Name one advantage CGI has over traditional animation that has nothing to do with economics, ease of production...

Name one advantage CGI has over traditional animation that has nothing to do with economics, ease of production, or unsourceable "popular opinion"

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LECmyZB-cgM
youtube.com/watch?v=Zz39j2SKozE
youtube.com/watch?v=9cQgQIMlwWw
m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4LhiX8ha0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

it triggers you

it makes fags like you super butthurt lmao

it makes you like super flabbergasted

It's easier to render a CGI film in 3D than a traditionally animated film.

>name one advantage except all of them
Wow OP you sure showed them.

It's a me-ah Mario!

Theres an extremely large demographic who will watch ANYTHING if its an animated movie made using cgi.

holy shit OP is so done lol he's probably deleting his account right now

Why do you guys insist in knocking the artistry behind CG? There's just as much technical skill required in making a 3D animated movie as there is making a 2D one. I'll agree that I prefer 2D, but there's so much shit on this fucking board that just knocks the merits of 3D completely, and it's retarded threads like this that show me you fucking mouthbreathers are fanboys and not fans of the actual medium as an art form

what kinds of art do you like and why?

ability to freely move the camera around the scene without having to redraw the scene
3d imagery out of the box
you can also move/replace objects in the scene -- again without having to redo model's animations

>Name one advantage CGI has over traditional animation that has nothing to do with it's advantages

In Moana, there's a sequence with a singing crab where the light coming into his cave reflects off his shell and lights up the walls like a disco ball. Every time he moves even slightly, the lights spinning around also jerk a bit. A lighting effect like that would so hard to do with traditional drawings that that it would come off looking like shit unless you had some AAA talent working on it or require the effect be done with computers and blended into the traditional animation. For computer animation, it's far more foolproof to impliment a lighting trick like that.

youtube.com/watch?v=LECmyZB-cgM
cool flying sequences

Does lighting count?

...

Engine physics aren't creativity

It can handle effects animation better than 2D animation. Especially when it comes to dust or fire

>le pure logic is the same as debating opinions comic
Fuck off

>try to shit on 3d animation while exposing all its benefits.
name one advantage of traditional animation has over CGI that has nothing to do with nostalgia or unsourceable "popular opinion"

youtube.com/watch?v=Zz39j2SKozE

Frankly, the fact that it requires so much technical skill is a problem. Art isn't "easy" per se but if you have the knack it is intuitive, you can make something that elicits an emotion and it is readily apparent in the thing you made. there is less of a barrier between the artist and the realization of the art. With CGI you need a team of hundreds of expert idiot computer technicians with hyperspecific jobs to realize a vision that could be expressed by three people.

I like animation more as cinematic painting than as whatever the fuck cgi is. What are the expressionistic advantages of cgi?

You can also move the camera freely in live action cinema, which most cgi seems to be attempting to emulate anyway. Why not just shoot a movie?

However this bitch, has a point

Say what you want, but I have never seen a 2D background or even a matte painting that been able to match the realism and complexity in lighting that a really good 3D render can produce. Not even anime comes close and when it does, you can tell that it was aided by computers.

it doesn't look like horse dick

You can have characters with significantly more complicated and detailed designs, as you don't have to redraw every frame. Imagine trying to use designs like these in 2d animation.

youtube.com/watch?v=9cQgQIMlwWw

Name one advantage oil paint has over watercolour.

It's apples and oranges, man. Different techniques, different results. You should see CGI as a medium, or a tool for people to work with, and judge the product of it on it's own.

It's up to you if you want to ignore 3D, but you'd be missing a lot of great work.

But Lego Movie was made to look like it was shot on camera.

Details in moving objects. Characters in traditional animation have to have simple designs. The carpet in Aladdin appears so rarely because it is insanely tedious to keep that design on an item that floats & curls & folds & stretches. In computer animation, since texturing automatically applies to an object, you can have ornate details. Computer animation allows for costumes with vertical stripes, stitching, & all sorts of details.

this is popular opinion.
and you should stop watching horse porn, its bad for you.

it is not "easier", because people are of course inclined to push production to the fullest extent they can achieve. 2D artists are still involved in the film's production, but now with much more advanced computer processing than 5, 10, 20 years ago, I suppose it's just a logical progression.

It's able to capture incredibly subtle lifelike micro acting movements such as a character breathing or tiny twitches in the eyes.

yes, and that's easier to do with cgi than 2d animation

Alex Ross paints superheroes to make them look like actual people in costumes

it's 2018 and we don't like to use primitive, obsolete technologies

I think you have a point with the book of life designs but why is visual complexity such an important factor in determining the value of a piece of art? You do not need a cartoon image to match the realism or complexity of lighting of real life. In fact, I'd say it defeats the purpose. Even live action film can't match the realism and complexity of real life.

I like the kind of art that gets made.

Realism is simply more engaging to the average person/adult. Not everybody can handle abstraction. That's why most people prefer Monet over Pollack.

>but why is visual complexity such an important factor in determining the value of a piece of art?
It's not that a complex design = the work is more valuable. It's that CG opens up the window of allowing you to be insanely complex down to being able to see every scale on a dragon character or being incredibly simple like Captain Underpants.

2D doesn't have that window. At least not one that people financing this stuff care to invest in.

More like shit taste

too bad they forgot to make the rest of the acting good!!!
I do actually love some 3d (rango n happy feet) and that's kinda the point I'm tryin to drill outta people. Whenever I see people "talk up" cgi it almost always seems to be from the vantage of production or economics, like they're reading the ad copy from a frozen documentary. And I generally still find CGI lacking/silly because despite all the great things it can do, it seems like a hyperexpensive uphill battle to retain what makes the art compelling that more often than not does not result in interesting stuff.

CGI can have accurate reflections.

There's both complexity and abstraction in either medium. It depends entirely on what you want to achieve. Maybe you know exactly how to convey an emotion in 3D better than in 2D. Maybe it's easier to duse2D on a certain design.

That's commercial filmmaking in a nutshell, and it's always been like that, unfortunately. Not saying that's a good thing, but it also produces great things from time to time.

Is realism simply aesthetic? The highest grossing movie of 2017 was about a space wizard who drank milk out of a big cartoon elephant titty
I loved that goddamn movie but i think its simplicity would have been better suited to 2D. The amount of hoops they (and also the makers of hotel transylvania and cloudy with a chance of meatballs etc) probably had to go through to make the cgi models assume the quality of a cartoon drawing seems incredibly counterintuitive to me

Again, a cartoon should be simple, it should be clear. this is its main endearing quality. Why CG?

Ok Sup Forums, name your favorite 3d artist and animator and post since this is a 3d thread.

Carlos Ortega Elizalde

>You can also move the camera freely in live action cinema
what part of FREELY you didn't read?

shots like Tin Tin where camera gets into the bottle or culmination of ROTK where camera gets into the ring are only possible with CGI

> """"technical""" skills are bad, mkay?
> art skills are good, mkay?

> of hundreds of expert idiot computer technicians with hyperspecific jobs
i smell a badly distressed angry anus

you're not making any sense, you language is filled with words lacking of any sense and only filled by emotion and your choice of terms ("technical skill", "idiot technician") exposes your (willingly cultivated) ignorance

what is the point?

>Why do you guys insist in knocking the artistry behind CG?
I don't, which is why I don't give studios like Disney or Pixar a free pass. They have the tech but the storytelling is weak.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4LhiX8ha0