 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Credits to Jim Charter for his tutorial on how to model shoes with
Wings3d. But the tutorial and his complete side seems gone. Sad.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'fashion.jpg' (462 KB)
Preview of image 'fashion.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoft org> wrote:
> Credits to Jim Charter for his tutorial on how to model shoes with
> Wings3d. But the tutorial and his complete side seems gone. Sad.
>
> -Ive
I really like this one. It has no fingerprint of being raytraced. More
entertaining than a photograph, like a fine art illustration.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.05.2011 01:03, schrieb gregjohn:
> I really like this one.
That does somehow surprise me as I had the impression you dislike
photo-realistic attempts in general. No uncanny valley of shoes here? ;)
> It has no fingerprint of being raytraced. More
> entertaining than a photograph, like a fine art illustration.
>
I guess this is a very good description what my subconscious mind was
looking for. Actually I did *remove* some modeling and texture details
that where already there. I've tried to achieve a kind of "hyper-" and
not "photo-" realistic look. Concentrating on shape and color.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Am 04.05.2011 01:03, schrieb gregjohn:
>
> > I really like this one.
>
> That does somehow surprise me as I had the impression you dislike
> photo-realistic attempts in general. No uncanny valley of shoes here? ;)
>
>
> > It has no fingerprint of being raytraced. More
> > entertaining than a photograph, like a fine art illustration.
> >
>
> I guess this is a very good description what my subconscious mind was
> looking for. Actually I did *remove* some modeling and texture details
> that where already there. I've tried to achieve a kind of "hyper-" and
> not "photo-" realistic look. Concentrating on shape and color.
>
> -Ive
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. 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.
Among the strengths of this image are exhaustively perfect radiosity, and good
color selection. Did you have any special tips?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/05/2011 12:34 PM, Ive wrote:
> I guess this is a very good description what my subconscious mind was
> looking for. Actually I did *remove* some modeling and texture details
> that where already there. I've tried to achieve a kind of "hyper-" and
> not "photo-" realistic look. Concentrating on shape and color.
I think that you succeeded. Jim will be drooling. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 05/05/11 13:11, gregjohn escribió:
> 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:
> El 05/05/11 13:11, gregjohn escribió:
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
> 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.
BTW, I watched both and Rango is a clear winner. Much, much better
storytelling and clever dialoguing. Rio, as breaks my heart to say, is
pure visual display and most no substance. But as a brazilian, I have
to say Carlos Saldanha certainly knows Brazil inside out too well -- the
monkeys resembling street kids are spot on.
But behind all the flash, dancing, music and visuals there's too little.
Even Ice Age style gags are far and few. Rango provides drama and
comedy in the right doses, with incredibly realistic imagery. OTOH, it
appeals more to an older audience (who would know the Durango western
reference) than kids. My daughter enjoyed Rio better of course.
Also, Rio has been highly publicized. I never heard of Rango until
seeing a poster at the movie theather.
> 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.
That's possible. After all, it's just a photograph -- in the broadest
sense as record of light impression -- of an old and dusty classroom.
Only art elements there are the composition and the warm old film
postprocessing. Certainly Ive's shoes score much higher in the
Still, the craft itself and the staggering amount of work obviously at
display there make it standout by itself.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/05/04 07:34, Ive a écrit :
> Am 04.05.2011 01:03, schrieb gregjohn:
>
>> I really like this one.
>
> That does somehow surprise me as I had the impression you dislike
> photo-realistic attempts in general. No uncanny valley of shoes here? ;)
>
>
> -Ive
In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
good enough, you feel uneasy.
When you render made or manufactured things, our brain is MUCH more
forgiving: It's something /artificial/ after all...
If the rendering of an object is to good to pass as an abstraction,
stylisation or exageration, our brain don't have the same expectation
about that. Without the expectation, there is no longer that unease feeling.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/05/05 11:51, Jaime Vives Piqueres a écrit :
> El 05/05/11 13:11, gregjohn escribió:
>> 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.
>
UV also apply to animals, mainly those that we encounter daily or
frequently.
For example:
That pouncing cat front paws are just not located correctly enough, they
seems articulated to low and not forward enough. It body should be
stretched some more.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escreveu:
> Certainly Ive's shoes score much higher in the
... pure aesthetic department! :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
> In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
> rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
> natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
> stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
> If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
> good enough, you feel uneasy.
This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today.... :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:40:20 +0200, Thomas de Groot
<tDOTdegroot@interdotnlanotherdotnet> wrote:
>
> "Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
>> In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
>> rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
>> natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
>> stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
>> If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
>> good enough, you feel uneasy.
>
> This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today.... :-)
>
> Thomas
>
>
The uncanny valley in art:
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&safe=active&client=opera&hs=oij&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=Ron%20Mueck&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3354l4103l0l4l4l0l0l0l0l0l0l&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1269&bih=878
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" <tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:
> "Alain" <aze### [at] qwertyorg> schreef in bericht
> news:4dc2eece$1@news.povray.org...
> > In my understanding, the "uncanny valey" apply almost uniquely to the
> > rendering of human and animal figures. Our brain is made to recognise
> > natural things. When you reproduce a face, it's OK if the face is
> > stylised, abstracted, exagerated or obviously non-human.
> > If that face is to good to pass as stylised or exagerated, but not quite
> > good enough, you feel uneasy.
>
> This is why I feel there is so much UV in the real world today.... :-)
>
> Thomas
I don't think, that the UV-Problem applies only to human or animal figures. It
applies to all the things in our perception, but not in the same amount. It
applies to grasses, to glasses, to ceramic pots. Look through the old
IRTC-entries for pleasing and annoying examples. If we recognize a thing (every
thing) as real or as an obvious model, we accept it, as real or as a model. If
we recognize it as a bad model, we reject it. That's the "Uncanny Valley". It
applies to humans, to apples, to screws or whatever we know in our everyday
life. It's a psychological issue, not a mathematical one. As a mathematician, I
have my problems to understand it really, but you cannot constrain it to human
or animal figures only.
Regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> El 05/05/11 13:11, gregjohn escribió:
> > 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
I'm a fan of the y-axis in Uncanny Valley: there is good hyper-realism, and good
stylized work, with a lot of garbage inbetween. I could take Ive's work and
start adding all of the "defects" that realism experts talk of: dust, dirt, lens
flare, focal blur, imperfections, spots, diseased areas, impossibly bent necks,
etc. We know that if I did this, the emotional response Y-axis to the improved
shoe scene would be lower. I'm an anti-fan of the celebration of decay and
disease that is the case in the leading male character of "Mars Needs Moms".
The movie "Rio" more than made 3X its investment in 1/3 the time of "Rango." In
the closing credits of "Rango", there were a group of folks listed as "Emotion
Capture," and in the publicity for "Rio", there's a bunch of footage of
animators having a great time acting out scenes in front of mirrors. IMO, Rio is
much more fun to watch.
FWIW, acting alone, I can produce something neither of the quality of "Beowulf"
nor of "The Incredibles" but I can speak of a difference between them. Same as
NASCAR drivers, football teams, etc.
I prepared this table for my own fun, hope it's fun for others too see too.
There's a celebration of defects in the realism more often at the top.
Gross Cost ROI Title UV?
36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms Yes
196 150 31% Beowulf Yes
245 147 67% Hulk (2003) Yes
238 135 76% Rango Yes
306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
383 176 118% Ice Age No
381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
243 100 143% Meatballs No
371 90 312% Rio No
632 92 587% Incredibles No
1800 200 800% Titanic ----
867 94 822% Nemo No
2782 300 827% Avatar Debated
1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn escreveu:
> Gross Cost ROI Title UV?
> 36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms Yes
> 196 150 31% Beowulf Yes
> 245 147 67% Hulk (2003) Yes
> 238 135 76% Rango Yes
> 306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
> 336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
> 383 176 118% Ice Age No
> 381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
> 243 100 143% Meatballs No
> 371 90 312% Rio No
> 632 92 587% Incredibles No
> 1800 200 800% Titanic ----
> 867 94 822% Nemo No
> 2782 300 827% Avatar Debated
> 1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No
so now, even cartoon animals like Rango are UV instead of bad movies
with game-like graphics? I suspect you just despise correct simulation
of light, rather than fake scanline or simple raytracing with plastic
phong materials.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> gregjohn escreveu:
> > Gross Cost ROI Title UV?
> > 36 150 -76% Mars Needs Moms Yes
> > 196 150 31% Beowulf Yes
> > 245 147 67% Hulk (2003) Yes
> > 238 135 76% Rango Yes
> > 306 165 85% Polar Express Yes
> > 336 155 117% Over the Hedge No
> > 383 176 118% Ice Age No
> > 381 175 118% Monsters vs. Aliens No
> > 243 100 143% Meatballs No
> > 371 90 312% Rio No
> > 632 92 587% Incredibles No
> > 1800 200 800% Titanic ----
> > 867 94 822% Nemo No
> > 2782 300 827% Avatar Debated
> > 1063 100 963% Toy Story 3 No
>
> so now, even cartoon animals like Rango are UV instead of bad movies
> with game-like graphics? I suspect you just despise correct simulation
> of light, rather than fake scanline or simple raytracing with plastic
> phong materials.
>
> --
> a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
BTW,
I think, this is not the place to discuss Polar Express vs. Nemo. I think,
we should admire Ive's work of shoes, which is over the edge of the UV in x and
in y in my opinion, a real good work and I congratulate him for this wonderful
picture.
Regards Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
