I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters. THe glasses looked good, as did the little intro, but I wasn't critiquing photorealism at that time either because I new it was CG.
I thought it was good for what it was. A teaser. An exercise. I don't think any portion of it looked bad at all.
Either your reading comprehension is bad or being an architect just isn't what it used to be. What part of "masters degree in architecture" is not a design education?
Architecture is, and has been for quite some time, something of an interdisciplinary pursuit.
I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters.
I'll only give you that the fire looked too flat and fake.
But motion blurring happens in film and video.
Re sharpness sure, it isn't warm and blurred like 1970's film would be but it's not imitating 1970's film, it is imitating the environment. If it's super crisp, it is no moreso than if you were standing in the room yourself, which is the point.
Granted if you are imitating real life, ditch the motionblur and use the gladiator/28 days later/stobe effect which is more accurate to what humans see during quick motion.
But it's hardly what I would call bad.
Do I detect the jaded jealousy of a 3D pro? Got some examples?
I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters. THe glasses looked good, as did the little intro, but I wasn't critiquing photorealism at that time either because I new it was CG.
I thought it was amazing. I think you are an idiot.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters. THe glasses looked good, as did the little intro, but I wasn't critiquing photorealism at that time either because I new it was CG.
I thought it was good for what it was. A teaser. An exercise. I don't think any portion of it looked bad at all.
Originally posted by cowerd
Either your reading comprehension is bad or being an architect just isn't what it used to be. What part of "masters degree in architecture" is not a design education?
Architecture is, and has been for quite some time, something of an interdisciplinary pursuit.
I mean, the power of something capable of creating immersive realtime rendered movies with synthesized Jack Nicholson creeping up behind you...
If *that* was iPod 3, what rev are we in now - iPod 0.01 ?!
Good idea, good rendering, very good choice of music too.
In 2025, gadgets like this will be common.
Originally posted by michaelb
Totally impressive, but only iPod 3?
I mean, the power of something capable of creating immersive realtime rendered movies with synthesized Jack Nicholson creeping up behind you...
If *that* was iPod 3, what rev are we in now - iPod 0.01 ?!
yah good point... is apple working on a better iPod now or are they still on a mini iPod hangover
-or-
A different way of looking at it, is that we are on the first iPod in the third generation. I'm excited for iPod squared
Originally posted by onlooker
I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters.
I'll only give you that the fire looked too flat and fake.
But motion blurring happens in film and video.
Re sharpness sure, it isn't warm and blurred like 1970's film would be but it's not imitating 1970's film, it is imitating the environment. If it's super crisp, it is no moreso than if you were standing in the room yourself, which is the point.
Granted if you are imitating real life, ditch the motionblur and use the gladiator/28 days later/stobe effect which is more accurate to what humans see during quick motion.
But it's hardly what I would call bad.
Do I detect the jaded jealousy of a 3D pro? Got some examples?
Originally posted by onlooker
I didn't think the render looked that good at all. It was real blurry with every camera move, but the beams, and stuff was over sharp, and the fire looked like sh*t. That's for starters. THe glasses looked good, as did the little intro, but I wasn't critiquing photorealism at that time either because I new it was CG.
I thought it was amazing. I think you are an idiot.