"Worktime" in 2D compared to 3D?
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
"Worktime" in 2D compared to 3D?
Hi. I'm new to animation. Just in the process of learning ToonBoom afterwhich (if things go OK) hope to learn MOHO. I've read some posts in this forum regarding 2D and 3D. Not knowing anything about 3D myself...I'm just wondering how the amount of "worktime" or production time compares between 2D and 3D. In other words....if you were to produce the same (for example) 2 minute short in both 2D and 3D...how much longer (if any) would it take to produce the 3D version.....1 1/2 times. 2 times longer. etc.? I'm sure that it would in part depend upon the style used, techniqes used, software used etc. but am just looking for a rough idea. Thanks.
-
Transmitter
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:08 pm
Re: "Worktime" in 2D compared to 3D?
Why not learn animation before you learn the softwares?, they are just tools...Bee-ruce wrote:Hi. I'm new to animation. Just in the process of learning ToonBoom afterwhich (if things go OK) hope to learn MOHO...
...Not knowing anything about 3D myself...I'm just wondering how the amount of "worktime" or production time compares between 2D and 3D...
There are a lot more steps in 3D and if you're to do them all yourself it will take much more time than 2D animation, since each one of them is quite complex. You have to sculpt your character, then rig it. animation, lighting etc.
You can theoretically save time (dont know if this is the right term)
if u use a combination of 3D; 2D and other softwares.
The better skill you have in many programs, the better is your workflow, the better are your ideas and concepts on using your software as effective as you need it.
For example you could create your characters in 3d and use a Cell-Shader, so that it looks a bit more like a toon.
Or you could compose your scenes and locations you use as settings in your movie in a 3D program, so u spend less time in composing different perspectives in 2D.
Etc. etc.
A huge number of possibilities.
YOU r the work flow!
if u use a combination of 3D; 2D and other softwares.
The better skill you have in many programs, the better is your workflow, the better are your ideas and concepts on using your software as effective as you need it.
For example you could create your characters in 3d and use a Cell-Shader, so that it looks a bit more like a toon.
Or you could compose your scenes and locations you use as settings in your movie in a 3D program, so u spend less time in composing different perspectives in 2D.
Etc. etc.
A huge number of possibilities.
YOU r the work flow!
I dont agree, 3D is an enormous task, you cannot achieve good results in 3D at the speed you can with 2D, unless you cant draw of course.2d or 3d, that is not the question!
I have worked professionally with 3DSMax and then XSI, both take a huge undertaking to learn the software alone and requiere many more steps to create.
The process of 2D is way simpler.
imho it really depends!
smooth 3d and cut 2d is quicker to make than smooth 2d (disney) and cut 3d (madagascar movie)
If you do it quickly, the default of each technic will be more visible. At best it should match the story meanings if possible (i choose the technics based on the storyboard! not production time!).
My time for making 3 min of traditional 2d was around 1 month (not sleeping at night!) could it be author movies made alone or in big studios with big crews.
On the other side once the character setup is ready in 3d there is a lot of reusability and the animation is real time, really a pleasure to do,
but yes the fisrt steps (setup) takes longer
Well that's just my personnal experience i just mean "it depends"
smooth 3d and cut 2d is quicker to make than smooth 2d (disney) and cut 3d (madagascar movie)
If you do it quickly, the default of each technic will be more visible. At best it should match the story meanings if possible (i choose the technics based on the storyboard! not production time!).
My time for making 3 min of traditional 2d was around 1 month (not sleeping at night!) could it be author movies made alone or in big studios with big crews.
On the other side once the character setup is ready in 3d there is a lot of reusability and the animation is real time, really a pleasure to do,
but yes the fisrt steps (setup) takes longer
Well that's just my personnal experience i just mean "it depends"
Hello again!
I ment the whole process of 3D takes alot longer, I ve been working with the Moho demo for like a week now and I am capable of making full character in no time with rig and all in it while the making of a character in 3D takes lot longer.
If we compare say Disney quality 2D and Pixar quality 3D, even then, the animation alone takes longer in 3D.
3D by itself is very unforgiving, if you try and go fast with 3D it will show, that is why Pixar movies are so great, usually takes 30 animators 3 years to make a full lenght movie, that is huge.
On the other hand, 2D is by nature way more forgiving, I mean, 2D animation isnt linear like 3D, so it is easier on the eye. The trick in 3D is to actually make it less linear or less perfect, because in nature nothing is perfect, the eye is not acostomed to it.
That,s what makes a good 3D animator while 2D animators try to reach perfection, which they cannot achieve.
This also explains why the 3D rendered 2D in movies or tv shows is so aparent, too linear.
I ment the whole process of 3D takes alot longer, I ve been working with the Moho demo for like a week now and I am capable of making full character in no time with rig and all in it while the making of a character in 3D takes lot longer.
If we compare say Disney quality 2D and Pixar quality 3D, even then, the animation alone takes longer in 3D.
3D by itself is very unforgiving, if you try and go fast with 3D it will show, that is why Pixar movies are so great, usually takes 30 animators 3 years to make a full lenght movie, that is huge.
On the other hand, 2D is by nature way more forgiving, I mean, 2D animation isnt linear like 3D, so it is easier on the eye. The trick in 3D is to actually make it less linear or less perfect, because in nature nothing is perfect, the eye is not acostomed to it.
That,s what makes a good 3D animator while 2D animators try to reach perfection, which they cannot achieve.
This also explains why the 3D rendered 2D in movies or tv shows is so aparent, too linear.
3D takes a lot of set up time, but once you've got your characters modeled and rigged, the animation process is faster than say, 2D animation drawing one frame at a time. But the set up takes a lot of perserverance.
Moho is terrific in that it gives you the best of both worlds. You can animate faster than with a pencil, and there's nowhere near as much rigging and set up time involved as there is in 3-D.
It really depends on your project and your ambitions. As it stands now, ToonBoom and Moho excel at TV style animation. TV animation is great for certain kids of projects, especially ones where dialogue is mostly used to tell the story instead of cartoon "acting."
But if you want to rely on character to delight an audience, nothing is as good as well done 3-D or clay animation. I mean, nobody's going to be able to do "Creature Comforts" or "The Incredibles" with Moho. But you could do "Rocky And Bullwinkle," or perhaps if you're really good, "The Simpsons."
Check out Hash's Animation Master software. It's a low cost 3D animation package. 3-D is really cool - there's nothing like it.
Gochris
Moho is terrific in that it gives you the best of both worlds. You can animate faster than with a pencil, and there's nowhere near as much rigging and set up time involved as there is in 3-D.
It really depends on your project and your ambitions. As it stands now, ToonBoom and Moho excel at TV style animation. TV animation is great for certain kids of projects, especially ones where dialogue is mostly used to tell the story instead of cartoon "acting."
But if you want to rely on character to delight an audience, nothing is as good as well done 3-D or clay animation. I mean, nobody's going to be able to do "Creature Comforts" or "The Incredibles" with Moho. But you could do "Rocky And Bullwinkle," or perhaps if you're really good, "The Simpsons."
Check out Hash's Animation Master software. It's a low cost 3D animation package. 3-D is really cool - there's nothing like it.
Gochris
I disagree. Did you stick around for the ending (or was it the beginning?) credits of "The Incredibles"? All of that could have been done with Moho. I considered that very captivating animation, and could see a feature animated that way as well ... if the story called for it. There are, imho, 2D animated stories tha should not be animated in 3D, and 3D that should not be done in 2D.But if you want to rely on character to delight an audience, nothing is as good as well done 3-D or clay animation. I mean, nobody's going to be able to do "Creature Comforts" or "The Incredibles" with Moho.
The intent and the content should dictate the technique ... just my 3 cents worth
Rob
Well of course the content should dictate the technique.
But one can't deny that full animation reveals more character than limited animation.
And one thing that is necessary for full animation is the capability to turn a character 360 degrees in space. This is difficult to do in Moho.
Moho is great, but it is great at limited animation. I have not seen any "Incredibles" worthy acting from any of the characters people have created in Moho. This is not a knock -- it's just very hard to create a smooth 360 turn in Moho.
And of course, good animated acting is tough to do too.
A smooth 360 degree turn is possible in 3D and in frame by frame drawing.
So if you want to do Bugs Bunny or Snow White style full-blown acting, you'd better use 3-D or draw frame by frame.
As for the credits of the Incredibles, seems to me that they weren't trying to reveal much character there or act much, it was more or less an excercise in really cool graphics.
I'd love for someone to do a feature in Moho -- but I think if you want to create characters that are as alive as Wallace and Gromit or Mickey Mouse or Shrek, using a tool that can give you that full range of motion is really, really important. People have faked it in the past, but Scooby Doo or The Flintstones isn't the kind of acting I mean.
And so if your story calls for lots of great acting, (like Dumbo, Monsters Inc.) go 3-D or frame by frame with a pencil. If your story doesn't need great, full dimensional cartoon acting where the characters exist in 360 degrees to be successful, like in say Yellow Submarine, (in which the music and graphics were more important than the acting) or Rocky and Bullwinkle, (where the verbal humor was more important than the acting) there is no better tool to use than Moho.
Gochris
But one can't deny that full animation reveals more character than limited animation.
And one thing that is necessary for full animation is the capability to turn a character 360 degrees in space. This is difficult to do in Moho.
Moho is great, but it is great at limited animation. I have not seen any "Incredibles" worthy acting from any of the characters people have created in Moho. This is not a knock -- it's just very hard to create a smooth 360 turn in Moho.
And of course, good animated acting is tough to do too.
A smooth 360 degree turn is possible in 3D and in frame by frame drawing.
So if you want to do Bugs Bunny or Snow White style full-blown acting, you'd better use 3-D or draw frame by frame.
As for the credits of the Incredibles, seems to me that they weren't trying to reveal much character there or act much, it was more or less an excercise in really cool graphics.
I'd love for someone to do a feature in Moho -- but I think if you want to create characters that are as alive as Wallace and Gromit or Mickey Mouse or Shrek, using a tool that can give you that full range of motion is really, really important. People have faked it in the past, but Scooby Doo or The Flintstones isn't the kind of acting I mean.
And so if your story calls for lots of great acting, (like Dumbo, Monsters Inc.) go 3-D or frame by frame with a pencil. If your story doesn't need great, full dimensional cartoon acting where the characters exist in 360 degrees to be successful, like in say Yellow Submarine, (in which the music and graphics were more important than the acting) or Rocky and Bullwinkle, (where the verbal humor was more important than the acting) there is no better tool to use than Moho.
Gochris