PDA

View Full Version : Interview with Immersion Corporation


Leonard
10-10-2002, 02:26 AM
3D Digitizing for the Masses

Ali Tezel speaks to Greg Belaus, Director of 3D Business Group at Immersion about the MicroScribe 3D digitizing system.

http://www.3dfestival.com/stories/2002_10/immersion/head.jpg

http://www.3dfestival.com/story.php?story_id=229

Enjoy,

L.

say-g
10-10-2002, 02:46 AM
kinda takes the fun out of it dosnt it ?

how much are they

Dirk_P_Ho
10-10-2002, 03:00 AM
woah, ranges from $3500 to $5500 for the top o' the line model:

http://www.immersion.com/products/3d/capture/msspecs.shtml

fawazr
10-10-2002, 03:46 AM
nice! now i don't have to learn how to model... but seriously, does this mean that modeling skills will be eclipsed by items like these? Hope not.

l_farley13_l
10-10-2002, 04:58 AM
Well somone has to make the model in the first place! and I doubt the digitized model with make a well topographical model - so some kind of animatable model would still be needed to drive the hires suface. Or muscle simulation or both.

:)

Farley13

civil13
10-10-2002, 05:59 AM
Well, professionally 3d scanners have been used for a long time. shrek, Evolution etc.... Remeber that old Denzel washington movie Virtuosity in that they 3d scanned Denzel and Russel Crowe this stuff has been around for a long time.

Blackassheep
10-10-2002, 06:12 AM
I personally HAte this invetnions. Its taking 3d jobs away. How can modelers get a job when ppl invent this kind of crap, you still need the traditional modelers. Where is this product going?

danRod
10-10-2002, 06:19 AM
well personally, I think that modelers wont be taken out, I think that maybe modelers will just have to be required to be able to work the program along with beeing able to sculpt clay models as well. Just more compotition and a challenge I would be willing to take!!

pants
10-10-2002, 06:56 AM
blackasssheep, as civil13 said, these are not new inventions, this has been around for a while. pixar used something similar for their characters as far back as toy story (i believe it was 1, perhaps it was 2). this doesn't take away jobs. as far as having traditional modelers... ummm, practically everything is made in maquette form then made on a computer. with or without 3d scanners, you're still going to have the need for traditional modelers so that you can nail a concept without wasting time on a computer. while i agree with say-g about this taking the fun out of it, i think you're way off in saying this product is a) crap and b) a reason that modelers will stop being hired. i would love to see the proof tho that this indeed has taken 3d jobs away, so please reply if you find it.

i can only presume you think that wacom tablets and scanners are crap bc you can trace your drawings... :rolleyes:

Beastie
10-10-2002, 07:05 AM
Ive seen those things a long time ago, there is already a small home device much smaller than that out on the market. The havent seen to take over so far and i dont think they will anytime soon. Youd have to pay someone to sculpt the object or pay someone to use that pen to. I dont think it necessarily beats the real modeler. Its just for highly detailed objects that already exist.

liquidhalf
10-10-2002, 07:06 AM
I agree with pants... maquettes are used all the time in Production.. mostly at the bigger houses where character design goes through many stages. In fact, as I type this I'm editing a "really" hi-rez" 3d scan of a maquette.. Sad that it's over a million polys.. i have to cut it down and remodel it. But it's a great base for reference.

DiGiTal
10-10-2002, 09:27 AM
here is an animation of the digitized character :

http://www.jonesinc.com/images/inkimages/movies/fxhead4.mov

cool anim :thumbsup:

ghZaaaRK
10-10-2002, 10:06 AM
there's also another kinda technologie... called "Haptics" or it's the same :)

Anyway, you must be able to model with clay and polygon, it's funny in 2 ways.

lighting stinks in the second image.

bye

MrWyatt
10-10-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by say-g
kinda takes the fun out of it dosnt it ?

how much are they


It sure doesnīt take the fun out of modeling in clay. Think about it, most of the people doing 3D, are doing it for a lack of skills in traditional techniques. (and I do NOT say that none of you can draw or model in clay, so donīt start a flamewar, telling that Iīve said that you all are lame artists, because I didnīt. Thanks)
I think that there is nothing more intuitive than modeling in clay. You donīt have to subdivide it to see if it looks good smoothed. You donīt get a jittery screen because of the billions of polys you would need to model the same ammount of detail in 3D. You see the model from all angles you want with Global Illumination in real realtime. Itīs the best way of modeling and no app out there (now donīt start an APP-WAR, Please!!!) is half as good as a block of clay and some cutting tools, and by the way not nearly as cheap too. I think these are some of the reasons why at Pixar and similar studios , they still model every character in clay before transforming it into a 3d model.

Originally posted by Merkry
nice! now i don't have to learn how to model... but seriously, does this mean that modeling skills will be eclipsed by items like these? Hope not.

You too, think a minute. After you modeled your claymodel, (thatīs the point where modeling skills really show off) you still can not just go ahead and carve a grid into the model and capture the points and lines as you desire. You have to know how the model will look like in 3D so you must know exactly where to put the lines, the edgeloops, the holes. You have to rebuild the model in your mind first and then go and capture it. So it actually is not a job any monkey could do. To do that you have to know your software very good. You have to know in advance how and where the mesh has to deform, and in wich way, so you donīt end up with a Model that looks good while it stands still, but looks crappy while you animate it. It seems like one of the best ways to improve modeling skills IMHO. I really think things like microscribe can benefit all 3d modelers quite a bit, it gives reall freedom to the modeler because he doesnt have to deal with weatnesses that every ( and I mean EVERY ) 3d program has.

Now after Iīve said my point, go ahead and rip me appart.

googlo
10-10-2002, 01:26 PM
Yeah but if someone just got good at modelling in 3D they could model just as fast and quickly with ideas through a computer as they could with clay except without the mess. :)
I think the philosophy of only being able to do it best in real life ingrained in some people is because most people come from traditional art fields like that first, then 3D. If someone put just as much time into 3d modelling as they did like drawing or clay sculpting, doing it on the computer would be just as easy and quick it's just that most people haven't done that, even going reverse, clay modelling would be easy to do for someone who's been modelling on the computer for awhile.

Matt-Clark
10-10-2002, 01:32 PM
These things can co-exist you know, it doesn't spell the end of 3d modelling.

Motion capture never killed key framed animation.
Photo's never killed painting.
Painting never killed drawing.

etc

Sez
10-10-2002, 01:45 PM
I fully agree with Matt Clark!

I think that it's only a "new" tools for CG artist. It's there if you want to use it. And it's there because there was a demand for it.
And there will always be a place for traditional modelers in the industry.

Cheers to you all!

:thumbsup:

fawazr
10-10-2002, 03:34 PM
i realize how powerful this is now. Sculptures can be more practical than full out 3-d models at times and they probably sell themselves better when trying to get certain concepts accross; and to ensure smooth and quick transition between concept and model, this tool would be aces. In the end, it's all about how good the artists is and how tools can be utilized to create better products in shorter time.

KingMob
10-10-2002, 04:34 PM
I am willing to bet a lot of clean up would also be required in the computer to get it to deform just the right way...I agree, just another tool.

And if not, bring onthe clay! I love sculpture, used to make maquettes all the time back in school, just for fun. THey all got broken tho...very sad.

NanoGator
10-10-2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Blackassheep
I personally HAte this invetnions. Its taking 3d jobs away. How can modelers get a job when ppl invent this kind of crap, you still need the traditional modelers. Where is this product going?

Umm, you still have to know how to model to use this thing. All it does is provide you with 3D co-ordinates instead of 2-D.

Even if it was a magic 'flip a switch and poop out a 3D model', you still need somebody to make the model (i.e. real world modeling), and you still need somebody to manipulate it in 3D.

Honestly, there is never going to be an invention that'll put 3D animators out of a job. If it were possible for that to happen, then the people who do 2-D hand-drawn animations would be out of a job. But they're not. They're either still doing 2D, or they're working at places like Pixar.

trask
10-10-2002, 06:05 PM
Think about it, most of the people doing 3D, are doing it for a lack of skills in traditional techniques.

i dont know about 'most', but i do agree with you there. ...i have a feeling the ones fearing this technology fall into this catagory.

KingMob
10-10-2002, 06:20 PM
it's true, most 3d artists I know have no traditional art background whatsoever...but I dunno, that might just be because the computer is a tool they had access to, and the technology was new enough that it wasn't thought of as some black magic (seriously, the fact that I can draw decent makes my friends stare at me like I am a witch or something)

just my two cents. I personally think the strongest modeler's are usually the ones who draw, paint sculpt...just basically create whenever possible. Regardless of if it is a strange point on clay technological thang or a vertex by vertex with a mouse, the technique still seems the same eh? might be just like a wacom tablet for 3d!

skello
10-10-2002, 08:07 PM
Who needs a digitizer....Soon subdees to nurbs will make that almost obsolete....Muahahahahah!!!!

Dominique
10-10-2002, 08:56 PM
at the shool where I'm teaching,
and they never used it, never really did find a way to make it work correctly, (...Yep, don't ask me why, they never asked me either to take a look...)

the funny things with these are,
1. the guy that masters the 'art' to draw a nice wireframe on a real-model are people that worked for years and years modelling in 3d, and they just don't need a thing like that anymore,
2. how do you model with subdivs??

Tools like these show-off, there are others of this kind,
it is great technology, and tries somewhere to fill the gap between the artist and the computer, ..., a bit like scanning a painting for photo-shop,
just take a look at the marvelous 'Art of Clones" book, filled with digital paintings of great quality,
the gap is getting filled up with people just working digital, 2d or 3d, no way to stop revolution

personnaly I'm not Pro or Contra, (I'm just an animator and do have a problem with MoCap, but that's another question),

KingMob
10-10-2002, 09:55 PM
bny any chance do you teach at ringling, because a teacher there told me the same thing about 3d scanners

Dominique
10-10-2002, 10:07 PM
in France, and it might that they just don't understand the English manual,
3D-scanners,
if there really ain't time, I mean,; having two weeks to model and rig, animate and render a 30 second spot with a 3D Michael Jackson, don't people just call Viewpoint??

and one more point,
Tools like these get as easy 'old' as any machine,

BoydLake
10-11-2002, 12:13 AM
First of all, let's get one thing straight....digitizing is a very different process from scanning.

Scanning essentially bombards a surface with a cloud of points, and from that data a very messy piece of geometry is derived which is usually used as template data. It's not a good way to create a model for animation production.

Digitizing is a point by point recording of a mesh, laid-out on a physical surface and thereby allows a designer/modeler to utilize real world environments and techniques to hone in on the character design and presence long before creating a digital model. Even subD models can be created this way. Ever hear of Gerry's game? That old man's head was originally a clay maquette that was digitized.

Sculpting in clay is a very fast process that allows for real-world speed in evaluating and analyzing a modeled surface. Sculpting digitally will never be as efficient or as fun for those who know how to sculpt. You'll never convince me that the combination of physical tactile and visual response can be matched by any computer with the simple speed and efficiency of the real world.

It's been a couple of years since I used clay and a digitizer, but I miss it. I still think it's the best way to model at least for me.

A physical object will also facilitate design approvals and this makes it a desirable method since you can pretty much guarantee that what the director is hefting in his hands will be exactly what the model will look like digitally. This goes a long way since many film makers are skeptical of digital media in general

Once digitized however, there is a ton of work still to do to cut in details and clean up the model. You can't really digitize everything, like the inside surfaces of the human ear for example, and eyelids and the inside of a character's mouth as well as any number of details still require an expert modeler's skill to do correctly. No modeler's job has ever been threatened by a digitizer.

Oh, and by the way, Viewpoint's custom service shop has been shut down if what my friends tell me is right. Too bad really. they did a lot of cool stuff.

Later,

googlo
10-11-2002, 12:47 AM
Sculpting digitally will never be as efficient or as fun for those who know how to sculpt. You'll never convince me that the combination of physical tactile and visual response can be matched by any computer with the simple speed and efficiency of the real world.

That's not necessarily true though. If someone has trained themselves to model in 3D with a computer as one who has trained themselves to model in clay, then I would say it doesn't matter because it would be just as natural and 'flowing', regardless of the medium.

Most people think that it's faster in clay, in my opinion, because most people are trained in traditional art first not digital and so the impediment is learning to think and use 3d software against the natural training of modelling clay in real life with the hands as they've done most of their life. This goes with other mediums as well.

Ultimately it's just all about the medium and how much training you've had in it. The brain just adapts intuitively to whatever the owner of the brain applies it too, this is with anything really not just art. People could talk in binary with each other if they were trained to from childhood, etc..

BoydLake
10-11-2002, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by googlo
That's not necessarily true though. If someone has trained themselves to model in 3D with a computer as one who has trained themselves to model in clay, then I would say it doesn't matter because it would be just as natural and 'flowing', regardless of the medium.

Most people think that it's faster in clay, in my opinion, because most people are trained in traditional art first not digital and so the impediment is learning to think and use 3d software against the natural training of modelling clay in real life with the hands as they've done most of their life. This goes with other mediums as well.

Ultimately it's just all about the medium and how much training you've had in it. The brain just adapts intuitively to whatever the owner of the brain applies it too, this is with anything really not just art. People could talk in binary with each other if they were trained to from childhood, etc..

My point was this:

Because you can touch the clay object and see it at the same time, you'll be much faster while modeling since you are able to relate physically with the object you're modeling. Direct nerve ending sensations that create simultaneous visual and tactile rensponses going directly to the brain...no machine can duplicate that efficiency. It has nothing to do with medium or training.

Also, any experienced 3d modeler will find sculpting in clay easy to pick up and even cathartic as was my own experience. I had never sculpted before learning to model in CG first. When I picked up the clay for the first time, it was very natural and liberating. I was building nice full heads in a fraction of the time it took to build one from a cube. Seriously, you can sculpt the head in about an hour, digitize it in another hour, and spend the rest of the day cleaning it up and finishing the model.

Later,

Asorson
10-11-2002, 01:34 AM
There are some advantages to 3d modeling that you cannot do with clay too.

It's just like the difference between drawing on paper and in photoshop. If you draw a really nice curve on paper but your placement is off you have to erase it and draw it again. In photoshop you simply lasso it and move it over.

If you model a character in 3d and the muscle structure is perfect, but you decide that his torso should be much larger in comparison to his legs all you do is select it using soft selection and scale it up. You don't have to cover up all your nice detail with new clay and start over.

Also 3d programs have the advantage of orthographic viewports which can be great if you are modeling from reference. That way you don't have perspective screwing up your comparisons. You can also do things like set a camera to a certain location and always return to that location to look at your mesh, you can load up multiple copies of your mesh and compare changes. You can merge pieces from other meshes, or older saved versions.

So clay isn't completely superior.

googlo
10-11-2002, 02:27 AM
Because you can touch the clay object and see it at the same time, you'll be much faster while modeling since you are able to relate physically with the object you're modeling. Direct nerve ending sensations that create simultaneous visual and tactile rensponses going directly to the brain...no machine can duplicate that efficiency. It has nothing to do with medium or training.


I'm a little confused it seems like you are talking about differrent things while arguing somethine else. The middle sounds like you are saying it's better for a human to model something as opposed to a computer doing it free from human intervention. The beginning sounds like you are saying that it's better to model in clay than throug a 3d program because of a more spatial and tactile feedback to the person. But then in the end you say it's has nothing to do with the medium or training, which in the beginning you are saying it does (at least with the medium part) because your stance is that a physical medium for modelling is a better than a software based one digitally.

facial
10-11-2002, 03:03 AM
Cool stuff, I love this technic, brings us manny benefit:bounce: :bounce:

KingMob
10-11-2002, 04:34 PM
one word...

UNDO

if only caly had an undo, I have messed many a model up by grabbing to hard, or using a knife to deep..very sad.

BoydLake
10-11-2002, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by googlo
I'm a little confused it seems like you are talking about differrent things while arguing somethine else. The middle sounds like you are saying it's better for a human to model something as opposed to a computer doing it free from human intervention. The beginning sounds like you are saying that it's better to model in clay than throug a 3d program because of a more spatial and tactile feedback to the person. But then in the end you say it's has nothing to do with the medium or training, which in the beginning you are saying it does (at least with the medium part) because your stance is that a physical medium for modelling is a better than a software based one digitally.

I guess what I'm saying is the mechanics is where the advantage is....not whether or not the artist has a traditional background vs. digital.

By mechanics, I mean:

Brain - Eyes/Hands - Computer Interface - Model

vs.

Brain - Eyes/Hands - Model

The latter mechanical model, being a simpler one is therefore more efficient if you ascribe to Occam's razor.

I also mean that the introduction of one more element (the machine) makes the mechanic less efficient no matter how fast the computer is or how good the software....simply adding another step makes the mechanics of building all digital models less efficient.

Therefore the physical model can always be created faster if in fact you are working from scratch.

Of course there is no "Undo" or "Cut and Paste" or "soft selection" with working physically, but there are much fewer errors in the first place since you can see/feel the model much better as you're working. You're much less likely to make errors of proportion, and character presence can be nailed before moving the model to the digital realm. Even then adjustments can still made digitally once the model is digitized.

I'm also not saying the model is final once it's sculpted. Plenty of directors change their minds late in the production process and that's one more reason digital skills will never be displaced by a digitizer.

Later,

spakman
10-11-2002, 07:37 PM
skimmed thru this. sorry if it was mentioned b4.

Digitizers will never cost modellers their jobs. The companies that eroneously operate that way aren't the places you want to work for anyway, cos they don't know what they're doing.

The basics of maquettes is so the art director can take a model to all the major heads and get an okay. Much easier to reach concensus with the real over the virtual.

But you still gotta make that maquette move. You still gotta know where the best place to draw your lines of contraction. No digitizer is gonna tell you how to do that or do it for you.

BIG difference in digitizing something that ain't gonna move and something that is.

Tho we don't use a digitizer here, I think my job would be safe if we did. d=^)

peace.

Asorson
10-12-2002, 08:06 PM
Yeah I agree with you Boyd because I do the same thing with drawing. I really like to draw with pencils and pens, it seem so much more intuitive to me than trying to use a tablet. But usually there are several imperfections that I don't like so when it's done I just scan it and then touch up in Photoshop. So I guess it's the best of both worlds. I would love it if I could model in clay all day, digitize it, and then cleanup in 3d rather than modeling completely in front of the computer. Sounds like a lot of fun and if that's the direction things go I'll be all for it.

DigitalDeuce
10-12-2002, 08:37 PM
I own one and was demonstrating the plugin for LightWave at this years SIGGRAPH in the Immersion Technologies booth.

It is a tool. It is not an "instant modelmaker" -- you have to have a little skill to work with a digitizer arm just as to work in a 3d modeling package.

The thing that I like about the Microscribe, is that I can control where the points go. So I can develop my edgeloops and such for final animation.


If anyone's interested, the LightWave plugin is found here:

http://www.retinalreality.com/digiscribe/ (http://www/retinalreality.com/digiscribe/)

JA-forreal
10-12-2002, 09:56 PM
I used similar "real-world" artist sculpting automation tools in the past.
Check out this neat machinery-

http://www.duplicarver.com/

I've sculpted art objects long before I knew that computer modeling ever existed. This method applied to computer modeling seams to me only useful to the non professional 3d modeler or a 3d based operation that lacks truly skilled 3d modelers yet wants to incorporate high quality models into their workflow.

But if a client wanted a model to be changed to from an old man to a young boy a real talented 3d modeler can provide to change in minutes to hours. Leave the clay on the slab. Mi $5,000 pesos are going for 5 more rendering

"since I started using Painter my airbrush just collects dust"

JA

BoydLake
10-12-2002, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by JA-forreal
I used similar "real-world" artist sculpting automation tools in the past.
Check out this neat machinery-

http://www.duplicarver.com/

I've sculpted art objects long before I knew that computer modeling ever existed. This method applied to computer modeling seams to me only useful to the non professional 3d modeler or a 3d based operation that lacks truly skilled 3d modelers yet wants to incorporate high quality models into their workflow.

But if a client wanted a model to be changed to from an old man to a young boy a real talented 3d modeler can provide to change in minutes to hours. Leave the clay on the slab. Mi $5,000 pesos are going for 5 more rendering

"since I started using Painter my airbrush just collects dust"

JA

So, you're saying that guys who sculpt and digitize are not "Truly skilled"? This tool and others like it have been utilized by "truly skilled" professionals for decades in the CG world. Modeling is modeling whether it's physical or digital, or both. You can't digitize good models without good (i.e. "truly skilled") modelers.

JA-forreal
10-12-2002, 10:46 PM
But not all are equally talented in the area of freeform 3d modeling say, a human head for instance. An artist may have more talent at working with clay or an airbrush to render an object than 3d Max or Photoshop. By all means, scan the stuff in if you need to.

I'm just saying that a freefom artist who produces work on the fly in 3d software or 2d software may not need to bother with using such tools for daily work.

To each of his or her own.

"-"$5,000 for 5 rendering machines" - my mouse is old and didn't copy and paste all of my last post.


JA

JA-forreal
10-12-2002, 11:29 PM
If a computer media artist can quickly create high quality work without any other tools other than the software of choice or used by a company and a PC, "on the fly", well...
And they work ahead of deadlines, adjusting to the ever-changing workflow and makes clients and their audience’s eyes pop out and their wallets fly open..... Who in the world need a robot arm to replace that kind of talent?


"If yah don't know you may never know"

"Oh no, now that the cash register is broken and I can't add fast enough in my head, the customers are leaving the store, oh phooey!"

"Sell your talent not your resume, it will be worth something even when they stop releasing copies Maya....."

JA

MadMax
10-13-2002, 02:54 AM
Funny thing here is that it doesn't seem like anyone here has even used a Microscribe or similar digitizing device, a couple of you acted like it was a new invention.

I own a Microscribe, I have had it for years now. It is a fantastic tool, especially when exact replication is required.

Open your minds gentlemen.........

BoydLake
10-13-2002, 08:48 AM
Actually I've had about 2 years worth of experience...at least one other poster mentions he owns one. I hope to be able to buy one for personal use sometime soon. I miss clay modeling.

psil
10-13-2002, 03:06 PM
If anyone can model a specific human likeness (as opposed to free-form goblin etc) faster directly in a 3D app than they can with clay and digitiser,.....I'd be amazed.

psil
10-13-2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by JA-forreal
If a computer media artist can quickly create high quality work without any other tools other than the software of choice or used by a company and a PC, "on the fly", well...
And they work ahead of deadlines, adjusting to the ever-changing workflow and makes clients and their audience’s eyes pop out and their wallets fly open..... Who in the world need a robot arm to replace that kind of talent?


Err...someone who doesn't want smug employees?
;)

MadMax
10-13-2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Actually I've had about 2 years worth of experience...at least one other poster mentions he owns one. I hope to be able to buy one for personal use sometime soon. I miss clay modeling.


Being a LIghtwave user, I didn't get a lot of mileage out of my Microscribe due to the lousy software support. The only plugin for it was ancient and only worked on Lightwave 5.6.

I was going to sell my Microscribe and Deuce talked me out of it. HE said there was a new plugin (which he "plugged" in his post). So I waited. Damn if it wasn't worth every penny!!!

This will never replace a skilled modeler, but when you are working on a deadline in a production environment and you need to replicate a model acurately this hardware is invaluable.

Did you know Viewpoint has a ton of these things to rapidly make the models for sale on their site?

And I would not discount the making of maquettes. Even if you boo boo in clay, you can fix it pretty fast.

I had someone who needed a highly detailed dragon and they needed it fast. They had a highly detailed clay model of it. There was no way in hell I could have made it in the time they needed from scratch. The Microscribe allowed me to finish the job withn their deadline and I got paid rather well for it.

Look at the number of actors who have been subjected to cyberscan (a laser scanning device) for films. It would have been near to impossible for a 3D modeler to have created the same model by hand, let alone maintain any accuracy.

DigitalDeuce
10-13-2002, 06:15 PM
It's almost like this.

If you have a crescent wrench, why have a socket set?

Everything is a tool, including your own modeling skills.

If you can have a tool that gets your modeling closer, faster -- and you can afford it -- then go for it.

I purchased mine because I was doing alot of accident work, and found that I could knock out a car faster from a plastic model, than I could from 3 view drawings.

To each his own.

JA-forreal
10-14-2002, 02:40 AM
I'm just a 3d artist and like most everyday 3d artist , chances of you getting a job offer to model "Simone" 2.0 are rare if even on the barging table at all.

Viewpoint, yes I can understand a 3d company whose main products are stock 3d models using this interface.

But for doing basic 3d artistry working from sketches to a 3d rendering the 3d stylus is just not "that product every 3d artist can't live without."

I'm sure when the price drops to around $500 every 3d artist who has a Walcom tablet will have a 3d stylus in their box of toys.

Hey I didn't own a Walcom until their prices came down-to-earth.
I just used a drawing pad and a scanner.

I guess I' too young in the 3d biz to have been programmed like some sgi-types with big budget mentalities who won't see a tool as viable for real professional workflow if it cost less than a thousand bucks. I'm not pointing to anyone on this list but I have come across those types. I got into 3d with truespace and an HP PC. Now all my workstations are custom built AMD and PIII boxes. I have learned to use Linux 3d tools like Blender not entirely due to cost but let’s get real! I work at a small company who does media work. I use linux stuff so I am open minded.

It's interesting to see how some of you have incorporated the
Microscribe into your workflow setups. That's real cool. Now more post like that would liven this thread up.



JA

DigitalDeuce
10-14-2002, 02:57 AM
Well, I gotta be honest -- I didn't pay $5000 for mine - I got it used and just had it upgraded.

I was demoing the arms at SIGGRAPH -- anyone who went this last time in San Antonio and came by the Immersion Booth -- I was there.

I'd love to know more people who own them. Share experiences and such.

Like a little Microscribe Users Group.

MadMax
10-14-2002, 05:31 AM
Hey Deuce,

You had the same unit as mine right? Early model with the funky serial number?

You said upgrade.

Can we upgrade the older units to the newer ones?

DigitalDeuce
10-14-2002, 05:34 AM
Yeah, like my serial was like 99999 -- yes -- you can upgrade the older ones to the new stuff.

It's like a $600 update -- replaces all the electronics and such, and it gives the USB option too.

Drop 'em an email.

MadMax
10-14-2002, 05:27 PM
yeah, that is what mine did. 999999.

I had trouble with my permanent keycode because of it.

600 huh, probably not a bad idea. Thanks.

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.