Search form

Is 2D finished?

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Is 2D finished?

Is anyone out there also struggling to switch from 2D to 3D? For years Ive resisted getting into 3D because I just don't like it as much as 2D, but it seems like the more you resist 3D the lower your market value goes. It's getting harder and harder to get work if you don't know 3D.

Also, a lot of the 3D in toon shader looks so much like 2D its hard to tell the difference.

Anyone having similar problems? Will 2D go the way of Black and White and silent movies in the next few years?

Do you guys have an opinion on the 3D "look", as opposed to 2D... one way or the other?
And what is 2 and 1/2 D? Some elements in 3D and some in 2D? Like mixed media?

Do you guys have an opinion on the 3D "look", as opposed to 2D... one way or the other?
And what is 2 and 1/2 D? Some elements in 3D and some in 2D? Like mixed media?

I think most of the 3d stuff still has a plastic tub toy look to it.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

With the black and white movies I've seen, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they did go that way. A lot of the movies that didn't have a choice about being black and white rock and are respected, and usually when a modern makes the choice to go that way I find it artful and a good decision.

For me it's like subtitles. When I watched The City of God my mind started hearing them in English. When I watch The Best Years of Our Lives I see it in color.

I don't think Best Years could have come acrossed as well in color as it does in black and white. The second world war was a black and white time. I wouldn't want to see it colorized. Never seen City of God, will have to look for it.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Is anyone out there also struggling to switch from 2D to 3D?

At the studio I'm working at, we're using the modern medium of symbol flash but we're also trying to make it look as close to traditional 2D animation as we can.

I think there's hope yet. :cool:

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

I was speaking figuratively, actually. I just mean there are no detriments as is -- whatever problems are perceived, the full life and glory comes across.

I was speaking figuratively, actually. I just mean there are no detriments as is -- whatever problems are perceived, the full life and glory comes across.

True. But when I see some classic movies colorized I just turn the channel and wait for the original version. There's something to be said for artistic vision and remaining true to it. Look at Wizard of OZ some parts are black and white, some color...and that's all part of the production value.

Red River is one that I will never watch colorized...maybe it's just me.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

grey river

www.EvilAsSin.com
for more movies and downloads

the fastest polygon in the west!

YEEEEEHHHHAAAAA!

Z
Z's picture

I think it's rather tragic and ironic that the only major animation studio in North America that is sticking up for 2D is the studio that pioneered 3D to the mainstream in the first place: Pixar.

They actually understand that going the digital way isn't the only way, but rather an option among options. What matters is how good the story and characters are, and how good the animation is in the method you use.

Just because some short sighted big shots in Hollywood think 2D is dead, doesn't actually mean that 2D is dead. 3D is a style, 2D is a style, claymation is a style. And some ideas lend themselves better to these different styles. And when the REAL artists make it big in the animation industry, they won't have a biased loyalty to any form, but rather choose one out of what kind of visuals would look best for their film!

--Z

They actually understand that going the digital way isn't the only way, but rather an option among options. What matters is how good the story and characters are, and how good the animation is in the method you use.

Just because some short sighted big shots in Hollywood think 2D is dead, doesn't actually mean that 2D is dead. 3D is a style, 2D is a style, claymation is a style. And some ideas lend themselves better to these different styles. And when the REAL artists make it big in the animation industry, they won't have a biased loyalty to any form, but rather choose one out of what kind of visuals would look best for their film!

Exactly. It's not about 2D vs. 3D. Its about telling a good story, and the director's choice of what medium or style to use.

I'm sure, at one point, it was about which style was cheaper to produce, but with Flash and Toonboom and cintiqs around, that's not a valid argument against 2D anymore.

Follow @chaostoon on Twitter!

There are still symphonic orchestras around, even though any kid with a pc and the right software can generate music. In fact, many musicians are going acoustic. Being mostly a scriptwriter, I guess I'm not so much affected as you, but I THINK my scripts in 2d, and I believe there's still a lot to it. I'm not saying it will be easy to stick to 2d: eventually, the bad 2d animators will be forced to evolve into bad 3d animators, and only the fittest will survive.

Animation lives!

ANIMATION LIVES!!!!!

Forget which kind- it all lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are still symphonic orchestras around, even though any kid with a pc and the right software can generate music.

And those beautiful orchestras are stuck doing the following:
Playing music written at least 60 years ago, because there are no modern composers producing significant works
or
playing the music from big Hollywood flicks, in order to attract enough ticket-buyers to fund their continued existence.

If you've already done all the games on the back of your cereal boxes, then try this one: above, replace the word "orchestras" with "animators", and then think your brain real hard.

That sounds kind of stagnant. I think I'll just buy more cereal.

You'll be very disappointed. The Count's maze is exceedingly uncomplex.

I don't think so. It's a totally different medium. If 3D were going to do away with anything, it would be clay animation. And even that hasn't happened yet.

Most animation on television is still 2D. There's still a lot of 2D animation produced in foreign markets as well. And we might be about to see a resurgence in 2D features in America if Pixar has anything to say about it.

That said, I think it's a good idea for an animator to know the tools for both, particularly if you're freelance. I personally am currently working on my first 3D show but I have 2D projects in development as well.

Is 2D finished?

If you let transitory trends stop you from doing what you really want to do, then, yes, sure, 2D's finished, at least as far as you're concerned.

i frickin hope not having just spent the last 2 years of my life plodding through a 2d film

as long as artists concentrate on story first then choosing the medium which best suits that story...there will always be a place for 2d

and puppet

www.EvilAsSin.com
for more movies and downloads

the fastest polygon in the west!

YEEEEEHHHHAAAAA!

Will 2D go the way of Black and White and silent movies in the next few years?

Yes. :D

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Juuuuuuuuuust kidding.

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

With the black and white movies I've seen, maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they did go that way. A lot of the movies that didn't have a choice about being black and white rock and are respected, and usually when a modern makes the choice to go that way I find it artful and a good decision.

For me it's like subtitles. When I watched The City of God my mind started hearing them in English. When I watch The Best Years of Our Lives I see it in color.

I'd like to chime in on this one too. I have every intention of animating my schizophrenic opossum character, Melville, in 2D. I developed him in 2D, and that's where his personality and features are at. To me, to skip to doing him in 3D...it would destroy his soul. I can't say I haven't considered it, but having considered it, I'll stick with 2D for him.

People worry far too much about whether to do 2D or 3D, as if it's an either-or scenario. Maybe your job makes it an either-or scenario, but your personal projects won't make it that. You have to choose the medium which will convey the atmosphere, mood, characters, emotion, etc, of your story the best.

The same principles apply in 2D and 3D. Doing 2D animation will help 3D animators even more than simply drawing and sketching will. Every little helps. So, to skip 2D because 3D is the thing is not a wise thing to do. One would be damaging one's potential, and ruining a possibly very enjoyable experience. The only differences are the methods - in 2D it's by hand one way or another for the most part, even if it's through a graphics tablet on the computer. 3D is more akin to puppetry. But that doesn't mean different principles apply. But, all of the same 30 or so principles of animation still apply to both.

I know for one that when I animate Melville (have to do a script, storyboard and animatic first the intended storyline - I've only developed his character thus far), it will be both fun and nightmarish to animate him in 2D. But it's what I must do. It'll help me in 3D too, since as I'll get a better grasp of character animation through doing all the work myself without being able to tweak a curve to fix the inbetween motion (oh my life, thank heavens...the curve editor in Maya overwhelms me sometimes...oh wait, what was that cartoon Ken posted in the other thread...? Uh-oh...:D). Not trying to deride 3D animators with that statement, by the way, so I hope I haven't caused any offence.

I think people might just be fearful of certain mediums because it's not what they're used to, or isn't what everyone around them is doing. Like I've said before...whichever medium will bring the animation alive the best is the one you choose. If it's 3D, so be it. But always consider all the possibilities, including 2D.

As a nice ending to this post...you ever tried animating in tea leaves? ;)

Get to know me more through my blog at http://kaidonni.animationblogspot.com/! :cool:

Job Opportunities...

Well, don't get me wrong, I love 2D and drawing... Im also cant get myself fired up about 3D... but Ive seen a lot of good 2D animators and directors struggle to get pathetic salaries on small 2D jobs, when a few years ago they were on top of the world.

It just seemed really hard, at least for me, to get work if I didn't learn 3D, whether I wanted to or not. Im not talking about independent projects... sure, if you want to be creative, you'll do it any way you want. What Im talking about it the job market. Seems like Ive spent all these years developing 2D skills, only to find studios totally dismiss your years of experience if you don't know 3D as well. You say you're an animation director and they say "What software do you use?"

I have more than a few colleagues who are in their fifties and cant seem to make the jump to 3D, and they're having a tough time right now. Any of you guys experiencing the same thing?

PS: Animated Ape... you got me. Nice one.

I have more than a few colleagues who are in their fifties and cant seem to make the jump to 3D, and they're having a tough time right now. Any of you guys experiencing the same thing?

Nope, not at all. But then I'm not animating, I'm storyboarding.

Watch TV for a day and you'll see that 2D is NOT dead. There's several series in production right now being done in 2d, with digital assists in things like colour, and maybe a smattering of CGI.
I counted about a 1/2 dozen commercials done in 2D, from shredded wheat cereals to RED Bull energy drinks--and in just a couple of hours on TV today, on ONE channel.
FLASH is predominant now for TV, the series I'm currently boarding on is a FLASH one, but I'm boarding on paper.

The whole thing about this 2D/3D thing that picks my ass is how unnecessary the disparity is--its all cartooning. If one kind of cartooning fizzles, then tackle another. If one has the skill to do animation, the skills to do storyboards, or comics, or greeting card illos shouldn't be that far off.

Sadly, I think a lot of talents have been misguidedly groomed away from that kind of thinking.
Alot of people have been hired for niche jobs, and so they've become niche talents. Personally, I think that's a career "death-wish" in the making.
Sure, the transition to 3D can be tough, a pain in the ass. Ask anyone who's tried to tackle hand-lettering in ink for comic books about what a "pain in the ass" is.
Its just another skill in the process, another part of the journey. I think the lot of us are getting it needlessly drummed into our heads that its the whole journey. Poppycock.

People investing their careers are overlooking some things: once the software gets the the point where its just about builds and the manipulation of those builds becomes as easy as point-and-click, then just about any dickleshit off the street can do the job. Those "expertly trained" 3D types that are paid due to "experience" will become redundant compared the younger cheaper kids running to take their places.
Those people that can manipulate things in 3D (like a puppeteer) will probably get bumped aside because their "artistry" will become commonplace.

This is why I've pitched solid old-school art skills for years now. Drawing skills, cartooning........painting, design, concept work, comics, illustration.....you name it. Fully functional talent. None of this "I just wanna push pixels" bullshit.

Oh, sure, its "dangerous talk"...........probably fightin' words in some venues.........but seriously, where the hell is the 3D medium going to go?
The software is clearly evolving to take the skill of manipulating and creating constructs out of the equation, and if the skill required lessens, what happens to the "skilled"??? When I'm talking skilled, I'm meaning those that can do JUST 3D.
I think anyone that can grab a crowquill, dip it in some ink and make some purdy lines will not have a lot to worry about.
Someone whose only exposure to art is a Wacom tablet WILL have a lot to worry about, imo.

Combining the two forms is the sane way to go.
You get the intuitive, creative sense at play and the hand skills augemented by the digital technology.
And probably some good product will come out of it too.
Trouble is, a lot of people are forsaking 2D in favour of just 3D-without ever having done ANY significant amount of 2D work.
Studios have their heads up their asses over this issue, and its being reflected in how they hire and the product coming out of them.
I'm hearing about older experienced talent being hired on to "tweak" younger talents work--work that these kids should already be savvy in, but are not.

Software is not that hard to learn, but the hand-skills can take a lot of time and effort to pick up.

Its like what I would say to the 3D students that I used to teach, who'd scoff at a 2D artists and dismiss them as being Dinosaurs.
What they didn't realize about them Dinosaurs, is that if they coexisted with humans--who'd win?

The "Dinosaurs" ain't gone--I think they are just getting the lay of the land again.
If I wasn't a dinosaur, I'd watch out, LOL!

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

A slew of new development is calling the distinction between 2D and 3D in question... more and more eye-to-hand input (drawing, sculpting) is flowing into the 3D process and more and more dimension options are flowing into 2D.

We stand on the verge of temporally integrated 2 1/2 D as opposed to the previous spatially integrated efforts. The artist will be given more control over effects that are currently being rigged and simulated - or neglectged.

my current film...the dog has a cg nose and tag

not quite a whole half a D......but definitely 2.1D

www.EvilAsSin.com
for more movies and downloads

the fastest polygon in the west!

YEEEEEHHHHAAAAA!