I am trying to explain to a friend why studios rely more on CG than hand-drawn animation...

I am trying to explain to a friend why studios rely more on CG than hand-drawn animation. I remember one user posted the reason why in a thread not long ago, but I can't remember where.
Would you anons be so kind to tell why studios find CG so cheap?

Other urls found in this thread:

vocaroo.com/i/s1vov89a5UFr
animatorisland.com/why-should-2d-animation-be-abandoned-part-2-plus-why-not/
dcgi.fel.cvut.cz/home/sykorad/stylit
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You mean flash? Because they can assemble animations from bits instead of having to draw the whole character.

They're talking like, why Moana is not 2D.
Hand-drawn is hard af because it requires so much drawing. CG you make the character and just program their movements. No drawing something over and over.

Life is suffering.

studios can hire legions of 3d animators straight out of college and then fire them all when the movie's done. Cant do that with 2d.

are you talking about the cost efficiency or why western studios more naturally fell into 3D animation? It's actually a pretty interesting topic.

If you know that story, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah that is what I meant.

They feel 3D is more marketable

vocaroo.com/i/s1vov89a5UFr

here's a recording I did on it, it's off the top of my head, but it's easier for me to talk about it than type it out.

This is OP and much appreciated, user. Its exactly as I remembered, but you put into words what I thought it was.
You have a great voice. Have you thought about working as a narrator or voice actor?

I experimented with both 2D and 3D. I can still work faster with 2D. 3D animation takes a lot of time adjustments without any extra programming and don't forget the long rendering time if you go for heavy details.

Giant quote ahead this explain better.

>Source:animatorisland.com/why-should-2d-animation-be-abandoned-part-2-plus-why-not/

Glad it helped you out, and thanks for that. Some of my friends have told me I should do a podcast or something but I really don't know what I'd do it on. Still, it's on my mind.

This brings up another interesting question, what are some things you can only do in traditional animation that you can't do in other artforms?

And less "cheap" and "dated"

More styling possibilies. All other artforms are limited on the material or 3d perspective.

That's slowly changing. Recently, there's some research and development presented at SIGGRAPH that demonstrated a possibility of styled CGI. See vid related.

dcgi.fel.cvut.cz/home/sykorad/stylit if you wanna get technical.

Here's a live demonstration of this. It looks cool.

Dear god, not a paperman crap tech again. It's just lazy rotoscoping on 3D models.

I still can see it's a 3d model, the movement and this will change nothing.

...

Question. If cg is more cost efficient, why does it seem to cost more to make? The princess and the frog seemed to cost less compared to disney's 3d movies.

Better than the attual movie.


Render farm and maintaining cost much more money! See greentext

I might be wrong there, I've never really researched the costs of 3d animation, but have heard a few times it is more cost efficient than traditional animation. When I took a couple of years to research animation I was mostly just studying the philosophy and techniques used by different animators, never the money that went into it. this user seems to have you covered.