Okay who wants to try making these in blender

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

jgaray
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:08 pm
Contact:

Post by jgaray » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:24 am

Here's a character I'm currently working on using Blender and Photoshop.
She's still at an early stage; I'm working on color and uv mapping, I have yet to go into bump and specularity maps, and I haven't touched lighting yet... but so far, Blender has proven itself to be up to the task.

http://www.ggstudio.org/db2/00144/ggstu ... emHead.jpg

Centauri
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:52 am

Post by Centauri » Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:43 am

I think that these are totally doable in blender. I know that they would be almost impossible in any application for me, I'm not that good(yet), but the point here is if you are able to model and texture that well, it wouldnt really matter if you could do it with some obscure app or not.. its that you could do it, maya is one of those programs that you kinda have to be a pro to use, i mean how many of you out there can afford dropping the money for maya? Anyone? i know that i cant, i mean i would rather buy a new car than Maya especially since there are opensource tools, like Blender, out there. I do plan on making a career out of this so i will have to eventually learn and use it. Just doing it is important, the blender community doesnt have a lot of great artists compared to the number of crappy ones(i am in the crappy category). I believe that blender has the capability to do these, if not do better than these, i mean it doesnt look that complex, it doesnt even look like its normal mapped. I would like to see someone that has the skill in blender to try this, I know that there are even a few people trying, i mean thats a popular thread on elysiun, but we will see i've seen the quality of blender renders going up almost constantly, eventually the skill levels will match, and we wont have flame wars over maya vs. blender or 3DsMax vs. Blender.

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:29 pm

And just to comment here, I (think) that the key to that kind of realism is Sub Surface Scattering, which, BTW, there is a python script for.

joeedh

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

Post by bfvietnam » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:19 pm

Centauri wrote:I think that these are totally doable in blender. I know that they would be almost impossible in any application for me, I'm not that good(yet), but the point here is if you are able to model and texture that well, it wouldnt really matter if you could do it with some obscure app or not.. its that you could do it, maya is one of those programs that you
kinda have to be a pro to use, i mean how many of you out there can afford dropping the money for maya? Anyone? i know that i cant, i mean i would rather buy a new car than Maya especially since there are opensource tools, like Blender, out there. I do plan on making a career out of this so i will have to eventually learn and use it. Just doing it is important, the blender community doesnt have a lot of great artists compared to the number of crappy ones(i am in the crappy category).
Well, I've found a lot of crappy work from Maya artists. What disgusts
me with Maya is that its easier to turn out crap on it than it is on blender.
Its harder to make stuff look good in Maya, and what you can make look good in Maya, will look better than blender, just because blender's
shader system was really designed to develop Sony Playstation games, which is what blender really is, a game development tool that went into the field of photorealistc rendering when NeoGeo's clients wanted multimedia presentations and not games. That's why Ton left NeoGeo and spent time developing blender. ITs about what he wants to do, not what his client's wanted. And that kinda paints a picture of the difference between the development of Maya and the development of blender. Maya still has to satisfy its market of paid users, it can't delve off and do a
redesign of the interface, or anything that might ruin its market. Let alone open sources and allow many developers to go off in other directions with the sources. Blender's development and use will realize things that would not happen in a commercial environment. Ultimately that will blen blenders contribution to the 3D world. But I'm hoping it will give artists a tool with which ti levergae better value for the money out of commercial 3D packages, and raise the value of the artist, and programmers, above the packages themselves. I mean its obvious, but its devalueing an artist to have to force them to pay 400 dollars a semester to learn Maya, when really they don't have to, to get the same kind of training. And do this without having to change their life-goals. Like should I get Maya or buy a new car that will take me places? Gee, I can use blender and buy the car.
Then you see what this does to the value of Maya, and its price lowers,
and soon you can buy Maya for the introductory price of $19.95 . Ha!
I believe that blender has the capability to do these, if not do better than these, i mean it doesnt look that complex, it doesnt even look like its normal mapped. I would like to see someone that has the skill in blender to try this, I know that there are even a few people trying, i mean thats a popular thread on elysiun, but we will see i've seen the quality of blender renders going up almost constantly, eventually the skill levels will match, and we wont have flame wars over maya vs. blender or 3DsMax vs. Blender.
Its technique and skill..

------------------>8----------------->8---------------
The rant below I had started previous to the one above..
So if it sounds a bit redundant.. I felt it necessary to keep it.
------------------>8---------------->8----------------

I have a pro friend who uses maya wmaking games for EA, and
he says Softimage's 500 dollar deal is a steal. I think soo too..

But I find features in softimage that are in blender. The only places blender lacks are in things like use of CV's on surface with NURBS,
different methods of lofting for NURBS and subdivision surfaces,
multi-component shading on materials. And better IK support. Readymade armatures, etc..

I've used the pro-tools, before, for about three years I used Alias/Wavefront packages on SGI workstations (about a decade ago). And you begin to realize that these packages crash much more than blender, it takes longer to load, its tough to organize files (especially in group collaborations), and the interface is impossible to navigate. Atop that you have A/W deciding what the next flavor of Maya will be, whether it will have the features you needed or not.

Blender is just easier and smarter designed.

The way a package is developed and the reason it is, can affect what features go into a package. Packages like Maya are developed to satisfy two markets, professionals and students. Blender is developed to satisfy the one developing blender, whether this be for everyone or for one's self, and the feature need not be passed by executives and investors to determine if it can go in or not. Its about personal freedom.

BTW, my definition of a professional is someone who gets paid to
do the work. I'm not a professional, but I have the experience to
do professional work..

Just that I would have to move to florida or california to get work, and I prefer perfect skies and zero natural disasters, suitable to be a programmer (you can work anywhwere, I want this kind of freedom for 3D work, and one way is to bust apart the studios and expose their craft as accessible, then it will encourage comeptition, which is good). But I have friends that keep telling me, learn Maya or Softimage, and you could get a job at EA or some place.. And it almost looks good to me, but that would mean leaving where I am. The reason I'm motivating the development of blender, I'm hoping it will get to be the point where the artists can work anywhere they are. Also I think it will motivate the the use of blender as
a base framework (like what Mach is for multi-tasking operating systems)
for 3D applications (thus giving more possible work to the developers who want to become professionals).

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

Post by bfvietnam » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:34 pm

joeedh wrote:And just to comment here, I (think) that the key to that kind of realism is Sub Surface Scattering, which, BTW, there is a python script for.

joeedh
Isn't that what the new shaders in blender do? OrenNayer, etc?

If its radiosity, yeah, radiosity effects make everything look good.. That and use of marching-rays (hyper-textures, translucency). HDRI..

But what you will notice in some of these pictures, highlighting edges of
arms, with photoshop. I challenge someone to do these photorealistic images without photoshop, say make an animation.

Anyone can make a still life look photorealistic, even a painter.

But to make an animated object look real, that's quite a different thing..

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

Post by bfvietnam » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:36 pm

jgaray wrote:Here's a character I'm currently working on using Blender and Photoshop.
She's still at an early stage; I'm working on color and uv mapping, I have yet to go into bump and specularity maps, and I haven't touched lighting yet... but so far, Blender has proven itself to be up to the task.

http://www.ggstudio.org/db2/00144/ggstu ... emHead.jpg
Yeah that looks pretty good. WE need more examples like this one. This is why I made the post in the first place.

alt

Post by alt » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:52 pm

Isn't that what the new shaders in blender do? OrenNayer, etc?
Not to my knowledge. But I am not very experienced in 3d and certainly not a coder.

I thought that Subsurface Scattering is a way to calculate light so that it goes a bit under the actual surface of the object and from there it is scattered back to the surface. So light bounces under the surface of the object, not from the surface. Like what happens with real flesh (put your hand in front of light and you'll see) or jade.

This may be the edge glow you were talking about (not necesserily photoshop). And it works with animations (check any good feature film fx).

The reason there is not that much 3d animation is that making good animation (either 3d or traditional) takes time and some skill. And it may still suck, if the script is bad (as they usually are).

And about these big packages vs Blender:
You can get most if not all of those fancy results with Blender too. The point is: your way for doing it is probably different because these bigger programs have more tools and one of those tools may be a shortcut for helping you to complete your work in time. Be it with rendering or animating or just some little thing that was put there just to solve the problem you have. You can spent weeks trying to animate a realistic physical effect. Or a just an hour with another package.

And those big programs evolve too. They are not a sitting duck. Maya will probably suck forever, though ;)

ChojinDSL
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:49 pm

Post by ChojinDSL » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:44 am

Im just a blender noob myself, but I've been using 3D studio Max for a couple of years now working as 3D artist.

In my experience, WHICH software you use is irrelevant, whats most important is that you use something with which you are comfortable with.

Sure, there is always a feature here or there which on program can do and the other can not, but if you look at it that way, then blender has certain things which other apps do not.


As far as creating realistic faces is concernced like in the links mentioned. I dont see a reason why blender wouldnt be capable of that. Its just a question of good modelling and complex shading. As always, its entirely up to the artist.


When blender first came out, I took a look at some of the images that people had made using blender. Needless to say, I was not impressed. I was afraid that perhaps there are certain limitations in blender which have prevented anyone from doing something really awesome.
Now that I've tried it, I can say, this is certainly not the case, on the contrary.
But I think I have realised why it is that there is so little "professional" quality work done with blender out there. Most people that use blender, dont intend to use blender professionally and as such only tinker with it. Many "amateurs" and "noobs" just toying around with blender, whereas the "pros" usually already have a software which they are experienced in and might not even consider blender. Perhaps because they think, "If it's free it can be as good as Softimage/Maya/Max/etc..."

To get good at 3D takes time and I think it's only a question of time before we see more and more work done with blender thats on a "professional" level.

poutsa
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:49 pm
Location: Munich (Germany)

Post by poutsa » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:23 pm

Something like this G2 Skin Tool: Surface "SKIN" on Object must be done in Blender!
Follow this link:
http://www.worley.com/G2/g2_skin.html#startit


Vassilios Cagiaoglou

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri » Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:35 am

bfvietnam wrote: ...just because blender's shader system was really designed to develop Sony Playstation games, which is what blender really is, a game development tool that went into the field of photorealistc rendering when NeoGeo's clients wanted multimedia presentations and not games...
Pardon? Could you stick to the facts, and not make them up while you go?
NeoGeo was founded to make video graphics. first with amiga, later with sgi. The first inhouse render software was traces, to render video, the second was blender, to render video and to make large projects possible.
Much later the game engine (the one in 2.04) was added. That didn't have any rendering, only texture mapping. The rendering was done (realtime) on the playstation. On the sgi games where all wireframe.
bfvietnam wrote: Its about what he wants to do, not what his client's wanted. And that kinda paints a picture of the difference between the development of Maya and the development of blender.
That's more like it.

kid_tripod
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:52 pm

Post by kid_tripod » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:13 pm

You certainly can do that kind of thing in Blender. It'll just take a while to make the models and texture it (it's going to take ages whatever software you're using, be under no illusions).

Sub surface scattering is not all it's cracked up to be (except for gratuitous waxy candles), and certainly makes nothing like as much difference as using decent colour, bump and specular maps (you need spec maps to increase the shininess of areas of stretched skin which is more reflective, like across the nose and around the jaw).

The only real headache with realistic people in Blender is hair.

kid_tripod
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:52 pm

Post by kid_tripod » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:18 pm

Oh and I've mentioned it before, but in the book "inside Lightwave 6" is a brilliant photorealistic head tutorial.

Every feature in that tutorial is now in Blender, except the plugin they use to do the hair!

JWalton
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:39 pm
Contact:

Post by JWalton » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:50 pm

joeri wrote: On the sgi games where all wireframe.
not if you had texture mapping graphics :) (like MaxImpact) sorry just sticking to the facts!

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

Post by bfvietnam » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:18 am

joeri wrote: Much later the game engine (the one in 2.04) was added. That didn't have any rendering, only texture mapping. The rendering was done (realtime) on the playstation. On the sgi games where all wireframe.


Couldn't afford and Indy?

I thought Ton had a challenge?

bfvietnam
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm

Post by bfvietnam » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:32 am

JWalton wrote:
joeri wrote: On the sgi games where all wireframe.
not if you had texture mapping graphics :) (like MaxImpact) sorry just sticking to the facts!
Maximpacts were post-challenge/post-indy.. I think they didn't have
MaxImpacts at the time they were developing this stuff.

SGI's were danged expensive, and every new machine would devalue
the one before faster than people could pay the machines off..

What I wouldn't mind having is a Crimson with a Reality engine..
Those should be going on ebay for severall hundred by now..

I didn't know enough about the SGI's to maintain one, just remember
slobbering over the brochures..

Post Reply