• Digital 3D Art v6
    4,999 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BipolarPanda;28075760]Listen guys, I'm sorry I thought something was funny, forgive me.[/QUOTE] I think it was funny :saddowns: Lay off the guy, he just made a joke. Also I'd never put rocks or dirt on my scanner, texturing should always be done with a camera.
idk about you but my tablet wont plug up to my camera
[QUOTE=leet;28080830]I think it was funny :saddowns: Lay off the guy, he just made a joke. Also I'd never put rocks or dirt on my scanner, texturing should always be done with a camera.[/QUOTE] Scanner>Camera For fine details at least.
I still don't see the scanner as a real option. You can't scan a brick wall for example. I can see it being useful for leaves and paper stuff but not for rocks, twigs and anything bigger than that. Which is what you're doing 95% of the time. And on the stock vs. made from scrap argument, usually the textures you see in games are indeed the same stock photos but heavily edited.
Also, you're limited to what's outside your house. If I wanted beach sand texture, I'd have to travel with a plane just to get away from the endless amount of snow. Hell, I can't even make a grass texture during half the year.
[QUOTE=paul simon;28082888]Also, you're limited to what's outside your house. If I wanted beach sand texture, I'd have to travel with a plane just to get away from the endless amount of snow. Hell, I can't even make a grass texture during half the year.[/QUOTE] beach sand texture? Take some dirt, modify the color in photoshop, shrink it. Tada.
[QUOTE=Saxor16;28083476]beach sand texture? Take some dirt, modify the color in photoshop, shrink it. Tada.[/QUOTE] You're a fool if you think that using stock photos makes you "dumb" or somehow inferior to an artist who uses purely their own. Integrating stock photography into a hand edited texture is not a weakness and doesn't mean you "don't care" about your work. Anyone with skills in texturing should be able to utilize a stock photo and integrate it in such a way that it produces a realistic image and still unique. A photo of dirt turned yellow doesn't make a quality sand texture. And neither does using "noise, cloud, and blur filters" to make your textures.
[QUOTE=Socram;28083657]You're a fool if you think that using stock photos makes you "dumb" or somehow inferior to an artist who uses purely their own. Integrating stock photography into a hand edited texture is not a weakness and doesn't mean you "don't care" about your work. Anyone with skills in texturing should be able to utilize a stock photo and integrate it in such a way that it produces a realistic image and still unique. A photo of dirt turned yellow doesn't make a quality sand texture. And neither does using "noise, cloud, and blur filters" to make your textures.[/QUOTE] Considering that's what sand is, tiny beige-gray noise, i doubt noise, cloud, and blur would not work. [URL]http://background-wallpaper.110mb.com/images/Wallpapers1600/pebbles-stones/Sand.jpg[/URL] You can make most textures by hand in a short time with just a dash of effort instead of relying on others work. In fact here's one I whipped up now in five minutes using the above picture as a reference. [img]http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/1025/sandvn.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Saxor16;28074572]You only say that because you use stock textures. I use my scanner and a camera and make great textures.[/QUOTE] You'll be scanning rocks when I'm already done with my assets.
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/BHidNv.png[/img] Don't blame me, I had no internet for 3 days
Anyone who thinks using stock photos for a base for textures is bad, lazy or wrong is suffering from something.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;28087660]Anyone who thinks using stock photos for a base for textures is bad, lazy or wrong is suffering from something.[/QUOTE] I find it silly: "I need a wood texture, BETTER GO SLAP A SCANNER ON TOP OF MY DECKING OUTSIDE!"
[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/cola.png[/img] Just finished my cola bottle, originally speed modeling, but since I wasn't there during class, I spent about 1-2 hours on it.. Didn't bother to do the cap, so just ignore it...
[QUOTE=Domino;28087974][img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/cola.png[/img_thumb] Just finished my cola bottle, originally speed modeling, but since I wasn't there during class, I spent about 1-2 hours on it.. Didn't bother to do the cap, so just ignore it...[/QUOTE] It would be perfect if you did the ridges on the cap and the ring.. thing
I think I'll experiment with it somewhat tomorrow :3 The stupid thing is that I originally wanted condense on the outside, and bubles on the inside, but I couldn't get it to work whatso ever, so I'm either gonna add that in Photoshop, or just.. Not do it at all..
[QUOTE=Domino;28088508]I think I'll experiment with it somewhat tomorrow :3 The stupid thing is that I originally wanted condense on the outside, and bubles on the inside, but I couldn't get it to work whatso ever, so I'm either gonna add that in Photoshop, or just.. Not do it at all..[/QUOTE] Well the condense could be done easily with textures. What programme are you using?
You guys have rather cynical counterarguments to fair points about texturing. If you know what you're doing, it's just as good to paint a texture by hand. Some of the best texture work is done nearly completely without photo-sourcing. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ajacks;28087660]Anyone who thinks using stock photos for a base for textures is bad, lazy or wrong is suffering from something.[/QUOTE] well that's just like, your opinion man I do agree you should use them as a base for your texture but with a lot of the work I've seen people will just slap on a railcar photo on a nice looking model, call it a day and it looks god awful.
[QUOTE=Lazore;28089184]Well the condense could be done easily with textures. What programme are you using?[/QUOTE] hmm.. True, I could paint a opacity map in photoshop, then apply a bump to it... could be interesting enough :3 Using 3Ds Max, and Photoshop
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;28090157]You guys have rather cynical counterarguments to fair points about texturing. If you know what you're doing, it's just as good to paint a texture by hand. Some of the best texture work is done nearly completely without photo-sourcing. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] well that's just like, your opinion man I do agree you should use them as a base for your texture but with a lot of the work I've seen people will just slap on a railcar photo on a nice looking model, call it a day and it looks god awful.[/QUOTE] Bad quality work is always bad quality work, but hand painting your textures or not using stock photography for texture basis doesn't make your work any better automatically.
never said it did
since we're all talking about textures now, would anyone care to provide me some tutorials for making textures? whether it be from a mashup of stock photos or from my own photography or texture painting. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [img]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8555/ss20110216155227.png[/img] church progress
Would the Mona Lisa be as good if the artist had cut piece of other people paintings and glued them onto a piece of paper to make it?
[QUOTE=Saxor16;28093152]Would the Mona Lisa be as good if the artist had cut piece of other people paintings and glued them onto a piece of paper to make it?[/QUOTE] Texturing is like the icing on a cake, it's just the final touches. The real work is making a model.
[QUOTE=Saxor16;28093152]Would the Mona Lisa be as good if the artist had cut piece of other people paintings and glued them onto a piece of paper to make it?[/QUOTE] Mona is not photorealistic though. Colors are really unrealistic. Hand painting is good for artistic or cartoony 3d, but for photoreal, mashing photos is better, unless you're so good you can actually paint a photoreal texture. And if you have time. Because commercial 3d is all about speed and quality. And one needs to be sacrificed. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=BipolarPanda;28093215]Texturing is like the icing on a cake, it's just the final touches. The real work is making a model.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Texture is the main part, in low poly models atleast. You can make a plane look good or you can have a superreal mesh with shitty texture.
Where did i say to hand paint? I said that nowhere, don't put words in my mouth that have never been there in the first place. I said make your own, using a camera, a scanner, and your own skill. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=johan_sm;28093251] Wrong. Texture is the main part, in low poly models atleast. You can make a plane look good or you can have a superreal mesh with shitty texture.[/QUOTE] Texturing is pretty much 1/3 of the process. Modeling and material the other 2/3.. You'd be surprised at how many textures you can make with a simple noise map. I can't think of many thinks that wouldn't be able to made with it.
[QUOTE=BipolarPanda;28093215]Texturing is like the icing on a cake, it's just the final touches. The real work is making a model.[/QUOTE] seeing as most 3d these days rely on textures to do the major work for them I'd have to say you've got it completely wrong
[QUOTE=Saxor16;28093271]Where did i say to hand paint? I said that nowhere, don't put words in my mouth that have never been there in the first place. I said make your own, using a camera, a scanner, and your own skill. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] Texturing is pretty much 1/3 of the process. Modeling and material the other 2/3.. You'd be surprised at how many textures you can make with a simple noise map. I can't think of many thinks that wouldn't be able to made with it.[/QUOTE] stop being such an elitist. art is art. doesn't matter how its made. unless you want to get into some sort of distinguishable quality between your work and someone else's that only comes down to it being a photomash-up, in which case please do present your evidence. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;28093405]seeing as most 3d these days rely on textures to do the major work for them I'd have to say you've got it completely wrong[/QUOTE] modeling my church took a few fun hours. texturing/uv'ing has been a boring hell of two days so far, but it's made the biggest difference in how it looks.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;28093405]seeing as most 3d these days rely on textures to do the major work for them I'd have to say you've got it completely wrong[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about low poly though
[QUOTE=Kybalt;28093449]stop being such an elitist. art is art. doesn't matter how its made. unless you want to get into some sort of distinguishable quality between your work and someone else's that only comes down to it being a photomash-up, in which case please do present your evidence. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] modeling my church took a few fun hours. texturing/uv'ing has been a boring hell of two days so far, but it's made the biggest difference in how it looks.[/QUOTE] Stop being lazy. Oh and that simple little church you made could be uv mapped like 2 minutes so don't know why you take so long.
Not everyone has access to good camera or scanner or locations for shooting various textures. Also the result matters, not what you use. If you can mashup using shots from web, go on. As long as it looks good. References, stock stuff, all make life easier. It's like complaining that the tool you use isn't made by you. [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Saxor16;28093514] Oh and that simple little church you made could be uv mapped like 2 minutes so don't know why you take so long.[/QUOTE]Agree on this though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.