Analysis of other 2D/3D integration: Part 1

For this analysis series, I have decided to search on YouTube about other peoples animation and video and analyse them to make a much better understanding of what I am doing for my project.


  • Lighting seems to be good
  • No decay rate on shadow at all
  • This makes the object in scene look off (not look like a part of the scene)

Despite of the shakiness, the creator of the animation did a really good job with the steadiness of the object in the scene, though it might just be because there’s very slight shakiness on the object that it’s not noticeable as the camera is also shaky.


  •  Lighting goes really well
  • object is rightly lit for the setting that it is in
  • shadow is too sharp instead of having blurred edges with no decay/death rate
  •  looks too artificial as the distance or intensity of lighting should affect its appearance.


  • completely different animation based on a ceramic object being broken to pieces when a ball is dropped on top of it (presumably a metallic material)
  • Dispersion of broken pieces too slow
  • bounced off the table like plastic or rubber rather than a harder object
  • broken pieces also flew upwards at the end instead of just being static on the table.
  • lighting doesn’t match the lighting of the live action video

The overall video has the same problem in all the scenes, the lighting and shadow doesn’t completely go with the scene and thus takes out the effect of 3D integration.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: