Jump to content


Member Since 11 Oct 2006
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 04:26 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Mox: Open Source / Patent free file format

Yesterday, 06:29 AM

long term I think the goal is to make something easy enough for people to use in most situations as to help make people less dependent on hardware manufacturers for their data.

One will have to see. While the idea is sound, it all hinges on how manufacturers adopt it without burdening the user. You know, cameras don't record in OpenEXR or Ogg, so any conversions and conform will have to happen on ingest and any other import/ export operations more or less automatically. And I don't think supporting too many CoDecs is too good an idea. They all have their limitations an failings and have different implementations across programs and platforms. In the end, it will be the same mess and for your corrective MOX container to unfold its magic with all its nice LUTs, ICC profiles and metadata you still have to know how these things "tick" and implement pertinent routines and fixes - just like developers do already now with their native file handlers. It's not like they are promising to give you a single no-worries "export to MOX" button....


In Topic: Cloner setting

13 October 2014 - 02:59 PM

I'm not clear what you are trying to achieve. There is no way to change that, but there is of course all sorts of methods to do magic with XPresso.


In Topic: Combining Soft Body and Motext

13 October 2014 - 02:55 PM

Fracture Object?


In Topic: R16 Workflow: Being More Efficient

13 October 2014 - 06:59 AM

Our clients can barely make heads or tails out of storyboards we send them and I know they won't understand what they're looking at if we send them a flat shaded playbast.

Ultimately that's why I'm thankful that I mostly only did industry/ corporate porn. Three days before a tradeshow there's simply no time for all that nonsense with mood boards, storyboards and whatnot. Even on the few occasions we got handed elaborate design concepts from some agency they mostly got ditched/ scrapped because the clients didn't feel the agency actually understood that showing technical details is more important to sell heavy machinery than fancy particle swirls. Most of that concept stuff in my world is simply a waste of time. I also find it extremely frustrating - you sit in some conference for hours with some marketing head and a jerk AD/ external designer they hired and nothing ever comes of it while that valuable time is taken away from actually getting work done.

It's incredibly frustrating to have to go through the whole process of animation, lighting, rendering and comping, just for them to say the camera path should be different, which forces me to redo everything. We've tried on a few occastions on keeping them in the loop early on and getting approval of layout and rough animation, but it doesn't matter, they seem to always change their mind.

The smart thing to do is to not show anything/ as little as possible. ;-) The projects that worked best for me and the client were always the ones with the least interference. You have to keep people out of the loop, especially aforementioned crazed ADs and designers. Though redoing stuff is somehow inevitable. Most people outside the graphics industry don't make educated decisions about this stuff, but rather use their gut feeling. They can only judge it when they actually see it in a form they can understand. E.g. in case of my technical visualizations you could only got anything approved if it looked reasonably like a machine and the function was animated correctly, so the marketing head could talk it through with the engineers and ultimately they would give it a green light. That only happens rather late in production and that's something you have to live with and plan for it, like reserving extra time on the render farm or have people on standby that can help you 5 minutes before the deadline...


In Topic: R16 Workflow: Being More Efficient

12 October 2014 - 04:54 PM

Actually just the other way around. A good texture/ material should look pretty much good under any reasonable lighting conditions (assuming the combined "energy" of all lights is the same per sample point, regardless of the actual placement, that is), though compared to other renderers that's 100 times more difficult in C4D. Or in other words: A material that doesn't look right under a neutral studio setup is unlikely to look much better with a stylized setup with colored lighting. You can of course crank up values, but it may eat up texture details.

I'm not sure if there's any artist out there who can match a real world light setup with the same number of lights and without extra tricks. Even Global illumination does not automatically give you that. You usually need a lot more lights and will need to work with inclusions/ exclusions and falloffs to control where light goes. In my visualizations it has also been necessary to create separate lights for specular and diffuse shading many times since large even areas look flat when catching too much diffuse, but you still want them to have a nice specular gradient. IES lights are pretty much only relevant for arch viz or some types of product viz like cars. Many IES files simply look like light gels, anyway.

With regards to light placement one shouldn't get locked into fixed setups. I usually make sure that there is a baseline setup that "just works", but from there I turn off lights that I don't need in a given shot or add additional contrast lights. They even do that in VFX, sacrificing continuity and consistency across shots in favor of keeping things looking cool, so it's not uncommon and for motion graphics pieces should be even less of an issue. as with all these things - it needs to feel real more than actually being real.