PDA

View Full Version : Speed Modeling Challenge #183 - Stereoscopic Caterpillars



akaracquel
08-02-2012, 07:31 AM
Speed Modeling Challenge #183 - Stereoscopic Caterpillars
*************************************************

Rules:

1. Every week there will be a subject for you to model along with a time limit. You should spend no longer than the allocated time, then post a render of your model. As in most challenges like this, your honesty on modelling times is essential. How you interpret the brief is up to you as long as the final model conforms to what is asked for.
2. Post a wire-frame and a render at 800x600 or larger.
3. LightWave must be used for modelling. 3rd party Plug-ins are allowed.
4. You can enter as many times as you like, posting each in this thread. If you run over the time, the model can still be posted but won't be subject to the judging.
5. Time spent on texturing, setting up a scene for a render and rendering is not included in the allocated period.
6. The winner is judged by the challenge starter and the prize is to set up the challenge after next week's .
*************************************************

This week's topic is: Stereoscopic Caterpillars :D

http://www.slaughterhouse.com.au/destinationthere/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/catterpillarchallenge.jpg

Time limit: 60 minutes
Deadline: Wed. 9th of August 2012. 22:00 G.M.T.

XswampyX
08-03-2012, 04:31 PM
*snigger* :D

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Catapillar3D.jpg

stevenpalomino
08-03-2012, 06:58 PM
Wish I had some 3D glasses :S

XswampyX
08-04-2012, 06:18 AM
Some wires....

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Catapillar3DWired.jpg

I think the 3d looks better with the wires.

akaracquel
08-04-2012, 07:42 PM
Was looking forward to the wires XswampyX ^_^ Went through the same thing on my one until hubby pointed out he preferred the non wireframe version, saying it enables you to see the details on the surface which gets lost in the wireframe. I can clearly see what he was talking about now so I'm undecided. The glossy surface wrinkling on the skin in the first one looks awesome, while the wireframe accentuates other intriguing features look at. :thumbsup: It'd be interesting to see what happens to the first one in black/white - without colour :)

Oedo 808
08-04-2012, 11:29 PM
Nice work you two, it seems that the neutral colour on the wires not diluting the stereoscopic colours makes quite a difference. It's great for depth on these stills but I wonder if it'd be a little too much for animation. I wish the glasses I have weren't so poxy, I'm sure that doesn't help much.

I'd like to try for this topic but I won't have time tomorrow, hopefully before Wednesday I'll get something in. If 'Inner Space' becomes a reality, I want to explore the brain cortexes (cortices?) of the Costa del akaracquel, musn't forget to shrink me down some shades for the journey though, I have a feeling it could be quite a trippy trip. :D

Philbert
08-05-2012, 01:56 AM
Wish I had some 3D glasses :S

You didn't get any with LW10?

stevenpalomino
08-05-2012, 08:36 AM
You didn't get any with LW10?

Yes. But of course I lost them :S If my dongle wasn't attached I'd probably lose that too. Where can I buy some glasses?

akaracquel
08-05-2012, 09:05 AM
…saw a business selling plastic ones for $13.50ea here but I feel very tempted to buy a box of 50 (http://www.aliexpress.com/product-fm/546225634-50pcs-lot-Red-Blue-Anaglyphic-3D-Glasses-with-Plastic-Framed-3D-moive-TV-video-glasses-3D-wholesalers.html) atm!

@Oedo_808 - lol :D

Philbert
08-05-2012, 01:50 PM
First link on Google:
http://www.3dglassesonline.com/

Although I have heard that some cheaper places may not get the color on the lens exactly right. No idea about the place above of course.

Kryslin
08-05-2012, 06:11 PM
Ack, ran over... (I think - honestly, I got interrupted 4 times modeling this, so I can't give an honest estimate on how long it took...)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_stereo_cat.jpg

What? I can't model organics. Besides, you didn't say what kind of caterpillar... :)

It was interesting, modeling the tracks. Used lots of bevels, LWCAD's realtime booleans, mass round, and Lightwave's Booleans as well.

RudySchneider
08-05-2012, 06:34 PM
Clever, Kryslin

akaracquel
08-05-2012, 09:45 PM
What? I can't model organics. Besides, you didn't say what kind of caterpillar... :)

loool. I was definitely expecting to see at least ONE of those machines in this challenge! hehehe :D Nice work, looking fwd to your wires! :thumbsup:

Kryslin
08-05-2012, 11:02 PM
I'll post 'em, but I honestly can't say that I was under the time limit with this...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_wire_cat.jpg
(Sorry, anaglyphic 3D gives me a headache, as does the newer technique used in theatres today...)

VictoryX
08-06-2012, 01:31 AM
Here's a cool Stereoscopic 3D short. Made in lightwave 9.6 and comped in Nuke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHanXWXbOQ

VictoryX
08-06-2012, 01:37 AM
Here's my Caterpillar in 3D!

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc346/adjustvolume/Caterpillar_Stereo-1.jpg

And the Wires!

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc346/adjustvolume/Caterpillar_Wires.jpg

I was gonna do a face on him but decided to cover it up with fur, furry caterpillar!

Love doing Stereoscopic stuff because that's what I do for a living, converting Feature Films to 3d. Some say I'm ruining the film industry and giving studios a reason to jack up ticket prices but I love 3D.

Philbert
08-06-2012, 03:10 AM
Here's a cool Stereoscopic 3D short. Made in lightwave 9.6 and comped in Nuke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHanXWXbOQ

This was made by students at my old school.

Rabbitpenny
08-06-2012, 11:49 AM
Hour for the mesh. 2Hours to learn the basics of stereoscopic rendering...Still a lot to learn.
Old Age Caterpillar:

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005StereoRB.jpg

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005Stereo.jpg

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005Mesh.jpg

VictoryX
08-06-2012, 09:12 PM
This was made by students at my old school.


Ya I went to school there as well, graduated December 2010

Philbert
08-06-2012, 11:12 PM
Ya I went to school there as well, graduated December 2010

I was April 2003. Chimera class.

Kryslin
08-07-2012, 01:07 AM
Ok, so I can do the joke, I can also attempt the actual subject...
Ewww... something crawled into Layout!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_stereo_bug_q85.jpg

(Here's the wires...)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_wire_bug_q85.jpg

This one I can honestly say it took under an hour - about 45 minutes to model, another 15 minutes to rig, 30 minutes to get some decent surfaces, and another 30 to find out that the anaglyphic filter doesn't work with Qv40...

And yes, this is my first organic 'character', start to finish.

JoePoe
08-07-2012, 03:22 PM
Haven't decided on how I'm going to approach the 3-d part of it.
Wires for now.

XswampyX
08-07-2012, 03:48 PM
These all look great!

Like a bunch of monsters from the old b-movies in 3D. :)

Wires look good JoePoe.

akaracquel
08-08-2012, 05:05 AM
Agree :) Vundabah creations! :thumbsup: Will comment more later :hey:

10:1 Joe Poe's going to deliver his signature whip cracking curve ball strike in the render :D

Hieron
08-08-2012, 06:05 AM
Ok seriously, got to comment here...



*snigger* :D

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Catapillar3D.jpg

Impressive, really nice 3D effect and placement of screen depth. Nice creature too! Love the out of frame thing.


Ack, ran over... (I think - honestly, I got interrupted 4 times modeling this, so I can't give an honest estimate on how long it took...)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_stereo_cat.jpg

....

Hardly any S3D effect, if any at all. All in-screen too. Increase separation and move screen depth back to somewhere on the front of the shovel.


Here's my Caterpillar in 3D!

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc346/adjustvolume/Caterpillar_Stereo-1.jpg

And the Wires!

http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc346/adjustvolume/Caterpillar_Wires.jpg

I was gonna do a face on him but decided to cover it up with fur, furry caterpillar!

Love doing Stereoscopic stuff because that's what I do for a living, converting Feature Films to 3d. Some say I'm ruining the film industry and giving studios a reason to jack up ticket prices but I love 3D.

Ehm.. hardly any 3D effect and all out of screen. No screen depth placement. You do this for a living? Sorry to ask but it seems odd... and this type of S3D would explain some resentment to S3D movies.


Hour for the mesh. 2Hours to learn the basics of stereoscopic rendering...Still a lot to learn.
Old Age Caterpillar:

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005StereoRB.jpg

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005Stereo.jpg

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly005Mesh.jpg

It is the wrong way around if you use standard anaglyph glasses. (like the one LW provided with LW10). This away the butterflies further away are actually in S3D closer to the viewer. Also it is all in-screen and no placement at screen depth. Bad practice.


Ok, so I can do the joke, I can also attempt the actual subject...
Ewww... something crawled into Layout!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Kryslin/funstuff/smc_stereo_bug_q85.jpg


This one I can honestly say it took under an hour - about 45 minutes to model, another 15 minutes to rig, 30 minutes to get some decent surfaces, and another 30 to find out that the anaglyphic filter doesn't work with Qv40...

And yes, this is my first organic 'character', start to finish.

All out of screen, no screen depth placement, hardly any S3D effect noticeable this way.

Did NT (sorry LW Group :)) not provide a good S3D tutorial with some of these basics? It is not that hard..

Rabbitpenny
08-08-2012, 08:40 AM
Hieron, thanks for the critique.

Let me explore my ignorance further.:) May I ask what you mean by; "Also it is all in-screen and no placement at screen depth."?

Hieron
08-08-2012, 10:59 AM
Hieron, thanks for the critique.

Let me explore my ignorance further.:) May I ask what you mean by; "Also it is all in-screen and no placement at screen depth."?

Sorry if it came across wrong, I even made a mistake in my comment. doh.. It is correct the way around.

If you check Swampy's image (without glasses, best to derive depth by eye seeing both at the same time) you'll notice that the tail of his caterpillar is "in focus" color wise. Both blue and red are at the same place. So if you would view this with anaglyph glasses, your eyes would see the same tailpart at the same place on screen. This is called "screendepth" since it will feel to your eyes that the tail is at the same point in 3D space as the screen you are viewing on.

In your image, nothing is "in focus". This is bad practice (imho) since this point is great to start depth from as it has the least influence from all negative parts of S3D (ghosting, difficulty to converge eyes and find the depth).

Swampy places the tail at screen depth for a good reason I'm sure. The caterpillar jumps out of the screen perfectly and the backdrop goes off into the distance. Perfect.

In your case, I would bring the furthest part of the front butterfly "in focus". Then increase separation if need be so it spreads front and back. The front of the first butterfly will then pop "out of screen" nicely. And the ones in the back will feel "in screen"

That is a nice way of spreading the depth. You will want screenplacement and carefull choice of out of screen and inside screen. (where possible)

Again, Swampy's is perfect as the long body of the caterpillar guides the eye. You will spot the "screen depth" (look without glasses for focus) fast and your eyes can travel the body all the way to the front where it sticks out. Or all the way to the back where the backdrop is far away. Does that make sense?

Extra notes imho:
-I never use convergence type, it never worked as well and it has alot of possible issues that may crop up. I believe it was used and is used often as it is simpler to film with but it sucks. (imho ofc) Always use parallel shot footage/renders and shift them back over eachother.

-Play S3D games, with Nvidia drivers and glasses or so. Play with the settings, test the crap out of situations.. Gives a great feeling for what works or not. Also, watch S3D movies in the cinema without glasses. It is a good way to learn and spend 10$.

-Watch out with in screen depth. Do not make the separation in the distance so much, that the viewer will have to angle their eyes sideways, it hurts. (this depends on the screen the person will use, so some guessing is needed.. but consider if TFT will be used, or cinema sized meters wide screen)

I think... :)

(ok, I spent countless hours on this and built multiple hardwarre setups. As usual, if I made a mistake I'd sure like to know/learn)

Rabbitpenny
08-08-2012, 02:48 PM
Excellent explanation Hieron. Your info makes more sense than a dozen vids/tuts. Quick result (better):

https://sites.google.com/site/rabbitpenny3d/home/Butterfly007StereoRB.jpg

JoePoe
08-08-2012, 04:17 PM
10:1 Joe Poe's going to deliver ...

The pressure :eek:

My procrastination has become much too predictable. Must work on that.... later. :D

Well it's after 10:01 and I'm here to report.... got nuthin'!
Had set aside last night, but then a ticket to the Allman Brothers fell in my lap.

Priorities! :rock:

Rabbit Penny - that second one does look better. I wish I could help out even more, but I have no idea when it comes to this stuff.

Kryslin
08-08-2012, 10:57 PM
Heiron : Thanks for the feedback; I normally don't mess with anaglypic 3D at all - it gives me headaches (really bad ones) - so it follows that my attempts at it will be lack luster at best.

Hieron
08-09-2012, 01:24 AM
Excellent explanation Hieron. Your info makes more sense than a dozen vids/tuts. Quick result (better):
....

Thanks for the kind words.... Your new version feels much better already.

Now though, you can see that almost everything in the distance is in focus. This means that your eyes will focus on the same spot on your screen when viewing say the wing of the furthest butterfly. This can be on purpose but consider what your eyes will do when you are viewing things int he distance in the real world: they will go parallel.

So in your case I would increase separation by a factor of 3 for starters. Then play with the point of focus. In OpenGL it will look like a DoF effect of sorts. Stuff out of focus (blue and red separated) in the front and inverted in the back will give the depth effect and in focus on say the end of the front butterfly will form the screen depth.

The result will be that the front butterfly still sticks out (as it does now) but the furthest butterfly will be a bit into the distance.

The end result will be similar to Swampy's. (see how his backdrop sort of separates) Ofcourse, your choice is a valid one regardless. Your butterflies are all on screen or a bit in front.

(and be carefull not to separate too much, keep a conscious mind of what your eyes are doing. That's why I would recommend games.. they allow superfast manipulation and testing of S3D parameters (and some additional gaming fun) Ofcourse this is not free...)

VictoryX
08-09-2012, 03:11 AM
I do, do conversion for a living but we don't work with Lightwave at all. Never really messed with the Stereoscopic stuff in Lightwave. Guess I need to read up on it. I do know alot about Stereoscopic conversion, but not much about shooting stereo with cameras. Do you know if there is a way to control the convergence point by a null parented to the camera similar to the way the DOF works in Lightwave?

JoePoe
08-09-2012, 06:11 PM
wait, what? .... we're not on the smoking challenge anymore..... :rolleyes:

Aka - 10:01... plus a couple minutes. :D

my first ana, anagly, anagraphi, stereoglyph...... my first 3d thing.



http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s395/joepoe1/caterpillar_3d_2.jpg






-

RudySchneider
08-09-2012, 10:27 PM
Very psychedelic, JoePoe!

For those interested, I've posted the next challenge here (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=129883).

akaracquel
08-10-2012, 06:27 PM
Congratulations to everyone who got off their bots to give this a go! :)

@XswampyX - you smarty pants ..making it jump out of the screen. Fantastic feet, loved the wrinkles (which helped me learn, thanks!) and you even modelled the eyes :O hehehe - well done :thumbsup:

@Kryslin - incredibly refreshing to see your wires for the mechanical caterpillar :thumbsup: also loved the wrinkling you managed to achieve on the squishy one that's begging for a hug! Second most cutest caterpillar in the challenge ^_^

@VictoryX - awww, yours was the cutest ..loved seeing how I could almost touch the fur on my screen and give it numerous virtual squishy hugz {{^_^}} I feel the fur on the face would end up looking super cool if it was singing Everlasting Love :hey:

@Rabbitpenny - your signature humour shines bright! Fantastic flumpy expression generated by the floopy droop in the bum. Also loved how anatomically faithful it felt by seeing the six front legs of these veteran caterpillars as well :D

@Joe Poe - knew you could do it! :P You've generated surreal serendipity by illustrating this caterpillar with a conceptual context. The trippy mushrooms are begging to be poked & grabbed at. Another smarty pants piece with your attempt to break out of the screen, well done :thumbsup:

The winner is ~

<creates a drum roll by rolling fingers on the keyboard>

~ for the super b-grade 3D answer, you can put your glasses on and find out here (http://youtu.be/SM-FYOvDlcU)!

…or wait for people to congratulate the winner in this thread :neener:

JoePoe
08-10-2012, 06:50 PM
AkaR - :D you're too much. :lol:

Congratulations to........... the winner :hey: !!

Kryslin
08-10-2012, 08:06 PM
@Kryslin - incredibly refreshing to see your wires for the mechanical caterpillar :thumbsup: also loved the wrinkling you managed to achieve on the squishy one that's begging for a hug! Second most cutest caterpillar in the challenge ^_^

Thanks for the comments. Truth be told, the wrinkling on the bug is actually bad deformations from the rigging, which was adequate for the job at hand, but needed tweaking. Call it a happy accident, but it was completely unintentional. 8/ :)

XswampyX
08-13-2012, 04:34 PM
Thanks akaracquel, 'twas fun to do & I learnt a little bit more about anaglyph stereo. (I don't think I was the only one!)

Loved your video, :thumbsup: and the smoke rings from JoePoe.

Cheers!