Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
+1 :lol:
That's what I did with the video of the guy looking into the glassA really fun thing along these lines:
The GIF that I've shown earlier was a composite.
I used a still render of the Cave area. Then I rendered the waterfall letting the Carrara particles use the default ground level - but no ground object. For reflective enhancement I used a spherical image in the background and rendered with Alpha. The resulting animation render was saved as an image sequence - then loaded into Howler as an animated brush, and simulated onto the still image.
The cool thing was that it was all done very quickly, just to run myself through the process. So no actual time went into making it really look nice.
In all, Carrara is a very powerful tool and can be used in so many ways to get so many outstanding effects. I feel the same about Howler - even though I'm still a child learning to crawl in it. With the new features going in all the time, by an artist who knows how to make hand-drawn cartoon animations, and feeds functions that cater to those artists into the software, just as he does for video effects artists, I feel that it makes for an interestingly perfect addition to Carrara use - at least in my situation - a guy on the verge of releasing a fairly complex and (hopefully) incredibly cool animation production.
That being said, some lovin' has recently gone into the "Light Map" feature, which allows hand-drawn animators the ability to see (newly adjustable in strength) transparencies of up to three frames before and/or after - which can even be given hues to represent the before and after: Redshift for frames already passed (behind) and blueshift for those to come (ahead). So making animated textures for color, highlight and/or shininess, bump, alpha and/or transparency, glow, etc., channels can be a lot of fun to make, whether using photo images, drawings, renders, or anything in between. Both Carrara and Howler have the capabilities to make animated renders, and both share the same formats.
Oh... and just to clarify:
Nothing against the Blender method! I was just presenting another method that I was reminded of from that comment, is all. Blender looks to be one fantastic animation tool (and much, much, much more!) and I may just get around to learning my way around that as well, one day. I've downloaded one of the later versions... certainly not the latest... and found that I would definitely need a lot of practice (and instructions) before I could get proficient with it - and decided that between Carrara and Howler, I already (seem to, at least) have all of the tools I need to complete my production clips. We'll see. But if you have the time (and inclination) to learn another 3D software, Man... Blender is truly amazing, even if it wasn't free... but it is! There are some incredible video tutorials out there for some simple-to-advanced techniques, and I think there's a huge support base for those wanting to learn the ropes. I would definitely be using it if I wouldn't have bought Carrara. But I lucked out: I bought Carrara and found out that I was right in that it is the suite for me!
Previously, I often used animated metaballs for my fluids, they are a good base for the compositing which I make in Combustion.
In Realflow, the particles ("true fluids") must be converted into meshes then imported in Carrara thanks to the DCG Obj. Seq.Importer.
There is no plugin for Carrara to import the splatches, foams, smoke etc...
And a Realwave simulation (an ocean) can be exported in .TIF seq. to use as bump/deformation Map.
I never tested Blender, but if it accepts the export in MDD, I think the Fenric's plugin should be able to import the sequence in Carrara.
Like I said, I don't think so...I believe that MDD only works on an object with a constant number of polygons/vertices. When you run a fluid sim, it is constantly generating new mesh and separating objects into separate mesh, like when a wave splashes and generates spray and foam and stuff. I don't think MDD will work with that. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
I'll try it next sunday, I come back to you with the result !
Very interested to see, DUDU, hope you get a chance to test soon and let us know.
I've been thinking about this, and like most things (I'm thinking compositing) the best and most realistic fluid sim isn't always going to be the best solution to a scene, though it is exciting and fun to watch. For example the method outlined in the animation and tutorial that I started the thread pointing at seems like a simple and effective method to get running water, complete with waterfalls, that will look realistic in the scene, with a fairly decently quick sim and rendertime. sure it's just two planes, animated, and a small section of meta balls falling off the end of one plane and into another, but the time cost in simulation can't be much (there aren't that many metaballs really, just enough to go from the top of the upper plane and down to the bottom plane, and they have a short lifespan).
Whereas if I were to do the same scene with a full fluid sim, where every bit of the stream was filled with real fluid particles, I might sleep cozy at night, secure in the knowledge that every part of the running water was calculated correctly down to the atomic level, but I'm betting a simulation that filled the entire riverbed with fluid particles is going to be a whole heck of a lot more complex, and the render time is probably going to be a bit of a b!tch too (unless I'm with ILM or Pixar and have a giant renderfarm at my disposal :) )
More and more, I like 'cheating', at least where I can get away with it. Sort of like compositing might be considered by some to be 'cheating' but who cares if it gives the realistic looking and good result, just makes me smarter for compositing, right?
I already 'cheat' in my approach to dynamic hair (putting hairs on an invisible proxy figure for way faster simulations and rendering) and have no problem cheating on the dynamic cloth sims we've been discussing in the other thread, I'm trying to be better at learning to composite so I can cheat there.
Especially for animation, I think using as many cheats as possible is the way to go. My past history has been doing lots of still renders with full GI settings, blurry reflections, making sure everything is as close to physically correct as possible, but the more I animate the more I'm learning that there are faster, better ways of getting things done and still getting a good result. All of this is probably obvious to most of you guys, but I'm kind of a bit thick, and a slow learner.
Cheating = good :)
I guess it comes down to the basic question: are you producing stuff for your own enjoyment, or stuff for others? If you're happy with the results, and are only doing it for your own enjoyment, then whatever makes you happy is great. And I think for the most part that's all that's necessary for most users here.
But if you want a large group of others to see and appreciate your work, then you need to consider their needs. And for many, especially when most people can enjoy incredible VFX everytime they pop a DVD into their player, the bar is pretty high :) :) :)
:) :) :)
That's true, huh? A popular addition to many renders here is lettering which proudly proclaims "NO POSTWORK !!" :) :) :)
To me, that's like saying I'll only use a hammer and chisel to build the ornate legs on a wooden table, because using a lathe to turn them is somehow "cheating".. :) :)
When I propose an entry to the monthly Challenge, I am proud to add “NO POST-WORK” because it's a challenge dedicated to Carrara and not to Photoshop or other.
But, I'm the first to use compositing in my animations.;-)
:) :) :)
That's true, huh? A popular addition to many renders here is lettering which proudly proclaims "NO POSTWORK !!" :) :) :)
To me, that's like saying I'll only use a hammer and chisel to build the ornate legs on a wooden table, because using a lathe to turn them is somehow "cheating".. :) :)
There's nothing wrong with using postwork or not using it, just as there is nothing wrong with saying the render produced use it or not. In many cases, by saying if the image uses postwork or no postwork it can lead to a discussion on how to get the look of the final image.
I think it is the reader that adds the assumption that the phrase No Postwork is a statement of pride, and not of fact.
There's nothing wrong with using postwork or not using it, just as there is nothing wrong with saying the render produced use it or not. In many cases, by saying if the image uses postwork or no postwork it can lead to a discussion on how to get the look of the final image.
I think it is the reader that adds the assumption that the phrase No Postwork is a statement of pride, and not of fact.
Yes, often "No Postwork" means "This product looks like this straight out of the render engine". Not so much about pride as about making it clear what the product can do.
:) :) :)
That's true, huh? A popular addition to many renders here is lettering which proudly proclaims "NO POSTWORK !!" :) :) :)
To me, that's like saying I'll only use a hammer and chisel to build the ornate legs on a wooden table, because using a lathe to turn them is somehow "cheating".. :) :)
I can see both sides. Postwork is a stage of artistry all its own, completely separate from the artistry involved in the rendering process. No postwork is indeed something to be proud of in most cases, but if one can improve the image with postwork then they should do so. But Postwork doesn't improve all images, so it shouldn't be used all the time.
Postwork is something that some people are really good at, so they rely on it as they probably should. Other people, like myself, have absolutely no talent whatsoever in using traditional paint brushes or pens or any of that, I personally use very little if any postwork. If I don't like the lack of contrast I increase my light intensities and increase shadow depth and re-render. If reflections aren't bright enough I then tweak the parameters in the render engine until it looks like what I desire. If the overall image is too saturated I might remove color from some lights or tweak some source textures so they look as expected when rendered.
Postwork can sometimes completely alter the nature of a "render" such that it doesn't bear any resemblance to the original. I will use my own works as an example. A few years ago a bud of mine named Richter showed me a great example of the power of postwork. Never in a million years would I have come up with a result like his because my mind couldn't conceive of such a thing, but his could. Fun fun.
Cement Jungle 7
http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=3007&mode=search
Nuclear Dawn
http://www.bryce5.com/details.php?image_id=4035&mode=search
Is the final image with postwork more compelling than the non post worked image? I'd say YES. Could I have done that type of postworking myself...no, because I cannot draw with a free hand like my buddy Richter can. Postwork by Richter will look much better than postwork by Rashad.
Just to clarify one other thing. Just like the example I provided, when people say that postwork is cheating what they are really saying is that images which are postworked have an unfair advantage in direct comparisons with non postworked images such as during challenges. Most people in a Carrara forum are mostly interested in what Carrara can do, less so with what a given artist can do. Adding in what photoshop can also do makes discussion much more complicated, because it focuses too much on the special talents of the user in photoshop and not enough on the technical tools of Carrara.
I do think it is a subject worthy of discussion. I started a thread a few months ago in the Bryce forum all about postwork, people's techniques and philosophies and tricks. So far the thread hasn't caught much fire because the subject itself is somewhat vague and non specific. Still it is compelling because those who can master postworking really do have a huge advantage. It's one area I'd like to become more comfortable with.
Speaking of compositing, I came across a product called Fusion 7 which was made available for free late last year - looks like it is very powerful and high end with a long list of major film credits, unbelievable that it is free! Also for VFX, particle system etc.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/fusion
Wasn't somebody just talking about that recently? I could have sworn somebody just had a thread on that...yeah, something about "Compositing" or something....
Naaahh...I must be thinking of something else... :) :) :)
Wasn't somebody just talking about that recently? I could have sworn somebody just had a thread on that...yeah, something about "Compositing" or something....
Naaahh...I must be thinking of something else... :) :) :)
Sorry, Joe, I hadn't seen that thread when I posted my comment.
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/52473/
And that's fine, nothing wrong with that. But I think if someone, for whatever reason, feels a need to "sell" the "out of the box" Carrara renderer, they should keep in mind that, as renderers go, let's be honest...the Carrara renderer has to be decades behind the times. So it's an uphill battle, to say the least.
And I'm not even talking about the latest unbiased, super cool renderers. I'm talking about the standard stuff that comes with most apps nowadays. I'm not bashing Carrara, just saying that I'm guessing the basic renderer code hasn't really been touched in a VERY long time. I mean, yeah, they added the realistic sky to improve the ambient lighting to sort of match real outdoor lighting conditions. And it's fine for what it is...they did a nice job.
But compared to others, even free apps (I won't mention the name), the work it takes to get a good render is a lot more with Carrara than with some other renderers. And come on, the basic "Ambient Light" setting is from the 90's, when you couldn't get a decent ambient lighting solution (for many reasons), so they gave you a "shotgun" ambient that is, IMO, painful to look at :) :) :)
Again, it's a nice renderer, and with some work you can get reasonable results. But just the ambient lighting technology alone out there nowadays, even in (insert free app name here...) is far superior.
And that being said, in general, the quality of a CG render is more like 90% the artist, and 10% the software.
Anyway, in my somewhat not-so-humble opinion :) :) , if someone wants to produce a high quality render, it ain't cheating to use whatever tools are at your disposal. It's the quality of the end product that is important, not how you got there.
Well, at least in some peoples' minds... :) :) :) :)
I have actually been surprised at how good the Carrara renderer can be, but it is hindered by poor default settings and poor explanation of some of the settings. Once you get past these, it is very capable and still very fast in comparison to some others. My feeling is that whoever programmed it was very talented and quite foresighted, but maybe not so good at explaining what he (they?) had included!
And the availability of Lux and Octane rendering options now adds to the flexibility that is available to Carrara artists.
There's nothing wrong with using postwork or not using it, just as there is nothing wrong with saying the render produced use it or not. In many cases, by saying if the image uses postwork or no postwork it can lead to a discussion on how to get the look of the final image.
I think it is the reader that adds the assumption that the phrase No Postwork is a statement of pride, and not of fact.It's actually a statement made by published artists to illustrate to the customer that it was a straight render, often with the inclusion of the software used to render, like "Carrara - No Post Work", for example. No pride, no sense of self-worth... just a simple statement to keep folks from wondering.
I have never even looked at particles and/or physics until just recently*. I am fine with just using simple animation techniques to get the job done. Then again, I'm not often using the simulation as my main focus in the scene - it's just that I want the water to be moving instead of sitting still. Just something to add a bit more believability to a scene that is already not meant to be truly believable in the first place ;)
While I've been becoming totally immersed in the animation techniques that were being used in "The Clone Wars" animated series**, I was also looking back at old Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, He Man: Master of the Universe, etc., cartoons and, of course, one of my old favorites... "Fire & Ice" by Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta, which actually used live-action actors... there's a nice little "behind the scenes" of their techniques for that on YouTube
Anyways, I was finding that if I really paid attention to all of these things, I started to see that: even if the back drops were very detailed and even in motion, they never tried to steal the eye of the viewer. In my production, I have two main heroes and a cast of pals, and a few ultimate villains and their cast of thugs, etc., that will play out the actual 'main focus' for the viewers, while the backgrounds and backdrops are there as visuals. There are times, however, where it truly IS the environment that becomes the focal point of the shot - and that's where I really love to employ those "Cheats" you're mentioning! Like the lava river in Badlands, for example, was totally fun to pull of with nothing more than what I had at my disposal here in Carrara!
* Now that I've started tinkering with Particles and Physics in Carrara, I've found them to be "Very Carrara", in that they are just as fun and simple to set up as everything else in this fun and simple suite of tools. Mastery, of course - like anything, requires a great deal of patience, practice, and especially sharing your endeavors here, at the forum, and getting more advice from others. It also helps with anything that we attempt in Carrara to have a good 'vision' of what we need to 'see' in the end, and envision what tools might work best to pull off the right effect. In the end, few people care "how" you did it, while most people do care how it looks and flows.
**Star Wars: The Clone Wars -
This six season 3D animation series has truly taken me away. This short teaser, I believe, sums up what it's about pretty well. if you like the teaser, you'll Love the show. If not, you probably won't. The episodes are not in the same order that they were made, giving them an excellent flow of things. It's really fun to look at how the animators have grown throughout the seasons.
I do agree that Carrara's speed, compared to at least one other app out there, is pretty decent. I'm recalling how slow DAZ Studio was, which was one of the reasons I ditched D|S long ago. Not sure if that still applies though.
And, of course, the Poser renderer, and associated lighting features, at least last time I checked (which was forever ago), was pretty much a joke. :) :) :) and dog slow, as I recall. But that was back in the Poser 5 or 7 days I think. No clue what it does now.
So yeah, in the hobbyist market of CG renderers, it's probably one of the best I suppose :) :) :)
Again, I'm not saying that the Carrara renderer sucks...of course, if you are proficient you can get a good image from just about anything. It's just that the work required, compared to many other apps out there, is significantly more with Carrara, IMO.
And also keep in mind, since it is so difficult, if not impossible, to transfer a particular Carrara scene, with all the Carrara-specific features, into other apps, doing a real apples-to-apples comparison of speeds and quality is pretty tough.
I do agree that Carrara's speed, compared to at least one other app out there, is pretty decent. I'm recalling how slow DAZ Studio was, which was one of the reasons I ditched D|S long ago. Not sure if that still applies though.
And, of course, the Poser renderer, and associated lighting features, at least last time I checked (which was forever ago), was pretty much a joke. :) :) :) and dog slow, as I recall. But that was back in the Poser 5 or 7 days I think. No clue what it does now.
So yeah, in the hobbyist market of CG renderers, it's probably one of the best I suppose :) :) :)
Again, I'm not saying that the Carrara renderer sucks...of course, if you are proficient you can get a good image from just about anything. It's just that the work required, compared to many other apps out there, is significantly more with Carrara, IMO.
And also keep in mind, since it is so difficult, if not impossible, to transfer a particular Carrara scene, with all the Carrara-specific features, into other apps, doing a real apples-to-apples comparison of speeds and quality is pretty tough. It is tough, I totally agree.
I remember when I've first purchased Carrara that I was amazed at how quickly it rendered compared to Poser 7, even though it defaulted to 8 passes of ray tracing depth.
Nowadays, I look at some of the images that I've made in Poser just before I started working with Carrara and realize that my lighting and scene composition techniques really sucked back then, so a real comparison is still out of my grasp, without actually trying to set up and render a scene in all of the other softies with what I now know. The last time I tried rendering in DAZ Studio, not all that long ago, I thought it did a decent job at a decent amount of time, but I still wanted more control over my render settings. So I popped into the D|S forum and mentioned that I disliked having three settings from which to chose: Fast, Medium, and Best. Wendy and a few other members enlightened me to know that there is a whole realm of tweaking render output and introducing, even programming, new shaders (not material settings - big difference)! It was too much for me to focus on at the time. After all, Carrara is my softy of choice and, until I find a need for another, I'll just stick with what I've got. But DAZ Studio is certainly not the same beast that it was long ago - and even then it was still a decent solution for rendering, as long as you got the lighting and materials right.
Even if this isn't your cup of tea, at least have a look at the excellence in lighting and use of simple-yet-effective particle emitters throughout the teaser. All of their effects are very well executed, and the lighting is quite inspiring. But when actually watching the show and getting to know the characters, the expressiveness of their animated features during and in response to conversations is very good, in my opinion.