AuthorTopic: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)  (Read 6640 times)

Offline xhunterko

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 365
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

on: June 11, 2010, 02:57:18 am
So, before I started to do pixel art I dabbled into 3d work a little bit. I never really practiced it because I found the programs either to difficult to learn or a lack of good tutorials. So I said I can draw why not try pixel art? Or I thought I could draw at least. However, during my short trip in 3d I came across a number of forums and galleries and came across a reccuring claim. The thing was, that someone who couldn't draw worth crap (with pictures to prove it) could however, create a fully "working" coffee pot, ship, plane, car, or what have you in 3d and it look excellent. I always dismissed the claims that a 3d artist could do have excellent 3d modeling work and not excell in 2d in any form. Because clearly in order to work with 3d, you have to understand art to begin with, or at least I think.

So I'm asking you guys. Is it even possible that someone could be better in 3d art then they are working with any 2d art form? I mean, don't the same principles apply? Or were those 3d modelers just pulling people's legs?

Offline gennoveus

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #1 on: June 11, 2010, 04:01:24 am
Isn't art just as much about visualising an image in your head, and understanding it's shape in 3D, as it is about the actual drawing?

Although making 3D models and painting an oil painting probably require completely different sets of skills to actually get the art from your brain to the page [screen], everything that goes on in your mind (concept, understanding shapes, colours, etc) is probably quite similar.

So IMO there might be a fair bit of overlap.

Offline Mathias

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1795
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • im not real
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/9542.htm
    • View Profile

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #2 on: June 11, 2010, 05:48:02 am
One big difference is that with 3D the machine does so much more work for you than if you're drawing in 2D by hand.

Offline zeid

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 200
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Pixel Class

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #3 on: June 11, 2010, 06:35:13 am
Quote
The thing was, that someone who couldn't draw worth crap (with pictures to prove it) could however, create a fully "working" coffee pot, ship, plane, car, or what have you in 3d and it look excellent.
This is actually true, you can make things that look good in 3d without much art background, however what you can get away with is limited.  The fact that all of those can be constructed in a very technical fashion is why people can do it without any drawing ability.

Here is a conversation I had with a programmer friend of mine;
me - "That optimus prime model looks great."
him - "Yeah I made it in 3ds Max."
me - "Well if you like 3d you should give zbrush a go."
him - "Oh I tried it, I hated it. It was way too..."
me - "Organic."
him - "Exactly."

Because he didn't have a big art background he didn't appreciate zbrush, a much more organic and artist friendly (in my opinion) graphics program.  Where as 3ds max and maya have a very technical feel to the way you make the geometry.  You typically create image planes of the different perspectives of an object and then move individual vertices around to match up.

All that said, this has it's limitations.  You will eventually need a level of artistic understanding higher then this to achieve a better quality of work.  For instance, without colour theory how will you make interesting or creative textures.  Without an understanding of anatomy, you will strugle to put together a humanoid creature.  What about finer details of a creature.  But the big one is, they wont be able to create something from scratch.  They always need a reference image/possibly many and they can't make their own.

It's kind of like the difference between tracing and drawing from scratch.  People can become really good at tracing, but it doesn't mean they have artistic ability.
View my Devlog... unless you aren't ready to have your mind blown.

Offline Argyle

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 269
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Futuristic beep boop.
    • argylebox
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/13899.htm
    • valsaurus
    • View Profile
    • ArgyleBox | Designs by Valouria Saurus (VERY OUTDATED)

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #4 on: June 11, 2010, 02:21:11 pm
3D can have a lot more to do with math and geometry to make things successfully, at least basic things anyway, than it would be for somebody without a mind that can render form in a 2D environment to actually look like what it should look like based on its 3D shape. You know a mug is a hollow cylinder with a cap on the bottom and a handle.  If you can use some simple tools to make that in 3D then add a simple color and lightsource to it, it will look great - Hey, I recognize that to be a mug, good job!  But doing so in 2D, if you're not trying to make a flat looking piece, you would have to know how to present that object to have a mocked up depth by way of shading, shadow, etc, without the use of that Z axis.  This is just a very basic example, but it can be applied to different things.

One can have a good understanding of things in a 3-dimensional sense and not be an artist.  They could mimic something they see on their desk and eventually create a 3D model of it exactly just by measuring it and re-creating one piece at a time, but if they went and tried to draw it on a page, they'd be at a loss if they tried to make it look nearly as nice looking without the automated processes the 3D program would do for them, such as adding lighting, shading, reflection, perspective, etc etc etc. These are things you much teach your brain how to recognize and recreate in a 2D sense while drawing.

Offline PypeBros

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Pixel Padawan
    • PypeBros
    • View Profile
    • Bilou Homebrew's Blog.

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #5 on: June 11, 2010, 02:42:00 pm
I gave 3D a try a while ago, with a geometric modeler (a front-end to povray. Yeah, that really was a while ago). It could compensate a few things such as my lack of understanding of hue shift, be more consistent than myself at shading, it'd do perspective right, etc. It wouldn't compensate my lack of anatomy knowledge, a poor understand of body masses and forces. It might be closer to sculpture than drawing, but i'm not a sculptor, so I cannot properly tell.

Now, I haven't even got the the point where you start calling 3D an art. Details, subtleties that make a scene interesting... I personnally find them harder to handle with a 3D modeler than with a pencil. And I certainly haven't mastered 2D either.

I guess I'd say "if you can be good at clay without being a good drawer, then you can be good at 3D without being good at 2D", but something tells me at the root of both, there is a kind of "X-Ray gaze" that need to be acquired, that make you see a scene in such a way that makes you think "aha, now that is how I could render that"... Then you'll struggle to have your hand achieving what your mind has conceived.

Offline Jakten

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The Bionic Vapor Boy
    • View Profile
    • Levitating Rocksquatch

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #6 on: June 11, 2010, 05:27:46 pm
I took a 3D modeling course in college. There were people in my class who couldn't draw worth beans and could model extremely well. Most of them modeled cars but there were people who modeled characters really well. It's strange.

Offline PypeBros

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • Pixel Padawan
    • PypeBros
    • View Profile
    • Bilou Homebrew's Blog.

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #7 on: June 11, 2010, 05:54:43 pm
I took a 3D modeling course in college. There were people in my class who couldn't draw worth beans and could model extremely well. Most of them modeled cars but there were people who modeled characters really well. It's strange.
not so much. It's like the difference between playing e.g. the Piano, and composing music with a SoundTracker. You may have the artistic fiber, the musical perception, but lack the dexterity to do anything decent on the piano. Or lack the patience to acquire the skill to do so.

Offline zez

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 97
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #8 on: June 13, 2010, 02:25:01 am
Heh, reading this I actually had kind of a similar metaphor come to mind, only vaguely backwards.
2d is like improvisation on an instrument. You need to know how to portray exactly the feeling you want, and your hands need to know exactly where to go to make it happen. 3d on the other hand, is like playing a song. You dont need to have a clue of why something works, or feels the way it does to play it, you do however, need to have the mechanical skills down, or it will sound awful, and well that is true of improvisation, sense the improvisation has no pre-existing structure, your ability to convey the meaning is far more important then technical proficiency you use.
I have taken a number of solo's at shows where I botched notes, or played slightly offbeat, and the crowd still ate it up. If I did the same thing with say, the chord progression, people would probably up and leave, or start throwing beer bottles at me.

Offline Lizzrd

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 273
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)

Reply #9 on: June 13, 2010, 11:48:30 pm
With 2d you have to do the drawing-to-mind thing yourself, whilst in 3d the z axis does this.
Photocopier: the fact that arne can also code so well
Photocopier: is horrificly unfair