By and large, while there are still technical aspects to CG, it is still all about the art. Just because you can hold a paintbrush doesn't necessarily make you Matisse. The same thing goes with CG. If you aren't artistically inclined then you can only go so far.
CG is really a synthesis of sculpting, painting, film/photography, and programming.
Like sculpting, you need a firm handle of spacial conceptualization and perception. If you have a hard time visualizing the shape and curvature of something the human clavicle or the texture of a worn leather belt then you might have an equally hard time with CG. So much of what I do in CG boils down to, "Can I see it in my mind? Can I virtually 'feel' it on my fingertips?" In a lot of ways, it's like an actor asked to eat an imaginary chocolate bar. If he can't taste it then he can't fake it, at least not convincingly. If you're a good sculptor then there's a good chance that you'll be a good CG modeler. I can't draw to save my life (pencil woes), but I'm an excellent sculptor. That, for me, translates into an equal level of CG proficiency.
CG is also like painting. To texture and shade, you need a firm grasp of where your light sources are coming from, how the surface is absorbing your colors, composition, color juxtaposition, etc.. You don't necessarily have to be a good painter to do CG, but it certainly helps. Like anything else, I think that you can pick up texturing skills. The harder it is for you to grasp color/texture theory the harder it will be to grasp actual surfacing.
If you're into animation or complex stills then the similarities between film and photography should seem obvious. I'm not saying that you have to be great at either, but you should have the ability to observe. Good animation boils down to 50% observation and 50% perspiration. It's like that one friend who always knows what you're going to say before you open your mouth. Is it because he's psychic? Nah. He knows his subject and he knows how to read the subtle cues. That's all animation is. The longer you observe something the more you can understand the nuances of weight, balance, pacing, and so forth. That's why many animators keep mirrors and video cameras around. A good animator is also good at observation.
The LEAST of CG is programming. You may encounter the need to write a script now and then, but unless its your job you won't regularly encounter them.
Many people are under the misconception that CG is technical. It has technical aspects, but it is still art. There's no "Make Cool 3D" button. You don't have to be an engineer. Heck, some of the best CG artists I know are the least technically minded people. The best CG art is still made by those with an eye one the classic elements like space, composition, color, perspective, and so forth.
CG is just another tool. It's not different than a chisel, paintbrush, or pencil. Its there to help you get the ideas out. CG may shortcut some of the things that our forefathers grunted through, but its no an art form. If you struggle in CG then there's a good chance that you'll struggle with non-CG arts.
BTW, very little about that chart is factual. Having done CG for 18 years, I can tell you that that chart is very subjective. There are inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and biases all around. It is very much skewed toward the Autodesk end of the spectrum. There's a reason why the chart didn't compare all the apps at their NON-base levels. Maya & Max don't exactly rule without a fight when you've got XSI & C4D with their non-entry level (newbie friendly) models. The playing field is much more even then and far less happy for Blender users.
Autodesk really doesn't make entry level of Maya or Max. Not really. They make pro versions and studio versions. That's the real difference between Maya Complete and Maya limited. One supports the needs of a full studio. The other doesn't, at least not as much. There is no newbie version of Maya. The PLE doesn't count since you can
Ever notice how these types of articles tend to compare the base versions instead of the ones most likely to be used? How stupid is that? Why not compare the apps not at their emptiest, but at their fullest? Not surprisingly, Maya & 3dsmax come out looking like champs compared to the C4D base. What app wouldn't. Very biased article construction, imho. It's like bringing your flu infested girlfriend to meet your parents.
As a longtime C4D user and professional CG artist/animator, I can tell you that only the newbiest of the newbies are using the core package by itself. The largest chunk of C4D users tend to be XL or Studio owners. Like I said, compare the apps at their loaded potential. The playing field, as most artists will tell you, gets a lot more even then.
How does C4D Studio actually stack up?
C4D will DOES have cloth, hair, dynamics, & advanced particles. Honestly, C4D's hair & thinking particles are some of the best tools in its category. MOCCA3's cloth tools, though still in need of an upgrade, are quite Syflex-like.
C4D DOES support 3rd party renderers. Actually, C4D currently offers support for FinalRender Stage-2, VRay, Maxwell, FryRender, & Renderman (via Maxon's plugin).
C4D DOES support advanced character animation functionality. In several real world cases, MOCCA3 smokes the hell out of Maya's character animation tools. For one thing, the C4D's advanced morph tools make Maya's look like a joke. Plus, rigging in Maya is largely based around MEL, which is a time consuming beeyatch. You can create an advanced rig that's in C4D r10's MOCCA3 that's just as powerful, flexible, and stable as anything in Maya... in 1/3 of the time. (To be fair, Maya's timeline/dopesheet is a bit more flexible and has greater XRef support.)
I don't know where the writer gets their info, but C4D DOES have loads of support in the film industry. C4D is used quite a lot for matte work, opening credits, texturing, and even modeling. Maya gets all of the credit because they get out all of the press releases. The fact is, no one app is used exclusively in a production. Multiple apps are used. I know for a fact that C4D has been used in Spider-Man 1, Spider-Man 2, Tomb Raider, Star Wars Episodes 1-3, Daredevil, King Arthur, Van Helsing, and literally tons of other big name summer flicks. I know for a fact that, although Maya claimed animation credits, C4D was the primary texturing AND modeling tool for the full length CG toon Open Season. Does the article tell you that? Nope.
I could go on and on, but I can tell that this article is poorly constructed & largely one-sided. Maya & Max will always look aces compared to the entry level versions of XSI or C4D. Of course, Maya's entry level is ~$1,000+ MORE than C4D or XSI's entry level, making the comparisons just so unfair and uneven. C4D & XSI's entry points feature different feature sets than those of Maya or Max at their lowest.
Again, FULLY LOADED, the horse races is MUCH more even.
BTW, apart from being a pro CG artist/animator myself, I also moderator to several of the largest CG world communities on the net. I've also written nearly a dozen feature articles myself. THAT article is clown shoes, biased and skewed.
WARNING: The following product contains orcs, trolls, wizards and knights. Neither the author nor the publisher shall assume any explicit or implied responsibility for potential loss of sex, lunch money, or dignity. Prolonged use may result in permanent retention of "virgin" status.
> How about Marvel do what's right for a change and pay the creators their fair dues.
How about NOT. Stan Lee was under the employ of Timely, now known as Marvel. Working for someone else is not like working for yourself. When you work for yourself, intellectual property rights and copyrights belong to you. That's the essence of creator owned properties. When you work for somebody else, work product becomes the property of your employer. It's the difference between writing homebrew game at home and designing one for EA. If you're on the clock it doesn't belong to you.
Present day Marvel doesn't have this trouble so much since they make a clear distinction between company owned and creator owned. In fact, there's even a label for Marvel published, creator owned works.
Just look back at your old Marvel comics. Go ahead. I'll still be here............. Done? Good. Notice that there's a nice little copyright notice in the opening pages? Notice how it doesn't say anything about it being copyrighted to Stan Lee, but to Marvel instead? That's what I figured. Marvel has and continues to hold the rights to these properties, since day one.
This is an entirely different issue than the Superman or Captain America cases, since those cases refer to works originating decades earlier. I'm not going to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if the copyright laws saw some revisions between the 1940s and 1960s.
This is a case of Stan Lee's lawyers putting up the stink instead of him. Stan Lee was an EMPLOYEE. Show the man respect for the works he created, but aknowledge that he created them on company time.
... PS3's getting creamed elsewhere.
In Japan alone, as of last week, Wii is outselling PS3 8:1.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=5913&Itemid=2
That might say more about the Japanese buying tastes than those of the Euro crowd, but it's still highly indicative of Sony's "hard sell", uphill battle with the PS3. 1mil units in the EU/AU market might sound nice, but we have to really look at the bigger picture.
Since the article link is wrong, is this actually 1mil sold through to customers or to retailers. Totally different scenario.
Doesn't matter.
I know of more than a few non-techies who will be affected by this issue. For one thing, most of the high end financial software is heavily dependent on SQL Server. These data-centric apps rely on it just to even function. I know for a fact that this issue will impact countless accountants, implementers, financial consultants, and not-for-profit organizations. None of these users or institutions require servers or server material. It's just the nature of their business that requires them to have such a utility.
Either way, it's only a non-issue for one reason. Companies are not the same as the average end user. You and I might adopt early whereas companies are usually slow to upgrade. By the time they do upgrade to Vista and their software is Vista compatible, this SQL Server issue will be long sorted out. Upgrading one machine is expensive enough. Try upgrading a whole office worth. I know of respectable, profitable companies that are still on Win2K or WinME.
The fact that this is a "server" product is of little consequence. Any OS newer than WinME is likely based off of that pro oriented Win2K foundation anyway. Whether or not the end user uses SQL Server is of less consequence than the fact that the core app should support it by its basic design. A pro-level OS should support pro-level needs, regardless of the end user's level of proficiency.
I reviewed Shade v5 for a CG web site a couple of years back. Teddy, known therein as Magical Sketch, is fun to play with, but ultimately pretty useless. The range of sketch tools is pretty narrow and incomplete. The tesellation of objects is less than ideal, often requiring artists to hand optimize. That alone negates the time saved by using a stroke-based system. The actual mapping of 2D strokes into 3D space isn't quite as predictable or powerful as it could be, often leading to funky results. Sculpting tools? Nonexistent.
As a professional CG artist/animator of 17 years, I would never attempt to work this into my pipeline. Even as an integrated part of another package, the technology itself is not yet ready for primetime. It might make for a nice addition to ZBrush, but that's about it. Unless you're trying to introduce kids to CG, just avoid Teddy. You'll get your hopes up for nothing. Lots of promise. Little delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
CG is really a synthesis of sculpting, painting, film/photography, and programming.
Like sculpting, you need a firm handle of spacial conceptualization and perception. If you have a hard time visualizing the shape and curvature of something the human clavicle or the texture of a worn leather belt then you might have an equally hard time with CG. So much of what I do in CG boils down to, "Can I see it in my mind? Can I virtually 'feel' it on my fingertips?" In a lot of ways, it's like an actor asked to eat an imaginary chocolate bar. If he can't taste it then he can't fake it, at least not convincingly. If you're a good sculptor then there's a good chance that you'll be a good CG modeler. I can't draw to save my life (pencil woes), but I'm an excellent sculptor. That, for me, translates into an equal level of CG proficiency.
CG is also like painting. To texture and shade, you need a firm grasp of where your light sources are coming from, how the surface is absorbing your colors, composition, color juxtaposition, etc.. You don't necessarily have to be a good painter to do CG, but it certainly helps. Like anything else, I think that you can pick up texturing skills. The harder it is for you to grasp color/texture theory the harder it will be to grasp actual surfacing.
If you're into animation or complex stills then the similarities between film and photography should seem obvious. I'm not saying that you have to be great at either, but you should have the ability to observe. Good animation boils down to 50% observation and 50% perspiration. It's like that one friend who always knows what you're going to say before you open your mouth. Is it because he's psychic? Nah. He knows his subject and he knows how to read the subtle cues. That's all animation is. The longer you observe something the more you can understand the nuances of weight, balance, pacing, and so forth. That's why many animators keep mirrors and video cameras around. A good animator is also good at observation.
The LEAST of CG is programming. You may encounter the need to write a script now and then, but unless its your job you won't regularly encounter them.
Many people are under the misconception that CG is technical. It has technical aspects, but it is still art. There's no "Make Cool 3D" button. You don't have to be an engineer. Heck, some of the best CG artists I know are the least technically minded people. The best CG art is still made by those with an eye one the classic elements like space, composition, color, perspective, and so forth.
CG is just another tool. It's not different than a chisel, paintbrush, or pencil. Its there to help you get the ideas out. CG may shortcut some of the things that our forefathers grunted through, but its no an art form. If you struggle in CG then there's a good chance that you'll struggle with non-CG arts.
BTW, very little about that chart is factual. Having done CG for 18 years, I can tell you that that chart is very subjective. There are inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and biases all around. It is very much skewed toward the Autodesk end of the spectrum. There's a reason why the chart didn't compare all the apps at their NON-base levels. Maya & Max don't exactly rule without a fight when you've got XSI & C4D with their non-entry level (newbie friendly) models. The playing field is much more even then and far less happy for Blender users.
Autodesk really doesn't make entry level of Maya or Max. Not really. They make pro versions and studio versions. That's the real difference between Maya Complete and Maya limited. One supports the needs of a full studio. The other doesn't, at least not as much. There is no newbie version of Maya. The PLE doesn't count since you can
Gee. So many misspellings and formatting mistakes. Great way to make myself come off as illiterate. That's what happens when you're in a rush. =)
As a longtime C4D user and professional CG artist/animator, I can tell you that only the newbiest of the newbies are using the core package by itself. The largest chunk of C4D users tend to be XL or Studio owners. Like I said, compare the apps at their loaded potential. The playing field, as most artists will tell you, gets a lot more even then.
How does C4D Studio actually stack up?
C4D will DOES have cloth, hair, dynamics, & advanced particles. Honestly, C4D's hair & thinking particles are some of the best tools in its category. MOCCA3's cloth tools, though still in need of an upgrade, are quite Syflex-like.
C4D DOES support 3rd party renderers. Actually, C4D currently offers support for FinalRender Stage-2, VRay, Maxwell, FryRender, & Renderman (via Maxon's plugin).
C4D DOES support advanced character animation functionality. In several real world cases, MOCCA3 smokes the hell out of Maya's character animation tools. For one thing, the C4D's advanced morph tools make Maya's look like a joke. Plus, rigging in Maya is largely based around MEL, which is a time consuming beeyatch. You can create an advanced rig that's in C4D r10's MOCCA3 that's just as powerful, flexible, and stable as anything in Maya... in 1/3 of the time. (To be fair, Maya's timeline/dopesheet is a bit more flexible and has greater XRef support.)
I don't know where the writer gets their info, but C4D DOES have loads of support in the film industry. C4D is used quite a lot for matte work, opening credits, texturing, and even modeling. Maya gets all of the credit because they get out all of the press releases. The fact is, no one app is used exclusively in a production. Multiple apps are used. I know for a fact that C4D has been used in Spider-Man 1, Spider-Man 2, Tomb Raider, Star Wars Episodes 1-3, Daredevil, King Arthur, Van Helsing, and literally tons of other big name summer flicks. I know for a fact that, although Maya claimed animation credits, C4D was the primary texturing AND modeling tool for the full length CG toon Open Season. Does the article tell you that? Nope.
I could go on and on, but I can tell that this article is poorly constructed & largely one-sided. Maya & Max will always look aces compared to the entry level versions of XSI or C4D. Of course, Maya's entry level is ~$1,000+ MORE than C4D or XSI's entry level, making the comparisons just so unfair and uneven. C4D & XSI's entry points feature different feature sets than those of Maya or Max at their lowest.
Again, FULLY LOADED, the horse races is MUCH more even. BTW, apart from being a pro CG artist/animator myself, I also moderator to several of the largest CG world communities on the net. I've also written nearly a dozen feature articles myself. THAT article is clown shoes, biased and skewed.
WARNING: The following product contains orcs, trolls, wizards and knights. Neither the author nor the publisher shall assume any explicit or implied responsibility for potential loss of sex, lunch money, or dignity. Prolonged use may result in permanent retention of "virgin" status.
Marvel has even commented in recent months about happily bringing their licenses home, which would now make an Avengers movie more plausible.
I think that this "news" is only news because its a big comic convention week and comics have been gaining more mainstream attention.
How about NOT. Stan Lee was under the employ of Timely, now known as Marvel. Working for someone else is not like working for yourself. When you work for yourself, intellectual property rights and copyrights belong to you. That's the essence of creator owned properties. When you work for somebody else, work product becomes the property of your employer. It's the difference between writing homebrew game at home and designing one for EA. If you're on the clock it doesn't belong to you.
Present day Marvel doesn't have this trouble so much since they make a clear distinction between company owned and creator owned. In fact, there's even a label for Marvel published, creator owned works.
Just look back at your old Marvel comics. Go ahead. I'll still be here. ... ... ... ... Done? Good. Notice that there's a nice little copyright notice in the opening pages? Notice how it doesn't say anything about it being copyrighted to Stan Lee, but to Marvel instead? That's what I figured. Marvel has and continues to hold the rights to these properties, since day one.
This is an entirely different issue than the Superman or Captain America cases, since those cases refer to works originating decades earlier. I'm not going to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if the copyright laws saw some revisions between the 1940s and 1960s.
This is a case of Stan Lee's lawyers putting up the stink instead of him. Stan Lee was an EMPLOYEE. Show the man respect for the works he created, but aknowledge that he created them on company time.
somebody's been watching too many repeats of "Sliders".
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid= 25649
Hmmm.... Says nothing about selling through to actual customers. Then again, it says "sold" instead of "shipped". Could be actual sell through.
... PS3's getting creamed elsewhere. In Japan alone, as of last week, Wii is outselling PS3 8:1. http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=5913&Itemid=2
That might say more about the Japanese buying tastes than those of the Euro crowd, but it's still highly indicative of Sony's "hard sell", uphill battle with the PS3. 1mil units in the EU/AU market might sound nice, but we have to really look at the bigger picture.
Since the article link is wrong, is this actually 1mil sold through to customers or to retailers. Totally different scenario.
you can roll, but can't smoke.
Doesn't matter. I know of more than a few non-techies who will be affected by this issue. For one thing, most of the high end financial software is heavily dependent on SQL Server. These data-centric apps rely on it just to even function. I know for a fact that this issue will impact countless accountants, implementers, financial consultants, and not-for-profit organizations. None of these users or institutions require servers or server material. It's just the nature of their business that requires them to have such a utility. Either way, it's only a non-issue for one reason. Companies are not the same as the average end user. You and I might adopt early whereas companies are usually slow to upgrade. By the time they do upgrade to Vista and their software is Vista compatible, this SQL Server issue will be long sorted out. Upgrading one machine is expensive enough. Try upgrading a whole office worth. I know of respectable, profitable companies that are still on Win2K or WinME. The fact that this is a "server" product is of little consequence. Any OS newer than WinME is likely based off of that pro oriented Win2K foundation anyway. Whether or not the end user uses SQL Server is of less consequence than the fact that the core app should support it by its basic design. A pro-level OS should support pro-level needs, regardless of the end user's level of proficiency.
I reviewed Shade v5 for a CG web site a couple of years back. Teddy, known therein as Magical Sketch, is fun to play with, but ultimately pretty useless. The range of sketch tools is pretty narrow and incomplete. The tesellation of objects is less than ideal, often requiring artists to hand optimize. That alone negates the time saved by using a stroke-based system. The actual mapping of 2D strokes into 3D space isn't quite as predictable or powerful as it could be, often leading to funky results. Sculpting tools? Nonexistent. As a professional CG artist/animator of 17 years, I would never attempt to work this into my pipeline. Even as an integrated part of another package, the technology itself is not yet ready for primetime. It might make for a nice addition to ZBrush, but that's about it. Unless you're trying to introduce kids to CG, just avoid Teddy. You'll get your hopes up for nothing. Lots of promise. Little delivery.