#Lightwave vs. 3DS
10 messages in this thread
Daniel,
<< X-files, using LightWave >>
Actually I don't think the graphics on the X-files are that much to
brag about…
<< Sony Pictures use 3D Studio only when previewing camera shots not
special effects. >>
No, Sony Pictures has been doing more than just previews with 3DS.
<< I have used 3D Studio for 3 years and are now moving to Lightwave
more every day. >>
Wow! What have you been smoken' ?!? <BG>
The Star Trek Voyager model dosen't look all that bad though…..
GT
(Sorry Alan, couldn't resist…<g> )
-Competition keeps everyone on their toes….
Hey, credit where credit is due! As I mentioned in my earlier message,
the Voyager model is beautiful, and rates right up with some of the
best CG/SFX I've ever seen. Everyone at Amblin should be very proud.
As I've often said, the level of quality of any given piece is largely
due to the talent and dedication of the animator(s). LW and 3DS are
both very good 3D tools, and when wielded by hard-working, inspired
people, can output wonderful things.
The work you folks have done is a inspiration to all desktop
animators, and a sure sign of a bright future for us all.
Um, I don't want to cause trouble, but I seem to remember you saying
that the Voyager CGI model has *300,000* faces?! I mentioned this to
a CGI effects director at ILM recently, who said, "If that's true,
then they simply built it *wrong.* The CGI Enterprise for
'Generations' had only 25,000 faces."
His conclusion was that there was virtually *no* single CGI model
(unless it was going to be used for extreme close-ups, at film
resolution) that would require 300,000 faces. For an object as
smooth-skinned as the Voyager, shown only at TV resolution, to have
300,000 faces seems wasteful overkill. Just curious if this
information was correct…
I think it has between 50K and 60K faces, but keep in mind those are polygons,
not just triangles. That includes the lettering on the side, plus extra
detailing around windows that might be viewed close to the camera.
Actually, we didn't build it wrong. The Voyager model is a second level
metaform object. All of the ships detail is done without the help of
maps. Maps only help to break up the surfaces and give additional detail
as to bumps and surface irregularities.
The model itself is closer to 200,000 polygons though. If I said 300K, I
was mistaken.
The reason it's so built up is because we needed to be able to get as
close to it as the model shots do, which require a high level of detail.
Film resolution was also a consideration when building it too.
Greg Teegarden
Amblin Imaging.
<< The Star Trek Voyager model dosen't look all that bad though >>
You are right, nice job on it.
Mark
Mark,
You don't know what you are missing.
Greetings
Daniel
Daniel,
<< You don't know what you are missing. >>
Are you talking about smoking or LightWave? <g>
Please don't take anything I have said too hard. It's just my personal opinion
and what ever a certain person prefers in 3D software is there choice.
Mark
Hi,
<Are you talking about smoking or LightWave?>
Smoking;)
<Please don't take anything I have said too hard. It's just my personal
opinion and what ever a certain person prefers in 3D software is there choice.>
Couldn't agree more
Happy life
Daniel