Apparently this is all CGIIs /3/ convinced? Looks hand drawn mostly because you can see the obvious CGI parts (see 1:46)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhwXxjiqDEUIf it's true, this is a promising future for CGIbut I doubt it's true. The animations look too fluid for CGI and too 2D-like
Have you seen Guilty Gear Xrd? It's the same sort of thing. Here's some gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urUM2Ne_vTwThere is also a video from VGC about how they put it together. I haven't watched the whole thing, but it seems comprehensive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGjCzxJV3E
>>544990*GDC, not VGC
>>544988>The animations look too fluid for CGI and too 2D-likeyou don't know what you are talking about
>>544996>>544999 better question.How do they do they do that?>software>techniques >fps
>>544990It looks decent but the animations look a bit laggy and lack the stylization of hand drawn sprites. Also the models have less detail (but maybe that's a design decision)
Japanese studios have been doing stuff like this for a while. This is nothing new.I still have no idea how they pull this off, however. I'd love to learn how, but everything I've found on this is in Japanese. Tutorials, articles, youtube videos, etc.If anyone here has any insight on how they achieve the aesthetic, I'd love to hear it.The example you linked, while paused on a still looks like 2D, does not look like 2D in motion.I'm guessing this is due to the way it was animated.They went too far with the amount of frames they gave each motion. Traditional anime is usually animated on threes or fours. I can't be assed to analyze it frame-by-frame, but I'm guessing in your link they mostly did twos. The spacing is just off.In my opinion, we're still far off from 3D animu flawlessly replicating 2D animu, because of the differences in the way everything animates in 2D.The deformations, curves, motions, silhouettes, etc in 2D are never perfect. 3D anime in comparison is too "solid" looking. The volume of characters are always too consistent, the shapes are always too clean looking, regardless of how well they attempt to replicate the frame spacing.I've never seen a studio doing 3DCG fix this problem.I'm not even sure how they would. Manually adjusting the mesh every frame? I'm guessing at that point 2D would be less work, and probably look better too.>>544990Guilty gear looks nice, but it still suffers from the problems I just listed. It doesn't fully "break the 3D" in my opinion.Something is off, and I can't really explain what. It looks too much like western cel-shaded stuff. Even paused it just doesn't quite look like 2D.Maybe it's the shading? Or too many details? I don't really know.
>>545012>Also the models have less detailBecause it's rendered real-time.
>>545016*less detail than hand drawn spritesSorry
>>544988It's cell shading to layers and 2d animated projected on to the geometry. And later more 2d fx is plastered over it for polish. It's not that hard to in blender.
>>545019Why does the scene I posted look blatantly CGI and the rest look hand drawn?
>>544988>too fluid for CGIYou what?That's kind of the specialty of CG.>too 2D-likeIt's possible to do literally whatever you want in 3D if you throw the resources at it. Lots of studios use 3D solely for the purpose of quickly throwing together poses, and drawing over it.
>>545021>It's possible to do literally whatever you want in 3DLelCan never replicate 2D in 3D.
>>545012The animation looks laggy because it's 1:1 the sprite animations of the old games, which were also low framerate.
>>545023You could, it would just be a horrendous waste of effort and time because you could more easily just make the 2D work in the first place.
>>545020I have no idea what you're talking about, the whole thing blatantly looks like CGI to me.
>>545032>more easilylol dude naw2d animation is horribly tedious, expensive and dated and the moment 3d looks passable 2d is never seeing the light of a production studio again
>>544988Man, who made this?It was like some FLCL type shit. Bretty neat.
>>545033>the whole thing blatantly looks like CGI to me.You're likely the only one anon
If the facial animations were done in 2D, then it's very possible to make something like the video the OP posted.The biggest mistake amateurs make when trying to model anime characters, is trying to model the head (and to a lesser extent the body) like a human head, which fundamentally doesn't work.I remember reading something from an artist who said something along the lines of, "it's more important that it looks correct" which is true. If you read manga or watch anime, you'll notice that the faces & bodies of the characters deform in a way, that if you look at it critically don't make sense. But it still "looks" ok.The other factor is how things are keyframed. Like if you look at the really shitty CG anime, you'll notice that the studio may try to cheese things by using a low framerate and tweens among other animation shortcuts.I could go on & on about this, but the bottom line is that as far as your eye is concerned a 3D scene & a 2D scene are the same thing when viewed on a screen. And thus getting a 3D animation to like a 2D animation will require you to emulate animating in a 2D style, & the more shortcuts you take the worse it will look.The OPs video is a good example of it done well. Not great but decent.
For anyone interested on how the 3D JoJo openings were made:http://cgworld.jp/feature/jojo-anime.html
>>545073This is why real people cant pose that awesome
>>545062>If the facial animations were done in 2D, then it's very possible to make something like the video the OP posted.It's all 3D apparently
Imgo XRD has the best look and I started 3d when I saw it, I get that it became stylized enough to get into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGjCzxJV3E
>>544988Beta as fuck.
seeing a post like this is cringeworthyhow many of you call yourself adults and still watch anime?
>>545073Tried this pose now I tore a rotator cuff.
>>545129Do you know where you are, son?
>>545145Kekso did i
how they do it is quite simple, they have a 3d animation of some sort and then they go over it frame by frame and trace over it by hand. the result is a nice fluid 2d animation that looks 3d
>>545196they didnt trace over it. they used 3D models and textured over it i think
>>545196>>545202For fucks sake they used a shaderget off this board you fucking kids
>>545208it's not a shader. they draw over it
>>545196Disney did something similar with their paper airplane short. The tracing was semi automatic.
>>545218they used shaders too you dumb bum. they had key frames and the computer generated the inbetween frames
>>544988this can't be CGI...it looks like really well made paint animation
honestly the distinction between 3d and 2d abilities are diminishing everyday. Animators just have to use less frames of transition between keyframes and they're golden.
>>545318cant tell if srs
90% of the time I like to assume /3/ is full of smart hobbyists pretending to be retarded.This thread fills me with so much doubt, you have no idea.
>>545318For someone who hangs around /3/ it's really awkward that you can't see the consistent 3d form in there. Thats kinda the curse of cartoonish CGI, it always look 3D no matter what you do and it seems impossible to achieve that handdrawn feel.
>>545339>it seems impossible to achieve that handdrawn feel.See: >>545062> as far as your eye is concerned a 3D scene & a 2D scene are the same thing when viewed on a screen. And thus getting a 3D animation to like a 2D animation will require you to emulate animating in a 2D style, & the more shortcuts you take the worse it will look.It's definitely not impossible
>>545339That paper disney animation proves you wrong anon
>>545219I've heard people compare it to the grease pencil in blender (never used it so I know)They draw the lines over the 3D model and the software 'sticks' them to the model so it can calculate in between frames.Obviously they used a shader for the lighting but I don't think thats what you meant.
>>545346>>545347I would agree that its the only animation that achieved a geniune 2d cartoonish appearance. Although theres a huge RnD behind it and a regular 3d john wouldnt be able to replicate it
>>544988Yeah, this is a thing. You just make a rough CG video of something, then basically just drop out the lighting and capture it from a specific perspective, touch it up, and there you go. You know have Knights of Sidonia. It tends to look like shit for various reasons, but yeah, its a thing.
>>545015Animator here. I have no idea why anime studios don't just put stuff on a proper mix of twos, threes, and fours. It's not even much more work, if at all, because the majority of animators work in stepped mode anyways, meaning that frames are frozen in place until you add more. Then again, it could just be a matter of foreign CG artists being far less competent than those in LA, vancouver, etc.Changing volume is also something that would be very easy to do with some minor rig adjustments.
>>545129>being so insecure that you think one can't be an adult and also watch anime
>>544999Its 3d animation that looks too fluid for 2d.
>>545411How can they give it more of a "2D feel"? The 3D animation looks way better in any event
>>5454883D appears too smooth, which the human eye isn't used to.Try waving your arm in front of your face really fast - you won't see it as a smooth motion, but as stuttered still images. Very rarely does CG include motion blurring, aliasing, and stuttered images, so it looks a little unnatural.Well done 2D animation looks better than well done 3D animation because it appears more naturally. I'm not saying 60fps CG animation isn't pleasing to look at, its just that the movement is too smooth for it to be believable.
>>545503The link in the OP has better animations than 2D movies/shows so it seems like they're already doing better
>>545503>>545525A lot of 3D animations/anime now render their stuff at a low frame rate to try to make it look less strange. For regular animation that's pretty shitty, but for anime styled animation it doesn't look half bad.
>>544988All the characters, sure.The backgrounds are obviously hand drawn.
>>544988Wasn't there a program advertised around last year where you could slap layers of 2D images together and make it move like a 3D unit?
>>544988From start to finish I knew it was 3d, the main problem is that the artists are seemingly retarded because they limit the framerate in attempt to make it look more animationlike but forget the fact that keyframes are very important in anime animationEvery other scene skips over some very important key frames because they didn't bother to adjust the frames.
>>545062The reason why this is not as good as it could be is exactly because it's keyframed like shit. I honestly don't understand how people who work in the industry and supposedly love animu do not understand this basic concept.
>wanting 3D animation to look 2Dregardless, it doesn't look like 2D animation because the animation doesn't capture the same amount of "flawed animation" that 2D animation has. refer to the picture. which is just a cheap animation chart. look at the way that the ball distorts form it's original shape than when it was originally, this is because this is how you're supposed to animate motion and resistance. the film in your OP lacks that flawed motion and resistance, and because it does, your brain automatically picks up on the lack of flaw and you can tell that it's CGI the REAL test on CG trying to be 2D is presenting me with a film that says it's 2D and everyone thinks it looks good, but is actually 3D
>>547223why does the ball deform so much? are animators really so retarded that they can't draw balls at a consistent size? Even I can do that
>>547223>squash and stretch is a flaw>not understanding basic physicshang yourself
>>547223It doesn't look like 2D because they keyframed it incorrectly and had poor camera angle choices. It has nothing to do with squash and stretch.We can already make rigs with squash and stretch capabilities. We've been able to since like 98 or some shit.The word you're looking for is "uniformity". Anime 3D done wrong generally looks too "uniform" to be convincing, but not always.It also has a lot to do with silhouette, staging, overuse of interpolation, and a bunch of other technical animation shit.Usually I've noticed studios will get many of the aspects necessary right, but then completely neglect the rest, and the illusion is broken.>>547224Nice meme
>>545004They story board in 2d and compare as they animate.
>>545027Not their fault you can't recognize style.
>>544988>Looks hand drawn>look too fluid for CGIThis cracker I tell you...
The Gravity Rush anime is 3d.
>>547389And i totally couldn't tell. Flawless. Looks just like traditional 2D.
>>547389>The Gravity Rush anime is 3d.Yeah that's pretty apparent.rwby syndrome. Looks too CG still. Doesn't deform correctly at all.Still looks miles better than rwby, but 3D still has such a long way to go before it's even close to looking like the higher end 2D anime stuff.Look at anything recent done by Shaft. There's no way current 3D has the capability to be able to mimic something like what they make, or at least it won't for a very long time.
>>547392if you look closely, the jaw and mouth changes when she turns her head to the very side. It sticks out more and has that side mouth thing like in regular anime.
>>547409goddamn it, I remebr watching this shit in my early teens but I do not recall such disturbing images>that ritsu cavity cheek
>>547399I like the look of the GR anime mixing 2d backgrounds with 3d.
it's the little things that people pick up
>>54498876 fucking comments and not a single one showed a link or tutorial on how to make 3D look 2D.
>>547814Because it's very hard to pull off convincingly, and most of the presentations on how anime studios do it are in japanese.But if you just want cheap trash, use the ramp shader in maya.
>>547703You know your stuff anon.I could definitely tell this is a 3D render, but I never would've been able to tell what exactly made it look that way without you pointing it out.The clothing wrapping perfectly around the body is definitely a big factor.
>>547814There are things you just can't learn with tutorials anon, sometimes it's actually better to learn on your own and experiment.That's how innovation happens.
>>544988Can totally tell, from the very first scene.The shading is funny and doesn't move the way hand drawn shading would. A big problem is the lack of highlights. There are always midtones and shadows, but there are only highlights in very dark scenes -only on shiny material- and in scenes with a very bright light source -the explosion near the end. The latter looks much better, but it's only a few seconds.The framerate is much higher than traditional.As is commonly the case with CG "anime," the characters are strangely stiff, in ways that they aren't in traditional animation. They freeze in different ways. I can't say offhand why I could really tell with the chocolate bar, but I could. Maybe there were a few extra positions there usually wouldn't be.A good stiffness example would be the 'finishing move' before the aforementioned explosion. The girl is completely stiff while being pulled along by the robot, whereas in a drawn anime she would be getting tossed up and down.There might also be some weirdness in the model weighting around the joints. I noticed it while pausing during the sequence where the girl shoots the security robots in the store. The wights are a bit sharp. The skeletons may also prevent smear frames from being made, like >>545072 >>545073The filtering used during the fight helps mask some of this.Still, any still frame does look quite good.>>545062>it's more important that it looks correctThis.An example I like to use, in Persona 4, one of the characters -Adachi- has a drawn character portrait with what looks like a slack jaw. This is reflected in his character model, but somehow manages to do it on both sides.If you look closely, it's because the model's face is concave.
>>545062>Not great but decent.What is the best example of this that you'e seen?