Does the "3D vs. 2D" debate even make sense?

[Redcoffin]

<font color="red">Warning: AOD has determined that the following post displays several features caracteristic of a rant. Read at your own hazard. </font> /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

OK, I mean think about this for a second. It's all projected on a flat screen. Flat! You can go up to the screen and slap it with your hand and it's as flat as any painting. So literally speaking, there is no such thing as "3D animation." What we're talking about is different kinds of 2D animation that use different ways of suggesting the third dimension of depth.

When I say this, people roll their eyes and say "yes, but everybody knows what we're talking about. We mean the difference between hand-drawn cel animation and computer animation that is rendered around a skeleton that can be rotated in 3 dimensions." And I agree all that is true, but meaningless.

First, because drawn animation always had multiple ways of suggesting depth. The figures were rotated in the artist's head before he or she ever put pen to paper. How could there be any rational reason to classify Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, which has some of of most viscerally intense depictions of vertical depth in any anime, as "2D animation"?

Second, because computer-rendered animation already has developed numerous ways to generate animated figures and perform some of the labor that otherwise would have to be done by hand -- which is why computers were brought in, in the first place. This is not 1979 when computer animated figures were limited to regular shapes that rotated and bounced around in that canonical "computer animation" way. Every Japanese animation studio now uses computers for much of their production, and very few of their pieces have that "video-game 3D look" that you see in the second Appleseed movie. Disney now uses a version of that look for its execrable productions like "Chicken Little" but they do so only becuase a few geniuses at Pixar happened to be at their innovative peak when that particular style of CGA was around. There is no evidence that the style of animation you see in "Toy Story" will be the norm in the future - more likely a house style practiced by a few studios.

[remo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiyo_2366 said:

First, because drawn animation always had multiple ways of suggesting depth. The figures were rotated in the artist's head before he or she ever put pen to paper. How could there be any rational reason to classify Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, which has some of of most viscerally intense depictions of vertical depth in any anime, as "2D animation"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that a "deep" scene in Nausicaa is executed in an artistic style that corresponds with the rest of the production. But when 2D and 3D animation are synthesized in the same work, it's painfully obvious as to which is which -- even in pretty nice examples like GitS:SAC. It's jarring to see organic, hand drawn images juxtaposed with sterile, CG-rendered constructs.

[golthin]

IT doesn't make any different to me. I don't much like 3D animation. I like just well animated stuff over any 3D animation.

[Falcon_73]

I generally like the last of the "2D" hand drawn cel based anime over the newer "2D/3D" CGI based shows. I've complained that the 2D computer shaded character models look too flat and are lacking in detail. Maybe they will eventually add additional shading that adds some depth, but it hasn't worked all that well for me so far. Also, mixing 2D computer shaded characters with 3D CGI still leaves me wanting in most cases.

[Suwako Moriya]

To be honest the main thing that bothers me about the debate is the almost blatant automatic hatred on both sides. It's fine to have preference. After all I prefer 2D, but still....

[something]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiyo_2366 said:
OK, I mean think about this for a second. It's all projected on a flat screen. Flat! You can go up to the screen and slap it with your hand and it's as flat as any painting. So literally speaking, there is no such thing as "3D animation."

[/ QUOTE ]

.../images/graemlins/sweat000.gif Well... obviously? =P

[ QUOTE ]
What we're talking about is different kinds of 2D animation that use different ways of suggesting the third dimension of depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't make the term suddenly unusable. Should we say "flat 2d versus 2d with simulated depth but which is really 2d because it's projected on a screen as well"? Way too unweildy, and "3d graphics" is an entirely accepted and long-standing way of describing a simulated third dimension on screen.

[ QUOTE ]
When I say this, people roll their eyes and say "yes, but everybody knows what we're talking about. We mean the difference between hand-drawn cel animation and computer animation that is rendered around a skeleton that can be rotated in 3 dimensions." And I agree all that is true, but meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless even when it looks completely different and is completely and utterly obvious? ...What? No really, what are you talking about? =P

[ QUOTE ]
This is not 1979 when computer animated figures were limited to regular shapes that rotated and bounced around in that canonical "computer animation" way. Every Japanese animation studio now uses computers for much of their production, and very few of their pieces have that "video-game 3D look" that you see in the second Appleseed movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I guess this thread was (maybe) partially inspired by my responses in the other thead, I'll continue to point out my personal view.. and my response to what I just quoted is... "And?" I have no problem with computer animation/painting. In fact, as I said, I prefer the cleaner look most of the time. But when you start rendering in 3d... ugh. Hideous, most of the time. And note, hideous is a subjective measure. But when it comes to whether or not I am entertained, only my opinion matters to me.

I mean, yes, I read the rest of your post but look at the shows now that are 2d (or a 2d/3d mix) and shows that are full 3dcg. The difference is massive and plain to see. I doubt you'd contest that point, but you do seem to think it's "meaningless"... and I really can't fathom how. It's like you're making the debate philosophical when I'd rather say "here, look, tell me what you see with your very eyes". Because that's what matters when you're watching the show.

[something]

[ QUOTE ]
Kiku Sarasugawa said:
To be honest the main thing that bothers me about the debate is the almost blatant automatic hatred on both sides. It's fine to have preference. After all I prefer 2D, but still....

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh I doubt you'll find many anime fans who "automatically hate" 2d animation because... well, they wouldn't have ever gotten into anime, would they =P As for hating *full 3dcg* animation, you got me there, but I don't try to hide it. I think it's hideous, and even when it's mixed in conservatively with 2d animation, it misses far more than it hits. When it's "not horribly annoying", that's pretty much where my standard for "success" is with this stuff.

It's just a subjective aesthetic preference, and my preference is to stay far away from fully 3dcg shows because they look simply horrid in my eyes -- and thats a pretty major strike against what is a visual entertainment medium.

[Suwako Moriya]

[ QUOTE ]
disarm said:
Heh I doubt you'll find many anime fans who "automatically hate" 2d animation because... well, they wouldn't have ever gotten into anime, would they =P

[/ QUOTE ]

True. 2D does have the advantage of being there first as well as being much more common to be honest. However when I said that I was speaking more in the general context of 3D vs 2D than just the anime side of it.

[bctaris]

[ QUOTE ]
disarm said:
It's just a subjective aesthetic preference, and my preference is to stay far away from fully 3dcg shows because they look simply horrid in my eyes -- and thats a pretty major strike against what is a visual entertainment medium.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now my avatar is crying. /images/graemlins/cry00000.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Fencedude]

I think a large number of people who "hate" 3DCG don't really comprehend how pervasive it is now.

And how often its used and they don't even realize it.

Also, it can do things that are impossible, or at least woudl be incredibly expensive to do with 2d animation.

[jecca-neko]

I don't call it 2D/3D personally. I call it cel animation and computer animation. Do I like one over the other? Not particularly. As long as it's enjoyable, I like it.

[jecca-neko]

[ QUOTE ]
Fencedude said:
I think a large number of people who "hate" 3DCG don't really comprehend how pervasive it is now.

And how often its used and they don't even realize it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's also been around longer than most people realize. Look at Disney's The Lion King. That came out about 12 years ago (1994).

[something]

[ QUOTE ]
bctaris said:
And now my avatar is crying. /images/graemlins/cry00000.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, who is your avatar, and from what show?

[something]

[ QUOTE ]
Fencedude said:
I think a large number of people who "hate" 3DCG don't really comprehend how pervasive it is now.
And how often its used and they don't even realize it.
Also, it can do things that are impossible, or at least woudl be incredibly expensive to do with 2d animation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a pretty clear line between full out 3dcg and various computer assisted things. From something like the Biancas in Stellvia or Bun-chan in Zettal Shounen, all the way to everything in FF7:AC, there's very little "gray area" involved. Since you'd need to be brain dead not to spot pretty much every instance of it, the remaining ones would be so insignificant as to hardly matter.

Right, we can't "hate" a technology in and of itself, because it's nothing if it isn't used. But I've never seen it used in a way that enhances a show, so a fully 3dcg production is completely beyond even being considered for me. No point in bothering with something I consider hideous when there's more than enough other stuff to watch.

[JackProton]

[ QUOTE ]
disarm said:
It's just a subjective aesthetic preference, and my preference is to stay far away from fully 3dcg shows because they look simply horrid in my eyes -- and thats a pretty major strike against what is a visual entertainment medium.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think all 3D CGI looks horrid though a lot of it does. I'm not certain just why this is. Part of the problem is, I think, that 3D CGI software is typically written to create "realistic" images. In addition, I suspect CGI stuff often misses the mark due to either laziness, lack of technique or cost cutting measures limiting the animators' labor in perfecting the images. I've seen CGI stuff that looked "hand made" and quite artful. I think with CGI its too easy to generate something that looks "OK" or "passable" but nowhere near as easy to use 3D CGI to create something unique and artisically pleasing and that matches the aesthetic of the 2D animation its mixed into.

[bctaris]

[ QUOTE ]
disarm said:
[ QUOTE ]
bctaris said:
And now my avatar is crying. /images/graemlins/cry00000.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, who is your avatar, and from what show?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asada, a female member of Leona Ozaki's squad in Dominion Tank Police, originating in the second Dominion manga series, Conflict: 1. The image though is from promotional material for the pure CG animated series (http://tank-swat.jp/index.html) based on that, seeing release on DVD next month in Japan.

For benefit of this thread, I personally think it looks pretty cool ('course I don't mind CG, whether 3D or otherwise...and I love Dominion /images/graemlins/wink.gif) with some decent cell-shading and composition reminiscent of the French/Japanese Oban Star Racer series being worked on.

EDIT: But speaking of another Shirow CG work, if you didn't like the look of the Appleseed movie, I doubt this would impress any better.

[Ty]

Most of the problem here is that when people say 2D vs. 3D all they really mean is computer rendered CG graphics vs. traditional looking animation (be it cel based or digitally painted). Perhaps some different terminology would help......

Your view of what constitutes 3D is almost philosophical in a way. Yes I can slap the flat surface of my tv screen (way to descriminate against us flunkies with curved tube CRT's btw! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif), but 3D can be defined in many ways. Physical depth vs. visible depth via shadow and color doesn't really matter to your eyes that much in the end I think. Your brain responds to the perception of 3D depth regardless.

[fantasydewdrop]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiyo_2366 said:
<font color="red">Warning: AOD has determined that the following post displays several features caracteristic of a rant. Read at your own hazard. </font> /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

OK, I mean think about this for a second. It's all projected on a flat screen. Flat! You can go up to the screen and slap it with your hand and it's as flat as any painting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, some paints are rather thick, so a painting can be suprisingly textured and have a little real depth and thickness.
Haven't seen any textured TVs, for that matter.:P

Personally, as long as I don't cringe at how jarring something looks and feel the need to comment about the quality or techniques used, I don't care how they animate something. They could be drawings glued to popsicle sticks that are designed like marrionettes and puppetiered by some skilled bunraku puppetieres for all I care.

[AutoGyro]

Some of the hand-painted oil-on-canvas portraits look as though they are 3D. So if someone wanted to take 5 years to make a short 15 minute piece of animation using something like that, I guess you can have a hand-painted "3D" animation /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Redcoffin]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
Most of the problem here is that when people say 2D vs. 3D all they really mean is computer rendered CG graphics vs. traditional looking animation (be it cel based or digitally painted).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I prefer the terms drawn vs rendered animation, but I stand by my assertion that there is not 2D/3D divide. There are different conventions for rendering the illusion of 3-dimensionality in a projection.

There is, in fact, such a thing as real 3D imaging, but it requires a binocular viewer, hologrammic technology, polarizied light or some other convention that actually puts a slightly different image into each eyeball. It's not particularly uncommon -- stereoscopes have been arouund for a hundred years -- but that isn't what we talk about when we talk about "3D vs 2D." We're talking about a specific kind of visual language that has been developed to delineate a 3-dimensional object on a single flat surface.

What we call "3D" animation arose out of engineering drawing and was originally performed (like, 30 years ago) by mainframe computers running technical drafting software. This software generated regular polygons (cubes, cones, etc.) which could be moved about. Multi-generations later, video-game designers still talk about how many millions of "polygons" they can get on the screen. It's not "more real-looking"; it's just another set of visual conventions for depicting shape on a flat surface.

A human artist does not create a flexible, rounded figure by piling up millions of rigid polygons, the way a computer does. This is why CGI and computer-rendered animation often seems stiff, flat, lacking in weight or presence. A really good human artist can, with a single pen stroke, suggest the hundred or more balanced forces that shape the stance of a standing person, while the computer has to go about tediously building up those forces and never gets it quite right. But that kind of drawing talent is rare and computers are common, and there are other cost advantages. Also, the "fake" look of CGA can be part of its charm.

But "2D vs 3D" seems to be a debate between terms that are so vague as to be meaningless. I'm upset with the terminology, more than anything.

[Lego]

I'm open to watching anything. As you mentioned with Advent Children, the CG was well done. I think the big problem a lot of people have with full 3D CG is that it oftens feels "hollow". If you get what I mean. While I won't dismiss something because it's in 3D CG, I guess I don't get the same feeling as I do from 2D animation with CG spliced in.

[Atomsk]

Personally I'm kind of indifferent towards 2d or 3d. Both techniques can be used to create something stunning or just something completely awfull. The most impressive 3D "style" I've seen is in the Ghibli shorts. In Ghiblies2 there's a part where some character thinks back about his childhood days. The textures of houses etc. look hand drawn, but they seem to be pasted on 3d models. The same technique can be seen in the curry commercials on the Ghibli shorts DVD.

In Karas there's also some impressive 3d animation, but at times it's just to "clean", which makes the movement kind of unrealistic.

As for 2D it suprises me how people can be so forgiving towards sloppiness and cutting corners to get the episode out on time. Love Hina for instance has a few specials where half of the artists probably took a vacation while the rest just scribbled some cells together. The Air movie has 2D animation that is waaay below even the most cheap-ass tv anime, yet many people state the animation is better than the Air TV series.. /images/graemlins/stunned0.gif I suppose the expectation of a movie having superior animation is influencing one's judgement quite a bit.

Anyway, the point is: 2D animation can be great, but requires more efford to keep quality at the same level. Start rushing an episode and the quality will drop noticably. 3D has the advantage that models will keep looking the same once you've designed them. Of course there are still a million ways to screw things up, but at least the 3D models will keep a consistant look.

[something]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiyo_2366 said:
But "2D vs 3D" seems to be a debate between terms that are so vague as to be meaningless. I'm upset with the terminology, more than anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

...It's seriously about as plain and obvious a distinction when you actually see it as can be. Any complaints and truly semantic nitpicking. It's just *right there* in front of your eyes and not recognizing one versus the other is downright impossible.

I stand by my assertion that the difference is both obvious and meaningful, and changing the terms adds nothing to the debate of consequence.

Edit: for what it's worth, I rarely specify "2d" vs 3d because it's just too obvious what 2d is. 2d is the standard baseline in which 99%+ of all anime is created, either wholly or primarily. Computer or hand created is irrelevant. Full 3dcg is the abnormal exception in anime and thus is specially singled out in the comparison. Remember, this is a matter of very plain, utilitarian practicality for me, not philosophical worries about how it's all 2d because it's on a flat screen and such. What I see is what I care about.