Photographer
d00dle
Posts: 162
Retoucher
Cristina M Beller
Posts: 140
Chicago, Illinois, US
Oh my god... MUST HAVE ZBRUSH!!!!! I can make all my creepy characters come to LIFE...almost.
Dag nabbit!!!! I remember them not having a trial version for mac a year ago!! Why do they still not have one??
shucks
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
Been using 3D for about 10+ years or so. My main apps are ZBrush and Modo. I was a beta tester for 3.12 on Mac OSX.
A few examples... http://www.picturesinpixels.co.uk/galle … mples.html The Escher mirror ball... it seems the most photo realistic. Do you have more images like it?
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Maya currently has an offer on their web site which allows you to download a full cut of the software for free and use it for 9 months without paying for it. All the renders have the Maya logo on them, but it's a great way to learn the basics just to see if you have any chops with it. they refer to the offer as helping people that have been laid off due to the economy. Be prepared to tell them you are unemployed. Fwiw, I've worked with Maya and 3dmax both. I found 3dmax a little more left brained, but easier to overome the learning curve (for me). Maya is great for organic modeling though.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
Robert Randall wrote:
The Escher mirror ball... it seems the most photo realistic. Do you have more images like it? Not many as my 3D is just a hobby so not much time for it. I tend to experiment quite a bit with different styles rather than have a fixed style I always do. I do tend to end creating mad creatures mainly...
I planning to bring more 3D into my images which would need to be more realistic...
Most recent 3D venture using ZBrush... http://www.3dunderworld.co.uk/buxpix/grey-2.jpg
Photographer
PK Digital Imaging
Posts: 3084
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Robert Randall wrote:
The Escher mirror ball... it seems the most photo realistic. Do you have more images like it? If you want photorealistic.. check out this local Vancouverite...
http://student.vfs.com/~3d68max/index.html < Look at the Joker.. 100% 3D.
-PKD
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
It really depends on what you want to do. If you are going for photorealism, normal maps might be the way to go. That would be ZBrush or Mudbox. I prefer Mudbox for the interface and ease of switching between detail levels, but I love the wax material you get to use in ZBrush.
If you are using either of those programs however, you will be sculpting things like statues because the models wont be able to be rigged and posed through those programs. That is done through other 3d packages.
I wont talk for other people, but I have never seen any image done through poser that looked good. I remember that bryce was doing some rather impressive things and had potential, but I have never really liked any images I have seen done with that program either.
Maya is the best for feature animation and film effects. No way around it. You can do more and do it better than the other programs. 3ds Max tends to be used more for games. A while back lightwave did some awesome commercials (think the M&M characters).
Then you have to decide what renderer you want. I use both MentalRay and Renderman for Maya. Mental ray comes with Maya and if you buy the unlimited version, you get 8 licenses for it. Renderman is WAY more expensive, but has better motion blur and I am partial to their environment lights.
Concept > Model > UV > Texture > Blend Shapes > Rig > Animate > Light > Render is a basic workflow pipeline. Games tend to use Joints for facial animation over blend shapes.
Think of what you want as a goal with 3d (examples: add a model you shot into a 3d environment; replace a models arms with robotic arms; create a futuristic car for the model to sit in; etc) and we will be better able to help direct you in what you need to do.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
dottore della peste wrote:
It really depends on what you want to do. If you are going for photorealism, normal maps might be the way to go. That would be ZBrush or Mudbox. I prefer Mudbox for the interface and ease of switching between detail levels, but I love the wax material you get to use in ZBrush.
If you are using either of those programs however, you will be sculpting things like statues because the models wont be able to be rigged and posed through those programs. That is done through other 3d packages You can pose models in ZBrush with ease using transpose or ZSpheres, what you have just written is extremely inaccurate. As well as that inaccuracy Mudbox and ZBrush can't even be compared as ZBrushes toolset is extensive as it works in 3D, 2D & 2.5D also. Mudbox sculpts and textures!
Zbrush does have one real limitation in creating real or hypereal images to composite into photographs. That is it's renderer which can be a bit cartoony, hence my use of Modo for renders...
Your recommendations for software are very biased and contain extremely expensive solutions. Maya unlimited and Renderman would cost around £20K, not forgetting a learning curve like a cliff and the need for a machine with specs to deal with such processing!
You have mentioned very low end 3D software i.e Bryce and Poser, then you have mentioned very high end. Where is Cinema 4D, Modo, Blender, Vue, XSI, Lightwave... the list goes on.
I would recommend anyone wishing to dabble in 3D to download a trial versions and seeing what works for you, both in terms of usabilty and price point. It's not much different to choosing a camera, if it works for you then go for it. A good camera doesn't make you a better photographer in the same way software choice doesn't make you a better 3D artist.
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
Robert Randall wrote:
The Escher mirror ball... it seems the most photo realistic. Do you have more images like it? scary I sent the Eschers pic of the mirror ball a few days ago as inspiration to the mathematician geometric graphical engineering 3d/2d/2.5D artist..........easier to call him Phil.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
Not many as my 3D is just a hobby so not much time for it. I tend to experiment quite a bit with different styles rather than have a fixed style I always do. I do tend to end creating mad creatures mainly...
I planning to bring more 3D into my images which would need to be more realistic...
Most recent 3D venture using ZBrush... http://www.3dunderworld.co.uk/buxpix/grey-2.jpg Sweet Jesus, when did you meet my mother in law?
Photographer
Fashion Photographer
Posts: 14388
London, England, United Kingdom
If I remember correctly, you can download a free version of Houdini.
Digital Artist
Koray
Posts: 6720
Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
although the image quality suffers (meaning you have to make big and use small) zbrush is to most creative friendly software I've ever seen. it removes drawing and painting skills out of the equation and also makes me see things I wouldnt be able to visualize in depth alone. I dont know how I'm going to use it and for what yet but its fun just thinking about it 
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
You can pose models in ZBrush with ease using transpose or ZSpheres, what you have just written is extremely inaccurate. As well as that inaccuracy Mudbox and ZBrush can't even be compared as ZBrushes toolset is extensive as it works in 3D, 2D & 2.5D also. Mudbox sculpts and textures!
Zbrush does have one real limitation in creating real or hypereal images to composite into photographs. That is it's renderer which can be a bit cartoony, hence my use of Modo for renders...
Your recommendations for software are very biased and contain extremely expensive solutions. Maya unlimited and Renderman would cost around £20K, not forgetting a learning curve like a cliff and the need for a machine with specs to deal with such processing!
You have mentioned very low end 3D software i.e Bryce and Poser, then you have mentioned very high end. Where is Cinema 4D, Modo, Blender, Vue, XSI, Lightwave... the list goes on.
I would recommend anyone wishing to dabble in 3D to download a trial versions and seeing what works for you, both in terms of usabilty and price point. It's not much different to choosing a camera, if it works for you then go for it. A good camera doesn't make you a better photographer in the same way software choice doesn't make you a better 3D artist. Way to make things personal man.
I find your comment that you can't compare zBrush and Mudbox laughable. The two programs are direct competitors. zBrush is better in some ways, Mudbox in others (which is what I think I just said). You can pose a character (I guess I could have expanded, but I didn't want to get into painting weights as opposed to spheres). in zBrush, but I have found that to be slower and more difficult ultimately leading to less than believable results and more cleanup work.
My recommendations are not biased at all. They are informed. I have used many 3d packages since 3d studio 7 back in 1997 and was relating my thoughts on what I have used. Notice how I have given information and opinions about a number of competing softwares?
You are wrong. Apparently 20k pounds is about $33.2k US. I bought Maya Unlimited 2009 (the largest, most expensive and inclusive package) for $5,000 and it came with a free version of Mudbox 2009. I got Renderman for Maya for $1,000. That is a grand total of $6k... not $33k. I also didn't forget the learning curve. Since my first post here I have been mentioning the time commitment. As for the machine that can deal with it... Welcome to any form of computer graphics. I am running Maya 2009 and RfM 3.0 right now on my 4 year old laptop, while I have photoshop cs3 open and a movie playing and have no lag problem. Of course I would love to have it on an ultra uber computer so my cloth and fur dynamics would cache faster, but I make do just fine.
I mentioned low end software and then high end software because people were recommending the low over high. Yes, it is cheaper, but there is a reason. For the most part it tends to look like crap.
I had used cinema4d for a couple years before switching to Maya. I found that it did some cartoon stuff well (although rather limited compaired to 3ds which I used before) but wasn't very good for photoreal. Lightwave I mentioned, read more carefully. The others, I haven't used so I can't talk about them... except I have heard good things about XSI.
If you are going to continue trying to pick fights with people, I would recommend moving along because that tends to be frowned on here.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
I would recommend anyone wishing to dabble in 3D to download a trial versions and seeing what works for you, both in terms of usabilty and price point. Now for what I agree with...
This is good advice. As far as I am aware all of the software mentioned in the previous comments is available with watermarked trial versions from the creator's websites. The really cool thing is (at least for Maya and Renderman, I haven't tried it with the others) you can save out the files done in a trial version and if you know someone who has a full version with purchased licenses you can render through their software with no watermark.
In school, a number of people downloaded the trial versions of Maya (8.5 I think) to install on their home computers so they could work when the labs were closed and were still able to send files to the farm with no problems.
For the OP... again... first think of what you want to do and then we will be better equipped to direct you the best way to do it.
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
It's not much different to choosing a camera, if it works for you then go for it. A good camera doesn't make you a better photographer in the same way software choice doesn't make you a better 3D artist. This on the other hand, I would have to disagree with. Owning a better camera or better software might not make you a better artist, but good artists can create better art with them. To continue with your analogy, while it is easier to learn how to use a disposable camera than a high end dslr, your results will look like they came from a disposable camera.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
dottore della peste wrote:
If you are going to continue trying to pick fights with people, I would recommend moving along because that tends to be frowned on here. Pick fights? Sorry I was merely pointing out inaccuracies, this was not a personal attack, just facts. If you saw my post as an attack then I apologise as this was not the intention.
But, as this is a public forum I am sure you are aware I am entitled to my opinion as are you, I have also paid for membership so will not be 'moving along' as you so eloquently put it.
I felt by only mentioning a handful of apps you use you indeed were being biased and 'off topic' as the initial question was...
Koray wrote:
What is a good software to start learning basic 3d modeling that looks good enough to use in 2d images?
I know max and maya are out there, anything else that is simple and affordable or maybe free like gimp? ...this is obviously my opinion.
But by quoting how long you have been doing 3D seems unecessary, is this supposed to make me feel I must bow to your superior knowledge as it seems quite patronising or even a personal attack!
I have been involved in 3D since 95/96, also running my own 3D forum for 3 years now. Not that this vulgar puffing out of our chests actually matters to anyone, but as you pointed it out I thought I would do the same so we both appreciate each others positions. This being we both have extensive knowledge of 3D but have different opinions, not a bad thing in my book.
I could continue re: price of software, better cameras making better photographers, machine specs etc, but feel it unnecessary to subject any other members to such trivia, knowing you will only continue to mis quote me in this diatribe until it gets nasty an vindictive which I'm sure would be 'frowned' upon here.
Please email me or message me should you wish to continue a discussion on this matter and thank you for such a warm welcome to the Model Mayhem community... ;-)
Apologies to everyone else having to read this drivel but I feel I am entitled to defend myself when misquoted as is anyone else here.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
Koray wrote:
although the image quality suffers (meaning you have to make big and use small) zbrush is to most creative friendly software I've ever seen.
it removes drawing and painting skills out of the equation and also makes me see things I wouldnt be able to visualize in depth alone.
I dont know how I'm going to use it and for what yet but its fun just thinking about it I wouldn't agree it removes painting and drawing skills out of the equation altogether but once mastered it is indeed a powerful tool and extremely user friendly.
As I mentioned earlier in my 'personal attack', ZBrushes biggest downfall is it's renderer as it cannot produce anywhere near photo-real renders. Saying that, it's great fun and opens up a whole new world of options.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
There was nothing "inaccurate" or "biased" about anything I had posted. I tend to pride myself on my objectivity so I am not going to apologize for taking personally directed comments like that personally. It seems to me that this has already gotten a bit vindictive, and if you wanted to keep it between us you would have messaged me personally instead of stepping up to try to push me around.
I am biased because I didn't cover every single 3d program out there? Why the hell would I do that? What about google sketchup? Amazing software, absolutely free and often used by pro-film and post houses for quick 3d concepting. Why didn't I mention that? Because it didn't apply to the conversation.
A fact is a statement that can be checked and confirmed. The "facts" you felt so inclined to share with us... pretty much all wrong. zBrush and Mudbox are not only comparable, they are frequently compared on sites like CGTalk, Highend3d and many others. They are, again, directly competing programs. The "Fact" that "Maya unlimited and Renderman would cost around £20K,"... only $27,000 off.
If you are going to try to confront someone to make yourself feel smart, it might help to know what you are talking about.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Pictures In Pixels wrote:
Apologies to everyone else having to read this drivel but I feel I am entitled to defend myself when misquoted as is anyone else here. Nice edit by the way.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Man, you are an editing fool! I wish I had quoted your original post so as to have your message before all of the edits. Yea, you can change your post so that you are misquoted, then whine about being misquoted. Well done!
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
PK Digital Imaging wrote:
If you want photorealistic.. check out this local Vancouverite...
http://student.vfs.com/~3d68max/index.html < Look at the Joker.. 100% 3D.
-PKD Dear lord! This one is crazy!
![https://student.vfs.com/~3d68max/images/songhyekyo.jpg]()
I think this is one of the most believable I have seen!
EDIT: Looking back on it, the mouth blends feel a bit weird though. She is smiling with her lips, but the muscles in her cheeks are not affected. Still really impressive though.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:50 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No drama.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
dottore della peste wrote:
Man, you are an editing fool! I wish I had quoted your original post so as to have your message before all of the edits. Yea, you can change your post so that you are misquoted, then whine about being misquoted. Well done! Sorry, now I'm not allowed to edit my own posts? Sorry but I didn't realise you were a mod or Admin, oh you're not, my mistake...
An editing fool? that's me...
Any chance we can chat like adults at some point?
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:47 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No drama.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:48 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No drama.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:49 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No drama. No personal attacks. No unsolicited critiques.
Photographer
Pictures In Pixels
Posts: 32
Waltham Abbey, England, United Kingdom
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:38 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No BS. No drama. No personal attacks.
Photographer
dottore della peste
Posts: 234
Los Angeles, California, US
Post hidden on Oct 22, 2009 03:35 pm Reason: violates rules Comments: No BS. No drama. No personal attacks.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
 Moderator Warning! From the Photography Forum FAQ What is different about the Industry forums? In addition to the regular forum rules, there are two that apply specifically to Tier 3 ForumsâModel Matters; Photography Talk; and Hair, Makeup & Styling. (31) No BS: While this is Model Mayhem, we would like to keep a nice balance between the mayhem and being resourceful. This is where the "Industry Forums" come in to play. All forums under this header are meant to be used for serious discussion only. Please think before you post and only hit the submit button if you have a well thought out contribution. Junk posts/threads do not belong here. These forums will be heavily moderated by the Forum Mods. If they feel someone is too much of a nuisance, the offender could be banned from the forums. (32) No drama: Keep the drama out of these forums. If you get into it with someone, please at least keep it civil. Or else both parties will be brigged. Such posts have a long history of disrupting threads, and fall under the No BS rule as well as the No Hijacking and Donât Troll site rules. Consider very carefully whether the post is a serious contribution before clicking on Reply.
|
Moderator Warning!
