[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 1489867027505.png (947 B, 416x454)
947 B
947 B PNG
I'm not from this board, but I want to ask something to y'all.

Comparing 2D animation with 3D animation.

Which is superior in terms of final quality?
Which is more expensive?
Which is cheaper?
>>
>>558797
>Which is superior in terms of final quality?
Both are fantastic if you spend enough effort.

>Which is more expensive?
Due to the various software artists use, 3D is more expensive. (mocap gear, cameras, rendering software, animating tools, etc...)
>>
>>558797
In a TV show context the shittiest 3D animation is probably (very slightly) cheaper than the shittiest 2D animation.
>>
>>558797
Depends how much money you have for either.
>>
2D is better quality if done right than 3D if done right. 2D is more expensive. 3D is less expensive.
>>
>>558797
the cheapest thing is to combine the two
>>
>>558880
You should really try google sometime.
>>
3d is superior purely based on demand in the current market. There simply isnt enough work to justify being a purely 2d animator. But quality wise both can be great in their own way




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.