Welcome to TVPaint Community forums !

Hello
I am in the process on learning how to integrate in my own style 2d animations done with TVPaint and Cinema 4d 3d animations in linear mode.
Well ...this is my first test. Here I just created some linear textures in TVPaint that loop and I map them in Cinema 4d.
I just wanted to share with you the first test that I like.

http://www.davidnavas.com/cinema4d/c4d_ ... pe001.html


Best,

David

I actually quite like it. It's still gives away too much 3d-ness (to my liking), but since it's a test I believe it can be tweaked to a good result.
The speed of camera motion should be a bit slower towards the end of the clip (when the camera moves down a bit), to tone it better with the rest of the motion around the building. Often, speed of motion is what exposes the 3D nature of animations. The slowest you can keep it, the better result it will be I believe.

After mapping the textures in C4D, what settings did you have in the render?
what lighting did you use, or was it unlit texture?
Did you export a UV mesh of the model and created the animation according to it?

I know it's a test, but if you have no objections, any chance you can post your model, C4d file and TVP textures here? I'm curious

Merging 3D with 2D rendering ... I think this is a very interesting test !
( I'm always interested by such tests although I don't have enough time to do them myself ... )

What is the final rendering you would like to have ? Only greyscaled ?
What is exactly the "linear mode" of C4D ?

I know it's a test, but if you have no objections, any chance you can post your model, C4d file and TVP textures here? I'm curious

Me too ! (at least a screenshot of the 3D model)

Well, I did some test around a year ago. Workflow was Lightwave (Modeling, Rending, Weights, Bones, IK-FK and because of it's beautiful rendering capabilities) and zBrush (drawing as texture in highres). I used also the Lightwave-Plugin for exchanging the texture-data.
Final conclusion was: it's possible and with spending lots of time one may come to good results. But in the end there is one point you can't beat: a hand made drawing (this means digital,too) has it's own personable nature and in fact it is opposite to any 3D rendering and animation which always tends to result in looking perfect and less personal. So I am really curious how it will go for you with Cinema's Toon-Render. Let us know.

This is from the mentioned wip-test-project called "travel", the backgrounds are TVP and only the characters 3d with 2D rendering and uv mappings:
http://www.inf.fh-flensburg.de/hoefs/tr ... cerpt.html [swf-file; 9 MB; preloading]

and a solo character-test:
http://www.khoefs.de/movies/movie_travel/_ch_4_test.mov QuikTime, Foto-Jpeg; 500 KB

I agree with you, Klaus, simple 2D is more personable and it seems to me also more spontaneous when one gets into a drawing frenzy. The constant need to tweak everything, which seems to be the hallmark of anything not 2D, seems to take away from the spontaneity of the animation.

Paul and Klaus, both of you are right, but Klaus' test applies 3D on character, and David's test applies 3D to non-character elements. This makes a big difference. because, as I wrote above, the 3D-ness is revealed in motion. And Characters tend to have much motion - most of which is killed by 3D disability. But David's building is to move slowly, and I can see this applied successfully on very-slow moving backgrounds/surroundings.

I wouldn't axe 3D out only because good examples of inspiring work with it are rare (if any) to find. Tools are tools. And I'd dare say that even 3D is a tool within the 2D realm. But its complexibility is prone, more than most other tools, to pull good work down. therefore a measure of good taste is required in order to apply this tool to good use.

Klaus' test applies 3D on character, and David's test applies 3D to non-character elements

Asaf, I don't think that it makes such a difference. The Pierce Sisters were using 3D with 2D textures but, besides it's dottled story, all in all the visuals leave me cold. Sylvian Chomet mixed 3D/2D-tex with pure 2D (Triplets...) and it also were the rather weak parts of the entire film (ocean scene!).
I think the advantages of 2D have sg to do with its nativeness and candidness in general.

But I agree with you, a tool is a tool to work and to experiment with - never prejudge just have an open mind and trust your eyes and feelings.

First of all I have to say that Asaf understood perfectly the possibilities of what made. or let's say, he commented the example looking at its possible function in an animation context without prejudices or preconceived ideas about 3d or 2d.

I agree that visually 2d animation is warmer and obviously more personal because the nature of its craft but it can also be empty if it doesn't serve its purpose as a medium to tell a story or create a aesthetic feeling in a period of time.

2d and 3d are both flat on the screen at the end. What made 3d so cold is its beginnings as a tool for visualization of reality which ended up being a tool that tends to create everything too perfect and too clean and that like any other tool has its uses, its pros and cons.

Klaus drawings are very nice and I think that the beauty of his animations will be to see the traces of the pencil that create the shadows moving and his characters moving in a 2d flexible matter. It doesn't make sense try to make these characters in 3d. I know it was a try and that this is the way to learn, experimenting, error and trial, but I have to say that the result is ugly. His animation style doesn't match with 3d at all, at least in the character. Probably will serve good for a car or a house.

3d is for objects, buildings, landscapes, cars, tables, chairs, etc,,, and doesn't serve to everybody's animation style but in my opinion it is a basic tool to be considered and understood in the 2d frame by frame animation work flow.

A cube seen from the front is a clear 2d, if we rotate it 30 degrees it can be considered 3d but it is seen as 2d if it is a still. If we animate the rotation from 0 to 30 degrees it can be seen as 3d or 2d too. The thing that it will make "3D" is its look as a motion rendered "mechanically" by a tool.

Well ..this can go forever. I am just giving my opinion about it and I have to agree with all of you that 3D, 90% of the time looks really bad, but I think that this usually happens because it is still a very young medium that as always happened has been prostituted in its youth.

Do you remember the 40 minutes film of the Lumiere brothers of men leaving a factory?? That was CINEMA.

(wiki)

Seconds, not minutes.

OK..seconds!
mistake
sorry sir!