If you're not going to explain what you do.. then what do you think it may imply to others?
I thought in our *** I sent you brief description of what I do. You also asked about getting into the film industry and I asked a few questions about what you could do so I could better direct you.
I am trying to be polite here, you keep putting words in my mouth.. but I can take it.. So if you think I was swinging it with that cube and text, heck.. let's go at it then because I'll have step it up to save face since you keep repeating absurd accusations.. Looks like you thought I was an amateur in the CAD world so you became a bit too harsh with some issues don't you think? I laughed at myself with that image, hoping you would just do that also.. I think we need to expose a few things..
I only reiterated why I posted in response to what I thought was an attack on me. Others did as well. Was it, was it not? I don't know. You have to admit that one could read it the different ways in that context. Warfang seemed to want to press the issue so I just wanted to set me reasoning straight as well as defend why I just threw something together.
In other words, you are exaggerating the capability to create 3D data with that Viper image. You're scanning stuff that is already made, or you get your hands on real CAD data which you can tessellate (i.e. Geomagic, etc..). Heck I saw a demo of scanning a real life tree used in animations, it's cool technology that's for sure.
No, not really. As you said, "try that makara
" I didn't feel the need to go all out. I could have in less time posted a screen capture of a half cube. Perhaps I should have
So reviewing that Viper image you posted.. what did you actually create? This is a direct question. The tires are scanned, the fenders, hood, doors, fascias, etc.. and what is left over? Looks to me like a body which is a cube, the hands look cool, but I bet that is scanned data also. There's just extruded geometry behind the panels and rockers for the legs and some text.
The viper was just a ready made model that was low rez. For a test I did, I made it fully transformable from that car to the robot and designed a brief action sequence involving a few transformers, a chase, fight and so on. I don't really want to post that online. The resolution and models really don't matter that much in what I did. It is more about the story telling, cinematography, and so on.
The point I am trying to make is illustrating creativity of creating 3D data, you rely on scanning equipment and software for rendering. Compare my quick wheel image to your image, the quality of that data will always be better than that data because it's real CAD surface b-spline / nurb data, not triagulated / facetted data nor a random nurb wrap (random surface / quilt type patches..). Sure you can "hide" your meshy triangulated data by increasing the density beyond what is visible on the TV screen, but in my world we have to make real production panels that look smooth in real life.
Yes, NURBS is/can be more "accurate" than polys. You have to understand though, even when you view one of your renders, it is most likely converted to polys in the rendering process, thought it may be transparent to the viewer. Like I said, I never wanted to turn this into a dick swinging contest. It seemed like I was being called out so I posted an image of something that seemed somewhat relevant.
There's a great effort in modeling a production engine block, including the water jackets etc.. or a cylinder head, or how about a car body panels from scratch understanding class A surfacing, G3/4 quality data, curvature in addition to tangency evaluating the reflection lines which establish curvature or styling of a vehicle..
I have no doubt. I have some friends that graduated from Cal Arts in Pasadena majoring in car design. That at one point was something else that I wanted to do, and respect.
You're elevating yourself far beyond compared to what we do in the real world in 3D.. then again, that must come much easier in your industry having only the quality or visualization boundaries of the TV or theatre screen, whereas our design boundaries include engineering (packaging, fea / cfd analysis, etc..) and manufacturing (stamping, molding, etc..), in such that our 3D data actually has to survive and function in real life as physical parts. There's surely piles of stuff I'm not aware of in making movies or animations (and I do respect that) in which this reply is specifically regarding 3D data.
No, I'm not elevating myself at all. To rehash, I rarely stop by this board any more but noticed the video thread a while back. I would have offered to help out but I'm in the middle of directing my own project and just up to my eyes in work. I did offer a brief suggestion and went on my way. The other night I was up editing late and the computer had to render some filters so I thought I would check out the m.org again. In my PM box was a link to your post which seemed to be a little bit of an F-U. I'm not putting words in your mouth, just telling you how I saw it. In all honesty, it was nice of you to try and help out. I've helped out members before with little things that they needed along those same lines and would have again had I the time. I did notice the lack of wipes and transitions that you had in your other videos if I remember right. That is a great step in the right direction.
If you are interested at all, I put up a little clip of some animation I did when I first got into the industry. Not a great movie but we got great reviews on the CG work.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x2VgQYLiB8[/media]
I'm not trying to start a **** slinging contest. Maybe it comes off that way. After all, I did read your comment in a way which you said you did not mean it.
