|
|
jeffery posted:how are they (or will they) transfer(ing) the background information to her? I'd love a more focused question if this is not an attempt at fyad-style weirdness |
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
|
i dont like chatting about these topics on the forums its so much easier in person with weed
---------------- |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
|
jeffery posted:i dont like chatting about these topics on the forums its so much easier in person with weed 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
|
https://thelotradio.com
---------------- |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
|
this is what a professional texture looks like, first one is with fake displacement, second one with true displacement. hopefully you can see the "realism" aspect, the true bump casts shadows more realistically, also it affects the outline of the object whereas fake bump does not. they both look pretty good IMO, this material was $2 for a commercial license from poliigon.com. I got it mostly because I've never used a commercial material before and I was curious.  I exaggerated the "true bump" a bit to show the difference, probably you'd make it a little more subtle. the downside of the true bump is that you have to subdivide your mesh quite a bit to get it looking good, which slows things down. |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:this is what a professional texture looks like, first one is with fake displacement, second one with true displacement. hopefully you can see the "realism" aspect, the true bump casts shadows more realistically, also it affects the outline of the object whereas fake bump does not. they both look pretty good IMO, this material was $2 for a commercial license from poliigon.com. I got it mostly because I've never used a commercial material before and I was curious. Now I wonder about just paying someone to do the complicated part of making and rigging some figures to my description (I'd probably be the least annoying client ever, because the quality in that first picture would be enough to make me say "great, perfect", if you hadn't showed me the second picture that's even better!) Which brings me to what I think is a good question - how easy is it to switch out figures in an animation in Blender? I mean if I were to make my animation with placeholder blob figures and then I wanted to switch in a full rigged fancy cloth-and-plastic-bits-looking model at the end? I'm guessing it should be pretty easy so long as the rigging skeletons are compatible, but that's my programmer view of things and I'm familiar with tools sometimes making that sort of thing much more difficult than it ought to be. That seems like a good plan to me as I'm pretty decent at animating things but I'm consistently pretty bad at constructing them - paying someone to make me nice models and then never getting around to animating it seems like a likely outcome if I tried to do it in that order, since not getting around to things is my superpower, so it seems to make good sense to do it in the other order if that's feasible. Edit: Of course once I start thinking about paying someone to contribute, I have to start thinking about trying to make money from a short film, which is tough because nobody buys short animations, and you can't even apply to monetize on Youtube until it's your second reasonably successful video. And this is why I should not get sidetracked from my game project by an animation project. roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Well that certainly seems like a good idea for me, a person who is bad at art things. It would probably take me about two weeks to make a material like that, so $2 would be a super bargain. I'm less familiar with this stuff, I mean I have worked with some of the basics but I have little idea how the advanced people put it into practice. you'll likely need advice from someone else especially if you're thinking about commissioning something. as you say, you have your armature (the skeleton), and the mesh you bind to the armature. you don't actually need a mesh at all to do your poses and actions, although some kind of mesh will help you visualize things. you can certainly parent a different mesh to a given armature, and any animations or poses that you've done will be preserved. however, the process of parenting can be finicky especially if there are a lot of bones, you can automate the process to a certain extent but from what I understand there is often some painstaking work making sure each bone is influencing exactly the right vertices in the mesh. obviously it matters a lot less if you're just trying something out. I guess if you were to commission someone to help you, you'd likely want to consult with them about the appropriate armature, you can go detailed or simple, it depends on what kinds of motions you want your character to be able to do. I am guessing it would be possible for the artist to hand off to you an armature to animate and maybe a placeholder mesh while they get the details down. But when it comes to the exact logistics of swapping in the final mesh I'm not positive about the best way to do it in terms of saving you work, possibly you could have them do it for you. |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
|
it's great that the thread has delved into specific topics, I hope that hasn't been offputting to people who don't care about them. I did want to make kind of a general point--maybe I am belaboring something obvious and if so I apologize. it's wonderful that blender has advanced tools that run in all sorts of directions. to some people, the presence of these professional-level capabilities (perhaps not pro-grade in every dimension, but many) is what makes it worthwhile. but you really, really don't need to get so far into the weeds to have fun with blender or to make it useful for little things. recently I've been looking at some short tutorials by this guy "Ducky 3D." he creates stylized things like sci-fi landscapes, vj-type loops, interesting material effects . . . these are a few examples but check out his channel to see the full range. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-_Htl-R90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnLsktA4gmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlZgfcRcuy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyts71XMtw now maybe this style of art doesn't appeal to you, that's not the point. my point is that none of the techniques he uses, at least that I've seen so far, are highly advanced, in fact he barely does any modeling. they do take a decent grasp of blender basics to follow. but it seems to me he is leveraging blender's ability to do certain complex-looking things rather quickly, and by using an eye for composition he is able to tweak them into finished pieces that look cool. he's having fun. if professional-level results are not your goal, you don't need to delve way into matters that get tricky and time-consuming. I have also admired some beginner tutorials by this channel called "tutor4u" because they are concise but create appealing results. he has a two-part series on creating a hammer, for example, that introduces concepts of modeling and shading; it's targeted at absolute beginners. he has an abbreviated style that is well suited to following along. he does not spend as much time talking about the "whys" as other tutorial creators, but he does provide basic context. as a bonus this series uses 2.8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elUJCEC06r8 he's fond of showing how to use effects to animate text, you'll have to check out his channel to see the variety. he picks some really neat things and shows how to do them in relatively few steps (sacrificing customizability of the effects, but you can always delve into how to get more control later). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4_0nNZSWdw I likewise appreciate his efficiency in showing how to create nice modeling effects like this ring. he partly achieves this by introducing terms without defining them, which is part of the "teaching by implication" concept I mentioned. perhaps you prefer that instead of the verbosity of other teachers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqhi8q4EGZk okay, I guess that's enough for this post. there are plenty of other examples of how people manage to get interesting effects fairly simply, and that may well extend to something that interests you, even if the examples I've given so far are not really your style. |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
|
hamjobs you said you started the donut tutorial, how's it coming? I was thinking of maybe doing a "design a chair" blender thread in honor of your sitting thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:hamjobs you said you started the donut tutorial, how's it coming? so far I'm really bad at blender lol, but I'm working through it. Getting textures to wrap correctly is... Not my specialty I think. I'm gonna keep poking at it tonight. I would 100% try to design a chair though, as I am fond of sitting in them weirdly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
|
hamjobs posted:Getting textures to wrap correctly is... Not my specialty I think. I'm gonna keep poking at it tonight. yeah that is a fiddly bit but I have faith in u
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:yeah that is a fiddly bit but I have faith in u Thanifisto
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
|
there probably won't always be activity in this thread, which is fine. my thought was to have the thread around as a resource if and when anyone wants it, so I'll probably bump it from time to time just to keep it from dropping into "locked for archiving" which has happened to several of our photoshop/gimp threads. setting aside the whole "learning/using" blender thing, you might wonder how such a capable program came to be open source. this has a lot to do with a dude named ton roosendaal, who is quite a character. a rather long interview with him is linked below, there are chapter marks in the description so you can jump to any subject that might grab you. basically blender had its roots in a commercial endeavor long ago, one of those classic silicon valley boom/bust stories. when the money ran out and investors got impatient, there was a specific funding drive to buy the rights from the investors to make it open source. I like the way the guy thinks, he has an intellectual curiosity and passion that is infectious despite (or perhaps because of) his goofiness. he has some interesting things to say about functionality and interface, whatever you may think about what they've settled on at least there is a thought process there driven by what various types of users want/need. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
|
Is Blender used commercially a lot? If not, why not? |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Is Blender used commercially a lot? If not, why not? from what I gather, yes it is used increasingly by small studios (10-50). it is not an "industry standard," but that is a weird concept. like pixar uses their own in-house software, so they are not "industry standard" either, and in fact pixar went out of its way to make blender compatible with its render engine which is quite cool. but a lot of major studios are entrenched with maya or 3ds max or cinema 4D, and the calculation there is understandable. if you've got a stable of artists trained in certain programs, how much is it worth it to make them all learn something new? also major studios probably have custom things that they absolutely need to work, so they need developer resources highly focused on making sure their individual needs work. providing good support is hard and expensive, the blender developers are just a few people, they don't have the funds/resources to be at the beck and call of a studio. of course if the studio paid for dedicated blender developers, which is absolutely possible, they'd be able to address that issue. in my rather untutored view, over the past few years blender has made major strides. they have delivered short movies demonstrating that they can be used for serious projects. the reasons for not using blender used to be better, there used to be important missing features or whatnot, but one by one those are being eliminated. it's fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
|
another feature that has a lot of people excited about blender 2.8 is the vastly enhanced 2d capabilities, mostly centered around an updated "grease pencil" tool. the features here are so new that frankly it's going to take the community quite a while to just explore its capabilities and develop workflows that use them effectively. the notion here is brushstrokes, sort of hybrid "paint/vector" objects, that exist in the 3d world and can be manipulated using the same tools and techniques that apply to meshes. at their core these objects are essentially "vector" like, in that they don't represent colored pixels but a series of connected points. however a lot of thought has been given to make them look and work like more traditional paint tools. here's a recent video showcasing "paint like" strokes of the grease pencil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpY-WVQUxYw just one of the many cool things enabled by this concept is the ability to bind "painted" components to fully animated armatures, like the ones used to animate 3d characters in games etc. if I took the time I bet I could find a better example but this video shows the kind of thing I'm talking about. jump to 5:33 for a quick view of the whole rig in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9hEgR-vKb0 but of course you can just modify your strokes frame to frame, or modify them from frame A to B and have blender interpolate between those frames. you can enable "onion skinning" to show you the next and previous positions overlaid in a faint color to help you adjust each individual keyframe. again I'm sure I could find a better example but this gives the gist (jump to 3:25 to see a more finished view--some youtubers really need to learn to lead off their videos with a preview of what they're showcasing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZhJBcwodq0 interpolation in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bghK6gwsFvk here's a short film that was done entirely using the grease pencil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmSdY56VtY there are already plenty of breathless videos by 2d artists talking about how this is a "game-changer." not necessarily because there have never been tools that could do the same things, but having them all together and integrated with blender's many other features, in a 100% free package, seems pretty unprecedented (afaik). it will be very interesting to see what people are able to do with these capabilities once the "shiny new toy" appeal has faded a bit. personally I have hardly touched these features at this point but sooner or later I'm sure I will give them a whirl. I do have an old but functional pressure sensitive tablet which I think will enhance the whole experience. |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
|
bumpity at one point I thought about trying to list up some useful resources, both blender-specific and more general. fortunately there's no need, gleb alexandrov has put together a very useful page that covers nearly everything I might think of and plenty more. included are some wonderful resources for assets (objects, textures, backgrounds etc), including free/cc0 ones which are quite handy for anything that might lead to a commercial usage. https://www.creativeshrimp.com/resources.html I have always admired gleb's tutorials/instructional videos. he goes fast and his stuff is targeted at more advanced users, but he provides very eye-opening introductions to the many different ways you might go about addressing a specific design challenge. he seems happy to push the boundaries, and blender is very well suited to that. unrelatedly, here is a video somebody put together in blender (and post-processed in after effects), I think it's kinda cool https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x77vm81 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
|
you know that "default computer background" look? when you reformat your computer and it goes to the default background, and it's usually some abstract minimalistic thing with lots of glossy surfaces and glowy stuff.        i made a few background images in that style (some of them are animated) and it occurred to me that it would be really good practice if you're trying to learn blender. if you're trying to model something from real life, it's possible to get it wrong, but with abstract backgrounds all you really need to do is have a pleasing color combination. if you're trying to learn the user interface or experiment with modifiers, it's a good way to produce something with really low stakes, and you might end up with a cool design afterwards. |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
|
Komojo posted:you know that "default computer background" look? when you reformat your computer and it goes to the default background, and it's usually some abstract minimalistic thing with lots of glossy surfaces and glowy stuff. that's cool! did you in fact make them with blender, or did you use something else? |
|
#
?
May 15, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
|
if anyone were interested in producing this kind of stuff, it might be fun to assemble people's clips of still or animated things into a video could be simple things like the following, this doesn't feel "finished" to me but it's a kind of thing you can generate procedurally and tweak to your heart's content with a few tutorials under your belt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9FwYeTOnk obviously it gets repetitive if you're just looping the same thing, but once you start splicing things together it gets more interesting |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
|
Manifisto posted:that's cool! did you in fact make them with blender, or did you use something else? all blender. i used some python scripting to animate the one with the tiles, but everything else was pretty simple. |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
|
Komojo posted:all blender. i used some python scripting to animate the one with the tiles, but everything else was pretty simple. very nice! I have yet to experiment with things like python scripting or using animation nodes or sverchok, the stuff I see people create with them is really neat though. I came across this mini-tutorial recently, I think it's a really cool effect. sometimes I am able to guess at the techniques used, this time I didn't get very close but I admire the approach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm4rDDRcbDQ |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
|
blender the devs are being quite open about their work on the upcoming release, one of them actually hosts a weekly livestream in which he summarizes progress, responds to questions, etc. it's really interesting (to me). they have just about frozen the ui, it has gone through a lot of tweaks and is honestly looking pretty good. it's still going to take me a while to get used to everything tho. has anyone besides hamjobs been messing around with it at all? thoughts? |
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
|
I bought a real mouse for my laptop and booted it up. I’m watching videos and trying to figure out what I want to make.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
|
el dorito posted:I bought a real mouse for my laptop and booted it up. coolio! enjoy, don't be shy about posting |
|
#
?
May 23, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLJoABUdHXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK2k9Fi455M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb_VCHO5H30 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
|
bump non-content bump but blender 2.8 should be out soon! |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
|
Okay, I was trying to make some sigs in Photoshop but I really couldn't make it well, from a Photoshop experienced point of view, is switching to blender a big project? Is it worth it for the average Photoshop thread guy that knows how to do some basic Photoshop work and would never even dream about actually good stuff? It looks like a very powerful program with many layers and you already mentioned that the first reaction when seeing the UI is probably being overwhelmed. Not that this would be any different with Photoshop or even gimp if we are being honest, but I really am bad in trying out deep new things and am scared for my life right now after looking at blender. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:Okay, I was trying to make some sigs in Photoshop but I really couldn't make it well, from a Photoshop experienced point of view, is switching to blender a big project? Is it worth it for the average Photoshop thread guy that knows how to do some basic Photoshop work and would never even dream about actually good stuff? It looks like a very powerful program with many layers and you already mentioned that the first reaction when seeing the UI is probably being overwhelmed. Not that this would be any different with Photoshop or even gimp if we are being honest, but I really am bad in trying out deep new things and am scared for my life right now after looking at blender. if you have a pretty basic thing to do, you can (imo) learn blender well enough to do the basic thing in maybe a few hours. you won't understand exactly why you're doing what you're doing but probably you can get enough of the basics and find a step by step. and you can stop there and have enough to do other things of that sort. doing new types of things would require more hand-holding probably, getting a more-or-less "intuitive" sense of blender does take a while and could probably be considered a "big project" relative to learning photoshop again imo the best way to lose that intimidation factor is to follow a beginner tutorial and make a thing, however small. I read something by a teacher who was teaching blender to kids (don't recall how old the kids were, but not adults) and he commented that as soon as the kids switched their mindset to "oh yeah I can do this" all of a sudden learning came much easier, because it seemed like a fun/useful thing to do. they'd learn new stuff on their own to go beyond assignments simply because they could. as to whether it's "worth it," I feel like I have to say some waffling "eye of the beholder" bs. personally I have found it both intrinsically enjoyable and useful, even for some minor real-life things like visualizing minor home projects. I wouldn't have made the thrad if I didn't think people might get something out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah I didn't mean worth in general, but options to be gained for regular Joe Goon in contrast to Photoshop. For example, I made practically all my avs in Photoshop, but that's super easy stuff to do. In the current case I just took the original scene from the show, cut it into a minute, converted it to a gif and then removed all the frames I didn't want. Plus some frames being copied in the opposite order and boom, bebo eats grass and looks cute. It required the full scene being available, I basically was only capable of cutting it a bit and changing the format, that's about it. Not that Photoshop would be super amazing with getting into animations like that anyways. With a low level skill set like this, I'd imagine blender to be a better option so I don't have to rely on source material being coincidentally like I want it. For example, I thought about changing my av but I wanted to keep the guy, but there's only one scene available with him, 80% of which he's not cute and nice but dead. Yet, vanisher made my last sig with him being in the matrix, is that something blender could help me do myself, too, or are animations like that beyond what Photoshop thread level skill can accomplish in a few hours of clicking? Alternatively, I might just download it, try some tutorial and see where I land, because you kinda had me already at thrad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
|
yeah I think it's probably easiest to talk about how hard or easy particular tasks might be to do in blender. like, with sufficient knowledge blender can accomplish tasks you could do in many different other programs, but some things are relatively easy and some things are really harder than you might like. some things might be best accomplished partly in blender and partly in another program. with the example you give, things depend a bit on which parts need to be moving/animated, in what way. if we're looking at bebo and we want to crop him out of a background, I would probably not do that bit in blender. cropping a still image out of a single frame can be fairly straightforward in blender/gimp but some situations are trickly/laborious. cropping a moving sequence (like a sprite) out of a moving background is more of a challenge, I mean if you just do it frame by frame it's possible but laborious. a more automated approach might be possible but that's a more advanced type of thing. once you've extracted your bebo, putting him over top of a background (which could be a still image or, say a movie clip) is something I find blender pretty useful for, especially if I want to move the image/sprite around the scene. there is some learning involved, I'm not gonna say it's super straightforward, but blender gives you a lot of control. also you have options of adding 3D or "2.5D" aspects which is neat. I will say though that most beginner tutorials are not specifically geared towards that use case. they're still useful to familiarize you generally with blender, but beginner tutorials are much more about understanding how to make 3D objects like meshes, how to apply materials to them, how to set up lighting and camera. the notion is to get some of those basics down before moving to animation. I'd still suggest the beginner tutorials for basic knowledge of the interface, and then perhaps there is a tutorial geared towards what you might want to accomplish. if not I can maybe provide some pointers, but it's not going to be quickly accomplished first time around. |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
|
That's fine, given that it's just a basic idea and not a specific project I have in mind yet. Being able to for example place it inside a movie so it looks reasonably good is one of the example things I'd be interested in, so that's already a done deal for me. Additionally that it would simply be nice to have an alternative to Photoshop for specific purposes, animation of any low level and easy skill kind being included. The time and layer based setup Photoshop has for simple gifs is not really the sweetest cherry in the pot, although it does get some things done. Time to watch some videos and see how terrible my first attempts will become!! Note that I read it as bladder first and my mind can't stop pronouncing it this way, so part of me is now invested in a bladder thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
|
cda posted:miss u classicist |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
|
I've done a little bit of Blender. I'm no artist but the stuff I do with it is super utilitarian. Would blender be good for making after effects, like bouncing words and stuff or do you know if a tool would be more useful?
abide. |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
|
TorsvikVonClemson posted:I've done a little bit of Blender. I'm no artist but the stuff I do with it is super utilitarian. Would blender be good for making after effects, like bouncing words and stuff or do you know if a tool would be more useful? I'd say blender has the raw capabilities to do a number of after effects and I know some people do use it that way (including professionally), but that's probably a minority of blender users. with fairly deep/full featured compositing, video editing, and animation capabilities there are just lots and lots of possibilities, at some point it just comes down to the skill and creativity of the artist. I will say though that the features in this regard are generally not highly automated; you don't have (at least built into the program) a lot of templates for quickly doing completed effects. so for example to make bouncing text, you don't just invoke a "bouncing text" wizard, type the text you want, and have it automatically generate the whole effect from that. you'd need to create the text objects, then add bounce animation, then set up the compositing and other elements. there are nice aspects to this, in that once you know how to do stuff you can be pretty creative. there is also a chance someone has made a plugin to easily do specifically what you want. the bottom line I guess is that I'm not aware of anything free that provides similar capabilities. professional/paid packages (like, uh, adobe after effects) will likely give you more in terms of ready-made slick-looking effects. what you're describing may fall under the category of "motion graphics" and it may be worth searching for tutorials etc. on motion graphics in blender. the clip below shows some addons people have developed to speed up making that sort of thing, and the one below that is a teaser for some sort of course I know nothing about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj8WRdKH5eI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jP1MLWU358 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
|
bumpity blender's official channel has released a video on fundamentals of the 2.8 interface, haven't watched it yet but it's probably useful info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XyIYRW_2xk they've also gone ahead and uploaded a "release candidate" for the official 2.8 . . . getting pretty close! this is "the final step before the release." https://www.blender.org/download/releases/2-80/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/blender_org/status/1156232354295402497?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
|
you're welcome
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
|
alnilam posted:you're welcome yes thank you alnilam for singlehandedly updating this cool program, I am surprised you had the time what with babby and moderating and some alleged work-related duties as well (also thanks el dorito for posting about the release! it's good, I have been using it for some minor architectural planning purposes and it's been v handy)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
|
this guy says things about the thing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxWDHy4ppY |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 03:37
|
|