|
I would try the technique of putting the image in the viewport background with some guide lines based on the building's base, putting a ground plane with a few segments at 0,0,0, putting in a camera and start by having a guess at the elevation the picture was taken at. The lens seems to be pretty wide. Try to match your guide lines with the plane segments. Once you have it more or less lined up, then you can worry about the scale.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:wow blob meshing of the stones to create mortar? 32 unique stones? That seems just a tad overboard. There has to be more efficient ways to do that. Displacement, for one. It wouldn't have been much fun at all just dropping a displacement map on a box, now would it, smarty pants? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2009 23:38
|
|
|
I'm with you Handiklap Sometimes you just have to overmodel something If you always take the most strictly efficient route you'll go insane. Trying stupid things is what the game is all about.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 03:55
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I'm with you Handiklap It also sucks to model yourself into a corner that doesn't allow for any modifications later on. There's definitely a balance between strictly planning everything and modeling everything. But, I'm not sure super efficient leads to the absolute best images unless you have a ton of experience already.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 04:00
|
|
|
Finally got around to putting together some figaro pho breakdowns. If anyone has any questions, I can explain in more detail when i have time  http://www.vimeo.com/4425776 http://www.vimeo.com/4425800 EDIT: Didnt realize it was so small! just watch em fullscreen if you cant read the text also this is a pretty rad shader we made; 
Kirby fucked around with this message at 09:03 on May 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 09:00
|
|
|
Handiklap posted:It wouldn't have been much fun at all just dropping a displacement map on a box, now would it, smarty pants? One of the great thing about the way you've done it is that you can do it on a flat plane, 32mx32m, entirely randomised and render yourself a diffuse/spec/occ and make a loving ridiculously high detail custom shader. If you're using the new vray you could even try vector displacement, which should look pretty much exact on a wall like that. Kirby: thats awesome, thanks  I'm always impressed by pass based renders. I do my base, a couple of masks and then have about 50 nodes in combustion going all over the place ripping parts out and putting them back.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 12:23
|
|
|
Kirby posted:Finally got around to putting together some figaro pho breakdowns. If anyone has any questions, I can explain in more detail when i have time What are you using the falloff pass for exactly?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 14:12
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I'm with you Handiklap Ok the unique stones I can definitely understand. Sometimes you DO have to go overboard on that. But blobby surfaces for the mortar? What exactly does that accomplish? It offers zero benefit as far as I can see.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 17:22
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Ok the unique stones I can definitely understand. Sometimes you DO have to go overboard on that. But blobby surfaces for the mortar? What exactly does that accomplish? It offers zero benefit as far as I can see. It accomplishes getting the mortar to rise in relief as it nears each stone, despite the relative orientation or translations of the stones. If you've got a better way to do that, I'd love to hear it, seriously. Man that sounds so snarky, but I'm being earnest, please make this quicker than blobmeshing 1 million polys because I applied it to my full res meshes instead of a less dense clone since planning isn't my strong suit run on sentence.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
Handiklap posted:It accomplishes getting the mortar to rise in relief as it nears each stone, despite the relative orientation or translations of the stones. If you've got a better way to do that, I'd love to hear it, seriously. Man that sounds so snarky, but I'm being earnest, please make this quicker than blobmeshing 1 million polys because I applied it to my full res meshes instead of a less dense clone since planning isn't my strong suit run on sentence. Okay I see what you're saying. However you have to ask yourself, is it noticeable? I can't really see it rising in relief near the stone's edges at all. It looks like a sligggghttly deformed plane with a soft bump on it. So you have to ask yourself "If I'm not getting close up on this..is it worth the effort to accomplish an effect that isn't noticeable from the distance I'm rendering at." I'm not trying to be a jerk, I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with what you did, and if you get close up on it then it could be a nice effect. But just judging from the distance of that render, the same effect could be gotten more efficiently with a slightly deformed plane with a soft bump. Can you get a render right up on the stones so I can see it better?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Okay I see what you're saying. However you have to ask yourself, is it noticeable? I can't really see it rising in relief near the stone's edges at all. It looks like a sligggghttly deformed plane with a soft bump on it. So you have to ask yourself "If I'm not getting close up on this..is it worth the effort to accomplish an effect that isn't noticeable from the distance I'm rendering at."  I agree with what you're saying; it definitely doesn't pull up as much as it should around the stones. The blob needs more intensity and less iterations, but I think it can do what I want it to. Doing it with a blob was my way of avoiding going through and reorienting all the stones to be more planar relative to one another. I think the theory is there, it just needs some coercing to do what I want, and probably some better textures to make the effect more convincing. There's just a challenge to doing things the hard way that I simply cannot avoid. Now you've got me thinking about make a surface from all of the outermost edge loops...it would probably work actually...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
 The modelling of my final team project for this year is pretty much finished not pictured: the trenches, the broken buildings, the not-broken buildings, the barb wire, the tanks (or tank, it's just an instance :P) and pretty much everything else you would imagine in a soviet warzone. (the building's name is the palace of the soviets, it was supposed to exist, unfortunately they used the materials to make defenses during world war 2 and the project got aborted) I don't know how cool the whole thing will look like in the end, generally people are awed at the scale of everything but we are only 4 (well, 3 really, I won't go in too much detail but some people haven't got much motivation in the team) working on the whole thing, one week to texture, another to animate and composite everything (there won't be much animation). The questions about the smoke I asked earlier in the thread were concerning this projet. Waddya think?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 00:03
|
|
|
Hinchu posted:What are you using the falloff pass for exactly? we just added it into the comp. It got established early as a 'look' thing. its subtle, but it kinda gave things a 'powdery' feel, as the art director liked to put it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
^^^^ Thanks so much for the breakdown!! Especially for the videos. Does that falloff pass act like some kind of weird perpetual rimlight? I am a newb at this stuff but I am curious about the passes in the video. Are they the same? It looks like you have other passes and I am curious about the blending modes and what modes you used for which passes. Sorry if that is asking for a lot but you did a great job and I would love to know what the passes were and how they were composited. Did you just use ADD for the light passes and multiply for the AO? What about the falloff? Did you multiply that before the AO? Sorry if all of this is obvious to other forum members. sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 03:32 on May 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 03:21
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:
Daaamn, that is a good model. It would be great fun to comp it into a nice sky, poo poo flying around in the wind and a bunch of smoke and burning stuff. Just to tear things up in general.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 14:45
|
|
|
Were going to place planes with smoke in them taken out of combustion and we will place some plans flying up in the air at a few places. I'm not sure how the sky will be done yet...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 17:46
|
|
|
Kirby posted:we just added it into the comp. It got established early as a 'look' thing. its subtle, but it kinda gave things a 'powdery' feel, as the art director liked to put it. That's cool. I'm a big fan of rim type of lighting in CG. I did actually notice some type of effect like that when you were showing it all off earlier. I couldn't put my finger on it exactly. I'm getting closer to the rendering and lighting side of my project so I'm trying to decide the look and feel that I want with it. I'm probably going to do a lot of rim lighting. I may actually look into that. Of course I need to figure out the fastest way to render passes in Lightwave. Sometimes I feel like that program is too arcane. They really need to look at the workflow in that program.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2009 17:53
|
|
|
Heintje posted:
That is a pretty amazing render of the Earth! I have been working on my Cheerios/orange juice image (posted on page 32) a little and this is my latest render: 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2009 02:09
|
|
|
A new fun and exciting project I've started: This is just the basic model with a light thrown in. And this is sort of the jist of the lighting that I'll be going for in the finished product. It of course needs a lot of work: 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2009 06:48
|
|
|
'The Bloody Piston' sounds like a terrifing new sexual position.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2009 11:30
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:'The Bloody Piston' sounds like a terrifing new sexual position. Hey baby  how you doin'oh and here's the wireframe:  
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
spottedfeces posted:A new fun and exciting project I've started: It looks like it's still pretty early, but I love the concept! I reminds me of the old lucas arts adventure game Full Throttle. Keep it up, I want to see more.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
I posted this in the Creative Career thread, but after reading the OP again, I think it may fit here as well. I want to start studying computer animation (I still haven't decided on a specific orientation), and I'll probably end up in Australia, seeing as my own country's animation schools (both of them) pretty much suck, and Australia is the only place I can currently get a work+study visa. So I turn to any of you who is Australian or Australia-based, to ask you for recommendations on good schools/universities I should look into to start studying over there. I haven't got a particular location in mind yet, so anything goes until I narrow it down. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2009 19:14
|
|
|
If you want to study animation and CG in Australia, Sydney will give you the biggest range of options in terms of schools and studios.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 03:06
|
|
|
Yeah if you want to study animation, Australia isn't exactly the place to come to. Universities around Australia all offer courses, but they're not necessarily good. Depending on what you decide on, There's a huge AFTRS campus in Sydney, which is more postgrad VFX/Animation. I've seen some good straight up animators come out of Griffith University in Brisbane. there's also a bunch of private collages/academies, but from what I've seen of the work come out of those, you're paying much more for a pretty comparative education. Kirby fucked around with this message at 03:42 on May 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah I've heard repeated noises from the AFTRS place, it seems to be a central Thing for this education stuff in 3d. ninja- though as I said before, if you want to do anything beyond entry level I'd recommend other places like Bournemouth/SCAD/Gobelins/Vancouver FS
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Gobelins
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
Kirby posted:Gobelins Yeah. Gobelins is amazing. Sheridan used to have quite a rep too.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 08:16
|
|
|
Thanks for all the input. Unfortunately, anything outside of Australia is impossible for the time being (can't pay for it if I don't work), so the plan I had in mind was: Go to Australia, start at the entry level, and once I finish up there use the money I saved up to go somewhere else. It's still really far fetched for now, and depends on a million different things, but I wanted to get a headstart with the whole "choose a bloody place" before arriving there. v  v
Edmond Dantes fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2009 19:59
|
|
|
I've been playing with the light in this room for days now. It still looks...off to me somehow, but I can't quite nail down what it is. Figured maybe some fresh eyes would be a good start. I'm using maya and mental ray, GI,FG, and caustics. Ignore the missing textures, please. http://mattbradshaw.holeinthewallhosting.com/sunset%20room%20wip.jpg The whole 'light an interior with an exterior source' trips me up every time I try it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
Nice 404 there chief.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 05:14
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Nice 404 there chief. Aghh. I've been getting that on and off all day. Thought they had fixed it. Apparantly not. Weeeee. One moment... http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc230/mattdb9/sunsetroomwip.jpg dreggory fucked around with this message at 05:46 on May 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 05:43
|
|
|
dreggory posted:Aghh. I've been getting that on and off all day. Thought they had fixed it. Apparantly not. Weeeee. It's not too bad lighting wise. Obviously there are issues with the table and stuff...it doesn't match the overall 'quality' of the render. First and foremost tone down that burn from the sun on the wall (just above the table). Also that bright rear end white door takes your eye away from everything else. There are also some scale issues going on. With the door handle and the table and books/bookshelf.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 06:49
|
|
|
It might be a composition issue too, all that dead space on the far left and right of the image.  Today's find, inanimate objects in sexy slow-motion. http://vimeo.com/3186143
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 07:00
|
|
|
i love the treatment of that video, but was everything meant to look like a miniature? as for the room shot; it's a start. it's just not visually interesting at the moment. a few things at first thought; - the shadow from the sun is a little too fuzzy. only a bit. - where is the lightsource from the door coming from (ie. bulb, sun, etc?)? at the moment it looks kinda like very bright ambient skylight, which doesnt make sense. if it's a bulb, it needs more shadow direction. - if it is a bulb lightsource, does that room have windows? it would mean there is more orange light spilling through. - on the same note, both of your lightsources have the same intensity. if you have the sun in your shot, its obviously going to be the brightest lightsource. -play with your scale - get rid of the hotspots, and decide where your focal point of the shot is.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 08:24
|
|
|
FWIW, that bounced light on the floor makes the carpet look really good!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 13:47
|
|
|
Ah, thank you! Now that I look at it, that doorway does seem to be very large in relation to the rest of it. The door/hallway area I was trying to use to break up the lighting from just orange-red-yellow-orange-orange-orange...any suggestions on how to better go about that? As far as the composition goes I probably should have tossed this up there in the first place.  This is closer to the shot I'm going for, I was just having a hard time seeing what was going on with the lights, etc. from this angle. It's part of a school assignment. The stipulations were that we had to have all the models visible in the shot, and it had to be at sunset. Edit: yeah, hotspot is waaaay to much. I'm spotting some more scaling issues now, too. dreggory fucked around with this message at 14:08 on May 6, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 14:02
|
|
|
Lincoln Logs are like 5 times that size :x
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2009 23:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty certain the logs are about right... They might could be a biiiit bigger. But not much. Also, don't google image search lincoln logs. It is 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:18 |
|
|
oooooohhhhhh they're underneath the table. Right, my mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2009 03:59
|
|