What exactly is 2D and 3D visual communication?

Should I use 2D or 3D (PLEASE save my life by answering this question >.< PLEASE!!!)?

• PLEASE READ THIS…I know its long, but its SOOOOOOO important. Please >.< I have this huge multiyear project that requires that I create hundreds of photorealistic images (from my imagination not photos). I've done a lot of research on the subject and 'concluded' that digital art was the way to go, and that Photoshop rendering of 2D images would be best. However, I've recently stumbled on something that somewhat obliterates my conclusion and makes me extremely uncomfortable. 3D. It might be a time saver to create complex 3D models and settings of the images I want and reuse them in each image, saving a 2D 'snapshot' of the 3D models, backgrounds and ect. The point is...3D sounds like it COULD save time down the line and add a consistent high quality to my project. I did a little research and found that I could theoretically finish the project in 60% of the time it would take me to do the project with 2D. (If my calculations and estimates are correct.) ....The problem is...3D is a different animal. It's not artsy...easy or fun...its...like...crazy. I know nothing about it. I might as well be learning how to read all over again. I have so many questions!!! (I actually wrote this question 3 times- rewriting it to be shorter so I’ll summarize.) 1-I don't know about quality –Can it really look realistic for realistic things like people’s faces? How well can it produce facial expressions?(very important to my project) I here expressions are time consuming. 2- How compatible is it 3D with 2D? Is it possible to blend a 2D drawing of a face with a 'snapshot 2D image of a 3D model" in Photoshop? Could this remedy the issue of funky faces in 3D?+ save time? Can I mix 3D and 2D in other ways? For example, render a 3D house for the 2D hand drawn characters or vice versa? 3-How long does it really take. My estimates were loosely based, so I’m not fully sure. Is reposing and editing finished models a quick(er) process? Or…am I mistaken? 4- Can 3D realistic quality match up to 2D? Is it better or worse? In what cases is it better…in what cases it is worse? (In which cases should I use it?) If quality is lost…purpose is lost too. I’m so...lost. v.v Please Please PLEASE!!!! Help...thank you v.v I will curl up into a ball and wait patiently for your reply. >.< Thank you!

• Answer:

  OK, I have a minute. I've studied 3D a lot - 3dsMax, Maya, others. I'm not a pro, but I know quite a lot. First off, the software is expensive - I guess Blender is free but I've never used it even a little bit. It will take you a loooooooong time to learn to use it effectively, like a year just to get any good at it. For what you are asking it has many advantages. 1) See the movie "Toy Story" which was modeled with Maya. Of course Pixar is top end and they have tools that you and I don't have, too. 3D can give equal realism as 2D, but of course that's up to the skill of the modeler. You make a mesh and give it color and texture in various ways. To get expressions you manipulate the mesh - a "mesh" is a wire-frame of the model, whatever the model is. To get expressions you literally pull the corners of the mouth-mesh upwards to make a smile. Even more so, you can start with your face, assign that as your starting place, and then move the mouth, eyes, nose, what have you to another expression. Then you assign a button/slider to that sequence so that when you move the slider the face will move anywhere between those two extremes. Meaning that you can slide it slowly and the face will gradually smile in front of you. Interpolation..... 2) Generally speaking, 2D and 3D are not compatible in the way you ask. There are utilities that will take a photo and help you turn it into a 3D mesh, but it's still not automatic. People use 2D drawings as templates from which to model 3D, but you can't just snap your fingers and say, "turn my 2D into 3D", no. You can use 2D as backgrounds and filler - you can put a picture of a crowd behind your model so it looks like it's in front of a crowd, things like that. Much like live film does with backdrops. 3) Very time consuming. BUT....... You make a model of a man, say. After it's done you skin it and then you "rig" it. You give it "bones", which is a whole process in itself, and you put handles so you can manipulate it. Then when you pull on the arm handle the arm will move to where you want it, and the legs and etc. So you can pose your model at will, once all of that work is done. Rigging is a whole skill in itself, not so easy. 4) See Toy Story. Now, if you are looking to model ACTUAL people so they look like actual people, then you are probably looking in the wrong direction. First off, real people have so much nuance in their features that there are millions of tiny details, and the skill involved in modeling to that level is beyond most experienced modelers. Then you get into image mapping the model to a level of realism that's, well, if not impossible then very difficult. 3D graphics do cartoons because that's what they are good for. Making a realistic person is just WAY difficult. There's rotoscoping and stuff, but that's hi-tech and expensive...... I'd suggest poking around the Maya website: http://usa.autodesk.com/maya/ Even if you don't use Maya, there's a lot there.... I'll expand something on Tom T's very good posting. Z Brush is only the best modeling software for truly freeform and highly skilled modelers, and it's mostly used in the trade to export to Maya or Softimage and such. It can be a little TOO freeform, and it doesn't do any of the animation things. If you want to change expressions on your model, that's an animation process, unless you want to tweak every face, every time. Z Brush is a wonderful, even magical program but it can be difficult to master. Not arguing with Tom, just expanding. As you can see, this is all very complex and nothing is easy. That's why people who do it make the big bucks ;<}