 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
> we're talking about me, too, here, maybe my dislike is with a culture where
> you're supposed to applaud people who tried really hard for realism, regardless
> of whether they plummeted to bottom of UV. The X-axis versus the Y.
would you applaud this one?
http://www.studio-aiko.com/temp/classroom/classroom_daylight.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
top render BTW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 18:50, schrieb Stephen:
>
> I think that you succeeded. Jim will be drooling. ;-)
>
Hmm. Not so sure... if you look a few years back and search for the
latest works of Jim on the "theme"... they are so exquisitely modeled
and textured... umm, err, sorry, guess now its me who is drooling...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 18:47, schrieb gregjohn:
> Well, congratulations on getting over the Uncanny Valley and into the peak of
> true realism. Or maybe you stopped on the precipice before the valley.
Actually I do not believe in the existence of this valley outside of
robotics. It seems to me more like some trendy formula you just have to
know about within the CGI business. But no matter what I do believe (and
maybe I'm wrong) the way I have observed the usage of this uncanny
valley is quite often like a deadly hammer and marks just the end of any
constructive discussion.
> If
> we're talking about me, too, here, maybe my dislike is with a culture where
> you're supposed to applaud people who tried really hard for realism, regardless
> of whether they plummeted to bottom of UV. The X-axis versus the Y.
>
While I can understand this I must also say that this NG is far better
in this regard as the others I'm occasionally lurking (mostly for
professional i.e. expensive render software). And we have quite a lot
people around showing work that is not blindly (err, did I say blindly)
aiming for photo-realism - not stating names as I would surely forget some.
> Among the strengths of this image are exhaustively perfect radiosity, and good
> color selection. Did you have any special tips?
>
Sure, I got a few from my wife - and her collection of shoes was quite
welcome for studying the subject ;)
And no radiosity here just a dim shadowless pointlight exactly at the
the camera location. This is a cheap trick I do use all the time while
doing test renders. But this time I thought I get away with it even for
the final render. But this *is* the first time since Christoph's
radiosity overhaul that I did not use it.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 20:50, schrieb nemesis:
> gregjohn escreveu:
>> I really like this one. It has no fingerprint of being raytraced.
>
> aside from the "too perfect to be true" factor. I mean, no dirt anywhere
> and perfect reflections. :p
Well, thats what I mean by "hyper"-real. I could have added a bit of
dust, some scratches and such but I decided not to do it.
Vivian Westwood is not all about punk and reality is not the theme of
this image. Persistence of fashion is a contradiction in terms.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 20:52, schrieb nemesis:
> would you applaud this one?
>
> http://www.studio-aiko.com/temp/classroom/classroom_daylight.html
Very impressive and obviously a lot of work...
...but for some reason I do not feel a faint temptation to frame one of
them. A good photographer would have chosen just one out of maybe many
shots for his portfolio - the one that best captures the mood. Anything
else is just redundant.
Well, what I'm trying to say here: CGI as an art form is still too young
and just naive. And BTW I just realized these days that Laurie Anderson
and Lou Reed are married since a few years, ahem, well, different story,
just got the association...
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
>> I really like this one. It has no fingerprint of being
>> raytraced.
nemesis wrote:
> aside from the "too perfect to be true" factor. I mean,
> no dirt anywhere and perfect reflections. :p
> ...
> would you applaud this one?
> http://www.studio-aiko.com/temp/classroom/classroom_daylight.html
Ive wrote:
> Actually I do not believe in the existence of this valley
> outside of robotics. It seems to me more like some trendy
> formula you just have to know about within the CGI business.
> But no matter what I do believe (and maybe I'm wrong)
> the way I have observed the usage of this uncanny valley
> is quite often like a deadly hammer and marks just the end
> of any constructive discussion.
> ...
> I could have added a bit of dust, some scratches and such
> but I decided not to do it.
Apologies to Ive for taking over this thread with discussion of CG art in
general.
But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more evidence for
the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in order to provide *some*
benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to the "emotional response" in the
Y-axis of the UV.
Nemesis, as per Classroom 2010: It's very cool. I love the first view of the
electronics desk. But I don't like the view of the backs of the chairs. There's
too many defects in the chairs and windows. I don't like a wooden, formulaic use
of the elements or realism, to the point of distraction. That I believe was the
problem with "Rango" which didn't break even in 9 week's box office, whereas
"Rio" broke even in three weeks.
If Ive went and put a whole bunch of scratches and dirt and lens flares, I
predict he'd get less "box office" at zazzle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more
> evidence for the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in
> order to provide *some* benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to
> the "emotional response" in the Y-axis of the UV.
I don't believe that the UV can be applied to anything else than
human-like things. The hypothesis only applies to human-like things, and
every explanation about it only covers human characteristics.
Your aversion for hyper-realism it's something else... it can be
something similar to my dislike for surrealism or abstraction: I just
underrate failed attempts because of my own inability to create good
images on these styles.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Ive:
Exquisite modeling detail and amazing colors/finishes... really great!
> Credits to Jim Charter for his tutorial on how to model shoes with
> Wings3d. But the tutorial and his complete side seems gone. Sad.
I hope it's just a change on interests, or an increase of duties...
and not something sad.
--
Jaime Vives Piqueres
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres escreveu:
>> But Ive, it looks like in your last comment, you just provided more
>> evidence for the UV hypothesis. You held back on hyper-realism in
>> order to provide *some* benefit, and whatever reason is analogous to
>> the "emotional response" in the Y-axis of the UV.
>
> I don't believe that the UV can be applied to anything else than
> human-like things. The hypothesis only applies to human-like things, and
> every explanation about it only covers human characteristics.
>
> Your aversion for hyper-realism it's something else... it can be
> something similar to my dislike for surrealism or abstraction: I just
> underrate failed attempts because of my own inability to create good
> images on these styles.
haha, I knew you two guys would clash on this one.
Indeed I would take many of Jaime's povving's for photographs, even old
ones (despite these not even having DOF and other camera artifacts).
and yes, I agree UV only applies to human characters. Each day, even
less so it seems.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
