How does your 2D education help you as a 3D Artist
polycounter lvl 11
It's been said, many times, a background in 2D can be a huge help for any 3D Artist.
I'm curious, for those of you with a 2D background be it in painting, illustration, graphic design, fine arts, or whatever else, how does this foundation help you on a day to day basis do what you do as a 3D artist?
What I've noted is that people that were originally 2D artist find it much easier to keep the end result of any 3D project in perspective. Ultimately a 3D model will be displayed on screen as a 2D projection and as such will follow all the same rules and principles of any drawing or illustration. This visual/design language should be considered from start to finish when working on any 3D piece.
If anyone has any examples or thoughts on this subject I would love to hear them. Just been on my mind lately.
I'm curious, for those of you with a 2D background be it in painting, illustration, graphic design, fine arts, or whatever else, how does this foundation help you on a day to day basis do what you do as a 3D artist?
What I've noted is that people that were originally 2D artist find it much easier to keep the end result of any 3D project in perspective. Ultimately a 3D model will be displayed on screen as a 2D projection and as such will follow all the same rules and principles of any drawing or illustration. This visual/design language should be considered from start to finish when working on any 3D piece.
If anyone has any examples or thoughts on this subject I would love to hear them. Just been on my mind lately.
Replies
Consider 2 people who are learning 3D for the first time. One has been doing 2D art for 5 years, the other hasn't. A year after they got started learning 3D, the 2D guy will be doing MUCH better stuff than the 3D guy. Reason is simple. He has 6 years of experience, and the 3D guy has 1.
I don't think there's any magic to 2D, or that an hour spent practicing 2D is more valuable than an hour spent practicing 3D.
Thanks for the reply,
I think some might argue that 2D can, for some, get you there faster. However, this isn't a world of fixed paths, everyone learns thier own way.
I'm just fishing for perspective, well aware that 2D isn't "required" to be 3D.
I certainly see that point. One of the key issues here is design. A 3D artist with no 2D background can copy things very quickly and very well; not necessarily knowing why what they are copying is looks good, or visually appeals/ speaks to to others.
If you are a trained 2D artist though you may tend to look more at the big medium and small design elements, how they relative to one another and other aspects of a visual language that make something up.
You can then use this knowledge to prioritize, build, and expand an idea instead of just copying it.
That said, I have learned a great deal of that from trying to fill in the gaps in concepts I have copied in the past. So its not as if you have to have a 2D background to learn these things, but I found it much more painful and slower going that route that just learning it by sketching everyday.
Oh no you din't!
They both have rules. 3D you have to be worried about all views. Versus 2D just the one view you shade to give 3D appearance.
Eg, Go watch the secret of kells and tell me that the limited use of perspective harmed it.
If you fuck it up in 3d it also looks bad. You do have rules in 2d. #1 being dont draw outside the confines of the space.
Also let me point out. Im talking 3d in general. Not CG 3d.
With 3d you can also break it down into distinct parts. Eg, design first, then posing then lighting. Not something you can do as easily in 2d without redrawing the thing many many times.
In the end 2d is still making something out of nothing.
What part of "Not CG 3d" Escaped you? Talking sculpture bub. Clay/Rock/Metal etc. and an idea.
Oh and guess whats part of 3d that you just admitted? 2D. "design first". So you need multiple skills. I have nothing against this thread. I just had to point out your flaw in thinking 2D can stand "above" 3d. Wrong.
They both rely/need understanding of perspective/anatomy/light/color. Etc.
I'm of the belief that 3d artists (especially in games) should always be learning and progressing with their 2d skills.
The biggest advantage to working in 3D is that you never have to solve perspective problems and lighting will always be as accurate as you want it to be. Both technical issues. The ideas that make good art good are still missing and thats where the real art happens.
Sure be a smart ass and poke holes and argue semantics, it doesnt change that learning 3d is learning how to work around a medium and get the best you can out of it, be it digital or clay stone or taco filling. 2d bypasses a lot of that in sacrifice for everything needing to be thought about.
So i guess what im trying to say, is simply, if you can make people stare in wonderment with what you can make from nothing but a white page, you will go a lot further when working in a constrained system.
It'd be interesting to hear the opinion of anyone whos learnt to exclussively model an accurate 3d figure then try and redo it to the same quality in 2d. I'm kind of the opposite in that I've only been learning to draw and i can ignorantly say that the only thing i feel that stops me from going to 3d is the software not the fundamentals.
They both share both qualities you state. You have no argument.
2D: The medium. What type of flat surface. Are you painting? Drawing? What drawing material?
3D: Everything needing to be thought about. Starting with the 2D sketch or idea in head and then attempting to convert into something that has actual physical space.
Thats fine but again your trying to separate them. They both are constrained systems. They both rely on rules. One compliments the other. Some are better at one or the other. Knowing and improving both is always good.
With a bit more experience i could say with more confidence that i'd be able to do something of the same quality and time would be the main factor in the 3d base vs entirely 2d perspective illustration, but as of right now it'd definately be a helpful crutch.
In short, i agree and get what muzz is trying to say, way i understand it is - regardless of 3d medium in 2d you have to create it ALL, volume, depth etc... whereas that aspect is done for you in some others.
There is a miscommunication speaking about CG 3d and 3d. Also. You have to create it all in 3d as well including using your 2d skills.
This is silly. All I'm saying is trying to pimp up 2D over 3D is a non starter as they are linked to one another and rely on the same understandings to do well.
If he wants to argue about CG 3d being easy. Thats fine. CG 2D is easier as well. Neither have those helpers in real materials.
I do agree that they are linked in a lot of ways, i just feel that in order to do things in 2d you require the fundamental knowledge, such as anatomy, colour theory and all that good jazz.
Again good 3d needs the same knowledge. Your making a separation that doesn't truly exist.
Perhaps im trying to make a seperation in 3d game art if anywhere, in that you could learn a 3d program or whatever and start making maps but then apply colour theory and composition to their layouts in order to make them even better with goals and whatnot being more obvious?
basically, fundamentals are applicable to both
- And totally my opinion, but i still want to say that I could paint over a car from a 3d box model but I dont think the result would be as good or accurate if i were to do it freehand, i think its because its already represented in space for me... right?
2D art such as drawing, painting or doing stuff in Photoshop/Painter/Whateverthehell all boils down to the same set of principles. Line, perspective, shading, form, composition, blah blah blah. You know this.
In the same way, 3D art be it sculpture, CG, stop motion puppets or anything else incorporates the exact same principles.
Let's look at some examples, shall we?
Click to embiggen.
I know these are hugely long images with a shit-ton of text, but I'm trying to illustrate a point. Basically, you can't separate 2D and 3D art, no matter what the medium. The same principles apply across the board and a guy who has experience and skill in one area is going to naturally have skill and aptitude in another area.
If you can't understand how composition works in two dimensions, you're not going to understand how it works in three. If you don't understand light, form, perspective or color, then you're going to make crap no matter what.
This is a game art forum, yes, but it's still an art forum. You can't separate one form of art from others because they all tie into each other.
tnx for the images swizzle
Handling color is something I'd like to improve on. So ideally, as it relates to what we do.
^ It's sort of like that, except with arts.
I'm not trying to seperate them as such, its just that i KNOW i have a weakness/gap when it comes to perspective and if i have painted over 3d bases to create things i would have found far harder if i didnt have them.
If that isnt skipping that aspect then what is? I'm no scott robertson thats for sure, but i have practiced rendering and whatnot so i can apply that aspect to the base i have...
I was just trying to get across that its easier to learn that stuff working in 2d as you are forced to do everything. Obviously i failed in communicating that.
2D is great because it makes you think about every choice you make and won't just be flipping switches until something cool happens (not that any good 3d art is made that way but lucky accidents can occur :P)
Trust me mate. A lot of 2D art is random or accidental. There's a reason a 2D artist would have a shit ton of difficulty replicating a painting in its entirety, even if it's a painting he did himself. In fact I don't remember thinking very much at all doing the one my avatar came from. ...probably why it turned out better than some of the shit I put a lot of thought into.
It is EXTREMELY technical though.
They also have another one simply called Color Theory but I haven't checked it out.
I was responding to people who seemed to be saying that 2D and 3D were different, but this is no big deal. You did seem to be sending kind of mixed messages, though, so I didn't want to try zeroing in on your posts or anybody else's specifically.
Anyway.
I agree with Ravenslayer about learning anatomy and how it works, though it can still be very helpful to do drawings to understand anatomy. The key thing is to do it not just from references, but from life. Life drawing classes with teachers that will show you how bones, muscles and flesh work are absolutely the best thing a 3D artist can do.
As for how 2D art education actually helps me as a 3D artist, I'd say that 2D art helps me see in three dimensions by forcing me to represent those three dimensions with one of them missing.
God knows I still have a long way to go before I'll be a really good 3D artist, but by practicing in two dimensions, I can more readily understand the extra one.
^ Thats kind of what me and muzz were trying to get across. And also the fact it FORCES you to represent them with one of them missing is why its such a challenge... it was never an issue that 3d doesnt have these values, but when one has to represent 3d in a 2d space you are taxed with having to think around the form and do it yourself as such.
It does sound like im saying 2d is easier, and im sure i could go on conceptart and find you people who draw squares that arent in correct perspective who could create a square in max with correct perspective? Not quite sure what my point is
As for colour theory;
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/
Also, the dvd by the pixar dude for gnomon is good because its practical and relatively simple, the other one delves deeper into paintings talking about the how and why painters used specific colours in eras. Its definately interesting and insightful but not as practical.
As far as color, a buddy hooked me up with this book years ago and it helped.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Itten-Elements-Treatise-System-Johannes/dp/0471289299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291077895&sr=8-1[/ame]
Also I took a class here http://www.calartinst.com for a few years studying Plein Air painting with Karl Dempwolf. It was a mix of housewives and awesome Animators with years of exp and the computer art guy (me). That was probably the best thing that helped me get a handle on color with 2d and translating it to 3d.
At any case, my main problem seems to be coming up with a color palette. It takes me ages, and I usually just start painting and then adjust the colors wildly as I go. Eventually I settle on something. Also picking a color scheme, etc, stuff like that.
Get this on the wiki!
If you can model something, 3DCG or traditional you can therefore draw it in 2D just as well because you need the same understanding to do both?
Because thats what I and, i think, muzz were trying to argue - not that the same values can be applied to 2D and 3D art because thats a no brainer.
I guess my ability to communicate is poor. No that is not what I was saying. All I was saying was they both relied on the same core so saying one was better than the other was a non starter. I felt it was tooting horns saying that 2D were the "real" men/better.