2D Animation Vs. CGI Animation

[Kaoru]

4D all the way!


Until then though, 2D. Fast moving fancy-shmancy 3D doesn't give my tiny brain enough time to process all the hidden jokes and stuff. I would actually like to see some hand-drawn movies again as well. I think the technology of animation is advancing, but the quality is doing the opposite.

 

[Dudley]

Well it all depends on the story of the cartoon, becasue that's really important.

I also believe that the coolest animation visuals can be done with merging 2D and 3D.

But do to limited choices I voted 2D.

 

[zano88]

sounds like people are confusing the lame things people are doing in 3D with the actual limitations of the medium.there is a difference.

 

[Superperson]

sounds like people are confusing the lame things people are doing in 3D with the actual limitations of the medium.there is a difference.

Care to explain.

 

[Frank]

I voted for CGI animation, but 2D animation is great for character animation especially when using full animation. 2D sucks with effects animation though probably because of the high frame rate it requires for certain effects (liquids, gases). CGI works better with effects animation than does character animation. Just look at Futurama.

 

[JesseCuster]

I prefer 2D to CGI, but that's not to say that either one is better than the other. 2D simply is what I prefer.

There have been some good CGI movies (The Incredibles, both Shreks, and Disney's Twice Upon a Christmas) and there have definitely been some bad 2D movies.

Being a bit of a 2D artist myself, naturally, I'm going to defer to the 2D movies.

 

[Golgo13]

I'm a fan of 2D, but it's so obviously dead, although I'm suprised that Curious George was done in 2D. That's a rarity now.

EVERYTHING is done in 3D now. 3D... wave of the future.

Actually, Curious George was digital by means of an animation program that allowed 2D characters to be controlled by means of a new bone system.

 

[zano88]

Care to explain.

the fact is, 3D can be rendered to look like anything from a pencil sketch to van gogh painting, and anything in between. it's just that the realistic rendering is the most popular thing right now. some people cited "too much realism" as the reason why they voted against CGI, or as that being a limitation of the medium. i personally think that not as much effort has been put into toonshaders and other rendering schemes because it is seen as "gimmicky" or "defeating the purpose of working in 3D" to utilize a flat looking render. whatever. to me it should be all about creativity and pushing boundaries. all this is way off topic, but i just wanted to answer your question.

 

[Superperson]

the fact is, 3D can be rendered to look like anything from a pencil sketch to van gogh painting, and anything in between. it's just that the realistic rendering is the most popular thing right now. some people cited "too much realism" as the reason why they voted against CGI, or as that being a limitation of the medium. i personally think that not as much effort has been put into toonshaders and other rendering schemes because it is seen as "gimmicky" or "defeating the purpose of working in 3D" to utilize a flat looking render. whatever. to me it should be all about creativity and pushing boundaries. all this is way off topic, but i just wanted to answer your question.

I would agree with what you said. CGI does get very clunky the more realistic you make the characters, there movements seem to become stiffer and ever more un-realistic as you make the character more and more lifelike. Like you said this could probably be remedied if some studios took some time out to invent a more polished program for the rendering and all that, and no the creepy motion-capture crap they do with Polar Express is not the answer for the clunky movement, and is barely animation in my opinion. But anyways..the whole entirety of the animation business in the U.S. seems to be completely content with where they are right now in CGI. So don't expect junk like Hoodwinked to stop coming. And I'm sorry if I've strayed waaaay of the subject matter, I just scrolled back up and noticed that I didn't even properly reply to what you said:
Yes it should be about pushing boundaries and all that, but I think people should at least note that CGI is just in general a more realistic medium. Their could be a bit more variety in enviorment in CGI movies seems it seems that there is little to no stylizing of the enviorment at all, personally this doesn't bother me but I could see it would get tired to some people. Especially someone into a more stylized art style. But that's about it I think I went off subject enough.

 

[tb4000]

Same principle goes with video games. People want more realistic graphics, but if the gameplay sucks, what's the point?

 

[zano88]

Same principle goes with video games. People want more realistic graphics, but if the gameplay sucks, what's the point?

exactly. can you imagine what awesome 2D games they could be making with the power of modern consoles?

 

[raykremer]

The writing is more important than the animation style.

 

[Rasputin]

The writing is more important than the animation style.

If you've ever seen a Jan Svankmajer animation, then you might want to reconsider your opinion.

And this is a writer talking here.

 

[zano88]

The writing is more important than the animation style.

i'm sure you mean this for qualitys sake, but really it all depends on the vision of the creators involved. for example, south park favors writing over detailed animation, but it's that way on purpose- as a creative choice. writing and animation should have equal creative priority.