|
Odddzy posted:I'll try it out! I just want to vouch for Sigma-X here. Take his advice. He can be pretty rough, but he knows what he's talking about. A few years ago he gave me some advice and I felt probably a lot like you do right now, but I listened to him and took his suggestions as an effort to improve my talent. Now I'm producing stuff like this:  (Non-NDA stuff I did about a year ago for a HL2 mod, 1985.) You're probably one of the best in your class and that can get your head a little big (I was, and it did the same to me when I was in college.) Let off some steam and get better. Stick with it. You can do it.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2010 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Odddzy posted:I'll try it out! Best to develop a thick skin now for criticism. Some supervisors are arseholes that can be way way nastier than anything in this thread  Most aren't though, thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2010 06:25
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, i'm still game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2010 07:45
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:I'll try it out! Get used to it when applying for that first job trust me..
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2010 14:00
|
|
|
Sorry to come barging here again, but does anyone have any tips for getting chocolate to look right? I'm trying to make liquid flowing chocolate, and I think I have the viscosity down about right, but the material needs a little something I think. I'm using Subsurface Scattering but I don't know if theres some other setting I should be using or not. Blender x64, btw, but if you can give me advice in any program I'm sure I can figure out the equivalents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
I think getting the specularity/reflection just right is the most important thing to get the chocolate to look convincing. SSS will help, but spec/ref will be the main thing I reckon
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Sorry to but into this thread kind of late, but I have some general questions that I know you guys would have good answers for. I've played with 3d before, but never reached a level where I could show anyone my work and not run away in shame. I'm in my later high-school years, and I've pretty much decided on a CS major. Is it to late to start 3DCG? I mean, I only want to do it as a break from programming over the summer, but is this even a really viable thing to do? I don't have access to any really good tools like Zbrush or anything Autodesk. I just think it would be a neat thing to spend some time with, so how would I get started on this path, but only as a side hobby?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
It's going to take a decent amount of work to make something you would show anyone and not run away in shame. I would go for some kind of complimentary hobby to your career like programming in an engine like UE3 or in UDK. There are some cool shaders and effects you can accomplish with CS knowhow. Depending on the language of course.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
ambushsabre posted:Sorry to but into this thread kind of late, but I have some general questions that I know you guys would have good answers for. I've played with 3d before, but never reached a level where I could show anyone my work and not run away in shame. I'm in my later high-school years, and I've pretty much decided on a CS major. Is it to late to start 3DCG? I mean, I only want to do it as a break from programming over the summer, but is this even a really viable thing to do? I don't have access to any really good tools like Zbrush or anything Autodesk. I just think it would be a neat thing to spend some time with, so how would I get started on this path, but only as a side hobby? Get some software, google some tutorials for the software. There are free programs like Blender out there, and there are trials of pretty much any piece of 3d software out there. I'd recommend doing whatever you have to do to get some professional-grade software, if only because there are so many more tutorials for 3ds Max than Blender, etc. Once you know the high-level concepts, moving from software to software is easy, but you might as well learn a piece of software you'll actually use. As a highschool student you ought to qualify for student licenses of software, check out studica.com or journeyed.com or whatever the kids are using nowadays. I didn't start messing around with 3d software until I was 19, didn't get serious about it until I was 22, and didn't get a job doing it until I turned 24. I also never went to school for it, so I learned on my own, working on game projects with friends to get a handle on the technical side, and working on personal projects/art to get a handle on the art side. It is never "too late" to start anything, it isn't a race, and you aren't going to miss out on something if you start a year later or two years later or just futz around with it until you figure out what you really want to do when you're 20. Getting your work to a high level of quality will take a long time (years to get to professional level), but the same can be said of any skill, including CS. You shouldn't be ashamed of showing your work, you should only be ashamed of ignoring critical feedback. Everybody makes terrible poo poo when they start out, and its important to make as many different kinds of terrible poo poo so you can learn all the pitfalls and fuckups. The worst thing you could do is not show your work and refine your poo poo until you've become so attached to it you justify all your mistakes and bad ideas when someone offers critical feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:
Well honestly, CG "The bathroom wall of the cg industry" Talk usually has "average" or WIP reels get the silent treatment. Until the author gets all offended that no one leaves any comments then the bashing begins. Either bashing or "5 Stars bravo!" .. it's two extremes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:Either bashing or "5 Stars bravo!" .. it's two extremes. I noticed recently that they got rid of the actual stars system. Now you can either ignore a thread or give a thumbs up. An improvement I guess. Though it does nothing to change CGtalk from the "CG Rockstar" worshiping circlejerk that it is. There are sometimes interesting discussions there. But you have to wade through a lot of crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:Sorry, I wasn't clear enough when I said the road, what I meant as that the scene with the wireframe in the reel was entirely done by me not just the road, I agree it's really nothing important all of itself if it was just that. I'll give some comments on the reel. Hopefully constructive. Many modelers you'll go up against are obsessive compulsively insane perfectionists. They're typically the people who post the super detailed stuff on CGtalk. You'd need a lot, a hell of a lot more modeling detail in those scenes to compete against them if you come at them from the angle that your demo reel seems to show (ie. turntables of full scenes). What I would do is focus more on proper modeling techniques. For example, have a model made purely of 4|4 polygons - quadrilaterals and 4 valence vertices. A model made of nothing but quads and 4-valence vertices will smooth perfectly for certain mathematical reasons I won't go into here, so if you can show you can model some weird object (sea slug, something with a lot of holes in it, etc.) but keep this property perfectly or near perfectly on a model you'll impress someone, even if you don't have some 8 million poly model. If you're going for the 'impress with detail' route you'd better load up Zbrush and chug away, though. The other angle you could come from is creativity. It seems like you're kind of trying to express that in the demo reel, but I would go full bore with it. Make stuff a lot more cartoonish, bend things around, exaggerate stuff. Actually, to be honest creativity can't ever really hurt. You either want your reel to be "wow, that looks realistic" (if you don't have an obsessive personality don't go this way) or "wow, how in the HELL did he do that?" Try to do something that you haven't ever seen someone else do before. Example - if you REALLY want to show off texturing, and feel free to use this idea, then texture one of these insane birds. I'm being perfectly serious - birds of paradise not only have some really really weird shapes, there's some extremely subtle stuff going on with their texturing and coloring, such as the green sheen on the bird at 1:40 or the infamously strange bird at 2:43. You can't just color them with the texture either. You have to look at the way they're reflecting light, try to figure out how exactly the 2:43 bird is doing that crazy optical illusion with the intensely saturated blue and incredibly strong black color. If you just throw a Phong shader with ambient occlusion you'll never properly capture the bird's appearance. If you could model and/or texture something that plausibly looks like *any* of those birds, I guarantee you your demo reel would get instant attention. edit: Also, one more thing - take some traditional art classes. Getting a strong foundation in figure drawing, shading, etc. through classes will far outweigh any little software tricks you learn. All of the great artists at effects companies have strong backgrounds or at least strong familiarity in traditional art. Figure drawing, ie. drawing the naked human body from a purely objective standpoint, will teach you all sorts of weird poo poo that you didn't even realize about shape and form. You can't really replicate the experience any other way, which is why figure drawing is always included in art curricula. Goreld fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Jan 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2010 10:05
|
|
|
Goreld posted:
I worked for a few of big studios and no one really cares that much about making everything fit into quads. You'll have triangles/darts creeping in here and there. Just make sure the overal form is good and you have subdivided detail where you really need it. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, but I've worked on enough stuff with suboptimal topology that after awhile, you get what you get from the modeling department and that's it. One issue with the hyper detailed models is they're not practical for animation or rigging. Or the surfaces are not optimal for deformation. Many of the uber talented z-brush guys make great sculptures but they don't really want to go back and rebuild topology all the time to make it work in motion. It's hard to find a good modeler that can do both well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
That's an interesting take on demo reels Goreld. Seems like useful information. Here in Australia, we don't have many large studios so there are more opportunities for generalists, or at least generalists with a specialty. Creativity is a good point. Studios probably see a lot of the same stuff so something like a bird of paradise would most likely stand out
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
I finally got some time to continue learning more (basic) 3D stuff and I'm wondering how to make a typical lamp shade. I have a bent NURBS surface that should behave like paper/thin cloth - i.e. when I put a visible light behind it, it should let some of the light through and become bright or glow according to where the "lightbulb" is sitting behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
FLX posted:I finally got some time to continue learning more (basic) 3D stuff and I'm wondering how to make a typical lamp shade. I have a bent NURBS surface that should behave like paper/thin cloth - i.e. when I put a visible light behind it, it should let some of the light through and become bright or glow according to where the "lightbulb" is sitting behind it. You'll have to use SSS (SubSurfaceScattering) for that. Dunno what program you're using, but here's a tutorial for 3dsmax, and one for Cinema4D. 3DS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2FEET5EI5I C4D: http://vimeo.com/7330961
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 01:14
|
|
|
Hmmm I think that'd be more translucency than subsurface scattering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies! I'm in Cinema 4D and the tutorial you posted was great, even though I didn't use SSS in the end. I tried to find some translucency as well, but apparently C4D only supports this via a third party plug-in. So, after playing around with the lampshade's shader some more this morning, I stumbled over the "backlight" shader effect (  which is pretty much next to the SSS effect, so thanks again for posting that tutorial, which made me aware of the drop-down menu) which I applied to he luminance channel. This worked really well, but the brightness overcast all the texture on the lampshade. After some fiddling around, I could fix this with a diffusion map though So here's the result - an old, living room lamp (don't mind the surroundings): In the end, I feel that if C4D would offer some sort of render tree like XSI, finding and applying the solution would have been easier for me. Das MicroKorg fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jan 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
Somewhat off-topic. Again. Most of my posts seem to be. Does anyone have any resources/info pertaining to on-set vfx supervision? Books, sites, anything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
Well the new computer has been serving me well so far; dusted off this head and started back in on it with newfound vigor. It amazes me the difference that a faster machine makes for workflow and patience.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Travakian posted:Somewhat off-topic. Again. Most of my posts seem to be. Mostly the school of hard knocks. Typically you work long enough to figure out what's needed and what doesn't work in shots, issues with lighting, tracking, camera settings. You need a mix of technical troubleshooting mixed with working with people and some production savy. Eventually you'll get elevated into a position where you are helping out production bidding time and people needed to do sequences. After a few shows you'll be promoted to that position to go on set, after doing that for a few years, you can ditch the vendor side [vfx studios] and work for the studio/production company as the show vfx supervisor directly. Generally you won't find too much on the subject since a very small segment of people get into that position, and are generally too busy to write about it. Most of the VFX supervisors I know were rank and file animators, FX TD's, lighters, that were working for years before moving up. Depends on the size of the company as well. A small studio with a dozen or so people, it would be faster to move up. Someplace with a few hundred people? It may take a decade, and even then that depends on if an existing supervisor drops dead and there's a spot available and if you are in a good enough position to be placed in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
I've got another Cinema 4D question: Is it possible to edit the UVs of a Loft-NURBS object, or do I have to convert it to a polygon object first (which would suck)? I know how to texture the latter, but all the UV controls are greyed out when I want to texture a NURBS object. I.e. I can't select any UV polygons/points, mirror them, etc. The material is set to UVW mapping though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
I loving love nodes. 2 images, a series of masks and within 15 mins we've got ourselves a suprisingly effective wipe effect. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:I loving love nodes. Select clips -> Apply Transition -> Horizontal Wipe Windows Movie Maker can solve that poo poo in 15 seconds. Suck it, nodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
Hahah. Well, when are we going to see the video of this, rather than a node screenshot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 00:03
|
|
|
God knows, it's tied up a bit. Maybe next week, but that could roll over. It's the biggest job i've done since the norway one and had to do the entire thing by myself so it'll definatly be going online when they've done their thing with it. It's an animated mask split up into layers though - I rendered channels for 2 different types of ground works, buildings and trees. Shift each one by 5 frames and it gives a nice layered effect to the wipe. It goes from a dark line work and stylised image to the full 3d one. Works pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 11:13
|
|
|
Got a question about Mudbox and high poly characters used for normal/bump maps. My course starts back up in a few weeks and this year we'll be using Mudbox a little bit for some of our 3d stuff. As a side project I want to make a game character and create the normal maps in mudbox and add a bunch of small details. (probably for UT3/UT2k4) I've looked around for some tutorials but it seems a lot of people start by making the character in modbox or zbrush firsthand, then create a lowpoly model afterwards to bake it all onto. Other sites have the the reverse prosecc, make the lowpoly in 3dsmax and import it in for the finer details. What's the best course of action? And If you are wondering, I'm probably going to make a rigged model of Lucius Vorenus, based on Kevin Mckidds character in HBO's Rome. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 14:06
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Got a question about Mudbox and high poly characters used for normal/bump maps. My course starts back up in a few weeks and this year we'll be using Mudbox a little bit for some of our 3d stuff. As a side project I want to make a game character and create the normal maps in mudbox and add a bunch of small details. (probably for UT3/UT2k4) Nobody builds a complete low poly model and then brings it into a sculpting app for high poly details. People will often build base meshes in 3ds Max/etc and then bring those in to Mudbox/zBrush, but those are specifically built to subdivide well for sculpting, and are not really low poly models, as they are not built for animation or efficiency, but instead for evenly spaced quads for a good subdivision. Retopo after making a high-res sculpt is the way pretty much everyone does it, especially for characters. Also 2k4 doesn't support normal maps, but UT3 and the UDK (free Unreal 3 Engine) support them. Putting an asset into 2k4 is not really worthwhile in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 16:03
|
|
|
drunkill, I was scrolling down quickly then and thought that phot was a full cg image you'd done. The skin looks very cg, but like good cg. haha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
I wish. I've just been rewatching the series on blu-ray recently (plus watching gladiator the other night) and decided to create something Roman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
Well, my new webiste is live, unfortunately I still need to get my resume PDF uploaded, will get on that in the next day or so. In the meantime, content!  Click here for the full 1224x950 image. A guitar I did ages ago and recently completely redid the modelling, rejigged the textures and the UVWs for.  Click here for the full 1224x950 image. I'm currently working on a olde mahogany + brass laptop, so I'll have that up sometime soon as well. In the meantime I really could do with some ideas for stuff to round out my portfolio, was thinking something dirtier and less shiny. Although I've always wanted to try out Mudbox so maybe I'll have a go at a stone relief sculpture in a wall or something GeeCee fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Jan 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:People will often build base meshes in 3ds Max/etc and then bring those in to Mudbox/zBrush, but those are specifically built to subdivide well for sculpting, and are not really low poly models, as they are not built for animation or efficiency, but instead for evenly spaced quads for a good subdivision. Do you- or anyone else- have any recommendations for tutorials, free or otherwise, for retopologizing? Thanks, I should also specify that I'm using XSI and Zbrush, though. \/\/\/\/ Listerine fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jan 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Do you- or anyone else- have any recommendations for tutorials, free or otherwise, for retopologizing? I got my feet wet with retop methods after watching this: http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/store/product/153/Character-Modeling-for-Production The main plugin the guy uses for his retop is Polyboost and the PolyDraw tool specifically allows you to place verts and polys that snap to the surface of a high poly mesh. I wish I could emphasise how awesome this tool is. Anyone know if max 2010 comes with something like polydraw? :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:Mostly the school of hard knocks. Typically you work long enough to figure out what's needed and what doesn't work in shots, issues with lighting, tracking, camera settings. You need a mix of technical troubleshooting mixed with working with people and some production savy. Eventually you'll get elevated into a position where you are helping out production bidding time and people needed to do sequences. Thanks! Good to know. Travakian fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Feb 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
I just started using blender, this is alot of fun. Here is my first render that doesn't make me sick to look at. Obviously I know jack poo poo about lighting, so any advice would be appreciated. I couldn't seem to capture the crystal look I wanted, and it seems like some parts of the glasses aren't transparent at all. Edit: All of my attempts to remove the glares resulted in it being way too dark 
Kibbles n Shits fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jan 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
Is there any thickness to the glass? It looks like it is just a straight revolve. You'll want to add thickness if you want any kind of realistic lighting. I'm not a blender person so I couldn't tell you how to fix your material besides making the specular smaller and tighter. It's dark because there's nothing to reflect but a black background and a few of your lights. Grab an HDR map from somewhere and throw it in the reflected color or something.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Is there any thickness to the glass? It looks like it is just a straight revolve. You'll want to add thickness if you want any kind of realistic lighting. I'm not a blender person so I couldn't tell you how to fix your material besides making the specular smaller and tighter. It's dark because there's nothing to reflect but a black background and a few of your lights. Grab an HDR map from somewhere and throw it in the reflected color or something. I took your advice and gave the glass some thickness, and I think the results are definitely better.  As far as HDR mapping and the other stuff you said, I literally just started doing this last night so I have no idea how to implement your other suggestions.  Here's a similar shot with the new models. I still don't know what to replace the black background with. 
Kibbles n Shits fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jan 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Okay I found out what to do about the black background. I'll stop spamming images I promise, I'm just looking for any feedback I can get so I can get better. I wish I could take classes for this but my programming classes already eat up most of my time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
Check out the first few posts of the thread. There's a ton of links to basic tutorials to get you started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
You've got some odd tessellation going on with the bottom of the glass. Try dividing/smoothing it up to get rid of those ridges. Unless they are intended. Also, glad you added thickness but I believe it might be a little too thick, and you have a weird bevel on the top of it that makes the glass look tapered somehow. If there are any, search for Blender video tutorials. I absolutely suck at learning 3D from books and text tutorials but give me a video tutorial and I can replicate whatever it is it's teaching if not better like an hour later. Also, reference reference reference. You can never have too much reference. Grab some pictures of real wine glasses and try to replicate the specular and reflection in those. Glass doesn't have a color unless it's intended to.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2010 03:02
|
|