In the next 6 months, you will see this guy come to life.
Been a bit hesitant to reveil anything for my showreel before its completion… However this can’t hurt. Concept character for my storyreel, still needs some orthographic views done but before he is modelled the environment will be the main focus
Biased Vs Unbiased Rendering
Biased: Gives the user complete control over how the renderer interprets the scene. This means calculations for Spectacularity, Global illumination, Final gather, Shadows etc. have to be manually entered by the user and are a result of how the user feels the lighting interacts with the objects within the scene. This doesn’t always mean that the users interpretation of how the light interacts is physically correct, this can take a lot of finessing and if not done in the correct order, can quickly look “wrong”. Renderers such as Mental Ray, Vray and Renderman are known as biased renderers.
Unbiased: Is the opposite of a Biased, meaning that the renderer is in control of calculations. By doing it this way the renderer can create physically correct renders with minimal work for the user, who is in control of noise clean up and the amount of bounces in Diffuse and Refraction. This offers more control and less room for error with calculations. Renderers such as Arnold are unbiased and are increasing in use within the film industry due to their speed and render quality.
The pro’s and con’s of each render type can be broken down;
Pro’s; More control, faster render speeds, ability to choose quality of work also the user can predict possible render times, render times can go from seconds to minutes depending on global illumination and final gather photons as well as light quality and the amount of objects within the scene, better for use with hard caustics.
Con’s; Less ability to achieve realism and this isn’t dependent on how much quality the render has, but how the render handles information. However it can still produce quality renders.
Pro’s; Physically correct, realistic, less work for the user meaning some adjustments regarding camera and scene clean up and real time updates using the IPR render option, better at soft caustics.
Con’s; The render is never actually done, render times can be unpredictable and the overall quality cannot be chosen.
So 2015… My final year of TAFE…
At the end of this year I will hopefully be walking away with a Bachelors degree in 3D and Animation… Looking at finding work overseas as well.
So naturally now all the TAFE work posts are going to start. For my elective this year I have chosen to do Lighting/ Rendering and Compositing. So there will be a lot of posts relating to those things.
I also have to develop my showreel this year and plan to document the process as I go. So hopefully there will be some interesting things regarding that with pipeline and concept.
Wish me luck and hopefully enjoy :)
So it is day 5 of the daily draw for 2015, here are two of the drawings I have done.
Just a little run down on what has been going on;
Day 02: Due to personal reasons, day 02 had to be skipped.
Day 03: With day 02 being skipped I wanted to try and work on some digital painting as I don’t feel 100% drawing like this, so I took this chance to try and push that. Time constraints meant I couldn’t finish the work so I uploaded a W.I.P to show I had worked on something. I feel this way of doing things with a little bit of pressure that isn’t stressful is somewhat enjoyable.
Day 04: I finished off the painting from the day before. It got to a point where I had to say enough was enough but I feel somethings could still be better but at the same time I got to work on values and colour. I think that composition, movement and anatomy could be improved, but this is why I am doing this as a way to get myself to fix these things.
If you are interested I have a facebook and an instagram you can follow along with :)
So I just signed up to this! I am hoping to gain some good habits and some much needed drawing time whilst stop making excuses.
Wish me luck :3
For the final part of this assessment, we were given “client feedback” to make our adjustments to the tractor beam simulation before final submission to try and replicate what might happen in industry. Below is the feedback I received for my previous blog post;
The outer cone of the tractor beam has a nice look to it. I like how it has the diagonal shafts coming from the top, it gives some variance to its makeup.
The tractor beam is turning on too slowly though. It needs to happen much faster so that there is time to lift the mannequin into the UFO. Think no more than 15 frames.
We need to get some more detail into the simulation. I’d like to see thin rings run along the surface of the outer cone. These would move from the UFO down to the ground. As they run along the outer cone they would leave a faint trail of particles that would waft away from the outer cone and dissipate into the air. When the rings hit the ground they would dissipate and fade off.
I also want to see more detail in the current outer cone that you have. This will probably mean you’ll need to make the particles smaller and have more of them.
The colour is close, but it has too much green in it. Try to make it more of an electric blue.
Lose the grass type things that come up from the ground. Also, make sure the tractor beam is timed to the opening and closing or the UFO hatch doors. At present that is not happening.”
So I approached this by increasing the over samples of the particles to 3, to make the main part of the cone seem more like a veil than like individual particles. By doing so as well as trying to increase the time of the tractor beam contacting the earth, I lost the cross over effect of the particles. I do rather like the electric blue colour more than the aqua colour I had previously.
I had a bit of trouble trying to get the little rings to look how I wanted them to, I tried several different fields, emitter types and also goaling to an object. In the end I emitted particles from the initial rings I created and turned the visibility off, because I found if I had used any form of keys in the visibility attribute I had issues with the particles turning on and off again. So these initial rings became my emitters for the visible rings. After trying several fields, Newton, Gravity, Turbulence, Air, and Drag, I settled on using a Radial field. This still didn’t quite give me what I was after but I needed to keep moving forward in order to finish the simulation. I would rather that the particles actually moved away from the centre of the rings in a horizontal motion and slowly glittering into nothing.
I removed the particles floating up from the ground, I can see how they weren’t the desired effect. I only kept the point particles falling from the UFO, these I changed to a golden colour to add a little subtle contrast to the simulation and added a noise texture to the opacity ramp to make the particles sparkle on their way down.
After struggling a lot with the rag doll simulation, I finally got the simulation to work however I had further issues importing my file into the VFX file, so to get around this problem I referenced the original reference and made the hinge constraints and parenting constraints within the VFX file. I know this might not be the way it was meant to work, due to the assessment reflecting industry, however I wasn’t sure of the issues and needed a quick solution, so I improvised.
Below is a playblast of my final simulation, I feel the ring particles could be a little too fast but this can be changed later if need be.