2D vs. 3D In The Medical Illustration & Animation Field

2D vs. 3D In The Medical Illustration & Animation Field

Guest Post from Bill Graham

3D programs like ZBrush and Maya have enabled artists to conceptualize biological environments like never before. The results are amazing in both their detail and beauty, but they can also be confusing on a conceptual level.

Amid all the visual complexity of 3D images, it’s important to remember that we are, at our most basic level, storytellers. Our job is to transform complex scientific and technical information into a new form that can be easily understood by our target audience. That audience can be anything from a child learning how to use a home insulin delivery device, to a doctor studying new drug mechanisms of action.

The use of 2D motion graphics can provide simple visual solutions to complex biological processes.

When approaching how to visualize a new project, there are 2 essential questions that must be answered: How can we communicate this idea or process in its most understandable form? And what are our budget limitations?

The solution to both questions is often 2D Motion Graphics. They’re less costly to produce and can be created using vector art, Photoshop, photography or even 3D elements composited in After Effects.

In my business, I do both 3D animation and 2D motion graphics. In today’s busy work environment, I find the speed of delivery and lower budgets of motion graphics often makes it the right choice for the job. But perhaps most importantly, the storytelling capabilities of 2D motion graphics can often be simplified and directed in a way that better gets through to our target audience.

And after all, that is the whole point of what we do.


William Graham



About the Author:

William Graham is an Emmy Nominated Illustrator, a specialist in Pharmaceutical, Healthcare and Animated Projects