PDA

View Full Version : bryce 5 free



Rayek
08-23-2006, 03:39 AM
It seems DAZ is offering Bryce 5 as a free download... They feel Vue breathing down their necks, me thinks!

Anyways, it's a great freebie, so head down to:

www.daz3d.com/program/bryce/bryce5free.php?

Make haste, 'cause it's only available till sept 6.

Cheers,

R.

Capt Lightwave
08-23-2006, 03:53 AM
Thanks mate.


Not sure if I'm going to use it, but it doesn't hurt to have it lying around....hopefully.

starbase1
08-23-2006, 04:31 AM
I'll be very surprised if it does not stay free... Hardly makes sense to give something away and then stop after a few weeks, to chardge for something that's out there in the wild...

Anyway, even though I don't plan on using itin a big way, it could be useful for converting objects into a useable format, which is always handy...

Nick

lilrayray77
08-23-2006, 04:33 AM
Anyone else having problems with it? It freezes up my task bar and is only a tiny window. Please tell me I am doing something wrong.

oDDity
08-23-2006, 04:37 AM
Nothing stinks of desperation more than being reduced to giving your products away for free. I'd imagine there's good reasons why they aren't being successful at charging money for it.

starbase1
08-23-2006, 05:44 AM
Good old Oddity, predictably constructive as ever...

You only need to take a look at the Daz Studio to work out that they have a very different business model, which is based on free core software, and charging for plugins and content. Judging by the way they are absorbing stuff and expanding, it seems to be working VERY well for them.

Speaking personally, I would not touch Bryce for my work with a very long pole - but if I get a free tool that will let me get more content into Lightwave, that's fine by me...

Nick

kennez
08-23-2006, 05:51 AM
Nothing stinks of desperation more than being reduced to giving your products away for free. I'd imagine there's good reasons why they aren't being successful at charging money for it.

The problem with that theory is that they are giving away Bryce 5.0, NOT Bryce 5.5 (the current version). They are still charging for the upgrade to 5.5.

Kuzey
08-23-2006, 06:25 AM
Daz can't code even if their very existence depended on it!!

They have took what was once a great app and let it die a very slow death, yes corel had a huge role in that too but there you go.

How old is Bryce 5.5 anyway, shouldn't there be talk of a new version by now :hey:

Hexagon will go down the same path...it's what they do best.



Kuzey

Kuzey
08-23-2006, 06:40 AM
Ps...if you have Tiger Mac OS 10.4.7 don't bother getting Bryce 5, I just tried loading an object and the open/select dialog opens behind the interface making it useless, if you hit Apple+ tab keys to get to the Finder you'll see the dialog but trying to click on it will take you back to Bryce 5.

....it's a very bad loop of evil.

Oh...yes, it might only be my system..you could still give it a go :D

Kuzey

colkai
08-23-2006, 06:53 AM
Actually, IIRC, I think Bryce 5 was given away on a cover CD of a magazine a while back anyway. >>goes hunting<<

EDIT: If they did.... I didn't keep it :p

Rayek
08-23-2006, 07:49 AM
No, bryce 3 and 4 were included some time ago with 3d world magazine (and other mags). I don't recall anyone giving away version 5.

R.

colkai
08-23-2006, 07:51 AM
Ahh, there you are then, old age catching up with me again. :p

gerry_g
08-23-2006, 08:39 AM
Brice 5 was never stable in Mac OS Tiger and 5,5 isn't perfect either, why I have it is hard to say, apart from generate the odd bit of terrain it serves no purpose other than nostalgia

kennez
08-23-2006, 08:58 AM
Daz can't code even if their very existence depended on it!!

They have took what was once a great app and let it die a very slow death, yes corel had a huge role in that too but there you go.

How old is Bryce 5.5 anyway, shouldn't there be talk of a new version by now :hey:

Hexagon will go down the same path...it's what they do best.



Kuzey

Bryce 5.5 is less than 2 years old. Daz were the ones that did the update after they bought it from Corel.

JamesCurtis
08-23-2006, 09:00 AM
If you join Daz3D's Artzone membership you can pick up Bryce 5.5 for $19.99 instead of the usual $119.99 after you do the profile. Not sure if I'm gonna get THAT because I need to check if you needed 5.0 originally first. But 5.5 for 20 bucks- not bad either.

Scazzino
08-23-2006, 09:12 AM
Nothing stinks of desperation more than being reduced to giving your products away for free. I'd imagine there's good reasons why they aren't being successful at charging money for it.

I haven't used Bryce in many years, since the original versions 1 and 2, so I'm not necessarily defending it...

But reasons for giving something away for free can vary...
Microsoft gave Internet Explorer away for free, to kill off Netscape... ;)

SP00
08-23-2006, 09:29 AM
How does this compare to Vue 5? I guess what I"m asking is if you already have Vue 5, is there any reason to learn Bryce 5? How is the import export? Does it offer camera sync? I don't know if I want to learn this if I already have Vue 5.

3dworks
08-23-2006, 09:50 AM
How does this compare to Vue 5? I guess what I"m asking is if you already have Vue 5, is there any reason to learn Bryce 5? How is the import export? Does it offer camera sync? I don't know if I want to learn this if I already have Vue 5.

i would say that nearly everything in vue is better, no reason to learn bryce.

markus

Signal to Noise
08-23-2006, 11:31 AM
When I was first getting into 3D I went out and bought Bryce 2 many, many years ago. At the time I was also using Raydream and 3D Studio Max 1. I found Bryce a fun app to play around with but that was just it- something to play around with. Over the years, Bryce has had a bumpy ride in keeping up with the times not to mention being handed over from one company to the next. Bryce 5 is at least a few years old now and 5.5 was released well over a year ago.

I don't think we'll be seeing Bryce in a Pirates of the Carribean movie any time soon (Vue apparantly had a big role in the movies, btw). It'll be interesting to see how far DAZ plans to take Bryce over the next while especially since they'll likely have acquired a bit of a larger market with this nice free campaign. So for those with Vue I don't think you should worry about taking on Bryce unless you want to see how another app works comparitively.

I'd still recommend Bryce to someone who is just getting into 3D or perhaps someone who only wants a fun hobby type app that won't break the bank, especially now that Bryce is free for a couple of more weeks! What I've done is sent emails to friends and family who might be interested in this and at least they can experience 3D CG easily and legally.

newsvixen8
08-23-2006, 11:46 AM
It appears as though they're giving away Bryce 5 for free in order to prepare the way for version 6, which will only upgrade from 5, nothing prior.

cresshead
08-23-2006, 11:50 AM
also note that daz3d has made a reference to bryce 6.0 coming out real soon..most probably sept 7!

CMT
08-23-2006, 01:08 PM
This really benefits the amateurs and hobbyists more than anything. Bryce 5 was a decent package in the day. It still is for those who may not want to spend the money and time on a 3D program with a harder learning curve. Bryce was pretty easy to pick up.

cresshead
08-23-2006, 01:26 PM
bryce2.0 got me into 3d in the first place....that and the 40 min planetary traveler movie made with it on mac's....bryce is pretty darn good for a easy learning curve and some decent tools..yeah it's a niche app but it outshone vue de spirit waay back in the day when it was owned my metacreations

i'd say to anyone if you haven't got it...get it!...was the first place i used realtime displacement painting....

nice app...i'll be having a look at version 6.0 when it arrives...n yeah i do have vue infinate [lw bundle]...i need to find some time to learn that too!

Captain Obvious
08-23-2006, 02:17 PM
Bryce is free? Oh joy. Paint.NET is also free, and it still doesn't mean I'll use that instead of Photoshop. ;)

PixelDust
08-23-2006, 04:33 PM
Bryce's material editor is kind of fun to play with. If I don't use it for anything else, at least I might get some interesting texture maps out of it. :thumbsup:

Andyjaggy
08-23-2006, 05:32 PM
Bryce was the first 3d app I ever used. You would be suprised what you can actually do with it, and yes the real time painting of displacement maps is pretty cool, great for creating ground planes and such. Still although I have it installed on my computer I don't think I have opened it up in at least 6 months.

Kuzey
08-24-2006, 05:19 AM
Bryce 5.5 is less than 2 years old. Daz were the ones that did the update after they bought it from Corel.

Well two years is a long time, it used to be ahead of vue but not any more. Corel released bryce 5 in 2001 I think, so five years and we have only seen one point upgrade in that time.

What I was told is that corel broke something on the Mac side, maybe the render engine...can't remember for sure. What daz tried to do is fix it when it would have been better to rebuild it from scratch.

Anyway, it's good news if the talk on Bryce 6 is true but it has to pull a rabbit out of the hat...me thinks, but I hope they can. :hey:

What would have been great is if Newtek bought bryce and added it into LW's core :D

It's going to be interesting, more so if it can talk with LW :D

Kuzey

SP00
08-24-2006, 08:00 AM
Even if it was inferior, if they can integreate Bryce 6.0 like Vue Xstream, but at much cheaper price, it might be worth looking into.

zapper1998
08-24-2006, 09:54 AM
It's the pits, I buy the program awhile ago, when Corel Owned it, Bryce 5.0.
Then Corel sells it..
Then they Give it away for FREE, hmmmm

R Haseltine
08-24-2006, 01:39 PM
Anyone else having problems with it? It freezes up my task bar and is only a tiny window. Please tell me I am doing something wrong.

Move the mouse up to the top of the window to get a standard menu/title bar. If you have other applications or applets runing you can also alt-tab to them. 5.5 has the same pop-up menu bar, but doesn't lock the task bar (I think - my task bar is not set to Always on top anyway) and I think the preview thread said 6 will have a regular title and menu bar.

lilrayray77
08-24-2006, 02:23 PM
ok, thanks. I still cant seem to figure out how to expand the visable window/area.

EDIT: ah, I figured it out.

gareee
09-01-2006, 01:59 PM
And now efrontier is giving away Poser 5 for a limited time!
www.contentparadies.com

If nothing else, it's great to do some static renders, and use them to populate 3d archetectural images.

zapper1998
09-02-2006, 03:42 AM
And now efrontier is giving away Poser 5 for a limited time!
www.contentparadies.com

If nothing else, it's great to do some static renders, and use them to populate 3d archetectural images.

What was the URL, I get nothing with that url????
Michael

Captain Obvious
09-02-2006, 04:00 AM
Try this:
http://www.contentparadies.com/


But their servers are swamped right now.

oDDity
09-02-2006, 04:38 AM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what does anyone actully use poser for, other than beng able to play with a nude woman and put her into 'interesting' positions?
I mean, some of the content sets that are released for poser and no better than soft porn.

zapper1998
09-02-2006, 04:47 AM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what does anyone actully use poser for, other than beng able to play with a nude woman and put her into 'interesting' positions?
I mean, some of the content sets that are released for poser and no better than soft porn.

interesting, i have never used it, but the girl friend wants to try it out...
she is trying bryce but she wants to do the poser becuase it has the female stuff...clothing and makeup stuff i guess...

Rayek
09-02-2006, 05:35 AM
Url should be:

www.contentparadise.com

Cheers.

R.

starbase1
09-02-2006, 06:41 AM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what does anyone actully use poser for, other than beng able to play with a nude woman and put her into 'interesting' positions?
I mean, some of the content sets that are released for poser and no better than soft porn.

Well, there is also a mass of bizarre fetish stuff too! Like the net is short of real porn...

But to be serious, I think many would agree that modelling a beleivable human figure is perhaps the hardest thing to do in 3d. And I find it a great help, though if you decent content you have to wade through an absolute mass of junk to get the good stuff. (And the included content is definitely disappointing, to say the least...)

Nick

gareee
09-02-2006, 07:50 AM
One of the most popular uses of poser is to create 2d artwork for real life applications, and also for things like paperback book covers.

Some people use it to create clip art to enhance higher end 3d app renders, like an archetect adding people to a scene to bring it to life.

Just like the clothing market, there are a HUGE numbe of styles, and varieties.. classic armor, casual modern clothing, swimsuits, and fatasy items.

Poser contetn is dirt cheap from a pro standpoint, so it's very affordable if you need something for a scene, and are working with a tight pocketed client.

And some of the general props, scenes and such are just amazing quality.. Stonemason's stuff at Daz is topnoth pro quality stuff, and a bargain basement price.

Plus there are props, animated props, a large array of toon figures, a staggering amounbt of content out there.

Yeah, there's soft porn stuff, but that's a very low percentage of the market, just like in "real life"

There are also a good amount of different human realistic figures as well, from babies, to kids, teens, adults, sumo" types, and many morph sets available to shape these for unbelievable variety.

Even some 3d difficult projects, like animated tank treads is possible in poser, and the amount of free content available can fill up gigs and gigs of hd space.

It's not uncommon to see long time poser users with content folders filling over 40 gig. If organized properly, you have a huge cgi librabry at your fingertips.

JamesCurtis
09-02-2006, 11:02 AM
gareee,

Have to agree with you there. I have probably 15gigs of Poser and Daz related stuff on my HD [plus lots more stored on DVD], and the project I'm doing right now would not be possible without the Poser stuff available.

Titus
09-02-2006, 11:16 AM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what does anyone actully use poser for, other than beng able to play with a nude woman and put her into 'interesting' positions?

It's a good tool for animatics and previz.

oDDity
09-02-2006, 11:24 AM
I still don't get it though. Using poser is kind of like doing a jigsaw puzzle and calling the result your own art.
It seems they're happy to advertise is as a pervert's fantasy creator though. Go to the daz3d front page and all you see are cute chicks. THey know their main customer base I suppsoe.
I never thought of the other use though, I suppose a lot of girls might like it as well, it's basically a better version of a barbie doll to dress up.

starbase1
09-02-2006, 11:26 AM
Amazingly enough, in between my last message and this one I bought a book on concept design. Several artists in that say they like to use poser figures to get the lighting and perspective exactly right, before they paint them up somewhat in photoshop.

And I can't make figures like this:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=35237
Let alone for $15...

Nick

starbase1
09-02-2006, 11:32 AM
oDdity, I have to agree with a lot of that - there is a real danger that with a lot of these props and off the shelf stuff, what is being produced is about as creative as flower arranging. Move other people stuff around, and call the result original.

The average standard at the renderosity galleries is appalling. (And take a look at their popular poser free stuff if you think Daz is smutty!)

But it still does let me do stuff I could not do otherwise.

I'm rather curious actually - how long does it take a good character modeller to make a realistic person? And how much practice to get to that point?

Nick

bobakabob
09-02-2006, 01:15 PM
I still don't get it though. Using poser is kind of like doing a jigsaw puzzle and calling the result your own art.
It seems they're happy to advertise is as a pervert's fantasy creator though. Go to the daz3d front page and all you see are cute chicks. THey know their main customer base I suppsoe.
I never thought of the other use though, I suppose a lot of girls might like it as well, it's basically a better version of a barbie doll to dress up.

Not all Poser art is empty and derivative; grown men playing with dolls A small percentage is genuinely innovative. Check out Richard Marchand.

parm
09-02-2006, 04:30 PM
I still don't get it though. Using poser is kind of like doing a jigsaw puzzle and calling the result your own art.

I'd say it's more like doing collage.

Because there is no pre determined way for arranging the 3d elements.

Following a tutorial verbatim, and then calling the result your own art, would fit the analogy more accurately.

Captain Obvious
09-02-2006, 07:06 PM
Maybe I'm just cynical, but what does anyone actully use poser for, other than beng able to play with a nude woman and put her into 'interesting' positions?
I mean, some of the content sets that are released for poser and no better than soft porn.
I've got two words for you:

Architectural visualization!

gareee
09-02-2006, 08:26 PM
Seems we are talking two different animals here.. when you are commissioned for a job, does the client care if you are creating the artwork from scratch, and are they willing to pay the additional modey for all the additional time it involves, or do they want to get the job done as wquickly and cheaply as possible, providing they have a pro level fnal render?

Most professional jobs could care less about personal definitions of "art", and more about getting the image they want as quickly and cheaply as possible.

If you added all the clothing, textures and morphs available for the character Victoria 3, you'd probably be seeing somewhere are 20,000 items,and no 2 combination of a variety like that would be the same. You can't really say everything looks the same, because it's vastly different, from age morphs and textures, to ethnicity, to creatures.

And how is using poser items any different then buying a 3d model from one of the other "professional" 3d vendors, and using that for a job?

When I was going through art school, one of the big things they taught us, was in the commercial world, ANYthing that gets the job done better/faster/cheaper without sacrificing quality is a valid option.

prospector
09-02-2006, 10:28 PM
Using poser is kind of like doing a jigsaw puzzle and calling the result your own art.


Well that's done in all sorts of buisnesses.

A bricklayer doesn't make the bricks or morter or tools but the finished product ( a house) is his artwork.

And a painter doesn't manufacture the paint, canvas, or paintbrushes, but the resulting work could be a Mona Lisa.

You may not make the body or the textures or the appearel, but the resulting combination of ixing and matching along with the lighting and the animation could be called your art.

And in LW, you can use predesigned fonts for movie titles, the base product is made but you can still call the resulting animation 'your' art

Silkrooster
09-03-2006, 12:21 AM
Hey guys,
If your debating on getting Bryce, maybe the attachment will give you a little incentive.
What I did was create a US Flag in Corel Draw(Pardon me if you find it a little in accurate), Exported it as a psd file, imported the psd file as a terrain, exported the resulting 3d mesh as a lightwave file, imported the lightwave file into modeler, moved the individual objects to the correct depth, transferred to layout and animated the final avi file.
This file is an avi with demensions at 800x600, and file size is 7.48 MB, codec is cinepak, 120 frames length.
flag.avi (http://www.silkrooster.com/newtek/flag.avi)

Puguglybonehead
09-03-2006, 02:20 AM
Anybody try to download the Mac file for Bryce? I tried 3 times and got a corrupt file each time (or at least a file that StuffIt didn't like).

bobakabob
09-03-2006, 04:11 AM
A shame there's some negativity towards Bryce here. It's a great little program for beginners in 3D and capable of pro quality renders. :)

oDDity
09-03-2006, 04:24 AM
Seems we are talking two different animals here.. when you are commissioned for a job, does the client care if you are creating the artwork from scratch, and are they willing to pay the additional modey for all the additional time it involves, or do they want to get the job done as wquickly and cheaply as possible, providing they have a pro level fnal render?

Most professional jobs could care less about personal definitions of "art", and more about getting the image they want as quickly and cheaply as possible.

If you added all the clothing, textures and morphs available for the character Victoria 3, you'd probably be seeing somewhere are 20,000 items,and no 2 combination of a variety like that would be the same. You can't really say everything looks the same, because it's vastly different, from age morphs and textures, to ethnicity, to creatures.

And how is using poser items any different then buying a 3d model from one of the other "professional" 3d vendors, and using that for a job?

When I was going through art school, one of the big things they taught us, was in the commercial world, ANYthing that gets the job done better/faster/cheaper without sacrificing quality is a valid option.

I'm just old fashioned, that's all. I like artists to have basic skills, to be able to make things from scratch.
I realise day to day work in CG is not always about producing art though, but what exactly are you using these hawt chick poser models for? What kind of 'work' is it that you're dong that requires a pre-made scantily clad blonde bimbo?
I've never understood the marketing idea of having sexy chicks draped over cars or other products. I can't imagine anyone has ever decided to buy a car because they remember some hot chick being draped over it at a motorshow. The same applies, to a lesser extend, to all advertising, they'll try to sell you anything by impling that really beautiful people use the product, so you should be using it as well.
I don't want to think that any member if the same species as myself could be that easily enticed. I guess some of us have evovled slightly more from our animal past than others.
It takes more than a flash of cleavage to make me part with money.

prospector
09-03-2006, 07:05 AM
Well lets see...
on one hand a dealer has a car modeled by a really nice thonged woman, on the other hand a different dealer has the same car modeled by a 400 pound thonged woman.....
I know where I'm going to get my car.....:D

prospector
09-03-2006, 07:06 AM
but I'm just a neanderthol that way :rolleyes:

sirzero
09-03-2006, 07:22 AM
Puguglybonehead:
To unstuff the bryce mac file, update StuffIt to version 10 or later. It doesn't work in older versions of StuffIt.

Captain Obvious
09-03-2006, 10:24 AM
Anybody try to download the Mac file for Bryce? I tried 3 times and got a corrupt file each time (or at least a file that StuffIt didn't like).
Don't bother. That version of Bryce does not even work in 10.4.




A shame there's some negativity towards Bryce here. It's a great little program for beginners in 3D and capable of pro quality renders.
In the same sense that LW5 can render to the same quality as LW9, yeah. Less features, less refinement, less speed.





I've never understood the marketing idea of having sexy chicks draped over cars or other products. I can't imagine anyone has ever decided to buy a car because they remember some hot chick being draped over it at a motorshow. The same applies, to a lesser extend, to all advertising, they'll try to sell you anything by impling that really beautiful people use the product, so you should be using it as well.
Well, actually, it's pretty well proven that beautiful people DO help to sell products. It's not like people go "hmm, I should buy that; the chick is hot," but it can influence people all the same. Good-looking salespeople are almost always better than not-so-good-looking salepeople, assuming they have people skills of a comparable level.

It's also fairly well-established that people tend to project positive emotions on good-looking people. If we see someone we think is attractive, we often assume that (s)he is also smart and successful.

All of it is completely unconscious, of course.

gareee
09-03-2006, 10:35 AM
Oddity... you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

When you look at poser content, you look at only the hot new selling "hot chick" tuf, and you are so overwhelmed by it, you don't look any further, at some of the outstanding poser items like Stonemason's environments, or Faveral's Mideval Tavern. You don't see the many toon characters available, the children, the fairytale items, a LARGE number of well done inexpensive plants, trees, and just general props.

Rather then ogling the sexy gals available, look at some of the other items, that could be used in almost any render setting you can think of. ;)

oDDity
09-03-2006, 04:39 PM
Probably because I can model my own stuff, so I don't need to look for it.
The advantage being that I'm not limited to things that others have made, which is a pretty crippling disadvantage in my view.

gareee
09-03-2006, 06:12 PM
I can make my own things as well, bu twhen it comes to uv mapping them, and then doing textuires, that adds up to a lot of work for something I might only use once or twice.

Head over to daz3d.com, and browse through their platinum club store.. and keep in mind, if you subscribe to it, that every item there is only $2!

People using vue and lightwave aren't modeling their organics.. and I don't look down on them for not doing that either. From what I understand, almost all the cgi islands in POTC II were done using vue, and addiional purchased plants.

Th more time I can invest on bringin my OWN specialized stuff to life, and not doing "drudgery" work, means I can invest my time more wisely.

But to each his own. Some people want to transmap and model every single leaf or blade of grass in a scene, and if they have that much free time on their hands, more power to them!

bobakabob
09-03-2006, 06:30 PM
Probably because I can model my own stuff, so I don't need to look for it.
The advantage being that I'm not limited to things that others have made, which is a pretty crippling disadvantage in my view.

I agree that studying anatomy is a pretty crucial for a well rounded artist and it's a shame so many sidestep this vital discipline but wouldn't you accept the strengths of some creators may lie in other directions? Personally, I model everything from fundamentals myself as anatomical drawing and modelling is challenging and compelling if time consuming. However in a pressurised production environment artists may be forced by tight deadlines to resort to Poser 'assembling' characters out of spare parts like Lego.

True, there's a lot of toe curlingly embarrassing sexist tripe out there in Poserland but there are artists who have used the app in a genuinely innovative sophisticated way and taken it way beyond geeks playing with Barbie dolls. Their specialisms may lie in lighting, composition or experimenting for the fun of it, like Marchand's fascinating sci fi work.

Sampling and collage are respected art forms, so as long as Poser is used in an inventive way, it's just another 3d tool. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

oDDity
09-04-2006, 01:21 AM
I think 'resort' is the correct word. Or even 'reduced' would work.
As in 'pseudo-artists have to resort to, and are reduced to, going though bins to see what they can find'.
Not a very elegant way to work, since you will never be able to find exactly what you want, only the nearest thing to it. That's why it's cheap.
You say collage is a respected form of art, but to me, collage is something art students do before they learn any proper skills (most of them never learn any proper skills)
It'll always be a second class artform. None of the greatest artists or greatest works of art having any relationship with collage.
I have seen images done with poser, there was a hawt chick competition, the link of which was posted here a while back, and you could clearly see some had been done in poser. That's the problem with it, it's blatantly obvious, like using facegen to make faces.

bobakabob
09-04-2006, 04:23 AM
I think 'resort' is the correct word. Or even 'reduced' would work.
As in 'pseudo-artists have to resort to, and are reduced to, going though bins to see what they can find'.
Not a very elegant way to work, since you will never be able to find exactly what you want, only the nearest thing to it. That's why it's cheap.
You say collage is a respected form of art, but to me, collage is something art students do before they learn any proper skills (most of them never learn any proper skills)
It'll always be a second class artform. None of the greatest artists or greatest works of art having any relationship with collage.
I have seen images done with poser, there was a hawt chick competition, the link of which was posted here a while back, and you could clearly see some had been done in poser. That's the problem with it, it's blatantly obvious, like using facegen to make faces.

Hmmm, Oddity, wouldn't you agree that a good artist should also be ahem, 'open minded'?

There's nothing wrong with working from first principles. I lean that way myself and would advise any artist new to 3d to study anatomy. Learning and applying anatomical knowledge is one of the ultimate challenges of 3d (still striving!). I totally agree with David Hockney's view that drawing and painting from life is sorely neglected in art schools.

However another vital ingredient to any art form is imagination. Artists can and do produce challenging work without being able to draw or sculpt like Michaelangelo.

I think you're being deeply unfair to artists in other disciplines such as sampling and collage which draw on other skills than being able to copy slavishly from life. I presume you also think photography is a 'second class artform' :D

Besides, most 3D anatomical artists use all kinds of techniques to achieve realism - including 'tracing' over photographs. Not that there's anything wrong with that - many Renaissance artists used optical devices to improve their work.

oDDity
09-04-2006, 05:58 AM
No, actually, there's beena big debate about that recently. If you visit the art renewal center you'll know all about it.
Hockney's been in hot water over claiming that atists in the past couldn't draw freehand very well, and they all used cameras oscuras or other aids to prduce their accurate work.
You only have to look at the work that is produced today from people working freehand with live models to see that it's possible to be very accurate.
You need both artistry and amazing technical abilty to be successful in my eyes. One is no good whtout the other, and I actually favour people with amazing techcnal skill and less artistic origniality than people with more artistic origniality and flair but with less technical skill. If you haven't the ability to manifest your great vision, then you're wasting it.
That's why I like artists like Bouguereau, he had perhaps the most amazing technical skill and anatomical knowledge of any artist. His works aren't revolutionary and visionary, but you can just be amazed by his sheer ability.
I don't like Picasso, I think he was tyring it on, he was just a cynical bastard deliberately painting weird pictures to get publicity - and it worked.
He didn't have 1/10 of the skill or talent of William Bouguereau.
People say 'oh, but look at a picasso - you can see x, y and z profound things in it if you understand it, but that's all crap, you can see anything in anything - if I spit on a wall you could see patterns in it and come up with some pretentious waffle about it. The human brain is programmed to see patterns.
Give me sheer skill over some twat drawing abstract shapes.

CMT
09-04-2006, 07:42 AM
No, actually, there's beena big debate about that recently. If you visit the art renewal center you'll know all about it.
Hockney's been in hot water over claiming that atists in the past couldn't draw freehand very well, and they all used cameras oscuras or other aids to prduce their accurate work.
You only have to look at the work that is produced today from people working freehand with live models to see that it's possible to be very accurate.
You need both artistry and amazing technical abilty to be successful in my eyes. One is no good whtout the other, and I actually favour people with amazing techcnal skill and less artistic origniality than people with more artistic origniality and flair but with less technical skill. If you haven't the ability to manifest your great vision, then you're wasting it.
That's why I like artists like Bouguereau, he had perhaps the most amazing technical skill and anatomical knowledge of any artist. His works aren't revolutionary and visionary, but you can just be amazed by his sheer ability.
I don't like Picasso, I think he was tyring it on, he was just a cynical bastard deliberately painting weird pictures to get publicity - and it worked.
He didn't have 1/10 of the skill or talent of William Bouguereau.
People say 'oh, but look at a picasso - you can see x, y and z profound things in it if you understand it, but that's all crap, you can see anything in anything - if I spit on a wall you could see patterns in it and come up with some pretentious waffle about it. The human brain is programmed to see patterns.
Give me sheer skill over some twat drawing abstract shapes.

Go ahead. Spit on a wall. You'll find your patterns, but they won't make any sense compositionally or colorwise. Well... after about 500 tries, you might come up with something interesting! :)

Good abstract art makes sense. I don't care for Picasso either, but there are some other really awesome abstract artists out there whose work evokes just as much feeling as a realistically painted piece.

I actually prefer artistry over technical ability. There's a buddy of mine who doesn't have enough technical ability to render a painting very realistically, but his simple sketches have the more movement/ feeling than most artists I've seen. The ability to capture the feeling, movement, and take artistic license with observation is what I hold to be more important.

lilrayray77
09-04-2006, 08:19 AM
Oddity, collages are still art since it takes skill and creativity to take things, that are originaly not creative, and turn them into something that is. It is not what goes in, but what comes out.

oDDity
09-04-2006, 09:04 AM
Well maybe you can point me to an image of some collage art that rivals some of the great paintings or sculptures.

I'll take good original artwork any day over technically marvelous copies of other people's work, or technically marvelous examples of things done a million times over.
Yes, good orignal artwork - we all like that. What about just plain original artwork though? That's the problem, originality seems to take precedence over quality in most modern art I see.


Good abstract art makes sense. I don't care for Picasso either, but there are some other really awesome abstract artists out there whose work evokes just as much feeling as a realistically painted piece
I'm not interested in seeing originality for it's own sake.
I don't think there's much point in sitting around deliberately trying to be original just for the sake of being different. Originality should be the sum total of you individuality and unique experiences, like your personality, a natural progression - not a logical equation you've cynically worked on. That's what picasso did, and it's why I don't like his work.


Go ahead. Spit on a wall. You'll find your patterns, but they won't make any sense compositionally or colorwise. Well... after about 500 tries, you might come up with something interesting!

There is no strict definition of composition or colour schemes in modern art. Anything goes. I remember a TV show years ago where they got some monkeys to 'paint' some pctues, and then frmaed them and hung them in a gallery. They got some pretentious art critics in to review them, and of course, these critics started droning on about how profound and amazing some of the paintings were.
Unless you're telling me that those monkeys had some idea of composition or colour, then the whole modern art thing is a complete scam.

gareee
09-04-2006, 09:48 AM
Since Oddity can't seem to see anything other then poser cheescake stuff, I'll post a few examples here...Ya need to take off yer boobie goggles. LOL!

gareee
09-04-2006, 09:55 AM
Just few more to showcase some really diverse poser stuff...and all of these are inexpensive poser products. In most cases, these are also collections of many items.. for instance, the tavern images are assembled from 50 odd props in the tavern set, and it even comes with the light sets needed to light it properly.

Oh, and I guess Andy Warhol's collages don't count as "real" artwork? He must be a 'second stringer", right?

Typically, I find people you dismiss various artforms they dislike have had no proper art school training, and don't really know what is and is not art.

There are many art forms and mediums I dislike, but I don't discount them because of my tastes. I try to see them for what they are, and understand why they are appreciated.

oDDity
09-04-2006, 10:28 AM
Typically, I find people you dismiss various artforms they dislike have had no proper art school training, and don't really know what is and is not art.
That's odd, because in an earlier discussion here on the forums, everyone tried to tell me there was no definition for art, it could be anything. All in the eye of the beholder, etc.

None of that stuff was modeled or textured in poser, and it's all poor to mediocre anyway, so thanks for proving my point.
The guys who made that stuff are probably selling it on turbosquid and elsewhere also, it's not poser specific.
You can probably import any model format into poser, so I'm not sure what point it is you're tryng to make.
Why would you be using poser if you have lightwave, certainly not for that content, you could import it into lightwave and have far more options for lighting and rendering your scene. You use poser to pose and play with the hawt chicks that ship with it.

parm
09-04-2006, 10:42 AM
Oh, and I guess Andy Warhol's collages don't count as "real" artwork? He must be a 'second stringer", right?

Quite. You could add Max Ernst, Kurt Schwitters, George Braque, Pablo Picasso, Henri Mattise, Anselm Kiefer, David Mach and many many more.

The Collagers are in quite illustrious company, I think :)

bobakabob
09-04-2006, 10:50 AM
No, actually, there's beena big debate about that recently. If you visit the art renewal center you'll know all about it.
Hockney's been in hot water over claiming that atists in the past couldn't draw freehand very well, and they all used cameras oscuras or other aids to prduce their accurate work.
You only have to look at the work that is produced today from people working freehand with live models to see that it's possible to be very accurate.
You need both artistry and amazing technical abilty to be successful in my eyes. One is no good whtout the other, and I actually favour people with amazing techcnal skill and less artistic origniality than people with more artistic origniality and flair but with less technical skill. If you haven't the ability to manifest your great vision, then you're wasting it.
That's why I like artists like Bouguereau, he had perhaps the most amazing technical skill and anatomical knowledge of any artist. His works aren't revolutionary and visionary, but you can just be amazed by his sheer ability.
I don't like Picasso, I think he was tyring it on, he was just a cynical bastard deliberately painting weird pictures to get publicity - and it worked.
He didn't have 1/10 of the skill or talent of William Bouguereau.
People say 'oh, but look at a picasso - you can see x, y and z profound things in it if you understand it, but that's all crap, you can see anything in anything - if I spit on a wall you could see patterns in it and come up with some pretentious waffle about it. The human brain is programmed to see patterns.
Give me sheer skill over some twat drawing abstract shapes.

Hmmm, for someone who carries the weight of being right all the time, I must say it's out of character for you to be so (utterly) wrong. ;) Hockney's research has been ridiculously distorted and misunderstood by people who simply haven't read his excellent book.

Hockney has never questioned or undermined the draughtmanship skill of the Renaissance masters and in fact reveres them as great artists. He simply gives an informed account of the drawing aids and optical devices he believes many of them used in pursuit of anatomical perfection. No big deal. It's equivalent to contemporary artists using photographic reference material all the time, as I'm sure you do yourself. It's no crime, and Hockney actually credits the ingenuity of artists who created drawing aids in the age before photography.

As for Picasso, it's a matter of personal taste and you're entitled to your opinion of course but I think it's a real shame you're so predictably rude in dismissing the work of this virtuoso, one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Have another look at his early student figurative works and you'll see he was already a master of anatomy and technique. Here's one of his early works as an example, painted directly from life:

http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/picassoas/illus/(2)nude.jpg

Picasso simply grew restless and bored of slavishly copying reality and thrived on experimentation, taking his art into other dimensions and looking at the world in new ways. What's wrong with that? Sure it's possible he grew rich and cynical later in life (One story is that he was so contemptuous of the bourgeoise art crowd making money off his work so he aimed to saturate the market). Whatever, In My Humble Opinion artists of any discipline can really learn from his sense of innovation and adventure.

gareee
09-04-2006, 10:54 AM
Actually every single thing I showed is sol only for poser, and Stonmason's poser creations have even been acclaimed an showcased over at CGtalk.

Why would I use it? I don't have the time to research and model an accurate ship like the Medusa, and many other artists have unique styles unlike my own (like Stonemason's) and I'd like to incorporate their unique visions into my own. And I don't always have the time to totally re-rig and re-texture model for use in lightwave, when It's already totally rigged in poser.

You cannot just import any old model format into poser, and it takes quite some time to learn it's rigging abilities and quirks, like any other tool.

And it doesn't matter WHAT tool is used to create the end result.. most are done in lightwave, maya and max, but they can only easily interact in poser.

The more you speak, the more you show your total ignorance of that part of the 3d marketplace.

Another plus you are totally ignoring, is that all this content can easily be used in both Carerra pro, and Vue6.. and all the rigging ports over intact, as well as dynamic hair and clothing in vue!

The same cannot be said of lightwave items in Vue or carerra, which have great organic toolsets lightwave lacks.

But your mind is totally made up, without even bothering to *really* explore the items in question, proving that your arguments don't hold any water at all.

Do some research next time, and then speak from a knowledgeable position.

Puguglybonehead
09-04-2006, 11:32 AM
Poser is clip-art. Clip-art has been in legitimate use in the commercial art/advertising world for decades, mainly by people in a hurry to meet deadlines. Still, you don't go and use a piece of clip-art as the major part of an 'original' piece and then claim it as your own work.

Also, Poser has had a very negative effect on the way 3D artists are perceived by the rest of the art world. It supports the viewpoint of many people who think that all we do is 'push a button, and out pops a character'. When you use Poser, that's almost true.

I told one old friend of mine that I was studying 3D, so I could use it for graphic novels. She said, "Oh, 3D computer art?" with a look of digust. "I hate that stuff! All you do is get the computer to do everything for you. It sucks!"

Some comic publishers will refuse to publish work that was created with 3D software because of this negative perception of 3D art. Not happy news for someone who is going to the trouble of modelling their own characters. And, I have actually seen the other side, where a comic or graphic novel has been completely filled with nothing but pretty much off-the-shelf Poser characters. How sad.

I'm trying to learn figure modelling in Lightwave, and it's a lot of work. But, I would rather do that, and actually have the satisfaction of really creating something myself, rather than cheating myself out of the experience of learning. No clip-art figures for me thanks (no matter how terrible my own look at the moment).

gareee
09-04-2006, 11:55 AM
And some comic companys ONLY print comics based on 3d artwork.. which is "right"?

Clipart implies that that an image looks only *one* way. That is totally untrue of poser content, in this day and age. There are as many variations and variables in poser content today, (possibly more so) then there is in diversity in plants in Vue, and that isn't called clipart, though it's probably closer to clipart then poser renders are.

This arguement is almost exactly ads the old argument from 10 years ago, that computers could not be used to actually create "artwork" because there were just mechanical tools, and everything looked exactly the same.

Computer 3d has changed in the last 10 years, and so has Poser content as well. What poser did when it was first released has very little comparison to what it can do today.

It's this archaic thinking that is still holding back the cgi world in many ways.

Even large movie producers are using tools like Vue to do their organic backgrounds.. Vue could be considered MUCH more "cookie cutter" then poser, yet the output is considered acceptable for multi million dollar productions.

oDDity
09-04-2006, 12:22 PM
Hmmm, for someone who carries the weight of being right all the time, I must say it's out of character for you to be so (utterly) wrong. ;) Hockney's research has been ridiculously distorted and misunderstood by people who simply haven't read his excellent book.
There seems to be a lot of people (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp)'misunderstanding' him then, and getting quite irrate about it. I think it's foolish to assume none of them have read the book, and they're all just idiots looking for a fight.


Hockney has never questioned or undermined the draughtmanship skill of the Renaissance masters and in fact reveres them as great artists. He simply gives an informed account of the drawing aids and optical devices he believes many of them used in pursuit of anatomical perfection. No big deal. It's equivalent to contemporary artists using photographic reference material all the time, as I'm sure you do yourself. It's no crime, and Hockney actually credits the ingenuity of artists who created drawing aids in the age before photography.
You're assuming that all modern artists use photo references. THat's not the case. I do because I have no easy access to live models, but plenty of people do, and they can produce totally accurate figure drawings from life with no apparatus of any kind, many of them just students, so to suggest that the old masters couldn't do it is ridiculous - and that is exactly why it's being ridiculed.


As for Picasso, it's a matter of personal taste and you're entitled to your opinion of course but I think it's a real shame you're so predictably rude in dismissing the work of this virtuoso, one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Have another look at his early student figurative works and you'll see he was already a master of anatomy and technique. Here's one of his early works as an example, painted directly from life:

http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/picassoas/illus/(2)nude.jpg

I wouldn call that masterly compared to say, Bouguereau - he was working at the height of impressionism in France, yet didn't feel the need to rebel. That's what it's all about really, rebellion.
'I sick of those old guys and their fuddy-duddy realistic art, I'm going to paint....ummm....errr....I know! - triangular heads with two noses each! - that'll show them'...*pouts and prances off in a huff*

(that's not me going off in a huff, but the rebeling artists:))

oDDity
09-04-2006, 12:44 PM
As for Warhol, I can't believe any of you guys were fooled by that short span of nonsense.
He was just a wiseguy in the right place, at the right time, with the right friends, it was all hype, publicity and bull****. If he really has any talent, all of his 'art' wouldn't have been made during a few years in the 60's.
You guys think that just because someone's art is famous, it must automatically be good.
That was generally the case in the distant past, but not today. There are many and varied reasons for a so-called artists to become famous, but talent is rarely one of them.

Puguglybonehead
09-04-2006, 12:57 PM
Got to agree with oDDity on most of this, especially when it comes to Andy Warhol, who was the Malcolm MacLaren of the `60's.

CMT
09-04-2006, 01:49 PM
I'm not interested in seeing originality for it's own sake.
I don't think there's much point in sitting around deliberately trying to be original just for the sake of being different. Originality should be the sum total of you individuality and unique experiences, like your personality, a natural progression - not a logical equation you've cynically worked on. That's what picasso did, and it's why I don't like his work.

I agree with this point, but if all art was technically brilliant, yet all had the same concept, that would get pretty boring. Original concepts are at the heart of what makes art.


There is no strict definition of composition or colour schemes in modern art. Anything goes. I remember a TV show years ago where they got some monkeys to 'paint' some pctues, and then frmaed them and hung them in a gallery. They got some pretentious art critics in to review them, and of course, these critics started droning on about how profound and amazing some of the paintings were.
Unless you're telling me that those monkeys had some idea of composition or colour, then the whole modern art thing is a complete scam.

Sorry, but gotta say this is nonsense. Those art critics must have been hand picked imbeciles to make that show more interesting. Nothing is interesting about monkey art by itself. Throw a few stupid critics in the mix and you got yourself a show.

And anything does not go. Modern art may break a few more rules, but for the most part there is still a some rules to follow. If there is no repetition, balance, rhythm, etc... it's just trash. Sure there's some people throwing **** together and calling it "modern art" and even making a buck off it. I don't know about you, but I can spot that crap a mile away. But there are those who apply their artistic knowledge and come up with some truely fascinating modern art.

bobakabob
09-04-2006, 03:15 PM
There seems to be a lot of people (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Hockney_Refuted/hockney1.asp)'misunderstanding' him then, and getting quite irrate about it. I think it's foolish to assume none of them have read the book, and they're all just idiots looking for a fight.


Oddity,

Hmmm... May I ask if you ever actually read and consider anything in depth before firing off your amusing Pavlovian scattergun opinions? I suppose at the very least it occasionally enlivens General Discussion here :D

Why not try reading Hockney's book in detail yourself? I'm afraid the great man's views about the Renaissance Masters have been sadly misrepresented by rather silly people who clearly haven't read a single word.

Hockney repeatedly states that only those who know nothing about the craft of anatomical representation would think less of an artist because he used optical drawing aids.

The artist you cite as a great technician is precisely that. But little else. A touch sentimental, maybe (it's all subjective, anyway).

Now, to steer the discussion back to Bryce and Poser, what's the harm in a young aspiring artist learning about anatomy and proportion by making good use of these programs as drawing aids or an introduction to 3d? Yes the Poser models are somewhat stilted and homogenous, but they're not far removed from wooden art shop mannequins artists have used as reference for decades. And why not agree that 99% of Poser art may be rubbish, but there is some genuinely innovative work out there?

You've already admitted to tracing over other people's photographs and artwork in Lightwave (not necessarily a bad thing, I should hasten to add) so why not let other artists be if they have their own avenues of expression?

gerry_g
09-04-2006, 06:35 PM
In the general interest of steering things back towards Bryce and Poser, the original Poser one release was conceived as a digital replacement for the old wooden manikin (hence woodies inclusion) . As the inimitable Mr.. Cane would sat – “Not a lot of people know that !”

Gui Lo
09-04-2006, 07:54 PM
I like the place 3d animation is at at the moment. It looks to realism in the look or the movement even if it stretched and distorted.

I disagree with Oddity in that he thinks Piccasso didn't do that with his cubism or sculpture.

With a lot of modern art now there seems to be an ok thought out idea with some paint or image and then they call it art. No, it is a good design. Thought provoking it may be but it is still a design and not art.

Art mimicks a natural phenomenum.

I think Hockneys ideas are amazing. Does anyone know of a book or articles to read?

bobakabob
09-05-2006, 02:46 AM
I think Hockneys ideas are amazing. Does anyone know of a book or articles to read?

Yes - Hockney's book is called "Secret Knowledge (http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Knowledge-Rediscovering-Techniques-Masters/dp/0670030260/sr=8-1/qid=1157445112/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2200088-9001613?ie=UTF8&s=books)" and it's a fascinating exploration of the drawing aids and optical devices Hockney believes were used by the Old Masters to enhance the realism of their work. There's little doubt that knowledge of optics was advancing and new techniques were being developed all the time.

Sadly, many people have completely misread Hockney's theory and think he's calling the skills of Renaissance artists into question which is absurd.

It's interesting to speculate how the Old Masters would have viewed computers as a drawing and sculpting tool or aid to artistic creation. Leonardo would surely have made good use of Lightwave :)

starbase1
09-05-2006, 04:31 AM
I actually thought of a good example on the collage front - Dave McKean. I buy very few books of pictures, (clumsy phrasing, but I want to include photos, or whatever), but one I had absolutely no hesitation in getting was Dave Mckean's covers from Sandman.

They don't work very well small but he does have a web site:
http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/

Here's someone who uses everything from photoshop to stuff he finds lying in the street, from posed photos and made props to dead animals. And makes what I consider spectacularly creepy and disturbing images.

And incidently, I for one am REALLY enjoying all contribitions on this thread!

Nick

starbase1
09-05-2006, 04:33 AM
In the general interest of steering things back towards Bryce and Poser, the original Poser one release was conceived as a digital replacement for the old wooden manikin (hence woodies inclusion) . As the inimitable Mr.. Cane would sat – “Not a lot of people know that !”

And many professionals use it in a very similar way - as a basis for getting the poses right.

oDDity
09-05-2006, 05:28 AM
I admit there are some nice collage images there, but those could equally have painted from scratch. Doing a collage doesn't require as much skill.
All I said was that collage is never going to be regarded as the greatest artform of all time.

oDDity
09-05-2006, 05:36 AM
Oddity,

Hmmm... May I ask if you ever actually read and consider anything in depth before firing off your amusing Pavlovian scattergun opinions? I suppose at the very least it occasionally enlivens General Discussion here :D

Why not try reading Hockney's book in detail yourself? I'm afraid the great man's views about the Renaissance Masters have been sadly misrepresented by rather silly people who clearly haven't read a single word.

Well, I think it's a bit much to read a book just to make a reply to this topic.
I already knew about certain devices they used, Vermeer certainly used a camera obscura, and some of the italian artists used a grid of wire with a fixed position to look through, and then drew the same grid on the paper.
I can't imagine it would cause so much controversy if that's all hockney had said. Most of it was already common knowledge.

bobakabob
09-05-2006, 06:46 AM
I admit there are some nice collage images there, but those could equally have painted from scratch. Doing a collage doesn't require as much skill.
All I said was that collage is never going to be regarded as the greatest artform of all time.

Such sweeping statements - I'm sure you don't expect them to remain unchallenged :D .

Aren't you being just a tad elitist (not to mention worryingly prejudicial) in drawing up such dubious distinctions, Mr Oddity? It's as silly as saying photography is inferior to drawing. Also extremely unfair on serious practitioners of the art such as the world renowned Czech artist Jiri Kolar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Kol%C3%A1%C5%99) who used his remarkable surrealist images to make bold and powerful artistic statements. I've been lucky enough to see his collage work in Prague and it has real impact and invention. Starbase has also given a great example of an innovative contemporary practitioner.

There's a very informative summary of the art on Wikipedia I've quoted here for your 'Art Theory and History' instruction ;)

Collage (From the French, coller, to stick) is regarded as a work of visual arts made from an assemblage of different forms, thus creating a new whole. This technique made its first appearance in the early 20th century as a groundbreaking novelty, however with the passing of time it's become ubiquitous.

For example, an artistic collage work may include newspaper clippings, ribbons, bits of colored or hand-made papers, photographs, etc., glued to a solid support or canvas.

Its adoption has crossed the boundaries of visual arts. In music, with the advances on recording technology, avant garde artists started experimenting with cutting and pasting since the middle of the 20th century. However in the 1990's and 2000's it's completely apparent that "musical collages" have already become the norm for popular music, especially on rap, hip hop (rap-pop) and electronic music.

Puguglybonehead
09-05-2006, 09:13 AM
I actually thought of a good example on the collage front - Dave McKean. I buy very few books of pictures, (clumsy phrasing, but I want to include photos, or whatever), but one I had absolutely no hesitation in getting was Dave Mckean's covers from Sandman.

They don't work very well small but he does have a web site:
http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/

Here's someone who uses everything from photoshop to stuff he finds lying in the street, from posed photos and made props to dead animals. And makes what I consider spectacularly creepy and disturbing images.

And incidently, I for one am REALLY enjoying all contribitions on this thread!

Nick

I love Dave Mckean's stuff, especially his work on Black Orchid and Arkham Asylum. Loved all his Sandman covers as well. I could stand to see (and own prints of) more of his work. I think I need to pick up some of those collected works editions. Oh great, I was all ready to just pick up my Serenity ornament this week from the comic shop and then just leave, now I'm gonna be spending half my paycheque there! :devil:

I do think collage is a legitimate art form, when it's done thoughtfully. One doctor's office that I find myself in every year, has this fantastic collage made largely from clock parts. Appropriate for a waiting room.

Yes, I have seen Poser used well in the collage context, actually. There was some hilarious stuff on one of the Church Of The Sub-Genius sites that was done almost entirely with Poser and Bryce. Even an old version of Poser can make a pretty snazzy looking Bob Dobbs.

parm
09-05-2006, 09:29 AM
Well, I think it's a bit much to read a book just to make a reply to this topic.

A clue to the crux of a wider problem here, perhaps.

oDDity
09-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Looks like all your reading of art books hasn't given any of you much skill though.
Sure, you can waffle on about what's good and bad, but can't do any of it yourself.
Maybe try it my way?

CMT
09-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Looks like all your reading of art books hasn't given any of you much skill though.
Sure, you can waffle on about what's good and bad, but can't do any of it yourself.
Maybe try it my way?

Uh.... yeah.... no thanks...

BTW.... What IS your way?

lilrayray77
09-05-2006, 03:29 PM
This whole collage thing has been blown out of proportion. Art is only good to the eyes of the beholder. What "sucks" to you, may be the best most creative thing to another person. Opinion is a wonderful thing, yet dangerous if not controled.

Kuzey
09-06-2006, 02:47 AM
Talking about Hockney, I once met him in Melbourne's R.M.I.T some years ago.

Well not really...I saw a talk he gave on his work and said hello afterwards.

Not my kind of art though.

As for poser, I saw it used for a pre flight training videos, it was lame but cool at the same time.


Kuzey

bobakabob
09-06-2006, 03:24 AM
This whole collage thing has been blown out of proportion. Art is only good to the eyes of the beholder. What "sucks" to you, may be the best most creative thing to another person. Opinion is a wonderful thing, yet dangerous if not controled.

Agreed, art is very subjective and two people will never see the same things in a single work of art :) :cursin: However, IMO it's unfair to make silly statements dismissing a discipline like collage which has had a major influence on art music and film in the last 100 years. Dali and the surrealists made much use of it and without collage we wouldn't have the fab animations of Monty Python's Terry Gilliam.

Saying one art form is superior to another is like saying swimming is superior to cycling. I'm constantly having to defend 3d computer art from some people I know, one of whom recently said. "It's just like Lego, isn't it?"

I suppose the glut of dodgy Poser art might be a factor, but again it's unfair to ridicule the app because there are some genuinely inventive Poser artists out there.

DragonFist
09-06-2006, 03:37 AM
Uh.... yeah.... no thanks...

BTW.... What IS your way?
Make statements intended to insult the views and products of others and sit around and wait for all the upset to follow, laughing with glee as it does, and then prode it and poke it till the thread page number reaches over a hundred filled with arguments over things that had little to do with the original post?

Rayek
09-06-2006, 04:45 AM
The funny thing is, art adheres to a very STRICT perceptional rule set. Indeed, what's more, this applies to ANYTHING a human mind may perceive as a pictiorial representation of a 'real' thing.

Gedachtenexperiment: suppose we have a 1024*786 grid of pixels. Each pixel may have one of about 16,7 million colours. (A computer screen would suffice.)

We instruct a computer to randomly create grids with randomly selected coloured pixels in this resolution. If we wait long enough ANY image EVER produced in our history will pop up. Indeed, the face of any human of the past, present and future will at some time pop up, in any conceivable historic and future setting.

Anything that may be shown as a pictorial representation of something (event, object or combination of both) that exists in the universe, past, present and future, will at some point in time be produced. Any work of art, and any variation and/or combination WILL be created.

Trouble is, a human may not recognize some pictures as something that existed, exists, or may exist someday, in the universe. It may look like gibberish or static. Of all the produced images only a VERY SMALL margin shall be recognized as 'something'. An even smaller percentage shall be classified as 'art'.

Indeed, our perception defines what we see, but within a very limited scope. The above-mentioned monkeys produced some kind of picture that some people perceived and categorized as 'art'. There is nothing wrong or strange about that. Human beings are extremely limited in their perception of things, due to both psychological and biological factors. Of course, because we are quite limited in our perception, we might think of art as being diverse, impossible to define and very, very broad. Within our perception it is. But in the 'reality' of our universe it is probably a very narrow definition.

Delusion is our lot in life. It only gets dangerous if/when any one individual thinks his/her delusion to be more true than those others have.

... back to the thread, kids. ;-)

oDDity
09-06-2006, 04:45 AM
Forget what anyone esle thinks, and make up your own mind.
I know the implication is that because I haven't had a formal art background, I'm not as entitled to an opinion on art, but I thnk it's actually the other way around, I think some of you guys have been badly influenced by art school. You go there at a young age, you're obviously easily influenced, you're told about how great picasso and cubism was, and you just spend the rest of your life with that fact engrained in you - 'picasso was great'.

avkills
09-06-2006, 04:56 AM
Forget what anyone esle thinks, and make up your own mind.
I know the implication is that because I haven't had a formal art background, I'm not as entitled to an opinion on art, but I thnk it's actually the other way around, I think some of you guys have been badly influenced by art school. You go there at a young age, you're obviously easily influenced, you're told about how great picasso and cubism was, and you just spend the rest of your life with that fact engrained in you - 'picasso was great'.

This I can definitely agree with.

-mark

Kuzey
09-06-2006, 05:52 AM
picasso can be ok on a given day but not on others, cubism is not my cup of tea.

Matisse is higher on my list, some of the other artists I like are:

Alberto Giacometti

Frank Auerbach

Gustav Klimt

As far as I'm concerned if you want realism then just take a photo and be done with it. It's a bit like painting by numbers anyway :neener:

I saw your thread on the 3d replication of a masterpiece and it only grabbed my interest for say 10 seconds, for one thing I already saw the image of the real painting before so there wasn't any wow factor. Then if I remember, you said you were thinking of animating the water, that made me laugh because I remember seeing that done somewhere else too. I also saw a documentary where the painting came to life and what not so that was cool and then there's a film coming out as well.

You spend so much time making something that's done before and then you think up new ways to add a new bent to it but those were done before too....but keep trying, you'll get there maybe baby :thumbsup:

Abstract art is the real masterpiece...everything else is sunday painting :help:


Kuzey

bobakabob
09-06-2006, 06:01 AM
Forget what anyone esle thinks, and make up your own mind.
I know the implication is that because I haven't had a formal art background, I'm not as entitled to an opinion on art, but I thnk it's actually the other way around, I think some of you guys have been badly influenced by art school. You go there at a young age, you're obviously easily influenced, you're told about how great picasso and cubism was, and you just spend the rest of your life with that fact engrained in you - 'picasso was great'.

With great respect, you seem to have one mega sized chip on your shoulder about art schools. And yet again, you're making sweeping assumptions - this time about the artistic background of Lightwavers who post here.

Many, including myself are self taught but of course, you should show some respect to those who have trained at art school. Of course they can vary in quality. But look at the outstanding Lightwave work DAVE School is producing for example. There are also many respected institutions in the Uk which teach a range of skills including anatomy. :lwicon:

This thread is called General Discussion, and you're obviously as entitled as everyone else to shoot the breeze with fellow artists. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're 'brainwashed'. It's fun to throw around ideas about art but you're constantly sailing close to the wind with your netiquette, matey.

parm
09-06-2006, 06:30 AM
Picasso is not one of the giants of 20th Century Art, because art students have been somehow brain washed into thinking he is. It is not an elaborate con. But it is is because of the far reaching effect that his work and ideas have had. Not just the visual arts but on the way we now perceive and think about our world.

oDDity. If you think that the purpose of Art school is indoctrination. You are very mistaken. In fact the opposite is true, at least in Fine Art. Further more, the reality is, if you haven't studied Art, then you should not be surprised, if your opinions on the subject lack credibility, and come across as naive.

The discussion about the use of models and other elements available on the web and elsewhere. Is very interesting.
The situation we have here; is that, potentially limitless numbers artists can contribute to the production of artwork.
It opens up, really exciting opportunities that have never existed before. It is entirely new. And for the first time in ages, points toward a very new mode of Art practise.

It's a real shame that potentially greatly interesting discussions, get side tracked by ridiculous discussions about what Art is.

starbase1
09-06-2006, 07:14 AM
I'm very interested in the ideas involved in how much input I cshould have to an input or animation, before it is really 'mine'.

When I sterted doing 3d I felt bad about using anything more than surface presets. But after a while I began to notice some things, such as...

1. The professionals have no quibles about buying in what they need, if it meets their needs.

2. Amateurs often put a LOT more effort into their models than pros. This is really noticable with things like SF models where the guys who do the originals may have an hour or two to model a ship for that weeks episode. They work to the minimum level needed. The fans then spend months making a tweaked superfine super high polycount version that the pros would never consider...

3. It makes no sense for me to spend weeks making an inferior version of a figure I can buy for ten dollars, and then tweak to hide its origins.

As is fairly well known, for the crowds in stands for episode 1 of Star Wars they used painted cotton buds. It worked.

I may not be a pro, but I value my time like one!
Nick

CMT
09-06-2006, 08:24 AM
Forget what anyone esle thinks, and make up your own mind.
I know the implication is that because I haven't had a formal art background, I'm not as entitled to an opinion on art, but I thnk it's actually the other way around, I think some of you guys have been badly influenced by art school. You go there at a young age, you're obviously easily influenced, you're told about how great picasso and cubism was, and you just spend the rest of your life with that fact engrained in you - 'picasso was great'.

If the art school is a good one, they would not push you to like the art movement/artist. The good schools/professors just ask you to study it and make up your own mind. I think most people have that power. Not just you. You don't give people the credit they are due.

Rayek
09-06-2006, 10:12 AM
oDDity,

the question you might ask yourself is: 'why do I feel I have to say to people who possess formal art training, that they are badly influenced?'

I, like you, do not have a formal training in art and design. However, I, through reading, experience, practice and especially interaction with my peers, have been teaching all kinds of design classes (low and high level) these last few years. NEVER, EVER have I thought less of someone who chose to pursue design or art through 'traditional' classes or someone who chose to walk the path alone (like you). Both ways are commendable.

We all follow our own path... deriding people because of their choice (yes, choice!) sounds to me as if you need affirmation for your own choice. Being a cynic and uttering all kinds of criticism unto others is far easier than seeing their possibilities and potential.

R.

Rayek
09-06-2006, 10:21 AM
Parm, you are quite right: never before was so much raw material available to the budding artist/designer, whether amateur, or (semi)- professional. Because of the Internet and evolving software, new ways for anyone to be creative were exposed to them.

oDDity
09-06-2006, 05:24 PM
I agree, it doens't matter what path you take, it's the results that count.
I'm happy with my results thus far, the only regret I have is that I didn't start earlier in life.
I think it has left me feeling a lot more competitive and insecure than I might otherwise have been.

Bog
09-06-2006, 06:23 PM
I think it has left me feeling a lot more competitive and insecure than I might otherwise have been.

Yeah, well, we all have that. Most of us got into CG before there were any kind of formal qualification you could get in it. I was teaching by the time there was a formal qualification you could get in CG animation.

We're all there. You don't need to go stamping on anyone to prove your inner conflict. Take a day off. Be gratuitously nice to someone. Practice random acts of senseless kindness. It pays off in the end.

oDDity
09-07-2006, 01:58 AM
I think if everyone used their real names and real picture as an avatar on forums, I would change quite a lot, and behave more as I do in real life. As it is, I have a hard time seeing other members as real people, rather than just a nickname and silly little image, it totally depersonalises, or even 'a-personalises' everyone. You could just as easily be little bot programs running here.
I've always had this problem since I started using the internet.

kmaas
09-07-2006, 06:38 AM
Back on the Poser subject, as an example of where it can be very helpful, I used a Poser model for a TV commercial where we were on a very tight time budget. We had to have someone driving a car, I'm not that great of a modeler yet (I come from a programming background), nor am I fast at it, but we needed a model to fit into the commercial. Yeah, it didn't look that great. And the models that come with Poser (which we used) have a really lousy selection that actually look good. I think we may have even had to tweak it in Modeler after exporting it. But it was good enough, and it worked. And we got a finished commercial out on time. So, that's what Poser's good for, IMHO.

oDDity
09-07-2006, 09:15 AM
Not much of an advert though, is it...
'we have some mediocre models you can use if you're really desperate'

krimpr
09-07-2006, 09:37 AM
Not much of an advert though, is it...
'we have some mediocre models you can use if you're really desperate'

Sometimes mediocre models are perfect. I own an automated equipment manufacturing company that designs/builds custom automotive production machinery. I sometimes use Lightwave to make animations of proposed designs for potential customers to visually portray sequence of operations as a sales tool, and use the Poser Propack plugin to incorporate animated operators into the production stream. To develop custom characters for such a purpose would be a foolish waste of time and a way to guarantee to be weeks late with a proposal. Not everyone uses their software to attempt to produce classical, timeless images. Different people have different requirements and I'm quite grateful that Poser allows me to add something to my presentations that others don't use. It helps me pay my mortgage.

gareee
09-07-2006, 09:37 AM
I guess these wouldn't be interesting to you either...they are SO mediocre!

http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/polycount3d/UrbanEnvironment_small.jpg

http://forum.daz3d.com/postimages/origimage_5_634890.jpg

http://forum.daz3d.com/postimages/origimage_2_635543.jpg

oDDity
09-07-2006, 09:52 AM
What has any of that got to do with poser. The fact that other people use other apps to make content to sell is not the issue, poser gets none of the credit for that, the people who made it do.


Sometimes mediocre models are perfect. I own an automated equipment manufacturing company that designs/builds custom automotive production machinery. I sometimes use Lightwave to make animations of proposed designs for potential customers to visually portray sequence of operations as a sales tool, and use the Poser Propack plugin to incorporate animated operators into the production stream. To develop custom characters for such a purpose would be a foolish waste of time and a way to guarantee to be weeks late with a proposal. Not everyone uses their software to attempt to produce classical, timeless images. Different people have different requirements and I'm quite grateful that Poser allows me to add something to my presentations that others don't use. It helps me pay my mortgage.

All you need is to make one character and keep him for all your jobs.
You wouldn't have to make a new one every time. Poser doesn't do anything you couldn't have already done in lightwave. As you say , it doesn't have to be perfect anyway, so it wouldn't take much time or skill to make one.
Aside from that, you'd have learned a new skill and improved yourself.

gareee
09-07-2006, 11:31 AM
What has it got to do with poser? Simple. Regardless of what program the poser content was created in, once installed itrenders very easily in poser, without material tweaking, or spending even 5 minutes work. Load, position your camera, and render.

Supposed you need to have a static rendered backdrop? You COULD redo all the materials in lighwave, or you COULD just load it into poser and just render it. (And some higher end poser content might have 50 or more separate materials)

The point is, you are dissing poser content, as if it's "lesser" quality, when it's made from every other 3d application out there. So on one hand, you use the content available as a shining example as why it's not worth your while, and then on the OTHER hand, you dis the content not because of the quality, but because it was created in another application. So what is your REAL beef?

It's obviously NOT because of the quality, or the sheer unbelievable amount of content available.

I thnk you just like to argue for argument's sake, and really don't have a legitimate beef at all.

krimpr
09-07-2006, 11:41 AM
What has any of that got to do with poser. The fact that other people use other apps to make content to sell is not the issue, poser gets none of the credit for that, the people who made it do.



All you need is to make one character and keep him for all your jobs.
You wouldn't have to make a new one every time. Poser doesn't do anything you couldn't have already done in lightwave. As you say , it doesn't have to be perfect anyway, so it wouldn't take much time or skill to make one.
Aside from that, you'd have learned a new skill and improved yourself.

Point taken. It is something I intend to work on when I get more downtime. I guess the object of my post was to point out that there are times when pre-prepared solutions can be beneficial to utilize. I wasn't, however, trying to defend it as an excuse for not exploring LW's character creation/animation tools, or attempting to develop one's own skills further.

gareee
09-07-2006, 12:08 PM
Nope, there's nothing wrong with learning better tools, and creating your own stable of "canned" content ready to go, just as there's nothing wrong using ready to go content out there as well.

It all really depends on the job, and the goal of a render or animation.

Someone recently had to render a populated club on a deadline for a job,and using poser's characters and a bunch of different clothing saved the day for him. He modeled the club itself in lightwave to get a specific "feel", and then rendered th evariou sposer characters using the same lightset so they could be comped together well.

oDDity
09-08-2006, 02:31 AM
My point is, that if you're already a lightwave owner and user, you can already buy models and texture packs, and tons of stuff on turbosquid etc, including a wide variety of characters, so why do you need poser as well?
Has poser got better lighting? better rendering? better surface editor? Better scene tools?
YOu don't seem to be talking about poser itself, but about all the leet third party content you can get for it - but you can get that for any app.

starbase1
09-08-2006, 05:33 AM
My point is, that if you're already a lightwave owner and user, you can already buy models and texture packs, and tons of stuff on turbosquid etc, including a wide variety of characters, so why do you need poser as well?
Has poser got better lighting? better rendering? better surface editor? Better scene tools?
YOu don't seem to be talking about poser itself, but about all the leet third party content you can get for it - but you can get that for any app.

Well... I think I see what you are getting at. I think that poser has better, er, posing! It's a LOT easier for me to get a figure into the pose I want using poser, which is I guess why they called it that!

And yes, I do mainly use it and/or Daz Studio to get at the content. I really hate the interface, the P5 renderer has some horendous lighting bugs.

Soon as I can, I get it into LW.

The main thing is the price of the content - I can get a very good figure for my needs with morphs and high res textures for under $15. You won't get a native lightwave one of similar quality for less than 10 times that.

http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=33920

I wanted a stag beetle for a scene a few weeks back. I got one of Daz for under a fiver.
http://www.daz3d.com/shop.php?op=itemdetails&item=4234

Not too difficult to adjust the texture maps, and set up the legs for movement even with my ability. And for less than the cost of 2 pints of Hoegarden!

LW content is generally wildly overpriced in my view, and I suspect sells in very low quantities. Turbosquid seems to be particularly bad in this regard.

If people do know of a good source of reasonably priced LW content, I'd love to know... Or indeed if there are any good characters on Turbosquid at similar prices I have somehow missed.

Nick

starbase1
09-08-2006, 05:35 AM
Gareeeeeeeeee, or howver many 'e's it is! Are those street scenes rendered in LW?

Nick

gareee
09-08-2006, 07:49 AM
It's 3 "eee"s.. LOL. I was working with a bunch of South Africans during the opening of Diseny's Animal Kingdom, and since many of their names were unpronouncable to english based people without difficulty, we came up with this, which was unpronouncable to them as a joke. (we were all drinking at a launch party.) They are all wonderful people, thouight it a grand joke, and I ended up having it on a name tag, and it "stuck". Plus it's easy to hunt me down on the net with something unique.

And no, those street scenes are rendered in default poser ibl lights. Poser 6 support SSS, and ibl lighting, and has used a node based material system for about 4-5 years now. (So using nodes in lightwave is actually easy for me, since I've been using something like it for many years already.)

And to also answer Oddity's question, as previously mentioned, the whole point of using poser content is cost, and diversity. There are no where near the number of completed props and objects at Turbosquid, then at Daz, rendrosity, and poser pros, not counting many oter poser content resources.

And while you could buy them, and try to use them in any other app, how do you figure out where all the maps go, and what material settings were originally intended without poser?

And I whole heartedly agree.. look at the prices at Turosquid, and then look at th eprices of poser content... poser content is WAY underpriced (and most likely undervalued) because targeted at the consumer market, rather then the pro market. Profit is figured based on volume sales, rather then one shot "expensive" sales for unique projects.

But Oddity, do whatever you will.. model everything yourself, and don't take advantage of the free offers, and the wealth of already available content out there.. it's totally your loss, and you'll be cutting off your nose to spiteyour face.

starbase1
09-08-2006, 09:11 AM
I can sympathize - Russians call me "Neeek"...

Puguglybonehead
09-08-2006, 01:11 PM
Actually, on the usefulness of Poser, doesn't Poser get used for forensic animations and such? (car accident re-enactments, etc) I thought I'd read something about that before. I can also see it being an incredibly useful pre-viz app for filmmakers needing animatics and storyboards.

gareee
09-08-2006, 04:56 PM
Yep. It's also used a lot in the medical fields.. there's one company that specifically markets rigged biological models.

It also pops up all the time in still ad images.

I even have a commercial someone mailed me with one of my products featured.. it's a toon pig, and they used him as their mascot for a state fair.

starbase1
09-10-2006, 04:37 PM
Here's an enlarged still from a music video I am working on, done this weekend. Setting, stag beetle, and figure, all taken in from Poser format content.

gareee
09-10-2006, 06:32 PM
Pretty Cool!

newsvixen8
09-11-2006, 05:31 AM
Getting back to the original topic of Bryce 5... I downloaded it for use by my 13 year old, who is finally expressing an interest in animation (!) but whom I do not yet trust with my precious LW-9. As I walk him through the lovely tutorials by Robin Wood (http://www.robinwood.com./Catalog/Technical/BryceTuts/BryceTutSet.html I find Bryce to be a surprisingly sweet little tool, with a handy terrain generator that's sooooooo much easier than Vue Infinite. This is one I may actually add to the toolbox for myself.

starbase1
09-18-2006, 01:39 PM
Could not resist waking this thread - I've just done a bunch of images with this Poser based demon, for a music CD...

gareee
09-18-2006, 02:25 PM
Sanctum art's stuff is very cool, but very pricey, and he tends to be very customer UN freindly.

For instance, if he doesn't recognise your handle, he might email you and ask for proof you actually bought that phenotype!

he has the worst customer service of about any poser merchant I can think of, so I refuse to buy any more of his stuf, just for that one reason.

There are plenty of other really good artists that deserve the suppot more.

rakker16mm
09-19-2006, 12:35 AM
Bryce was my first 3D program. Loved it, and in a way I still do, but after struggling with Bryce for a long time I came to the conclusion it is not the rite tool for me.

It is good at what it does, but it is not one of those apps like photoshop, that transcends the original intention of it's creators. You soon find your self boxed in and struggling to work around its limitations. That combined with an appallingly slow render engine is all the rational I need to get over my sentimental feelings.

After I found out 5.0 wouldn't run on Tiger I knew it was time for something else. Then my sister gave me a copy of Lightwave 8. I've had it for about two or three months and I am doing all of the things it took tow or three months to do in Bryce.

The final nail in the coffin was that DAZ claimed Bryce 5.5 was going to have a faster render engine than 5.0 and was getting a lot of new features to boot. I borrowed a copy from my friend to try it out, and other than the fact that it now runs on Tiger I don't see any major improvements. It seems like the render engines is as slow as it ever was even though I am now using a Dual 2 GHz G5. The Mac I was running 5.0 on was an old Blue & White G3 running at 800 MHz.

Barring major improvements I will not be upgrading to 5.5 or 6 if it ever comes out.

Puguglybonehead
09-19-2006, 01:00 AM
Yeah, Bryce seemed like quite the thing back in the version 2/3 days, but nowadays even open-source stuff like Terragen has surpassed it. I guess it's development was badly hindered by having the app change hands so many times.