So how difficult is cgi animation compared to 2d animation?

>>77747368
More difficult & more expensive in my experience but I guess big animation studios think it looks good.

>>77747368
Difficulty is a relative thing. THere's shit 2d, and shit 3d, just as there is good 2d and good 3d.

As for price, it's generally a fair amount cheaper and faster. It's more efficient in general. 2d just usually looks better, which is unfortunately a subjective statement on my part. If it was outright fact, maybe it wouldn't have died.

Cheaper in the long term. You're able to build various assets which can be used for sequels and other products. It also helps that you have more control over the scene and can make changes as you go along instead of having to redo everything over again.

I have a feeling things may change though, as 3D artists are starting to demand more money.

>>77747368
Not very difficult

CGI animation is cheap and easy enough for anyone to do.

2D is MUCH harder, CGI requires no effort at all.

File: 1446452894685.png (147KB, 359x631px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 359x631px

>>77747433
>It's more efficient in general
Then how come there aren't that many CGI shows airing now?
I can only think of that Transformers one.

>>77747493
Prime doesn't even air anymore, it's ended

>>77747491
Well CGI requires specalist software and good hardware to render everything, while 2D animation has been made using everything (painted glass, sand, Flipbooks)
>>77747505
I was referring to Transformers: Robots in Disguise, which is ending anyway (after Season 2 and a Finale Movie)

>>77747493
There has never been a popular CGI TV show
If TV gets a Shrek and all the 2D shows start doing terribly then you'll start seeing a lot more.

>>77747491
Really? I thought it would be harder

>>77747368
2d is "low tech" so there is a lot of work involved and requires talent but any one can do it as long as they get the concept. you can do 2d on paper or computer and it dose not require lots of rendering.

3d has a lot of corner cutting if you want but some talent is needed. most of your time and money lots of money will be spent on software and hardware and my require lots of rendering and the use of a third party dedicated rendering company conveniently used thru the internet.

mostly there the same tho in terms of how painful it is to do one or the other.

most useless none artist like to do the 3d stuff so there is a lot of big budget shit. on the same hand lots of shit artist just do flash animation and game grumps.
your question dose not really have a answer sorry.

File: 12345679987654345678.png (26KB, 775x591px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 775x591px

Is stop motion animation more expensive and harder to make than 3D CGI?

>>77747610
Not at all.

>>77747390
They don't care how it looks, they about how much money Pixar and Dreamworks make off of it and think CG is an easy way to make money.

>>77747493
>Then how come there aren't that many CGI shows airing now?
Off-hand, I can name several:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Star Wars Rebels
Alvin and Chipmunks
Descendants Wicked World
Soon: Miraculous Ladybug
Most of Disney Junior shows: PJ Masks, Goldie and Bear, Miles from Tomorrowland (great show actually), Kate and Mim Mim, Mickey Mouse Cucкhouse, Sofia The First, Sheriff Callie, Wild West, Chuggington, Doc MacStuffins

+ a bunch of CGI shows made in Europe

>>77747554
>There has never been a popular CGI TV show
What about all those Dreamworks shows? (penguins of Madagascar, All Hail King Julian, The Adventures of Puss in Boots)

>>77747491
>CGI animation is cheap
Than why do most cgi films cost more to make than most 2d films?

>>77747493
This is a purely uneducated guess, but it could be the same reason movies tend to be in 24 fps. People have a tendency to associate certain aesthetics with their mediums, and if people are used to 2D animation for TV shows studios might avoid producing 3D for fear of alienating their audience.

Easier for character animation, harder for enciroments and backgrounds

>>77747493
Because if you get cheap enough with Flash or garbage like it, 2d is indeed cheaper. I know everyone love SU and GF, but both are pretty cheap and poorly animated compared to anything good in the 80s-90s, and of course the 30s-50s. I mean, hanna barbera stuff was cheaper than fast food. CG can get that cheap, too (Jimmy Neutron and all those knockoffs of Disney movies), but will look worse than garbage.

>>77747731
Cheap 2D looks "stylized", cheap 3D looks antiquated.

>>77747751
Thank you, that's the concise phrasing I was looking for. It's a little on the late side for me.

It seems like 2D animation gives you more room to make errors. With CGI the smallest errors/details can ruin it.

Why aren't there professional low budget shows animated in SFM or Gmod?

>>77747491
>cheap
>easy
Liar. Every scene, every movement needs serious manual adjusting or it will look terrible. A good CGI cost much more than traditional 2D but 3D is hip and people pay to see these kinds of movies.

>>77747627
But how? Stop motion seems like a laborous bitch to make.

Any skill has some difficulty learning. It all really comes down to the user and how well they can pick it up.

Honestly any medium of animation can be made really well even though we think the medium is shit. Look at how people hate on Flash animation but look at what happens when people who actually know to use it to it's full extent come up with awesome shit like Dofus.

>>77747674
It costs a lot of money for the equipment and whatnot but once you have all the assets made you can re-use them to your heart's content.

>>77747368
Making good 3D models is harder than drawing a good 2D character, but the thing about CGI is that once you have the model, all you have to do is pose and animate it. Not saying that's super easy, but it's a hell of a lot less work than drawing the whole thing over for every keyframe.

File: tumblr_mazbv0L2lk1rgbr6wo1_500.gif (998KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 500x250px

>>77747433
>>77747491
>As for price, it's generally a fair amount cheaper and faster.
>CGI animation is cheap and easy enough for anyone to do.
Where the fuck do you people keep getting this from? Despite the fact that budgets are freely available at a quick glance on google you people persist on pulling this bullshit right out of your ass because, I don't know, it 'feels right' to you or something?

File: 3455_1.jpg (262KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 728x409px

>>77748406
Here's the thing that you're forgetting. You're not JUST modelling the characters. You're also modelling all the background assets, for every single scene. You have to rig up and texture map and model and UV map and set bones on and light and make absolutely everything on every single set (and there's going to be a whole lot of sets in any modern AAA movie), you're not JUST making characters. This is why 3D is more expensive then 2D by the way- with 2D every background is more or less the same amount of work, done by a small team of/even a single background artist. On top of that there's also R&D budgets to create new technology, unless you're a small studio that's piggybacking off the R&D of other studios. And then there's the animation itself, which while easier then 2D doesn't mean they can just slap their cocks on their keyboards for a full day and call it a night, it's still difficult and time consuming work.

When people on /co/ think of 3D they seem to have it in their heads that the process goes "make character in a couple of days -> press a button and let the computer puppet it around -> movie done!"

>>77748364
This only takes effect over the course of a long production. I'm talking like over multiple seasons before the cost ratio balances out in favor of CG.

And even in such a case, there's a general tendency to upgrade the visuals of a CG show as ir goes on so those cost savings from reusing assets are eaten up anyways.

>>77747368
More difficult, but less time-consuming. Hollywood loves its CGI because they can churn them out way faster than traditional animation

ITT: People pulling shit out of their ass because of "muh 2D"

>>77748562
So why 2D animation is always trying to use 3D shortcuts to save money?

it is easier to get good results in a dynamic point of view in 3D than in 2D.

>>77748703
The labor takes less time, but the rendering takes fucking forever if you're making anything worth watching.

>>77747491
This sounds like BS.

>>77747751
>Cheap 2D looks "stylized", cheap 3D looks antiquated.
The crux of it right there. CG needs to be cutting edge to look good, and most TV shows that try to use it come up looking terrible.

>>77748794
>it is easier to get good results in a dynamic point of view in 3D than in 2D.
Well that goes without saying, since the whole thing is a 3D model. Back when they made Bambi, the actually had panes of painted glass with trees on them that they would shift across the screen to show a panning shot, and it looked pretty good, but if you were honest with yourself, you could see how flat it was. Something like that is infinitely more easy with CGI, and yields better results.

>>77747368
Where is that pic from?

>>77748794
Thats called post-production. Filmmaking has gotten a lot stricter since early 2001, so anything where the actual "making" can be reduced in favor of improving the film in post-prod is more than welcome. Hence why so many movies gets greenscreened nowadays

>>77748942
It is the whole point. 3D allow you to do things that would be absurdly expensive in 2D and thus are never done unless you actually make it in 3D and make it looks like 2D.

To make a dynamic camera in 2D without the aid of 3D you would need people to draw every object in the entire scene frame by frame making it inviable so what we really get is a "close enough" but never the real thing.

So if you are making a 2D movie with the same action and camera angles of a 3D movie it will be absurdly expensive.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 350x309px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 350x309px

>>77748956
Mune

>>77747865
Not quite. Time consuming and tedious? You bet. But not quite laborious.