Monday, December 19, 2005

Fun Essay on 2d vs 3d animation

My good buddy Tim Hodge has posted an essay of his on his blog looking at the challenges and changes in animation from a 2d/3d lense. Go check it out. It's well written, thoughtful and a very fun read if not a tad crumudgeonly. Kinda like Tim. Only not as ugly. He's also got a fun sort story on the blog and some sketches, too. A real rennaissance man. Check it out.

9 comments:

Josh Bowman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

curmudgeonly is not the word...

Keith Lango said...

Heh. I like that Tim has an opinion and isn't afraid of having one. :)

-k

Lars van Schagen said...

Mmm i like Hodge's comments about Animation but i don't find they are very scientific. Also he is overlooking some of the limitations of the medium and being sentimental about 2d. It's not bad though i myself could'nt help but cry when seeing the 2d film Hunchback of Notre Dame last week. But that's beside the point. My point is that even Disney animators strived for a more 3d quality too they're work. esspecially in Pinochio (see illusion of life for this). They wanted that shadow they wanted that depth. And now all to the help of computers animators can pursue hybrids of 2d animation in 'photo realistic' settings. And how cool is that! The audience loves it we animators love why hate it? Because it's a trend? but anyways i'll have too translate my full paper on believabilityin animation some day because there is a lot more to animation than meets the eye!

Keep em comming!

Greets Lars

Tim said...

Hey Keith,
Thanx for the plug!
And if I may answer Lars, I wasn't really trying to be scientific about it. Just wanted to rant. Maybe I was misunderstood (the story of my life, eh?). What I wanted to say was: 1. "3D" animation isn't really three dimensional any more than a live action film or puppet animation. 2. "2D" Animation is no less dimensional because it is drawn on paper. That's just my little soapbox. I know I'm not going to change the nomenclature of our industry with a measly blog post.
Yes, I wasn't trying to overlook the dimensional efforts of early Disney. I watch in awe at those effects and shadow layers. I simply meant to say that shadows don't make animation better by themselves anymore than Lautrec's paintings are better than his flat color screen prints.
I love good animation, traditional or CG, and loathe bad animation in either form. I love good storytelling, whatever the medium. But, alas, I do have sentimental leanings toward the craft of cel animation. And while I believe it is NOT inherently better than CG simply because of the method, I am saddened to see a good friend all but forgotten. (sniff!)
I appreciate your perspective, Lars. You bring up some great points. I wasn't trying to step on toes.

Tim said...

P.S. I just posted another essay on staging, if you'll pardon the shameless self-promotion. Coulda written a book, but I kept it to a few paragraphs to start.

"Brian" said...

You think he's curmudgeonly about this, try calling something an "Animation"

bill jacoby said...

...or plural, "Animations" hehe! Semantics can be useful though (if not necessary) when discussing a subject so amorphous as art or animation.

"brian" said...

Hey Bill! Cold enough for ya? It's 67 here in Franklin today.