Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 01:43:23 UTC No. 943479

>>943459
What the fuck do you mean? Weaboos have been doing it for the past 2 decades. If you're only hearing about this now, you are a fucking blendlet. Just because a japanese studio is currently transitioning to blender doesn't mean you should lmao. For a company that made 24 million USD on a movie alone, rising development cause is just an excuse to pay their bottom feeders even less money than they pay their 2d animators KEK.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 01:43:29 UTC No. 943480

>>943459
It's less labor intensive to 3d animate than it is to painstakingly draw every frame by hand, finalize lines, and color it.
The more steps you can do at once, the more you can do altogether.
Once you set everything up how you like, you can get closer to a final product quicker and with less manpower and energy than if you had done it traditionally.
There's a lot of time spent in 3d trying to nail that 2d look, but the big time saver is that once it's nailed down it's nailed down. You don't have to worry about it and can focus on animating rather than drawing and coloring. Interpolation, shading, and materials handle the grunt work when you hit that render button.
If you have the skill, time and resources to do 2d, by all means (I find traditional 2d better looking than "3d 2d"), but there is definite merits in approaching 2d from the 3d side of things. In terms of efficiency and cost saving anyway, and the occasional situation where you're able to do something easily in 3d that'd be a pain in 2d.

Be prepared for schizo answers from a few other anons.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:36:12 UTC No. 943482

>>943480
>>943479
It's lazy and looks gay.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 04:32:21 UTC No. 943488

>>943482
That's your opinion. I said I prefer traditional 2d over emulated 2d.
OP asked the "why?", I gave it to him. More for less. Doing more work in the same time frame compared to drawing it traditionally. Whether or not you like how it looks doesn't factor into the "why". It's not lazy, it's efficiency.
At this point the 3d 2d look has turned into its own thing entirely, and it's largely not about replicating how 2d looks, but taking the idea and using it as a jumping off point for some hybrid style. I'm not a fan of the look, but it is way cheaper and quicker to do than 2d with less manpower.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:57:18 UTC No. 943502

>>943488
It looks like shit and people don't like it. It's lazy, they fail to automate a superior technique.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:04:31 UTC No. 943503

>make a simple twenty-second animation in 3D
>takes two minutes
>make a simply twenty-second animation in 2D
>takes two months
Anyone still doing hand-drawn animation in 2023 is just in it for the masochism.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:23:50 UTC No. 943505

>>943503
Or, high quality

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:28:09 UTC No. 943506

>>943480
spbp

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:42:05 UTC No. 943508

>>943502
>It looks like shit and people don't like it.
the main problem are the shaders and the interpolation, anime has his own technique and most studios have no idea the fuck are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqj23P8UL-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UkfbuDuXWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQ6kfbIxJA

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Apr 2023 01:37:37 UTC No. 943586

>>943503
2 minutes? How simple are you talking here? Even TV show quality 3D animation is outputted at something like 20-30 seconds per work week per animator.

Still faster than 2D of course. If it's traditional 2D that is. The modern style 2D you see in western tv shows for example, is usually rigged, with some drawing thrown in at important bits, which is a lot faster and easier to do than 3D. Some of those shows have animators doing 30 seconds per day, some more.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Apr 2023 00:47:35 UTC No. 943954

>>943503
not counting render time and the time spent creating/rigging assets. Plus what kind of animation are you banging out in 2 minutes that's absolutely perfect and needs no refinement?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Apr 2023 00:57:34 UTC No. 943956

>>943459
People are getting sick of realism

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:02:53 UTC No. 943992

>>943956
No they don't.
The amount of people who prefer stylized over realistic and vice versa doesn't change much and you also underestimate the amount of people who like both.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Apr 2023 11:26:39 UTC No. 943993

>>943992
Unless you have some data to reference stylized vs realism popularity in 3D art, then you're making the same baseless assumptions.

I think the Toon shaded / Cel-shaded styles in 3D are popular for a combination of reasons.
- Nostalgia
- Very few examples of any studio nailing the technique yet, so it's a good challenge.
- Being able to replicate 2D in 3D software would save a lot of time overall and would allow you to do more complex or creative shots because you have more time to experiment, more flexibility and ability to quickly iterate.
- A general saturation of realistic graphics. (I think it's a valid point) Realism is kind of the opposite of creative or stylized. You get realism by just photoscanning things and doing direct motion capture. These techniques are sterile, they're realistic but there's no life. People like novelty, and they want unique art styles with life. Often 2D styles can be much more expressive than realistic styles. For example, the Classic Disney movies compared to the live action remakes. The new ones have no emotional impact compared to the originals.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Apr 2023 14:02:49 UTC No. 944000

>>943993
Look at how horrible the new Frog and Toad looks compared to the claymation original. Absolutely ghastly.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:53:47 UTC No. 944110

It's been done since at least as early as 1986.
https://youtu.be/kyJBTuAehBA

Anonymous at Sat, 27 May 2023 17:26:59 UTC No. 946869

>>943459
Idk

Anonymous at Sat, 27 May 2023 19:03:59 UTC No. 946880

>>943459
Its called post-modernist deconstruction... learn your art history, pleb