PDA

View Full Version : Micro-Beads Suspended in Liquid Soap

mlynch
08-29-2007, 03:23 AM
I have an upcoming project: it's a liquid soap with micro-beads and glitter suspended in the soap. The soap itself is relatively transparent (some translucency, but not much).

My question is this: what is an efficient way of creating the mico-beads and glitter? I could do it with individually/manually placed balls and miniature double-sided plains, but that would be living hell - and wouldn't look random enough. LW doesn't instance... so that's out. ...I'm thinking of possibly using hypervoxels, but I feel like there is another solution(s) available that I'm not thinking of.

A second question is that there are random areas in the soap that are more translucent that the surrounding liquid. Is there a way to create a texture with volume that would have random swirls of dense translucency?

Now for the kicker: Whatever I use needs to render pretty quickly. The client is looking to have hi-res (print ready) renders as well as an animation (10 seconds @ 24 fps, NTSC SD rez) of the product (nothing drastic, just a 360 rotation to help visualize the double-sided label on the back of the product and how visible it will be through the soap and with the micro-beads and glitter. SO whatever my solution is it needs to be light on the render time so that I can meet deadline.

Any thoughts?
biliousfrog
08-29-2007, 08:49 AM
My initial thought is that maybe you're a bit out of your depth as you keep asking for us to help you do your work. I know that the point of a forum is to ask questions & help people out but I just wonder whether you're trying to run before you can walk?

The surfacing question is quite valid, liquids can be tricky to surface realistically, but if you don't know how to clone an object (yes, I did say CLONE)...if you don't know how to do something then how can you really expect to quote effectively? It seems a bit stupid to me, to take on a job that you can't do & then say that it needs to render quickly...maybe if you knew how to do the job before taking it on you could spend more time rendering?

Ever heard of the time/cost/quality equation?...basic project management. What is most important to the client, to have the project on time, on budget or at good quality. If they want it quick then you'll have to knock the quality down or put the budget up & send it to a render farm. You should have explained that before taking the job on.

I've spoken to a few clients recently that have been put off from having any 3d work done because they've used "cheap" people that couldn't deliver what they wanted despite promising the earth...understandably, they're very hesitant to try anyone else.
E_Moelzer
08-29-2007, 09:48 AM
Hello!
Well I would try to use some single point polygons and clipmaped Hypervoxels applied to them.
That would be very quick to render since I guess these things will only be very small, it wont have to be superdetailed). Unless of course you need to get very close with them.
But even then, you might get away with doing only a few and make the rest fade away in the distance and maybe in some DOF.
On a personal note: I dont think that there is anything wrong with asking questions and getting a second oppinion.
CU
Elmar
mlynch
08-29-2007, 11:05 AM
My initial thought is that maybe you're a bit out of your depth as you keep asking for us to help you do your work. I know that the point of a forum is to ask questions & help people out but I just wonder whether you're trying to run before you can walk?

I'm not asking questions about random freelance gigs. I'm working as part of an in-house CG dept for a comp house, and if you really had any idea how many jobs I do in the course of a week you'd realize that I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me. And I don't have a great deal of control over what jobs I get since they are coming to me via the sales reps who are in contact with the clients. I do have some say in how realistic a deadline is, but there isn't always a lot of padding. And being that we're a comp house our clients tend to want to see quality. However, if you'd like to continue to make assumptions, pass judgement, and cast stones then please - be my guest. And if you feel that my occasional questions aren't appropriate then don't answer, or please direct me to where I can ask them so I don't disturb you or the harmony of the forum.

E_Moelzer - thanks, man.
biliousfrog
08-29-2007, 12:57 PM
Sorry to make assumptions, I guess your rep's should take the flack for taking on jobs without knowing whether the staff can deliver them.

point-clone, balls, planes...you had it first time. Lightwave doesn't have instancing as such but both modeller & layout can clone...array's, rail-clone, point-clone....

I'd attempt booleans to seperate the liquid surfaces or just add seperate geometry as a quick solution, refraction is going to make or break the look.
HowardM
08-29-2007, 02:12 PM
dont forget FXLink/Linker for 'instancing'...
got a pic of what it needs to look like?
im sure with particles and hvs/objects and a texture with surface thickness (or even new 9 stuff which i dont really know alot about) you could get something cool...
cyphyr
08-29-2007, 02:20 PM
I'd go with modeling the larger bubbles and glitter and using sprites for the realy micro stuff. The refractive instance of soap is about that of water ie 1.333ish.
Attached is a 10min bash at it rendered in Fprime. I dont like lightwaves transparent shadowing so I'd probably do a shadow pass seperately and comp in post.
Good luck
cyphyr
CGTalk Moderation
08-29-2007, 02:20 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.