2D vs 3D Animation

With companies like Disney releasing more and more 3D films every year, there is a lot of debate on whether 2D animation is dying out, and if it is being replaced. This is met with arguments about which type is 'better', but in terms of the animated product, how can the be compared? A 2D film and a 3D film can't be compared that much, because they are so different.

That doesn't mean that both types of animation cannot be compared when it comes to actually animating, though. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and each type could change the outcome of a project drastically depending on the animator.

2D animation has been used for the longest, and is often regarded as 'classic', Generally the same techniques aren't used in this anymore - cel-animation is uncommon, with most companies using digital technology to create, or at least to edit/finish and hand drawn animations. A lot of shows still on channels like Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon use 2D animation, and I don't think it would die out completely on there. Most animators will have grown up with shows like Tom & Jerry, Scooby Doo and Top Cat - even for nostalgia's sake 2D will continue to be made.

2D requires a much more solid foundation in drawing skills, especially when it comes to life drawing and the way you can translate a 3D image on to 2D. This makes it tricky then, especially for the inexperienced, to animate from all angles and perspectives if they are not as familiar with the body as they could be. This could mean a lot of changing ideas, trying to animate from different angles or just changing scenes if it isn't salvageable. Of course, if it is only for a frame or two, or the animation changes quick enough that you won't have time to realise something isn't quite right, then animators can get away with this (especially with lower budget shows or ones that have much tighter schedules to keep to).

3D is still relatively new, and people are exploring methods and ways of animating. Much more expensive software is needed for 3D with companies often making their own, like Dreamworks' Premo. 3D allows you to move the body of your character without having to worry about having to skills to draw it at that angle. It also means that exaggeration can be harder to implement, with squash and stretch being limit to the rig's capabilities. There is a lot more work required for 3D when it comes to preparing for animating -  things need to be modeled, textured and rigged, taking up a lot of time and resources. On the upside, there isn't as much need for clean up when you do not have to worry about lines being consistent and frames working well together; post production is a lot quicker and easier.

Rendering time is a big downside to 3D however, taking a lot longer in feature films; it took 29 hours to render each frame of Pixar's Monsters Inc, and time is money. This would have also needed a lot of computer power. There is always the risk of some kind of corruption or technology failure interrupting this, but rendering as an image sequences lets you keep what has already been rendered at least.

There are positives and negatives to both types of animation, and people have different opinions on whether 2D is dying out or 3D is just a phase. With the different results you get with each, it would be a shame to lose either one of them.