Not having seen the movie in question, I can't speak for 2D vs 3D in the case of that movie never being a success, but I think what the article in question is missing is that there are a LOT more factors to what makes a good animation than just 2D or 3D.
My points can be expressed most easily in "Just because something is technically more advanced doesn't make it better".
Take Independence Day (a movie that I loved) for instance and compare it to the original Star Wars. Yes, Independence day has a lot more eye-candy. It got more action, and it's got more famous actors. Still, how many here can argue against Independence Day (relying on 3D CGI) ever coming close to the fame of Star Wars (using actual real-life models)? Not many I think.
Now take this into consideration when you look at 2D vs 3D animation. Yes, 3D animation has a LOT to offer. The characters can be alive, movements more fluid... Voicesync? Never a problem. Still, 3D animation has some serious restrictions. What you can do in 3D animation is limited to what the program allows you to do.
As an example? 3D animators out there, I challenge you to create a realistic or non-realistic 3D explosion that can rival those seen in the so-popular Anime movies. I'm not talking about lots of flashes and eye-candy, I'm talking about an explosion where you can see the clouds of smoke and flames burst out from the buildings, just moments before the shockwave rips the city apart, sending huge chunks of concrete hundreds of meters into the sky, only to fall down and impact among huge crowds of people with incredible force.
Well, anyone who's seen Anime knows what I'm talking about. When 3D animation is able to create something that radiates power so utterly like that, I'll concede my case. Until then, I hold that 3D animation has its severe limits.
And that's just one example.
Now, I'm not ruling out 3D animation. It definitely has a big space in the animation industry. AntZ is just one example of that. However, there's nothing to say that 2D and 3D animation can't coexist. Take Futurama for instance. It's a TV show with a very simplistic style that despite that uses a lot of 3D animations (how many of you knew that? =)).
Prince of Egypt used a large amount of 3D animation, as does almost Disney's recent movies. And in my opinion, those movies are masterpieces that hold a class that 3D animation has yet to reach.
In my opinion, 3D animation is better for most action. 3D animation also allows for things that aren't possible in traditional 2D animation. Still, 2D animation is the better medium for storytelling, where the plot is more important than the eyecandy.
I believe that's why traditional animation is still in such a high demand.
Your statement is about as valid as "Console Sucks, GUI is the way to go".
Yes, I agree that 3D has a lot of potential that 2D animation simply doesn't, but ruling out 2D based on an (and I say this as a person who's taken part in the animation business) unfounded statement like that? Well, not for me. =)
Just because something is more technically advanced doesn't make it better. =)
This is quite incorrect, I'm afraid. You see, you're only looking at one part of the equation. Let me explain.
Seek time is a very important factor on HDs. It tells you how long it'll take for the drive-head to go from one part of the drive to another. However, that doesn't say anything about how FAST the drive actually reads. It only shows you how much latency there'll be between reads - and that's not even the only factor in the latency part either.
A MUCH more important fact is the spin-rate, namely how many times it takes for the disk to rotate one revolution(sp?). The RPM (not to be confused with the broken packaging-system =)) is on older drives often 3600, while newer drives are at least 5400 RPM, often 7200 RPM and sometimes even 10,000 RPM.
Now, assume the same data-density on the actual drive and with a 10,000 RPM drive you get what? Three times more data per second? Wow, isn't that amazing?
Now, of course that isn't all. As stated in previous posts, with higher spin you get less rotational latency, IE the time it takes for the sector you want to read to actually arrive at the driveheads (who could've been in place for almost an entire revolution). That's another few (and very important) milliseconds.
But the most important fact when it comes to HD speed is the data-density. Now, what does this mean? Well, obviously people are able to stuff more data into the same physical space. A half-height 3.5" drive that used to hold 340MB obviously has to have lower data-density than a 40GB drive of the same physical dimensions.
Also, obviously HD researchers have to have come up with a way to stuff more tracks into the same space. Much tighter tracks will allow for more data. That doesn't help us in speed since a single drivehead can only read one track at a time. BUT, they must logically also have figured out a way to stuff more data into each track, meaning tighter spectors.
Let's calculate this in a square geometry for simplicity's sake. The 40GB drive is what? 100 times bigger than the 340MB drive? The square root of 100 is 10. Meaning that we in this scenario get 10 times more tracks, with 10 times more sectors per track.
Add this to the spin-speed and we get rougly 3*10=30 times speed improvement.
Add the reduced latency for both track seek and rotation and you'll get quite a good performance improvement.
Oh, and Mr Slashdolt... I *THINK* your processor is a *TINY* bit faster than 10 times a 486. You see, what you're doing is only comparing the megahertz. I could go into a long rant about instructions per cycle, caches, pipelines and so on, but I think I'll leave that for another day. =)
Anyway, this ends the Drive Mechanics 101 class for today.
-Fel- Geekette
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 2
This thing has been done already. Even the.god TLD has been done. There's EVEN been news stories about that (I don't know the URLs since it was a while ago, but I beleive CNN carried it).
Where are those now?
Sorry, but the established DNS network is there for a reason. Guess why? =)
Slashdot Mirror
...it's probably just for tax purposes.
Not having seen the movie in question, I can't speak for 2D vs 3D in the case of that movie never being a success, but I think what the article in question is missing is that there are a LOT more factors to what makes a good animation than just 2D or 3D.
My points can be expressed most easily in "Just because something is technically more advanced doesn't make it better".
Take Independence Day (a movie that I loved) for instance and compare it to the original Star Wars. Yes, Independence day has a lot more eye-candy. It got more action, and it's got more famous actors. Still, how many here can argue against Independence Day (relying on 3D CGI) ever coming close to the fame of Star Wars (using actual real-life models)? Not many I think.
Now take this into consideration when you look at 2D vs 3D animation. Yes, 3D animation has a LOT to offer. The characters can be alive, movements more fluid... Voicesync? Never a problem. Still, 3D animation has some serious restrictions. What you can do in 3D animation is limited to what the program allows you to do.
As an example? 3D animators out there, I challenge you to create a realistic or non-realistic 3D explosion that can rival those seen in the so-popular Anime movies. I'm not talking about lots of flashes and eye-candy, I'm talking about an explosion where you can see the clouds of smoke and flames burst out from the buildings, just moments before the shockwave rips the city apart, sending huge chunks of concrete hundreds of meters into the sky, only to fall down and impact among huge crowds of people with incredible force.
Well, anyone who's seen Anime knows what I'm talking about. When 3D animation is able to create something that radiates power so utterly like that, I'll concede my case. Until then, I hold that 3D animation has its severe limits.
And that's just one example.
Now, I'm not ruling out 3D animation. It definitely has a big space in the animation industry. AntZ is just one example of that. However, there's nothing to say that 2D and 3D animation can't coexist. Take Futurama for instance. It's a TV show with a very simplistic style that despite that uses a lot of 3D animations (how many of you knew that? =)).
Prince of Egypt used a large amount of 3D animation, as does almost Disney's recent movies. And in my opinion, those movies are masterpieces that hold a class that 3D animation has yet to reach.
In my opinion, 3D animation is better for most action. 3D animation also allows for things that aren't possible in traditional 2D animation. Still, 2D animation is the better medium for storytelling, where the plot is more important than the eyecandy.
I believe that's why traditional animation is still in such a high demand.
-Fel-
Dear Mr Kickasso.
Your statement is about as valid as "Console Sucks, GUI is the way to go".
Yes, I agree that 3D has a lot of potential that 2D animation simply doesn't, but ruling out 2D based on an (and I say this as a person who's taken part in the animation business) unfounded statement like that? Well, not for me. =)
Just because something is more technically advanced doesn't make it better. =)
-Fel-
This is quite incorrect, I'm afraid. You see, you're only looking at one part of the equation. Let me explain.
Seek time is a very important factor on HDs. It tells you how long it'll take for the drive-head to go from one part of the drive to another. However, that doesn't say anything about how FAST the drive actually reads. It only shows you how much latency there'll be between reads - and that's not even the only factor in the latency part either.
A MUCH more important fact is the spin-rate, namely how many times it takes for the disk to rotate one revolution(sp?). The RPM (not to be confused with the broken packaging-system =)) is on older drives often 3600, while newer drives are at least 5400 RPM, often 7200 RPM and sometimes even 10,000 RPM.
Now, assume the same data-density on the actual drive and with a 10,000 RPM drive you get what? Three times more data per second? Wow, isn't that amazing?
Now, of course that isn't all. As stated in previous posts, with higher spin you get less rotational latency, IE the time it takes for the sector you want to read to actually arrive at the driveheads (who could've been in place for almost an entire revolution). That's another few (and very important) milliseconds.
But the most important fact when it comes to HD speed is the data-density. Now, what does this mean? Well, obviously people are able to stuff more data into the same physical space. A half-height 3.5" drive that used to hold 340MB obviously has to have lower data-density than a 40GB drive of the same physical dimensions.
Also, obviously HD researchers have to have come up with a way to stuff more tracks into the same space. Much tighter tracks will allow for more data. That doesn't help us in speed since a single drivehead can only read one track at a time. BUT, they must logically also have figured out a way to stuff more data into each track, meaning tighter spectors.
Let's calculate this in a square geometry for simplicity's sake. The 40GB drive is what? 100 times bigger than the 340MB drive? The square root of 100 is 10. Meaning that we in this scenario get 10 times more tracks, with 10 times more sectors per track.
Add this to the spin-speed and we get rougly 3*10=30 times speed improvement.
Add the reduced latency for both track seek and rotation and you'll get quite a good performance improvement.
Oh, and Mr Slashdolt... I *THINK* your processor is a *TINY* bit faster than 10 times a 486. You see, what you're doing is only comparing the megahertz. I could go into a long rant about instructions per cycle, caches, pipelines and so on, but I think I'll leave that for another day. =)
Anyway, this ends the Drive Mechanics 101 class for today.
-Fel-
Geekette
This thing has been done already. Even the .god TLD has been done. There's EVEN been news stories about that (I don't know the URLs since it was a while ago, but I beleive CNN carried it).
Where are those now?
Sorry, but the established DNS network is there for a reason. Guess why? =)