Quote:
Originally Posted by creb
I'm no expert on CGI (or any form of animation), but articles such as the one on Wikipedia don't seem to preclude CGI being theoretically capable of emulating "hand drawn" art.
The common basis for CGI seems to be that it's algorithm based, and has nothing to do with whether it's "2D" or "3D".
I put it in quotes, because while 3D is the most prevalent form of CGI, there's absolutely no reason why algorithm based animation couldn't emulate that Simpson's picture. Why it isn't common right now, I don't know. Presumably the cost is not feasible, but one day, I'm sure it will be.
|
Well here's problem one, you're on Wikipedia.
That aside, I've already mentioned why it can never fully replicate hand drawings. Human hands aren't perfect, and even the most trained people won't be able to make 100% perfect lines with perfect colouring. You may not see it because they do a damned fine job, but if you zoomed about 10000 times into Okazaki Nagisa's hair, you'd start to see where lines diverge. Now punch every one of these little movements that happened every few pixels into an algorithm so they match. It can't be done.
I'll give you a little example, because it's important. No credit to myself, these two following images are created by a couple of favourite DA users of mine:
In the hand-drawn image, I used a couple of arrows to point down at key points. Notice how lines aren't complete, and colouring has seeped past the lines a bit? Zoomed out, it's not noticeable, but it's an aesthetic charm and a way to speed up the process as well.
Now have a look at the computer image. The lines are perfectly clean because the algorithms work their magic. As a result however, the tone itself is lighter and the lines have less of an impact. Now both are fine, but in movement this would be much different. It's not a matter of time, it's just something a computer wouldn't be able to accurately recreate to a T.