The advantage of making a 3D-model and animating it, you only have to do it once (at least for a certain animation). So after modeling, you animate a walk-cycle, and then you can render it from the necessary perspectives... front, back, left, right. Plus, you can make the animation smoother, as you can see with Guybrush. Getting that kind of fluidity with a hand-drawn animation (at that detail and resolution) is possible, but WAY more work. Plus, you'd have to draw him from all four sides (although with symmetrical characters, you can just mirror the left view to get the right view).
But didn't you say the models were painted on? Doesn't that mean that each view had to be painted over the model, making it as much work to draw, but with a huge extra step of creating a model first?
But didn't you say the models were painted on? Doesn't that mean that each view had to be painted over the model, making it as much work to draw, but with a huge extra step of creating a model first?
I didn't say that. Someone else did. But they're not painted on (what is called Rotoscoping). Just modeled, textured, animated, rendered. Simply put.
But if they did rotoscope the characters, it still would be less work, because a lot of the work would be basically tracing. And tracing doesn't take as much time as drawing from scratch (and looks cleaner, when based on an animated 3D-model or a filmed person).
But didn't you say the models were painted on? Doesn't that mean that each view had to be painted over the model, making it as much work to draw, but with a huge extra step of creating a model first?
Personally, I don't think the models were rotoscoped. If they were, though, then it is still less work overall. The artists wouldn't need to figure out the perspectives, movements, etc., before drawing the characters.
When illustrators are drawing a human (and usually any other living thing), they sketch out a skeleton first (which I like to call a doll since they generally look more like dolls than skeletons :P) so that they have something to work from when they actually draw the character. This would be the same concept.
Weird, I never thought it was less work that way.
I mean, it seems that since they've switched to making 3D movies instead of 2D ones movies are released less often. So I assumed it took longer and was more work.
I guess I understand the switch if it's actually easier. Then I can finally say it: I like 3D adventure games/movies a lot less than 2D ones. I avoided saying that because I thought it was more work, and it's always hard telling people "you're working more, but you realise it looks a lot less good, right?".
But if it's less work, I finally can speak my mind! Thanks guys.
Weird, I never thought it was less work that way.
I mean, it seems that since they've switched to making 3D movies instead of 2D ones movies are released less often. So I assumed it took longer and was more work.
3D movies are more work than 2D movies (and sofar, no, none ever impressed me, not even Avatar).
However we are not talking about 3D movies, we are talking about 3D in videogames, which is a whole different thing entirely .
Pretty sure 3D movies are "made" 3D in post-processing, and not during filming. So, yes, that means a lot of additional time and effort there.
Not to mention you need special equipment to show the movies.
So:
Yes it does.
No, it doesn't. Why do you think tickets to 3D movies are more expensive? Not just to cover up the cost of the 3D glasses (although that, too, is a factor). Mostly to pay for making it 3D and to cover up the costs of the additional equipment to the cinema to actually be able to show 3D.
On the other hand, 3D animation in videogames are less timeconsuming and expensive. Which is why movies and games are completely different in regards to "3D".
Ah, so you're talking about 3D cinema in which you wear the glasses. Ok, my mistake, I thought you were talking about the general way in which a movie is animated, because in that case a 2D-animated film really is more expensive than a 3D-animated film.
Pretty sure 3D movies are "made" 3D in post-processing, and not during filming. So, yes, that means a lot of additional time and effort there.
Wait, I thought we were talking about traditional vs 3D animation. Hand-drawn vs computer animated with 3D models. Snow White vs Shrek, not Aliens VS Avatar.
Wait, I thought we were talking about traditional vs 3D animation. Hand-drawn vs computer animated with 3D models. Snow White vs Shrek, not Aliens VS Avatar.
Me too.
... Although discussing the difference between movies initially filmed in 3D (Coraline, Avatar) and those filmed "flat" then post-processed into 3D (The Nightmare Before Christmas limited re-release, the current Alice in Wonderland) could be an interesting tangent. But that would lead us too far astray from the main topic, so.
Still, it's the same there, just compare the endcredits of Snow white (few) with Shrek (a massive list that goes on and on and on).
Not a good comparison. Both of those films come from completely different eras, along with very, very different ways of showing in-film credits. Comparing The Princess and the Frog with How to Train Your Dragon would work much better.
That's not a fair comparison. Old movies like Snow White show all the credits at the beginning and just the cast at the end, which seems to have reversed in modern day movies.
EDIT: Dang. Beat me to it. Stupid keyboard-less PS3 browser...
That's like comparing Avatar's credits with those of an early 1900s Edison film(that is to say, THERE WEREN'T ANY, the company got sole credit). In modern film credits, a LOT more people get their names in. The number of people is not comparable, because one side isn't counting by the same rules.
It's not really that, it's more of the time and things needed to make a 2D film in comparison to that of a 3D film. Now I could be wrong, but I study animation and I've been told god knows how many times by my professors that 2D animated films are more expensive and time-consuming to produce, hence why companies like Disney switched to 3D only for a really long time. They could be wrong but I don't know why they'd stress it so much if it wasn't true or important for the students to know.
Snow White is a little too old to compare to more recent films, since things worked a little differently back then, especially it being the first feature film to be fully in 2D. Anyway, let's compare some budgets at close dates:
Hercules (1997): 93 minutes, $85 million budget
The Prince of Egypt (1998): 99 minutes, $70 million budget
A Bug's Life (1998): 96 minutes, $60 million budget
Home on the Range (2004): 76 minutes, (FOR SOME UNGODLY REASON) $110 million budget
Finding Nemo (2003): 100 minutes, $94 million budget
Now if we compare something more recent such as:
The Princess and the Frog (2009): $105 million, 97 minutes
Up (2009): $175 million, 96 minutes
We have to take into account what goes on with these budgets. How much of it is spent on actually animating? What about advertising? Since Pixar is constantly successful, perhaps they're willing to raise their budget by more every time? Going completely 3D for cinema probably counts into the budget as well. Princess and the Frog was a 2D after a decline of such movies, and they were probably not willing to go on riskier budget.
All in all, supposedly, the money and time that goes into animating for 2D is more than 3D.
Also, I don't know about TPATF, but many 2D animated films make use of 3D animation to cut costs and get things done quickly. Even if you don't notice it.
Comparing The Princess and the Frog with How to Train Your Dragon would work much better.
Not a good comparisson either. Since I doubt TPATF would not incorporate 3D elements into making it, like most recent 2D movies before the complete rise of 3D movies. Think Mulan's masses, Hercules Hydra etc.
Snow white is atleast a fully 2D movie (not to mention those 2 were the titles Rather Dashing was mentioning, so I just continued on with these 2).
That's not a fair comparison. Old movies like Snow White show all the credits at the beginning and just the cast at the end, which seems to have reversed in modern day movies.
That's like comparing Avatar's credits with those of an early 1900s Edison film(that is to say, THERE WEREN'T ANY, the company got sole credit). In modern film credits, a LOT more people get their names in. The number of people is not comparable, because one side isn't counting by the same rules.
Okay, that's maybe too far back. But I doubt a 1900s film got 500+ people working on the graphical effects, would you think?
Browsing Wikipedia (not completely reliable, but it'll have to do)
Lion King (1994): $45,000,000
Toy Story (1995): $30 million
So yeah, it does look like 3D costs less, somehow.
Quick question. When you compared the old images to the new one, I remembered all of them except the one where Wally is hanging in the cell by himself. Where/when in the second game was that?
its next to the maze if you go down halway past maze and hes hanging in a dungen and will tell you you need to get the key from lechuck chamber and he has dinky island map memoriesed
I've actually never seen that.
Must've always walked by it.
Pretty sure 3D movies are "made" 3D in post-processing, and not during filming. So, yes, that means a lot of additional time and effort there.
Uh, actually you can do both:
Avatar (what little "real" stuff - like the actors - there is), for example, was recorded with stereo cameras that give you correct perspective also for those parts - and that's really how recording real-life stuff should be done.
Then there's post-processed 2D movies like the new "Alice In Wonderland" (ugh) - it was filmed in 2D, but since most backdrops were rendered anyway they made it kinda 2-and-a-half-D - the backgrounds are real 3D, but the actors are rather flat (or a bit post-processed to look more 3D-ish, but not nearly perfectly).
And, of course, then there's 100% rendered movies from the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks that "are naturally" 3D if you invest into twice the rendering oomph or have no qualms with rendering taking twice as long...
Avatar (what little "real" stuff - like the actors - there is), for example, was recorded with stereo cameras that give you correct perspective also for those parts - and that's really how recording real-life stuff should be done.
And yet it totally sucks. And if the "showcase of 3D movies" has sloppy 3D, what hope is there for other movies?
I rather wish they stick to 2D.
As for the "other" 3D: I don't really care as long as the story is good.
Laserschwerts picture looks more like a Sierra-Adventure. I guess it’s because of the many colors Guybrush has, seems more blurry like Sierra-Characters.
Anyway, it’s awesome when Laserschwert is having fun, thanks for sharing!
You're welcome, And yeah, the characters in LucasArts-games were always hand-pixeled, while Sierra many times had scanned (or filmed) images as sprites, so they looked "smoother" (or blurrier?).
And yet it totally sucks. And if the "showcase of 3D movies" has sloppy 3D, what hope is there for other movies?
Eh? Did you actually watch that movie? If you actually meant "oh my god they didn't shove 3D gimmicks down our throats in every single shot" then I can only reply "thank goodness!"...
np: Trent Reznor/Alan Moulder - Slipping Away (Nine Inch Nails - Things Falling Apart)
It can't be actual 3D, since it's based on the SCUMM engine, which doesn't support real 3D. I think it's easiest for the production team to first create a 3D model of Guybrush, then model a walking animation, and then create walking sprites from that.
A lot of things can be said against Avatar, but the use of 3D? Seriously? It was the most well-employed 3D of any movie I'd ever seen. Yes, the film ITSELF was bad, but I loved how the 3D was used to give the picture a more subtle sense of depth than finding ways to simply throw things at the viewer.
Comments
But didn't you say the models were painted on? Doesn't that mean that each view had to be painted over the model, making it as much work to draw, but with a huge extra step of creating a model first?
But if they did rotoscope the characters, it still would be less work, because a lot of the work would be basically tracing. And tracing doesn't take as much time as drawing from scratch (and looks cleaner, when based on an animated 3D-model or a filmed person).
But no, no rotoscoping here.
Personally, I don't think the models were rotoscoped. If they were, though, then it is still less work overall. The artists wouldn't need to figure out the perspectives, movements, etc., before drawing the characters.
When illustrators are drawing a human (and usually any other living thing), they sketch out a skeleton first (which I like to call a doll since they generally look more like dolls than skeletons :P) so that they have something to work from when they actually draw the character. This would be the same concept.
I mean, it seems that since they've switched to making 3D movies instead of 2D ones movies are released less often. So I assumed it took longer and was more work.
I guess I understand the switch if it's actually easier. Then I can finally say it: I like 3D adventure games/movies a lot less than 2D ones. I avoided saying that because I thought it was more work, and it's always hard telling people "you're working more, but you realise it looks a lot less good, right?".
But if it's less work, I finally can speak my mind! Thanks guys.
Edit: Oops, double-post... kinda
End of Story.
However we are not talking about 3D movies, we are talking about 3D in videogames, which is a whole different thing entirely
Hell if I know.
It still has WAY better hair :rolleyes::D
Yes it does.
Not to mention you need special equipment to show the movies.
So: No, it doesn't. Why do you think tickets to 3D movies are more expensive? Not just to cover up the cost of the 3D glasses (although that, too, is a factor). Mostly to pay for making it 3D and to cover up the costs of the additional equipment to the cinema to actually be able to show 3D.
On the other hand, 3D animation in videogames are less timeconsuming and expensive. Which is why movies and games are completely different in regards to "3D".
Me too.
... Although discussing the difference between movies initially filmed in 3D (Coraline, Avatar) and those filmed "flat" then post-processed into 3D (The Nightmare Before Christmas limited re-release, the current Alice in Wonderland) could be an interesting tangent. But that would lead us too far astray from the main topic, so.
Still, it's the same there, just compare the endcredits of Snow white (few) with Shrek (a massive list that goes on and on and on).
Not a good comparison. Both of those films come from completely different eras, along with very, very different ways of showing in-film credits. Comparing The Princess and the Frog with How to Train Your Dragon would work much better.
EDIT: Dang. Beat me to it. Stupid keyboard-less PS3 browser...
Snow White is a little too old to compare to more recent films, since things worked a little differently back then, especially it being the first feature film to be fully in 2D. Anyway, let's compare some budgets at close dates:
Hercules (1997): 93 minutes, $85 million budget
The Prince of Egypt (1998): 99 minutes, $70 million budget
A Bug's Life (1998): 96 minutes, $60 million budget
Home on the Range (2004): 76 minutes, (FOR SOME UNGODLY REASON) $110 million budget
Finding Nemo (2003): 100 minutes, $94 million budget
Now if we compare something more recent such as:
The Princess and the Frog (2009): $105 million, 97 minutes
Up (2009): $175 million, 96 minutes
We have to take into account what goes on with these budgets. How much of it is spent on actually animating? What about advertising? Since Pixar is constantly successful, perhaps they're willing to raise their budget by more every time? Going completely 3D for cinema probably counts into the budget as well. Princess and the Frog was a 2D after a decline of such movies, and they were probably not willing to go on riskier budget.
All in all, supposedly, the money and time that goes into animating for 2D is more than 3D.
Snow white is atleast a fully 2D movie (not to mention those 2 were the titles Rather Dashing was mentioning, so I just continued on with these 2). Still, aren't there a lot less names? Okay, that's maybe too far back. But I doubt a 1900s film got 500+ people working on the graphical effects, would you think?
Browsing Wikipedia (not completely reliable, but it'll have to do)
Lion King (1994): $45,000,000
Toy Story (1995): $30 million
So yeah, it does look like 3D costs less, somehow.
I've actually never seen that.
Must've always walked by it.
Avatar (what little "real" stuff - like the actors - there is), for example, was recorded with stereo cameras that give you correct perspective also for those parts - and that's really how recording real-life stuff should be done.
Then there's post-processed 2D movies like the new "Alice In Wonderland" (ugh) - it was filmed in 2D, but since most backdrops were rendered anyway they made it kinda 2-and-a-half-D - the backgrounds are real 3D, but the actors are rather flat (or a bit post-processed to look more 3D-ish, but not nearly perfectly).
And, of course, then there's 100% rendered movies from the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks that "are naturally" 3D if you invest into twice the rendering oomph or have no qualms with rendering taking twice as long...
np: Contriva - Follow Me (8 Eyes ('96 - '99))
That is one of the first things they teach you if you study animation.
I rather wish they stick to 2D.
As for the "other" 3D: I don't really care as long as the story is good.
The crazy thing is I can't see a huge difference between this and the original.
Anyway, it’s awesome when Laserschwert is having fun, thanks for sharing!
np: Trent Reznor/Alan Moulder - Slipping Away (Nine Inch Nails - Things Falling Apart)
I laughed at this comment when I remembered:
They all did: