>: CG Forums on 3dtotal - The best forums for CG artists :.
threedy forums home
 


Go Back   3DTotal Forums > Help, Advice and Chat > CG Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28-03-2003, 11:09 PM   #46
Zytrex
I am mad, you know.
 
Zytrex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 207
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Awards Showcase
Threedy Top Poster - Silver: Contributing to the forums with 1,000+ posts - Issue reason: Target reached! 
Total Awards: 1
I've heard of that, tradedaemon, and it isn't made for gaming. It is called the GSCube and it is a graphics workstation that is designed to produce realtime renderings. Its hardware is pretty much sixteen PlayStation2s rolled into one. It has sixteen Emotion Engines and sixteen Graphics Synthesizers.

The idea is that it can render, in realtime, very high quality 3d animation which can be used for anything from streaming media to high quality previews for making decisions about a final render for a movie. Essentially, whenever you need 3d animation in realtime, the GSCube is what Sony wants you to use.
__________________
If you had a neck and I had a hand, I'd squeeze your brain, which is your body, right out of the top of your head, which does not exist!

Discuss Lighting Here
Discuss Subdivision Surfaces Here
Discuss Materials Here
Zytrex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2003, 03:36 AM   #47
Sublime420
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: US, Georgia
Posts: 45
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sorry. Before asking this I tryed to read through the whole thread, but I only got to the end of the first page. Again, sorry.
I'm somewhat a bigginer and as far as I know global illumination is a system of putting a crap load of lights in a dome shape.
But from the way you speak of it, it seems like more than that.
Is it?
Has you ever noticed how even the losers on wb shows are good looking. Hehehe, the world through my tv.
Reminds me of Marylin Mansons: The beautiful People
__________________
This is the song that never ends...
Sublime420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2003, 11:12 AM   #48
FutureMan
Feels Good
 
FutureMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 470
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Camera Matching and compositing

I think that even if your using GI you'll still need to know your real world lighting setups if only so you can recreate the same lighting used in the footage that your going to be compositing your 3d models\effects into. So I wouldn't throw out the need to know your lighting setups.

Although if you have enough info from the shoot and a bad ass lighting it in the first place you won't really need to make that much, just recreate the setup that's already been used.


I have to agree with Kuman about using the inverse square decay too.
__________________
Are you a member of the Feelgoods?

Last edited by FutureMan; 31-03-2003 at 11:33 AM..
FutureMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2003, 03:50 PM   #49
Incitatus
Murdoch? That crazy fool!
 
Incitatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 374
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Sublime420
Sorry. Before asking this I tryed to read through the whole thread, but I only got to the end of the first page. Again, sorry.
I'm somewhat a bigginer and as far as I know global illumination is a system of putting a crap load of lights in a dome shape.
But from the way you speak of it, it seems like more than that.
Is it?
Has you ever noticed how even the losers on wb shows are good looking. Hehehe, the world through my tv.
Reminds me of Marylin Mansons: The beautiful People
Making a **** load of lights in a dome shape is only faking global illumination (but often gives a very nice result though)

For real Global Illumination you need a renderer that shoots a certain amount of light beams in the scene and calculates how and where they bounce. And using the amount of light beams that hit a spot it determines how light or dark a spot should be.

That's GI approx. I think. I'm sure there are people here that know it better than me.
__________________
Panic, it crept up my spine like first rising vibes of an acid frenzy. All these horrible realities began to dawn on me. Here I was, alone in Las Vegas, completely twisted on drugs..

Liv

www.lastgreatwar.net
Incitatus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2003, 06:20 AM   #50
Zytrex
I am mad, you know.
 
Zytrex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 207
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Awards Showcase
Threedy Top Poster - Silver: Contributing to the forums with 1,000+ posts - Issue reason: Target reached! 
Total Awards: 1
Yeah, but for a beginner, you really have no need for GI. High quality lighting systems and rendering engines will not do you much good if you cannot make a good scene in the first place. Start with the basics and build up from there.
__________________
If you had a neck and I had a hand, I'd squeeze your brain, which is your body, right out of the top of your head, which does not exist!

Discuss Lighting Here
Discuss Subdivision Surfaces Here
Discuss Materials Here
Zytrex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2003, 12:07 PM   #51
Incitatus
Murdoch? That crazy fool!
 
Incitatus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 374
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Zytrex
Yeah, but for a beginner, you really have no need for GI. High quality lighting systems and rendering engines will not do you much good if you cannot make a good scene in the first place. Start with the basics and build up from there.
true true
__________________
Panic, it crept up my spine like first rising vibes of an acid frenzy. All these horrible realities began to dawn on me. Here I was, alone in Las Vegas, completely twisted on drugs..

Liv

www.lastgreatwar.net
Incitatus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2003, 03:56 PM   #52
sneaky_d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think GI has become the 'look what we can do' effect of this age of computer graphics - this is not necessarily a good thing. It gives a nice look to the pieces sure, but you can get similar results from traditional lights and I try and do that all the time I can.

My first serious animation project, upon which I am about to embark, is roughly 10 minutes of an animated presentation for my university course. I'm going to be using nothing but traditional lights and I can't see anything wrong with that.

just my 2 cents
sneaky_d
sneaky_d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2003, 12:57 AM   #53
Zytrex
I am mad, you know.
 
Zytrex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 207
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Awards Showcase
Threedy Top Poster - Silver: Contributing to the forums with 1,000+ posts - Issue reason: Target reached! 
Total Awards: 1
I agree with you, sneaky_d. GI is still quite impractical for animation, unless and huge budget is made available for a very large rendering farm, or if time is for some reason not an issue.
__________________
If you had a neck and I had a hand, I'd squeeze your brain, which is your body, right out of the top of your head, which does not exist!

Discuss Lighting Here
Discuss Subdivision Surfaces Here
Discuss Materials Here
Zytrex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2003, 03:02 PM   #54
Jenn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 472
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
better late then never here is an example of a light map I made for the e-light script
Attached Images
 
__________________
Jenn
http://www.jenndowns.com
Jenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2003, 03:03 PM   #55
Jenn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 472
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
and another
Attached Images
 
__________________
Jenn
http://www.jenndowns.com
Jenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2003, 03:26 PM   #56
Jenn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 472
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'll join in the fray. There's a time and a place to use GI as well as normal lighting setups. As an artist, you should not pigeonhole yourself to one single technique. Probably the best thing you can do is pick up a book or two on cinematography. 2 movies come to mind though, Blade Runner and Amelie. Check those 2 out for creative lighting, cinematography and use of color. For camera angles and lighting techniques any Hitchcock film is worth viewing.

Now I must say I am biased. While I think that photo realistic renders are okay and kudos to those who spend the time tweaking until you can't tell if it's 3d or a photo. I just don't find them memorable. As I sit here writing this, I'm trying to remember any single photo realistic 3d image I've seen in the past. I can't just vague images of the hundreds of car/architectural renders I've seen on the web. What sticks out for me are images that are sublimely creative that use imagination and artistic skill to tell a story. Creativity and imagination just speak to me. I have no desire to recreate reality just for the sake of creating something that is photo real.
__________________
Jenn
http://www.jenndowns.com
Jenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2003, 04:41 PM   #57
Blytheye
Jus a bit of fun really
 
Blytheye's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wantage, England
Posts: 380
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Blytheye
This is a good argument, I think I will join.

Sometimes I just use a skylight with an omni. The omni by itself would suck because the shadows would be pure dark, so I add a skylight to soften them, then with Brazil I give it indirect illumination and the colours really bounce around. If you have a nice orangy colour for the walls and cieling it creates a nice warm colour effect for the whole scene.

Also, when I want to create a realistic scene (realistic as in you would see this. Not sci-fi or fantasy) then I imagine where lights would normally be, ie lamps, sun outside, and hanging lights and any other bulbs I can think of. Then I won't add any more lights at all, because that will ruin the real ness of it. Fine, it might not create a fully photorealistic render, but it has a real setup. I use MAX and I use decay and attenuation and it can create some good results. Most renders I do are quick tests, like if I suddenly find out something new about CG (I have only been doing it since Dec 2002) then I instantly do a test and see what I get out of it. THEN I search for tutorials on how to do it.

All in all, I think GI is one of the best things ever happened to us, although using all of it's capabilities can get bad results. Just experiment with seperate variables of the GI program you are using and see what each does.
Blytheye
__________________
The impossible possibilities of making the impossible impossibilities possible would render them - quite possibly - impossible.
Blytheye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2003, 06:55 AM   #58
FutureMan
Feels Good
 
FutureMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 470
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have to agree about most photoreal images lacking any kind of narrative depth.

Most are just a car or watch sitting, it seems like the object is in a display case. Which makes them very similar to advertisements; particularly most print ads have a similar look of just the object by itself.

Perhaps it is harder to achieve the same realism on the larger scale needed to depict an actual setting and some kind of story. The minutiae necessary to maintain the realism expands.

For example one tree by itself isn't that complex but a small glade is extremely complicated, with the trees interacting with each other, the empty spaces, and the other vegetation. There is all of that detail that needs to look real or the image can not support a story.

So even if you have an amazing model of a watch or car, if you can't use it expressively your not using its full capabilities.
__________________
Are you a member of the Feelgoods?
FutureMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2003, 03:22 PM   #59
Holo
Rusty Wireframe
 
Holo's Avatar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Maple, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 616
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Awards Showcase
Threedy Top Poster - Silver: Contributing to the forums with 1,000+ posts - Issue reason: Target reached! 
Total Awards: 1
Ok, Ok,

How can i call myself a 3d conesieur if i dont join this topic..

Fact of the matter is...GI offers more realistic results than any standard lighting setup, this is true...to a point.

In order to create a realistic scene there are things that need to be considered..Such as composition, and let me jump right to texturing. Texturing of a scene in my opinion "Makes the Scene",
GI can make any scene "look realistic" by doing what it was intended to do... GI computes the bouncing of light and colour (caustics) in a scene by the specified # of jumps, in attempts to mimick the actual way light werks in reality. But without having good textures to define the way the light is affecting the scene, you will never be able to create something that looks realistic, GI or not.

Ive created many scenes in my journey to becoming an experienced 3D artist, and ive learned that GI is a tool, and like any other tool, It has its up's and down's, and maybee im not getting my point across as well as i wish too but the bottom line is that Its up to the artist themselves to decide whether or not it is needed to acheive the required results.
__________________
"Despite the High cost of Living, It Remains Popular"
-Mark. K.

*Lightwave User*
Holo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2003, 04:48 PM   #60
sneaky_d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I would agree with Holo's view that GI is a tool, in the same way that any 3D modelling application is just a tool - the end result still depends on the degree of hard work and dedication the individual using that tool puts in to the work.

For example, consider the humble paintbrush. It's relatively easy to pick up a paintbrush and create something that looks average - in the same way it's easy to create uninspiring 3D images. It's a damn sight harder to create a beautiful painted image, requiring dedication, knowledge of painting techniques, composition and so on. This can be directly related to learning how to use a 3D program, how to get the most from it, and then adding your own spin on top.

Having said that, I still feel that GI is the lens flare of the 3D world at the moment - it's a tool that's becoming less attractive due to it's overuse. I've yet to see anyone do anything really interesting using GI - most of the stuff I think is really cool is done by people using traditional lighting setups.

sneaky_
__________________
My slice of Deviant Art
sneaky_d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
all images displayed on this site are copyright the original artists and may not be reproduced, copied or published elsewhere without their express permission