#ROBO truck
13 messages in this thread
jeeeeeeez, Glenn! I can't believe that you'd need feedback on how to make
TRUCK.JPG _better_! It's terrific!
I want you to send a bunch of stuff off to Computer Graphics World,
etc for their Gallery sections, and do it NOW!
As a matter of fact, I'm going to email CIS's CompuServe Mag and
nominate TRUCK.JPG and David Stennitt's WHALE1.JPG for "Graphic of
the Month". I'm really tired of seeing POV images and weenie stuff
by people who have powerful tools but not an artist's eye! <No
offense to you POV'ers>.
Heck, send a copy of TRUCK to NASA! This actually kinda looks like some of
their Mars mission speculative art.
Bravo!
Dave
Thanks for the praise David.
I have to agree with your comments about those "Graphic of the month" things. I
guess that's why I've never really bothered to enter anything.
Still. I look at the .JPG I uploaded and it does'nt look real to me.
It's been keeping me awake at night. I've been looking at the Cinefex
for Alien 2 and the model shots in it. There is something intangable
about the REALITY of them I can't replicate. Grrrrrrrrr.
Thanks again. Glenn 4Di.
I _would_ say that TRUCK looks a little more like a "painting" than a
3D image (that's what sparked my NASA rendering comment), but I've
noticed that several of your things (like the one sandworm still you
uploaded a while back from the museum thing) have a strong painterly
quality — but I LIKE it. I have a feeling that were the TRUCK scene
animated, it would look less (gosh, I hesitate to say flat, cause it
doesn't really look "flat", but I can't come up with another word)
flat to you.
What I want to see is you begin producing a new Thunderbirds series,
using computer animation instead of SUPERMARIONATION!<G> I'm sure
we'd all watch!
Thanks for the coment Dave.
The FLATNESS of the image has been noted and hopefully corrected.
But I'm not sure that creating a SUPERMARIONATION (I wish I could make my type
bend like the title sequence – Damn!) look would be easy—especially all the
fine wires connecting to everything. What a cow to animate (G).
Glenn. 4Di.
Glenn, David PMJI
After Reading this Exchange I just had to download the Truck.JPG.
Loaded it up and used it as a Background so I could see it on our NTSC 20"
Monitor as well as the Computer Screen.
I've got to agree with David that it's one of the finest images I've ever seen.
Perhaps your concerned about the perceive "Depth" of the Truck Image with
regards to the placement of the "Bin" object in the imeadiate "center stage
background" I think the images are great but trying to look at it through your
engineers critical eye the only thing I would experiment with would be
Placement of the "Bin" Object maybe to keep the eye from wandering from the
truck to the bin as a distraction.
On the Other Hand Glenn I should't even Presume to give someone as talented as
you advice…I've got a long way to go before I can try that.
But regardiny your request for input I would say the images are Great Very Real
and I noticed my eye wandered from the Truck image to the Bin before I really
got to notice all the detail in the Truck Image.
Of course that's me…the attention span of a Knatt! <g>
Bottom Line…do what David Said..Submit it Now!
Murph'
Thanks for the comments James. I've done some further work on it to integrate
the elements more so you don't jump from one to the other as you said.
Glenn. 4Di.
You know It Prints out Reeeeeallll Nice on my FARGO Dye-Sub
Printer….A little Small But actually very nice…. I noticed when
I brought the image in to Photostyler it seemed a little dark so I
looked at the Tonal Image Graph in Photostyler and there appears to be
a Gap in information…..that is there's the bulk of the image tonal
qualities on the left to middle of the graph and a space to the right
of it then just at the far right a little bit of Highly Spiked Tonal
information. When I ignored that information and moved the tonal
adjustment to the left past that end spike…the picture came up much
more brilliant and contrast was nicer too! It appears as if there was
maybe a bit much on the White side as I noticed the outside light in
the hanger door and smaller door area was toned down quite a bit then
the rest of the picture looked more balanced. Take the JPEG image
and load it in to PhotoStyler if you've got it and you'll see this on
the "Tonal Adjustment" Section. Let me know what you think about
this as I'm wondering if this if just High White Light (Specular) or
a "GAMMA" Thing. <BG> LaTER, Murph'
Murph'
I had a problem with my lighting when I uploaded that image (some idiot had
accidently set all the lights with a multiplier of 2 <G>). I don't have
Photostyler but I take your meaning. All over, I have lifted the mid tones of
the image and you are right, it is an improvement.
Glenn 4Di.
Glenn,
>>…accidently set all the lights with a multiplier of 2 <G>)<<
How could such a thing happen? <BG>
Wellll….on the lighter side….. I printed out the image on the
Farga Dye-Sub and it looks GREAT! When you lighten the image the
tires do look correct to me. As if they had been moving through that
particular shade of clay-soil. I think someone else mentioned
changing the tires but that was probably based on the old light/tonal
settings. Bet your sorry you asked….! <g> Great Image Glenn.
Murph'
Thanks Murph. Glenn 4Di.
I finally downloaded the truck (slow, slow, slow). Had to do it, because you
were asking for critical opinions, and I'm nothing if not opinionated. <g> As
with all of your stuff, the image is fabulous. The only two points I can make
are very minor: 1) I recommend shifting the maps on the tires slightly. The
identical dust pattern on each tire caught my eye. 2) The transparent canopy
seems too clean, given the dust and grime on the rest of truck. I'd imagine, in
reality, it would be coated with dust, and semi-transparent at best.
As I asaid, these are very minor points. Great model, and great materials.
– Jack
Two good tips re Robo Truck Jack.
I'll get to ajusting the maps to correct it.
Thanks.
Glenn. 4Di.
Glenn,
I looked at truck.jpg and was impressed (as expected), except the
image is a bit small for my piggy eyes <g>. Couldn't you have
uploaded at least a 640×480? I could scrutinize that more severely
<G>.