In 3D you don’t have this dynamic moment of transfer from your mind to canvas. You can just let all your emotions flow into your strokes and, for example, create a very strong and “emotional” line of action to build your character around. Many good 2D animators (one of them is Glen Keane) talk about how your pencil or brush is like a direct extension of your mind and feelings. (c) Sergio Pablos Animation Studiosīut while the shading sticks out as the highlight, I think it’s the drawing underneath that might be the main advantage of this technique. In “Klaus” every frame looks like it could have been the concept art for itself.
This is why very few people attempted to actually paint animation – there are some glorious exceptions, but seriously this is an insane and unhealthy amount of work, which is why I hope that the “Klaus” team found an effective method to speed things up. While a single image can be done much faster in pure 2D, faking 2D in 3D has been just so much more effective for creating many pictures. Until recently it was pretty laborious to give an animation a painted 2D look. And this probably is the most important strength of this approach. It brings the end result and the initial vision so close together. A final frame looks like it was created with the tools of the concept art (which it probably wasn’t – at least that’s what I hope for the sanity of the colorist). In “Klaus” the final image probably looks nearly identical to the concept art – simply because it doesn’t switch dimension. Many people complain that a lot of CG productions simply don’t have the charm of the original concept art and maybe this is because of the imitation step literally separating two different “worlds”. Some things that are easy to do in 2D need a lot of perperation and know-how in 3D. There are some truly amazing pieces of 3D work that come pretty close to the 2D originals it was inspired by (motion-wise: the new CG Loney Tunes shorts, Hotel Transylvania, Peanuts Movie look-wise: Paperman, Feast), but you could argue that those methods are always “just” an imitation. Especially in cartoon styles, the 3D result often times is a pretty direct “imitation” of 2D aesthetics, weirdly blending realistic lighting with not so realistic, stylized motion. Only after a lot of time and work those grey models start to look appealing.Īnd what is used to develop the look to come out of the 3D production chain? Beautiful 2D concept art! It can create a “final” look so much faster, which is why every CG production uses mock-ups and blueprints created with traditional drawing and painting techniques. There is one big problem with 3D CGI: In its early stages it doesn’t “automatically” have the appeal that a quick scribble or some rough colors done by a skilled artist can already have.
0 kommentar(er)
