This super charming scene by shxfreestyle may take you back to your youth :)
This is my very latest Project.
It all started with a pencil sharpener as a texturing exercise. It was fun so I modelled and textured some pencils and more and more stuff. Then I watched Interstellar in the cinema (which had some really inspiring visuals) and wanted to do some kind of space thing. This Spaceshuttle Toy is what came out. At the end the sharpener and all the other small stuff didn't make it in to the final Render because i chose to put the spaceshuttle outside in the grass.
Hope you enjoy and please tell me if you like it or not
(Cycles 1000samples, Blender Compositor, Gimp)
30 Comments
Looks realistic!
Looks really good. Is the grass real or 3d?
I'm pretty sure the grass used is from the grass essentials from Andrew Price. Looks fairly cookie cutter to me.
How is that cookie cutter? You probably are too cheap to have something as time saving as grass essentials. Would like to see your contributions please.
@RMA: Excuse me? Most people use the grass essentials in exactly the same way. Look at basically any render involving the grass essentials, the grass all looks the same!
I don't doubt that it's time saving, but it's used way too often as a simple drag and drop function.
@shane: It's very realistic, but like I said, it usually looks the same everywhere. Sadly I don't have a better alternative.
Your criticism is sadly misplaced. You don't have anything to contribute and that is sad. i didn't ask for an alternative for grass but simply an image we can compare of your to this one.
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?369109-Sting&highlight=
Hey guys, calm down.
@RMA: no need to call someone 'too cheap' to do anything. TARDISMAKER does have a point that Grass Essentials scenes often look similar, even though I think it offers enough flexibility to change settings and create different looking types of grass surfaces.
Meh. Seen one plot of grass you've seen them all, really. This is getting dangerously close to quibbling about hair strand renders or water shaders looking "too much alike", or "that football looks 'too much like' so-and-so's football." First thing I thought when I saw it was that it was built by using something similar to the Gleb Alexandrov "four-sunlamps" tutorial.
Yes. The discussion is really out of the line. But, I agree too with @Tardismaker: when I see grass essentials used in artistic compositions, the "wow" effect gets diminished by a whole lot.
Then again, the way @RMA started calling out tardismaker was totally out of place. You dont need to be an artist (or a great artist) to have an opinion at anything. Otherwise, us for example, wouldnt even have a say on music styles. (well maybe some of you are musicians but I assume it is not your main skill :P)
Have a good day and breathe twice before calling out on someone else's opinion.
I don't agree with the fact that "Seen one plot of grass you've seen them all". There are literally hundreds of species compsing the various grass patches all over the world, split into different groups growing in different climates, all mixed with different varieties of plants which aren't considered "grass" (such as flowers).
This particular patch of grass, while i'm not identifying the species in it, seems to me one of the most common mixes you can see in Europe, especially in some abandoned and unwatered gardens in the mediterranean area, yet it seems too "green" to be growing in such a place.
Then, there is the regularly cut grass in gardens, with it's chipped leaves and mostly unigorm light green color, which i never seen in renderings, maybe because it's considered uninteresting.
In different parks, some varieties of plant are more abundant than others: in some, the classic thin-leaf grass might prevail, while in others you can see more clover or chicory.
Based on the season, the very common "bermuda grass" may present inflorescences at different stadiums.
I hope you see grass isn't always the same, which is why the grass essentials have so many settings.
Footbals are: they are produced in batches with standardized processes :P
To follow up and expand upon GSPIN's observations, it would appear that Grass Essentials isn't as cookie-cutter as its detractors say after all. If it does have enough options available in the settings to make so many different varieties and combinations of grassland, it seems very likely to me that a good original nature effort could have grass which is easily mistakable for something generated by Grass Essentials with various amounts of option-tweaking, and being expected to determine and deliberately avoid such similarities in an original effort could potentially even become artistically restrictive. I'm not sure how strong of a consideration something like that should be.
@TARDISMAKER I really do not care if is "grass essentials" or not, it is still incredible and this does not diminish the excellent work of the author...
Agreed, it is a good piece of art.
Ah, there will be many more than!! I think it isn't the focus though and looks impressive Enough. What would you recommend as better grass, @tardismaker?
Very nice work! I love this piece. The space shuttle is straight out of my childhood memories, and the grass is stunning.
+1 Russwulf. This is what counts. In art, the viewer is as much a part of the experience as the creator. If the work evokes a story in the viewer, it has succeeded.
Well, after all the buzz it seems that grass essentials wasnot used in here so really good work from the artist!
Oh, wow you right! I feel really stupid now. I have much more respect for the image now.
No harm done... a lot of people on the forums have done a "Did you get that from Andrew Price" over the years.
It is all good brother.
It's a very real dilemma sometimes, isn't it. That something should not only look good, or be faithful to a given photo reference, but to also not be mistaken for the results of a commercial plug-in... I'm honestly quite on the fence as to how to balance one against the other. I just want to make the best mountains and grasslands and trees and water and such that I can, without worrying about any of it being "derivative" (for lack of a better word) of some other scene.
Yeah, the result is what matters, and this is good :)
If art was valued based on the time you spent on it, or even on good-looks or on realism, then the "dada" shouldn't have gotten into museums and history-of-art books ;)
Yes, the result is what matters, but the end result, when you use assets created by someone else, has to have a greater work on anything else, like the story behind the composition, so the interest doesnt end being that thing you didnt do.
Just think about a real life scenary: you bought a really good looking chair at IKEA, you went to the art museum, put it somewhere and gave to it some lighting.
Is that a good art composition? No. Because your effort was minimum. You just put something you didnt make on a background and that is all.
That was the problem with this image, when some of us thought that the artist used grass essentials. The story behind the image isnt really good. I could say, there is actually none. It is just an object over the grass, that at first sight, didnt appear like the artist made it. So yeah, it look cheap. (Grass essentials was made to look good)
Now that we know the artist did everything, hell, this is one freaking good job, and I have to eat my words. I still find there is no real story behind this, but who cares when the result looks like this and the artist did everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
I can't say this "fountain" took time to realize. Maybe Duchamp thought about it a bit before making it, but then all he did was picking a piece of ceramic, putting it in the wrong position and writing a pseudonym on it. Yet, at the time this was so revolutionary, that it became art.
Of course, dada is long gone (it also didn't last long) and attempts to imitate it now would be just... out of place. Maybe.
PS: i'm throwing this around because it's what i'm studying now at school for a test, so it easily comes to my mind when talking about the "effort" in art :P
@GSPIN: Yeah, it was obvious that you are still studying, and learning from this specific time in art.
You said it: it was a revolutionary piece in a moment where every single person involved in arts was in a revolutionary mindset. But that piece, The fountain, was considered art because it was placed out of context. It was "transformed", from a urinal, to a fountain, wich was pretty clever. Revolutionary by all means. The first 5 decades of the last century was filled with art movements, questioning and breaking every rule, and who can blame them. Those times were filled wars, poverty, human and women abuse, stupid laws, etc... It was a moment where everyone was exploring and thinking as out of the box as they could, as a protest to their time or just to escape from it.
If you think of this timeline in art history and compare it to a human brain development, you could say that in this hystorical time, their brain was like a teenager's one. Discovering and breaking rules, and protesting about everything.
But now, we are a whole century after that. Our times are different, our understanding and rules are different. So this example of the fountain, is more of an anecdote than an example of what is art and what is not today.. I, by myself, dont feel like I have the courage to say what is art and what isnt. I can just give my opinion, in a time in history where is totally easy to acquire things, morph them and make something new out of it. And this gets even easier if we are talking about digital assets.
So when things are as easy as they are now, everyone claims (or should) for a more profound meaning behind things. You just not gather a bunch of things, throw into a (real life) blender and present them as a product. Because of: why?
Think of it as game development: What if I buy a bunch of game assets and make a game out of it that has nothing in particular regarding gameplay. Does this look like it involved art? No. Does this look like an original work? Far from it. It just looks like a technical work, like the many Architectural renders out there.
As you should be understanding, I am not saying that buying assets and using them in your art composition will make it worse or less artistic. It just asks for a greater mental process to make an original composition and concept out of this. Like the fountain did. It changed it's whole meaning where you stoped seeing an urinal, while seeing Duchamp's concept.
Buying assets isnt a bad thing by itself. It is how you use them.
Anyone can move things around the 3D viewport.
I used it to say just that nobody should say what is art and what isn't. Except the author himself. He only really knows why he did what he did. If if he had an own objective, or if he just did what he was asked to and nothing more, or if he was just in a copy/paste/throw colors rage.
And he can't even say it to others, because he may just lie.
My example was anachronistic and out of place, but really nothing else would come to my mind XD
What i'm trying to say too is that you don't need anything other than a thought and an efficient way of expressing it, wether it's poetry, sculpture, painting or anything else, even plain talking in a bar.
This means that even the best techniques can't do anything if there is no thought to communicate, and even the greatest interpretation of human life will remain a secret known only to it's author if he is uncapable of attracting other people's interest and letting the message slip into their minds.
And i have to add that i'm not really sure i should be writing what i am. I'm somehow feeling l'ke my knowledge (and/or thinking) on the matter may actually be too much superficial, and this makes me vacillate while trying to make my point. Then, i'm also not so sure i'm actually writing in English :P
I myself am a bit disheartened to find out that archviz renders are getting considered to be the new proverbial "bowl of fruit" paintings... technical works without meaning. But that's just me.
well i made a good answer and or it is in aproval chamber or it got deleted.
fuck life ):
It was held in moderation for some reason. Maybe because of the length :)