2D can't be translated to 3D well

Can’t wait for the 3D porn of her.

cute!!!

Attached: chiseled jaw.jpg (604x453, 29K)

If the lighting was better it could.

The fact that the middle and right renders looks almost like different models shows the craftsmanship at work. Very good use of posturing on top of good modeling.

The shading is just shit. Their skin is casting dark ass shadows and any render that's trying to mimic 2d art needs less polarizing flesh tones.

Attached: 1551012540012.webm (840x840, 2.93M)

Two things changed here besides the 2d/3d change. In the final version she's wearing mittens which takes out a lot of the expressiveness in her hands and fingers. We also change angle of the subject compared to the one she's talking to, this limits full body turns into just eye movements and minor head tilts. It's not just just the medium, it's the composition of the whole scene.

I thought this was porn

It can. Just look at FighterZ game.

It kind of is hard, as some styles translate more easily from 2D to 3D or vice versa. Sure, there's skill needed to animate, but even then there are some styles that just don't translate so well from one realm to the other.

Also her bangs in the 2d version add energy to her movements making them more engaging. Its not that 3d was unable to convey that, it's that this scene went from stationary sitting to being in a moving vehicle outdoors, so the bangs movement is dominated by wind instead of by expression. Again, composition is the fault and not medium.

Maquette? Are you fucking French or something?
Hmmm, maybe Russian with shitty English skills.

>It's not hard, it just requires more skills
Exactly what the fuck is your definition of "hard" if not something that is demanding of skill.

faggots

If you are skilled in a trade the trade isn't "hard". Walking is hard for someone stuck in a wheel chair user, doesn't mean it's actually difficult for anyone else.

That isn't what I asked, autist.

To be fair, a lot of anime seem to be easier to translate into 3D than western cartoons. Probably due to the fact that anime in general never get too bonkers with the body types, just the eyes and hair. Meanwhile, cartoons run the range of looking fairly realistic, to just having the characters be mishmashes of shapes with either lots of sharp angles, or rounded features.

The subject of "hard" is only for those incapable of doing the task efficiently. To a trained artist it is not hard. To a plebeian such as yourself, MMD animations would be difficult.

Attached: 1526795698034.jpg (359x420, 38K)

Two posts in a row you've told me what isn't hard instead of answering my question about what is hard. Is this too hard for you? Were you hoping to distract me with petty personal insults hoping I wouldn't notice you tried to dodge the question twice?

>literally defined that a skill is not difficult for a person skilled in it's trade
>BuT WhAt iS DiFfiCuLt
You have autism, seek help.

Clearly you haven't seen their process of actually making the game.

I asked what your definition of hard was, because it seems to be different from the rest of the worlds. Instead of telling me what you think hard means, you've been giving me examples of things you say aren't hard. That is the opposite of what I asked.
>literally defined that a skill is not difficult...
Correct, you did do that. You defined what it is not, I asked what it is. Tell me what you think this word means so I can properly tell you why you're wrong and the entire rest of the world disagrees with you.

What of it? The point is that a lot of anime have styles that can work in both 2D and 3D more often than western cartoons.

But did they make those changes so it would be easier to animate?

>actually thinks that something is "difficult/hard" after years of training in it
If you spent years of your life training to run 100m dash and found it "hard" It wasn't. It's you who is soft.

Is it relevant? The cause of the fault doesn't change what the fault is. It would still be composition regardless of why it happened.

Thank you for telling me yet another example of what isn't hard. Now tell me what does hard mean. Stop telling me what isn't hard. This isn't complicated.

Do people just not get that detailed irises do not look good on cartoony eyes? Why the fuck do modellers insist? Also why puff out cheeks so much? It's unnecessary to make mouths work in 3D.

>If you are skilled in a trade the trade isn't "hard"
>To a trained artist it is not hard
>a skill is not difficult for a person skilled in it's trade
>If you spent years of your life training to run 100m dash and found it "hard" It wasn't
Goddam yeah, every single post you just list tasks and say they aren't hard. Just define a fuckin word, you retard.

James Baxter can do it, but not many people can. It takes top-notch skills. As in "Disney has this guy who does it" top notch.
youtube.com/watch?v=5osZk9Mw94w

Baxter only does 2D, how is this relevant at all?

Each of those statements tells you exactly what isn't hard. If your brain is so pathetic that it can't piece together the rest without being told you must clearly be Chinese.

You sound like a tryhard who probably toots his horn to people about what he learned in a few weeks of uni and acts like that makes him the defacto expert in a discussion. Sure, maybe it's not "hard" in the impossible sense, but it's still "hard" to take a 2D style and make it work in 3D because of various factors. Yes, animation is one, but there are things like how the shape of the character is now being given full dimensions instead of just the ones seen from whatever angles are used in the original 2D. Phineas would probably look downright horrifying in 3D, and I'm not just meaning that live-action costume abomination.

No fuck you you dumb shit, answer the fucking question or admit you don't know, and avoiding answering is the same as admitting that.

He draws a 2D rendering of a 3D mental object derived from 2D designs. Look at the video. Change the rendering style, and they'd fit right in a 3D production. Like that composite scene in The Beauty and the Beast, for example.

That's not how these things work. By refusing to state a true claim you're avoiding being accountable for its veracity. If you actually think you're right, you should state what you think hard means with full confidence that no one would be able to disprove or deny it. Do you lack that confidence?

>2D rendering of a 3D mental object
Olympic level mental gymnastics. He draws things he imagines, wow what a revolutionary, no one else does this.

So basically, you didn't think it through and you're stalling. I think that thing about hoping he'd be distracted by petty insults was actually true now.

I actually feel quite good at the level of salt I've gotten from you over a simple word. You clearly don't belong here newfriend.

>herp derp make my thesis for me
>prove yourself wrong, if you don't then that means I'm right and you're stupid
What the actual fuck. This is bait right?

Depends on the artist, if you're some chink hired by a major company. Yes the model is going to look like shit. If you're a fan who wants to recreate what the character looks like, you'll have yourself a decent model.

There aren't many people who can do it like pic related.

Attached: Moses.gif (500x353, 2.84M)

Either that or Chris chan level autism.

>s-s-samefag!
Whew ladle, and now comes further deflections.

What's more sad is you actually think things are "hard". It's adorable. I bet you wake up go to work and cry about how hard your job is.

Yeah he's good, no one in their right mind would deny that, except that one autist here who would probably say it doesn't count as "good" anymore since he has such high skill. But being a really good 2d animator doesn't make you a 3d animator.

Whoa whoa, hard as a concept just doesn't exist at all in your mind? What the fuck, actually define hard right the fuck now. I demand to see this new level of autism.

>I was only pretending to be retarded
Part of me wants to believe that this isn't true, mostly because it's as dated as the word "glomp" is and I like to think nobody does this anymore.

Only thing that's sad is how you actually seem to believe you're even remotely in the right when you haven't even provided a single example of what you consider hard. You haven't even tried to make an anecdotal example, you just puke up a mess of words and go "see, it's so simple" like a smug cunt.

No nothing is hard. Things can be difficult that does not make them "hard". Things can be complex. That does not make them "hard". Someone who uses the term hard to describe something doesn't have the ability to actually do or detail the task at hand. They don't understand the task is quite easy to do.

Maybe you would like the term of hard to be "I am too retarded to understand this so it must be hard". Purely defined by the persons lack of understanding. Or in other words, a retarded persons view on the world.

>posts 4 seconds apart
>inb4 s-s-samefag...

>he doesn't know

>Things can be difficult that does not make them "hard"
Well you're objectively incorrect here, but we'll get back to that later. You just said a few more things that you think don't mean "hard", and still haven't said what you think does mean "hard".
What
Do
You
Think
That
Word
Means

>objectively incorrect
Can you name one.

>the definition of hard
solid, firm, and rigid; not easily broken, bent, or pierced. Or were you wanting your American hip-hop version?

There are different people to handle all those tasks, and 3D animation ultimately requires less skill because the process can be atomized into so many discreet tasks that can all be fiddled with until they are just right.

>Traditional 2D modeling techniques have been doable in 3D for a very long time, very easily.
Even if all of them are ultimately achievable in 3D one way or another, they are still difficult to do and go against the nature of 3D animation.

If you're talking about making hand-drawn animation in a three-dimensional way, that's totally routine in Japan. Much more than it was at Disney.

No, I said we'd get to that later. First answer the question. Tell us what you think "hard" means. Give one definition. Everyone is waiting for it, it should be so simple. Define "hard". Then I will tell you what the actual definition is and why you are objectively incorrect. Definitions of words are a matter of absolute fact, and I can't tell you how you're wrong until you solidify your claim. Now do it.

>there are different people to handle all of those task
LaughesInManagement.jpg

>he has literally said what is hard 5+ times
>anons can't get over it because it's not what they want
Child enough. Shit posting is against the rules here.

What did he mean by this?
One way he's wrong? One anecdote of something that's hard? Does he have his own private definition of one like he does for hard? Is he just retarded?

>huurr, you're a kid
Oh look, a non argument from a retard who can't just give their answer straight.

Sad that you would resort to samefag after accusing others of it first. But no, you only have said what it isn't. You even admitted to only saying what it isn't when you called everyone else stupid for not extrapolating what it is from what it isn't, are you calling yourself a liar? Say what hard means.

The fact you can't accept nothing is difficult is sad. It's like your entire life depends on it, probably because you've failed at many things and given up on many things because you saw them as too "hard" when it was just your own lack of will to get over the hurdle of self doubt.

Attached: Roxxane.jpg (766x706, 66K)

Ok, I guess Disney just fabricates their credits.

The fact that you think nothing can be hard or difficult is just laughable. You literally do sound like a tryhard just flexing like some autist and going "yea, I'm so cool and great!" and acting like life has no actual challenge to it at all.

Fine, whatever, let's assume hard is a made up word and a fake concept, so what is that fake concept. What does it mean. I know what a tie fighter is, I can describe it and define it even though it isn't real. What does hard mean?

>comparing a hundred million dollar budget to an animated TV series
You aren't helping yourself here you know.

To be fair, you have to have a pretty high IQ to transcend difficulty as a concept.

When was it specified that we're talking about TV animation? Well, if you look at the credits for Clone Wars you can see there are many more credits than just animator.

It's actually more about the fact at you don't know to have any position within the industry you have to understand at least 3 different skillsets in the field. No one will hire an animator, a modeler, or a texture artist by themselves. The industry is highly competitive in the developed world to get positions. Sure if you live in a third world trash heap you could probably get away with being only an animator. After all you are paid like 20 cents an hour.

Doesn't change the fact that 3D animation is divided into different tasks done by different people, and that everything can be incrementally tweaked until they're just right. It's not as much of an artform as hand-drawn animation.

Hard
/härd/
Requiring a great deal of endurance or effort.
Putting a lot of energy into an activity.
Difficult to bear; causing suffering.

Definitions vary with the source, but consistently throughout sources hard is defined as some task that is demanding or otherwise tasking. A surgeon performing an 9 hour procedure will always find it physically taxing, no matter how good he is at surgery, and as such it is objectively hard. Hard is not defined by a risk of failure or a lack of assuredness in any source.

>But being a really good 2d animator doesn't make you a 3d animator
Speak precisely. You can see the 3D structure of the things he draws, right? That's 3D animation. It's not computer-modeled 3D, but that's not the entirety of 3D animation.

>lists a definition
>proceeds to give his own definition afterwards
Not how it works buddy.

No, stop, we're not going through this whole thing where we try to redefine terms to make someone seem right again. If you were right, there would be no such thing as 2d animation at all.

I see you still have yet to post your own definition, despite me being exceedingly charitable by going first.

I don't think I'm a furry but this girl and Lola bunny make my dick hard.

animation is one of those crafts people with no intimate knowledge of should not talk about. you truly can't understand it unless you have made it and understand the process (and don't suck at it)

>If you didn't study x from x you have no right to talk about x or will be to understand it or be good at it.
The absolute state of (You)

Open and shut.

spoken like a true pleb. git gud, then you can talk with the adults. until then, you're just a child who watches cartoons

A lot of people who boast about being animation students or even professional animators (whatever that's supposed to mean today) don't understand it either.

hence why i added the "don't suck at it" part. some people just aren't cut out for it no matter how hard they try. i saw plenty of people chip away at it for years and hardly improve. most of them gave up.

Its possible to be a good animator without having the hands for animation.

>the hands for animation.
what exactly do you mean by this

Its an expression. Hands for animation means the personal art skill.

Are you a stupid child that's trying to talk a big game but is completely clueless about the animation industry?

you can learn most of the basic principles of animation without having 'art skill', but if you aren't good at the fundamentals of drawing you can only get so far.

-x

yes.
You can animate something without ever touching a pencil or drawing stylus
>use circle tool and rectangle tool for basic skeleton
>use a curved line tool where you mark each anchor point and then adjust the angles. you can even have it automatically alter stroke width as if it were drawn with an ink pen

Now make it move. Now light it.

Thought so.

>Speak precisely. You can see the 3D structure of the things he draws, right? That's 3D animation.
That's called "full animation", smartguy. It's an official term; learn it.

Full animation usually means 24fps animation.

Full animation means everything moves and looks like it moves 3-dimensionally. You don't need it to be strictly on ones for it to work.

I have never heard anyone use that definition, and American animation has never been big on three-dimensionality.

Can't tell if bait or genuinely stupid.

Attached: 1528387095334.png (404x399, 364K)

South Park is 2D computer animation. Dimensionality and working medium are independent of each other. Definitions matter. What do you think 3D animation is?

Never been big on three-dimensionality when? Because before limited animation became popular, everyone was doing it. Disney literally push his men to achieve that WITHOUT rotoscoping. It's the kind of thing CalArts was teaching before John K shat on them.

>when
Since the very beginning. American animation has always favored flat, stage-like presentation.

Attached: Got a tramp steamer.gif (402x336, 1.03M)

There is something about the center of the paddle wheel that looks off and is making the animation look terrible.

The 3D animation seems like shes movig more franticly while 2D looks smoother.

you could've just posted anime statues

What do her goof poops smell like?

2d Animation will always be superior to 3d.

>The fact that the middle and right renders looks almost like different models shows the craftsmanship at work. Very good use of posturing on top of good modeling.
explain

Who said that? Literally all 3d models start as 2d images to get their basic body plans down. Now 2d to real life is a different matter. Though I can imagine Roxanne being a redheaded light skin latina/spanish girl.

Lisa > Roxanne

>someone posted a character so now i HAVE TO state some kind of opinion on the character

Have sex ;)

Kill yourself, degenerate leftist.

You seem upset

You seem like a degenerate leftist.

This will help e a lot with my Mike drawings .
Thanks . :D

Yes , you can translate most of the 2d designs into a 3d form , BUT you have to take some liberties.

Attached: d1qhwrv-f1f1a937-f67e-4d63-b694-16cfffe5f6f8.jpg (507x617, 101K)

Attached: 1539433830842.jpg (1918x1080, 124K)

Hey, can someone please make sure the mods banned the dumbass who was actually spamming Endgame spoilers last night?

All I posted was this: desuarchive.org/co/search/filename/Wonder Woman cosplayer who's being spammed on this board as a means of spoiling Endgame/

The pic was just to let everybody know of the GIF version that was being spammed like crazy. If I’m gonna be banned for no reason, the real culprit might as well be, too.

Attached: 5EC90145-6A5C-4587-9EB8-EE15AC70BD78.png (245x245, 44K)

THIS GOD DAMN, between detailed iris, nostrils, and lips its like they look at the reference and are like yeah adding extra detail will be fine. Its not like it distracts or is off putting.

holy fucking shit are you retarded?

>Kristoff looks better in CGI
I do not like this

>boo hoo someone spoiled me in Yea Forums
your fault for not avoiding Internet, even fb is full of spoilers atm

Attached: 1525542414313.gif (346x195, 2.66M)

Possible, but these are also entirely different scenes. You can tell in the upper scene she's talking to him directly to him and most likely with endearment whereas she's distracted and venting to him in the bottom scene. It's kind of hard to judge when they're not going for the same vibe.

There's a pencil test for him as well

youtube.com/watch?v=H4haFGU-sbk

G U I L T Y
E
A
R

This one isn't so bad. Phineas and Ferb however...

Um, ackuallly, sweetie, it's NOT hard. You, like, just don't have the skill and skill is everything and nothing's difficult because I totally know how to hack life.

This is where skilled texturing, lighting and even post production come into play. I don't think people realize how much of a difference that makes. A completely shit base model can look amazing with the right maps on it. There's just so much extra work to do on 3d compared to 2d.

the fuck are you talking about retard

Anyone else think the 2D ones feel a lot more accessible and friendly? Like the 3D ones would blow you off if you tried to approach them?

You know, things aren't hard and like, totally are easy and never challenging for people and so you're the dumb for thinking that an art style can't work in 3D

Can you explain your argument like a human being please

It's simple, things are never hard and you totally don't know what hard is because it's all totally easy if you've got skill and aren't suck.

unless one takes some minor liberties on the construction.

she looks like coco if she became a dog and had red hair

Who?

crash bandicoot's sister

s a u c e