Distorted Designers

Hello all 2D and 3D gurus out there
Me and Asif had fight about the definition of 2D and 3D today. Since I am not the expert in this field so I need to know the definition and a brief explanation from all you guys. It would be great if you post some images to show the meaning of 2D and 3D

yes we were figtining ..dhishum dhishum!!!...(sorry shabbir bhai...you are my elder brother...this fight/debate is knowledge fight)...anyway...

To me- when you will find/feel the depthness in a logo is 3D(width-height-length/depth). When there no, its 2D.

few examples:

By default 3D logo, I mean it is their original/official logo:


By default 3D logo:



suppose this is "Nissan"s official logo which is 2D:


but they represents it as a 3D:


This is my general understanding on 2D and 3D logo. May be those are wrong. post your opinions here so that we can come up a solid conclusion. by this time I will search for more knowledges.

cheers!

Its nothing personal Asif... its about knowledge sharing i love to fight when the base is knowledge sharing

To me all of the above logos are 2D... what I understand is... kono object e height, width and Depth thaklei 3D hoy na... 3D needs a proper dimension in different views... but in 2D you need to focus in a particular side or view. Maybe im wrong... but what is the right ??

check out this

http://www.cs.brown.edu/stc/summer/94Ge ... ns_12.html

Here can be the concept. Correct it if I am wrong.

mante parlam na

shabbir wrote:mante parlam na

Why??..it's just the Physics...nothing my personal creation... ok lets see what other says

well you both are right in your own views but logically the main difference between 2D and 3D is that:

2D: is basically comprised of only 2 dimensions or axis eg. 1- Y-Axis (vertical axis) and 2- X-Axis (horizontal axis)

3D: when we introduce another axis or dimension to the 2D which we call Z-Axis, then it makes it 3D. Z-Axis is basically an axis of depth.

we can fake 3D in any 2D image, like the 3D logo samples that Asif bhai has referenced. It is what we call faking 3D. Almost all the paintings and drawing of real life objects are made in a Fake 3D style to make it appear realistic, they all have perspective.

but technically the actual 3D effect can be achieved through specialized applications like Maya, 3D studio, etc. in which we can see all the dimensions/axis/views of object by rotating the camera.

Physics is fine but your explanation was not satisfactory.
If "Meena, ThandurCats " cartoon is 2D and "Shrek" is 3D cartoon (u agreed with me during our fighting session in the morning) then my question is why not Meena Cartoon is not 3D to you (according to your physics concet)?

perfect!

ya Fake3D...to give the realistic effect...but we can't use/touch that as a 3D. If someone says me to made a 2D ball, I will cut-off a circle from a paper. If he says to make me a ball then I will mold(kagojer dola) the ball to give it the depth. therefore if anyone say me to draw a 2D ball, i will draw a circle and if he asks for 3D ball then I will try to add lighting and shadows on that circle to look it 3D. Difference is I can't feel the depthness by hand in paper..but can feel by eye. Thats the whole idea i guess

My understanding about this is, it depends on the way the image wants to represent it self. If there is a hint of depth, then it might demands to be in 3d. Which can be sometime very clear like the second Nissan logo or the Vergevision logo. Sometime its in a funky way like the "Zahid" in the attached image.



Its("Zahid") not accurate about the depth(the perspective distortion is not present ) but some may still find it in 3d.

And sometime in more abstracts. To roughly make my point, look and the second item. It supposed to give the depth feeling simply by color, size of objects and overlapping . And some might even find the 3rd one (maybe not a good example) to be in 3d depending on the warm/cool value of color( the warmer the closer).

OMO, the first Nissan logo is meant to be a absolute 2d graphics.

So my point is, it depends on the representation. But I'm willing to change my mind if you can prove otherwise with better explanations.

yes Zahid bhai i absolutely agree with you

nice examples Zahid bhai. 2nd image is totally 50-50. I mean if I want to consider it as a 2D then its 2D, if 3D then its 3D. because here depth is felt into other way. So question is:

suppose 2nd image is my company logo. and I am claiming that this is a 3D logo. is that ok? off-course!!

so the image should have the feel of depth by anyhow to represnt itself as a 3D.

According to that my all top logos are 3D except 1st Nissan one. because it doesn't have any depth at all.

so sum up all the discussion the 2D and 3D are merely terms to represent the visual image. if the z-dimension is visible in the image then its 3D otherwise its 2D.

On the second though, the the first Nissan logo can still be in 3d. If you imagine a thick white border about the blue block then you might say that it's over lapping the red sun and can get a sense of depth in there. But that's subjective issue i would say. I would call it an absolute 2d if the red sun was missing.