Wishlist; Import and Manipulate 3D models

[Ross Macintosh]

In 3DS Max, I could knock that out in less than 10 minutes, including render time.

Go for it! Make it replicate what I've done, background and all - do not just do a glass ball thingie rendered in max. My illustration wasn't about making a photorealistic ball thingie. It is what it is and the way it looks was intentional. Reproduce it in less than ten and I'd be surprised.

I understand fully that if you did just want a glass ball it could be knocked out very quickly. The original 3d export I had brought into Xara had taken practically no time to create -- just a low poly ball thingie.


Regards, Ross

[BONES]

The sphere would be easy - all the little features in your illustration could easily be created with a bit of displacement. The pattern in the foreground/background could be generated procedurally, using a "Cell" texture map. Obviously, to get it to look exactly like yours would be more time-consuming, just as yours would have taken longer if you were trying to replicate something else exactly, rather than just being creative and getting a good result. But to get a sphere with that look and a similar pattern, with a matching background, would be very quick and easy. If I had a copy of Max here at home, I'd do it for you but it will have to wait until I get to work on Monday.

[Ross Macintosh]

Don't bother bones. I know very well a 3d program alone can make a nice accurate model and beautifully render it. I use a 3d modelling program everyday in my work.

To me my ball thingie posted above was very much a 2d vector rendering meant to have a 'graphic' and not realistic look. To assist in generating it more quickly I imported from a 3d program. To me there's no good reason why 2d illustration and 3d programs shouldn't work together. The images exported from a 3d program are after all a 2d image.

The idea that 3d is for three-d and 2d is for two-d and never-the-two-shall-meet is silly. That it is somehow more moral or whatever to never postprocess an image created in a 3d program also seems silly to me. The programs we use are just tools in an image-making craft. It's the results that matter - the journey can be an adventure but ultimately the product is an image. We often have people in this forum also suggesting moral-like superiority for not using any bitmaps in their Xara work. I can't see how that is any 'better'. I can of course see the challenge in not using them just as there can be satisfaction in the challenge of 3d modeling & rendering without post-processing. Meeting those challenges however doesn't make the resulting images 'better'.

Getting back on-topic, I don't think Xara really needs the kinds of 3d tools John was highlighting but I do think playing better with the world of 3d modelling would be helpful. That's not saying Xara should be able to do the job of a 3d renderer - as I fully understand the benefits of using one. They of course do what they do very-very well.

For anyone interested in jumping into the world of 3d modelling and rendering: Google offers a free version of SketchUp and it works with the free rendering engine Kerkythea. In the Kerkythea galleries I link to, many of the rendered scenes were modelled in SketchUp.

Regards, Ross

[MarkMyWords]

I've played with the 3D bridge from Daz studio to Photoshop and it does work well, but is still not perfect. The 3D window where you manipulate the model is still separate from the layers window which updates after you have moved the model.

Daz studio and Daz 3D bridge are completely free (including a decent amount of 3D content too) if those with Photoshop want to try it out, it works with any version from PS7 up.

This is good, but compare this with Managstudio, where they have a 3D layer, which incorporates a complete 3D manipulation and (limited) rendering program. You work with the model in a layer or set of layers with other layers visible or semi-transparent just like working with layers in any 2D app.

Although Mangastudio is limited in other respects, especially with regard to working in colour and the vector tools (weird and unusual is my view on these), this 3D layer works very well indeed.

[BONES]

Mangastudio looks interesting, but I notice it requires a rendering engine, like any 3D application.

To me there's no good reason why 2d illustration and 3d programs shouldn't work together. The images exported from a 3d program are after all a 2d image.

And right there, you have explained the perfect mechanism for doing it.

The idea that 3d is for three-d and 2d is for two-d and never-the-two-shall-meet is silly. That it is somehow more moral or whatever to never postprocess an image created in a 3d program also seems silly to me.

It is a purely practical matter. I work for Autodesk [formerly discreet] and I understand how non-trivial it is to get 3D into 2D by any method other than rendering your 3D. As I said, Toxik and Nuke at US$3500 are the cheapest I can think of.

We often have people in this forum also suggesting moral-like superiority for not using any bitmaps in their Xara work. I can't see how that is any 'better'. I can of course see the challenge in not using them just as there can be satisfaction in the challenge of 3d modeling & rendering without post-processing. Meeting those challenges however doesn't make the resulting images 'better'.

But that is all purely impractical. I'm a working designer and I use what does the job. In fact, I use Xara for probably 80% of what I would once have used Photoshop for, so not using bitmaps would be silly. I'm all about results and just want the best, most efficient way of getting them.

Getting back on-topic, I don't think Xara really needs the kinds of 3d tools John was highlighting but I do think playing better with the world of 3d modelling would be helpful. That's not saying Xara should be able to do the job of a 3d renderer - as I fully understand the benefits of using one. They of course do what they do very-very well.

At the very least, there is no use in importing 3D models without some kind of perspective, which requires a reference point positioned in 3D space. Which would, at a minimum, require Xara to have its own 3D space, no matter how limited, and a 3D render engine to allow it to be exported. Can you not understand how much work that would involve? I just don't see it as being practical in any sense whatsoever.

[MarkMyWords]

Not arguing with you, but just to be clear; Mangastudios 3D layers will do very simple rendering only, their output is usually line or line and flat tones - no halftones and, as yet, no colour or textures.

They are designed to create 3D elements to be immediately used in black and white comics strips, or for posing built in mannequins to aid figure drawing, so not much use for complex rendering and MS's vector tools are 'idiosyncratic' to say the least.

[Ross Macintosh]

Bones - It is clear to me that you and I are thinking very different things. I trust you know what you are talking about but I'm thinking about a much more basic "3d into Xara" concept than you assume I am. I understand your points that having Xara become a 3d program at the level you assume is wanted, would be impractical. I personally don't want it at that level or anywhere near it. I just want to have Xara cooperate better with other programs that can create vector objects - as 3d modelling programs typically do.

The attached xar file is some 3d-generated geometries I have imported into Xara. Hopefully it will make the context of my thinking much clearer. It is now a xara file (2D of course) comprised of thousands of shapes and lines. (The colours of some shapes have been edited in Xara). At this time I can get a shaded model into Xara - the xar being an example. The hope I have is that maybe someday, if the appropriate Xara importers were added, I'd be able to bring in fully textured models in a similar way. That would allow simplified post processing and perhaps more important - general use of imported 3d-generated content into Xara illustrations.

Regards, Ross

[behzad]

xara should be kept simple to use, i don't want to see it end up like illustrator slow and cumbersome.

[BONES]

Bones - It is clear to me that you and I are thinking very different things. I trust you know what you are talking about but I'm thinking about a much more basic "3d into Xara" concept than you assume I am. I understand your points that having Xara become a 3d program at the level you assume is wanted, would be impractical. I personally don't want it at that level or anywhere near it. I just want to have Xara cooperate better with other programs that can create vector objects - as 3d modelling programs typically do.

The attached xar file is some 3d-generated geometries I have imported into Xara. Hopefully it will make the context of my thinking much clearer. It is now a xara file (2D of course) comprised of thousands of shapes and lines. (The colours of some shapes have been edited in Xara). At this time I can get a shaded model into Xara - the xar being an example. The hope I have is that maybe someday, if the appropriate Xara importers were added, I'd be able to bring in fully textured models in a similar way. That would allow simplified post processing and perhaps more important - general use of imported 3d-generated content into Xara illustrations.

This is a great example. How do you think it would work? Any conversion from 3D to 2D would require some kind of rendering process. To keep it as a vector-based thing, you'd need something like the old Discreet Plasma, which was a cut-down version of 3DS Max that rendered to Flash files. From memory, it was a couple of grand but was discontinued because it wasn't commercially viable, even though ti was based on another very successful code-base.
Computers have excellent tools for displaying 3D models, DirectX and OpenGL, but you shouldn't let that fool you into thinking it would be trivial to then turn them into some kind of useful 2D vector drawing. It is incredibly difficult. More importantly, I don't see why you would want to. I could render that stove with exactly that look by using a 'toon shader. As you point out, 3D info is vector-based, so its probably easier to make those changes in the 3D application and render it when its right.
BTW, did you trace that? Seems like a pretty useful way to vectorise a 3D render for further processing. How much more efficient would any other method be?