AuthorTopic: 3d vs 2d Myth (or is it?)  (Read 6947 times)

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page

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

Reply #10 on: June 14, 2010, 04:18:31 pm
I studied 3ds Max for a year as well.. I've forgotten a lot though, since I haven't needed the skill and I haven't practised either.

Any fool can create a photorealistic car, aeroplane or scenery after having learnt the program, but doing something else than photorealism is what's tricky. Creating something like Zelda Windwaker or Okami (a coherent, heavily stylised look for the entire game world) without any drawing skills would be quite impossible.

Offline Jon

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #11 on: June 18, 2010, 09:30:31 pm
It seems like many people here have not tried doing anything complex with 3D. As someone who has been drawing AND working with 3D for a while now, I have disagree with some of the comments here. The main purpose of 3D is at least some kind of realism, and though it gets rid of some challenges, it adds others. With 3D, you don't have to deal with shading, perspective, and certain other simple things like drawing circles. However, instead of merely drawing sillouettes of something, you need to replicate it perfectly. This adds several layers of complexity. If you are visualizing something in your mind, you must sketch it out first. A good 3D artist sketches his/her designs from multiple angles before making them. On top of this, texturing the object can be another chore. 3D requires different skills, but in my opinion, they are just as difficult to perfect and require just as much creativity as 2D does.

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #12 on: June 18, 2010, 09:35:07 pm
It seems like many people here have not tried doing anything complex with 3D.
That's a bit of a rude assumption just because you disagree with the other opinions.

Offline QuaziGNRLnose

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #13 on: June 18, 2010, 10:33:40 pm
3D work, does NOT use the same skills, at least not for object composition. everyone is born with perception of 3D shapes, geometry, lighting etc. its evolved into us, thats why someone terrible at drawing can still look at an amazing painting, and appreciate its greatness, even though they completely lack the skills to do something similar. People can feel reality, 3D work bring everything you make into reality, since it does all the perspective correction, lighting etc. you can be artistic with use of those of course, but again were not talking about that right now. when you do 2D, its a whole different story, just look at drawing, 90% of people cant draw well, but if you draw well everyone sees it. drawing requires skills that allow you to visualize edges on a finished, or partially finished 3d object within your mind and from a certain angle. you need to lay those edges down through action of the wrist, thinking about pressure etc. making a beautiful drawing takes a lot more than appreciating 3d geometry, shading it takes even more. shading you need to visualize volumes, light sources, and line all this up with your lines. again you need to understand artistically use of tone etc, highlights, heavy shadow all this stuff.

in 3d work, what you do is make a shape, and build upon that,it doesn't require the same kind of layered thinking, and you work adaptively, since the renderer does all the PERFECT lighting and form work of your object, you can actually tell whats wrong with it and fix it in a very perception friendly way, which accommodates to humans senses of 3D allowing you to just do whats natural. 3D is more technical in that you need to have spatial awareness of position, rotation etc. but again its all a natural part of human thinking, and thats why non artists can still be very good at it. being artistic IN 3D, requires a different subset of artistic abilities, which also cater to the 2D artists skills, like percieving forms, colour, lighting etc. an artist will know "THIS IS GONNA LOOK NICE" etc. making original stylistic work, that a non-artist just doesnt have enough of a creative background to do.

thats my thinking on the subject at least.
Originally posted by Jeff

I AM A GIANT DONUT MANATEE

Offline Jon

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #14 on: June 19, 2010, 12:06:22 am
Dusty: I was replying to the comment before mine, as a well as a few others that talked about the ease of photorealism. 3D pictures may take months to fully finish, just like a painting.

QuziGNRLnose: Maybe for things you are drawing from reference, but I think that things that are not concretely in your mind can be very tough to do in 3D. It is nearly impossible to go right into a 3D image with just an idea in your head, you need to really flesh it out before. Most people think in 2D, so picturing your own ideas that you have never seen in real life into a 3D environment can be surprisingly difficult. On top of this, you cannot just "draw" in 3D. Even in sculpting programs, making the shape you want, that will look great from the angle you want, is much more complex than a matter of simply putting down the lines.

So, overall, I think the comparison between 3D and 2D is more like sculpturing and painting than art and not art. And you never hear anyone saying that sculpturing is easier than painting.

Offline ErekT

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 330
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • fistful of pixels
    • View Profile

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

Reply #15 on: June 19, 2010, 02:07:31 am
Quote
in 3d work, what you do is make a shape, and build upon that,it doesn't require the same kind of layered thinking, and you work adaptively, since the renderer does all the PERFECT lighting and form work of your object, you can actually tell whats wrong with it and fix it in a very perception friendly way, which accommodates to humans senses of 3D allowing you to just do whats natural. 3D is more technical in that you need to have spatial awareness of position, rotation etc. but again its all a natural part of human thinking, and thats why non artists can still be very good at it.

Err.. not to sound rude or anything but that's a gross simplification. You make it sound as if all there is to this 3D stuff is to create some shape just like that and then tweak render settings until everything looks swell. Okay, if the shape a 3D artist is going for is a sphere as opposed to say, a 10000 polygon humanoid creature then sure, no sweat. He'll just click 'create sphere' in the menu then navigate to the render settings and click render. Boom! Done. But get him to create something like a futuristic city street with people walking around and see how nice it turns out if said person only knows how to handle the 3D software and has no artistic sense whatsoever. Or do you think the computer's going to sort all that out for him? And no, the computer won't do any "perfect" lighting for him either, at least not in any realistic sense of the word, because the computer is an idiot. It has no understanding of how lighting works in the real world, all it has to go by is a set of algorithms to calculate whatever light setup the artist feeds it. And if the artist is clueless too well then the render will look like crap. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that 3D is a pretty far shot from being some easy way out for the artistically-challenged.

EDIT:
Ouch, aren't I just a bag full o' fun? Sorry about the somewhat grumpy reply, didn't intend for it to come out quite like that  :blind:
« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 03:09:16 am by ErekT »

Offline Stab

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'M WILLOWS!
    • View Profile

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

Reply #16 on: June 19, 2010, 05:01:00 am
3d and 2d are completely different skillsets.

3d, you don't have to worry about very many things (shading, lighting, etc) in the same MANNER as you do in 2d, but you still do have to think of these things. Most 3d programs aren't exactly like life; simply because something is the same SHAPE as an apple does not mean it's gonna look like an apple... even if you texture it well. Your line flow, what shader (or shaders) you use, how your UVs are arranged, whether you used nurbs, polys, tris... etc etc etc. The resolution is theoretically infinite, and 3d -can- be used to come damn close to "reality", but it is a different bag of tricks than traditional drawing.

So how are they related? Why do so many people say you should learn to draw before you learn anything else?

Understanding.

The reason (this is my opinion, take it with a grain of salt) so many educational facilities and helpful people tell you to learn to draw traditionally (and from life!) first is because nothing is done for you, and in order to prosper and grow, you MUST develop an understanding of exactly what you're doing.

And in order to understand, you must observe.

And it's awfully friggin' hard to observe (especially observe with the hope to understand) in a format that requires you to think about and figure out exactly how to acheive what you want to acheive.

Drawing is an amazing format to make quick observations, and you don't have to ctrl-shift-s or alt-v or switch to the polygons panel and rotate the perspective camera 120 degrees in order to indicate whatever your observation was.


Observe to understand.

Understand to draw.

Draw to model (in 3d).


Also, many 3d students I've known have also been forced to take sculpture as well, so they can gain a better understanding of 3d as a physical form and how physics acts on different materials / objects.

I have said enough.

Offline QuaziGNRLnose

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #17 on: June 19, 2010, 06:23:57 pm
if you look at what i said, im not bashing talented 3d work, im just saying its easier to get there than it would be comparatively to 2D, because alot of the skills people start out with in life can be applied.
ive done 3D and i know that to make GOOD lighting, you need to know what you're doing, but i find modeling in 3D to be much easier than drawing something similarly good.

When i draw i have a semi-complete idea in my head, and it adapts as i go, same goes for when ive worked in 3D, i just adaptively worked, and i didn't have to stress about things like the angle and perspective i was working at, cause those were readily changeable, i didn't even have to worry about getting my shading to match my forms, cause the computer DOES make a good approximation of real world lighting.

when your working 2D an ugly angle and perspective will stick, no matter how good your forms may be, simply because 2D isnt 3D. and yes you might argue its a gross simplification of lighting, but really, doing lighting in 2D is the same thing artistically, and your relying on your vision much more than you would be adjusting lights/renderers in 3D, once you commit in 2D its a done deal for the most part, without completely redoing anything nothing can be changed apart from little things.
Originally posted by Jeff

I AM A GIANT DONUT MANATEE

Offline QuaziGNRLnose

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

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

Reply #18 on: June 19, 2010, 06:27:57 pm
if you look at what i said, im not bashing talented 3d work, im just saying its easier to get there than it would be comparatively to 2D, because alot of the skills people start out with in life can be applied.
ive done 3D and i know that to make GOOD lighting, you need to know what you're doing, but i find modeling in 3D to be much easier than drawing something similarly good.

When i draw i have a semi-complete idea in my head, and it adapts as i go, same goes for when ive worked in 3D, i just adaptively worked, and i didn't have to stress about things like the angle and perspective i was working at, cause those were readily changeable, i didn't even have to worry about getting my shading to match my forms, cause the computer DOES make a good approximation of real world lighting.

i dont know why you say that you need a vision of the 3d object in your head for 3d but not for 2d, if you ever actually draw anything from a view apart from a cardinal angle, you need an EXTREMELY good sense of the objects shape, or else what your thinking will be completely different from what your drawing, you even need to account for foreshortening and light direction IN YOUR HEAD.

when your working 2D an ugly angle and perspective will stick, no matter how good your forms may be, simply because 2D isnt 3D. and yes you might argue its a gross simplification of lighting, but really, doing lighting in 2D is the same thing artistically, and your relying on your vision much more than you would be adjusting lights/renderers in 3D, once you commit in 2D its a done deal for the most part, without completely redoing anything nothing can be changed apart from little things.
Originally posted by Jeff

I AM A GIANT DONUT MANATEE