I have a LONG history with Blender - I wrote some of the earliest Blender tutorials, worked for Not a Number and helped run the crowdfunding campaign that open sourced Blender (the first one on the internet!). I founded BlenderNation in 2006 and have been editing it every single day since then ;-) I also run the Blender Artists forum and I'm Community Lead at n8n.
Good overall looking but I have to make some criticism: 1) Too much aliasing on glasses 2) Bad UV mapping on sprig 3) The cloth has no thickness (or is too much thin) 4) THE 3DS MAX 9 BOOK!! (side uv mapping and… 3ds max 9 topic ;))
I agree with the previous comment, even if the render is very nice and clean, its maybe too clean, everything look perfect, there’s no dust. Still good job
Geez You guys! Talk about being hyper-critical. This is fantastic. If 99.9% of people didn’t know it was made in Blender they would think it was a real scene – including you lot. You lot are like pretentious art critics who have to find fault even when it’s not there just to make yourself feel better.
Next time I want to make a (positive and constructive) criticism I will ask for your permission so you’ll feel better too. IMHO critism help artist to grow more than “Oh my god! This is awesome, perfect, it seems so real!”. Sorry man, I dont have bad feelings to you but I totally disagree with your comment.
Artists can get the OMG WONDERFUL just by showing their artwork to their family if that’s the point. On a CG community website, interesting and technical crtiqiue is an added value that any artist should use to push its skills further and learn to understand better how people really perceive the artworks.
If someone say “this is wonderful, I love it but here are the points that could be improved IMO” it’s not to appear smart, it’s to help.
Oh and : artists can do whatever they want with these critiques, ignore them (that would be sad) or use them.
I always wonder why the focus is always on the realism and not the art itself. Sure in this case the artist is aiming for a degree of realism but I think the relentless pursuit for absolute photo realism may be misguided. I understand that critque is a good thing, but perfection is in the eye of the beholder and to this artist, this is how he sees the world through his eyes. We should appreciate that. If he wanted a critique he would post on a critique board. Maybe he did. But as I see it, the artist is saying this is how I see it.
Nobody said to the artist how the world is. We only make technical criticism about aliasing and uv mapping, bad cloth appearance or “I like”/”I don’t like”. If I go to the cinema to watch a beautiful movie about middle ages, and I see an actor wearing a wristwatch, can I say “This is not correct” or I have to wait that the movie director post it on a critique board? I never said “Put the chair here” or “change the picture on the frame”. I’m pretty sure that artist will take this positive criticisms and make them useful for growing up. If it is not, nevermind. That’s it.
No offense ment whatsoever but your comments were not technical in my option. For example, to many people the cloth looks great. Technical is a shadow is incorrect, or a texture seam is obvious. Everything you stated is an option. This gentlemen like many artist probably stared at his scene endlessly until he thought it was perfect in his own mind. Therefore it is perfect from his perspective. This is his vision. Some artist seek to focus on realism because their object is centered in the scene and is the only object in it. There was a radio a while back that looked photo perfect. There is nothing wrong with that either. I just don’t think it should be the standard by which all CGI is measured anymore.
My point is the Holy Grail of photo realism has been achieved in CGI and therefore in my option is no longer the Holy Grail of CGI. Maybe we can focus on the artistic perspective, composition etc. more. Your options are important but defining something as “bad”when it is option just doesnt seem right to me. I will stop babbling now..
I think you have a couple of valid points, but I think the overall assumption is when a project like this is done the purpose is photorealism of real world objects in a real world setting for a couple of reasons.
Reasoning, it’s not stylized. Most items in this scene show a great amount of realism and also the compositing is very natural “real” looking. Compositing or modeling in this piece doesn’t lend itself to any stylized art. (Nor does this piece look hyper-realistic to me). Saying those two things, the cloth seems to be the main things that people spot as “off”. It’s because all the other objects are photorealistic that this one item stands out from the rest. I would say if other items had a similar ‘thin’ look it may be understood by the artist community it’s a specific look /style the artist is going for, but that’s not the case here. I would also add, even if the compositing of this nice scene was stylized, the cloth would still be too thin as compared to other objects. I really do think, as well as most people posting there critique, the cloth needs a bit of work because nothing else in the scene lends itself to anything but realism.
I believe the key is consistency / coherency with what the observer sees and what the artist envisions. Most people here would probably agree with you that photo-realism is not the zenith or hallmark of great art, but rather a technical feat and a means to create art. Perhaps I’m myopic and alone in my perception on these things. :-)
I like the octane version better, but both are nice pieces! I really like the soft look and tone. Thanks for sharing!
Why should I be offended? You didn’t say that I criticize just to make me feel better ;). Anyway I disagree again with you just because you made the cloth as the key point of my criticism. I talked about aliasing and UV mapping. Aliasing and UV mapping are pure technical elements. Cloth thickness may be an option if artist don’t want realism. I think this artist wants to achieve photorealism so the cloth is important too but that’s not the matter of discussion. My “Bad” UVs are not like “evil” or “noobbish” or “youstupidartist” UVs so smart people can’t say I was rude or arrogant with artist. “Bad” is “Wrong”,”imperfect”,”defective”, “not good”, “you can work a little on it and it will be beautiful”… but it is just my opinion and it is free. Please don’t make a simple word (“bad”) like a handle to attack me. If UVs seem good to you… well, good for you! But nobody can’t forbid me to express my opinion. I have to say last thing: “Sorry for my english”, it’s not my first language, I talked a lot in this board and I don’t want to be misunderstood :).
Regarding critiques for this one. The /only/ real showstopper for me is not even visible in the reduced-size sample picture. When I click through to the full-size pic, I notice something and am not sure what caused it. What I notice is that the cloth has these straight thin diagonal lines running through it, and even where the cloth is folded and curved and changes direction, the lines still run straight through as if they were somehow mapped globally. I am not sure how that can even happen, if it’s a bug in the rendering engine or something else. And I don’t say it to crtiticize the work, I am absolutely and only curious to know the root cause of it, so I can learn from it.
Good overall looking but I have to make some criticism: 1) Too much aliasing on glasses 2) Bad UV mapping on sprig 3) The cloth has no thickness (or is too much thin) 4) THE 3DS MAX 9 BOOK!! (side uv mapping and… 3ds max 9 topic ;))
I agree with the previous comment, even if the render is very nice and clean, its maybe too clean, everything look perfect, there’s no dust. Still good job
hey! Whats that Max book doing there!? ;-)
And that’s a problem or what?
I would prefer his octane one:
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum/download/file.php?id=13815&mode=view
his.. aah oh its by BB´s one;)
I should reead before i post,
sorry:)
Yeah, the Octane one is beautifully done. But this one is outstanding as well.
Geez You guys! Talk about being hyper-critical. This is fantastic. If 99.9% of people didn’t know it was made in Blender they would think it was a real scene – including you lot. You lot are like pretentious art critics who have to find fault even when it’s not there just to make yourself feel better.
Are you sure that’s the motivation?
Next time I want to make a (positive and constructive) criticism I will ask for your permission so you’ll feel better too. IMHO critism help artist to grow more than “Oh my god! This is awesome, perfect, it seems so real!”. Sorry man, I dont have bad feelings to you but I totally disagree with your comment.
word
+1000000
Artists can get the OMG WONDERFUL just by showing their artwork to their family if that’s the point. On a CG community website, interesting and technical crtiqiue is an added value that any artist should use to push its skills further and learn to understand better how people really perceive the artworks.
If someone say “this is wonderful, I love it but here are the points that could be improved IMO” it’s not to appear smart, it’s to help.
Oh and : artists can do whatever they want with these critiques, ignore them (that would be sad) or use them.
That looks very real to me.
I always wonder why the focus is always on the realism and not the art itself. Sure in this case the artist is aiming for a degree of realism but I think the relentless pursuit for absolute photo realism may be misguided. I understand that critque is a good thing, but perfection is in the eye of the beholder and to this artist, this is how he sees the world through his eyes. We should appreciate that. If he wanted a critique he would post on a critique board. Maybe he did. But as I see it, the artist is saying this is how I see it.
Its a beautiful piece.
Nobody said to the artist how the world is. We only make technical criticism about aliasing and uv mapping, bad cloth appearance or “I like”/”I don’t like”. If I go to the cinema to watch a beautiful movie about middle ages, and I see an actor wearing a wristwatch, can I say “This is not correct” or I have to wait that the movie director post it on a critique board? I never said “Put the chair here” or “change the picture on the frame”. I’m pretty sure that artist will take this positive criticisms and make them useful for growing up. If it is not, nevermind. That’s it.
No offense ment whatsoever but your comments were not technical in my option. For example, to many people the cloth looks great. Technical is a shadow is incorrect, or a texture seam is obvious. Everything you stated is an option. This gentlemen like many artist probably stared at his scene endlessly until he thought it was perfect in his own mind. Therefore it is perfect from his perspective. This is his vision. Some artist seek to focus on realism because their object is centered in the scene and is the only object in it. There was a radio a while back that looked photo perfect. There is nothing wrong with that either. I just don’t think it should be the standard by which all CGI is measured anymore.
My point is the Holy Grail of photo realism has been achieved in CGI and therefore in my option is no longer the Holy Grail of CGI. Maybe we can focus on the artistic perspective, composition etc. more. Your options are important but defining something as “bad”when it is option just doesnt seem right to me. I will stop babbling now..
I think you have a couple of valid points, but I think the overall assumption is when a project like this is done the purpose is photorealism of real world objects in a real world setting for a couple of reasons.
Reasoning, it’s not stylized. Most items in this scene show a great amount of realism and also the compositing is very natural “real” looking. Compositing or modeling in this piece doesn’t lend itself to any stylized art. (Nor does this piece look hyper-realistic to me). Saying those two things, the cloth seems to be the main things that people spot as “off”. It’s because all the other objects are photorealistic that this one item stands out from the rest. I would say if other items had a similar ‘thin’ look it may be understood by the artist community it’s a specific look /style the artist is going for, but that’s not the case here. I would also add, even if the compositing of this nice scene was stylized, the cloth would still be too thin as compared to other objects. I really do think, as well as most people posting there critique, the cloth needs a bit of work because nothing else in the scene lends itself to anything but realism.
I believe the key is consistency / coherency with what the observer sees and what the artist envisions. Most people here would probably agree with you that photo-realism is not the zenith or hallmark of great art, but rather a technical feat and a means to create art. Perhaps I’m myopic and alone in my perception on these things. :-)
I like the octane version better, but both are nice pieces! I really like the soft look and tone. Thanks for sharing!
Why should I be offended? You didn’t say that I criticize just to make me feel better ;). Anyway I disagree again with you just because you made the cloth as the key point of my criticism. I talked about aliasing and UV mapping. Aliasing and UV mapping are pure technical elements. Cloth thickness may be an option if artist don’t want realism. I think this artist wants to achieve photorealism so the cloth is important too but that’s not the matter of discussion. My “Bad” UVs are not like “evil” or “noobbish” or “youstupidartist” UVs so smart people can’t say I was rude or arrogant with artist. “Bad” is “Wrong”,”imperfect”,”defective”, “not good”, “you can work a little on it and it will be beautiful”… but it is just my opinion and it is free. Please don’t make a simple word (“bad”) like a handle to attack me. If UVs seem good to you… well, good for you! But nobody can’t forbid me to express my opinion. I have to say last thing: “Sorry for my english”, it’s not my first language, I talked a lot in this board and I don’t want to be misunderstood :).
Regarding critiques for this one. The /only/ real showstopper for me is not even visible in the reduced-size sample picture. When I click through to the full-size pic, I notice something and am not sure what caused it. What I notice is that the cloth has these straight thin diagonal lines running through it, and even where the cloth is folded and curved and changes direction, the lines still run straight through as if they were somehow mapped globally. I am not sure how that can even happen, if it’s a bug in the rendering engine or something else. And I don’t say it to crtiticize the work, I am absolutely and only curious to know the root cause of it, so I can learn from it.
And now, I retract my previous comment because I can see that my eyes were simply tricking me!