/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

ok

>literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally literally
I hear you, tranny. Now go back to Twitter with your zoomspeak.

>3d produces better results

>>4676916
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc-Ea5eI7F8

Boy, I haven't seen a post this stupid in a while.

>>4676890
yet you can still tell which one is clearly cg

In my (ignorant) opinion, everybody who is doing digital art now will do 3D art in 10 years at max.

>>4676945
3D tech keeps improving every year.
2D not.

>>4676890
>pointless
Good now please leave and never come back. We're all pointless here please leave us and don't make any more threads here. It's pointless.

>>4676953
very ignorant indeed

>>4676918
thanks for sharing this

3D animation is really ugly. I've never seen one that wasn't a soulless piece of shit.

The 3D version is really stilted and uncanny though. They're really not comparable yet.

>>4676918
>3D will replace 2D

Yes, it eventually will.
However, there is a value to keeping a hold on of the foundations of 2D. If you recall the gaming industry back in the 90s, when they transferred over to 3D, they still held onto a lot of traditional 2D skills when making 3D work, especially while in Hollywood.
Why is that important?

Visual language. Current hybrid cel animation looks extremely nice, but it also means that there is a huge excessive amount of detail happening on screen to be able to properly focus on what exactly os going on. It becomes clutter on the screen.

The value of learning 2D skills, basically traditional art and craft, means you are creating things to the benefit of humanity, and not the computer, because you are keeping in mind how much your viewer is able to visually process from the screen.

Klaus is probably the best case we have so far of knowing how to balance these two styles properly. And Treasure Planet, as old as it might be, had a very beautiful balance of visualization as well, and the dated 3D actually lends itself well to the charm of the film.

Theres also another thing as well: the guy argues that people wont be able to tell the difference between 3D and 2D and wont be able to care. But he doesnt realise that with the increasing access to the internet, more and more people are exposing themselves to the world of art and design, and many of them will take up 2D to learn the skills. Even trad art is coming back in a way.
And with technology being everywhere, people will be more critical of its use and will develop the ability to sense when something looks off. The Hobbit was oversaturated with CGI and it did a terrible job to create a world that is believable in contrast to LOTR, and that is mainly because of the lack of traditional art and craft knowledge that executives completely dismissed, similar to the remake of The Thing in the early 2010s.

People CAN tell. And they wont stop noticing it. That why 2D wont die.

>>4677128
2d is straight up cheaper than 3d though. And it looks way better. And most animators enjoy 2d more.

>>4676916
>>4676890
you's a whole dumbass
this shit is basically just tracing over the original animation in Adobe Illustrator to upscale it by way of being vector graphics, only in blender with "3D"
neat but the actual effect looks worse than those shitty redraws they did in DBZ Kai

>>4676890

This discussion is stupid. Anyone who engages on it seriously by default doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. There's pros and cons to both in a way that the only point where one is getting thrown to the side is when robots take over and do our work for us anyway.

>>4677147
>2d is straight up cheaper than 3d though
what did he mean by this?

>>4677168
anon i
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAJBrX7kuYg

>>4677173
not lying. Google it.

>>4676890
Art is literally pointless compared to plumbering. Go unclog some toilet op

>>4676921
Most normies actually believe it though

>>4676890
>soulvssoulless

>>4677173
its cheaper short term because making models with proper rigging and getting all the tech + the time and equipment required to render shit makes it so just drawing and painting the things is quicker and cheaper

>>4676954

could say same thing about pixelart never improving beyond its heyday but then here we are with games whos pixelart makes 3D and 2D ones look like garbage including animations

>>4677128

practical effects > CGI in horror games unless its super crazy stuff in a large scale

>>4676890
you know the way that was created is as a copy. like i'm sure with enough time you could even stack lego bricks of the right colour to create a convincing copy of an anime intro. it doesnt mean its a practical method of making original animation. theres a sense of style and flow you get from an experienced draftsman's pen that you dont get from the disjointed workflow pointing and clicking in a 3d program. the ones that achieve a good result were mostly animated in 2d first then converted to 3d. even 3d animes like land of the lustrous were animated in 2d first.

>>4677310
There are fewer people who know how to animate in 2d tho, and the number is only shrinking. That's why it is more costly.

>>4677197
>>4677310
While what you say about 2D being cheaper short term is true to an extent, as quality and duration of the animation increases 2D becomes exceedingly more expensive than 3D, both economically and artistically.

Let's say an animated kids movie, which is one of the biggest mediums for animation right now. Sure, tweening a couple of stick figures in Adobe Flash is close to free, animating something that both lives up to standard and has artistic merit is close to impossible. Whilst making a 3D movie implies much of the same results at a fraction of the cost and effort.
Why do you think it is that there has been so little big budget animated movies since the disney reanissance? It took Disney ONE flop to realize that 2D animation just wasn't worth the effort and that they better reinvest those funds to a quicker, cheaper and sometimes better looking medium.
Treasure Planet is the biggest flop in animation history. It took 140mil and 4 1/2 years to make and it barely made the money back.
Moana was 150mil and took about the same time and it sold it's budget several times over. See a pattern?

Also this discussion is about animation in the western market. Asia and Anime is a COMPLETELY different situation

>>4676918
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxk1syuf5lo
Has any animation made in 3D looked good?

>>4677479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ6pwvtXxZs
>t. the entirety of DBFZ

>>4677435
>Citing treasure planet
>A movie Disney, on record, deliberately sabotaged to give their shareholders an excuse to drop 2D and go all in on 3D

You're an idiot.

>>4678029
is that just a conspiracy? Or is that really true?

>>4676890

3D is cheaper because it is seen as a cheaper alternative. Making 3D come closer to 2D takes a lot more time and skill, therefore more money. I also decided to actually watch that video, I was not super impressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epyfJrO4Ulg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-lSpB_DoJs
It looked okay, but there were a lot of inaccuracies with the characters, errors with characters matching the backgrounds to how they moved. here were scenes where it is obvious that the scenes were rotoscoped.

Speaking about the technical details of 3D being made to look 2D, you do need to put in a ton of after effects, graphical details and keying animations so it can properly match 2D animation. There is no question that there is good 3D animation, but it is no full blown replacement for 2D. If you want to crunch the raw numbers, Into the Spider-verse which intentionally had effects to emulate a 2D styling costed $90 million to make. The Princess and the Frog costed The Princess and the Frog costed $105 million, which is a fair comparison considering how much more Disney pays its animators and how bloated their budgets are. In short, good looking 3D that can compare to 2D costs the same as making it 2D, but 2D overall costs more for western animation studios to produce because the industry has most of its production geared towards making 3D. You can't change the cost of quality animation in either case.

>>4678032
Holy shit do any amount of basic research.

>>4678140
Holy shit you're a faggot.

>>4676890
You watch 3D movies on a 2D screen. Why bother adding an extra D

Any long form project is better with 3D but if you are making 3 min ish videos on YouTube, it's just too much set up for modeling and rigging to do it in 3D

>>4676890
I'd like to do a porn game where I have to constantly recycle poses, assets, give characters abs, puffier cheeks/slender cheeks, a firmer ass, etc
Would Toonboom 2D be better/cheaper or Japan's Jet Set Radio on steroids style be better?

>>4677479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOxkGD8qRB4 lmfao yeah

>>4677181
you are actually a fucking dipshit, those are premade default models and animations in unreal engine, you can do the exact thing in a 2d program. Just make some presets and use them.


Also 2d animation is just more apealing, the best 3d animation out there aside from disney or pixar 3d animation (that requires millions and millions of dollars to make it happen) is shit like into the spiderverse and dragon ball fighter z and guilty gear's animation, wich is 2d animation done with 3d software

>>4678114
this. best post in the thread

>>4678394
i feel like this would have been better in 2d.
but then again i feel that way for most 3d animation i see

>>4676890
fuck off to /3/ instead then. dogshit thread

>>4676890
You won’t be able to make competent 3D (let alone 3D that looks 2D) without strong knowledge of 2D. 3D is now just an extra thing 2D artists have to learn, but going straight to 3D with very basic 2D knowledge will make you a mediocre artist.

You ever go to those local merchant galleries where you have people selling their hand made pots and paintings? It's art but not cutting edge stuff. That's 2D in a couple of years

>>4679234
that comparison doesnt even make sense.
did you come to /ic/ just to bait? go back to /3/ or wherever you came from

>>4679234
dumbass
Akira is the best piece of media/art to ever be produced so far by humanity and you're saying 2D is not "cutting edge"?

>>4677291
Normies don't think or believe shit. They just react like the cows they are. Throw a Lion King tier animated feature on cinemas with good ads and everyone will say 3D is dead and 2D is the truth.

>>4679245
>>4679322
lol cute

>>4678029
that does sound plausible, and I remember hearing those rumours for years but never could fact-check it. do you have a source? I really want to hear an account because it sounds like something Disney would actually do. I mean, who in their right mind would make a 2D movie about a bunch of cows on a farm and have the villain be a yodeller trying to steal them? something like that would get shot down by executives.
a rumour like that is not exactly a bogus conspiracy either, because after all, it IS Hollywood.

>>4678322
he said it took any amount of basic research but didn't provide any

it's almost like he's bullshitting

okay so disney sabotages 2D in order to give way to do 3D. What motive would they have to do this? If 3D was cheaper to make than 2D, their shareholders would already choose that over 2D, they wouldn't need to sabotage. The only reason would be if it was the other way around and 2D is cheaper. But if 2D was cheaper to make, why would they want to do 3D?

>>4679664
because it was the shiny new thing and they felt intimidated by toy story and feared being left behind. but now 3d has no novelty, i can see it going out of fashion

>>4676912
im not even a zoomer y'all

>>4679670
but 2D has no novelty either

>>4679647
there's a dude that made an analysis about it, it's pretty well done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9sycdSkngA

>>4679684
maybe not in the 80s or 90s but it does now to people who grew up on 3d films

>>4679691
people grow up on both, parents still show their kids the old Aladdin movies and stuff

>>4679664
they just made a bet that 3D was going to be the future of entertaiment. And in a way they aren't wrong. 3D is more appealing to children because it reminds them of toys, and it has become a fundamental resource in film production.

What I think they are trying to make everyone believe is that 3D is the ONLY thing that is going to matter in the future, which is just being completely short sighted. 2D is something that simply can't be replaced in terms of artistic expression.

I feel like they have made the recent 3D films (Dumbo, Lion King, Aladdin) as a sort of showcase to tell the public "look, this is how the future of Disney entertainment is going to look like, all 3D magic! It's the same Disney spirit but with another dress!". And while they were successful economically, people didn't like them at all, and that makes me think they aren't going to push their luck with it.

They are probably now in a sunk cost fallacy, they have all their eggs in the 3D basket and so 3D MUST be their direction going forward. But I have a feeling that it's going to start to bite them in the rear soon.

>>4679726
I disagree. Those movies sucked because the stories weren't told well, not because they were 3D or 2D. If they listened to you and then switch back to 2D but tell the same lame stories, they are still going to flop. Artistic expression comes from the work itself, not the medium.

>>4679780
I disagree on your disagreeing. The way a story is told depends on the medium too. The Lion King's story is just copy pasted from the original, and it's crap simply because realistic animals simply aren't good actors to tell a story. As humans we need faces and exaggerated expression to make emotions readable on screen, and you can't do that with real cats without making it look uncanny.

>>4679816
you can have expressive cartoony faces in 3D. don't conflate Disney's new mocap looking stuff with their previous tangled style.

>>4676890
software and hardware will do large parts of 3D, as well as low-imagination Asian biorobots.

2D will last eternally.

>>4676890
did you really have to repost your bait /3/ thread here too

>>4676890
>greasepencil
>3d

>>4676890
Concept art and storyboarding will always be faster/easier in 2D

>>4678394

>>4679120
agreed

>>4679684
It's not novel, but its beautiful. You can't say the same about 3d

>>4679822
>moving the goalpost
The comment was about why the new movies were bad

>>4676890
it is functionally impossible to animate a 3D character putting on/taking off a coat
extrapolate from there

>>4676954
hate this logic.

Just because something gets easier doesnt mean it gets better. In fact quite the opposite in many cases.

Basically the same thing happening in the website area with websites like Squarespace where everything is automated. Im not even particularly into website design, but all I know is everything looks the same.

>>4680610
Didn't move the goalposts, you can have expressive faces in 3D, even more so than 2D since you have finer control.

>>4679816
Id argue both versions are just shitty kids bop versions of the story of Horus. Only reason 3D lion king did worse is because it was just a soulless remake. Try making a 2D remake of toy story or finding nemo and it will have the same reception

>>4681604
you don't get it

you can have expressive faces in 3D sure, but either you go for a Frozen cartoonish stylization, or you go for pure realism, and at that point you might as well have real actors

anything inbetween is going to look uncanny in 3D

with 2D you can push realism more without going for pure realism because 2D shapes read differently from 3D forms, which makes it harder to fall in the uncanny. This allows for a much wider variety of styles compared to 3D.

They didn't choose realism for the Lion King on a whim. The did it because the only alternative was making it in the usual tired Pixar-style character design, and they already know it doesn't work for adults.

They are desperate to find a way to market 3D to adults in a way that is pure Disney, just like the 2D classics of the 20th century defined Disney until now. Something that both adults and children love. And they are struggling.

The fact that their only money makers from the adult demographics are IPs they bought (Marvel, Star Wars) shows that they have the money but have no idea what to make with it.

>>4680820
>it is functionally impossible to animate a 3D character putting on/taking off a coat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS76m6ApOus


why do you just make up random bullshit?
what is to be gained?

>>4681917
that whitepaper is precisely the reason i use this example
any animator can draw a character putting on/taking off any kind of coat, in any kind of way. in 3D, something so simple is the subject of academic research resulting in a very brittle, awkward, unusable result -- functionally impossible

>>4677502
looks better than the actual shows

>>4676890
a-anon the video you posted isn't even 3d. Its 2d with the blender 2d animation system. Are you mentally challenged and thought it was 3d cause it said blender?

2d and 3d are gonna merge together and merge with generative adversarial network stuff.

>>4682126
FUCK COMPUTERS. I WANNA DRAW

>>4679687
>>4678029
>>4678032
>>4679647
>>4679726
>Disney deliberately sabotaged it self, wasting $140 million because this youtuber said so

it certainly wasn't because it opened beside of Harry Potter, something he even mentions in the video, and was becoming costly and obsolete. god you are fucking retarded.
>>4679130
>>4676890
OPs video isn't really 3D, if you watch the creation video the last process is painting over the 3D with blenders 2D vector tool, grease pencil. Good looking fake 2D that is entirely 3D with no post editing is possible, pic related for example. as a primarily /3/ user I feel 3D is the future for animation and 2D is really only useful for concept art.

>>4676890
This is the modern equivalent of: "If there are artists out there who are better than you, then why should you make art in the first place?"

>>4677367
Pixel art really is the best counter argument to this. If art was all about what medium looks best the fastest with current tech, then pixel games would have never seen a resurgence in popularity.
But all in all, it's good to diversify your skills. Nothing's stopping you from learning 2D and 3D anons.

its all just gonna come full circle and you are just gonna draw in 3D

>>4682458
it's also funny that low resolution pixel art is as primitive as graphics get technically, but there's no algorithm that can generate it.

>>4682337
>I feel 3D is the future for animation and 2D is really only useful for concept art.
God I'm so happy I never got into animation.

>>4676890
This whole debate is stupid and we are all pointless, given that AI can soon generate art all on it's own.
But the value of art has long been sentimental. Why do people continue to paint and purchase landscape paintings when cameras and photomanipulation exist?
I predict that things like color theory and skilled rendering will lose value as computers become able to produce good-looking content in a matter of minutes. Instead, people will gravitate towards traditional media they trust to have been made fully by humans, even if it looks worse from an objective standpoint.

>>4682859
>this whole post

>>4682866

>>4682859
>Instead, people will gravitate towards traditional media they trust to have been made fully by humans, even if it looks worse from an objective standpoint.
Or alternatively we embrace our AI overlords and every artist is fucked, 2D or 3D.

Ok you guys wanna talk about AI but what's the next level after that?

2D < 3D < AI < ??

>>4676890
>3D animation is faster and cheaper than 2D animation
This was pretty much declared law all throughout the western industry years ago when Disney decided to abandon 3D. Nothing's changed since then.
People in 2D animation who have yet to realize they're doomed are retards. But people who have chosen stick with 2D regardless have true artist spirit.

But our screens are 2D
A 3D object looks 2D on a screen
actually no point to 3D

>>4682927
4D < 5D < BI < 6D < 7D < CI ...

>>4682151
hello, based department?

>>4682859

>>4682927
better and better AI.
>>4682838
>>4682458
>it's also funny that low resolution pixel art is as primitive as graphics get technically, but there's no algorithm that can generate it.
Do you honestly believe pixel art is some insurmountable task for AI, instead of the fact no one has bothered yet? Probably because pixel art looks like shit anyway, and regular 3D can already make decent pixel art.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/313026/Art_Design_Deep_Dive_Using_a_3D_pipeline_for_2D_animation_in_Dead_Cells.php

>>4682901
>>4682859
the best way to look at technological advances, especially in AI, either you use it to make things easier or it will make you obsolete and if AI is putting a artist out of work you can rest assured the majority of menial jobs are already gone and without UBI the world is fucked at that point.

>>4682337
>it certainly wasn't because it opened beside of Harry Potter, something he even mentions in the video, and was becoming costly and obsolete

yeah, because the choice of when to release a movie isn't affected at all by Disney, right? They release it against HP on purpose

They just needed a strong monetary point to make at shareholder meeting in order to switch 80 years of Disney history in a new direction. And it worked very well.

>pic related
>I feel 3D is the future for animation and 2D is really only useful for concept art
that's a single frame. We are talking about animation here. From that model the best you can expect without doing frame by frame interpolation is mocap virtual youtuber stuff, which looks like crap and would never fly in an actual series. And making that thing move in a credible way is a ton of work, way more than 2D animation requires.

If 3D was the future of anime, it would have taken over the industry years ago. It didn't. And it's not like they haven't tried either.

>>4683459
>that's a single frame.
she's not rigged yet, so I can't do anything to complex to show how it looks in motion besides this.
>If 3D was the future of anime, it would have taken over the industry years ago. It didn't. And it's not like they haven't tried either.
so your just going to ignore all the 3D anime that already exists in the industry?
>yeah, because the choice of when to release a movie isn't affected at all by Disney, right? They release it against HP on purpose
corporations have to release on a competitive schedule, if they miss the holiday release then it would hurt there stocks.
> We are talking about animation here. From that model the best you can expect without doing frame by frame interpolation is mocap virtual youtuber stuff, which looks like crap and would never fly in an actual series. And making that thing move in a credible way is a ton of work, way more than 2D animation requires.
lol, you really are retarded.

>>4676890
>and complex illustrations (like concept art).
If you believe 3D is better for concept art than 2D then you are retarded.

>>4679679
>y'all
Hey cletus I hear the chicken in the coop making a hassle you better go wrangle him up before he makes a fuss

>>4680120

>>4683366
>Pixel Art looks like shit anyway

get a load of this fucking pleb

>>4683487
all 3D anime out there now looks awful. Lots of effort for something that doesn't look and move half as good as the most average 2D show. Just the fact that you're defending it show that you don't know anything about animation

I am not against 3D. I think it works great for something like mechas and machinery, but it simply doesn't work well for characters. If it did I wouldn't even be making this comment, I'd just be happy with the current 3D trend. But the facts show that's not the case.

>>4682151
basado

>>4684365
based and animationpilled

>>4676890
Both images look the same

>>4682932
commercial wise if you are doing a series, 3D is always cheaper. If you are making a movie though I am not so sure