|
|
November images
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.
November images // Image Gallery
Post by 3dpdk // Dec 9, 2006, 4:14pm
|
3dpdk
Total Posts: 212
|
That might help weed out the cheaters! http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/images/icons/icon14.gif |
Post by TomG // Dec 11, 2006, 3:39am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
To say that the scene should be viewable from all angles and look just as good is kind of crazy - since it is just opinion, and not fact.
What makes the difference between a professional photographer and an amateur? The ability to frame and crop a scene by finding just the right angle with just the right lighting for the perfect photo.
The same photo would NOT look as good from any angle. In fact the skill is in setting things up to make that one photo, that one framing, that one slice out of all possible options, as good as it can be.
And the same is true in still 3D. Would Stephen's "That's A Hot One" look just as good if taken from the back of the scene looking inward? No. So that means it's only 2.5D artwork then, right? Since it doesn't look as good from all angles, so it's not real 3D.
And in Pixar movies, I am sure that there is no need to worry about directing the movie - that is, positioning the camera. They just drop in the camera any place, since the scenes they make look as good from all possible angles. Just as in real movies, they don't set up the lighting for one particular shot coming from one particular angle.
In fact, I've seen the advice "never model what you can't see" - and that advice is applied to stills AND animation. In other words, why model a scene to be perfect from all angles (or even many angles) when it doesn't have to be, it just has to do the best possible job of being right for the required shot. And achieving that is in fact a skill all in itself.
So, sorry, but I don't buy that definition of what is "true 3D" - in fact I don't buy anyone's definition of what is "true 3D" or "real 3D" - there is no such thing. All there is is a bunch of personal opinions and preferences, neither more right or less right than the other.
If you want to rate 3D scenes on how good they look from all angles, then that is fine, and you may do so. Please, however, do not complain or criticise if others do not take the same approach in judging the worth of an image as you, or claim that it is "not real 3D" (which really does put down the work other people do).
As for cheating - well we could make trueSpace have a dongle, to avoid pirates getting their hands on it. Would that remove all piracy? No. It would make all our legitimate users lives a lot tougher and more unpleasant though.
Same applies with our gallery. Sure we could ask everyone to send in a cob. This would make it much harder to enter, with long upload times for those on dial-up. It would also stop many people from entering - we have found over time that while people are happy to share their renders, they are not so happy to give away their models and scenes that they have labored over, even to a company like Caligari where they are guaranteed those models won't be stolen or misused. So we would cut some people off from taking part just because they do not want to give away something that could be reused over and over without their control.
Next it would make judging impossible, to go through each entry and check that there is a scene with it, and that it is in fact the same scene as the render (guess we'd need to render some of it to make sure they just hadn't copied some geometry that looked the same but really wasn't). Plus just like with a dongle, people could STILL cheat. All you'd need is a converter program and voila, a cob or scn file.
So there is not way to ABSOLUTELY removing cheating. So we are going to do what we do as regards the software, and not set up restrictive practices that hurt our legitimate users to try and exclude some (but not all) pirates and cheats.
I always think it is a shame to see "Well I don't think that image deserved a place" - so hurtful to the artist. Naturally not everyone is going to think the winner should be the winner, because art is opinion, not science, there is no absolute yardstick. But for that reason I would stay with just placing praise where I thought it was due, and not go putting someone else's work down just because it didn't agree with my opinion. Why not just say "Loved image b, that lighting was great, I like this sort of picture" rather than "Well that image isn't real 3D anyway, and doesn't deserve to have won". Why tear down when you can build up instead? :)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by W!ZARD // Dec 11, 2006, 4:15am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Very well said Tom!
I've always thought that all art - even animation - can be thought of as three dimensional because ultimately it is the firing of neurons in the visual cortex ( a threee dimensional space) that are doing the interpretation of what is nothing more than oatterns in the firing of nerve cells on the back of the eye.
Like you I find the 2.5D concept to be limiting. In my recent 'Venice' picture everything is constructed in trueSpace with full 3d geometry but I modelled only enough arches of the Doges Palace to create the single viewpoint I was looking for. Moving the camera in that quite complex scene will provide other views but will not show any more of the Doges Palace than was modelled - ie, one small section of the outer balconey arches.
Personally I find the use of terms like "true" and "real" to be selective and limiting - truth is subjective and reality is a function of perception.
There is nothing wrong with stating a preference for apples but it is pointless and thoughtless to criticise oranges because they don't taste like apples.
Art is about human expression, from the crayon scribbles of a young child to the works of the classical masters, art is about trying to capture a perception of reality and sharing that vision - and the hardware is secindary to that.
A collection of orchestral intruments is not the concerto. Art is about perception not technique or technology. At least that's the way I see it!
Oh yeah - congratulations to Mr Cuillo for his win - a simple and effective image that captured the coldness of a snowy mountain just fine IMHO. |
Post by TomG // Dec 11, 2006, 4:51am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Some other quick thoughts on this topic
1. Naturally I don't agree with all the gallery results each month, I too have my own opinions which sometimes match the results and sometimes don't!
2. Constructive criticism is welcomed of course: "Did you try adding a view of the bottom of the mountain to add the feeling of height?" or "I'd try this lighting set up" or "Make the shadows bolder" or "This would be a good shader to try, might give even better results" and so on. We can all learn from that sort of thing :)
3. The messages about Photoshop and 2.5D seem to imply that 3D is the end result. See, for me, I don't think it is. 3D is a tool, a medium, not an end product. The end product is a piece of artwork. And sure, the same end product could be made using tS, another 3D package, Photoshop, vector drawing, pastels, oils, pencils, etc - a skilled artist can make any tool / medium achieve just about any effect! But that wouldn't change the piece of artwork one bit if it looked the same in the end (of course if tS was not the main tool, it removes it from being eligible from the contest, but doesn't detract from the piece of art).
I think criticizing a photoreal oil painting because it "looks real and doesn't look like an oil painting" would be the same thing, saying the artwork is not valid because it does not show or "prove" the tool / medium used to make it just by looking at it, or that it could be made using photography and didn't have to be made using oils.
So, let's all get to enjoying what we are looking at, and agreeing that not everyone will like the ones we like (or dislike the ones we dislike)!
HTH!
Tom |
Post by jamesmc // Dec 11, 2006, 4:52am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Cool, I can make a couple cubes in tS, pull out a face or two, then cover up the rest with Photoshop/Illustrator or use another 3D program objects. :rolleyes: |
Post by Morgan // Dec 11, 2006, 6:28am
|
Morgan
Total Posts: 138
|
If I look out my window, I see the world from a particular angle. If I choose not to view the world from another angle, that does not prevent the world from being three-dimensional. It is not the angles viewed, it is the thing itself which defines whether it is 3D. If I take a picture of it, the picture itself is two-dimensional... but it's a 2D representation of a 3D world.
Which is all any image we can view on a computer screen ever is; after all, these monitors don't display along the z-axis (if I move my head, the picture does not change). A rendering is simply making a picture of the current angle of a 3D construction. And yes, you could take that picture from multiple angles, and then what do you have? Several 2D images of a 3D construction. It doesn't change anything. One image or several, it's all the same, it's all "just" 2D representations. Might as well stick to the image that best shows the scene.
If one were to worry about somebody "faking it" with Photoshop or objects they didn't create, well... it's still just as possible with multiple images. If someone is painstaking enough to fake it from one angle, they can do so for several. The only way to ensure that trueSpace was probably used is if the scene files were sent along, and Tom detailed the difficulties of that well enough, but I will add one more thing: Even if they were to do that, and were to add dongles to prevent piracy of the software... there would still be no way of knowing that those objects were actually the person's own work.
The whole question of "2.5 D" and shortcuts/cheating just feels like a strawman argument to me. The image that won the gallery looks fine to me. The only thing I can even conceive of as being a "shortcut" would arguably be the background, if that's a background taken from a photo. And iwhy not? It's an appropriate place to do so, and I've seen much more detailed photo backgrounds pass without complaint. There are, to my knowledge, two main criteria for the gallery winner; is it good art, and does it show off trueSpace's capabilities? I'd say yes to both in this case, and I'd say Ciullo deserves his win. |
Post by Matski007 // Dec 11, 2006, 6:34am
|
Matski007
Total Posts: 539
|
Lots of impressive images, however my opinion in all this is basically that It does look like more time and effort was put into the image that got second place, very well detailed and rendered piece of work.
The winning image only seems to look good as a thumbnail because once its at normal size on my monitor I can see how poorly the snow patches were just painted on in photoshop or something, its a same really, modelling some patches wouldnt have been very hard and it would have had a more impressive feel to it, its obvious a state of realism is apparent due to the use of the aerial photograph (which I would never condemn). The paint also seems to obsure how clean the actual modelling in it is.
In the industry this would be regarded as more of a sketch image, whereby details would be painted on before its actually done. I think its a big dissapointment and was gob smacked that the car didnt win.
The difference between this and Zacharys images (discussed in another forum) is that Zachary actually did a good job, its seemless and shows off his skills in the use of a variety of pieces of software.
Im sorry If you dont like my opinion of the winning image, but that is how I think, as an Artist to another artist, say what you like about my images because they arent perfect neither so i mean no offence. |
Post by ProfessorKhaos // Jan 1, 2007, 8:26am
|
ProfessorKhaos
Total Posts: 622
|
I would agree that the winning image looks awesome in thumbnail and the runner up is obviously a labor of love that becomes more and more apparent at close range.
What I love about the first place image is it's composition and lighting. My eye wants to see what's over the top of the hill and the fact that it can't gives a sense of danger and anticipation. The lighting also tends to focus your eye on the ridge of the hill and the flag keeps your eye from falling off to the left despite the tilt. The darker shades to the lower right somehow gives me the impression that you've just soared out of a steep incline or cave and that all the track behind you doesn't matter anymore. The background image does lots to enhance the effect, but by itself the background picture wouldn't have held my interest. Nice work!
The car is an awesome work with lots of detail to keep the eye entertained and to keep other artists in awe. You kinda have to like cars to take a closer look but once you do you'll see mastery of the medium.
I love the Pepe pig images as well. Cleverly adapted from their originals. No surprises there but always interesting to see 'em rolled out... keep'em coming Splinters!
Zach's desert scene made me want to grab a gatorade out of the fridge (literally, that's what I did) and my only slightly negative comment there might be that the depth of field (or post process blurring?) seems to have given a bit of a "macro lens" look and makes foreground objects look like they're smaller than what's being portrayed. Still... a dusty hot day!
The "can on the can" image just makes me laugh. :D Very emotive and well composed. Bet it was a fun idea to come up with.
The gym set was well done. The lighting on the walls seems a bit distracting though. Might want some floor mats on that hardwood floor too. :) Equipment looks to be of a realistic size and the metal posts have a good powdered aluminum look to them. I like how the dumbell weights are slightly askew of their bars. Gives the sense of weight and reality to them.
The toe pedal effects boxes are classic illustration images. The faceplates for the control knobs and LEDs look especially real. Just the right combination of shader settings. Lighting around the base is a bit apparent though with multiple shadows in the bottom right being a bit of a distraction.
The chrome ball, figures, and rusty chain image is compositionally interesting. Prevalience of yellow gives kinda an otherworldly feel to it like the scene was staged on one of those alien planets from star trek. Something about the chain seems a bit too regular though. Perhaps the rust pattern is a bit too consistent along it's length. Part of it might be that I'm used to seeing more bluish tones in the shiny parts of metal and the yellow throws me off a bit.
I agree what was said about the floor of the kitchen scene especially. The paper label gives a perfect reference for the scale of the scene and the elements have that perfect balance of "parts too small to carry intentional detail but wear and tear detail is present" look to them.
The last image (smiley face with top hat) is interesting and I guess I have a hard time pointing out specifics in it except that I think the result was achieved (spotlight combined with a sort of magical character performing magic). Had difficulty making out the wand as it's not well sillouetted. And the lighted tip almost seemed like it was part of a gleam from that winning smile. An issue that might not be present in an animation (which this character would probably be very good for).
Anyway, that's my comments on the November entries. Think everyone did an awesome job! Wish I could do as well as the lot of you. Alas, more of my talents lie with scripting than texturing, lighting, and composition. Always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback (and it is actually a Monday morning when I posted this).
P.K. |
Post by digitaldali // Jan 3, 2007, 2:17pm
|
digitaldali
Total Posts: 143
|
I agree, I think everyone did a Great job! As for 3d, everything in my scene was created and rendered in TS7 with the exception of the sky, dust and vegetation (lightworks with IBL and Goniometric lighting in foreground...I can't say goniometric very well, so in the future I'll refer to it as gonad light). |
|
