Heheheheh. Cartoony? Those are raytraced pics. You will be hard-pressed getting better than that from any software no matter what the cost. The subject matter is fairly simple though -- that isn't the fault of the software. A more complex scene would look more interesting and more convincing.
When I spoke of cartoony I was referring to VRML. I will try to whip up some similar images using VRML for comparison.
Yep I think After Effects just lets you fake 3d by compositing 2d stuff... I may be wrong there... but I think that is how it works. I am not denigrating it -- any shortcuts are valuable! I should take a look at it.
Yes, VRML and raytracers require 3d models built inside the computer which you animate. It is totally different from 2d compositing, but it also needs some 2d image skills in order to create surface textures for the models. It is also pretty different from string-and-glue models in that you get to create mini-universes -- ya get to play god. :)
I am comfortable with Photoshop -- a whiz, by no means. I don't expect AE would be hard to get the hang of.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2002-12-10 02:20 am (UTC)When I spoke of cartoony I was referring to VRML. I will try to whip up some similar images using VRML for comparison.
Yep I think After Effects just lets you fake 3d by compositing 2d stuff... I may be wrong there... but I think that is how it works. I am not denigrating it -- any shortcuts are valuable! I should take a look at it.
Yes, VRML and raytracers require 3d models built inside the computer which you animate. It is totally different from 2d compositing, but it also needs some 2d image skills in order to create surface textures for the models. It is also pretty different from string-and-glue models in that you get to create mini-universes -- ya get to play god. :)
I am comfortable with Photoshop -- a whiz, by no means. I don't expect AE would be hard to get the hang of.