- Mar 11, 2024
- 55
- 14
Hand drawn 2D has the advantage of looking smooth, but lacks the proper streamlining and interaction required unless we look at very old SNES & Genesis Disney video games which still lack modular animation and interaction required of say a wrestling game.
Macromedia Flash attempted the advantages of 3D even to the point Disney wanted their own 3D-2D through Paperman which utilized a closed source software that's far more advanced than Toonboom Harmony. Flash is like a jigsaw puzzle together with its pre-Photoshop qualities of squash & stretch which most animators use to this day without hand drawing the squash & stretch and the ease-in & ease-out. Flash similar to 3D can simply have the object anchored to the character, say a hairstyle, a piece of cloth, an entire leg,arm,chest, a shoe, a cape, a butt, etc. The problem however is that 2D does not confer multiple perspectives like 3D does. This all helped in character customization and pose building. If the bone rigging was good enough then any model could fill its bones and then you could modify each pose just through bones rather than skin. That unfortunately leads to clipping and non interactive meat & skin & proportions.
The significance of 2D art lies solely in its aesthetics else you wouldn't use it. 2D plane does not offer you infinite 360 degrees of viewing, neither from the camera, neither from the character model, unless we dare call zoom-in & zoom-out "perspective". As opposed to trying to recreate 3D in a 2D medium like Clause.
Another form of 3D was spawned to recreate 2D , it was called cel-shading. By itself it replicates simple faces with 80% accuracy and more detailed faces with 50% accuracy since it cannot copy the shadows ... and in motion you can immediately tell it's 3D. The face looked alright, but the clothes look like playdough , cel-shading requires you to have a very simplistic texture and lighting , there's no way to get detailed texture and lighting or else you ruin the cel filter look.
Then something else came much much later called 3D-2D, 3D that looks accurately like 2D. This once again cheats in a way, cause all this 3D to 2D requires a very specific texture with baked in shadows and a very specific lighting devoid of 3D shadows so it doesn't ruin the texture.
Xenoblade Chronicles, DBZ Xenoverse, Naruto's video games, certain japanese, european & american cartoons, Poet Anderson, and that cancelled 90second preview of Tron Uprising Disney lowered the budget on, the list goes on.
Tron Uprising had a good idea of putting a helmet on the characters and only animating the facial features. Polygon-based 3D facial features that replicate 2D's look as opposed to a texture, image, sprite would also be a good change of pace.
3D's main advantage is recycling. 3D's normal aces is in recreating metallic "textures" through reflections. Most people who worked on 3D since the 90s did not focus on recreating biology, hence fur/hair/feathers was not a focus. Triangles and polygons simply weren't made to simulate a strand of hair, neither were voxels. A vehicle, a robot, a cube, a pyramid, even a sprite are much more compatible with what 2D graphical & 3D programs started from. They were not made for faces. Textures were made for faces and that's where talented 2D artists shined. Sadly most facial textures were in-source and deeply ingrained with the animation plugins & software utilized for it which were not open source. Unlike static textures for wood, roofs, floors, drapes, etc.
As such I much prefer my 3D characters with its clothes on , especially armour ... and less its skin. Covering their faces in a mask would be an improvement and called a creative genius rather than a cheap cop out.
3D's main advantage once again is recycling. People can just port models and assets and mix & match & edit instead of recreating them from scratch.
Only the most delusional would try to build Rome from scratch when he has said assets available and ready for porting, even without the proper hitboxes and optimizations.
As such why they say "starting" from scratch with 3D takes a larger budget than just pen & paper 2D ... that isn't the case anymore. Unless your model is really that unique.
3D assets is how AI is going to become in a metaphorical and practical sense. Lots of recycling from mediocre to bad sources which are either the most popular, most optimized or most accessible. I am talking of course about LoRAs & SD models. Only the truly talented will be able to train the AI to make unique galleries based off their own art; audio, visuals, text meaning.
Live action is an entirely different animal to tackle, but simply put live action is the real thing.
3D renders are literal dolls in a digital medium. There's no real lighting, shadows and they are made out of plastic or porcelain.
Albeit at least Hollywood props can look just as convincing on the level of taxidermy. Just like 3D renders can look good when a proper artist with the proper tools (and a lot of money to hire said person & buy said tools) can look far better than mass cheaply produced & recycled models taken from the internet.
2D similar to cel-shading offers a much more simplified version of 2D but ultimately certain brains & certain naturally undeveloped brains perceive simplicity, certain shapes, certain hues of colors, certain features as clean & appealing , just like candy, gems, shiny metal, cat faces, etc. a grown brain wants more detail but the real thing, not something inbetween, albeit even something inbetween has fooled audiences into preferring 3D over 2D not just because 2D is being forcefully removed from Hollywood, but this discussion is for another thread.
3D GPUs and especially video games have always had hardware-based filters for lighting, shadows,colors with slight variables you can modify. Filters you can even see in 2D mediums such as water effects, fire effects, old timey brown & yellow films.
However up to this day 3D GPUs have never had transformation filters beyond optical illusions for bitmapping, parallax scrolling, fixing jagged edges, etc.
With the advent of AI where frames are literally generated by predictions rather than copying the same frame we're getting somewhere. 3D GPUs have always been about filtering & rendering what's on your screen regardless of the hitboxes.
A bad but alright example would be Corridor's Anime, Rock, Paper, Scissors. Bad cause the AI doesn't transform it into polygons you can interact with. Alright cause it is literally live action to 2D transformation. With a 2D that looks like a messier cel-shade filter like a comic book. These frames cannot be interacted with, they cannot provide a simulation like a 3D render with a physics engine does.
Eventually if a different tasteful direction is taken, AI will be properly filtered and turned into AGI and start to transform interactive low-polygons & stick figures into a 2D filter on top of said 3D puppets. Right nowe however Rock,Paper,Scissor used one more post-render trick through Sony Vegas rather than SD 1.5 & SD 2.1 cleaning itself up.
Still, with DALL-E 3 which fixed the fingers and made even the least vocabulary and technology oriented person to be able to generate accurate and quality art, you never know if we'll have an exponential progression instead of a linear one.
Flash also had the bad habit of prioritizing paper-thin like models & animation with Paper Mario as the most obvious example. Flash just wasn't made to raise the minimum requirement, it was made to lower it. Talented animators would use tweening as a bonus, talentless animators would use it as a crutch.
Flash was not made to properly help & elevate hand drawn animation and provide 3D perspective. Flash and most 2D game software was compatible with games such as Paper Mario.
Live2D and other gimmick softwares are trying to deliver 1 step towards 2D into 3D, but too little too late.
Macromedia Flash attempted the advantages of 3D even to the point Disney wanted their own 3D-2D through Paperman which utilized a closed source software that's far more advanced than Toonboom Harmony. Flash is like a jigsaw puzzle together with its pre-Photoshop qualities of squash & stretch which most animators use to this day without hand drawing the squash & stretch and the ease-in & ease-out. Flash similar to 3D can simply have the object anchored to the character, say a hairstyle, a piece of cloth, an entire leg,arm,chest, a shoe, a cape, a butt, etc. The problem however is that 2D does not confer multiple perspectives like 3D does. This all helped in character customization and pose building. If the bone rigging was good enough then any model could fill its bones and then you could modify each pose just through bones rather than skin. That unfortunately leads to clipping and non interactive meat & skin & proportions.
The significance of 2D art lies solely in its aesthetics else you wouldn't use it. 2D plane does not offer you infinite 360 degrees of viewing, neither from the camera, neither from the character model, unless we dare call zoom-in & zoom-out "perspective". As opposed to trying to recreate 3D in a 2D medium like Clause.
Another form of 3D was spawned to recreate 2D , it was called cel-shading. By itself it replicates simple faces with 80% accuracy and more detailed faces with 50% accuracy since it cannot copy the shadows ... and in motion you can immediately tell it's 3D. The face looked alright, but the clothes look like playdough , cel-shading requires you to have a very simplistic texture and lighting , there's no way to get detailed texture and lighting or else you ruin the cel filter look.
Then something else came much much later called 3D-2D, 3D that looks accurately like 2D. This once again cheats in a way, cause all this 3D to 2D requires a very specific texture with baked in shadows and a very specific lighting devoid of 3D shadows so it doesn't ruin the texture.
Xenoblade Chronicles, DBZ Xenoverse, Naruto's video games, certain japanese, european & american cartoons, Poet Anderson, and that cancelled 90second preview of Tron Uprising Disney lowered the budget on, the list goes on.
Tron Uprising had a good idea of putting a helmet on the characters and only animating the facial features. Polygon-based 3D facial features that replicate 2D's look as opposed to a texture, image, sprite would also be a good change of pace.
3D's main advantage is recycling. 3D's normal aces is in recreating metallic "textures" through reflections. Most people who worked on 3D since the 90s did not focus on recreating biology, hence fur/hair/feathers was not a focus. Triangles and polygons simply weren't made to simulate a strand of hair, neither were voxels. A vehicle, a robot, a cube, a pyramid, even a sprite are much more compatible with what 2D graphical & 3D programs started from. They were not made for faces. Textures were made for faces and that's where talented 2D artists shined. Sadly most facial textures were in-source and deeply ingrained with the animation plugins & software utilized for it which were not open source. Unlike static textures for wood, roofs, floors, drapes, etc.
As such I much prefer my 3D characters with its clothes on , especially armour ... and less its skin. Covering their faces in a mask would be an improvement and called a creative genius rather than a cheap cop out.
3D's main advantage once again is recycling. People can just port models and assets and mix & match & edit instead of recreating them from scratch.
Only the most delusional would try to build Rome from scratch when he has said assets available and ready for porting, even without the proper hitboxes and optimizations.
As such why they say "starting" from scratch with 3D takes a larger budget than just pen & paper 2D ... that isn't the case anymore. Unless your model is really that unique.
3D assets is how AI is going to become in a metaphorical and practical sense. Lots of recycling from mediocre to bad sources which are either the most popular, most optimized or most accessible. I am talking of course about LoRAs & SD models. Only the truly talented will be able to train the AI to make unique galleries based off their own art; audio, visuals, text meaning.
Live action is an entirely different animal to tackle, but simply put live action is the real thing.
3D renders are literal dolls in a digital medium. There's no real lighting, shadows and they are made out of plastic or porcelain.
Albeit at least Hollywood props can look just as convincing on the level of taxidermy. Just like 3D renders can look good when a proper artist with the proper tools (and a lot of money to hire said person & buy said tools) can look far better than mass cheaply produced & recycled models taken from the internet.
2D similar to cel-shading offers a much more simplified version of 2D but ultimately certain brains & certain naturally undeveloped brains perceive simplicity, certain shapes, certain hues of colors, certain features as clean & appealing , just like candy, gems, shiny metal, cat faces, etc. a grown brain wants more detail but the real thing, not something inbetween, albeit even something inbetween has fooled audiences into preferring 3D over 2D not just because 2D is being forcefully removed from Hollywood, but this discussion is for another thread.
3D GPUs and especially video games have always had hardware-based filters for lighting, shadows,colors with slight variables you can modify. Filters you can even see in 2D mediums such as water effects, fire effects, old timey brown & yellow films.
However up to this day 3D GPUs have never had transformation filters beyond optical illusions for bitmapping, parallax scrolling, fixing jagged edges, etc.
With the advent of AI where frames are literally generated by predictions rather than copying the same frame we're getting somewhere. 3D GPUs have always been about filtering & rendering what's on your screen regardless of the hitboxes.
A bad but alright example would be Corridor's Anime, Rock, Paper, Scissors. Bad cause the AI doesn't transform it into polygons you can interact with. Alright cause it is literally live action to 2D transformation. With a 2D that looks like a messier cel-shade filter like a comic book. These frames cannot be interacted with, they cannot provide a simulation like a 3D render with a physics engine does.
Eventually if a different tasteful direction is taken, AI will be properly filtered and turned into AGI and start to transform interactive low-polygons & stick figures into a 2D filter on top of said 3D puppets. Right nowe however Rock,Paper,Scissor used one more post-render trick through Sony Vegas rather than SD 1.5 & SD 2.1 cleaning itself up.
Still, with DALL-E 3 which fixed the fingers and made even the least vocabulary and technology oriented person to be able to generate accurate and quality art, you never know if we'll have an exponential progression instead of a linear one.
Flash also had the bad habit of prioritizing paper-thin like models & animation with Paper Mario as the most obvious example. Flash just wasn't made to raise the minimum requirement, it was made to lower it. Talented animators would use tweening as a bonus, talentless animators would use it as a crutch.
Flash was not made to properly help & elevate hand drawn animation and provide 3D perspective. Flash and most 2D game software was compatible with games such as Paper Mario.
Live2D and other gimmick softwares are trying to deliver 1 step towards 2D into 3D, but too little too late.
Last edited: