Xara 2D drawings to 3D modeling program

[Gare]

Thank you for the information Gary. I'm not looking to invest a lot of time and learning a new program. I was just looking for something to assist me in enhancing my work in Xara. I think I will stick with Xara.

Paul

Oh, you want 3D Pro, the Effortless Edition. :)

Paul, you know very well how hard you had to bust to get to the level of excellence you demonstrate with Xara. It ain't any different than any other program. I've been a writer for a living for over 20 years. In that time, I've had to learn MS-Word down to the last D Header, man. I can't tell you how many nights were wasted on an underpowered machine, to discover in the morning an animation was critically flawed.

Sticking with a well-experienced environment on the computer is a great plus. I don't simply work in Xara: it's more like an immersion. The tools are so familiar and the program is so fast, it's like working at the speed of thought. There cease to be tools, and all one needs to concentrate on is the creativity.

Perhaps I should put this Zen missive in the Infinity thread, huh? :)

You have polish, a keen eye, and imagination. Like I mentioned before, just get a camera, collect perhaps a lot of cool toys and light them with a little care, and boom...you got your 3D program, practically zero effort, and you massage your idea at your leisure in...



your favorite program!

My Best,

Gary

[Psaumure]

Gary. I don't think I'm looking for effortless, I'm not looking for something that takes so much time to figure out that it takes away from working in Xara. More of a utility. As I mentioned, photo shop used to have a modeling tool that gave the dimension that was different from the 3-D extrude tool in Xara. For the most part, I can draw the things that I can see like the violin. But on the apples, I would have liked a little help with a little different perspective. Also, I don't think I'm looking for a full blown modeling program. Most of them that I have seen look very plasticky. Many times, I can draw the images quicker in Xara then it takes doing it in the modeling program. Yes, I use a camera and models to help with my images. I don't know many people that are proficient with the modeling program. That's why I thought I would ask you. The answers you gave me did not raise a lot of encouragement for me. That's why I said that I would just stick with working in Xara.

[Gare]

I'm sorry if I was even 1% snide in my previous remark, Paul. It was at the end of a long (and wide) day.

If it seems as though I called you out, I wasn't. In fact, I'm asked for recommendations all the time from artists, and I can't think of a 3D program that is 1.) Affordable, 2.) Simple to use, and 3.) produces exciting, outstanding renders.

I did mean to discourage you, Paul, as stupid as this sounds. Although there are many approaches to what we commonly call "3D", and many different programs, they all come with the weight of a learning curve. Honestly? I would have given up on modeling back in 1994 if the first generation Pentium chip hadn't come out. It was just too tedious and unpredictable sport.

I see your Xara artwork and what you do, and I feel a little protective of a friend who is reaching out for a visualization aid. You understand perspective better than I do, your lighting is meticulous, your sense of proportion is flawless.

QED: you have no use for the learning curve of a modeling program.

Incidentally, the amateurish, plasticy look of the cheaper programs has to do with the rendering engine, even though the mesh one makes in the program is fine. Modeling is a two-parter: you make a scalable vector mesh, and then yhou render it after declaring the materials on surface, the lighting, and other parameters.

Up until recently, most programs used a rendering engine that was based on simple, inflexible parameters: diffuse amount, specular amount and ambient lighting amount. Here's a render from trueSpace, a wireframe view of the 3D vector model, and then a render using a physically-based camera system. This new age of rendering engines, for the first time affordable to those other than Pixar, take into account light bounces, depth of field, the difference between metal and plastic and a whole lot of stuff. Rendering is a study in and of itself, and products such as Maxwell Render presume you already have a model making program, because all it does is render models as photorealistically as I've ever seen.




There are artists younger than I, who can model and render circles around me, because they were born into an age of processing power—they've been doing this modeling stuff since they were born in 1995. :)

When you're good at something, and you're cautious or at least wary of the time it takes to accomplish something (such as learning), it's heartbreaking for me to hear of a fellow artist who thinks, "Yeah! I want a piece of that!" when they see technologies other than their own. It just isn't worth the time: I will never be able to paint well, because I can't envision what I need to, using digital or physical tools.

I take solace in picking up other stuff quite readily.

Your 3D Xara work shows it's unnecessary for you to mount learning a 3D program, Paul.

Sincerely,

Gary

[Psaumure]

Well Gary, I guess you answered it for me. I'm Xara's rendering engine. No need to upgrade. I must be the light version, because I don't take up that much processing power.

[ss-kalm]

Do you know that PIXAR have just released "Renderman" FREE for non-commercial use? I know nothing about it, but may be at least worth a look.

However, as Gary implied. ALL powerful programs have a reasonably steep learning curve.

[Gare]

Do you know that PIXAR have just released "Renderman" FREE for non-commercial use? I know nothing about it, but may be at least worth a look.

However, as Gary implied. ALL powerful programs have a reasonably steep learning curve.

It is true, but wait for my bad news at the end. Pixar is giving away exactly the same rendering engine that they themselves use (and ILM uses) as long as you sign up for their forum (data sucking, I guess) and you can't use RenderMan for any paying gig.

The commercial version starts at about $2,000 depending on the make and model of RenderMan...for C4D. for Maya, and so on.

Now, this might not be bad news for you if you're a total 3D wonk, but I could not work with the thing and finally had to uninstall it because of a conflict with Pixar RenderMan, their first commercial program that still runs under Win 7 64x and was released more than a decade ago.

I don't fancy myself a stupid person, but RenderMan is logically opaque to me, and I've used stuff like Maxwell Render, which has just about the worst interface for the best rendering engine I've ever seen.

Go for it if you like, and make no mistake that is a grand gesture on the part of Pixar. The suspicious side of me feels this is also a good way to ensure RenderMan dominates Hollywood 15 years from now when modeling people have to go out after school and get a job. Student deals with Illustrator was the way Adobe got their drawing program taught in college.

But my take is learning RenderMan with a student version only is a good way to get old fast.



-g

[Psaumure]

Good news Gary. I found a 3-D rendering program. It's has a fairly easy learning curve. And it was completely free. Here is a sample of the kind of work that I can do in it. You will need to guess the name of the program. It took about three hours to do this.

[Gare]

That is indeed good news, Paul, The model looks terrif and the render looks photorealstic. I want a copy for our mantle!

Wild guess: Art of Illusion, because it's free and can do interesting stuff, but I thought the learning curve was too steep.

Second guess:Wingz.

Third try is probably not the charm: 3DCrafter, because this sort of stuff is possible right from the get-go and it looks faintly similar to your handiwork there in terms of reflections:



I'm very happy for you, Paul: now you have one more thing to distract you!

Okay, spill the beans and is this a bi-platform program?

-g

[Psaumure]

I'm sorry Gary. You missed it on all accounts. I took your advice and I am sticking with Xara. Yes this was 100 % Xara. A Pure Vector illustration. It was a completely free upgrade with a minimal learning curve. And it only took three hours from start to finish. And if you add named colors, you get even more bang for your buck.

[Gare]

Happy to be wrong, Paul! And you consider yourself a journeyman!?

How many artists on tg do you know who can pull off that degree of photorealism straight out of their head?

You fooled me once, shame on you!

Oh. And congratulations, also.

My Best,

Gary