You're not wrong Jason IMO, I couldnt know what I'm missing but I still like to rave about the pencil I have ... it's the best I've ever had. Lol.
Neil Cooke On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:27:51 +0100, "Jason Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok I think the topic is shifting here and becoming blurred with opinions of > what art and talent are. > > > > Jean thanks for your feedback, god I miss Gary sometimes J > > > > The only point made was the rendering quality is low standard by comparison > to many renderers out there. Pure and simple after whatever talent is > applied, the quality output is better elsewhere. Granted there may be more > proficient and talented artists elsewhere, but fundamentally it is not > possible to get similar results now in Realsoft. Vray for example, is a > good all rounder and offers a better and quicker animation solution too. > > > > We are getting left behind, simple as that. How you use the tool is up to > you and your ability, but for most the render output quality is essential, > especially when using a 3D app for work, as client are educated now and see > the difference. > > > > Jouni and Neil, > > > > As for the suggestion to hand paint a blank 3d model to look more real in a > production environment is impractical. From a hobbyist point of view, this > may be interesting for some to explore, but this was not the discussion and > I would disagree that your eye can make every calculation of light ray > bounce and ambiance more realistically by hand. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Neil Cooke > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 8:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users. > > > > Sorry Jouni but I agree with you. > > > > I find the continuing discovery in RS an invigorating part of the day to > day > drawing. I dont wont short-cuts. > > > > I hold GI and AO poor excuses for actually seeing what has to happen with > actual lighting objects. The old lighting guys in studios had far more > limitations and yet they understood their trade, their craft. > > > > An app that does it all without me needing to turn the computer on is only > going to do what everyone else is doing. > > > > The open access to almost everything is the way it should be. > > > > Etc. > > > > Lol, rant over (for now) > > > > Neil Cooke > > > > _____ > > From: Jouni Hätinen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, 25 July, 2010 7:19:04 PM > Subject: Re: RS is way too much flexible and powerful for it's users. > > You guys really make 3D sound so difficult I'm wondering why you don't > paint everything by hand? I was visiting an architect university in > St. Petersburg last year, and the students there drew everything by > hand and it was amazing! Haven't seen a rendered picture that compares > to what they did. > > Or, why don't you just make the models in 3D and finish the GI by > hand? The render time should be very low for the models only and if > you really know the GI like you say you do, painting it with > Gimp/Photoshop shouldn't take long. And you get exactly what you want > > In my opinion template scenes is a poor solution. It gives the picture > "made from a template" stamp. Good for lazy people who really don't > care about the final result. > > -Jouni > > > > 2010/7/25 Jean-Sebastien Perron <[email protected]>: >> The maxwell renderer demo reel says it all : beautiful images, no > animation. >> And the few animations have noises moving around. >> >> RS must offer a way to use stand alone renderers (that is really > important).. >> For now there is not one "efficient" standard way of communicating with a >> renderer. >> All of them use all sorts of undocumented SDL (scene description >> language) >> or worst : binary or .dll >> >> But I don't agree that the RS renderer is not good enough. >> It is perfect, just not what some need right now. >> What is needed is a "perfect GI" button or template scene (Seriously) >> like >> Strata3D. >> Strata3D do all the setup for you with predefined scenes. >> >> Procedural materials will always have AA problems, textures never will. >> The problems found in RS are the same encounter in Renderman. >> Pixar renderman generate a lot of lighting glitches that need to be >> corrected by hand for example. >> Contrary to Renderman, all these small (look at me) stand alone renderers >> are not production ready. >> To create beautiful images with renderman you need a lot of work. >> In renderman there is no GI, only the mathematical function to code it >> yourself inside your shaders. >> By reading and experimenting a lot with Renderman, I found that it has a > lot >> of similarities with RS. >> >> RS can make images as beautiful as any other renderer on the market. >> For that you need to understand rendering, lighting, shading and RS a > little >> deeper. >> And that is what most RS users are not ready to invest time in. >> >> Don't blame the car, blame the driver. >> >> It's not fair to compare RS to other renderers. RS is a pure Raytracer. >> Like any methods there are pros and cons. >> >> Contrary to many other 3d app, RS does not offer decent scene setup and >> materials right from the start : you have to do it all from scratch. >> >> Prepare for the flames and the usual offended : ) >> >> Jean-Sebastien Perron >> www.NeuroWorld.ws >>
