[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 / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / 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] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 23512870.gif (1.15 MB, 500x271)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB GIF
Is 3d replacing regular art?
>>
File: 01.gif (115 KB, 920x1300)
115 KB
115 KB GIF
Not presently but eventually yes.

3D replaced product photography for cars, furniture, etc, and nobody cared.

3D even replaced special FX by purposely tricking practical FX purists by making them purposely look fakey and nobody cared or noticed.

3D even replaced classic cinematography in faking the Mars landing and nobody noticed.

It's all about fooling the viewer into belieing it's a medium other than 3D and they won't care nor notice.
>>
>>696241
Is this a tranny or a flat chested chick please lmk it makes a big difference.
>>
File: 2019_01.jpg (816 KB, 1041x1381)
816 KB
816 KB JPG
>>696267
Hands look manly to me.

>>696241
I agree it may eventually happen. The results of zbrush npr is pretty close to fooling people in thinking still images were hand drawn. pic related

Making 3d look like 2d in motion is the next big hurdle.
>>
I guess it will for anything production related with money involved because it speeds things up incredibly and with the future help of neural networks, even not talented people will be able to get shit done for their job.
As recreational thing I think painting and drawing will never be completely replaced because the act of drawing is so relaxing and rewarding.
>>
File: 1553352586949.jpg (21 KB, 400x400)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>696267
>a tranny or a flat chested chick
>>
>>696232
Define regular art first. Computers still don't have the ingenuity to make distinct enjoyable art by themselves, an artist needs to be involved in the process, and the art crowd isn't like the engineer crowd, thry have different ways of approaching problem solving.

If by 3D replacing "regular" art, you mean the work flow for the creation of a piece changes and uses intuitive, 3d space enabled modeling and asset creation? Probably. I'm a 2D guy mostly and I wouldn't complain. It's just another tool, my fundamentals or way of approaching drawing did not fundamentally change, only the tool did. You won't be able to make amazing art with the best 3d software in the world any better than with a rock and a piece of wood.

The world of art adapted to canvas, and to paper, and to Photoshop, and to 3D, and it will keep adapting.
>>
>>696284
>Making 3d look like 2d in motion is the next big hurdle.
Luckily, it's only a matter of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpe99ci_C8g
>>
>>696307
Everything in that film was done by hand, it's machine assisted 3d rotoscoping
>>
>>696311
Duh?

https://youtu.be/TZJLtujW6FY
https://youtu.be/EhDr3Rs5fTU?t=153
>>
File: 02 F done sized.jpg (210 KB, 920x1300)
210 KB
210 KB JPG
>>696267
>>696284
flat chested with big hands
>>
>>696284

>Making 3d look like 2d in motion is the next big hurdle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAw2YxwZEM

Already achieved.

One of the advantages of 3D animation is the ease of animation. Interpolation does a lot of work and it looks smooth as hell. Great value in a very short timeframe.

This is what Arc System Works figured out. If you want to make 3D animation look 2D you basically have to put in as much work as a classically 2D animation which makes the whole endeavor a style preference.

The reason why most 3D cell shaded stuff looks so shit (like complete and total garbage in my opinion) is that they're created by 3D artists and animators. Arc System Works is comprised of 2D artists and animators who migrated to 3D, and this is the X factor that skyrocketed the studio from a niche market to worldwide fame.

>>696321

Paperman is not 2D animation, or 3D animation, or 3D animation that wants to look like 2D animation. It combines 3D animation and 2D animation into one whereas Guilty Gear Xrd made 3D animation conform to the rules of 2D animation.

People's reaction to Paperman:
>"Is this 3D? No, it's 2D! Wait, no, it's 3D! 2D! I don't get what I'm looking at."
People's reaction to Guilty Gear Xrd:
>"Animation looks great."
>camera moves on a still frame
>"Holy shit that's actually 3D!"
>>
>>696325
They got best results but you can still tell it is 3d
>>
>>696328
Of course you can tell since they purposely move the camera so you can see it's all 3D.
>>
it can, but a lot of people just don't have the skill to do it well enough. on paper, you should be able to fully replicate 2D, but nobody now has the attention span to sit down and analyze a piece of work to try and replicate it in 3D. on the other side, 2d is a bitch to properly animate in because of perspective. so you have difficulty, and artistic vision clashing. so it won't replace it for a long while.
>>
>>696355
maybe is just a matter of getting the right software.
>>
>>696385
Toppu kekku here we go again
>>
File: egyptians.jpg (1.19 MB, 2500x1116)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
>>696300
>I'm a 2D guy mostly and I wouldn't complain
I have great respect for 2D and never got a hang of it.

I mean how do I fake in my head character positions? How do I fake the scale if a character is in a different position?

How do you actually do this? For me 3D is simply normal I understand depth and everything in it so I use it.

And I even have evidence to support my position as natural. Look at these Egyptians! They flawlessly sculpted faces however absolutely failed in 2D perspective for their drawings.

I think human brains or most human brains are not good at faking 3D using 2D pictures.
How do you people do this?

I be sad if 2D becomes a lost art.
>>
File: 1438867966205.gif (1.75 MB, 396x167)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB GIF
>>696325
>Video game 3D animation
If you did not know video games have the best animation out there while film and TV are crap.

Look at anything like Mortal Kombat, no idea why. Is it time ? Is it because film and TV demand that literally everything behave like its a balloon filled with helium?

Every part of a video game animation looks like art itself.
>>
>>696444

>If you did not know video games have the best animation out there while film and TV are crap.

It blows my mind how Japan has the only studio that pulled off Guilty Gear Xrd and proved it can be done with any asrt style with DBZ FighterZ yet they come out with complete garbage like the new Berserk series.

I don't understand how you can have a whole team of artists work on a project for years and not one of them say: "Guys, this looks like crap."
>>
>>696440
I think the ancient egyptians were going for the stylized look for their 2d because they were part of their "literature". It could also be that it was faster to them, and they had some strict deadline.
>>
>>696232
classic animation yes, artwork no
>>
I'm not sure what the point would be to sculpt a mesh and polypaint if you're just planning on doing a character watercolor painting.

3D is great as a tool; for background artwork and architecture, but depending on what the character looks like it might actually be easier to draw it instead of model it.

As for replacing 2d animation, maybe it's just me, but I think 3d should stick with being 3d and be it's own unique medium, and not try to "simulate/emulate" shit. RWBY has and will always look fucking weird and off putting to me. And it's REALLY fucking difficult to pull off extremely wacky and exaggerated "cartoony" movements like Ren and Stimpy styles with 3d because it's just not good for that kind of stuff, it's better for animation that doesn't break the laws of physics.

It's an amazing tool and saves a fuckload of time for 2d artists, but ""replacing"" it doesn't make any sense like asking will oil paint replace pastels, those are two different things that you can use in different steps, like pastel for sketch, oil for final, but they're still two different things.
>>
>>696727
>Ren and Stimpy styles with 3d because it's just not good for that kind of stuff, it's better for animation that doesn't break the laws of physics.
Latis modifier blocks your path!
>>
>>696684
>I think the ancient egyptians were going for the stylized
No people back in the day where really terrible in drawing see middle ages.

Also a lot of these forced absolute 2D because people where unable to fake 3D in 2D correctly.
>>
>>696727
I think we are getting there
http://www.anzovin.com/art
https://vimeo.com/353175724
>>
this looks very 2d to me https://vimeo.com/350775097
>>
>>696735
Its also limitations by the tools used.
3D sculpting is easy because it works in a medium the human is very familiar with.
2D is really hard, and quality level varies a lot between tools. And tracing is the easy method of replication.
>>
>>696796
It's not so much difficulty and tools as the necessary insights needed to realize what's going one and how to go about replicating the effect of perspective. Soon as it was discovered in the late medieval/early renaissance it quickly took off.

It always seemed strange to me that no highly realistic 2D depictions exist prior to the 14th century. It is apparent that the necessary level of artistry and analytic thinking existed well over a millennium prior to that (as witnessed in ancient architecture and sculpture).
>>
File: 1556589285537.png (1.03 MB, 1122x589)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB PNG
>>696804
>It always seemed strange to me that no highly realistic 2D depictions exist prior to the 14th century.
Pic related, from around the 1st century BC.
>>
File: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (119 KB, 1024x681)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
>>696804
How do you actually do this can you explain this to me? Because I can not understand it and all the drawing tutorials are useless and skip this step.
>>696796
>2D is really hard,
2D is extremely easy. The main thing here is FAKING 3D in 2D A.K.A perspective. Like seen with the Egyptians I can draw you pure 2D Egyptian shots like this all day. How the fuck do I correctly make perspective in these drawings. And I mean perspective for the characters, stuff like arms being twisted correctly.

Can someone finally explain this to me?
Because either its extremely difficult or the 2D fucks are hiding their secret knowledge.
>>
>>696817
Vanishing points/horizon lines.
>>
>>696835
How do I make this work with characters and them standing in different poses?
>>
>>696836
Draw boxes to get a reference for perspective, read loomis.
>>
>>696284
the workflow of tomorrow: make a quick sketch for gesture, color, lighting conditions while feeding that information to a deep-learning algorithm that converts your inputs to simple 3d in real time, continue to algorithm-assisted sculpting, re-convert the result into something that looks more traditional with handcrafted filters and have another algorithm polish away the last remnants of the process you went through to achieve the result. Of course over time the role humans play in this process will become increasingly limited, until finally you could essentially give a computer a description of an illustration and have it shit out a natural-looking highly personalized result within minutes.
>>
>>696842
Doesn't art lose value at that point? I imagine it wouldn't feel like you accomplished something great, like it was not a product of a hard work anymore. It won't have that feeling of finally being able to see a finished piece you worked on for weeks. Yeah, you "art directed" it, but that's it.
>>
>>696845
Well, you're not getting rid of artistic activity as such that easily. As long as all we're able to teach computers is technical skill, humans still have to decide what they want to say and how they want to say it. The focus would shift from the craftsmanship of execution to the craftsmanship of planning projects with a cohesive vision.
The real crisis of art (and human life in general for that matter) will come once computers are able to produce art that is more meaningful than anything another human could create.
>>
>>696804
But anon, there is. But those are generally stuff like reliefs or ceramic tiles.
If your medium is monocolored paint, stiching, or something like it, there is larger limitations. It also gets harder if you have a limited color palette due painting tech being weak.

If your medium is carving, then your limitations are big unless you have some impressive tools and wood for replicating cross hatch sketches.
But the biggest limitation is learning. If you have access to charcoal and paper thats cheap, you can spend hours grnding the skills needed to perspective.
if you can't, things get trickier.
>>
>>696678
What? The answer is budget and care. Berserk had neither. If you were in the industry, you'd know what it's like when the project reveals itself to be an effort sponge without any payoff. Shit client? Shit higher ups? Shit leads? Shit pay? Who the fuck knows, but at some point everyone involved just didn't give a fuck.
>>
>>696817
>FAKING 3D in 2D A.K.A perspective
Anon, faking perspective is easy and drawing itself also isn't rocket science.

First you can just get a square and flat glass, hold it still and put them in front of your face, imagine that you're framing whatever you want to draw using that glass. Then you trace them a few times on that glass and turn that muscle memory movements into drawings on your paper.

Then to correct the proportions and size in more detailed ways you can use proportional divider, to check the angles you can use arc, then to check the overall relations between lines/things/whatever you can use a proportional divider once again or a ruler.

Next to make your drawings more realistic you just need to give them shadows/shading by observing then and manually hand draw them, the only difference is that in /3/ programs the algorithm already took care of that for you while in drawing you need to create the shadows and their tones manually. See, it only takes a post for you to learn how to draw and fake perspective in 2D

The hardest part is to practice these repeatedly and applying theories you read from books to make your 'faking perspective' skills and overall drawings look better over time
>>
As someone who comes from 2D, no it won't but it really eases the workflow and possibly make people lazy to use their brain to emulate art styles, though on the other hand it forces people to be more creative and original to make their work stand out more

I'm an absolute beginner in 3D and I don't know much about this but to custom program shader's algorithm or mathematics to behave in certain ways so that they give certain shadow shapes based on that algorithm has terrifying as fuck potential like those you see in Guilty Gear Xrd. All it takes for someone to emulate Guilty Gear Xrd art style is to just mess around or pirate its shader and anyone can emulate that style as long as they can model well.

I suspect in the future people will create/program custom shaders of a lot of popular appealing styles (custom shader simulating shiny hair/eyes lighting found in cute anime illustrations or custom shader simulating how light behaves in deep sea ocean if seen from submarine for examples). I'm honestly surprised by image in this post >>696284 because it means that softwares can already copy to some extent hatching/crosshatching rendering
>>
File: this.png (1.97 MB, 1764x1079)
1.97 MB
1.97 MB PNG
>>696876
This is more confusing then anything.
I hope the picture demonstrates what I'm talking about.
I have no idea how to calculate angles for a 1m arm that is bent when the character is turned 45 degrees from the camera and the camera is on the sealing with multiple tilts.

How do I prevent myself from drawing impossible anatomy or characters in positions that make them distorted(arms to long or short) if the "figure" would be returned to a T pose (speaking in 3D talk)?

>programs the algorithm
Here is the thing my brain is not a computer and doing shit loads of calculations is not fun. Also I did not see any 2D artists do a fucken spreadsheet worth of number crunching before beginning to draw.

>>696837
>read loomis.
Was more confusing then anything, classic 2D artists starts drawing his own characters and expects you to copy him without explaining anything and pretends like he is teaching you.

>reference for perspective
I like you to explain this to me. If you are talking photography 0.1 A.K.A painting A.K.A. I look at something in reality and paint the exact thing I see (or with minimal changes) then no shit I can do it. Simple vector coordinate points and lines between them will do the trick.

My main obsession is not playing photography 0.1 with paint, its creating things from my dreams or imagination on paper. i have a theory that the classic masters simply payed some people or got their apprentices to stand still in poses and did photography 0.1 on the things they did see.

Using dolls you can pose them or you can use 3D models and then you photography 0.1 the rendered thing on screen then realize that you can skip the middle man and simply post the picture you rendered in 3D.

>Draw boxes
I know how to do orthographic technical drawing (they can get to be a pain in the ass with multiple angles) however character arms bend and the "camera" angled is not something that boxes can fit.
>>
File: D1K0IUkXgAAhyeE.jpg (87 KB, 1200x1108)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>696325
>>696351
No, not >>696328 but I can still tell it was 3D, because 2D drawings are just infallibly distinctive to the trained eye from 3D. It's not just movement, it's because computers cannot make stuff look flawed, no matter how much you force it to be. >>696284 related. I can still tell this is a 3D model, because there's small details like ambient occlusion and how the lighting is so uniformed on this that it being all done by hand isn't that feasible. It just "looks off" enough to be still 3D looking. Look at old animes and Disney animated sketches and you can see the difference.
>>
>>696440
You have to understand 3d perspective to draw in 2d. With 3d the computer does it for you.
>>
No
>>
>>696918
>>696918
Learning how to draw humans performing dynamic movement in perspective isn't exactly simple, it's advanced level stuff, but it's typically what people are interested in doing from the get go.
The way you go about learning it is by starting off learning how to draw simple primitives from various angles and with correct foreshortening.
cylinders, spheres, boxes prism's, things like that.

Once you know how to that quite well you can construct mockups of humans by stringing togehter boxes and cylinders to decide what space is to be occupied by the volumes you intend to draw.
Once you've achieve that level of basic understanding you'll be primed to make sense of all the information availible in sources such as Loomis.

It's a deep grind tho and something you should be willing to practice for multiple years since that is the type of timeframes involved in becoming skillful enough
to be able to sit down and freehand whatever strikes your imagination.
>>
>>696806
Yeah, that's just the kinda thing I would expect to be seeing from decent artists with an eye for detail
prior to having any formalized understanding of perspective and light.

I understand these been found attached to mummies? Perhaps in antiquity this kinda art was more common
and it's just largely lost due to the ephemeral nature of the materials used.

What I've come across of what's preserved leading up to the 14th century is nowhere near that kinda quality.
>>
>>697117
You're an idiot.
Of course you can see it's still 3D since the makers of those 3D images wanted for you to know they're 3D. You can remove AO, you can add imperfections.

Question: is >>696323 3D?
>>
>>697417
The hair kinda tips me off but otherwise it does look really 2D, like a vector digital drawing. But another question I forgot to address last time; does it still look 2D in motion?
>>
>>697420
That's the trick Arc System Works figured out. Motion breaks the 2D illusion entirely because of interpolation. But if you go frame by frame animation, lower the frame rate, make the lightning for each character and the environment inconsistent, and add an imperfection to each frame the 2D illusion still stands. Fact is 2D animation is dying because of 4k monitors which makes 3D animation a must.

Guilty Gear Xrd breaks the 2D illusion ON PURPOSE when they move the camera around when a match is over.

The reason they did this is to flex their muscles so to speak. They wanted people to know that they figured out how to make 3D look 2D and what to do to make 2D look 3D. Guilty Gear is Arc System Works' original IP so it's also used as a portfolio peace. After GGXrd they got rights to do a DBZ which is basically almost as popular as Star Wars.

Now everybody is knocking on their door to make games for them. The studio has grown so much after GGXrd that now they're gonna come out with 4 games in 2020 alone. That's what leverage looks like.
>>
File: 360.gif (1.57 MB, 849x1200)
1.57 MB
1.57 MB GIF
>>697420
3D?
2D?
>>
>>697503
the shading still gives it away. Same with lines. They shouldn't be just cavity lines slapped over cell shading.
>>
>>697505
>They shouldn't be just cavity lines slapped over cell shading.
why not?
>>
>>697507
Because those lines shouldn't be visible from all angles in every lighting.
>>
>>696918
I think it's better if you finished reading Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain first anon to make sense of what a lot of people said and to make sense of books like Loomis and so on. First thing I can advise to you is don't use your logical thinking when you draw

What I can say is that drawing needs a lot of calculated thinking sure BUT it isn't in the sense of when we want to draw a dynamic tilted pose of this arm then we first calculate the angles, how it bends and how it affects the length and so on like what's on your mind. What we calculate are overall composition, shapewelding, color contrast, flow of attention

>I have a theory that the classic masters simply payed some people or got their apprentices to stand still in poses and did photography 0.1 on the things they did see.
>Using dolls you can pose them or you can use 3D models and then you photography 0.1 the rendered thing on screen then realize that you can skip the middle man and simply post the picture you rendered in 3D.
But that's what A LOT of 2D artists/painters do anon, even pre 1900s artists/painters do that. Why do you think 2D guys like me learn 3D? Because in a lot of cases it's faster, cheaper, and less labor intensive to simulate stuffs in 3D complete with its lighting and everything to use as references compared to traditional sculpting
>>
>>696232
What the fuck is "regular art"?
>>
>>697587
art done by a regular artist
>>
>>697591
Alright. I feel like you know what's coming but what is a "regular artist"?
>>
>>697594
an artist who uses regular techniques and media
>>
>>697597
This still doesn't make sense to me. Does regular in this mean popular? Realistic? 2d applied to a surface?

The point of the question is there is no regular art as a concept only art. Photography, oil, sculpting digital clay. As long as it's still art it's all the same.

Fuck man I do understand the point of ops post but I needed to somehow get stupid thought out of my head somehow. I know he meant 2d in general or whatever. Thanks guy for getting a short chain out with me to express this thought.



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.