"Worktime" in 2D compared to 3D?

red hamster · Post by **red hamster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:54 am

I dislike those cartoonish 3d movies, save the one (don't remember the name , with the ants vs the grasshoppers).

I am struggling with 3d, can't learn by myself

, I can't modelling, at least ,with easy.

I don't want to spend 300 bucks fo animation master and put the box in the bookshelf after 6 months of frustration.

janimatic · Post by **janimatic** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:01 pm

hello hamster!

i just bought silo modeler for 109 $ and i must say it's fantastic!
It's the easiest i have ever used you can download a free version too...
http://www.nevercenter.com/downloads/download_silo/
Modeling is not everything but it's a very creative part and not so technically complex..
Also if you have time try another way of sculpting using zbrush it's really like traditional art : no more polygone tweaking!!

Best

red hamster · Post by **red hamster** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:35 pm

I am struggle with Silo demo. Is better than wing but I need bad a way to start

jorgy · Post by **jorgy** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:14 pm

gochris wrote: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."

I was thinking about this discussion when I came across the following article (courtesy of slashdot):

http://modetwo.net/users/nachimir/vga/index.html

It is geared towards game developers, but it applicable here as well. In the drive for photo-realistic, something can be lost. In the case of games, it's playability or even the "fun" level. But just with animation, the closer to photo-realistic the less style it seems to have.

The article has some cool screen snapshots from different games with some different artistic styles.

I guess my point of view would be "style and character matter more than whether the technology is 3d or 2d".

jorgy

Rai López · Post by **Rai López** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:22 pm

jorgy wrote:"style and character matter more than whether the technology is 3d or 2d".

...OF COURSE!

And thanks for the link, I always LOVE a good animation and videogames re-mix

Rhoel · Post by **Rhoel** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:54 pm

I work in a studio with both 2D and 3D. As a rule of thumb, 2D is 4 times faster.

The biggest reason is everything has to be modelled first, then textured and rigged, then animated. Every prop, incidental character, evry action resloved.

In 2D, you can cheat - you don;t have to resolve physical problems: For example, one of our 3D characters had to pick something up - his arms were never designed to do that - we had to re-rig themodel and it took a long time. In 2D you cheat and stretch to fit, hide pbjects not in use.

Remember too that high quality backgrounds can be made in a day by an experienced artist in Photoshop (with digitising tablet). The same scene in 3D will take at least a week to model and light.

melkman · Post by **melkman** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:48 pm

i can only paint sketches for my creatures in front and side view , i cant paint the missing 45 ° view (for smooth side rotation).
It takes long to learn model in 3d,
but it makes fun..
It takes long time to setup, yes.
But if you are a bit expirienced then its easier (for me)
My last character used 6 days (freetime).
Modeled from a box in 2 hours rigged in 6 hours, textures not ready yet.
If i now need another perspective i can render him at this position.
And if i need another guy then i make only other heads and deform the rest of the Body.
Cloth and parts like the gun are very hard for me to paint...

http://www.2-men-at-work.de/noie/sheet.png

short shooting sequence 1,8 mb http://www.2-men-at-work.de/noie/alien.WMV

greetings me (lkman)

j0llyr0ger · Post by **j0llyr0ger** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:51 am

Hello everybody- this is my first post here.

I haven't even downloaded Moho yet, since I am at work right now but from what I've read here I am very excited about trying it out tonight.

I have some ideas for animations in my head and I thought 3D would be the best way to do them since I can't draw very well and Flash which I had previously thought the tool for the job of 2D animation was kind of expensive and complicated.

Moho, though, seems to be perfectly what I am looking for for one of my ideas. 3D is the way to go for the second- as was mentioned above the content is what should direct the media (2D vs 3D). I was struggling with making a 2D idea in 3D now with Moho I can get to work and stop fooling around!

What prompted me to post this message is to tell everybody who may not have heard that Blender is a free, open-source 3D modeling and animation app that though not ready for production at Pixar is beginning to rival the big boys. It's a cheap (free) way to get into 3D.

Now I'm excited about getting into 2D with Moho!

Rasheed · Post by **Rasheed** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:59 am

Welcome to the club, j0llyr0ger!

Yes, 2D is a good place to start and with Moho you can use 3D along with your 2D animation. Be forewarned that it can be very addictive

I think you will appreciate that the trial version of Moho is fully functional, except for the demo watermark in bitmap output and b/w flash output. But other than that it works just like the registered version. So if you think Moho is useful for you, you register for a modest fee and have those few restrictions removed.

j0llyr0ger · Post by **j0llyr0ger** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:33 am

I just finished the overview tutorial.

Let me say I have spent a great deal of my spare time the past couple of months in doing tutorials for 3D in Blender and the instantaneous gratification factor of Moho is about 100% higher.

Don't get me wrong- I'll always love Blender and have fun with 3D, but for kicking out the cartoons fast and fun, Moho is ruling.

I have a big smile on my face from saying "Wow- this is so easy and fast!

I have done one tutorial and I am clompletely addicted.