Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
3D C4D work
- Thread starter Erik
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
I don't know what you mean by that Erik. Result of what?Erik said:
Tcastudios is explaining a method to deform extruded text without getting these irregularities as shown in the example with the sphere. The sphere was just added to show our members what I was confronted with 2 days ago.
I also took it a bit further and I've shown how his method can reduce the polygon count when you use more complicated splines.
Sometimes I use Illustrator to export complicated paths to C4D.
Tcastudios' method can help me to reduce the polygon count in some circumstances, depending on what I kind of intentions I have with those splines.
Maybe you were referring to wrapping text around a sphere.
No problem, but then you?re comparing different goals.
In my example I use splines to define a text that looks exactly the same once wrapped around a sphere, without getting these irregularities.
Your goal was different; to have a text around a sphere without those triangles or stretched quads. It does however change the original looks of the text and that?s something I wanted to avoid.
Well, the method I consider to be normal is not the method you consider to be normal. But that's no problem. I'd say: that's normal.
I probably misunderstood your way of building up your posting and flipped on that mess.
Anyways: I hope no harm is done.
Here's some new pics I made between two sessions of the chautauqua.
Shoot some holes, blow some minds...
Ditools is dangerous for aliens...
I probably misunderstood your way of building up your posting and flipped on that mess.
Anyways: I hope no harm is done.
Here's some new pics I made between two sessions of the chautauqua.
Shoot some holes, blow some minds...
Ditools is dangerous for aliens...
G
Guest
Guest
Erik, you're avoiding the discussion.
I look at your solution and I notice three things that make me say that it's a different approach, but not a solution.
a) You will always have an open text
b) None of the corners will be sharp
c) It's unclear how the final text will look
If you think that most users prefer your solution... sorry you're wrong, because it's a "what you see is NOT what you get" solution and you can never get the standard fonts look the way they look; they will always be deformed by your solution.
I understand that it must be hard for you to admit when you're wrong when I read your reply in which you avoid to have any discussion :\
And yes, no harm done, but I hope that you understand that I see no need to continue my posts in this thread.
Last thing; those are great images, especially that first one. Honest, nice work!
I look at your solution and I notice three things that make me say that it's a different approach, but not a solution.
a) You will always have an open text
b) None of the corners will be sharp
c) It's unclear how the final text will look
If you think that most users prefer your solution... sorry you're wrong, because it's a "what you see is NOT what you get" solution and you can never get the standard fonts look the way they look; they will always be deformed by your solution.
I understand that it must be hard for you to admit when you're wrong when I read your reply in which you avoid to have any discussion :\
And yes, no harm done, but I hope that you understand that I see no need to continue my posts in this thread.
Last thing; those are great images, especially that first one. Honest, nice work!
Some great work in here guys! I really love the cars. I work in the automotive biz and have seen many popular vehicles designed from the ground up. I've been involved when they reach the clay stage and the surfaces are scanned in. That's when you realize that the interior is bigger than the exterior ...doh!.
I've barely warmed up my Photoshop and I'm already excited to jump into 3D again!
Rich
I've barely warmed up my Photoshop and I'm already excited to jump into 3D again!
Rich
Tron
Guru
- Messages
- 1,176
- Likes
- 9
Erik I just need to ask. The last two images that you posed - what are they supposed to symbolize?
I have the greatest respect for you as an artist and for you knowledge - I guess it's just me, but I don't understand.
To me modeling in a 3d environment is to create realism ( either real or fantacy, but realistic images none the less) on the computer screen, obviously you are creating abstract images, which are very good I must add, however I fail to see the significance? }P }P 8}
I have the greatest respect for you as an artist and for you knowledge - I guess it's just me, but I don't understand.
To me modeling in a 3d environment is to create realism ( either real or fantacy, but realistic images none the less) on the computer screen, obviously you are creating abstract images, which are very good I must add, however I fail to see the significance? }P }P 8}
GfX@rt: (it's always difficult not knowing someone's name: GauussianEffectsArt perhaps? or George, Gary, ...?): yes, I'm avoiding entering in this discussion because there is no use doing so. You are right all the way, and I misinterpreted your initial posting. I read that your result, with your normal method was a mess (quote: I was trying to wrap text around a globe a few days ago using the normal method. That didn't work; the result is a mess (left image) ), so I started wondering what that normal method might be. I fired up Cinema, and tried, what I call, the method that I consider to be normal. This gave me a different result with a clearer mesh. Which I posted.
It was not my intention to play teacher, and show you how things have to be done in the first place. I just tried to show a method that has indeed a better mesh, but that, indeed, has the disadvantages you now mention. The method you posted is, and I mean it, far superior, and I will gladly make use of it when needed.
as for tackling me personally:
People who frequent these boards regularly will know that I don't have as much problems with admitting I am wrong (ahhh...the Ego-game!) than you assume. Knowledge does not make me feel important, or intelligent, or "superior" at all. Being a human being with loads of lessons to learn, I still have this "tendency to be a bit shortsighted" about taking my opinions for the one and only thruth, but I have enough experience with self-observation to weed out this tendency every time in puts up its ugly head.
You also tackled me personally on the CGtalk forum because, in a thread on non-English books for Cinema, I had the guts to say that English-speaking people take it for granted that everyone speaks their language, and that they must make an effort just like everyone else "because they can't expect to get everything on a golden platter." You consider this impolite, which is your good right, but it's very clear, in my eyes at least, that the intention of my reaction is to get people start moving. It was you who started the thread, but not you whom I responded to. Your initial post was, as always, well-formulated and to the point. Although this subject had been attacked several times in the past weeks/months as it is, together with n-gons and a shadertree system to replace SLA, one of the favourite rant objects about Cinema.
It is not because I am a mod here that I am better, or special, but it is also not so that, because I am a mod that I may not react if people tackle the man, not the subject.
I have lots of other things on my mind right now, but if I ever need text wrapped around a sphere, I will certainly take a look at this thread again.
Sorry, but I am not a good, methodological student at all. I was so with Photoshop, as it was, and is necessary for me to obtain high-quality scans and prints, but I approach Cinema differently. I am not looking for a job in the industry or pay the rent with it. So I play fearlessly with the wealth of tools and options it offers me.
Rick: There is nothing to understand I'm afraid. In my opinion what we call reality is but another illusion, limited by what our brain selects from the information it gets from our senses, so I simply create without any other rule or condition than the simple fact that I must be totally involved in it, and that I must have a certain liking for the result.
Yet I would not call these abstract as the first image has a mineral, even micro-organic feel, and the second one is clearly a landscape somewhere in the innerworlds.
Abstract 3D, matrix extrude etc, and pure fractals are too "computerish" for me. (I love textures, chaos, the creative moments between two phases of order). Which does not say that I don't ever find pleasure in creating them. On the contrary. Just like I can have a lot of fun playing with Poser and Photoshop.
It was not my intention to play teacher, and show you how things have to be done in the first place. I just tried to show a method that has indeed a better mesh, but that, indeed, has the disadvantages you now mention. The method you posted is, and I mean it, far superior, and I will gladly make use of it when needed.
as for tackling me personally:
People who frequent these boards regularly will know that I don't have as much problems with admitting I am wrong (ahhh...the Ego-game!) than you assume. Knowledge does not make me feel important, or intelligent, or "superior" at all. Being a human being with loads of lessons to learn, I still have this "tendency to be a bit shortsighted" about taking my opinions for the one and only thruth, but I have enough experience with self-observation to weed out this tendency every time in puts up its ugly head.
You also tackled me personally on the CGtalk forum because, in a thread on non-English books for Cinema, I had the guts to say that English-speaking people take it for granted that everyone speaks their language, and that they must make an effort just like everyone else "because they can't expect to get everything on a golden platter." You consider this impolite, which is your good right, but it's very clear, in my eyes at least, that the intention of my reaction is to get people start moving. It was you who started the thread, but not you whom I responded to. Your initial post was, as always, well-formulated and to the point. Although this subject had been attacked several times in the past weeks/months as it is, together with n-gons and a shadertree system to replace SLA, one of the favourite rant objects about Cinema.
It is not because I am a mod here that I am better, or special, but it is also not so that, because I am a mod that I may not react if people tackle the man, not the subject.
I have lots of other things on my mind right now, but if I ever need text wrapped around a sphere, I will certainly take a look at this thread again.
Sorry, but I am not a good, methodological student at all. I was so with Photoshop, as it was, and is necessary for me to obtain high-quality scans and prints, but I approach Cinema differently. I am not looking for a job in the industry or pay the rent with it. So I play fearlessly with the wealth of tools and options it offers me.
Rick: There is nothing to understand I'm afraid. In my opinion what we call reality is but another illusion, limited by what our brain selects from the information it gets from our senses, so I simply create without any other rule or condition than the simple fact that I must be totally involved in it, and that I must have a certain liking for the result.
Yet I would not call these abstract as the first image has a mineral, even micro-organic feel, and the second one is clearly a landscape somewhere in the innerworlds.
Abstract 3D, matrix extrude etc, and pure fractals are too "computerish" for me. (I love textures, chaos, the creative moments between two phases of order). Which does not say that I don't ever find pleasure in creating them. On the contrary. Just like I can have a lot of fun playing with Poser and Photoshop.
Well, indeed, optimising helps. But great helper bunny Mme Sadie explained what happened, as nothing is abnormal. It was me not going back to the initial state.
When you select a face, Extend it ( extrude to zero)and drag it to the extrude you want, and then go back, you have to go back three steps, not one! One step, like I did, sets it back to extrude zero, BUT THE POLY IS DOUBLED. So when I then select using PolyLoop (or the method Gfx@rt explained higher in this thread) the hidded ploys are also selected and will be extruded otr moved or normal moved, whichever the tool you take.
Yet there's another thing I cannot understand, and that is why I can't use Extend after Polyloop, while Normal move works just fine, but when selecting Normal Move without doing anything and then go to Extend and drag, I get extrusion, not move...
Who can explain insimple words what Flange means?
When you select a face, Extend it ( extrude to zero)and drag it to the extrude you want, and then go back, you have to go back three steps, not one! One step, like I did, sets it back to extrude zero, BUT THE POLY IS DOUBLED. So when I then select using PolyLoop (or the method Gfx@rt explained higher in this thread) the hidded ploys are also selected and will be extruded otr moved or normal moved, whichever the tool you take.
Yet there's another thing I cannot understand, and that is why I can't use Extend after Polyloop, while Normal move works just fine, but when selecting Normal Move without doing anything and then go to Extend and drag, I get extrusion, not move...
Who can explain insimple words what Flange means?
Hmm ok,if it is extruding instead of moving my guess would be the key you might be holding down when you drag,try just dragging,if you are not already holding down a key.
Flange is like an extruded or tapered area which joins to a larger surface,acck nope thats a terrible explanation [stuned] ,someone else will do a better job then that.As with superflange etc it just means a spline which wraps around the shape of the object allowing you to cut vertically or horizontally,and I am assuming Per means the flange is the spline type shape which cuts your object.Kind of like Maxons grime shader being called Dirtynuts,or Darf who is the king of strangenames for his shaders like Nukei etc
Stu.
Flange is like an extruded or tapered area which joins to a larger surface,acck nope thats a terrible explanation [stuned] ,someone else will do a better job then that.As with superflange etc it just means a spline which wraps around the shape of the object allowing you to cut vertically or horizontally,and I am assuming Per means the flange is the spline type shape which cuts your object.Kind of like Maxons grime shader being called Dirtynuts,or Darf who is the king of strangenames for his shaders like Nukei etc
Stu.
Thanks Gidgit!!! That is what I wanted to know. I tried a few dictionaries but they limit flange to those rubber rings holding engine parts together which was as clear as mud to me. Your explanation is.
Man, before I realised "vertex" was a normal English word (I mixed it up with vortex)...
Man, before I realised "vertex" was a normal English word (I mixed it up with vortex)...
Think of the plates stuck on the ends of two connecting pipes, the part which allows the ends to be bolted together is a flange-plate.
I think the term can be applied to any extra component attached to another for the purpose of strengthening, but is more typically used as a means for joining two items together.
Al.
I think the term can be applied to any extra component attached to another for the purpose of strengthening, but is more typically used as a means for joining two items together.
Al.
