Guess that's what you guys get for using LW... Time to trade-up.
Seriously, though, sorry to hear that. I worked on the Maya plug-in development to make sure it was seamless, and I couldn't be happier, but I don't know who was on the LW team. I do know that they want plug-in parity, so there's no question somebody's on it. Hope it's soon for you guys...
An interesting comment. Do you feel that way because TPM used more practical models than AOTC and ROTS did? What is it about the vfx in TPM that you feel is superior to AOTC and ROTS? Just curious.
Guess that's what you guys get for using LW... Time to trade-up.
Seriously, though, sorry to hear that. I worked on the Maya plug-in development to make sure it was seamless, and I couldn't be happier, but I don't know who was on the LW team. I do know that they want plug-in parity, so there's no question somebody's on it. Hope it's soon for you guys...
_Mike
Mike the maya plug-in is fantastic you guys did great.
It's been great reading through this thread, I must say I've been blown away by all of this. I'm a humble Blender-using-hermit (internal renderer, not even Yafray). I know that the program and renderer I use don't really measure up to the the tools you're using, and being open-source, wont for years to come. However, it's been insightful being able to read everyone's posts (sans any banned members, which I'll just gloss over...! -cough-) I must say that it seems that the result seems to come 80% from the way you approach the process of creating it and just reading everything here has made me a better modeller.
And a 3P0 model, would that require reference photography?? I guess it depends on which version you go for, but say you were to choose the ep III era one (I know you'd probably choose ep IV to match your R2) surely the texture would require little work...? I know you hate procedural textures, but how would you approach texturing that?? It would annoy me, becuase of the lack of scratches, dust ect. - instead just the shiny gold plating would surely detract from the realism of the model because of it's simplicity...? Wouldn't it?
Weaselandalf
For a clean 3-PO, or R2 for that matter, I think the geometry becomes that much more important, because there aren't the usual texture cues to signal something as real. And even "clean" isn't clean - there are ALWAYS things on the surface: dust, a few scratches, an errant fingerprint or palm print, etc. But 3-PO was originally sculpted by hand, so you can be damn sure there aren't any symmetrical or perfect anythings on the surface. I believe that if I had done the 3-PO model right, it would look "right," even in clay render form.
Whoa... First Nico's jaw dropping Eagle Transporter, and now this... I have GOT to figure out how to get myself a copy of this Maxwell thing. On the plus side, by the time I'm capable of modelling anything that would benefit from it, I'll likely be able to afford it.
Thank you, Mike, for sharing those insights into the surface texturing, and the like. It's given me a lot to think about - very educational. To say nothing of an absolutely spectacular model. I, too, will be looking forward to seeing more in the way of tutorials that you have a part in.
R2 is still getting a lot of re-working, some changes seen here. Inevitably, the model is going to fail to hold up on closest scrutiny; I'm just trying to push that as far as possible, and I still feel I have a ways to go. I'm not sold 100% on this image, but if you look at the "Greenscreen" R2 from the same angle, it would be worse. There are just hundreds of things that make the difference...
Even if i tried, i doubt i can come up with anything nit-picky enough to satisfy you. It looks AMAZING!!! better than any other R2 ive seen.
Would it possible for yo to post a render for a "new" R2; ya know, like clean and shiny and etc....? ( i really need more wallpapers!:D)
I actually started this process, which means going back to the first geometry I brought in from Rhino, before I'd done anything else to it. Really, there are about 5 materials on it, if you do it clean, so... anyway, should be interesting.
I look at your renders, and I don't even know what to say. This is SO amazing, I can hardly believe it even though I've followed this thread for months.
I only have one question..
Are you REALLY a human? I mean seriously. If you were some kinda mesh-wielding alien, you'd let us know, right?
Inevitably, the model is going to fail to hold up on closest scrutiny; I'm just trying to push that as far as possible, and I still feel I have a ways to go.
At some point the amount of time and effort being put into a 3D model would be more than building the real thing.
Mike, you have to know from the response that this is an amazing model and an even better use of textures, lights and other choices in rendering that produces a superior result.
I would hazard a guess as to why "it looks 'obviously' cg" to some people. if u work in 3d long enough, your mind breaks down everything into their respective cg parts automatically, and inevitably, it fails to hold up. (Kinda the same w/ photoshop: you use it long enough, and u can sorta tell when a picture is real or photoshopped) but for everyone else, it really looks amazing!
Mike...don't think the textures can hold for such close ups..we see lots of streching, and the bump maps are dead on CG looking.
Well, he did say he was going to rework areas that needed improvement. My issue with the latest render is that it looks like a scale model of an R2 droid rather than a real-sized one.
Well, he did say he was going to rework areas that needed improvement. My issue with the latest render is that it looks like a scale model of an R2 droid rather than a real-sized one.
Well, how would a "real-sized" R2 look different? put something in there for perspective?
I'd say 70% of the time scale issues are caused by depth-of-field problems, 20% by lighting cue problems, and 10% by lack of peripheral object problems. In this case, it's probably depth-of-field, which if it's too severe, makes everything look like a miniature, like in this photo of the actual real world colosseum:
However, this R2 was shot with a "virtual" Canon Eos D1 mkII (meaning the proper filmback size, realistic focal length, and f-stop/exposure) and the scale of the scene is correct, so Maxwell returns accurate depth-of-field. Nonetheless, it's interesting how we see stuff!
@Alain: There is absolutely zero stretching on any material, anywhere on the model. Every single edge and surface is mapped separately to avoid that, because I believe that's one of the first dead-giveaways of CG. Can you show me what you thought looked like it?
Incidentally, here's that "clean R2" I more or less threw together. I think with some refinement it might be interesting.
_Mike
P.S. There are a few errors on the dome from "undisplacing" - a first generation clean dome would have to be all re-uv'd, so I just flattened out the normal one. There's a process for transferring uv's, but I hadn't bothered yet. If this image is a high-demand thing, then I'll deal, but otherwise I'm not a big fan of clean R2
Technically, this R2 is about as "CG" as you can get - it's perfect surfaces, perfect materials... it could never exist like this. If I was actually going to do it for real, then no matter how clean there would still be a ton of little tweaks, pulls, color shifts in the paint, etc.
Posts
Seriously, though, sorry to hear that. I worked on the Maya plug-in development to make sure it was seamless, and I couldn't be happier, but I don't know who was on the LW team. I do know that they want plug-in parity, so there's no question somebody's on it. Hope it's soon for you guys...
_Mike
Realism mixed with classic camera work and look.
Mike the maya plug-in is fantastic you guys did great.
And a 3P0 model, would that require reference photography?? I guess it depends on which version you go for, but say you were to choose the ep III era one (I know you'd probably choose ep IV to match your R2) surely the texture would require little work...? I know you hate procedural textures, but how would you approach texturing that?? It would annoy me, becuase of the lack of scratches, dust ect. - instead just the shiny gold plating would surely detract from the realism of the model because of it's simplicity...? Wouldn't it?
Weaselandalf
_Mike
No, thanks. Very happy with what I've got already.
M.
@jedilaw, r u using maxwell for ure ISD yet?
Thank you, Mike, for sharing those insights into the surface texturing, and the like. It's given me a lot to think about - very educational. To say nothing of an absolutely spectacular model. I, too, will be looking forward to seeing more in the way of tutorials that you have a part in.
Cheers!
-jaime
R2 is still getting a lot of re-working, some changes seen here. Inevitably, the model is going to fail to hold up on closest scrutiny; I'm just trying to push that as far as possible, and I still feel I have a ways to go. I'm not sold 100% on this image, but if you look at the "Greenscreen" R2 from the same angle, it would be worse. There are just hundreds of things that make the difference...
_Mike
Would it possible for yo to post a render for a "new" R2; ya know, like clean and shiny and etc....? ( i really need more wallpapers!:D)
_Mike
I only have one question..
Are you REALLY a human? I mean seriously. If you were some kinda mesh-wielding alien, you'd let us know, right?
Mike, you have to know from the response that this is an amazing model and an even better use of textures, lights and other choices in rendering that produces a superior result.
_Mike
and it has paid off if it is iether
Well, he did say he was going to rework areas that needed improvement. My issue with the latest render is that it looks like a scale model of an R2 droid rather than a real-sized one.
Well, how would a "real-sized" R2 look different? put something in there for perspective?
However, this R2 was shot with a "virtual" Canon Eos D1 mkII (meaning the proper filmback size, realistic focal length, and f-stop/exposure) and the scale of the scene is correct, so Maxwell returns accurate depth-of-field. Nonetheless, it's interesting how we see stuff!
@Alain: There is absolutely zero stretching on any material, anywhere on the model. Every single edge and surface is mapped separately to avoid that, because I believe that's one of the first dead-giveaways of CG. Can you show me what you thought looked like it?
Incidentally, here's that "clean R2" I more or less threw together. I think with some refinement it might be interesting.
_Mike
P.S. There are a few errors on the dome from "undisplacing" - a first generation clean dome would have to be all re-uv'd, so I just flattened out the normal one. There's a process for transferring uv's, but I hadn't bothered yet. If this image is a high-demand thing, then I'll deal, but otherwise I'm not a big fan of clean R2
_Mike