|
Yeah . . . not much of a plot. Still, some nice lighting and rendering.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Check out Vray's depth of field *makes 4 hour movie of concrete walls being out of focus*
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
You have a good point but it is still pretty impressive to most. I like the stuff Baginski does as well as the Gobelins shorts. Fallen Art Burning Safari sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:Beautiful little CG short. I'd suggest just skipping directly to the second half since that's where more of the artistic direction shows through. First half is more "intro" stuff and would bore jaded CG veterans. Even if it were 100% real life film, I would still be impressed by this short solely on its artistic merits; the scenes have excellent shape/color/light balance-contrast and the framing really brings out the aesthetic quality of architecture. I like it more for the interesting aesthetics than the photorealistic CG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Yeah I love the texturing, lighting and rendering in that film and I'm as big a 3d nerd as the next man, but after 2 minutes I couldn't watch it anymore. Technically amazing but boring as hell, even to someone who's interested in that stuff. Goeblins films are of course, awesome, as is fallen art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
Here are a few shots of the regions I was responsible for on our latest project, DLC for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. The extra special bonus "Ultimate Sith Edition" came out back in November, so I think I'm safe in posting these. I did the Command Center areas for the Hoth level.   edit: Thumbnailified 'em. Didn't realize they were breaking tables, sorry. ElecHeadMatt fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
-A n i m 8- posted:New anim reel yo (yes I KNOW it looks more like vfx reel but that's the shots I got!) Jesus Christ, I didn't know you worked on so many movies. Great Stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 10:08
|
|
|
Hrm, not sure what the reaction will be to this but I've used Wings 3d for five years because it's all I know how to use. I've tried different programs (Blender, Maya PLE, XSI Mod Tool, Gmax, 3DS Max trials) and I just can't get the hang of anything else, but lately I have been trying to learn new techniques and programs. Modeling is only a hobby for me but I intend to expand my skillset anyway and learn as much as I can. I want to be able to make really neat little animation shorts, nice textures, and cool renders. I'm still modeling with Wings 3D but I have some renders I made in Max that I'd like to show off. Really they are just clay (I guess thats the right term?) renders, but they are a huge step up from OpenGL rendering and YAFRAY in Wings.   The gun is for a HL2 mod or something, but the Gundam robozord is a little project I have been working on for some weeks. Hopefully it will be my first self-textured model, and I also want to use it to learn how to rig and animate. A short thirty second clip showing it running around or something will be fine enough for me. I imagine rigging and animating an inorganic object with hinges and hydraulics is quite a bit different from modeling an organic mesh like a human because there won't be any mesh deformation involved. I'm wondering if anyone has any input on whether this is a good place to start? Do I want to start with a hard-bodied object or do I want to animate something soft with all the rigging and vertex weights and blah-blah-I-don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about-but-I-want-to-learn. grizzlebees fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Jan 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 11:00
|
|
|
Maldraedior posted:quick and dirty. I almost didn't post but I like how you can see the progression as I remember how to do things and how you shouldn't do things. Man, I never really realized how phallic X-wings look. They've got a glans and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
grizzlebees posted:Hrm, not sure what the reaction will be to this but I've used Wings 3d for five years because it's all I know how to use. I've tried different programs (Blender, Maya PLE, XSI Mod Tool, Gmax, 3DS Max trials) and I just can't get the hang of anything else, but lately I have been trying to learn new techniques and programs. Modeling is only a hobby for me but I intend to expand my skillset anyway and learn as much as I can. I want to be able to make really neat little animation shorts, nice textures, and cool renders. I've had good like with SILO 2, and I only had experience with hash animation master beforehand (and that was like seven years ago too), the silo website has tons of video tutorials that are pretty easy to follow too, it's worth giving a shot at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
tuna posted:Check out Vray's depth of field *makes 4 hour movie of concrete walls being out of focus* The DOF is post. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend some up to date tutorials for working with displacement maps using the latest versions of XSI and Zbrush? I'm killing myself trying to figure out to get this stuff working- it took me half an hour to find out I was supposed to store the base mesh as a morph target before doing any sculpting. And I have no idea where I'm supposed to be adjusting settings in XSI to get a map to actually drive displacement- I followed the example in the help files to use alpha to create displacement but instead of applying my map it just seems to be applying a uniform intensity of displacement over my entire model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 11:06
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Can anyone recommend some up to date tutorials for working with displacement maps using the latest versions of XSI and Zbrush? I'm killing myself trying to figure out to get this stuff working- it took me half an hour to find out I was supposed to store the base mesh as a morph target before doing any sculpting. And I have no idea where I'm supposed to be adjusting settings in XSI to get a map to actually drive displacement- I followed the example in the help files to use alpha to create displacement but instead of applying my map it just seems to be applying a uniform intensity of displacement over my entire model. Argh, don't get me started on how hosed up the process is to get displacement working from zb onto an XSI mesh. You will save a lot of time simply using Mudbox. I'm going to strongly suggest you do that now, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz3mojb61uw That's a great tutorial (parts one and two) on a TON of the small things you need to gently caress with just to get it working. It goes over re-exporting your (now different) base mesh from ZB back to XSI, and which direction to flip displacement and normal images, where in ZB to read a displacement value to set your change range node in XSI, etc. Even after all of this I couldn't get it working well at all, and with the move to Mudbox, there was no flipping of images or changing morph targets or re-exporting meshes (wtf? seriously that's a massive step back in workflow), or any of that stupid crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
tuna posted:Argh, don't get me started on how hosed up the process is to get displacement working from zb onto an XSI mesh. Thanks for this. Do you have to import the displacement map with the obj? My approach originally was to import just the obj and then try to build the nodes in the render tree. I would think it wouldn't make a difference but I couldn't determine which nodes had values I needed to change. Do other packages deal with Zbrush displacement maps better? Also is there a limit to how high off the base mesh you can scuplt? I'm doing very simple things right now as I'm trying to learn so I'm simply making raised and indented bumps, but the resulting displacement maps, when reapplied to my original object in Zbrush, don't have the same amount of height/depth. Listerine fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
Yeah this is the purpose of plugging the displacement map into a change range node in the RT. The change range node will essentially re-scale the values of that map so they go in and out at the correct amounts. You don't really need to "build" anything in the RT as material nodes have inputs for displacement/bump(normal). If other apps deal with ZB better they just have better default values. Another method you have (which I tried, but it didnt give good results), is to export the full highrez mesh from ZB into XSI (XSI handles them like a dream  ), then, once positioned over the top of your original low-rez base mesh, use ultimapper to build a difference (displace) map or a normal map. This method is actually pretty cool depending on how complex your objects are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
Tuna: Zmapper used to have presets you could load according to which package you were using. That option is no longer available now that zmapper is gone.  This is probably a very very dumb question and covered a few pages back but does anyone have any strong views on a quadro card vs Geforce 250 or 260. I am not willing to pay more than a couple of hundred bucks on a graphics card and I am trying to decide between this or one of these. Zbrush doesn't care about video cards but Autodesk prefers Nvidia. Geforce 2x family or cheap quadro? sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jan 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:Geforce 2x family or cheap quadro? Every time I've asked this question the general consensus is don't bother with Quadro unless you're spending company money or especially require the drivers for stability. If it's a personal machine, better to go with the gaming card, you can get more bang for your buck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
That's what I figured. I was eyeing an overclocked 260 but I haven't looked at vid cards in so long, I am pretty lost as to where the "sweet spot" is for bang vs buck. Also, does SLI even matter for using say Mudbox or Maya?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:That's what I figured. I was eyeing an overclocked 260 but I haven't looked at vid cards in so long, I am pretty lost as to where the "sweet spot" is for bang vs buck. Check out the hardware buying guide/question thread in SH/SC, they're pretty good at recommendations. No idea about SLI. tuna posted:You will save a lot of time simply using Mudbox. How does Mudbox compare to Zbrush in terms of texture painting? I already had Zbrush when Mudbox was first released and couldn't shell out any more money, and haven't checked that package since, so I have no idea if they've implemented decent painting tools or not. Listerine fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Jan 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 09:38
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:That's what I figured. I was eyeing an overclocked 260 but I haven't looked at vid cards in so long, I am pretty lost as to where the "sweet spot" is for bang vs buck. From what I've worked with, bang vs. buck doesn't start working in your favor until you're looking at the quadro FX3000 series and up. Any quadro less than $800 is pretty much garbage compared to some of the higher end gaming cards, and even some of the $1k+ quadros are arguably inferior, poly-crunching-wise, to a souped up 9000 series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
That's what I needed to know. Thanks!! From what I hear Mudbox is far superior to zbrush 3.5 for texturing(though 4 may change this). Reason being that Mudbox can paint/project textures in LAYERS which at this point zbrush cannot. On the other hand zbrush has a new texture painting program built into it called "paintshop" which can be accessed under the document menu. This is a little mini painting program new in zbrush 3.5R3. So, basically Mudbox's big advantage is texturing in layers, but "Spotlight" and "Lightbox" may more than make up for this in Zbrush 4. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
Listerine posted:How does Mudbox compare to Zbrush in terms of texture painting? I thought it was fun using stencils and such in mudbox but I don't texture very often and when I do, it's usually a mix of procedural and photoshop as I can't get any sort of detail with 3d type paint apps. Sorry I can't help you in this area. One thought though is that you could still texture in ZB as long as you're using the same UVs (heh good luck with that in ZB though).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:From what I hear Mudbox is far superior to zbrush 3.5 for texturing(though 4 may change this). Reason being that Mudbox can paint/project textures in LAYERS which at this point zbrush cannot. On the other hand zbrush has a new texture painting program built into it called "paintshop" which can be accessed under the document menu. I haven't used Zbrush since the 3.5 upgrade so I'm behind on all the new stuff that's being added in, but I thought that Paintstop was for 2D painting and not for painting on models? tuna posted:One thought though is that you could still texture in ZB as long as you're using the same UVs (heh good luck with that in ZB though). UV management kills me in Zbrush, every time I've tried to learn it I've failed- probably because I just don't have the free time to devote to figuring it out and the interface is so non-intuitive. The other thing that I could never manage to get to work well was Projection Master, but now Zbrush has polypainting which seems to obviate the need for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 08:16
|
|
|
Paintshop is for painting in 2d. The zproject brush is for projecting textures but there is no way to do this with multiple layers or paint multiple layers via polypainting. The assumption is that "spotlight" and "lightbox" will make texture projection a lot easier in 4. Generally one fixes the UVs before bringing the mesh into zbrush. The alternative is to export the lower res mesh out of the tool, fix the obj in say roadkill or UVlayout and then reimport the obj back into the tool. The problem is if the vert order is changed AT ALL between packages, this won't work and your mesh explodes into a random mess/"christmas tree" when you divide back up. sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Jan 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 09:41
|
|
|
Anyone know how I can change the size of the navigation dealie in Max 2010?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
The + and - keys by backspace (not the numpad+) They will also change size as the object is scaled. Also their techincal term is gizmo. you can find some controls for them in customize->preferences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
WIP! http://www.viddler.com/explore/odddzy/videos/3/ I've started working on my student reel for an internship and was wondering if the stuff on the reel looks nice. There are a few thing I want to iron out (the 40 seconds of black screen at the end, a flicker due to some bad keyframes in aftereffects and some timing that may be dragging a bit too much. I was also going to put a background behind my character, should I leave it basic gray? Some of the stuff was not modelled by me, how should I tell that? in the black fade-out before the reveal or during the presentation of the models? Don't be afraid to tell me what I should cut out too...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:WIP! 'Modelisation' is not a word. Why do I care about the polycount of that scene, anyways? Didn't that brass room get posted with better lighting here once before? Was that your work that got posted or is that an art test or something? Why does it slowly saturate? The model is more interesting in the wires,because the flat lighting and muddy materials bleed out the detail. The character has the best lighting because it is both moderately dramatic/interesting (despite being a fairly basic 3-point it looks like?) and it is static as the pedestal rotates, which makes for some interesting lighting and shows off the model more nicely. I can't see your first character because you've zoomed out to make sure I can see the top of the light pole for your pedestal. I don't give a gently caress about the light, I'd like to be able to see the character. The second outdoor scene never is shown textured. WIP work isn't that interesting. The texture resolution on the first outdoor scene looks out of whack, with the road being very blurry and farther away things being much sharper. Maybe try subtle camera movement on the outdoor scenes to make them more interesting? Bonus points for wind, etc. If there isn't movement I don't know why this is video and not a still image? Overall your environments are incredibly boring to look at - add some dramatic lighting. Right now you've got them incredibly flat. Finally, and perhaps most important, who the gently caress are you and what kind of position are you looking for? There isn't a strong subject/industry focus for the reel and I never see a name or anything. Introduce me to you at the beginning briefly with a 2-second FIRSTNAME LASTNAME, DESIRED POSITION, and give me your info including URL and e-mail at the end, along with any notes regarding the scenes, like 'dong, poop schmear, and banana peel models courtesy of Professor Winky" or whatever. I'm assuming the 30 seconds of black at the end are the credits, etc. You have 50 seconds of content and 30 seconds of credits - you really want a better content to credits ratio. I could critique the individual pieces more harshly but A) I don't know what you are trying to do, and B) I can't see them well because that video is tiny as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:'Modelisation' is not a word. Not sure where you saw it, but that's a French word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
DefMech posted:Not sure where you saw it, but that's a French word. Its on the titles for one of the wireframes. I've seen it used in English context a bunch by other people, didn't realize it was French 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
Ok, so let me recap what you just said : Modellisation is not a word. (It is, it's french for modelling) Yes, I posted the room previously and all I did was the textures on it, a color balance was done and i've put some AO on the ''saturated pass''. lighting was done and a lighting mockup was done by Eoin or another person on the forum but did not go here. The outdoor environment isn't textured because I was simply interested in making a modelling exercise and if it's out of place I can take it out. The fact you complain about the 40 seconds of black at the end that I actually mentioned would be taken out before you watched the video (and that will be changed) makes me feel like you're putting a lot of energy on bashing stuff that is, as said, stuff I want comments on but said in a respectful manner. I generally appreceate the help but you come off as very arrogant and not only through this post but many others you've already made. As I said, thanks but you have an agressive approach and it falls hard on people just asking for help. It might be by accident but then again, it's quite common. I'll see what I can do with what you just gave me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 08:56
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:Yes, I posted the room previously and all I did was the textures... Nobody in the industry is ever going to hold your hand, man. You know you should take the black at the end out, but you didn't change it before you sent it to be reviewed and criticized. Did you simply not care about your final product? This is what I'd think as an employer. Decent start, you're miles ahead of any modeling I could do. Definitely put some motion in your outdoor scenes. A simple dolly forward past a foreground object adds lots of depth to a scene. In the model rotation, have him rotate once far away, as he does now, and then cut to another rotation of him semi-close-up (chest and head) to keep it from getting boring. 2 rotations max, anybody can pause a video if they missed a detail. One last thing, and I hate to call you on this because it seems to be a sore point, but get into the habit of saying "Yes, that could have been improved. Thanks." instead of the rambling point-by-point rebuttal you posted. It is pointless. He criticized the points he thought could be improved, you can explain your reasoning until you're blue in the face, but an opinion is an opinion and in a real employment situation you wouldn't even get the chance to defend your choices. Just take the criticism, and get back to working on it. If you think this forum can get rude, spend a week posting your reel on CGSociety. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jan 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:Ok, so let me recap what you just said : I know you said you were going to 'iron out' the black, but my point was that 40 seconds of credits on black is a bad idea, so if you're trimming it as part of the ironing, that is good. I'm blunt, and I'm probably arrogant, I'll admit. Understand that you can always do better. Nothing any artist does is perfect. Your art director will always have critique and demands. It is exceptionally rare that any artist on my team goes into a crit/review meeting and comes out without a bunch of critique. You are always learning, or at least you're always given the opportunity to learn. Peer feedback is one of the best ways to accelerate that learning. Nobody is going to give a flying gently caress about you unless you demonstrate 'Wow!'-generating skill. No HR guy or Art Director is going to give a gently caress about the reasons as to why your reel doesn't grab their attention. There are literally thousands of students graduating every year and if you can't demonstrate more talent and skill than most of them you're not going to get a job. As an artist, the most important thing to understand is to not make excuses when someone offers you critique. You don't have to take it all to heart or make changes around all of it, and certainly not all of it is correct or good, but consider it. Think about what would make someone say that, and realize that as an outsider they have a drastically different view of it than you do, and this can be very beneficial - they see things you don't see, they don't see things you see, and they give you fresh eyes on it. I don't dislike you. I don't become a better artist by putting you down. I want to see you succeed. This is why I'm saying things that aren't easy to hear. They aren't fun to say, either - this is why your mom is never going to give you helpful feedback. The reality is that I doubt your demo reel is going to get you hired by anyone, much less anyone you'd really want to work for, in its current state. I think with a week's worth of re-lighting and adding some very basic camera movement, you could significantly strengthen your reel. Ultimately I think it needs a stronger focus on a specific discipline and more pieces in that discipline, but with what you have right now and the goal of getting an internship soon, you're best served by polishing what you have. And yeah, I post (well, haven't in a while) on CGSociety, polycount, game-artist, etc, and I'm certainly not the harshest critic. But the harshest critics are the ones that are most beneficial to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
It's ok, you have hit the nail on lots of the stuff that was in the reel. It was just blatantly saying ''modelling isn't a word'' and harsh affirmations that set me in a bad mood. You ARE right on the stuff that was said, it's just the way of saying them that felt kind of provocative. I know the reel is still far from ready to be shown, it was only shown to know if I was doing things alright in general in a sense of timing and so on. (it's the first time I used after effects too so I was wondering if I could have missed a few things that might help out the quality). I would like to apply for a modelling or texturer position for an internship (and you're right, it will be said in the reel). As I said (I believe), I didn't model most of the stuff (it'll be in the credits), only the character part was done 100% by me, I did the wireframed road in modelling, the textures for the road with a Wrigley's billboard and the textures for the brass room. I guess there isn't a lot of stuff that fits in modelling but is the character and the room enough to apply for such a position? The character and his environnment was (except for the lamppost) painted directly in zbrush. (is it worth mentioning in the reel?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 20:25
|
|
|
So you want a modelling or texture artist internship yet you didn't model most of the stuff in your reel? ...Uh, good luck with that.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:It's ok, you have hit the nail on lots of the stuff that was in the reel. It was just blatantly saying ''modelling isn't a word'' and harsh affirmations that set me in a bad mood. You ARE right on the stuff that was said, it's just the way of saying them that felt kind of provocative. So you modeled the road on the untextured street scene and textured the road on the textured street scene? You mean only the part with the asphalt and possibly the sidewalk/concrete, or am I misunderstanding this? Those are very small portions of those scenes that barely demonstrate a knowledge of the tools, much less anything eye-catching or skillful. Those are far from The Most Stunning Road In The World, and unless you are literally making The Most Stunning Road In The World, those are not the sort of assets you would want in a portfolio. Those pieces would not have taken someone familiar with the modeling tools or photoshop more than 20 minutes each, and that is being generous. It is certainly possible to make an attractive, stand-out, portfolio-capable road, but you would want something strongly textured, with a lot of wear and character modeled into it. You've got little better than a flat plane. If 90%+ of what is in the scene isn't yours, especially if it isn't the focal point, I wouldn't put it in your reel. Anything less than full ownership of a discipline (modeling, texturing, animation, lighting - and all of these had better be the most impressive part of the shot, IE if you're doing textures they had better not be worse than the modeling, etc) is probably not worth putting in your portfolio. If we cut those two scenes, you have your character, and you have the texturing/lighting on the brass scene. That really isn't enough for a reel. It's better to show less, but more impressive stuff, but you probably need at least 3-5 pieces. Especially since the brass scene isn't all your work, which means you only have 1 modeling piece being shown. Something to recognize is that your school projects are for learning, and your portfolio pieces are for demonstrating what you have learned. Very rarely are you going to get a piece that you submit for a class that also belongs in your portfolio. Mentioning that the character was modeled and textured exclusively in zBrush is probably a good idea - in general, breaking down your pipeline is good to demonstrate which software/aspects of software you're familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
I'm having some issues with render layers in Maya. I've got a glowing doorway which I need to be rendered separately and placed on top of the beauty and ambient occlusion passes. The doorway glow is a polygonal object with a transparency map on it. Ideally, it'll look something like this: Click here for the full 640x480 image. (this is before splitting things into render layers) I split things up into render layers and then it looks like this:  Click here for the full 640x480 image. It seems like for some reason splitting things up into render layers seems to mess up how Maya reads the transparency map on the door glow. Even when I click back to the master render layer (which is supposed to include everything at once), it doesn't look right:  Click here for the full 640x480 image. I have my render layers arranged as such: Door Glow (Normal) (everything other than the door glow is set to a useBackground surface shader) Ambient Occlusion (Multiply) (omitted in the above renders to demonstrate the comp problem) Beauty pass (Normal) If I clear out all the layers and assign a useBackground surface shader to everything other than the door glow, it spits out a render that I can comp just fine in Photoshop or After-Effects. I could have two separate scene files with one dedicated to the door glow if I had to, but it just seems like a clunky way to do things; I'd rather figure out what the root cause is. Any ideas? EDIT: I followed this tutorial and assigned a blank surface shader to all blocked-out objects on the Glow layer and it seems to be working. 
GFBeach fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jan 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
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. Everything in the character scene was done by me. The brass scene was textured and lighted by me. the wrigley's scene was textured and lighted by me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Didn't that brass room get posted with better lighting here once before? Was that your work that got posted or is that an art test or something? It was a photoshop thingy I put together real quick... Also on the reel I think it would be more interesting to go from full rendered scene down to the breakdowns, rather than the other way around. I feel like it takes too long to get to it. Sigma-X posted:I'm blunt, and I'm probably arrogant, I'll admit. Odddzy, don't stare a gift horse in the mouth Sigma-X is giving golden advice. Focus on what works and what you need to improve upon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Hinchu posted:Also on the reel I think it would be more interesting to go from full rendered scene down to the breakdowns, rather than the other way around. I feel like it takes too long to get to it. I'll try it out! As I said, I don't have no bad feeling towards you (sigma-X) I just felt insulted of having most of the stuff I was the proudest turned down like that (although the critiques adressed the right problems) and it's just something i'll work on more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2010 00:48
|
|