GFX Battle Archive Vault

cinema and max are identical in theory. the interfaces are where i found the biggest diffs. actually cinema is simpler IMO. but less powerful. but i do like cinemas plugins better. i use it frquently to make 3d text for logos. i'll import text from illustrator then extract it into 3d space with cinema. then i can change the texture and materian(skin) to whatever i want. then i pull it up in Pshop ad tweak it. my clients eat those chrome 3d logos up and pay alot more for the same amount of work it takes for a Pshop created logo.
u can also make those funky 3d abstract hitech sigs with it.

Originally Posted by The Quiet Storm

But the PS CS3 has a new feature that ur able to save files as 3d files. how did u get 3dmax?

that feature is best used if you have a 3d prog. then you can bring your naked models into it and "paint" them on the fly. instead of creating the "skin" in 3d which can be a process in itself sometimes.

[Storm]

ohh ok. I have Illustrator but I havent actually intalled it yet because my PS freezes sometimes and my computer is really slow when I start it up. So, Im gonna upgrade my computer soon and install Illustrator. what the real difference between Illustrator and PS, ive seen some info on it but it seems like the same but im sure theres a difference between them. Yea when I upgrade my computer I'll probably do that. I'll see if i can get it through there, since thats how I got PS and Illustrator lol.

Im going to school for Graphic design but its a community college so I dont think they'll have cinema4d in their computers for classes, hopefully they do.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

cinema and max are identical in theory. the interfaces are where i found the biggest diffs. actually cinema is simpler IMO. but less powerful. but i do like cinemas plugins better. i use it frquently to make 3d text for logos. i'll import text from illustrator then extract it into 3d space with cinema. then i can change the texture and materian(skin) to whatever i want. then i pull it up in Pshop ad tweak it. my clients eat those chrome 3d logos up and pay alot more for the same amount of work it takes for a Pshop created logo.
u can also make those funky 3d abstract hitech sigs with it.

ohh ok, kool.thanks for the info.But which one would u consider to be the "industry leader" in making 3d renders

PS AND ILL are very diff in function but use the same tools.as you know when you blow up images they lose resolution these are called raster images or pixel based images. these are jpg gifs ectect.
but u also have mathematical equation based vector images that can be altered infinately without losing any resolution. traditionaly u would draw a vector using the pen tool. but you can also take a raster and trace it or convert selections into paths which are also vectors.
it may sound complicated but its not.
but if you've seen scanner darkly, that is an animated vector movie. alot of flash animation is vector based too.
ill is really good with text. i'm doing a logo right now. i started with an A and E using freebooter font. then edited the 2 letters in ill by erasing lines and points and reconnecting the two to make one AE. then imported it into cinema then extruded it to 3d. did some lighting and materials in 3d.then i added the additonal text in pshop and threw a filter to mimic 3d chrome. voila!
most employers want pshop and ill experience. so ill really is a must have.

Originally Posted by The Quiet Storm

ohh ok, kool.thanks for the info.But which one would u consider to be the "industry leader" in making 3d renders

3d max by far but you also have Maya which is the up and coming leader. i hear the new Maya, set to drop this fall, will blow all others away due to its ease of use AND power. supposedly it will be the 3d equivalent of PS.

[Lex Lugor]

lol how do you think i got it

[Storm]

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

PS AND ILL are very diff in function but use the same tools.as you know when you blow up images they lose resolution these are called raster images or pixel based images. these are jpg gifs ectect.
but u also have mathematical equation based vector images that can be altered infinately without losing any resolution. traditionaly u would draw a vector using the pen tool. but you can also take a raster and trace it or convert selections into paths which are also vectors.
it may sound complicated but its not.
but if you've seen scanner darkly, that is an animated vector movie. alot of flash animation is vector based too.
ill is really good with text. i'm doing a logo right now. i started with an A and E using freebooter font. then edited the 2 letters in ill by erasing lines and points and reconnecting the two to make one AE. then imported it into cinema then extruded it to 3d. did some lighting and materials in 3d.then i added the additonal text in pshop and threw a filter to mimic 3d chrome. voila!
most employers want pshop and ill experience. so ill really is a must have.

thanks for explaining the difference between PS and Il., I'll probably then install Ill. tomorrow or sometime this week. So, with Ill., you can blow up any image and u still wont loose any resolution on the image right?.

I kinda do understand what your saying but I would just need to see the process to be sure what your saying.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

3d max by far but you also have Maya which is the up and coming leader. i hear the new Maya, set to drop this fall, will blow all others away due to its ease of use AND power. supposedly it will be the 3d equivalent of PS.

ohh kool. i'll check it out when its out. Is there any good site for more info on the new Maya

Originally Posted by Instructor/5 Fingerz

lol how do you think i got it

lol I wonder....

Originally Posted by The Quiet Storm

So, with Ill., you can blow up any image and u still wont loose any resolution on the image right?.

no. any image CREATED in Ill wont lose res. Ill is more of a drawing tool as PS is a image editing tool. hense the name "illustrator". it will all make sense once you jump in and use it.

[Storm]

ohhh okay. You had my hopes going up when you said that but I misread what you said.
Thats still good to know atleast images created there can be blown up with no loss of resolution. But is there any program that could take any image and blow it up with no loss of resolution?

Originally Posted by The Quiet Storm

But is there any program that could take any image and blow it up with no loss of resolution?

not yet. but to not get to technical it has to do with fractal calculations and computer power is not there yet. but it is almost impossible to have perfect zoom because you are asking the computer to estimate the pixel data and fill in the blanks so to speak. since there is no existing pixel data the computer calculates the color brightness and saturation of the missing pixels.

so perfect zoom is really asking the comp to "imagine" an image for you. as weird as that sounds. this is what those high powered gov spy sats do. they actually imagine what the pic is supposed to be using the photo data.

extreme example: a 10 pixel red dot could be a balloon an apple or a cardinal but you want the comp to blow it up 100 times. cause the pic is really a ufo you happened to catch flying by your house
when you look at it this way it makes a lil more sense.

a quick animated render of that logo. just click it to play it

[Hz Deep]

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

right but its not like i just dled the animation and pasted it. it takes a lil more than that.
i would did alot more bragging if i had actually made 3d models of hulk and spidey.

1st off I realise I seemed a little more confrontational than I intended in my first post, for that I apologise. It seems you know a little more than your work posted here suggests, from the tone you adopted you sounded like one of these kids that has learnt to cut out a background in PS and thought you were some kind of graphical genius.

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

but i suggest you try to do the same and then tell me if you don't feel you created your own animation.

Believe me I have created many such animations and never thought I was doing anything more than re-formatting the work of others, unless I was doing so with my own photographs or graphics.

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

but yeah... maybe i should be more specific next time. i thought creating an animation was the process of using still images in succession to create the illusion of movement. which is exactly what i did. used 16 stills and "animated" it along with the traffic light.

the bkg is closeups of the model.

I only had a problem with the "orig animation" statement, as I had seen the QTVR which your stills must be captured from (judging by the exact same angles of the shots) previously and recognised it as such immediately. What else is the QTVR in its original form, other than just that "the process of using still images in succession to create the illusion of movement" ?

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

i am not aware of (tho there prolly is) a way to cut and paste a QTVR. if you know of a way hook me up.

There are a number of ways to rip the QTVR... download the movie and open it in image ready, then select the desired frame range in the resulting dialogue. Alternatively the new version of PS will just open the movie in its animation palette automatically now that image ready is obsolete. You could even use basic screen captures to get the required frames then use a batch command to crop the frames to size in no time.

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

FYI---if u get shot in the eye with a nerf, it stings really bad.

The kids round your ends must be ruthless, shoot a fella in the eye with their nerfs! Did they try and jack any of your t-shirts while you were blinded from the impact?

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

but i also would like to point out that if the criteria for victory is the use of original artwork then we all lose.

but i see how you would get it twisted. next time i will use my own 3d models and dedicate it to you. muah

If anyone on here considers themselves any kind of artist (which in my experience most of them do), then I would have to disagree. Surely using at least some form of original artwork in the composition is essential if they want to claim any other title than photo-editor. Compiling a collage of photos someone else took, fonts someone else made, artwork someone else drew, using absolutely nothing that is originally created in your work is just like someone sampling 4 bars of a soul classic, adding a kick and snare, then calling themselves a producer... It just doesn't cut it, unless the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Originally Posted by Hz Deep

Believe me I have created many such animations and never thought I was doing anything more than re-formatting the work of others, unless I was doing so with my own photographs or graphics.

You could even use basic screen captures to get the required frames then use a batch command to crop the frames to size in no time.

If anyone on here considers themselves any kind of artist (which in my experience most of them do), then I would have to disagree. Surely using at least some form of original artwork in the composition is essential if they want to claim any other title than photo-editor.

ain't no big deal about the attitude.. i was in WWF mode...just talkin shit...i just was a lil offended that you would make a point to crit my animation when yours is ripped. the cutout ball animation i've seen before. you just added the character...or maybe you didn't add the char.

about original artwork....
i see your point but to rebutt....
1st my comment about orig art was referring to the entries in this battle.
2nd
content of design is independent of technique. i believe that beauty can be found purely in execution of technique. whether it be all original artwork or all comped photos. to take it even further. why are photographers called artists? they only capture preexisting images. along your same line of reasoning a photog that sets up his shots has more artistic value than one who shoots life as it is.

but if we all agree that something must be original, where is the line drawn? you suggest "something" but what is the minimum or maximum or is there one? see what i'm getting at? i feel its an all or nothing judgment, either you created all of it or not.

3rd i did screen capts then threw em in imageready.and edited each frame.
you'll find in the industry, more so in large companies and entertainment companies, that you rarely work on a piece from start to finish, animators don't create the characters, graf artists don't shoot the photos, photogs don't choose the shot. everyone is a cog in the wheel but all are still artists in their own right.
by the way....

you seem like a worthy opponent. want to have a one on one battle while i wait for the results of this. we'll set the deadline for tomorrow midnight eastern time?