|
|
How much PS is being allowed in Gallery?
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
How much PS is being allowed in Gallery? // Roundtable
Post by digitaldali // Oct 27, 2006, 5:43am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
Sure, I could do that. I might do it differently than explained for various reasons.
For starters...if there was global illumination available (i.e. V-Ray) I would use an area light for the sun (omni tends to have harsh shadows, so I wouldn't use that...it's a diffused scene given the fog). If GI was NOT available, I'd use IBL for sunlight and maybe another source or two for foreground lighting.
The depth of the scene concerns me. The contrast should go down the further out the scene goes because of the atmosphere. In essence, the tone values are "flat."
The modeling is good:)the texturing could be better
Okay, I'm retarded...I just realized that wasn't what you were asking. Just kick me.
Oh, BTW, I'll share EVERYTHING!!! I want everyone to know my secrets...I think art and the expression of the self should be public domain. So if anyone wants to know anything, let me know...I'll be more than happy to accomodate! |
Post by Steinie // Oct 27, 2006, 6:07am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Cool, I'm glad you want to share. Here is my question again...
Can you do this?
Can you show us the rendering in wire frame?
Were the mushrooms modeled in tS or did you use a photo?
I think you stated the DOF could be "possible" in TS but did you use TS to do DOF in this picture?
Can you render a picture like this using a 1.2 Ghz computer or did your render the objects seperately and combine them in PS?
Since all this is legal for the contest I would like to know. |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 27, 2006, 6:47am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
I wish I could show wireframe, but I trash everything after each artpiece is complete (I explain the reason for that in the One Man Show).
Okay, let's start!
The shrooms were part of the background. I modelled, specifically, the dragonfly alpha, carriage, platform and pawns.
Because my processor and memory leave much to be desired, I had to render in layers (i.e. render 1st layer...use as backdrop for 2nd layer...and so on).
I have to organize my workflow in order to accomadate my laughable resources. This often requires me rendering a scene...and then using that scene as a backdrop for another render (basically working from back to front of the scene).
I use anywhere from 2 to 4 renders per artpiece, and have been known to use as many as 5 or 6. (i.e. http://www.caligari.com/Gallery/ImagesGallery/2005/nov/image.asp?Cate=GImages&img=1959&email=digitaldali_m_76@yahoo.com&name=Zachary%20P.%20Humwayi)
Yes, I did use TS DOF. It has some limitations, but it gets the job done:P
And yes, all this is possible on a POS machine like mine...so I'm absolutely positive the rest of you can do it.:D |
Post by TomG // Oct 27, 2006, 9:03am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Hi all,
Some three weeks ago, we entered into an agreement with Zachary to produce one of our courses for us. This course will follow him and his workflow as he creates a new, never before seen image. The course is in recording now, and all this was arranged well before any of these questions came up!
Now, normally we keep quiet on what is being worked on course-wise, and that is why Zachary hasn't mentioned it. In this case though there seems to be some concern over "red flags" raised by the fact that Zachary chooses to delete all his tS work on completion of an image, so we decided we'd let you know in advance this time around!
This means you won't need to look at a wireframe screengrab taken after the render - you'll be able to see the workflow from beginning to end, so you can see how the tS objects are constructed, how the scene is assembled, and how it is rendered.
This course is very much to do with the creative flow - it is not all about modeling or lighting or a specific technique. Instead, it is about seeing how one artist approaches the task of taking an idea and turning it into an image. So it will include preparation before the tS work begins, and post-work done on the image too.
We thought this might be of interest, so we decided for once to "leak" a little information about this! Sounds like the course may be of interest to quite a few people - personally I think it will be very interesting to see an artist at work. I think it is good to have courses that focus on specific techniques, but I also think it is good to step back and see an overall workflow, which gives ideas on how all those individual tools and elements can be brought together to give a final image.
No release dates being given as yet since it is work in progress and its never definite how long these things will take to complete :) But something to look forward to once we get it complete, I would say!
Tom |
Post by Mike // Oct 27, 2006, 9:29am
|
Mike
Total Posts: 121
|
How cool is that? Should be a wonderful course.
:banana:
Heya Mr. Zach, the multiple rendering sandwich technique was one of the things I loved to do in tS3 (back when every machine seemed crummy and I didn't have any other means to composite)! I remember being disappointed that tS4 blurred the background image. Simon CoolPowers came up with a cure but I never really used the technique again.
One of the great things about trueSpace users is that they're as creative in technique as they're imaginative in result. :) |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 29, 2006, 11:08am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
Thank you so much, and you're right. Limitations make you more creative:P
Oh, I remember CoolPowers...LOVED the shadowcatcher...second to none!
I still think the render-sandwich is a pretty good idea. You can max out your machine with better models and textures...and still not compromise the piece! I also like working the workflow out in my head while I'm in the shower:) |
Post by Jack Edwards // Oct 29, 2006, 8:34pm
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Hi DigitalDali,
Definitely looking forward to that course. I was very struck by your art work when I first saw it in the galleries. Beautiful work.
2D paint skills are definitely something every 3D artist needs, whether it's for textures, concept, backgrounds, composite, collage, or general post work. In the end it's all about creating art however the artist gets there. (Usually represented as a 2D image in the end anyway.)
Personally I use GIMP so guess I'm exempt from the PS dispute... :p haha
-Jack. |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 30, 2006, 7:58am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
Very astute of you...you're right, it's 2D in the end anyway:) There is a coming Communion between 2D and 3D here. The important thing to remember, as you said, is the end result...that is what's being said and THAT'S where the message lies.
Behold Communion!
BTW, my course will cover 2D matte painting. I'll try and answer any and all questions regarding 2D techniques! |
Post by Steinie // Oct 30, 2006, 9:17am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
We should start calling TS...... "trueSpace we really didn't mean 3D":( |
Post by hemulin // Oct 30, 2006, 9:52am
|
hemulin
Total Posts: 1058
|
We should start calling TS...... "trueSpace we really didn't mean 3D":(
Fortunately this would only happen if tS had some 'photoshopesque' tools built into it. :rolleyes: |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 30, 2006, 10:12am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
As it is, TrueSpace doesn't have the capabilities to do certain things regarding style and matte painting...but that's okay, neither does Maya 8 or
3dsMax. In fact, even the big boys (i.e. Industrial Light and Magic) don't solely depend on their 3D programs for a final solution. Matte painting is a big part of the digital medium. Even Eovia (makers of Vue 5 Infinite and Vue 6) who is responsible for the bulk of the CGI in "Pirates of the Carribean 2" advertise their software as "the ideal solution for matte painters."
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/solutions/?page=matte
2D isn't the bad guy, here.
Forgetting who you are is the quickest way to find yourself:| OMMMMMMMMMMMM |
Post by hemulin // Oct 30, 2006, 11:47am
|
hemulin
Total Posts: 1058
|
As it is, TrueSpace doesn't have the capabilities to do certain things regarding style and matte painting...but that's okay, neither does Maya 8 or
3dsMax. In fact, even the big boys (i.e. Industrial Light and Magic) don't solely depend on their 3D programs for a final solution. Matte painting is a big part of the digital medium. Even Eovia (makers of Vue 5 Infinite and Vue 6) who is responsible for the bulk of the CGI in "Pirates of the Carribean 2" advertise their software as "the ideal solution for matte painters."
http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/solutions/?page=matte
2D isn't the bad guy, here.
Forgetting who you are is the quickest way to find yourself:| OMMMMMMMMMMMM
I hope I didn't make you think I was saying 2D is the bad guy, just replying to Steinie (not actually being serious) |
Post by splinters // Oct 30, 2006, 12:08pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Truespace is a 3d program first and foremost and art in its printed form is 2D. Hell, even animation is only an illusion of 3D; it takes place on a 2D screen but fools us into believing there is depth.
I really don't see the problem in using tS to make '2D' elements for a final image. All that is 3D is the illusion of shape and tone which is difficult to do by hand in a 2D package.
If I had an image in mind I would use Excel if I thought it would help...christ, once I actually did that-took a screen grab to paint onto a monitor model.
See, nothing can stop you getting the image you want...everything that gets you there is just a tool.
What is important on a vacation; the final location or the method of transport that gets you there?
And let's remember; tS has PSD output to aid working in Photoshop.
Given the speed I often knock stuff out in tS, I often spend much more time in Photoshop putting stuff together....just because my final image retains a lot of 3D elements and style, doesn't mean there is more tS work than PS work...just a thought. |
Post by TomG // Oct 30, 2006, 2:18pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Then there is the question of "pre-work" rather than post work. What if someone spends 10 hours drawing dirt textures for their objects, and assembles and renders the scene in 30 minutes after that - then most of their work is 2D. It could be the dirt and grime and bump maps that make the final image too, turning boring 3D cubes and simple shapes into something photoreal thanks to the textures.
Have they "cheated" and used 2D more than 3D? I've not seen that considered cheating even by 3D purists - "Man, that texture is what makes the scene, and it's just a 2D image! That's not real 3D. You have to use procedural shaders otherwise it's just not 3D!" - this does not seem to be a battle cry uttered by many.
So, sit back, take a deep breath, relax and just enjoy the breadth and depth and amazing quality and variety of the work you'll see produced by the artists here in the Caligari Community! Feel free to like the images you like, and dislike the ones you don't, for whatever reasons you choose.... and let everyone else do just the same, even if they choose different images for different reasons :)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by Steinie // Oct 30, 2006, 5:07pm
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
This is one definition of 3D:
"3D rendering is a creative process that is similar to photography or cinematography, because you are lighting and staging scenes and producing images. Unlike regular photography, however, the scenes being photographed are imaginary, and everything appearing in a 3D rendering needs to be created (or re-created) in the computer before it can be rendered. This is a lot of work, but allows for an almost infinite amount of creative control over what appears in the scene, and how it is depicted."
The Player is real time 3D. To me if you work in PS you are now in 2D.
I'm not concerned with how to make a great picture. I've already said anything goes. I have no issues with your rules or standards but as I stated before you are getting away from true 3D.
Pre-work is part of setting up the scene as the definition explains. Any post work is just enhancement to a 2D image.
Answer me this...Does Player (which I consider true 3D) need or use PS? |
Post by TomG // Oct 31, 2006, 2:48am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
The best player scenes that I have seen all have great texturing, which was made in a 2D application (whether it is Photoshop or not is not really the relevant issue).
I am afraid I don't subscribe to a policy of there is "true 3D" (and so by implication, "untrue / fake / cheat 3D"), since that contains a value judgement in the wording (that "true 3D" is in someway better). I would call it "just 3D" or "pure 3D" or "only 3D". This is really why I mention this, because the subject was presented in such a way that those who were not doing "true 3D" were in some way implied to be "incorrect" or "cheating" or "less good" by some measure.
While I think it is fine to prefer whatever you prefer, I'm never comfortable with people presenting one approach as being in some way superior to another, as it's a big world out there and it's up to the individual artist what they produce and how they produce it :)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by W!ZARD // Oct 31, 2006, 4:15am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
What a fascinating discussion! It would never occur to me to differentiate between 2d, 3d or, in the case of animations, 4d. It's all pixels being manipulated into art.
I agree fully with Toms well stated viewpoint. Steinie I find your definition of 3d to be way to narrow for my taste. Setting up a three dimensional scene in a virtual 3d space like trueSpace is quite different to photography and cinematography although there are obviously elements in common particularly in terms of composition.
Here's why I say this: if I go to the river across the road from my place and take a photograph I'm stuck with the sky as it is - I can't add extra clouds or take surplus clouds away without manipulating the image after the photo is taken. If I take a photo of the sky and use it as a backdrop in a 3d scene, say by modelling an airplane or a snowman and adding that where is the line between 3d and 2d? The photo is 3d because it captures tewo dimensionally the 3d aspect of the real world. Painted onto a background plane or BG shader and rendered it becomes 2d again. Posing a '3d' model in front of it does not magically make it a 3d scene.
Ultimately the only difference I can see between 2d and 3d is the way that the initial image data is digitally represented.
Another way of looking at it: At the base level you are dealing with digital information - ons and offs, bits and bytes. At the end level you are dealing with patterns (2d ones) of colour and shape that comprise an image. In the middle there is a level which uses more or less data that represents a 3 dimensional scene but is nothing more than than clever maths and shrewd programming.
Zachary has freely and kindly discussed his methods, many of which I use myself and some I don't use (mainly because I don't have PS or the Gimp although I do use another much more obscure 2d package). As far as I'm concerned Tom has hit the nail on the head by focussing on the variety and creativeness of the artwork done by the artists - and the more creative we as artists are the better we are able to demonstrate uses for trueSpace.
That's my 0.0002 Galactic Credits worth anyway. |
Post by b_scotty // Oct 31, 2006, 4:36am
|
b_scotty
Total Posts: 176
|
A very interesting discussion here! I might as well throw my meager thoughts in as well. I don't post many images, mainly because I've never really brought something to anything remotely resembling completion, but also because while I love trueSpace, and have used it since version 2.0, it is but one tool in my toolbox. Any project I work on will start in trueSpace, but also journey through Photoshop, Poser, Bryce, Vue d'Esprit, etc. Heck, if I thought it would help finish whatever I'm working on, I'd break out cans of spray paint! :)
This works for me, because my objective isn't really a finished artwork, I don't consider my renders 'art'. They are mainly a way to wake up my creativity and inspiration and fire my imagination, sort of like a sketchpad.
Probably not what Caligari had in mind, but hey, I've never really been conventional, and I can't see starting now :) |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 31, 2006, 5:13am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
Extremely intersting dialogue here! And don't worry, I don't take anything serious:P
I agree with what is being said, and I'm truly impressed with everyone's thoughts regarding the matter.
Part of what makes the art produced by you guys (and gals) so remarkable is your principle. I try to say something very specific with each of my art pieces...as it turns out, all of you have done that as well whether you're aware of it or not. The problem with this medium is the populus is resolved in saying "it's not art...the computer did all the work." It's obvious (sometimes painfully obvious) that this simply isn't the case. Everyone's style, principal, philosophy, etc... is poured into every composition I see! The choice not to use PS is everybit as important to this medium as the choice to use it. Personally, I would NEVER EVER dream of taking that choice aware from anyone. It's your art that has inspired me to exceed my grasp. The least I can do is extend some courtesy by showing you how I did it!
Of course, I also show people how I do my card tricks, and my wife thinks I'm stupid for that:| |
Post by GraySho // Oct 31, 2006, 5:30am
|
GraySho
Total Posts: 695
|
Maybe what Steinie wants to say is:
Softies use a 3D render as basis to paint on.
Wannabies use a GI and HDRI to improve their images.
Tough guys just use primitives, boolean operation and procedurals to create "fake or photo?" images;
Real men code a short movie within a 128kByte executable.
:D (your sense of humor is requested Steinie ;) )
More seriously now, I started with POVray many years ago. That was really hardcore. I was basically coding every scene in the DOS edit, the scene rendering was called in commandline or batch files (for animations). I even did a ~1min. short movie. Everything was primitives, csg and procedurals. At that time I thought the only reason to have an image editor was to edit scanned photos.
Then I moved on to a 3D software that had a GUI. There was very little use for texture maps, because there was no way of editing the UV's (only heard that there's something like UVW from 3D Studio users). At that time I was still thinking a bit hardcore, tried to have every object to be seamless and one piece, made poly by poly. Even if it wasn't necessary. It just felt clean and nice.
Then I came to trueSpace and things changed a bit. I disliked using photos as texture maps at first, as I felt it would be too easy and cheating, not really 3D. I thought the "Big Guys" are using Software with technology far beyond anything I can afford, to achive such great renders. But I was wrong. They were "cheating", just creating fantastic textures, using every trick that worked to get to the final result.
Slowly I was realizing that it was the way to go. Why working hard if the same or better result can be done by using other software and combine it. I got rid of my old fashioned thinking and started to get my first good results. I now see CGI as a combination of software packages that leads to the result.
There's still no "create awesome scene and render photoreal" button. Still hard work. Still hours and hours of thought and sweat. Just more possibilities. |
Post by TomG // Oct 31, 2006, 7:49am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
It is an interesting discussion - I always liked aesthetics as my favorite subject in Philosophy at University :)
And there is no right, and no wrong of course.
Also I am equally as biased as anyone else. I have gone "That's not art!" when I see a pile of bricks at the Tate Gallery, or a cow cut in half in preservative. I have griped about Andy Warhol and how it's just a photo of a coke can, or some film star printed cour times in different weird and unreal colors. I just don't get Picasso at all, doesn't look like anything to me. So I am just as bad as having my own viewpoint! :)
My only feeling here is that I have learned not to say that it isn't art, because to someone it is. To someone else, it has great emotional impact, even if to me its just squiggles, or weird shapes, or everyday objects. And things I like will draw blank stares from those same people as they wonder what the heck it is I see in it.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you choose to consider how the art was made important, or not, is up to you, and is valid either way! My only request of course is not to present your point of view as the "correct" (which no-one has really done here, but I wanted to avoid it heading that way).
And the same debate we see here rages elsewhere. Photographers are divided into camps too. There are those who are purists and dislike "Photoshopping" and see it as cheating. Yet they do work in the darkroom that does the same thing in the end, just by a different process, yet it is "allowed" and not cheating. Yet others will claim even the dark room is cheating and you should capture everything in the initial shot, and the role of the dark room is not to edit or change or adjust, but to bring out the picture as close to how it was when you took it.
And some say using color is bad, and black and white is the only true art in photography.
And so on and so forth! As many voices and ideas as there are people. Interesting stuff!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Oct 31, 2006, 8:02am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Here's some food for thought.
I forgot the name of the play, but it is a story about 3 friends; one of them spends $100K for a canvas painted white. Pure white. He was very proud to have it. The other two friends thought he was nuts. If anyone remembers the name, could you mention it here? If a production of it ever comes to your town I would highly recommend it. |
Post by digitaldali // Oct 31, 2006, 9:00am
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
Wow, that is minimal:| Kinda like autographs...people spend ungodly amounts for a scribble on a piece of paper.
As is the case with my most prized posession! My wife was able to get hold of an authentic, rare autograph of Miles Davis for me last Christmas:D It was a combination of luck and money...I still don't know how much she spent, but I would've gladly emptied our accounts on it and...:D she knew it.
Thanx sweety!:D |
Post by Mike // Oct 31, 2006, 9:31am
|
Mike
Total Posts: 121
|
More than once when talking with people about my hobby I have been asked "how do I see the 3D?". I tell them it's not really 3D of course, the only 3D I really understand is when I injure myself!
:D |
Post by Alien // Oct 31, 2006, 9:42am
|
Alien
Total Posts: 1231
|
I tell them it's not really 3D of course, the only 3D I really understand is when I injure myself!
:D
With me it tends to be more like 20F. :D |
Post by i_maker // Oct 31, 2006, 1:38pm
|
i_maker
Total Posts: 156
|
3D is just a tool, the same as a paint brush was to Leonardo Da Vinci. If he had trueSpace way back then, he would have created Mona Lisa using sds... |
Post by brianalldridge // Oct 31, 2006, 1:45pm
|
brianalldridge
Total Posts: 397
|
3D is just a tool, the same as a paint brush was to Leonardo Da Vinci. If he had trueSpace way back then, he would have created Mona Lisa using sds...Nah, he would have used nurbs:p |
Post by TomG // Oct 31, 2006, 5:02pm
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Nah, he would have used nurbs:p
Because they are more enigmatic? ;) |
Post by brianalldridge // Oct 31, 2006, 6:06pm
|
brianalldridge
Total Posts: 397
|
Because they are more enigmatic? ;) I'd bet there's some sort of mathematical formula for it somwhere:rolleyes: |
Post by Steinie // Nov 1, 2006, 2:00am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Or abstruse.
"3D is just a tool, the same as a paint brush was to Leonardo Da Vinci. If he had trueSpace way back then, he would have created Mona Lisa using sds..."
Nope he would have used PS
http://folk.uio.no/steinab/img/mona-lisa.jpg |
|
