Can we finally stop the meme and admit that 3D animation

You're baiting, which is fine, I'm gonna' respond as if you are looking for legitimate conversation.

I think both have their pros and cons. I think that low-effort 3D looks WAY worse than low-effort 2D, and that high effort 2D looks WAY better than high effort 2D. 3D animation definitely has a place in storytelling in terms of budget and stylization. For instance I think Tron: Uprising would have been a worse show if it were 2D.

I personally would like to see us move into a space where 3D and 2D are blended seemlessly, like in Paperman (???) Pixar short, or when 2D is is integrated into 3D games and looks like a moving painting like Rayman Legends.

File: nova.png (507KB, 646x646px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 646x646px

But anon 3d animation only looks best when its mimicking 2d fully, like the very film in your pic.

Don't you think that proves something else?

>>93179703
>You're baiting
Nope

>I think that low-effort 3D looks WAY worse than low-effort 2D
They're even, see Video Brinquedo

>>93179719
2D animation didn't invent stylized images, in fact just look at all the 2D works that DONT look like the OP Pic.

>>93179687
Never.

>>93179687
This looks like a putrid canadian flash cartoon under lens flare and bloom.

>>93179782
You have no idea what you're talking about

Most people who care about animation can admit that 3D has surpassed 2D and /co/ is just salty that CompSci people can animate better than them now. In fact, name ONE 2D show on right now that has never used 3D elements?

>>93179861
>CompSci
why would people trying to find the code that will create an actual ai give a damn about animation?

File: IMG_1703.png (713KB, 1032x588px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1032x588px

>>93179687
Nice try babe.

>>93179891
Because CompSci people are nerds who still watch cartoons past the age of 12

File: IMG_4259.png (2MB, 1282x716px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1282x716px

>>93179896
You were saying?

File: 1485547702898.png (3MB, 2888x2168px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2888x2168px

>it's a "3D animation refuses to move beyond the same aesthetic dreamworks and Pixar have been using since the late 90s" episode

>>93179990
And 2D has?

File: ebf575e221bd5d86b914ff3babaa0bf7.jpg (536KB, 1777x1000px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1777x1000px

>>93180015

>movie that looks as if every scene was taken straight from a children book

File: IMG_4260.jpg (22KB, 255x197px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 255x197px

>>93180618

File: BigBadFox3-1000x817.jpg (92KB, 1000x817px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x817px

>>93180828

>>93180828
.......Really not equivalent though. Ernest and Celestine pulls off it's aesthetic infinitely better. The peanuts movie is good but it still looks like "3d doing peanuts" and not "peanuts in motion"

Name ONE thing 2D does better

>>93179687
both are fine. What I don't like is when 3d films have 2d animated parts or try to emulate 2d. the Peanuts movie and moana are both good examples.

There is an upcoming 2d animated feature film.

>>93182466
have a classic feel

File: barney.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>93182879
we know. its like 4 years too late, and looks like it.

>>93179990
Man, killer7's cel-shading was so good. Half of it was the work on lighting and shadows, but damn, did it make a creepy and cool aesthetic.

No I still hate 3D. It usually looks ugly and a ton of effort has to be put in to make it look good meanwhile only the shittiest 2D animation look bad.

>>93182466
Audience POV: Feels more organic because it has an illustrative feel since it IS illustrations moving.
Artist POV: You're able to exaggerate a drawing much easier than a 3D rig. Rigs often break and making them stretch and squash without clipping into itself is really hard. Just look at the entire fail reels of Merida and Rapunzel's hair flying all over the place.

On the flip side, 3D allows for more seamless camera movements, you're able to get more movement out of a rig during a deadline than 2D animation, it's easier to tweak a 3D animation, and often times the program will do the small in-betweens for you to smooth out motions. However, making 3D look as good without resorting to cel-shading requires an immense team, skill, and budget. Just compare that one bra commercial imitating Disney CG that has a noticeable missing element of stretch and squash and little technical details that makes it feel cheaper.

2D allows the artist to have much more control, is easier to do on a small budget, can emulate a variety of styles much easier, and pencil tests can be done much faster compared to CG blocked out tests.

>>93183141
>only the shittiest 2D animation look bad.

And it's not the same for 3D because?

>>93179687
3D animation is putrid everywhere and always. 2D will forever be king, even if unrecognized.

CGI, OTOH, can be awesome in the very few cases it's used correctly: to animate 2D scenes that are all but impossible to do by hand (see Duck Dodgers for some amazing examples).