Okay who wants to try making these in blender

bfvietnam · Post by **bfvietnam** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:31 pm

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/virtual.html

friend of mine was impressed because these were done in
Maya. I'm wondering what really is special about these that you would need Maya. I mean the shading quality doesn't seem to be all that good.. It looks like HDRI applied to a radiosity engine, it doesn't use SKIN (marching ray translucency effects) shaders, like the ones talked about now. But
it doesn't look special.

Anyone?

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:14 pm

Strange question.
Almost like it's the tool that makes the art.
Ofcourse it's the person behind the screen/keyboard.

And although an undo is very helpfull in making things like this, there is no other reason then dedication for making pictures like theese with blender.

More digital beauties by stahlberg can be found here: http://www.optidigit.com/stevens/ (his name is not mentioned once in the article)
-Edit2-

bfvietnam · Post by **bfvietnam** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:55 am

joeri wrote:Strange question.
Almost like it's the tool that makes the art.
Ofcourse it's the person behind the screen/keyboard.

And although an undo is very helpfull in making things like this, there is no other reason then dedication for making pictures like theese with blender.

More digital beauties by stahlberg can be found here: http://www.optidigit.com/stevens/ (his name is not mentioned once in the article)

Well I understand the "artist" point , I am one, I'm also a programmer..
I know enough about 3D packages to recount the history of 3D graphics,
attend SIGGRAPH four times. Anyhow..

What I'm saying is, is this so untoucheable that you have to use 3DsMax
or Maya to do, or is it the capability of the artist.. You seem to say its the artist. I know its the artist, I'm just wondering how close blender can
get to this. I'm thinking, it can be done in blender..

I understand its the same argument that if you have Eddie Van Halen's guitar you are not going to play like Eddie Van Halen. But, I think for the purposes of representation, the users of blender shouldn't get the imrpession that the graphics churned out on Maya and 3dsMax can't be done with blender. It would be good to identify what can't be done as well.

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:49 am

Right.
That is correct. No reason why this could not be done in blender.
There are things not possible technicly with blender, but I think none of them are needed for images like these.

Blender tents to have lot of colors in the dark areas.
Bright images are not easy to make. But "not easy" is not "impossible".

Although other packages might offer a slight more tools, it's not only the tools that makes one choose a package.
It's also the community that surrounds the package. Are they artists/ architects/ nerds/ gamers?
Mastering a tool is never a goal. I think.

Ofcourse now I should give an url to one of my beauties made in blender... Euh... bye... /me runs.

bertram · Post by **bertram** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:46 am

joeri wrote:More digital beauties by stahlberg can be found here: http://www.optidigit.com/stevens/ (his name is not mentioned once in the article)

Joeri, you should have mentioned, that there's 'erotic art' on the referred website!!!

(Note: I will kill this foolish post in a couple of hours.)
- EDIT -: Can't kill this anymore since Joeri went into this.
BTW: I found the content on the website erotic, not the site itself

dmoc · Post by **dmoc** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:28 pm

If you like this sort of stuff check out a book called "Digital Beauties" ISBN 3-8228-1628-0. I bought it in an Amsterdam bookshop several years ago. It has a little bg on each artist and their tool of choice. Some are 3D but other's use Poser and 2D paint progs. Whatever, the results are stunning even today.

Regarding tool v artistic talent etc, of course there is no b&w answer. I think of it like this: you need vision/imagination, ability, dedication and utilities in roughly that order to get results that inspire others. No sw gives you the first, some sw may help enhance what little ability you have. If you are not dedicated enough and/or able to spend the time to improve your abilities then some sw may still allow you to create your vision (eg, Poser and the like). Of course it helps to remember why you set out to do something in the first place if you really have to choose one bit of sw other another. BTW I do not class myself as an artist (far from it) but a similar situation exists if you want to program - which language? Whose dev package? Which libs? Blah, blah, blah. In my case it's the vision and the means to realise that vision without investing months/ years of my life and without taking out a second morgage.

ox · Post by ox » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:19 pm

joeri wrote:Right.

There are things not possible technicly with blender, but I think none of them are needed for images like these.

I would be very interested in seeing a display of effects no possible to accomplish in blender ( non-erotic please )

poutsa · Post by **poutsa** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:05 pm

Look this Great Images and Avis from this Page:
http://www.this-wonderful-life.com/gallery.htm
I already Contact the Author and he Told me its done with 3ds max

Can you do something like this Quality Skin in Blender?I believe Yes!
I love and work only with Blender ...is this possible?

I hope and i believe YES because Blender has all this Features to produce Images like this ..but its Hard and much Work with some texture technics (Procedurals,Bumps,Ramps,Brush Painting and others !

Ciao

Vassilios -

M@dcow · Post by **M@dcow** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:30 am

Of course stuff like this can be done in blender.

All these images have one common feature....very high quality textures, which means a very good knowledge of Photoshop is also needed.

bfvietnam · Post by **bfvietnam** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:40 pm

How many artists can you name that stephan Stalberg ripped off..

I say look at any "Analog" Magazine cover from now to since 1966,
also look at Valejo, Hajime, Maxfield Parish, Giger ..

Does he make anything original?

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:56 pm

Ai, that's a bit harsh.
The technic is at least original.
Following rules of photography is something CG will grow out of, once proven that it easy to do and no longer an issue. Just as modern art doesn't try to be photographic anymore.
Or so I hope.

Money_YaY! · Post by **Money_YaY!** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:23 pm

if it can be done in blender then why is it not ???

Also, I am sure they used Menta ray or a different render engine than mayas. LAstly. The tools do make an artisit to (or complement them). A good tool for an artist is a godsend. There is a reason why a tube of paint can cost 200$ and another one costs 50cents.

joeri · Post by **joeri** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:40 pm

Money_YaY! wrote:if it can be done in blender then why is it not ???

Lastly. The tools do make an artist to (or complement them). A good tool for an artist is a godsend. There is a reason why a tube of paint can cost 200$ and another one costs 50cents.

Good points.
It would be easier in Maya. But I think not impossible in blender.

"why is it not"...
The amount of effort is what counts (imo). If I'm going to invest hours/weeks/month into one single image, would I do that and learn the industry standard or this obscure package thats for free (can't be any good now can it?) and nobody uses (yet!)

M@dcow · Post by **M@dcow** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:35 am

Money_YaY! wrote:if it can be done in blender then why is it not ???

Simple. Because the industry at large still regards blender as 3d lite (quite wrongly I might add). This means that the real hardcore enthusiasts choose apps like Max, Maya, lightwave and so on. We are still getting hobbyists and kids.

JA-forreal · Post by **JA-forreal** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:31 pm

bfvietnam wrote:
Well I understand the "artist" point , I am one, I'm also a programmer..
I know enough about 3D packages to recount the history of 3D graphics,
attend SIGGRAPH four times. Anyhow..

What I'm saying is, is this so untoucheable that you have to use 3DsMax
or Maya to do, or is it the capability of the artist.. You seem to say its the artist. I know its the artist, I'm just wondering how close blender can
get to this. I'm thinking, it can be done in blender..

I understand its the same argument that if you have Eddie Van Halen's guitar you are not going to play like Eddie Van Halen. But, I think for the purposes of representation, the users of blender shouldn't get the imrpession that the graphics churned out on Maya and 3dsMax can't be done with blender. It would be good to identify what can't be done as well.

If you have been working at 3d for while and have used multiple apps to create pro 3d work, you would come to know that only your skills as a 3d artist are most important. You can apply good 3d lighting, modeling, texturing and character animation in any 3d app that host the "basic" features for this kind of work.

If you are already a good 3d artist with Maya or Max, you will produce the same kind of work in Blender. Aside from special modeling or animation features, compositing etc Blender is up to the task of producing the same type of 3d characters if not better looking based on ones level of skill as a 3d artist.

This is the kind of question that a 3d veteran artist would never ask because they know that they can roll out amazing work in any app once they get the hang of it. So it's more important to focus on the basics of 3d artistry even if the app that you are using is packed with advanced features. Those features will aid you even more so if you have mastered the basics of 3d art production techniques.

Blend on!

Blender.org

Okay who wants to try making these in blender

Okay who wants to try making these in blender

not questioning the art, but the tools to make the art.

Hmmm

Re: not questioning the art, but the tools to make the art.