First of all, great tread bmud, you have a point (and examples!).
What i know is that Blender have features that no other package have (composite nodes INTEGRATED?). And when some one comes to me and say: Blender have “SSS” or “integrated Photons”? I say: nope, and Da Vinci have? I mean: Photons are great, I love this kind of feature, but in the end of the render they are just Pixels, just color. Do the “Machine” (actually I think hyper-realist render its hard to “configure” ) work by your self. Thats why I like Pixar, they try to do the things if the old technology first before work on a new way to do it. End features like the NODES are there for this kind of situation… and they are FAST! REALLY fast.
PS: the thing I must like in Blender and Open-source is this kind of discussion, I don’t read this in “other” forums…
PS 2: sorry for the poor English.
I tried it out. It requires Java 2.0 runtime environment. I go to Java site, the download section is incredibly disorganized and I have no idea which file I need to download. Can anyone point me to the exact file I need for XP?
Step 1: You likely have Java installed already, uninstall it. That’s usually the biggest problem. The upgrades just don’t work from the really old Java to the new.
Step 2: go to the java website, and get the “runtime” not the “SDK”
Step 3: Make sure you reboot!
I went through this recently. You’re not alone! Also try out some of Igarashi’s other projects! With things like Smooth Teddy, Fibermesh, and chameleon… you could get a nice complete model. Then import the OBJ, Retopo, Multires, and Sculpt if necessary. I thought working with fibers was a very intriguing way of modeling rapidly!
That philosophy is obsolete.
Have you ever used a pencil? I think you have. So they are still in use. So they’re still just as capable of creating any visual as any other tool. So you’re mistaken. Photoshop is a clumsy, high-powered pencil. Blender is a clumsy, high-powered modeling clay. Among friends…
I’d like to try and reestablish my visual points. You brought a lot of text to the table, Cognis. Time for some more pictures to freshen things up!
Yes his analysis makes a point. If you don’t have a grasp of all the essential concepts and facts, your work–no matter how many hyper-real tools it employs–will still look sub-par. Your point of view that all of this is irrelevant–composition, balance, colour–explains a lot of why the Siberia Complex looks the way it does.
EDIT: The whole ‘computer being a high-powered pencil’ is a metaphor, in case you hadn’t guessed.
OTHER EDIT: It’s interesting how you keep saying blender should ‘make it easier to get better results’, or ‘adapt to fit the needs of the user’ somehow, mysteriously, as if tons of back-breaking problem solving, cheats, work-arounds and manual labour don’t go into Hollywood films. What, is this supposed to be some kind of ‘magic button’ thing for you? It’s not going to happen, no matter how many paragraphs you use to say it.
Right on, Blackboe! There isn’t time for such lengthy arguments. This thread isn’t for arguing. :no:
Blender is still highly dependent on crafty users;
And what software doesn’t require a crafty user? Even pen, paper, clay, oils, india ink, or whatever can be very elusive. So, to bring all of this full-circle, art and animation both are just a feast for the eyes. Even what looks “terrible,” so long as interesting elements are present, becomes “entertaining.”
If you truly believe that it is the artist that decides 99% of the quality, I dare you to draw any image from the gallery in MS Paint
How’s this? Well, I like it, and it took about ten minutes including all the rough sketching that painted over.
Albert Einstein: “Creativity is more important than knowledge.”
Use whatever technique you can use to get something for your audience to look at. Someone mentioned liking Tarantino films because they’re rough around the edges… well that’s part of the composition. If you freeze-frame one of your favorite parts, you might just see the horizontals and verticals and focal points that he’s building. Film is nice in that you can just capture all of that instantly.
you have to use the proper tools to do the job properly. I’d be hard to make a louis14th chair with a pocket knife or chainsaw…it could be done, but the results would either suck or take a long time regardless of the craftsman’s skill.
tools/workbench should be modifiable to some extent…no two craftman’s workbench’s are laid out identically; in this case, software gets used based on how close it can come to the craftman’s preferences…applies even to the ‘fancy pencil’ metaphor… the more comfortable the ‘pencil’ is to use/be modified for prefered use, the easier the creative stuff will come out because the artist doesn’t have to think about the tool.
compostion and color stuff is just the knowledge needed to do a decent job…its hard to make something when you have no idea how it works.
just my opinion.
and according to Chuck Jones, everyone has a million bad pictures inside of them. The more you draw, the faster they get out of you so the good ones can come…
in other words,
practice makes perfect… blender on
[EDIT: Once more, my apparently controversial opinions on the importance of tools and tool efficiency have been removed] As for the original topic, the idea of more features aimed at improving the ease of movie production still sounds good to me; there are plenty of features, but a very steep learning curve for all but the basics, even with the BlenderWiki. I agree with Howitzer that Blender is still behind on matching animation features with the market in general, though only in ease-of-use; the basic features are there, its just that learning curve again… I also agree with bmud that it would be a good idea to keep an eye in intuitive tools developed elsewhere; code is patented, but ideas are not, so let’s swipe them:p. FiberMesh looks awefully intriguing…
How could we make Blender more studio-accessible? By that I do not mean “let’s peddle it to Universal and Paramount”, but rather let’s make it something that would-be 3D moviemakers could use better.
[EDIT: And again, my apparently controversial opinions on the importance of tools and tool efficiency have been removed]
I said absolutely nothing of the kind. What I mean is that instead of sitting around, waiting for the developers to make you tons of stuff, you could at least take a cue from holly-wood and put effort into making things with what you have. Remember Star Wars? They only used models and super-imposing, and the special effects bent people’s minds. I’m just saying that you might was well just make do with what you have, because waiting for other people to get the work set up for you will get you no-where. Even now, with all the CGI tools these studios have, people have to tweak, and twist, and fake, and break the system to get things done, whether because of time limitations or tool limitations.
I know MS paint is inferior, and the picture DID take a lot longer than it might have in Blender, but once again, that’s not the point. The point is you have such a reverence for features, like that they somehow, magically, solve all problems. I just figured the whole thing could use a little bringing down to earth. Anyway, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and somewhere along the wonderful, easy, great-looking features for you to use, someone will have had to do a crapload of work.
Last thing. I am not in any way saying that I don’t care if Blender has SSS and Caustics. These are both really great features, and I’m extremely thankful for the work the devs put in, it’s more like–though–that during the time when blender didn’t have these things, it wasn’t a focal point for me. I did what I could with what I had. And hey, Moonmoth wasn’t the greatest, I see where I could’ve done things differently, but it wasn’t bad, and it didn’t use either of those.
“Yes, as I stated, 50% tool 50% user. All art is a partnership between the artist and the medium; ask any artist (if not, no artist would have a prefered medium, because tools wouldn’t matter).”
I agree if: “all art is a partnership between the artist and the medium”, but not if the “50% tool / user” part. I think the main thing is that the tool it self “don’t matter” (to give you good results), the Knowledge of Tool does matter. A artist can do great things if a pencil or a “BIC”, but nothing if Blender or Maya, just because he doesn’t know how to use a mouse.
I agree (with all who say it) that great artists can do great things with next to nothing (I especially admire colored sand art). I also agree that no talent/skill means little to no chance of anything worth notice (dumb luck still counts, I guess). My exact point being that the result is where artist and tool meets. Better tools, better chances. Better artist, better chances. No guarantees either way. That’s why I state 50/50. Might be 70/30 or even 80/20, but it is not the math I mention it for, it’s just the principle that tools matter, and greatly so (IMHO). I never said the new features did not matter to anyone here, the point was the opposite: They do matter, hence the tools matter (greatly, IMHO). And please stop that ‘magic button’ stuff, efficiency is a valid concern unless you’re just fooling around. And with the thread based on Hollywood remarks, fooling around is not at the core of it, I would assume. But my assumptions should no longer concern anyone here.
But I would urge people to forget that I ever said anything, since people clearly do find matters of efficiency that interesting, whether they are a big thing in Hollywoodish questions or not. So please, disregard me and go about the more artistic concerns that apply to the conversation. I have edited out most of my unwanted comments, making way for a more harmonic conversation amongst you all. Don’t let me interrupt anymore.
I think it’s interesting that Ed Catmull made it to BlenderNation today and it reminded me of this thread. Really listen to some of the tough questions that are being asked being answered by someone who knows both worlds of old school 2-dimensional art and all the technicalities of 3D.
Just some interesting snippets that tickled my noggin… (paraphrased)
“Dave writes: I’m wondering about what Dr. Catmull thinks about the future of computer graphics research. On a personal level, I’m curious what he thinks about physical simulation.”
“Well, let me ask you, is it easy to use?”
“What do you think is missing from animation schools these days / computer sciences?”
“The thing I like in any schools is when they start films early. You have to go through a couple to learn something. … It’s also good to have a liberal education and to be balanced.”
“Do you think it’s better to just draw if you want to be a computer animator?”
“Generally the people that have a drawing background are very strong. The problem with learning from CG is if you have to spend a lot of time in a lot of areas to make your film, you don’t really get the depth that you need. If you’re talking animators, then you spend just a lot of time animating. If you spend a lot of time lighting and shading you’re not animating – and you need to go through that process of observing the world and trying to capture it to convey characters coming to life – and that itself is very time consuming.”
On a side note, Cognis, I want you to come back. I was sad to see for forfeit your half of an important debate, and I want to fire it up again. Together, we’ll figure out the best balance of solutions