this position, and do the in-between frames that will go from point A to point B, making an arc, and make the drawing closer together where you want the motion slowed down." as upposed to:
"Ok so you have to click on the timeline at point 1, then click on the IK handle on the character that you want to keyframe, then right click on the controller for the x, y and z axis and click on the keyframe option. Then click on the timeline at frame 12, and repeat the action. Now hold down the spacebar and go to the curve editer, click on the x axis and turn on freeweight controls...etc." you get the point.
Essentially because 3D is so technical, it's insane to try to teach someone how the theory works in that kind of fassion. It's just too much information at once. That's why I'm saying that is why they use 2D to teach you the principles before they start teaching you 3D. If they didn't, people would be completely lost.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Actually, the 3D animation process is pretty simple. I'd argue that it's simpler than traditional 2D and stop motion. It's probably even simpler than Flash animation.
Basically you just take a rigged model (which is similar to a stop-motion character in that it has an armature), move its limbs as you might move the limbs of a doll, and keyframe it. When you're done keyframing, you have the program render the movie while you play a video game: simple.
Now the designing, modeling, shading, rigging, and knowing how to move the character in a believable fashion can be mind-numbing (just as all the individual aspects of 2D can be complex), but the actual animation process is pretty intuitive. It's similar to Pinocchio-style puppetry except that you don't have to move all the limbs at once and you can grab a foot and move it rather than using strings.
For the record, I did 2D before I started doing 3D, and I found the 2D helpful but certainly not essential. The principles of moving 3D actors are too different from 2D. Again, it's like studying painting in order to understand the principles of sculpture, or learning hip-hop in order to understand the principles of country & western. Studying real life, 3D films, and even video of live actors have been much more important to my development. Studying 2D to learn 3D - while not a complete waste of time - is not the best use of a prospective 3D animator's time.
Yes that is simple, but then what you end up with is a lifeless, boring, robotic peice of animation if you look at the process like that. You miss the whole process of squash and stretch, lip sync, lead in - lead out, poseing, line of action, anticipation, follow through, studder, tweening... etc. All the concepts and principles that make an animated character come to life, are what they teach in the 2D side before they move to 3D. If you can understand how to build an animation by hand, frame by frame, then it becomes easier to understand how the curves and arcs work in the 3D software. The graph editor in Maya is a good example, without prior training on animation principles, would you understand it? Or at least understand how editing a curve could breathe life into the character?
I would say that 2D isn't a requirement to learn 3D, but it's a huge help.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Well, yes. Either 2D or 3D can be "lifeless" and "robotic" without the life-giving principles of animation, but, whether doing bare-bones animation (2D or 3D) or doing lifelike animation (2D or 3D), 3D is probably going to be easier. It's the difference between placing a few dozen foot and hand positions for 5 seconds of 3D character animation
and drawing 60 or 120 pictures for 5 seconds of 2D animation.
Actually, if you're a fast illustrator, they might be the same.
If one understands simple mathematics, they probably understand a "graph editor." (In fact, a background in mathematics is another on the list of things that are just as important as or more important than knowing how to 2D.) Understanding a "graph editor" is just understanding how objects move. The classic example is the bouncing ball arc.You don't need a 2D background for that: just watch a ball bounce. The walking foot moves in a similar way.
Also, "graph editors" are used in audio and video editing, so you can have that kind of background instead.
Also, there is no "graph editor" in traditional 2D.
Also, you can simply WATCH and study 2D or 3D or stop-motion cartoons to learn how exaggerated characters move.
For anyone who found learning 2D a "huge help" for learning 3D, I say "Congratulations." I also say "There are better resources for learning 3D."