Posted by Joao Velho on December 29, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Hey guys, I am doing writing my master’s thesis about motion graphics an visual identity for TV, and considered very hepful the message from Ian Tucker about the broadcast design revolution. It’s not easy to find a place that people are open to discuss more than techniques about software and etc. So, I have a question for you: how the concept of 2
January 4, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I would define it as 2-d elements arranged and moved thru 3-d space, in a 3-d perspective, but usually with the conceit that they are deliberatly revealing that the elements are not themselves 3-dimensional but flat, 2-d representations. You don’t necessarily have to give away that the elements are actually flat; indeed, much of modern digtal matte painting and set extension work for movies is done this way to reduce modeling and image processing overhead.
Personally, I have always loved this technique, it is as old as stop-motion itself but has a new freshness in CGI form. One of the first times I ever really began to notice it was for the music video for “Don’t Answer Me”, by one of those late 70’s/early 80’s supergroups, can’t recall the name off the top of my head, but I want to say it was Alan Parsons. The tune had echoes of old Phil Spector percussion riffs, the video was 2.5 d animation with a cartoony, 40’s gumshoe/film noir crime thriller theme.
Jackson’s “Leave Me Alone” and prior to that, much of the 80’s work out of the Charlex edit suites in NYC was another high-water mark for the technique, which I believe only really became practical in video once d-1 and pre-read were invented, and guys like Zbigneiw Rzepchinski (I probably mangled that spelling) started experimenting with how far layering could go in D-1 and D-2.
In modern times, I think you have to look at obviously Ken Burns’ motion work but more specifically “The Kid Stays In The Picture” and “Riding Giants” as the two films using this kind of compositing that really broke it out, made it well known, and got it so popular that it’s now almost a cliche’.
January 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Thanks, Mark. I tend to understand this concept like you. But I’ve heard from a computer graphics reseacher that 2.5D would be ordinary 2D compositing that simulates 3D using overlaps, dropshadows, geometric distortions and other effects and object manipulations. He said that the use of virtual camera in the 3D space with 2D objects can be considered a special kind of 3D animation. Have you ever heard anyone endorsing this point of view? I think it is important to clarify the meaning of certain concepts, especially when we are producing knowledge.
February 8, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Thanks for your answer. Yes, it seems like that is the most accepted understanding about this concept. It was very helpful to me and my work.