a simple bulb...

[jens g.r. benthien]

my famous old bulb re-rendered with the new C4D v7 - it's amazing how much they've improved their render engine. The refractions are tons better than in v5 or 5.

Let me know what you think...

jens

jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net

[jens g.r. benthien]

my famous old bulb re-rendered with the new C4D v7 - it's amazing how much they've improved their render engine. The refractions are tons better than in v5 or 5.

Let me know what you think...

jens

jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net

[Steve Newport]

Jen's, I love the bulb. Very well modeled with lots of detail! One thing though that I didn't even realize till starring at it for a while. Your bulb is black, it does give it a glassy effect, but there's gasses and flames burning around that coil combusting everywhere inside the glass and the only thing you have to show that is a slight glow around the edges. Now I have no knowledge CD4 but I'd recommend adding as much light inside and outside of the bulb as you can. Look at the lightbulb on the lamp on your desk (Or whereever you can find one) for a couple seconds when it's lit-up, very bright! Now even if you're just going for a certain "moody" effect, you still need more light because it is a lit bulb.

Great job either way though, looks great

Steve Newport

[Gary David Bouton]

Jens, I am incredibly impressed with not only your technical skills, but how you position, crop, and genrally work "outside of the Modeling" to bring a picture to life.

I would like to start a new thread (in fact, today!) about making your artwork "invisible" to the trained eye, within a piece. That, too, is a skill and Art.

One question, Jens...how can the filament be hot if the bulb isn't in a socket? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]


All My Best,

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.

[Gary David Bouton]

I figured since everyone else was showing off their bulbs...

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.

[jens g.r. benthien]

Steve,

the glass ** is ** light grey, not black. And the environment (dark blue and black) mirrors in the glass, giving a it a darker color.

Think of this: if you will use a dimmer (correct expression?) to reduce the electrical power to the bulb, you definitely can see the filament, and it will glow a bit. But that's stuff from 'reality', physics and testing.

Gary,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One question, Jens...how can the filament be hot if the bulb isn't in a socket? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple answer: either by high voltage electrical fields in a lab (with the result that the final shot showed the glass of the vacuum box around it) or in a photo studio. Believe it or not, we've run endless tests in a studio with hidden wires placed behind the bulb and socket, because several photographers wanted to show me they can do it in a 'real' world environment. But we didn't even come close to my 3D result. All pictures required extensive pixel editing for days... with a rather flat and dull result.

My idea was to show something that's almost impossible, yet to turn it into reality with 3D, so that everybody would ask 'how'd you do it?'. To be honest, I wanted to screw some lousy hi fly ad agencies with this artwork just to prove that they can't be me because they kept telling me that I'm not good enough for their super customers. It worked better than I expected ;-} They were screaming and yelling when I told them I don't want to work for stupids anymore.

Oh, before I forget: I **never** use any software for post-processing. All my 3D comes 'as is' right off the rendering engine...

jens

jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net

[Gary David Bouton]

Jens,

Your work is terrific and very photorealistic.
I was kidding about how come the light bulb isn't screwed in or anything? We kid a lot on this forum, always in good nature.

My feeling is that modeling is a "visualization solution"...to provide what photography cannot. Or at least that's one use for modeling/rendering.

One thing I do not understand is why so many talented people refuse to touch-up their work after rendering. This, to me, suggests that an artist is laboring over a visual solution for too long, if another avenue is available. We're creating "art" when we use modeling programs, and "mixed media" is most assuredly an art form. My bulb picture required two different rendering engines, Painter, and 9 layers in Photoshop, mostly to get the internal reflections right.

I'm going to have to look around my drives, over the period of ten years, to see whether I have a piece I did not "enhance" in some way outside of the modeler/renderer. I remember in the early 1990s, I wanted text on a book, and the sort of mapping I wanted was not possible with materials. So I hauled a blank book into CorelDRAW and used the Envelope filter to get my text. I'm attaching it here.

And for your information, Jen, the only thing I will ever preach on this forum is tolerance. Life's too short to campaign for technique, modeling program or brand of sneakers.

I feel very lucky to have you join this forum, Jen. Like I said in the previous message, you got a tight act there, to be proud of.

My Best,

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.

[This message was edited by Gary David Bouton on August 25, 2001 at 10:37.]

[Earl]

Hi Gary,

I understand the great value in retouching one's image in Photo-Paint or PhotoChop (ooops! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ), however there's one thing that keeps me from ever going that route - animation. If I want to animate my scene, I don't want to think about retouching every frame afterward - that could take more lifetimes than I have! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] Especially if it was a delicate procedure which required intricate details. The end result would be a flickering animation that didn't flow...

So even for stills, I refuse to do anything outside of LightWave - simply by principle. However, I do NOT look down on anything that was touched up in the slightest. My method is good for me, but certainly not good for everyone. I just want to make it clear that I don't see anything wrong with retouching renders - even though I personally would never do it.

Oh and...nice job on the text in that book! It doesn't even look like it was done in Draw...!

[jens g.r. benthien]

Gary, I didn't understand your comment as an offence, I knew you were kidding, but since this had always been the first question I just wanted to explain the background story that goes with the image. In addition, I don't mind if someone will post process his/her renderings in another application, but what I mean is that in most instances the retouching will eat up too much time - at least for me. And as Earl mentioned: as soon as you will have to animate something, you'll be lost.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This, to me, suggests that an artist is laboring over a visual solution for too long, if another avenue is available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right when you say life is too short, but I can't change my attitude or mentality :-o

And yes, your picture is really great. I wouldn't have noticed that you didn't use a texture there. This is a proof that you are an expert in PhotoShop as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One thing I do not understand is why so many talented people refuse to touch-up their work after rendering. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a purist and perfectionist. A very weird one. :-]]

About the tolerance: I'll try to stop mentioning my apps. It was just the fact that I've been so fascinated by the new release. However, I **know** different brands, and I know that they are pretty similar to a certain extent.

And I know that you need more than one tool in your toolbox, because if you only have a hammer in your toolbox, everything starts looking like a nail sooner or later ;-}

Your bulb is a perfect example for it: you must have used more than one tool for it to achieve this oustanding result.

3D galore!

jens

jens g.r. benthien
designer
http://jens.highspeedweb.net

[Gary David Bouton]

Agreed, Jens, agreed. Life is also too short for misunderstanding. I'll try in the future not to be so thin-skinned--I just have a responsibility on this forum to be moderate (yes, that was a play on words [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

PLEASE DO tell us what applications you use for a specific piece. That's how consumers know what to buy!

My lightbulb piece was modeled on the Macintosh in a program called PIXAR Showplace...a long-dead application. Then I exported a hand from Poser to trueSpace on my PC. The brush? No big deal. I then painted over the composition I'd created in Photoshop to suggest the painting (the textures were done in Painter). Finally, the whole composition was color corrected and properly exposed in Photoshop.

Now, the disadvantage to doing things this way is:
-if I use only a modeling program, I can resize renderings.
-If I use 7 applications, I have to use them again (and I do forget an image's lineage!) to resize the piece.

So for this reason, I have bought a total of 240GB of hard drive space.


Which brings us back to the hardware thread! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

My Best,

Gary David Bouton
Gary@GaryDavidBouton.com
Free education! The Writings Web site
and the updated GaryWorld Gallery is pretty okay, too.