>>101676058>realism which was frankly disappointingI agree quite a bit, one thing I have noticed about a lot of 3D is the lack of "deformation" of the models, so to speak. The models seem to just be made and manipulated, but never distorted to their limit. As an example, have you ever seen any slapstick and character deformation like that of Tom and Jerry in ANY 3D animation. I haven't, and I'm not sure it
exists. Even 3D movies based on physical comedy lack that very same impact.
>The lighting is obviously a component but you may be right about space (which I don't know if you expressly stated but seemed heavily implied through edges)I did, at least partially. I think the contrast is important in being able to identify the fine details in a characters movement and expressions. The faces and designs are usually over lit and have many of the finer details obscured or "blurred out". Apologies for sounding ambiguous, I don't have the words to sharply describe what I'm thinking about all this. But basically looking over this clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzLLiBFGMg and comparing it to
>>101674623 a lot of the differences start to become more and more apparent. We even get a close up of Anna's angry face, and yet it's still less expressive than hers in
>>101674623. The animation really is more stilted in 3D, it doesn't properly exaggerate, it's harder to make out the movement of her facial features, it's like her mouth, cheeks, eyebrows, and eyes barely move. I think this becomes really apparent when you look at certain still shots, check at 8 seconds in for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzLLiBFGMgand 3 seconds in for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQdpjzOUa0I think there's also a lot more attention to detail in the hand drawn one simply by virtue that there has to be, with 3D there are parts of the model you can neglect frame to frame, them can't be said about 2D. Maybe I'm off though, but comparing those two youtube clips is a bit eye opening.
