Are we there (dead?) yet?
- Hirazi Blue
- Administrator
- Posts: 5107
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 12:15
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Cinema 4D would my preferred choice at the moment as well, if I had to move on. It's come a long way. But lacking funds and finding Cinema 4D ridiculously overpriced (to get the Studio version that contains most of the "goodies" you mention), I will have to stick to Softimage. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as I still like Softimage a lot...
Stay safe, sane & healthy!
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
True, they are rather self-confident when it comes to pricing.
Here's one of the advantages of being a student (again)...
Here's one of the advantages of being a student (again)...
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
But the animation sucks. It looks like if it wasn't happening under the water at all.Eugen wrote: I know the guy who rigged this cartoony octopus (did a really fine job!). Told me he had almost no crashes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLaOSoNq0no
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Like in "Spongebob"...? ; p
Come on, that's a cartoon... And that part has nothing to do with the tools used.
Come on, that's a cartoon... And that part has nothing to do with the tools used.
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Really nice one, it seems nothing in this movie is created 'just to be created'. Every part seems to be re - considered few times, before final decision. I'd believe they spent a good time to get that movement of octopus.Eugen wrote:Maybe... however, did you check out C4D's character tools? Not bad at all, too, at least what I can tell yet.
There's a flexible rig-creation tool, similar to 3ds Max' CAT. It has an "animation mixer" (the "motion mode" of the timeline panel). You've got cloth, you've got hair... a GATOR-like tool, "VAMP"... it even has a muscle system (never tested).
If you need to re-rig, you can move around your character tags (Weight, IK, ...) without crashing things... it's the hell of a user-crap-forgiving program anyway.
I know the guy who rigged this cartoony octopus (did a really fine job!). Told me he had almost no crashes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLaOSoNq0no
But.... if intention is to prove something about 3d app, imho this is somehow pointless. I mean, c4d itself is probably the proof, how character animation is actually irrelevant in what they are calling a 'real 3d world' of de - personalized best companion to After Effects, or archiviz world... They are also, I think, only owner of 3d software, not having any user forum. Way ahead in de - personalizing, compered to AD. Real, not smell like anything, software of 3d future.
To make it clear, as an employee I really appreciate their 'middle' versions. Together with After Effects, both are possible to figure out, on the fly, no need to spend evenings and evenings to get into 'common' level of skill...
But, stuff from Studio version, looking like box you get in discount shop (but not for discount price), called 'alpinist equipment' or like, where nobody knows what you can really do with content, which mountain could be a target . After some investigation, one will figure how VAMP rely on UVs (which makes it contradictory to self), how damn common thing like quaternions belongs only to studio version, how hair is an old fashion buffer thing (except you're running into some silly workaround). And finally, how they didn't hesitated to practically kill the entire new built in path tracer, by 'fitting' it into shader system of 90s, when PBR was unknown acronym. And so on.
So many of character or simulation related tools, not able to compete against Blender.
We can hate AD as much as we can, but 3ds Max never ever, never ever went so low. If they decided to bring Mental Ray to people (or anything else), they brought - Mental Ray, not their interpretation, what average user 'need to know'.
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Agreed. You could do that kind of animation in any of the "big players" these days. At least it proves that C4D IS actually a "player" (not sure about "big"... ;p )Mathaeus wrote: Really nice one, it seems nothing in this movie is created 'just to be created'. Every part seems to be re - considered few times, before final decision. I'd believe they spent a good time to get that movement of octopus.
But.... if intention is to prove something about 3d app, imho this is somehow pointless. I mean, c4d itself is probably the proof, how character animation is actually irrelevant in what they are calling a 'real 3d world' of de - personalized best companion to After Effects, or archiviz world...
Question is: how comfortable, and stable, do you work?
Yes, that sucks. Latest info on the topic can be read here:Mathaeus wrote: They are also, I think, only owner of 3d software, not having any user forum. Way ahead in de - personalizing, compered to AD. Real, not smell like anything, software of 3d future.
http://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/forums/topic ... own-forum/
This Rick Barrett ("VP operations at Maxon, Los Angeles" his LinkedIn profile says) does a little more straight talk recently, since Maxon's non-disclosure politics really started to backfire.
Funnily, even some users don't want an official forum...
Well, isn't it the same for all "general purpose" 3d apps? What's 3ds Max targeted at, for example? Archvis now, more or less, but it never was specifically designed for just that initially. It was "swept" in this direction out of complex reasons. You could do that aforementioned character animation with it, too, of course.Mathaeus wrote: To make it clear, as an employee I really appreciate their 'middle' versions. Together with After Effects, both are possible to figure out, on the fly, no need to spend evenings and evenings to get into 'common' level of skill...
But, stuff from Studio version, looking like box you get in discount shop (but not for discount price), called 'alpinist equipment' or like, where nobody knows what you can really do with content, which mountain could be a target .
What do you mean? I just made a quick test and transferred a UV map of one sphere to another with no UVs. Works.Mathaeus wrote: After some investigation, one will figure how VAMP rely on UVs (which makes it contradictory to self),
That's what the help files say:
"VAMP stands for Vertex Map Manager and is a powerful tool for transferring point-based data from one object to another. The objects can be completely different. They can have a different number of points and a different structure."
But ok, I'm not really familiar with it's subtelties.
Much to learn I still have...Mathaeus wrote: how damn common thing like quaternions belongs only to studio version, how hair is an old fashion buffer thing (except you're running into some silly workaround).
What's the disadvantage of hair being a "buffer thing"? What's the "modern" way of doing this, then? At least, hair is supported by VRay and other plugin renderers, has dynamics, and it's simple to set up and comb.
I'm not completely familiar yet with those problems with the reflectance layer people complain about. What's the deal here?Mathaeus wrote: And finally, how they didn't hesitated to practically kill the entire new built in path tracer, by 'fitting' it into shader system of 90s, when PBR was unknown acronym. And so on.
But then, some say, why develop another renderer yourself, if you could use plugins leave that task to specialized companies... so who cares. If Redshift was ready, I would use it.
Do you use Blender? Why doesn't everyone already?Mathaeus wrote: So many of character or simulation related tools, not able to compete against Blender.
We can hate AD as much as we can, but 3ds Max never ever, never ever went so low. If they decided to bring Mental Ray to people (or anything else), they brought - Mental Ray, not their interpretation, what average user 'need to know'.
Again, grass is not just green on the Maxon side, but they just do many things right.
Sniffed into C4D a few years agon, and dismissed it as "amateurish"... yet it matured in the meantime. It became sort of a low-bullshit workhorse application, for many tasks.
Yet this "second league" reputation sticks. It's still not taken for full, which reflects in the fact that many think it's impertinently overpriced (me, too).
- Hirazi Blue
- Administrator
- Posts: 5107
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 12:15
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
The 3d world seems to be divided by just two questions:Eugen wrote:Do you use Blender? Why doesn't everyone already?
- Why doesn't everyone use Blender already?
- Why does anyone use Blender?
Stay safe, sane & healthy!
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Not that much since 2004. Softimage XSI 4 was, obviously, so much stronger app than Blender, these days. Today, difference is smaller, but SI, Maya or Max are still absolute winners, imho.Eugen wrote:
Do you use Blender? Why doesn't everyone already?
Now, well..... when I was studying the c4d, few years ago, had somehow embarrassing feeling, of fifty fifty ratio.
Regrading renderers, buffers, conserving the energy - literally all renderers these days are around PBR concept. Together with built in, all purpose shaders, completely compatible with renderer. Seems to be just a formula of success, not temporary fashion. Even Houdini Mantra changed dramatically, even for price of much more complex PBR/MIS stuff, harder to edit. But not C4d - renderer introduced 2012, has only 'physical' camera (DOF and such), and that's it. For comparison, Blender Cycles, introduced in same time, not only had full support for all modern stuff - it was improved several times in last few years - and it was heavily used. I think it's enough to search for these two renderers on internet, to see the difference. For my taste that's just unforgivable, that new c4d renderer thing.
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
How is Clarisse doing?
-
- Posts: 583
- Joined: 20 Dec 2012, 05:13
- Skype: ithacapellin
Re: Are we there (dead?) yet?
Still crying everytime she sees a bottle of mint sauce ;)
--
Technomancer at Digital Arts
Wits University
Technomancer at Digital Arts
Wits University
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests