|06-01-2010, 11:54 AM||#46|
Lord of the Pingsportfolio
SA Polygon Pictures
Wow! That is pretty darn amazing indeed. So, If i understand this correctly. The original ref already had the mini in it? So you just recreated it?
|06-01-2010, 12:12 PM||#48|
sherwin g. boston
Architect/3D Creative Designer
UAE, United Arab Emirates
Join Date: Mar 2005
Awesome, just too clean compare to the original photo but you did a great job here!
|06-01-2010, 03:40 PM||#52|
Lowestoft, United Kingdom
Having just looked at this again, would I be correct in assuming that the 3D car has just had the photograph projection-mapped onto it?...therefore completely negating the need for a 3D model?...There isn't even any need for the occlusion pass because everything, including the reflections, transparency, lighting and shadows, is already in the photograph. The exact same image could be accomplished by projecting the photograph onto a flat plane or even projecting onto a 3D model of a Ferrari.
Perhaps I am completely wrong about my assumption in which case would it be possible to provide a render from a different angle?
a blatant Google pleaser follows...
3d illustration . animation . visualization
|06-01-2010, 04:00 PM||#53|
Join Date: Sep 2004
I don't think it is camera projection mapped. The rust on the left door hinge is different than the photo. The grille is modeled. The headlights are different. The position of the front left tire is different. There are too much difference than the original photo that it can't be camera projection mapped.
In addition, I don't think this artist is fluent in English, and probably using a translator to post here (from the grammar of his posts). He might just come here to just post his assignments (he is still a student mentioned in his posts), and won't reply our doubts. He might not even care/know what we are talking about.
If you are so doubted, and learn to read Japs, you might be able to track him down in the Jap forums and ask him in Japanese.
|06-01-2010, 05:51 PM||#55|
The Crazy Creative Mindportfolio
2D/3D designer and animator
Amazing job !
Very realistic !!
I'am agree with kelvincai. I don't think too, it's not a camera projection mapped image.
There is some thing that betrayed the 3D type of the image like the trees reflection in the right frame car's windows and no trees reflecting in the right frame side of the car. The bump of the wheels (specialy the front wheel) is too "CG bumpy". I think a modeling of the wheel sculpture will help a step further for the realism of the image.
So it stay a very impressive image.
My New Portfolio with a 2D/3D gallery
Maxscript -- PFlow Path Follow
CgtalkChallenge -- B-Movie Entry
Last edited by BebeteLANUITE : 06-01-2010 at 05:55 PM.
|06-01-2010, 06:23 PM||#56|
Digital Arts and Entertainment
Join Date: Jul 2009
Congratulations, this is very impressive. I was looking at it and couldn't find a single thing to see that this was 3D. The only thing was the back of the car, I would have put a minor z-depth on it greetz
|06-01-2010, 07:27 PM||#58|
Join Date: Dec 2002
It's good work, but unless there's another angle provided I'm going to say it's camera mapped. Or show the HDR or background image used for the reflections in the paint as well as the car's texture sheet. Because those reflections match exactly to the photograph where as the tire reflections on the hubcap are a little off.
The model is fine, the tires and rims may be mapped unique but the overall body of the car is mapped. The reflections just line up too perfectly. There's perfect, then there is too perfect. What betrays it to me is the fact that the tires and rims look close, but not exact. They are for sure CG textured and rendered. They are too gray and the photograph they are fairly black and the bump is a little different. So if he can't exactly texture something as simple as tires, then there's no way he could get the body to be that perfect.
I don't even get the need for the occlusion. Good modeling, but I'm skeptical on the rendering.
|06-01-2010, 08:23 PM||#59|
Lord of the posts
Join Date: Oct 2003
This is getting really silly. The ONLY way that this was camera mapped would be if he intentionally did it to fool us. There are too many differences between the original photograph and the cars texture which means he would have taken some time to make it not so obvious. However, I seriously doubt anyone who can pull off that clean of a wire-frame with that many details would cheat on the texture bit. Why not cheat at the modeling too? If anything, these sort of "experiments" should be encouraged, as it's a great way of learning different aspects from reality like lighting and texturing.
What would be even more silly is if any of the ones who posted suggestions about it being fake or camera mapped were actual artists themselves, cause that would in itself be shameful. Hopefully it's just beginners or trolls, or else I've lost faith in cg talk artists
*I understand this post might lean towards inflammatory, but it needed to be said.
|06-01-2010, 09:53 PM||#60|
You watch my work Thank you.
I am a student in Japan is 3DCG.
It will write some basic production process.
■Production Period : 1month + 1day (two weeks modeling / material set for a week
Week Lighting / Then final adjustments)
■Using software : Maya 2010 / PhotoShop CS4 / After Effects CS4
I like that.
Blinn is the basic material.
Mental ray material is plated parts mia_material_x are used.
IBL Lighting in mental ray's hard to adjust the lighting is
Light use for plated parts and the results are linked to the lifting force.
English is weak, and many hear from you, gave me strength.
In the future, we will try and make more people to produce good work.
Everyday I Thank You.
|Thread Closed share thread|
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|