what do you hate most about 3DCG or CGI?
| 2D anime also have super low framerates. The problem with 3DCG is that the intervals between the frames (I'm sure there's a technical term for it) are always the same which can make it look like a slideshow sometimes. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
| I think it’s how weightless everything feels. It’s especially noticeable with CG dragons and giant robots. Also the lack of detail. I mean, there is a reason why close ups are usually done in 2D even in a full 3DCGI show. Theo1899 said: It’s weird, as CG anime are first roughly animated at the usual framerate of 24 and are then cut to fit the more typical fps for anime, i. .e 8 fps. They are doing this to emulate the feel of limited animation in anime. That’s why stuff like Sidonia looks so choppy. However, Black Rock Shooter does this really well, because the boarding and cool poses actually make the action and movement dynamic enough to hide the fact that the framerate is this low.2D anime also have super low framerates. The problem with 3DCG is that the intervals between the frames (I'm sure there's a technical term for it) are always the same which can make it look like a slideshow sometimes. Man, is it weird to talk about fps in anime, haha. |
| Most of them look like PS2 at best... |
| If you're a fanboy, please don't waste my time. Watch more movies, please. Perhaps, this is hell. |
| for me it’s just that it looks so awkward when it’s used in the same scene as regular 2D animation, granted there’s not much you can do about that for the most part |
 |
| I don't think it's representing classic anime concept. Even if made on last technology graphics, it will be never kind of anime as we know. At least for me. There are good exapmles too like Dorohedero or Beastars but their problem is framerate is low not fluid. |
| I dont mind CG, but if it looks bad to the sight then yeah.. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I have definitely problems with the flow of motion of CG animation, but the same model is so annoying. The thing that stands out the most for me, in female characters is the hair that's just a bulk. It's there, looking frozen and just weird. |
| I sometimes forget to finish my sentences. |
Pylia said: For me, the biggest issue is less the CG itself, but the circumstances under which it gets utilized. There are way too many projects merely relying on it because there isn't enough competent workforce available. Animators get less and worse training, leading staff without a choice but to use CG for various complex tasks, and obviously because producers are pushing more and more projects with worse schedules onto the studios, to save time. That's not even remotely how or why 3DCG is used. They're two completely different disciplines of animation, it's not a case of shifting 2D animators onto 3D because it's "faster" or "requires less skill." |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| When they don't blend enough with the surrounding or feels choppy, then I don't like CGI like Berserk 2016. |
   |
| The shadows sucks ass water, Which leads to some things (Usually the characters) REALLY popping off like you just plastered a sticker on top of a background, I hate that shit so much. |
| I don't speak English that much, so please cut me some slack |
| Generally Mecha in CGI is pretty disheartening. I much prefer to see a 2D Mecha a little more "locked in" with budget constraints (like Getter Robo's first anime) than Mecha in CG. If the CG is good, I don't even complain. |
| For me, it's the way it gets used in many anime. Used to reduce costs and/or production time, it isn't used anywhere close to it's full potential and it often looks out of place. The biggest misuse of CG in anime, IMO, is shading. The lighting and shading are often too much in contrast, and sometimes the light angles don't match the rest of the non-CG scene. Full-on light and immediately next to it full-on shade, like their face was shaped like a diamond. Shading should be a gradual transition on anything resembling a curving surface. Many inanimate objects look ok, or animate things like robots, but people or animals just aren't shaped with rigid angles. |
 You're never too old to watch anime. If I ever stop watching anime, check my pulse I'm likely dead. I wake up with coffee & anime, I go to sleep with coffee & anime. Sorry if my sarcasm is bad, it's not my first language. |
ProxyLain said: Generally Mecha in CGI is pretty disheartening. I much prefer to see a 2D Mecha a little more "locked in" with budget constraints (like Getter Robo's first anime) than Mecha in CG. If the CG is good, I don't even complain. Macross F seems to have a pretty good budget but I find the CG mecha battles hard to look at because everything moves so fast and there's so much detail. Kinda like the Transformers movies. Anyway as for the question at hand, the CG in Girl's Last Tour really bugs me because it doesn't blend well with the 2d art. |
 |
| I picked "other", because I don't hate it. I think it gets hate in part because people just aren't used to seeing it. |
| Avatar character is Gabriel from Gabriel DropOut. |
| I don't like CGI because it feels like I'm watching everything in slow motion, the movements aren't smooth compared to 2D and for some reason characters don't blend in well with the background. |
Pylia said: Thigh_Tide said: That's not even remotely how or why 3DCG is used. They're two completely different disciplines of animation, it's not a case of shifting 2D animators onto 3D because it's "faster" or "requires less skill." I never said 2d animators get shift onto animating in 3d, nor did I say CG requires less skill, so I don't know where you read that out of my response. You said that people who work with 3D are incompetent, only chosen in haste, and trained less than 2D animators, which implies you believe all animators strive for 2D and only end up instead working with 3D due to budgetary constraints. What part of that is "read" incorrectly? |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| Motionless character designs,lips isn't synched well,looks like a game when games are better. Not generalizing, but based on what I've experienced. Pylia said: For me, the biggest issue is less the CG itself, but the circumstances under which it gets utilized. There are way too many projects merely relying on it because there isn't enough competent workforce available. Animators get less and worse training, leading staff without a choice but to use CG for various complex tasks, and obviously because producers are pushing more and more projects with worse schedules onto the studios, to save time. It's not that the animators are incompetent. It's more like they give inhuman schedule to them and they have to resort to Cgi.Blame the production committee for it, not the animators. They did nothing wrong. |
 Scordolo's Recent Reviews To your eternity Vanitas no Karte |
Pylia said: Thigh_Tide said: You said that people who work with 3D are incompetent, only chosen in haste, and trained less than 2D animators, which implies you believe all animators strive for 2D and only end up instead working with 3D due to budgetary constraints. What part of that is "read" incorrectly? "What part of that is "read" incorrectly?" Literally everything. How? You directly state "they aren't competent." You say that it is "to save time," you say they "get less training." These are your direct words, how can you possibly be saying anything else? |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| Due to how CG models move and are crafted, contact between the model and the ground never seems to fit in my opinion. Things like how much traction certain surface areas would have feel like they're completely lost with most CG rendered characters or mechs. I don't necessarily place the blame on the animators for this, making the motion of 3D models flow well with the environment seems like a tedious ass ache to properly do, it's just something that genuinely takes me out of the experience whenever I see it in most purely CG anime. To be fair though I haven't seen any recent purely CG anime besides Land of the Lustrous, so this might not be an issue anymore. Even in the anime that have this issue, from what I recall they rarely ever showed any shots of the characters below the waist. This is very much closer to a nitpick over a genuine criticism that'll stop me from enjoying a show. |
 |
Pylia said: "not enough competent workforce" ≠"people who work with 3D are incompetent" You're saying they are a second choice in the absence of "competent" animators. This suggests that they themselves are not competent, as otherwise they'd be included in said label of "competent workforce." If that isn't what you intended to say, fine, but as it stands that's the direct implication of your original statement. Also, I never focused on 3D animators with that statement, but on 2D animators, because it is a known problem in the industry that there's an animator shortage. If most young animators are quitting early due to industry problems, and are getting worse training. Inevitably, the sheer number of staff necessary to uphold the production demand isn't there. That isn't incompetence though. An incompetent person is one that does not have the necessary skills to achieve a task, thus, an incompetent animator would be one unable to draw, for instance. The problems faced by the industry do not speak to the talent of those employed by it. "Overwhelmed" would be a more fitting, less derogatory term. "trained less" - Again, I didn't say 3D animators are "trained less" than 2D animators since the problems are primarily with the 2D animators. As with the first point, you're implying a lower level of skill by suggesting a trained 3D animator is equivalent to a semi-trained 2D animator. "saving time" ≠ "faster" "chosen in haste" Outsourcing animation to another studio saves time because you involve more staff with the project. It doesn't automatically have to mean, "faster" work process, nor that these decisions have been done in "haste." How can you "save time" without also being "faster?" If you involve another studio, the project as a whole will be completed faster than if a single studio worked on it. The words are practically definitions of each other. Moreover, how does that relate directly to 3D animation? you could just as easily bring in another 2D studio. What I'm noticing, though, is that you appear to think that 3D animation can only be an inferior replacement to 2D animation. That all animated projects attempt 2D first and foremost, and only if it cannot possibly be done are 3D animators brought in to fill in the gaps. Nobody can possibly want to make a 3D anime or use 3D elements, that the sole purpose of the medium is to play second fiddle. And, really, that's a strange, sad assumption, to think that an entire medium, an entire, literal, dimension of animation is nothing more than glue to hold another together. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| Unnatural movements and facial expressions. This sort of stuff usually completely puts me out of immersion. |
| It;s usually all of the above especially when it's not used right, and unfortunately a lot of series really don't. For transitions, giving scenes another dimension, cgi can really add to an anime especially when it's not even noticed and just blends that well. When you've got blatant overuse and misuse of cgi that's when it really gets a bad rep, and a lot of the fully cgi shows don't seem to really get it down, but i've enjoyed a few of the more recent ones like Dorohedoro. |
I watch a lot of stuff [center]  |
| The use of 3D CGI (And CGI in general) wasn't necessarily a bad idea per se when used appropriately. At the same time, the use of CGI in most anime I've seen so far sticks out like a sore thumb, where characters fully rendered in CGI possess no sense of weight and cannot move in anything but the most basic manner. More often than not, you would have cases where the 3D CGI characters stick out like a sore thumb with the 2D elements around them (which won't be jarring to look at if everything was just rendered with CGI instead), something like this:  NGL, all of these talks about CGI in anime reminds me of the show Transformers: Superlink (aka Transformers: Energon in English) where they attempted to introduced a new concept to Transformers cartoons/anime: the blending of CGI with traditional hand-drawn animation. The animators rendered the Transformer characters in cel-shaded CGI while animating humans and other aspects of the show through traditional means.... only to fail spectacularly, and the end results looks even more dated than Armada/Micron Legend, or the fully CGI shows like Beast Wars and Beast Machines (both of which came out years before Superlink/Energon and were fully animated in CGI) |
X105-StrikeJul 25, 2021 7:37 PM
Pylia said: @Thigh_Tide Ok, one last response from my site, as I'm fed up with this discussion and don't wanna waste more time clarifying how your assessments of me and my statements are majorly wrong or inadequate. If you're not going to explain why I'm wrong, I have no reason to assume I am. If you want your point to be gotten across properly, make it so, rather than pouting about it. "You're saying they are a second choice in the absence of "competent" animators." I'm saying they're the needed "alternative" due to the lack of competent animators in 2D, as that's what anime is majorly produced in, primarily. Did you even read this sentence back before sending it off? You've just repeated exactly what I said, you find they are chosen in the place of 2D animators that supercede them. If the production committee hires a 2D studio, the primary motive (normally) is to present the anime in 2D. When a studio is hired to produce a work, the primary motive for doing so is to get an animated version of the work made. You're adding the word "2D" thinking it aids your point, but the same can be said in opposition - i.e, "When a studio hires a studio that uses both 2D and 3D, the aim is to present the anime in 2D and 3D. Logically, the bulk of additions of 3DCG that don't follow specific artistic intent are, in these cases, substitutions, though not for being "inherently inferior," but due to clashing visual consistency. Ah, only now you specify artistic intent, after it was specifically pointed out to you, and only to dismiss it as an exception. Further, you ignore the fact that 3D integration takes lengths towards consistency, by matching artstyle, lighting and framerate. As they're a "completely different discipline of animation." (as you said yourself) Therefore, I separate them as such. So, when I don't include them in the "competent workforce" the focus isn't on "competency," but on "workforce," as we've different teams with different skill sets, building a different "workforce" altogether. You did not make it clear that was how you chose to split up the two groups. Stating now that you were doing so all along comes off as panic. Not to mention, that doesn't even begin to disprove my view on the matter, since I already pointed out how it applies when both gorups are in fact split apart. Something OP seemed to understand hence their immediate agreement with my comment, making your interpretation the least, not impossible, as yours' seems to prove the least, but the "implications" aren't as clear as you'd like to make it sound. Argumentum ad Populum. The fact that one random person agrees with you is meaningless. "That isn't incompetence though. An incompetent person is one that does not have the necessary skills to achieve a task, thus, an incompetent animator would be one unable to draw, for instance." I consider it a given in this context for you to know what "competence" means, so there is no need to explain. Are you seriously saying your response to me showing you the exact, dictionary definition of the word is to say "actually it means something else," and, even worse, not even say what you use it to mean? How, frankly, idiotic. Therefore, my comment you respond to, here, mentions reasons why the number of "competent animators" isn't there to keep up with the production demand instead of redundantly telling you what an animator without the necessary skill set is. What? When did I ask for an example of an unskilled animator, what are you talking about? Ergo, doesn't it mean numerous hired animators don't lack competencies, including sufficient drawing skills, because they sadly do so. Elaborate. This sentence makes no sense, you affirm a negative with a positive. Do they have competence or not? As one example, recently it's a commonly discussed issue, how in their dire need for animators anyone on Twitter, who dares, to imply, to be familiar with animation to get DM'd, despite some of these people being completely unfit. I mean, even literal high schoolers aren't save from being requested. "DO NOT take anime work if you don't know anything about japanese notations, and if your draftsmanship is still very unstable or lack proper foundation. You will put even more burden on already tight schedules" "When the other people working down the line like directors and second key animators have to fix or even redo everything. Keep this in mind: Your goal shouldn't be to get anime work, but instead, aim to be a competent animator before that." "When you screw yourself and the other staff over in your first job due to your incompetence, it will damage your self esteem even more and also potentially get yourself blacklisted by PAs, so it is not great for both sides. So, take work when you really are prepared." Tweet by foreign freelancer giving some advice What are any of these examples meant to prove? All they affirm is my definition of the word. " "Overwhelmed" would be a more fitting, less derogatory term." As my previous elaboration should indicate, "overwhelmed" isn't "more fitting," but it describes its own set of issues that can but don't have to overlap with others. Oh, and obviously are the current circumstances, not the animators' fault, but that of the industry as a whole, but knowing where the issues lie doesn't nihilate them overnight. Your "previous elaboration" was precisely what led me to the conclusion that you meant "overwhelmed." Harkening back to it does not clarify your point, since I already responded to it. "Suggesting a trained 3D animator is equivalent to a semi-trained 2D animator." As with the first point, I did not. I haven't even placed 3D and 2D animators in direct comparison, so the implication is just far-fetched on your side. The entire subject of the thread is about 3D animation. Are you asking me to forget established, context, despite you talking of its importance earlier? "How can you "save time" without also being "faster?" If you involve another studio, the project as a whole will be completed faster than if a single studio worked on it. The words are practically definitions of each other." You're missing something here. When I talked about "saving time," I was focused on the project as a whole. In the first response of yours, I responded to, you were talking about the "animation task." These are two different things, one being part of the other, and by that, without the specific "task" being faster, the project as a whole still can. Also, did I say, "doesn't have to," not "isn't," there's a difference. You said, "saving time" ≠ "faster." Three words as a sign, it's nowhere near as complicated as you make out. And if it were, you would have obviously had to say so. You're floundering, again. "Moreover, how does that relate directly to 3D animation? you could just as easily bring in another 2D studio." Again, to emphasize, "doesn't have to," so there are tasks where the decision to go with CG can be "faster." In cases like those, using CG is more effective, especially with certain studios that, by now, specialized for specific duties. There's more to it, but I'll leave it at that, as it isn't essential. Only take away for you, don't see these points as black or white, in the absence of many factors not discussed here, that have several effects on the production process and the decisions made, you can't just "easily" go with something. That doesn't answer my question. Or rather, it does, in that I now know it doesn't directly relate. "What I'm noticing, though, is that you appear to think that 3D animation can only be an inferior replacement to 2D animation." That's wrong, though, something where I wouldn't fault you too much, regarding my very first comment/sentence, having had a hiccup, due to me saying, "circumstances under which it gets utilized" instead of "can get" - getting back to the previous point. As here, an avoidable absolute was stated by me. Granted, I did so because I, out of convenience, worked with the pretense of talking about cases that insufficiently implemented CG, not CG's use in general, considering a majority of people don't even notice CG when it's integrated well, so yeah, unfortunate for me. As you admit to being wrong in your original comment, there is no need to press this further, not woth my point proven and accepted. Even then, do I consider your assumption to be more than questionable at this point, considering the entirety of my previous' responses existed to dispute your misjudgment of my post. So to then continue to stick with your very line of thought, instead of questioning when I answer your "what's incorrect" with "everything," that a directional change in your assumptions about me might be appropriate, feels almost conveniently dismissive to me. I don't see what you're implying. My original point was that you misunderstand the use of 3D animation, and when you showed no movement on this, I elaborated as necessary. With that, I consider this case closed. I've said what there's for me, and any continuation would just be going on redundant tangents that have nothing to do with the origin of this rebuttal. You've seen that one Sailor Moon format, "My work here is done/But you didn't do anything?" I don't see how you can think you've come to any conclusion, when all you've done is claim I interpreted your comment wrong, then made some contradictory and incoherent complaints about the fact. Stropping about how you don't want to continue doesn't make you right. If you want to return to the "origin of this rebuttal," not that that makes any sense as a concept, you yourself must do so. You think I'm interpreting your comment wrong, and it is your burden to prove otherwise. If you want to do so, you have the floor. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
More topics from this board
» Maybe... the 'No Drop Policy' mindset is the best, tbh._ohara - 8 hours ago |
29 |
by _Mazino
»»
10 seconds ago |
|
» Have you ever been to cinema to watch anime movie? How was it compared to watching anime via PC/laptop/TV?Rinrinka - Yesterday |
43 |
by _Mazino
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» How is your favorite character represented in media besides anime/manga?Catalano - 6 hours ago |
9 |
by Auron
»»
16 minutes ago |
|
» Do you care about specific weapons in anime?Kiyomice - Aug 31 |
23 |
by piroriparopirira
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» The Texas Anime Ban goes into effect September 1 ( 1 2 )ForgotEyeWasHere - Aug 31 |
98 |
by ForgotEyeWasHere
»»
19 minutes ago |