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