For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
good for rendering. Don't forget that the
quality of an image depend strongly on the 
capabilities of the artist and not only on
the capabilities of the software :).

Fabian.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'willi1.jpg' (99 KB)

Preview of image 'willi1.jpg'

While I do not argue that the artist that made this image is talented, in fact
I think he must me amazingly talented, given that this is one of the most
realistic images I have scene. Remember the resources these guys are drawing
from, I bet that most if not all of the texturing in that image was done with
image maps taken from real world objects, real photo of moss on old wood,
picture of real bricks, etc.., add that with the complicated masking abilities
of Max and you can create some amazingly realistic stuff with a minimum of
effort, though you still have to be REALLY good to do as good as this guy has
done. I know because I have some experience with working with 3DS MAX. I once
did an image of a leave, I went out into my garden, picked a leaf, came home
scanned and scanned it in. Then I just made a Gray scale of the leaf for a
bump map, use a silhouette for a mask and used the leaf itself as the image
map. I had an amazingly realistic leaf in about 20 mins. The textures really
make this image, I'd say almost 90% of the impact of the image is the
textures. In Pov-Ray on the other hand we are working with procedural
textures, I don't think you can compare the 2 fairly.

Fabian BRAU wrote:

> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

--
Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/

Post a reply to this message

Imagine how great it would look if it was done in POV!

Post a reply to this message

> 
> While I do not argue that the artist that made this image is talented, in fact
> I think he must me amazingly talented, given that this is one of the most
> realistic images I have scene. Remember the resources these guys are drawing
> from, I bet that most if not all of the texturing in that image was done with
> image maps taken from real world objects, real photo of moss on old wood,
> picture of real bricks, etc.., 

has every profesionnal do :). This is a very good way to get realistic
picture but this is obviously not enough. All your object need to be
blend correctly in your images. Radiosity help a lot on this point.

> dd that with the complicated masking abilities
> of Max and you can create some amazingly realistic stuff with a minimum of
> effort,

Usually people says that Max dosn't give realistic result :).

>  though you still have to be REALLY good to do as good as this guy has
> done. I know because I have some experience with working with 3DS MAX. I once
> did an image of a leave, I went out into my garden, picked a leaf, came home
> scanned and scanned it in. Then I just made a Gray scale of the leaf for a
> bump map, use a silhouette for a mask and used the leaf itself as the image
> map. I had an amazingly realistic leaf in about 20 mins. The textures really
> make this image, I'd say almost 90% of the impact of the image is the
> textures. In Pov-Ray on the other hand we are working with procedural
> textures, I don't think you can compare the 2 fairly.

I use Pov-Ray a lot (this is the only renderer I use) and I use almost
exclusively images maps and now with uvmapping, all is ok with that.
So on this point you can compare :). Moreover, in this image there
no real difficult thing to model. This can be done in Pov. And
perhaps one can get this veru good result. 
I just post this image to says that with 3dsmax (and with all
commercial software) on can get amazing result (some Pov-Ray 
user still doubt about it :)). And Moreover commercial
software offer facilities to get very good result very quickly
(fast modeling, fast rendering but expensive :))

Fabian.

> 
> Fabian BRAU wrote:
> 
> > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > the capabilities of the software :).
> >
> > Fabian.
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
> 
> --
> Come visit my web site:-) : http://www.geocities.com/~thomaslake/

Post a reply to this message

Yes better than with a Nikon :).

Fabian.


> 
> Imagine how great it would look if it was done in POV!

Post a reply to this message

AWSOME ROLEX!!!
sorry it had to be done.. :-(


"Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> quality of an image depend strongly on the
> capabilities of the artist and not only on
> the capabilities of the software :).
>
> Fabian.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Post a reply to this message

Sorry I don't understand :(

Fabian.


> 
> AWSOME ROLEX!!!
> sorry it had to be done.. :-(
> 
> "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > the capabilities of the software :).
> >
> > Fabian.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----

Post a reply to this message

Quite some time ago (last year?) someone posted
a pic to this newsgroup which eventually turned
out to be a photograph. The subject of the posting
was AWSOME ROLEX. So it has become sort of synonym
for "faked render" (i.e. "actually it's a photo").

-Hans-

Fabian BRAU wrote:
> 
> Sorry I don't understand :(
> 
> Fabian.
> 

> >
> > AWSOME ROLEX!!!
> > sorry it had to be done.. :-(
> >
> > "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> > news:398FC4A2.AB25CF37@umh.ac.be...
> > > For those who believe that 3ds Max is not
> > > good for rendering. Don't forget that the
> > > quality of an image depend strongly on the
> > > capabilities of the artist and not only on
> > > the capabilities of the software :).
> > >
> > > Fabian.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----

Post a reply to this message

"Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
news:398FEFA6.413541D5@umh.ac.be...
> Sorry I don't understand :(

sorry-- "AWSOME ROLEX" roughly translated means  "this image looks far to
good to have been done in POV"-- I know it was done in 3DS Max, I was just
making a lame lame joke :-(

Post a reply to this message

No problem :) I unserstand now!

To be honest, when you look the others pics on the site of this guy,
you can see that this 3d picsand not photos. But I agree for this
one this is really really difficult to see!
(I even not sure that this is not a photo! who knows)

But I have others for which I am sure that this is not a photo
Simply go to 

http://www.newtek.com/products/frameset_lightwave.html

a select gallery (there are four galleries).
Particulary look the public toilet picture : amazing!!

Fabian.


> 
> "Fabian BRAU" <Fab### [at] umhacbe> wrote in message
> news:398FEFA6.413541D5@umh.ac.be...
> > Sorry I don't understand :(
> 
> sorry-- "AWSOME ROLEX" roughly translated means  "this image looks far to
> good to have been done in POV"-- I know it was done in 3DS Max, I was just
> making a lame lame joke :-(

Post a reply to this message