Printable View
This is a rendering I did in Poser then brought it to Photoshop for the magic. I really like doing pics like these, gives you the chance to make the unreal... real, and make it look, well, real! Hope you guys like it
Steve Newport
Credits: Texture: (Me!)
Model: Anton Kisiel
This is a rendering I did in Poser then brought it to Photoshop for the magic. I really like doing pics like these, gives you the chance to make the unreal... real, and make it look, well, real! Hope you guys like it
Steve Newport
Credits: Texture: (Me!)
Model: Anton Kisiel
Nice compositing Steve well done [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Reduce the length of that neck though,if it was a real nessy it would have a broken neck or bent spine or something [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Nice work.
Stu.
Nice job steve. I love pictures like these. Most of mine come out looking too fake. You have done a nice job with this. I think the lighting or the shadows need something, I just can't place a finger on it.
Great job!
Randy
Superb Photoshop work, Steve. Wanna write my next book? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Seriously, I've given a great deal of thought to why we come to 3D, and I think there's three reasons:
1.)To make the impossible totally plausible. And, yes, even in Hollywood, modelers correct stuff with Photoshop.
2.)To give life to fantasy. I've yet to see someone do a convincing Pinnochio in this forum yet, but can you imagine that?
3.)To aid in animation. 3D animation just has it all over 2D animation. Has everyone seen "Shreck" yet? The exploding bluebird is a perfect example. It was a totally undeserved send-up of Disney, but at the same time, it had more feeling than Snow White crooning to a bluebird in 2D cel animation.
Off topic: Richard Katzenberg, 1/3rd of Geffen/Spielberg/Katzenberg, AKA DreamWorks, was forced out of Disney as a company by Eisner, and Katzenberg probably saw "Shrek" as a good place to "vent" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] They also bought Pacific Data, so Dreamscape kinda had a jump start into the 3D motion picture business.
Geez, if they'd formed DreamWorks a little earlier, they could have bought PIXAR!
Again, nice work, Steve. You should be very proud of your work.
Cheers,
Gary David Bouton
www.boutons.com
Gary@GaryWorld.com
Visit a really large gallery at www.GaryWorld.com!
Very nice compositing Steve. You've matched the shadows to the photo very well. Sure, one could tweak and work on a piece forever, but I like what you came up with. It reminds me of that one Disney movie...oh so ancient now (only a year old), where they composited a bunch of CG dinosaurs with a real landscape... [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Gary,
Thanks for the info with Dreamworks and Pixar. And yup, I sure have seen Shreck. A very good film that was. Honestly though, I'm glad things worked out the way they did. I like watching DreamWorks and Pixar|Disney go head to head. Makes for some good animated films. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Gary, two domains?! Spiffy stuff! I like em' both, you put a lot of character and style into your images, I can tell exactly what mood you were in (or wanted to be in!) when you were creating them! Very fun!
Thanks a lot for all the comments, I really appreciate it. About the shadows, this is one of the parts that I was unsure about also. Not being able to tell exactly were the sun is, we can't make the shadows the way they should be. So I thought it was coming from the back left and made the shadows according. I think I got the back of the dino good, but the neck shadow isn't all that great, hard to tell what the sun would've done to it.
This pic is one I created previous to the first one, I don't like it as much, but I think the shadows are much better, enjoy!
Steve Newport
Very cool
Steve,
Don't be too hard on yourself about the shadows. Again, we can tweak a single image all our life, but we have to call it 'done' at some point (well, some of us like to). [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Even most major feature films cannot composite CG and photo/film with 100% accuracy. And they *know* the lighting setups, what types of lights were used, not to mention they have many reference points for perspective and camera matching. Even with all that, you can usually tell what parts are 3d computer animated and what parts are 'real.' There are definitely some exceptions - some sequences of some of the top movies accomplish the blending of CG and live action seamlessly... Now, with emerging technologies such as HDRI and hybrid radiosity, 3d computer graphics will be able to match the look of film and trick the human eye with much higher rates of success.
Anyhow...point is, I think you've done a great job at a task that even major studios have problems with. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]