I thought my original gallery/thread was getting too large for anyone to bother flipping all them pages, so if no one minds, I'll start another thread:
Attachment 109961
(It's what you do if you can't get out of the house!)
My Best,
Gary
Printable View
I thought my original gallery/thread was getting too large for anyone to bother flipping all them pages, so if no one minds, I'll start another thread:
Attachment 109961
(It's what you do if you can't get out of the house!)
My Best,
Gary
Attachment 109991
There was a video tutorial on color, where I offered an abstract scene I drew in Xara for artists to add color to the blank walls.
I needed to do a 3D model of the scene.
I don't know why.
I had to.
-g
That must be one of those new tiny houses. :)
Sometimes you just want to see something from a different angle.
That was my apartment in Manhattan! :) One room, view of the back of a warehouse 6" away.
† ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡ † ‡
I have a very twisted "Tinkertoy"-style construction set, Zolo. Here's a rendered model of one of the thousands of real ugly possibilities...
Attachment 110055
My Best,
Gary
Something that grew out of a discovery mwenz and I came to at about the same time...
Attachment 110066
The first one reminds me of Mr. Potato Head toy from the fifties.
The second one is right on target (sorry). Interesting the shapes in that one. Looks kind of like a lathe chuck.
Thanks, Graham—To get the weird dart board, I used dsb Flux's Radial Mosiac Photoshop filter. Then I carefully traced all the pieces, exported from Xara to AI file format, extruded the pieces to different depths, and then used an equally weird but dramatic camera angle.
Attachment 110067
This is all vector work in Expression. It looks like a painting because you can use a bitmap as a vector stroke, like Xara 10's new strokes.
Attachment 110069
I still like this, even though I did it ten years ago as an avatar for our website, which we've more or less abandoned. I use a much better rendering engine these days, and only use Poser figures occasionally, but the lighting seemed to draw out some visual intrigue.
Or I'm totally kidding myself.
Attachment 110104
The first one you wouldn't think was vector.
The clowns face does have an interesting light reflection on it. The one side of the face really pulls you in.
I don't mind at all, and will come here often to marvel and be inspired.
I hope you mean TalkGraphics, and not my thread here, Mark! :)
I did this when I was researching an unregistered name for a video effects company. The name is taken for COM, ORG, UK, and about five other top-level domains, sad to say!
Attachment 110156
My Best,
Gary
Of course Gary, however you would like to take it sir. ;)
Ha! Ya got me! Thanks for that, Mark!
My Best,
Gary
As most things in life, we only view it in mirrors. Good one, Gary.
Thanks for that, Graham.
In the spare time I don't have, I want to animate the lava lamp (character) like Pindar has done with a Luxo™ lamp, stomping around their logo.
My Best,
Gary
I did not sculpt the lobster (I bought it at TurboSquid), but I did animate it a while ago to play guitar, something only the most expensive of lobsters—boiled, mind you—can do.
Attachment 110177
My Best,
Gary
That's great Gary! I love it. =D>
Thank you, Mark!
I did the fx as connective tissue for live band footage about seven/eight years ago, and it was the first "full length" piece I'd ever done using animation software and After Effects. Talk about "nervous", letting it be posted on YouTube!
My Best,
Gary
I'll bet that was nerve racking Gary. I checked it out on Youtube and it was all thumbs up, none turned down. It amazes me how proficient you are in so many different areas of the graphic arts, you have very impressive background.
It was for an Australian pub band if that wasn't clear (it probably wasn't!), and when you put something up on YouTube, the entire world sees it, hence my reluctance/nervousness!
Proficient in graphics, yeah. I'm compensated by being completely ignorant of home furnaces, refrigeration of any kind, cooking outside of pressing settings on a microwave, and forget cars. I drive them...why should I need to know anything else, like where the oil is?
:)
-g
Spoonerisms can lead to interesting Art!
Attachment 110179
Someone I caught up with from college asked me what I've been up to. Smart-ass that I am, I sent him this illustration instead of text:
Attachment 110186
Pretty pathetic as a roadmap, huh?
:)
-g
The one pic says it all in both cases.
Thanks again, Graham!
Okay, some Photoshop, and a little smirk because I'm sure Wiley will never hire me again to do a Dummies book.
Attachment 110209
I drew a duck and posted on the Xara Gallery, so this is just trying to strike a balance:
Attachment 110258
My Best,
Gary
I thought of this when I was recovering from a broken leg earlier this year; the medications were partially responsible.
I pose the question: why do we have diet soda, diet meals, diet candy, but light beer? Why not "Diet Beer"?
Attachment 110297
This is not a photo, at least not the composition. I carefully trimmed around several different leaves, defined them as Painter nozzles, and then stroked a little while. I then added a little 55mm digital effects (a suite of PS plug-ins), and hopefully the result looks natural and photographic.
Attachment 110298
Interesting question Gary. I'd say a light beer in the UK refers to a lower alcohol content, not a lower calorie content.Quote:
why do we have diet soda, diet meals, diet candy, but light beer? Why not "Diet Beer"?
Good sketch tho :)
Thanks for that, egg.
Reduced alcohol content is also part of the "light" claim here in the USA, but it's sold as a "less filling" drink because there are also less carbohydrates...which is part and parcel of less alcohol.
But in the final reel, the US breweries (foreign-owned, but still on US soil!) feel the term "diet" is synonymous with a sissy drink, thus the fudge term "light".
My Best,
Gary
Attachment 110311
Did anyone actually afix a penny or a quarter to the tone arm to stop skips on your 45s?
I did, because pressings in the USA were so crappy and warped in the 1960s.
My Best,
Gary
"SpectrumWare".
Practicing my glass off in Maxwell Render. The models are mine, C4D.
And it was a SOB making the jigsaw puzzle floor bump map...
Larry, as long as I have your attention, may I ask if the render is photorealistic enough to be mistaken for a photograph?
TIA,
Gary
Hi Egg, and no I don't mind at all. If you are referring to the noise throughout the picture, it was intentional. Maxwell Render allows you to set a film type and speed. It's virtual camera is photometrically accurate right down to simulating film emulsion.
Attachment 110331
Does this do anything for you that the other doesn't, in terms of photorealism? I just modeled and rendered it out of modo, and although it does chrome and glass very well, Maxwell Render gives me more latitude and the images are just...well, for me, more visually exciting. The glasses could have been rendered out of RenderMan, or 3D Studio, but I'm afraid there wouldn't be a lot of difference.
This is a Maxwell Render of a guitar I've used many different rendering engines to display:
Attachment 110333
My Best,
Gary
I just looked at all of rhem on my iPad, I don,t see any speckelong here. Of the last two I prefer glasses.
I much prefer that image Gary
Far more photo-realistic. As for photo speed & type that's over my head, not being a photographer, but I understand your aim, but on the other hand do viewers understand this medium/rendering either? I just see a speckled image. Not distracting from your work, just my observations. If you want to achieve photo-realism to the average viewer does film type, shutter speed etc mean anything to the uneducated (me) viewer? :)
On your guitar image I find the field of focus far to severe.
Egg and Larry—
I think this discussion has devolved into the taste I have in rendering the models I create, the content of the scene itself, and the rendering engine I use.
Let me play a "Which do you like better?" game here, and then move on, okay? :)
Attachment 110337
Okay, I'm thinking for the subject of an electric guitar (over 300 individual parts I had to model), that modo's rendering engine is more appropriate, right?
Next comparison: I think without looking very long, you'll note which image is a photo, and which one is my creation. Is there anything you like, such as an improved rendering, or anything you don't like in the rendered image? Is there anything you like or don't like in my photography skills? That was a joke (I hope).
Attachment 110338
How about this one? Is the glass glass-like?
Attachment 110339
Egg, I know you don't care for my choice of depth of field; in my defense, that was an effect in the Rickenbacker image I was only starting to grasp back in 2008. And I'm still pleased with the composition, enough to include it in this gallery.
As far as the noise you mention, and admitting you're not a photographer, there is grain in any physical photo (except Polaroids, I think). If you bought Kodachrome and used it at a very slow shutter speed (such as 1/30th of a second), you'd probably not see the grain. But in you used the 1970s Fuji color stock, you'd see color inaccuracies and a lot of grain because in the 1970s Fuji color wasn't very good, but inexpensive so if you wanted to slum it, you'd buy Fuji.
I'll work on the amount of film grain I choose in future renders. Although modo adds a little "jittering" to pixel values that neighbor one another, a 1 yo 1 viewing resolution, the effect contributes but is virtually unnoticeable:
Attachment 110340
On with the show!
My Best,
Gary