Hmm, I have recently got a claim that all 3D art is soulless, and Stinted. Well, let me show you a few renders out of the thinking box:
These four images are from the CG Society. Are you going to stand by your opinion that CG is stilted, soulless, and non-dynamic? Or are you going to retract your previous statement?
Elton Robb
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Those are very nice. They have a natural look, and give the appearance of fluid motion.
Much better than the two examples that you posted previously. Those two were rigid - hence my comment about the lack of dynamics.
If all computer generated art looked like the stuff you put in this post, I would retract my statement. But as long as the majority look as lifeless as the two in the previous post, my statement stands.
No offense - many people disagree obviously, particularly those who are trying to sell their computer art.
I would imagine the programs to get cg art to look this good are very expensive. Are you able to do anything on this level?
I went back and re-read my statement, and I did say "all CG art" so I do retract that statement. I should have said all that I have seen. I will modify that staement to be "the overwhelming majority of CG art."
Until it all looks as good as the pieces you have posted here, it will still be a medium dominated by stiff-posed figures that lack dynamacs.
(In your previous post you wanted me to defend this - do you know what dynamics are in art? Not being snarky - just wondering if I need to define that.)
I just need a little guidance (in the form of a book) to get there. Which i have. I can do Vue images that are just as good. Which means, I have to look into the Collada export of DAZ Studio 4 Pro.
3 comments:
Those are very nice. They have a natural look, and give the appearance of fluid motion.
Much better than the two examples that you posted previously. Those two were rigid - hence my comment about the lack of dynamics.
If all computer generated art looked like the stuff you put in this post, I would retract my statement. But as long as the majority look as lifeless as the two in the previous post, my statement stands.
No offense - many people disagree obviously, particularly those who are trying to sell their computer art.
I would imagine the programs to get cg art to look this good are very expensive. Are you able to do anything on this level?
I went back and re-read my statement, and I did say "all CG art" so I do retract that statement. I should have said all that I have seen. I will modify that staement to be "the overwhelming majority of CG art."
Until it all looks as good as the pieces you have posted here, it will still be a medium dominated by stiff-posed figures that lack dynamacs.
(In your previous post you wanted me to defend this - do you know what dynamics are in art? Not being snarky - just wondering if I need to define that.)
Otis
Yep. I am.
I just need a little guidance (in the form of a book) to get there. Which i have. I can do Vue images that are just as good. Which means, I have to look into the Collada export of DAZ Studio 4 Pro.
Post a Comment