|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
This is my best work to date in terms of rendering. The character is Lady Tavia. I spent many hours understanding various things that can be tweaked in IRAY and how that interacts with the textures... I decided to go for a hyper rich glossy magazine look.
The avatar was sculpted first in CC3 and then tweaked in CC4. Expressions were modified from Digital Soul. She has an entirely reworked skin texture set made in Skingen. All in 4k. The hair was from DAZ, but retextured by me. I usually try to use my own hair, but this fit. I made the dress in Marvelous Designer. The background is a high resolution architectural photograph.
Playing with DOF and bloom from the ceiling lights washed out some of her features. I am not certain I like the results as much as in the first shot. I am also not certain why the dress's mesh went from level three smoothing to no smoothing.
In comparison, this is a native render made without using the IRAY extension, but all the internal bells and whistles turned on. The only thing different about this vs. the first shot is a change of the necklace. I didn't feel like spending an extra hour to undistort it from her head movement.
|
|
By jessefrankdirector - 3 Years Ago
|
You'll have to forgive me for asking stupid questions, so please correct me if I'm asking this question in the wrong place.
Is the IRay render primarily used for rendering still photos? The lighting and shading look really good in your scene, but I'm more interested in using it for video purposes. However, the last time I used the IRay render it took about 12 hours to render 4 frames of video.
Is there a better method for rendering out animations while taking advantage of the great lighting out of IRay?
|
|
By Amper Sand - 3 Years Ago
|
|
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? Photoshop, a static painting program - generic speaking - dwarfs at any time, in terms of quality, time and money spent, any similar creation made by a 3D animation program.
|
|
By AutoDidact - 3 Years Ago
|
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? The Daz community is primarily made up of still render/portrait makers. Iray is a good choice for that sort of thing, as it was originally designed as loss leader product to foment sales of NIVIDIA hardware to the still render Arch vis industry. But I agree with Amper Sand that this is an animators community, where Iray is effectively useless as an animated filmaking ,tool unless you have a render farm. and BTW NEVER paste your foreground render over a random photograph!!, unless it is a flat version of the same HDRI that was used to light the scene. Otherwise the obvious mismatch in lighting looks completely fake.
|
|
By 3dtester - 3 Years Ago
|
To make a point here: Iray as a renderer in Reallusion products was never meant to become an alternative to the native renderer for animation.
It was really just a benefit for Daz users who want to transition over to Character Creator and iClone because of reasons.
In the long run, some users were able to render short clips using Iray. But even with an RTX 3090 it takes too much time.
On the other hand it turned out that meanwhile there are better options to get Ray-Tracing / Path-Tracing renders, with acceptable render times.
However, Iray is still a good thing because it allows you to optimize a scene for rendering in such engines.
For example, if you export a scene from iClone, where you have applied .MDLs, they will come through as such in Omniverse automatically.
|
|
By IrinaIV - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Amper Sand (6/9/2022)
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? Photoshop, a static painting program - generic speaking - dwarfs at any time, in terms of quality, time and money spent, any similar creation made by a 3D animation program.
Why are Character Creator and iClone separate products? Different creators have different needs, and there's no rule that says you can only use the Reallusion software for animation. Also, not everyone can paint well enough to use Photoshop to similar results (and let's not even start on the benefits regarding lighting, composition, etc. experimentation for non-professional artists). Finally... is it really necessary to pull the superiority card of animator vs. illustrator? Create and let create, mate.
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Amper Sand (6/9/2022)
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? Photoshop, a static painting program - generic speaking - dwarfs at any time, in terms of quality, time and money spent, any similar creation made by a 3D animation program.
Provided, of course, that you know how to draw from scratch...:P
I have a project that is taking years to complete and I started to create a comic book based on the iClone scenes I already had. It's sort of an elaborate storyboard.
|
|
By AutoDidact - 3 Years Ago
|
In the long run, some users were able to render short clips using Iray. But even with an RTX 3090 it takes too much time. On the other hand it turned out that meanwhile there are better options to get Ray-Tracing / Path-Tracing renders, with acceptable render times.On the other hand it turned out that meanwhile there are better options to get Ray-Tracing / Path-Tracing renders, with acceptable render times.
How are the ominiverse render times, compared to Iray??
Are users (with RTX cards) actually making short films rendered in omniverse??
At any Rate the Daz community (particularly the vendors)have truly mastered IRay stills. Some really Stellar work being done over there:)
|
|
By Kelleytoons - 3 Years Ago
|
With my 3090 I thought I'd try Omniverse and it turned out to be SUCH a PITA just to get my very basic iClone scene in there (over an hour later I was still dealing with errors) that I gave up.
Unless there is a VERY transparent "render now in OV" there's no freaking way I'm leaving the iClone renderer. Yes, it might look pretty, but I'm into telling stories and THAT doesn't need pretty pictures (they are just a bonus - nice to have but if you don't produce at least three or four minutes of animation a month you're no animator).
|
|
By 3dtester - 3 Years Ago
|
AutoDidact (6/9/2022)
In the long run, some users were able to render short clips using Iray. But even with an RTX 3090 it takes too much time. On the other hand it turned out that meanwhile there are better options to get Ray-Tracing / Path-Tracing renders, with acceptable render times.On the other hand it turned out that meanwhile there are better options to get Ray-Tracing / Path-Tracing renders, with acceptable render times.
How are the ominiverse render times, compared to Iray??
Are users (with RTX cards) actually making short films rendered in omniverse??
Render times are really good. Compared to Iray, they are more than usable.
I could actually make amazing short films using Omniverse.
Unfortunately i am very limited by regular job and the usual things of life.
Animation work needs lots of time (and skills).
But if i were to render my next short, i would use Omniverse.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Amper Sand (6/9/2022)
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? Photoshop, a static painting program - generic speaking - dwarfs at any time, in terms of quality, time and money spent, any similar creation made by a 3D animation program.
The OBVIOUS advantage is that once you make a character and whatever assets, you can pose them, change their expression, change their outfits, change their environments and experiment with different scenes. You don't need to start re-drawing from scratch. Once I got all my characters sculpted and got to making assets, I have a nice little home studio going for images from my novel. Experimenting with different rendering techniques is to enhance photorealism because I am into that.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
jessefrankdirector (6/9/2022)
You'll have to forgive me for asking stupid questions, so please correct me if I'm asking this question in the wrong place.
Is the IRay render primarily used for rendering still photos? The lighting and shading look really good in your scene, but I'm more interested in using it for video purposes. However, the last time I used the IRay render it took about 12 hours to render 4 frames of video.
Is there a better method for rendering out animations while taking advantage of the great lighting out of IRay?
If I were rendering a moving scene, I don't think that I would use the IRAY renderer. Even with a fast machine, it takes about 2 minutes to render 3600 iterations of a single frame.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
AutoDidact (6/9/2022)
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? The Daz community is primarily made up of still render/portrait makers. Iray is a good choice for that sort of thing, as it was originally designed as loss leader product to foment sales of NIVIDIA hardware to the still render Arch vis industry. But I agree with Amper Sand that this is an animators community, where Iray is effectively useless as an animated filmaking ,tool unless you have a render farm. and BTW NEVER paste your foreground render over a random photograph!!, unless it is a flat version of the same HDRI that was used to light the scene. Otherwise the obvious mismatch in lighting looks completely fake.
Always pleasant when you show up... You seem incapable of writing a non-snarky, non-smug comment. For all your superiority in tone, you have yet to share anything particularly useful and you have been a troll since I came to this forum. Are you now the keeper of the animator kingdom? Who do you think you are? Is a still render not acceptable to your standards (such as they are judging from your own work)? If so, there is a solution. Piss off!
Also, I obviously used the background as the IBL in the IRAY shots. A cylindrical projection compared to a spherical one has very little distortion in the result at the scales I am working with.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
animagic (6/9/2022)
Amper Sand (6/9/2022)
What's the purpose of making artistic static pictures using an animation program? Photoshop, a static painting program - generic speaking - dwarfs at any time, in terms of quality, time and money spent, any similar creation made by a 3D animation program.Provided, of course, that you know how to draw from scratch...:P I have a project that is taking years to complete and I started to create a comic book based on the iClone scenes I already had. It's sort of an elaborate storyboard.
The whole point in my case is that I do not need to draw from scratch (though I have been actually drawing and painting for decades), but rather I can pose and set any particular image I want once I had my characters and assets made. I use CC4 because I think it is far superior for character creation than DAZ and even though I can sculpt in things like Blender, it is far easier.
It ultimately may be that I do more and more of my stuff in Blender once I get everything set up in CC4. There are limitations to the CC4 mesh that I might want to occasionally add some more polys to fix - specifically, it is impossible to do a proper chin cleft. It ultimately may be that I move my rendering to Blender or something else in my quest for greater realism. For now though, I am learning what I can with the assets I have and getting results, and I happen to use NVIDIA graphics hardware... Also, I have seen some IRAY shots that have fooled me for photographs.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
|
I render animations with Iray all the time.
|
|
By AutoDidact - 3 Years Ago
|
Yes, it might look pretty, but I'm into telling stories and THAT doesn't need pretty pictures (they are just a bonus - nice to have but if you don't produce at least three or four minutes of animation a month you're no animator). Nor Does one need mega Hardware IMHO, Given that we do have so many options for rendering today. This entire project was started and finished in about less than two days including rendering in EEVEE in Blender) on a Dell with intel UHD graphics-NO GPU. This is all of the “realism” I personally will ever need for my hobby. I do think Reallusion strikes a good balance with the options that it offers from the improved render engine in IC8 ,to the pipeline tools to send the Characters to other Free programs. I am old enough to remember the “bad old days” when decent 3D Character animation was reserved for the elite& privilaged users of Discreet/Autodesk & Alias Wavefront. Certainly Glad those times are long past.I render animations with Iray all the time. There are a few rare people in the Daz community that use Iray for animation also. I think the Iclone community prefers “realtime “or near realtime, hence the aversion to the relatively slow brute force pathtracer from NIVIDIA. also,I am give to understand it does not support certain iclone native features likr popcorn FX etc.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Jeffster The Mighty (6/9/2022)
I render animations with Iray all the time.
Rock on... Do you have a post? I would be curious to see and discuss hardware.
|
|
By jeffkirkland - 3 Years Ago
|
Coming to iClone form DAZ Studio, I thought I'd need the iRay plugin but ultimately, I get equally great results from the native renderer while being able to use 100% of iClone's features (popcorn fx, lens flares, etc). To my eye, unless I'm pixel peeping, the native renderer looks close enough to not be wasting extra hours on rendering. I still love and use iRay in DAZ Studio for creating still images, and use it occasionally in Character Creator, but iRay is just too much of an afterthought in the RL ecosystem to be really useful in iClone.
Nice images in the OP though.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
jeffkirkland (6/9/2022)
Coming to iClone form DAZ Studio, I thought I'd need the iRay plugin but ultimately, I get equally great results from the native renderer while being able to use 100% of iClone's features (popcorn fx, lens flares, etc). To my eye, unless I'm pixel peeping, the native renderer looks close enough to not be wasting extra hours on rendering. I still love and use iRay in DAZ Studio for creating still images, and use it occasionally in Character Creator, but iRay is just too much of an afterthought in the RL ecosystem to be really useful in iClone.
Nice images in the OP though.
First thank you. Second, IRAY may be something of an afterthought to CC, but it is hard to argue with results. The thing I am currently trying to get right in IRAY is eyes. Do you have any ideas for how to make the eyes look as good as the enhanced eyes of a native render? Any insights would help.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
[quote]AutoDidact
"Nor Does one need mega Hardware IMHO, Given that we do have so many options for rendering today. This entire project was started and finished in about less than two days including rendering in EEVEE in Blender) on a Dell with intel UHD graphics-NO GPU. This is all of the “realism” I personally will ever need for my hobby." When I first started posting, you told me that the characters I had meticulously sculpted all looked the same and then later complained about making "white women" despite seeing examples of non-white males and females. Then you endlessly went on and on, bombing thread after thread, about how native renders would never ever be as good as whatever it is you do with ray tracing. You said one would have to be "visually impaired" to not see the difference. Apparently, realism is no longer something "you need." And yet, not once did I ask, or desire to know what you feel you need to do whatever it is you do. Now that I am working with IRAY, apparently one needs to be an animator to count as... something or whatever... I do have a question for you Mr. Didact though... What part of your work did you actually create for your example? It looks like you didn't just lift the suit, without even bothering to retexture, but the avatar as well. As to story telling... Are you Phillip K. Dick or any of the writers for Blade Runner? How are you telling a story? 
|
|
By 4u2ges - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Do you have any ideas for how to make the eyes look as good as the enhanced eyes of a native render? Any insights would help.
Start by faking DHE with better texture. Current eye/cornea texture has almost no volume. They fake the volume digitally with advanced shader.
You are not going to get a lens effect but distinct texture would bring you a step closer to better realism.
I have tweaked a bit her right eye/cornea texture (for iris and pupil) in Photoshop. I think it looks better than almost flat left eye.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
4u2ges (6/10/2022)
Do you have any ideas for how to make the eyes look as good as the enhanced eyes of a native render? Any insights would help.
Start by faking DHE with better texture. Current eye/cornea texture has almost no volume. They fake the volume digitally with advanced shader.
You are not going to get a lens effect but distinct texture would bring you a step closer to better realism.
I have tweaked a bit her right eye/cornea texture (for iris and pupil) in Photoshop. I think it looks better than almost flat left eye.
That is super useful! Thank you! This is the kind of comment that I post for.
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
Well, it's an open forum, so you'll get all kinds of reactions.
I think the title of your thread is a bit provocative: "shocking" seems to indicate that Iray is somehow better. I think it's only better for the particular look one is after.
I have used Iray; the main problem is that there are certain render defects that have been pointed out early on, and there are certain limitations. It doesn't handle trees very well and Popcorn particles are not supported. For stills you can work around that but for animation it is cumbersome. As with Indigo before that, it has been introduced but that not further kept up to date.
To counter some other comments, using iClone for illustration is a valid application in my opinion. In fact, in the past, several forum members have presented graphics novels made with iClone. Whatever works, I would say.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
animagic (6/10/2022)
Well, it's an open forum, so you'll get all kinds of reactions.
I think the title of your thread is a bit provocative: "shocking" seems to indicate that Iray is somehow better. I think it's only better for the particular look one is after.
I have used Iray; the main problem is that there are certain render defects that have been pointed out early on, and there are certain limitations. It doesn't handle trees very well and Popcorn particles are not supported. For stills you can work around that but for animation it is cumbersome. As with Indigo before that, it has been introduced but that not further kept up to date.
To counter some other comments, using iClone for illustration is a valid application in my opinion. In fact, in the past, several forum members have presented graphics novels made with iClone. Whatever works, I would say.
I agree with you mostly. I think in the long run, IRAY, under the right lighting for the right scene, will produce more believable photo-realism. I think for other shots, the native rendering will still have its place. For the shots in my OP, it seems to me that the IRAY looked vastly, shockingly, superior in terms of realism. Please compare the top and the bottom shot. Same pose, same avatar, same lights. I've been mucking around now with IRAY enough, that I can see some instances where the native render might beat IRAY, but not there - not by a longshot.
In the end, if you make things that look interesting to people and they connect with it, you win. I believe that's as close to a short, but useful definition of art, we are going to find. I begin to respond negatively to some of the airs some people put on around here. Some people here are very talented artists in general. Some are that AND technically proficient with CGI. Some are willing to be helpful and give pointers. Some give useful and well thought out feedback. Others seem to be crying for attention.
For example, I have never claimed to be interested in animating. I was surprised to see three commenters go on about this - about what counts as a real animator... about how being pretty doesn't matter... Really? Well, I am glad they acknowledged it's pretty... does my work make them that insecure? I didn't think I had gotten to that level yet. I'll take jealousy as a profoundly true compliment. As to being an animator... yeah maybe I'll get into it some day after I master what I am trying to master right now. Saying I am not really an animator does not hurt my feelings. Also, saying the sky is blue, two and three sum to five or that puppies are cute etc... does not hurt my feelings.
I will continue steadily working to improve my CGI skillset. I am well aware it is still far from where I want it to be. However, I didn't start at zero, and there have been results. My goal in posting remains to gain feedback and pointers. Pretty much every post I make is about developing technique. I know what I want to do. I am working on developing the skills to do it. From my first post, my goals have not changed. I am interested in making renders to support my novel. I want to be as photorealistic as possible.
If anyone ever has anything useful to say about how I can do something better, I will always be sincerely grateful. One of the posts above was very useful and has given me some ideas. Even a "hey I like this". or "this doesn't work for me because..." is very useful.
I continue to post because sometimes people say things that help me improve. Otherwise, I would really like for people to not waste everyone's time with cries for attention.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
faking it with video is easier than faking it with stills - with a video you can motion blur, particle effect, and flare, but in a still you are under a microscope since there is nothing more to look at than details. An animator just makes a lot of stills. No true Scotsman are alike! say it 5 times. it will eventually make sense lol
Im from a different school, how do i make people smile ? - easy, upset them and turn them upside down - done, fast, easy, efficient.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
faking it with video is easier than faking it with stills - with a video you can motion blur, particle effect, and flare, but in a still you are under a microscope since there is nothing more to look at than details. An animator just makes a lot of stills. No true Scotsman are alike! say it 5 times. it will eventually make sense lol
Im from a different school, how do i make people smile ? - easy, upset them and turn them upside down - done, fast, easy, efficient.
Well said mate.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
Rendering in IRAY takes patience, but with an RTX card, te longest any frame here took was 3 minutes. Usually two. I've had them take longer in DAZ with 3Dlite. Naturally, you caught me at a bad time. I'm re-doing the intro to the movie, the crude primitive schlepped together room she's in at the end has been redesigned to what you see her in at the beginning. And her hair is only blue now. This is in no waty finished, but it shows it can be done. Yes, I did the music.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Jeffster The Mighty (6/10/2022)
Rendering in IRAY takes patience, but with an RTX card, te longest any frame here took was 3 minutes. Usually two. I've had them take longer in DAZ with 3Dlite. Naturally, you caught me at a bad time. I'm re-doing the intro to the movie, the crude primitive schlepped together room she's in at the end has been redesigned to what you see her in at the beginning. And her hair is only blue now. This is in no waty finished, but it shows it can be done. Yes, I did the music.
This is still very impressive. I can not imagine doing it without an RTX and I also need about two minutes per frame with what I am doing as well. How many iterations are you doing per frame?
Also, please check out my new post - there are more details there. This was 3600 iterations and 2 minutes to render.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
|
I'm doing 500. maxing at 3600, but it rarely takes more than 180 seconds. I use the NVIDIA noise reduction after 450 iterations. It just doesn't improve much after that for most scenes.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
|
BTW, the female bot's face wasn't calibrated properly and lip sync was impossible, forcing me to re-do the scene and redesign her.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Jeffster The Mighty (6/10/2022)
BTW, the female bot's face wasn't calibrated properly and lip sync was impossible, forcing me to re-do the scene and redesign her.
But you got a good voice actress at least! She did great work.
|
|
By Amper Sand - 3 Years Ago
|
|
harris.josephd (6/10/2022)
I was surprised to see three commenters go on about this - about what counts as a real animator... about how being pretty doesn't matter... Really? Well, I am glad they acknowledged it's pretty... does my work make them that insecure? I didn't think I had gotten to that level yet. I'll take jealousy as a profoundly true compliment.
:D I don't think you have to think about those who criticise as jealous competitors, lol - first think about them as your viewers giving you a feedback, good or bad is a feedback. Second, have a look on those who criticise you, some of them are truly experienced and it's pitty to directly reject what they say. And about jealous competitors - they are not competitor unless you directly compete in something, and you don't. If you tell me that 1000 views on YT means competition, I promise I will not comment for one week on this forum. When last year RL organized the "Replica Studio" contest here with prizes, some of the people here were helping each other even they were truly competitors (for instance, it comes in my mind, @Charly Rama and @Tokomotion). So the devils it's not so black, bottom line :)
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
Amper Sand (6/10/2022)
harris.josephd (6/10/2022)
[quote]animagic (6/10/2022)
I was surprised to see three commenters go on about this - about what counts as a real animator... about how being pretty doesn't matter... Really? Well, I am glad they acknowledged it's pretty... does my work make them that insecure? I didn't think I had gotten to that level yet. I'll take jealousy as a profoundly true compliment.:D I don't think you have to think about those who criticise as jealous competitors, lol - first think about them as your viewers giving you a feedback, good or bad is a feedback. Second, have a look on those who criticise you, some of them are truly experienced and it's pitty to directly reject what they say. And about jealous competitors - they are not competitor unless you directly compete in something, and you don't. If you tell me that 1000 views on YT means competition, I promise I will not comment for one week on this forum. When last year RL organized the "Replica Studio" contest here with prizes, some of the people here were helping each other even they were truly competitors (for instance, it comes in my mind, @Charly Rama and @Tokomotion). So the devils it's not so black, bottom line :)
When did I say I was competing with them, or even imply I thought there was a competition at all? How do statements that have nothing to do with the post constitute criticism or constructive comment, good or bad? I don't think you read what was said because I said quite the opposite.
What I did say was:
"If anyone ever has anything useful to say about how I can do something better, I will always be sincerely grateful. One of the posts above was very useful and has given me some ideas. Even a "hey I like this". or "this doesn't work for me because..." is very useful. I continue to post because sometimes people say things that help me improve."
I've also said I would share anything I've figured out and I am always happy to help anyone who thinks I can be of use.
|
|
By Kelleytoons - 3 Years Ago
|
Since I apparently am one of the folks you singled out let me just say (and go back and look at the thread where I posted) that I wasn't really talking to you so much as commenting on what other folks had commented on. I thought the first person raised a very valid point - iClone IS about animation - and if you label a thread as you did you are naïve not to expect folks to point that out. Perhaps you would have had FAR better results if you said "For Still work, IRAY beats the Native Renderer" and then you wouldn't have had those comments.
As an example, if I started a thread on the Photoshop forum about how long it took to create a video with it I shouldn't be surprised if people pointed out it shouldn't be used for animation - even if some GREAT animations have been done with it (they have - look it up). I'd be foolish not to anticipate that and react accordingly.
I doubt whether there's a handful of people here who use iClone for stills - over the decades I've been here I certainly haven't seen more than a dozen post things. So, again, you need to be VERY careful about how you present yourself and what your specific aims are.
(And don't shoot the messenger but honestly I don't like your IRAY render. But that's just me - I'm not much for the uncanny valley effect even though that's the trend nowadays).
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Kelleytoons (6/10/2022)
Since I apparently am one of the folks you singled out let me just say (and go back and look at the thread where I posted) that I wasn't really talking to you so much as commenting on what other folks had commented on. I thought the first person raised a very valid point - iClone IS about animation - and if you label a thread as you did you are naïve not to expect folks to point that out. Perhaps you would have had FAR better results if you said "For Still work, IRAY beats the Native Renderer" and then you wouldn't have had those comments.
As an example, if I started a thread on the Photoshop forum about how long it took to create a video with it I shouldn't be surprised if people pointed out it shouldn't be used for animation - even if some GREAT animations have been done with it (they have - look it up). I'd be foolish not to anticipate that and react accordingly.
I doubt whether there's a handful of people here who use iClone for stills - over the decades I've been here I certainly haven't seen more than a dozen post things. So, again, you need to be VERY careful about how you present yourself and what your specific aims are.
(And don't shoot the messenger but honestly I don't like your IRAY render. But that's just me - I'm not much for the uncanny valley effect even though that's the trend nowadays).
This is ridiculous.
Does it matter that these were all done in CC4? No iClone was used. I still haven't upgraded to iC4. Even if I had done them all in iClone, so what? Seriously, so what? Why would it be foolish? It would work. While we are at it, I've been clear from the start about what I have been working on in post after post. Since you don't like attempted photorealism to begin with, why even bother then, since the repeatedly stated goal is photorealism?
Also, what do you mean by trends towards photorealism "nowadays"? Ever since Lunar Lander was played on cassette drives, the trend in graphics, and demand for graphics has been towards greater photorealism. Yes, people still play16 bit (and lower) games for nostalgia, but AAA game and Hollywood studios push the whole industry including the hardware. The entire computer industry itself has been greatly fueled by demand for more realism and more detail for more than 40 years.
If people didn't want ever more impressive graphics consistently, home users would still all be using green screen terminals. Still, even in that imaginary world, scientific, medical and military applications still would, and do, demand greater resolutions and display power and there still would be a trend towards more realism for different reasons. Why would you think it has ever been any other way?
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
i think the push for "realism" is a demand created by corporations - because anime is a big thing, not all games aim for realism, comic books are still a thing, and the only time in movies realism matters most is super hero type stuff - where you want to see a person look like a hulk as if it were real, otherwise - Games are promoted with "Stunning Realism" but the top 10 mmos games like wow and gw2 and far far off realism and they are over 10 year old tech..., when you search netflix, anything in the cgi genre is no where close to realism, especially the latest love, death and robots series. If you notice, realism is pushed where there is competition and people saying my rig is better than yours. Realism is a corporate fueled trend, to sell gear.... not to entertain, but to amuse and create discussions like this that make people want to buy better gear to show realer renders. -eye roll-
when people watch tv, they want to be entertained - when they want real, they go to school or work lol
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
i think the push for "realism" is a demand created by corporations - because anime is a big thing, not all games aim for realism, comic books are still a thing, and the only time in movies realism matters most is super hero type stuff - where you want to see a person look like a hulk as if it were real, otherwise - Games are promoted with "Stunning Realism" but the top 10 mmos games like wow and gw2 and far far off realism and they are over 10 year old tech..., when you search netflix, anything in the cgi genre is no where close to realism, especially the latest love, death and robots series. If you notice, realism is pushed where there is competition and people saying my rig is better than yours. Realism is a corporate fueled trend, to sell gear.... not to entertain, but to amuse and create discussions like this that make people want to buy better gear to show realer renders. -eye roll-
when people watch tv, they want to be entertained - when they want real, they go to school or work lol
Your point is taken. I wasn't saying that all CGI needs to be photorealistic. I also wasn't discounting cell shaded anime or 3d objects inserted into anime - but on the other hand, CGI in anime was developed to make anime look more real in terms of better representations of 3d objects. Obviously, they didn't go all the way with photorealism, but it was made to be more realistic than purely hand drawn things. And yes production costs...
And when people want to be entertained, and go to the movies, they ubiquitously demand more realism, unless the whole piece was made in an art style that won't break suspension of disbelief with less realism. No science fiction film ever tried for less realism in its visuals - even when displaying impossible things.
Speaking of comic books... they are big things. They are much bigger in the movies than in print. The CGI fest at the latest comic book movie is a point on my side.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
a hit is always about the story first - how it's delivered is 2ndary. when a person buys a game that looks insanely realistic - that novelty wears off fast if the story is weak , and no one will defend it by saying "But it looks so real" which is why many say mass effect 2 sucks.
consider the psychology - the beauty of art in general is not the image itself, it's the imagination it sparks in it's consumer.
Entertainment isn't as much about what I show you , as much as how much you see with your imagination when you see what I created. Such is pac man and minecraft. ( which strangely enough correlates with the quantum observer effect and relativity - how you observe something adds dimension to your reality )
A good story is worth more than the paper it's written on. said lord of the rings that was a hit as a cartoon, a book, a game, and movies
Photorealism is the tulip mania of CGI - the stories of how valuable tulips were, are more valuable than the tulips themselves lol
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
a hit is always about the story first - how it's delivered is 2ndary. when a person buys a game that looks insanely realistic - that novelty wears off fast if the story is weak , and no one will defend it by saying "But it looks so real" which is why many say mass effect 2 sucks.
consider the psychology - the beauty of art in general is not the image itself, it's the imagination it sparks in it's consumer.
Entertainment isn't as much about what I show you , as much as how much you see with your imagination when you see what I created. Such is pac man and minecraft.
A good story is worth more than the paper it's written on. said lord of the rings that was a hit as a cartoon, a book, a game, and movies
Photorealism is the tulip mania of CGI lol
Since I am writing a novel, I am not really going to argue with that. However, please don't pretend that most, or even a significant fraction, of people would prefer the animated Fellowship of the Rings (it's dreadful) over the Peter Jackson. Even if you would, the vast majority would not. However fun animated (that aim to look like cartoons) features of comic series are, like Killing Joke etc... they don't get even a small fraction of the viewership of the AAA movies. That said, I acknowledge that the Hobbit trilogy was disastrous because of how much it butchered the story and added filler.
Probably the best recent argument for this artistically is the latest Dune. Really good CGI and visualization adds immersion in ways that nothing else can. That's the psychology. When the goal is to transport people, you can't break suspension of disbelief. So no, it isn't tulip mania for many reasons. The bubble has been going strong in this case ever since Fritz Lang and Georges Méliès started creating better visuals - but good historical reference!
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
re-read my edited / updated post - you are missing an important aspect of what i'm explaining that actually relates to "reality" itself, and quite possibly the simulation theory. i can shut down any opposing view easily by bring up blind consumers, and pointing out how your conclusion suggests a blind person can't enjoy lord of the rings as much as a person watching a photorealistic rendition of it.... but i'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to share a discovery and spark your imagination.
What is reality to someone with a phobia ?
if life were a simulation, then how we perceive things literally adds dimension to what we can observe. - thus a form of the observer effect.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
re-read my edited / updated post - you are missing an important aspect of what i'm explaining that actually relates to "reality" itself, and quite possibly the simulation theory. i can shut down any opposing view easily by bring up blind consumers, and pointing out how your conclusion suggests a blind person can't enjoy lord of the rings as much as a person watching a photorealistic rendition of it.... but i'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to share a discovery and spark your imagination.
What is reality to someone with a phobia ?
if life were a simulation, then how we perceive things literally adds dimension to what we can observe. - thus a form of the observer effect.
No, that is irrelevant and I didn't miss your point. We are talking about visuals that look real. As to phobias, a close up photo of a spider will flip out an arachnophobe more than a circle with eight lines coming out of it - EVERY TIME.
And no, a born blind person could not possibly relate to LOTR's visual descriptions even in print. What would the smokey, fiery look of a balrog mean to them? What would the concept of "blue" even mean if they have never seen it? If the blind person is good at mathematics, they might be able to form a conceptualization of frequency (or wavelength, same information, just divide by c) and define blue in that way, but their experience of it would be entirely in those terms. What the psychology and cog science of that case might be, is likely above our pay grade.
Again, psychologically, if the goal is to transport, you must not break suspension of disbelief. If your goal is to immerse, this is even more the case.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
the irony that photorealism is irrelevant to a blind person. One can say that a blind person can see dimensions of that story a person distracted by visuals cant. Is your perception better than the blind persons ? or just different. Physics needs philosophy, yall are blind without it lol
Photorealism is just a form of gaslighting - don't believe the hype!
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
the irony that photorealism is irrelevant to a blind person. One can say that a blind person can see dimensions of that story a person distracted by visuals cant. Is your perception better than the blind persons ? or just different. Physics needs philosophy, yall are blind without it lol
Photorealism is just a form of gaslighting - don't believe the hype!
And yet, a close up photo of a spider will flip out an arachnophobe more than a circle with eight lines coming out of it - EVERY TIME.
And given that elvish swords glow in the presence of creatures degraded by Morgoth and fallen Maia, and that is a major warning cue that Tolkien uses, not to mention an entire mythology surrounding the light of the Two Trees, the beauty of the Silmarils and Earendil's star, I am certain a sighted person will get more from the text than a born blind person.
To be useful, philosophy needs to intersect with the real world. I think that pretty much ends the debate.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
yes, you seem to have many beliefs. But apparently lack belief in the blind swordsman - if a blind person were on location on the lord of the rings scene, you are saying they can't sense a person wielding a weapon ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toda_Seigen
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
I'm keeping track of what new animation is being created outside Hollywood, and what gets selected at major animation festivals, including of what comes out of schools, and the like, and it is interesting and also encouraging. There is still a large variety of looks, which is how it should be.
Now CGI in live action is another subject all together. I've watched Dune on IMAX and it looks good, but for some reason the story was stretched out and incomplete compared to the older one, which I re-watched afterwards.
Technique will never save a bad story, but a good story goes a long way to immerse us, even if it is visually more "primitive".
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
yes, you seem to have many beliefs. But apparently lack belief in the blind swordsman - if a blind person were on location on the lord of the rings scene, you are saying they can't sense a person wielding a weapon ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toda_Seigen
No, I am not saying that at all. That's silly to even bring up. But now that you did... I have 30 years experience with fencing and kendo. Effective blind swordsman really are a myth in the same way that effective featherweights can routinely defeat heavy weights is a myth.
The real world is a bummer isn't it!
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
animagic (6/10/2022)
I'm keeping track of what new animation is being created outside Hollywood, and what gets selected at major animation festivals, including of what comes out of schools, and the like, and it is interesting and also encouraging. There is still a large variety of looks, which is how it should be.
Now CGI in live action is another subject all together. I've watched Dune on IMAX and it looks good, but for some reason the story was stretched out and incomplete compared to the older one, which I re-watched afterwards.
Technique will never save a bad story, but a good story goes a long way to immerse us, even if it is visually more "primitive".
So, at no point have I said, or even implied, that there is no room for non realistic visual art, or that it is primitive or somehow "lesser" as art. Why not just bring up impressionism or cubism? I am however pushing back strongly at others who are diminishing the importance of realism.
As to Dune, I am a very big fan of the series. I wish the new one had about 15 more minutes of footage that apparently ended up on the cutting room floor. I think they did a great job of showing and not telling too much in general, but they really could have at least explored the Shadout Mapes and Jessica storyline and I think they really should have mentioned the Butlerian Jihad.
Visually though, people's milage will always vary. For me, the look of the film, where things looked simultaneously like they were built thousands of years from now, yet were hundreds or even thousands of years old by the time of the story, was deeply impressive and immersive to me. I really did not care for the visual style of the Lynch film.
I also think the script was much better in the recent version. Also, I think that Skaarsgard got Harkonen perfectly, while in the Lynch film and the TV version, he was practically comic relief - which destroyed a major story element for me.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
you are breaking my heart with both physics and martial arts! you've never trained blindfolded ?! there is a new sense that forms from unifying the remaining senses. but your reality apparently lacks that dimension.
everything is energy, and the fundamental truth to why stories are more important than how our brains translates sound and color waves...you can always re-visit a good story and observe new waves of perception to generate new dimensions in your imagination.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
you are breaking my heart with both physics and martial arts! you've never trained blindfolded ?! there is a new sense that forms from unifying the remaining senses. but your reality apparently lacks that dimension.
everything is energy, and the fundamental truth to why stories are more important than how our brains translates sound and color waves...you can always re-visit a good story and observe new waves of perception to generate new dimensions in your imagination.
I have trained blindfolded. That's how I can say the effectiveness of blind fighting - as presented in movies and stories is a myth with such certainty. There is a reason why people train blindfolded and it does increase sensitivity to auditory cues and sensation cues when really close in, but 999/1000 times, all other things being equal, the sighted fighter is going to win - even more so in a gunfight.
In other news, the sky is blue, puppies are cute, death and taxes are inevitable and zaitochi is just a story.
I know the real world is a bummer.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
you are breaking my heart with both physics and martial arts! you've never trained blindfolded ?! there is a new sense that forms from unifying the remaining senses. but your reality apparently lacks that dimension.
everything is energy, and the fundamental truth to why stories are more important than how our brains translates sound and color waves...you can always re-visit a good story and observe new waves of perception to generate new dimensions in your imagination.
And my "reality" in martial arts particularly does not have that "dimension" because delusions in a fight will get you seriously f'd up or dead. People who fight with "waves and energies" in that fluffy sense ( a discussion of what chi means and doesn't mean is something else) have horrible, real world things happen to them and end up losing things they would really miss.
I am being really serious here. Don't be smug about "lack of imagination". Such imagination would get you killed in a real fight.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
and that hypothesis would be cut up into little pieces if someone turned out the lights. which is also relevant to a good story - if a reader is missing the point, was there ever a point ? chances are if a person is just looking for realism, they wouldn't know a good story if it was the ground and they fell on it face first. There are niche audiences like that, they eat soap and fried butter, and that's ok! Some games are also made for that audience, but it is certainly not the summit of quality Entertainment, Entertainment is all about what I can get YOU to imagine. Otherwise, a childs finger painting is garbage, crap something to be hidden from society to prevent the child from being embarrassed of their lack of skill and inability to paint a real tree. check - mate
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
and that hypothesis would be cut up into little pieces if someone turned out the lights. which is also relevant to a good story - if a reader is missing the point, was there ever a point ? chances are if a person is just looking for realism, they wouldn't know a good story if it was the ground and they fell on it face first. There are niche audiences like that, they eat soap and fried butter, and that's ok! Some games are also made for that audience, but it is certainly not the summit of quality Entertainment, Entertainment is all about what I can get YOU to imagine. Otherwise, a childs finger painting is garbage, crap something to be hidden from society to prevent the child from being embarrassed of their lack of skill and inability to paint a real tree. check - mate
No. Such beliefs are almost suicidal in a fight. You can't rely on the lights going out to save you. One of the biggest problems with so many martial arts is their ossification and removal from real world application. People who train forms all the time and go on about energy routinely get their asses kicked by people who sparred outside just their school and asked "what works?"
And at no point did I say story is unimportant. I am writing a f'g novel! Are you even reading the same words? Seriously Rick, wtf?
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
|
I'll be sure and let her know that. I hired her on Fiverr. I don't know if it's against the rules to post her link here.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Jeffster The Mighty (6/10/2022)
I'll be sure and let her know that. I hired her on Fiverr. I don't know if it's against the rules to post her link here.
I think you got a great deal.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
For me, IRAY isn't about photorealism. That's not at all guaranteed. It's because I abhor my hardware renders in iClone. I liked them better in DAZ, but still abhorred them. Even with my RTX card, the hardware animated render is too glitchy, aliased, and just plain computerish. I'd gladly settle for iClone with DAZ 3dlight middle of the road software render.
I wish there weren't such a vast gulf between the quick quirky card render and the ultra-slow Iray render, or even Omniverse. I'd put way more effort into a clean easy way of just rendering it in Blender.
You would think that Reallusion would not want to be branded with thousands of aliased videos floating around the internet, stamped "iClone-produced." Even game video doesn't have that problem.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
Jeffster The Mighty (6/10/2022)
For me, IRAY isn't about photorealism. That's not at all guaranteed. It's because I abhor my hardware renders in iClone. I liked them better in DAZ, but still abhorred them. Even with my RTX card, the hardware animated render is too glitchy, aliased, and just plain computerish. I'd gladly settle for iClone with DAZ 3dlight middle of the road software render.
I wish there weren't such a vast gulf between the quick quirky card render and the ultra-slow Iray render, or even Omniverse. I'd put way more effort into a clean easy way of just rendering it in Blender.
You would think that Reallusion would not want to be branded with thousands of aliased videos floating around the internet, stamped "iClone-produced." Even game video doesn't have that problem.
I hear you. And you are right that IRAY is by no means a panacea. If and when I get beyond my present projects, and I look into more animation, I am sure I will feel the same. Too many iClone animations I've seen seem terrible in terms of lighting and texture as well. Some of the things I've seen have the, and I am so sorry to say it, look to me of cutscenes from things like Jedi Academy, or Jedi Knight Outcast from 20 years ago - not just in terms of graphical quality, but with janky animations and poor lip synching. If they were going for something stylized like you did, it would be so much better (your stuff looks good), but it is clear they were going for realism and simply failed. It is clear you have put in the time and have developed many skills.
I honestly do not like the look of many iClone shorts I've seen. There are some amazing exceptions, but I also agree with you that RL needs to find ways to fix the kind of things you are talking about in ways that are more accessible to their hobbyist community.
I am not trying to be harsh on people, but I think decisions need to be made about developing a less intensive style for many unfortunate looking projects and maximizing aesthetic appeal. At the end of the day, hardware is also always going to be a painful limiting factor. The machine and how much money one wants to put into this makes a major difference in what is even imaginable as a completable project. But also, what can be achieved without putting serious time and effort in, even with a good machine, seems to be getting further and further from "looks good" by modern standards. I mean there doesn't seem to be a way for someone to use iClone particularly effectively without putting in the time of a semi professional and nursing it and sometimes kicking it.
In that sense, I particularly agree with your observations. If iClone is supposed to be a shortcut for hobbyists to make things that still look pretty good, I suspect that is not accessible to the relatively inexperienced.
|
|
By AutoDidact - 3 Years Ago
|
I wish there weren't such a vast gulf between the quick quirky card render and the ultra-slow Iray render, or even Omniverse. I'd put way more effort into a clean easy way of just rendering it in Blender. But there is a “clean easy way”to render over Blender via the FREE pipeline tool by Victor soupday, OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED by Reallusion.:D Full support for your imotion /actor core libraries (body and face). And conversion to Rigify for professional viewport controls while retaining the ability to use your imotion /actor core libraries (body and face) As fellow Sci fi guy I think you will LOVE the EEVEE render engine I have a tutorial on the pipeline tool. And if you ever decide to do a toon/anime style that is easy in Blender as well.
|
|
By IrinaIV - 3 Years Ago
|
There is a reason why some photography is considered art, and other photography is basically "oh, that's nice" while quickly looking away, regardless of realism. It has nothing to do with the equipment, either.
There's also a reason why photographers routinely enhance their images to fine-tune whatever emotion they're going for, or go through hundreds of shots to find the right one. Realism gets you very little without story, and story is entirely untethered from realism, since story happens in the mind of the audience.
You can have the most realistic CGI tear that evokes exactly zero response in its audience (unless the audience is a technical one who are singularly focused on creating the most perfect realistic CGI tear, and then the response will be technical, not emotional, unless of course it's one of the baser human emotions).
Frankly, the audience noticing the quality of texture of some stone in a film, regardless of how much it amazes, means immersion was ruined, i.e. the film failed in its primary purpose.
There is beauty in realistic media as a means of storytelling, but it's merely a choice of media, not a requirement for a better story. That'd be like saying that painting is a more powerful storytelling tool than sculpture.
The true power of realism is that the audience is never asked to suspend disbelief. But that's exactly where realism's pitfall is. Unless a piece of realistic art registers as real immediately and the audience simply focuses on the story, you have problems. The moment the audience starts to wonder if something is real or not (due to a detail or two registering as weird, often subconsciously) and starts looking for inconsistency, this isn't communicating with art anymore, it's a technical exercise.
If your goal is to create the most realistic image with CC4, that's your goal, no two ways about it. But also don't forget that when you're dealing with the perception of an audience, a horribly pixelated, blurry, washed-out image will register as more realistic than a near perfect high-res image with a detail or two out of place. The more you give the audience, the less they fill in the blanks, the more likely they are to be bounced by one or two details out of the story and into uncanny valley.
I'd say, for some specific constructive feedback on the technical side, if it's realism that's your ultimate goal, watch the eyes in your images (compare with photographs if it helps). Also, study composition and light, and how to guide where a viewer's eye goes. You don't want your audience's eye to wander to the intersection between hair and background because it gets busy and "interesting" there, because that becomes your story. Also, watch the sharpness of edges between overlapping surfaces, especially if there's a mismatch in texture quality and style between the two surfaces. iRay hides some of the imperfections by layering in heavier shadows, but it has its own issues (for example, since we're talking shadows, certain shadow's sharp edge).
The main thing, though ... you've stated, over and over again, that you're a novelist looking to draw interest to your novel with these images. You want to master realism, that's fine. You're focusing on mastering the technical tools first, and that's fine too. But I've read through a few of your posts, and you keep shutting down anyone who tries to talk about the emotional impact / story in your images, and that realism is the dressing, not the substance. Very few will pick up your novel because, look, pretty lady that looks almost real! And these people probably aren't your audience anyway, and, more importantly, won't help you reach your audience. Maybe you should consider trying your hand at telling a visual story before achieving perfection in realistic CGI (which is, believe it or not, more difficult but far more rewarding).
Finally, don't get upset when you come at someone with "let me show you this, you'll be impressed," and they're not. What you see in your image today is not what they see, and it's not what you'll see in a month. Perception is ALL psychology and physics/pixels are only the cues that trigger that psychology.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
Eloquently said Irina - exactly.
Realism is in the viewer's perception and imagination, the image just conveys the idea of realism. We know this animation isn't real, yet we imagine its realness from life experience, or rather - relativity - it is this relativity that creates dimension in our mind - not the image itself.
|
|
By animagic - 3 Years Ago
|
|
harris.josephd (6/10/2022)
So, at no point have I said, or even implied, that there is no room for non realistic visual art, or that it is primitive or somehow "lesser" as art. Why not just bring up impressionism or cubism? I am however pushing back strongly at others who are diminishing the importance of realism.
Well, I think I have said what I wanted to say with regards to animation, but it seems that you need to react with flippancy. I have only been involved with animation for 50 years or so, in one way or another. I tried to introduce other views of animation, not implying that realism is not important.
BTW, I really enjoyed @IrinaIV's post. It made a lot of sense to me.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
IrinaIV (6/10/2022)
There is a reason why some photography is considered art, and other photography is basically "oh, that's nice" while quickly looking away, regardless of realism. It has nothing to do with the equipment, either.
Of course I agree with everything you said. This is why I say over and over, that I am only trying to learn photorealism. I am not yet at the point of making the drama. I am choosing poses to explore lighting, or rigging of outfits or whatever the project was at the time. Everything I do is an exercise in that direction and I keep saying that, but some people who I know have read that a dozen times at least seem to not notice. I do not understand what else I need to say to make that clear. If you aren't seeing that sort of drama, it is because I am not focusing on that right now. I am well aware about composition and dramatics and style and what it takes to make a full product so to speak.
I have written five dozen times that all I want with a post about realism is for people who know how to make things look more realistic to share any ideas they have about how to do it or to point out what could sell the realism more in a given exercise.
If I am impatient with endless philosophizing, it is because I am not here for philosophy. I like to be social and all that, but I am not here to look for compliments either. I am not here to quibble about arbitrary definitions either. I am not here to defend why I want to see if I can get photorealism. It's what I am presently trying to accomplish. I am not here to defend if stills are better or worse than animations. I really don't care.
If people are uninterested in photorealism, then there is no reason for them to quibble about if photorealism is needed on my threads any more than someone who is uninterested in chess should post about why they think chess is silly on a chess thread. Their wisdom is not going to be well received.
I want to get better at using these tools. Occasionally, someone who knows what they are talking about, responds with specific, actionable responses which are actually useful to my repeatedly stated aims. This is the only reason I continue to post here at all.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
animagic (6/10/2022)
harris.josephd (6/10/2022)
So, at no point have I said, or even implied, that there is no room for non realistic visual art, or that it is primitive or somehow "lesser" as art. Why not just bring up impressionism or cubism? I am however pushing back strongly at others who are diminishing the importance of realism.Well, I think I have said what I wanted to say with regards to animation, but it seems that you need to react with flippancy. I have only been involved with animation for 50 years or so, in one way or another. I tried to introduce other views of animation, not implying that realism is not important. BTW, I really enjoyed @IrinaIV's post. It made a lot of sense to me.
My point was that Impressionism and Cubism are valid forms of art that are certainly not photorealistic. I am so sorry that you think that was flippant. I was not being flippant. And Irina is awesome. It seems that a lot of people are talking and reading at cross purposes.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
you want art to be an exact science, that's not how it works. You want me to believe something looks real because you believe it so. when in my experience people are not that saturated in real life. you want me to define my idea of reality based on the objects you decided to focus on, no...just no. this is a valid point and lesson, i can't think something is real because you decided to focus on one aspect of life ...this IS philosophy and you need to do that work if you want to make better art.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
Eloquently said Irina - exactly.
Realism is in the viewer's perception and imagination, the image just conveys the idea of realism. We know this animation isn't real, yet we imagine its realness from life experience, or rather - relativity - it is this relativity that creates dimension in our mind - not the image itself.
Realism is a concrete emulation of the real physical world. It is objective. What people make of any image emotionally is purely subjective - and obviously very important. Relativity has nothing to do with it. I am not discounting what you are saying about art in general. I am not discounting what anyone's reaction to a specific bit of art might be.
I don't know how to say this in a way that will get through. I know I have tried a dozen times.
I am trying to make more realistic renders. I am focusing on tools and technique to do that first and foremost. This is a technical and objectively defined goal. All of this other philosophizing does not help me reach my present goals. Faffing on about ill defined subjective concepts that were never my point does not help me get better at what I want to do. I am not saying that art is only about being photorealistic. I have never said that. I have said, many, many times, that I want to learn more technique to make photorealism.
If that is my goal, telling me why you don't think realism is important, for whatever reason, is not productive. If you are telling me that there is more to art than realism, yes, yes of course there is. That was never in debate and I honestly don't understand how anyone thought it was in debate.
Everything else you are talking about is important, but not the current point. It has never been the goal or the point in anything I have put up here. I know I've said this to you on threads and in private many times. What am I saying, or not saying, that this is somehow still unclear?
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
you want our help in getting better renders, why do you need to get through to me ? lol - not logical.
Your idea on objective is also completely false. 2 people can see 1 person in completely different ways.
A cold day enhances the element of blue in an image, thus the person who is scared and cold experiences a different reality to "That guy" that pretends it's not cold and he's not at all scared.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
you want art to be an exact science, that's not how it works. You want me to believe something looks real because you believe it so. when in my experience people are not that saturated in real life. you want me to define my idea of reality based on the objects you decided to focus on, no...just no. this is a valid point and lesson, i can't think something is real because you decided to focus on one aspect of life ...this IS philosophy and you need to do that work if you want to make better art.
No I don't. That is so pretentious, I don't even know where to begin. Certain things actually are an exact science. The way lenses and rods and cones work for example. The optics of resolution and color temperatures are another example. These are not subjective. A 2d projection from 3d is not subjective. None of these things are subjective. While our perceptions may be fuzzy, the real world is not.
SO for the 50th time, I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE ART WITH THESE EXERCISES. I AM TRYING TO LEARN TECHNIQUE. IF YOU DON'T SEE ART, DON'T BE SURPRISED BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL STUDIES AIMED AT IMPROVING TECHNIQUE.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT PHOTOREALISM = ART. NEVER SAID THAT. NEVER EVEN IMPLIED THAT. OF COURSE THE PERCEPTION OF ART IS SUBJECTIVE AND PSYCHOLOGY IS KEY. I AM NOT WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY, PLEASE STOP PROJECTING YOUR BIASES IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHAT WAS NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED BECOMES A NARRATIVE THAT NEVER EXISTED.
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
you want our help in getting better renders, why do you need to get through to me ? lol - not logical. Your idea on objective is also completely false. 2 people can see 1 person in completely different ways. A cold day enhances the element of blue in an image, thus the person who is scared and cold experiences a different reality to "That guy" that pretends it's not cold and he's not at all scared.
You aren't wrong... but there is a difference between objective and subjective. You keep confusing the two.
|
|
By planetstardragon - 3 Years Ago
|
we are making progress in getting you to acknowledge objective and subjective reality, my job is done. Tough gig, but i love you :kiss:
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
you want our help in getting better renders, why do you need to get through to me ? lol - not logical. Your idea on objective is also completely false. 2 people can see 1 person in completely different ways. A cold day enhances the element of blue in an image, thus the person who is scared and cold experiences a different reality to "That guy" that pretends it's not cold and he's not at all scared.
TO make that more clear, real photons hit the woman and bounce off of her. They are focused onto an image plane by a lens. They do this in a unique and objective way creating a unique and completely deterministically defined image. There is no need to invoke quantum weirdness in this sort of set up. The math is completely classical. There is only one image that can be formed by a given lens at a given distance from that woman in that light.
Objective realism would be to reproduce what was on the image plane as closely as possible. This isn't even physics at that point as much as math.
It is absolutely true that someone could have all sorts of things going on that could affect how their brains interpret the signals from their retinas (their image plane). There are all sorts of things about how that might make them feel. These things are subjective, but art works because most people share the same internal wiring more than less. So yes, adding a blue filter evokes coldness. Still the completely subjective emotional response to an image is another discussion. Cues we pick up from expressions and body language are a great example of that discussion. If you want to say evoking that emotional response is where the art really lies, I am inclined to agree. I AM NOT WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW THOUGH!
|
|
By harris.josephd - 3 Years Ago
|
|
planetstardragon (6/10/2022)
we are making progress in getting you to acknowledge objective and subjective reality, my job is done. Tough gig, but i love you :kiss:
Now you are just having a go at me Rick. You know it too.
|
|
By Jeffster The Mighty - 3 Years Ago
|
The iClone to Blender pipeline doesn't interest me. iClone to iRay is actually more on the nose.
You work on your animation 100% in iClone, export it to the standalone renderer, and IRAY renders it.
What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.
Hell, I'd even take an iClone to DAZ bridge and render in 3dlight for some projects.. It seems that industry-wide, they make it too involved to try new renderers. I bought $200 worth into Indigo. It was a waste of time. I tried Octane. Waste of time, but worked.
iClone has all the best tools for getting an animation together, but except for IRAY sort of chokes on output.
The following video was a serious PAIN to do with DAZ, and I abandoned it. It would be easy in iClone, but output like this would be next to impossible with iClone without paying a bunch extra and then learning quite a bit.
|
|
By AutoDidact - 3 Years Ago
|
You work on your animation 100% in iClone, export it to the standalone renderer, and IRAY renders it. What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.What I would rather have for a "blender pipeline" is to absolutely and SIMPLY export either my scene, or my scene frame by frame, as IRAY does, and then automatically have Blender just render it to either an image sequence or a video file.
We have had Alembic export since Iclone 6.5 ,as you know, the closest you are going to get such a scenario is alembic export of your scene to some stand alone render engine that supports Alembic and will parse all of your native Iclone PBR materials. and render your frames.
As it stands now those who (understandably) prefer to stay exclusively within the Iclone Ecosystem ,
Will have to sort out the visuals as best they they can with the native renderer.
All of the external rendering options provided by Reallusion(Blender,Unreal Unity etc) will require one to venture outside of the Iclone comfort bubble to access those engines as they are integrated into an entirely different application environment
I believe there is render farm service for NVIDIA Iray. A person would have to decide is paying for such a service would be cost effective.
|
|