/3/ - 3DCG

looks better than the Daz M3 a couple years ago, lol

I don't doubt it

>>570288
I also wanted to say that it looks kinda like daz

>>570286
Better facial animation than mass effect Andromeda

>>570286
>1975
>First 3D porn made

>>570286

>>570288
>looks better than the Daz M3
Michael 3 is literally a head scan of Dan Farr. I met him in 2011 and it's hilarious.

>>571323
must be really strange to see a model of you in bad CG porn literally everywhere.

reminds me of that voyager episode involving the hundreds of hologram clones of the programmer who created the EMH that ended up being used for mining and cleaning pipes.

>>571338
>must be really strange to see a model of you in bad CG porn literally everywhere.
Before I met him I did ask him in chat what his nice Mormon family thought about their son starring in so much gay porn on the internet and he said something about them not being computer savvy enough to find it. I decided not to remind him of that in person.

Also, correction here: it was Michael 1/2 that was a headscan of Dan. But yeah for years we ALL said M1/2 had a goofy, implausible face until the website let the cat out of the bag. And, if you look hard enough at P4 Male you realize Chris Creek was using Dan as a model even before DAZ existed.

>>570286
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_wK74Ejnqc
Also don't forget the 1981 movie "Looker," based on a Michael Crichton story about ad agencies replacing models with CGI for nefarious subliminal reasons (then murdering the models). I emailed the SFX guys who did this scene and this is what Gary Demos said. (I commented that Susan's very angular face was made for this kind of thing and asked if she were cast for that reason)

------
I am copying Art Durinski, who can give you the detailed
answers that you seek.

Our first 3D digitizing of faces was Peter Fonda for "Futureworld"
in 1976. We used three pin-registered Mitchell 35mm cameras
at 0deg, 90deg, and 180deg, with grids project on Peter's
face.

For Michael Crichton's "Looker" we used several mirrors and
a single pin-registered Mitchell, to get multiple views on
a single frame. Art and Larry Malone actually painted
(or pasted) grids and reference dots on Susan Dey's face.

The images were hand-digitzed on a 60" custom 2-cursor Talos
tablet having 200/in resolution (or maybe higher than that).

Amazingly, the story line (which we helped with) showed an
automated version of this scan on Susan Dey. We were
basically predicting how this would eventually be done.

Something you might not have guessed is that we used
someone else for the body and Susan Dey for the face.
Mal McMillan helped us splice everything together, and
helped us compensate for lens distortion (a key issue in
doing this).

There was nothing special about Susan's features, although
they were clearly excellent in retrospect. Our job was to
digitize whoever Michael Crichton chose for the lead actress.
Susan Dey was a wonderful choice, and she was great
to work with.

I think that Art Durinski has pictures of him and Larry Malone
painting reference points on Susan's face.

-Gary

>>571402
>Our first 3D digitizing of faces was Peter Fonda for "Futureworld" in 1976.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9sytPC1l0o
I neglected to mention that this scene was the first instance of CGI in a motion picture. In the earlier parts, it reuses Fred Parkes' animation seen in OP, and the hand flexing is Ed Catmull's famous 1972 animation digitized off his own hand (quite possibly the oldest CGI recorded):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LXw2PYvdN8

Tell me this hasn't aged well, I dare you m'fucka
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL0RH3x7Zzo

>>571635
>11 minutes into computer dreams and chill and he gives you this look

>>571638

Gonna fuck me a fish!

>>571402
>>571405
I love how they still had to use practical effects to get the quality level they wanted.

Can you imagine seeing this for the first time?

bump

>>571635

>a 10 seconds spot was tenths of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands of $ for 3D animation back then
>it's a WHOLE HOUR

Whoever paid for this must have spent a FORTUNE on this.

>>571635
It hasn't aged well at all it's just that the internet currently lives through a big wave of 80/90's nostalgia which 3D stuff of that time is a big part of and because of that it kind of seems fresh again but in reality it really isn't.

>>573551
Ah, just saw it's just a compilation and not one thing... But yeah, was really expensive back then.

>>573551
>tenths of thousands

moar

Isn't this the first instance of people trying to animate something fappable in CG?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NpPeA-x6as

>>571635
> imagine being Corbin Bernsen fucking Amanda Pays' face in its prime

>using Poser in 1972

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5seU-5U0ms

>>576387


>>576387
We're living in the fucking matrix.

>>576387
How much time for render ? Omg 2, 3, 4 month ? + place the vertices point by points

really cool

>>576800
not sure but I think the "modeling" or digitizing took more time than rendering.

still better than blender

>>576387
The topology of that hand is absolutely horrendous.

uncanny v a l l e y
n
c
a
n
n
y

v

a

l

l

e

y

>>578520
why don't you go back to 1972 and tell Ed how to do it right then

>>581004
the difference in skill and knowledge needed to be competent in 3D in even just the 90s for videogames and in 2017 for just amateur work that isn't scoffed at is so vast, can you imagine if they went back in time and set 3D on the right path in the 70s? we'd need masters degrees to meet the visual standards

>>570584
fucking this

cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBjMRvOB5M

First ever meme video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Nn8JltYrI

>>573557

I think it was also a student project compilation too. That's what the Mind's Eye series was, just a compilation of the best student animations.

>>570286
That face was used in the music video for We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus

>>583167
that video is postmodern as fugg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWChhdIgT6Q

>>583167
This shit is like a fever dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKpU0pnne8

I like this primitive kind of 3D.

>>583167
legendary video

>>571635
These are lovely, but "aging well" is a myth.

Pretty stuff is always pretty, ugly stuff is always ugly, that's not something which magically changes with age.

>>587320
I think it's just about being able to associate something with a particular time frame but yeah for some reason this is considered a bad thing often

>>571638
>"Nigga I'm gonna' slam dat fish ass yo!"

>>583167
I almost have no idea what the FUCK is going on

https://youtu.be/cCljXjwCzH0
Europoor kids show from around 95. Fun fact: one of the lead actress started doing pron later.

>>583167

>tfw you never got to use a multi-million dollar Cray XMP Supercomputer in the 80s to render memes

>>583167
Bumping the thread for this amazing video

>>571405
>(quite possibly the oldest CGI recorded)

highly doubt it, people have been making electronic art since the 30s

>>587985
those were too annoying to operate

>>583167
did I stroke out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUgnUQAgmKw
And they rendered it as ASCII art.

>>591928
blyat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHOpSrDwZNM

I was surprised to find out that when production started on Star Trek the Next Generation in 1987, they were tinkering with the idea of going full CGI for the spaceship effects. Obviously this was a little premature, the capabilities of CGI at the time weren't quite good enough for them, and the industry couldn't really be relied upon for a TV show... but I'll be damned if these tests aren't way better than I would have expected

...but then they cut to the actual footage made using physical models and it's like "oh right, CGI didn't even stand a chance against this"

>>592105
These back-lit shots are particularly good, they almost pass for real.

>>592106
It's crazy to think that hobbyists can now make their own photoreal renderings on their home PCs

>>592107
looks horrible compared to physical models DESU

>>592108
>less than 5 minutes to respond
>on /3/
Are you this quick to shit on everything you see? It literally looks better than any of the CGI efforts in the Trek TV shows, including the current one.

Besides, I always felt the 6ft Enterprise-D model looked kind of uncanny. Legit thought it was CGI when I was a young and didn't know any better.

>>592115
>Are you this quick to shit on everything you see?
I've literally been watching Star Trek for longer than you've been alive kid.

>>592116
You literally don't know that, you have nothing to base that statement on.

And how long you've been watching Star Trek has no particular bearing on your ability to judge the quality of CGI. Why are you boasting about that like it means anything? Why are you whipping your dick out with every post you make? Keep it in your pants, dude, you'll embarrass yourself.

>>592107

>tfw still having the tingly feeling of some SERIOUS SHIT about to go down just by seeing a tilted camera view on the Enterprise D

>>592106
This is actually excellent for the time, considering stuff like ALIAS/1 was in use at that time and what most commercial work looked like.

So my guess... custom tools and REYES.

>>592120
ugh...brainfart. Forgot REYES was just one part of the RenderMan package.

>>571095
This is stuff nightmares are made of.

>>592117
Gonna have to agree with the other anon, physical models look better.
Though considering what they were working with, holy shit that's impressive.

>>592598
>Gonna have to agree with the other anon, physical models look better.
no one has said otherwise

>>583167
IT'S YOUR MOVE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmLUs6mjs6Y

>>570286
why does this look more complex than mass effect andromeda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmPGuMGs8cg

This is my jam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_0zKVVGQw

>>594589
Not too shabby for the time imo

>>595613
Agreed. 200.000+ polys for that Gunstar model alone is pretty wild for 1984.

>>594585
becuase it actually was, just imagine those university professors writing lines of code without a proper user interface

With both the late 80's and the 90's now being considered "retro" and the (although memeish) popularity of vaporwave, do you think that old looking cgi will become an accepted aesthetic style? low poly videogames are now starting to become popular and with the increasing number of people getting tired of photorealism in both movies and games, this seems likely to me.

now a video that their creators hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpMFrOZGABU

>>592105
That's actually a lot better than I was expecting for late-80s CGI. Can see why they still went with models until Voyager, though.

Would love to know who made these tests, they feel like something ILM may have done.

>>595596
very nice

1991

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSJgsojhbs

>>597805
cool

>>597805
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pSJgsojhbs
Some Alias and Symbolics S work in this video. Also a lot of proprietary stuff.

>>597805
I kinda miss those old CRTs. But only a bit.

>>600156
Still got my two old 21in CAD monitors. Shit used to cost $2,000 a piece in 1998.

important thread

>>592106
>>592105
that's actually fucking cool

>>597805
ah the good old days, when computers with this kind of capability cost only 20k.

>>602956
Your point?

>>592106

Not bad for 1987. Looks better than the CG in the first season of Babylon 5.

I like how, even with the limitations, the fundamental principles of art theory still mean they can be quite good.

>>603883
This also was a 100x more expensive.

The makers of B5 had to choice of purchasing one or two really expensive workstations and figure out how to do 100 effect shots per week...or get a lot of (relatively) inexpensive computers, network them together and pull it off in time....or not at all.

Just look up anything from SIGGRAPH before the 2000s

>>603946

>>583167
I’m a fan of the rotating boobs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b_UqzLBFz4Y

>>603946
looks like a meme

>>604657
back when memes didn't have a lifetime of literal seconds

>>571402
>help rape
>it was just a joke :^)

>>603946
can somebody make and sell shirts of these

stop talkin about ez money cucklet and enjoy the meme

needs crystal castles

>>607642
What the fuck is a meme you fucking neet that is a work of art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCf3hiCSr_U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV5obrYaogU

>>571635
We need to do a computer dreams parody where the kid looks into the mirror and is transported into a fantastical world of cylinder cock with sphere balls first time renders and blender guru donut cups as far as the eye can see as he flies on an anvil.

>>610781
This blenderfag has keked loudly.

>>610781

fucking kek

>>592105
Star Trek II - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XlyMbxxh8
Genesis sequence was done in 1982 and it's awesome even today. If you google you'll find couple of articles describing the process. They wrote their own software to animate the effects.
Back then physical models of the ships were still way more detailed than any computer graphics could achieve and ILM etc had so many years of experience using optical effects that doing the ships using cg would have been counter-productive. However as the processing power of computers increased the scale tipped over at some point.

Also one thing which creates an extra pass of magic is that back then (1980s) cg effects were shot back to film by photographing the CRT. This results in this color bleeding look which glows magically.
Actual film printers which used laser to expose the film become common only after late 90s, like Arri etc.

>>574434
The boob slider has always been there.

bump

>2004 was 14 years ago

FUCK

>>613304
>Iray is still shit compared to this

>>613304

>POVray

I nostalgicame

>>611344
Simply not true. Film printers (35mm) were used since the very beginning of 3DCG. The cheap alternative were single-frame controllers with 34 in tape recorders. The late 80s saw the rise of frame buffer cards(TARGAs) and in the early-to-mid 90s you had PASs(personal animation recorder).

Film printers were still reserved for studios only, with the cheapest models starting at $60k.

>>614217
3/4 not 34 in, lel

bump

>>570286
SOY face at 1:10

bump

>>603946
I really like the platonic solids one- that shit is so meta.

bump

what the fuck was wrong with CGI in 1988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffIZSAZRzDA

>>592117
>>592598
That fucking lighting is great.

>>625712
yes

>>625712

Agreed, looked just like the original old movie film stock and even the fade transitions and blur look from the era. How in the hell...

>>628131
I'm wondering if Pixar put in a bid to do TNG. The high quality for 1988 stuff feels like their work.

If not, then hot damn, I kinda wish we knew who did these tests then.

>>628160
Sorry, didn't understand the context of your post.

>>628160

Not sure what you're referring to because haven't read the thread, but if you're talking about TNG that you can see now on Netflix, or on Blu-Ray, it has all been heavily re-mastered and almost all the CG was redone from scratch a couple years ago.

Luckily for us the show was filmed on beautiful 35mm film stock, so all this film was rescanned at hi resolution. The CG scenes, however, were printed out straight to video - they never made it onto celluloid- and so they would look like utter shit next to the hi resolution film scans. So they had to be completely recreated - they tried not to 'improve' any of the CG from back then, and instead just tried to copy the sequences exactly - but they are inevitably a bit better looking all round.

Incidentally- there are one or two very occasional live-action shots on the bridge of the Enterprise that were for some reason shot on video. These sequences obviously couldn't be recreated so they just went into the remaster as-is and they look like absolute fucking dogshit when intercut between the 35mm scans. If you watch all of TNG on Netflix, you'll see these shots - you literally can't miss them.

>>595706

I hope this becomes the case. I love low poly stuff, love old cg pokemon cards

>>628164
True.

They did a good job of not pulling a Lucas with the CG. Most casual viewers who haven't seen TNG in years would probably not realize the CG scenes have been updated - they're very faithful to the original but, in terms of resolution and sharpness the new scenes are far superior. If the old original CG sequences were just included alongside the newly scanned film footage they would have been unwatchable. This is the mark of a good remaster - you don't really notice that anything has been changed unless you look for it.

>>628201
>>628161

Forgot to include link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=bQHpfk4X-wc

>>628164
I was talking about that BTS featurette talking about the process of the effects' production.

bump

>thread is almost a year old

>>629304
It's not titled "Old 3D" for nothing, son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIfh0XMrg6w

God this ad is so cool

>>629329
holy fuck that looks like Reboot on crack
thanks for sharing!

>>629304
Holy fuck, it actually is. I knew this board was slow as fuck but damn...

>>629304
>he doesn't remember the blender question thread
started out with a small inquiry but turned into nothing but shitposting and stayed up for way over a year. mods even removed some really bad spam so there was more headroom again until the post limit was reached. glorious shit.

>>629330
This predates Reboot by 7 years

>>570286
Gonna bump this thread because I find this shit really aesthetic for 1974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOwRH4JpXc

Five more days until we can celebrate this thread's first birthday.

>>630190
Tonight, you.

bump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0lIlROWro8 I believe this was made by some people who went on to work at pixar in its really early days.

Not exactly CGI, but here's a video about how the sound effects for TRON were created using the greatest synthesizer ever made: The Fairlight CMI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajXxr71l0rQ

>>630642
I forgot to mention, these were probably rendered some time in the late 70s. Kraftwerk took forever to release the album it was for.

>>570286
ayyyyyyyyyyyyyooooooooooo happy first birthday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwU3UARE6yc

>>630711
few hours too early my guy

Two more hours from now, though.

Thread's officially a year old! Happy birthday, guys.

>>630732
>celebrating your birthday on the hour you're born and not the day
its called birthDAY not birth hour, you mongo

>>630745
>Let's ignore rounding rules!
That's how planes crash, Anon.

>>630718
Fucking morphing vertexes between keyframes is an annoying thing to do now, how the hell did they do it in the 70s?

>>630810
>What are timezones
That's how mistakes are made, Anon.

>>630875
And that's why we aim for the precise time the thread was created a year ago. Then, it'd be 1 year old no matter where you are in the world.

>>630190
cool

>>630718
Jesus France, just...

>>630190
This is amazing. Light colour tv would have still been pretty recent right?

>>629329
The original 'Monster'.

Can you physically deal with this much (original 1983, Japanese)

A E S T H E T I C

?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WlAnrdtGmg

bump

>>631795
Stop the shitty A E S T H E T I C meme

>>632662
>implying one person can stop a meme

Not real old 3d but def got a early 3d vibe to it and the video is pretty neat.

https://youtu.be/lf6ZBGO2jSw

>>632664
They don't need to, its already old and tired. It was corny in 2012, when vaporwave died, and then got dragged out when normies discovered it, but even theyre sick of it. Now its just sad 30 year old boomers who still think its cool.

>>632717
*hides in corner and cries*

>>632717
It was completely ruined once pol adapted it to "fashwave"

>>632891
Cry more normie

>>632891
>baawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>631795
Waitaminute that music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiXioWKF5ig

>>632891
fashwave is bad not because it "ruined vaporwave," It's bad because it's made by shit for brains who have tenuous grasp on any aesthetic principles

>>632929
...says the salty bitch who never released one single track in his miserable life

>>632930
I've played 10k seat venues. You chuds can't even get 10k views on youtube.

>>632947
Sure you did anon, sure you did...

bump

>>570286
1994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72HjLrSzgRU

>>634645
>1994
>R3
R4 came out that summer

I still have mine...I mean...the one I borrowed from my employer...*caught*

>>634645
from 1994 yet has better features than maya. hmmm...

>>634645
>>634669
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8azQEceSJo

This was distributed to dealers and interested customers on VHS and CD. We bought two seats of MAX+CS mid '96. The only problem was the renderer, not very good out of the box.

>>634670
*SNAP*

>>634672
thats fuckin amazing hahahhaha
who knew this would still be top tier 22 years later

>>634672
I was so impressed by this 20 years ago, and worked with every single version of max since them.
The movements looks so... choppy now!

>>634820
Mostly because of they it's captured on video here. Also, this was before OGL/D3D display and shaded rendering was slow af anyway.

>>634672

The time around R1-R4 was great for me, super productive, new plugins to play with literally every week, tons of jobs.
I'm not too happy how 3ds is handled today.

>>634827
Kinetic owned 3ds for a time, then it reverted back to Autodesk.
Then they made mudbox and that ridiculously useless and retarded motionbuilder, removed HAVOK from the Max package and it was downhill from there.
Try and access Autodesk website and you will understand what i´m talking about. They simple diverged all 3ds max resources to Maya and kept updating the licenses yearly to keep the cash cow without giving anything decent- try doing fluid dynamics with max, it´s impossible.
Frankly, i never thought i´d say this, but i´m seriously considering switching to Blender.

>>634831
3ds Max 2018 build 3 something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGgKBr9YIs

nump

>>634827
>I'm not too happy how 3ds is handled today.

Same. The newer versions take AGES to start up and are just full of bugs. 2017 is particularly awful and has bugs in simple everyday things that I never used to deal with.

bump

>>571638

>>571635
shit, the video got taken down
quick someone upload a backup

>>638145
https://archive.org/details/computerdreamsvhs

>>583167
I miss the 80's

>>638148
ur the man, bro

bump

>>637800
lol

https://archive.org/details/virtualnaturevhs
37 minutes of trippy 902 CG set to music composed on this thing >>630644

>>642889
*1993 how the fuck did that become 902

Did anybody post our glorious father Tony de Peltrie? 1985

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=munTr4vmxYE

>>643766
*cue popular 2018 maymay*

But seriously, I wonder if back then they knew how much of a fucking nightmare fuel their animations were. I mean in this case it's to some degree intended but there were also stuff supposed to be happy family shit that looks incredibly horrible with pitch black backgrounds, lifeless phong shading and and strange facial expressions.

>>643795
Cry more.

>>613304
damn, I remember that one

>>583167
>a revolutionary new technology was squandered for this
>produced by a woman

color me unsuprised

>>571638
I rewatch the mind's eye and beyond the mind's eye multiple times a year. I have eternally good memories tied to those old sounds and 3D.

Beyond the Mind's Eye - 06 Too Far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCzUjxORhqA

>>644255
funny how they swapped out the Hawaiian punch can here with "too far"
>>629329

>>643766

Oh shit it's him

how would I about creating stuff that looks like this? It seems like flat colour instead of texture is a big one

>>644992
phong shading
high specularity values
saturated colors
no raytraced shadows, mostly shadow maps
procedural textures
NURBS or spline patch modeling allowed

>>644992
Single directional light usually pointing outwards the camera. Phong or Gouraud shading, hard shadows, no AO, most importantly some post processing that simulates old analog film medium.

>>644992
>>644998
>>645001
would emulating actual old software be way to cumbersome to be worthwhile?

>>645009
No because most of it is about recording it on an analog device or make I look like it, it's all about the post processing for the most part.

>>645009
I don't know. I still have my old stuff, hardware and software. Most of it in storage, but it works.

Autodesk 3D Studio R3 or R4 DOS (works in DOSBox)
older versions of 3ds max (formally 3D Studio MAX, they all work at least on x64 Win7 systems)
older versions of Lightwave(also still working on modern Win versions)
older versions of Maya(can be unstable or wonky)
SoftImage|3D(won't run on anything higher than NT4.0 or Win2k, at least not properly)
older versions of Bryce or Poser(lel) still work on newer Windows versions

Then there's the stuff on the old SGI boxes. I have a SGI Octane with PowerAnimator(or simply "Alias"), but that stuff is impossible to emulate anyways.

Long story short, probably not worth getting into. Use a modern tool, stick to the old aesthetics and do some work in post, like glare/bloom, some film/analog tape filter, a bit of color correction and whatnot

>>645030
no it isn't

>>645041
yeah, I was think of autodesk 3ds on dosbox but I think you might be right about using modern tools

>>645092
had a go, turned out better than expected

>>645101
It's a start

>>646172
this isn't actually old btw, as u can probs tell, but I made it trying to emulate very early 3d games

>>646172
The little guy(or person, if you're a PC fgt) needs some low res texturing love.

>>646183
>or person, if you're a PC fgt
I appreciate your consideration

I didn't texture it because I was aiming for something like pic related

>>646202
Funny, Alpha Waves was one of the games that came to my mind. Others are Hunter on the Amiga and 'The Colony' on Mac.

>>646224
hadn't heard of the colony before, looks pretty interesting, what sort of frame rate did it run at?

>>646322
Depending on the machine...everything between 10 to 30 FPS.
There are two videos from one of the devs explaining some things about the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1XENlUUOhA&t=126s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k3qrt76Ddk

>>645101
How did you do this?

>>646345
what specifically?

>>646346
like in general.
What software, what settings and stuff.
I really want to make stuff that has that old look

>>646350
Use old software.

>>646366
could you maybe give an example, I'm very interested, and kind of a noob

>>646378

1. old versions of 3D Studio, Maya, Lightwave etc.
2. Don't. Simply don't do it. It's hard to run older software on modern systems and you have to learn arcane legacy workflows that will get you nowhere. Use modern tools and learn to copy what you see in old CG videos. A lot can also be achieved through post processing like color grading or filters.

>>646350
I used blender, internal render, most of the settings were just default I think, added some enviromental lighting. All textures are procedural. I did some post processing in gimp, messed around with the colours, added a chromatic aberration, blurred it a bit. You can do all that in blender though quite easily like I did here >>646172

>>646395
>>646396
Thank's

>>646172
lower still, same amount of faces but no quads

>>644254
>Squandered
It was used to make surreal 3D memes three decades before it became popular.

>>576387
>That hand topography

>>646172
Reminds me of pic related

>>570286
fake, toy story was the first 3D ever made, nigger

>>574434
i'm in love

>>591772

I can't imagine how hard it would be just to set the damn thing up in the first place. Dat massive cooling system that doubled as a comfy seat.

check these out:
http://blackat9.tripod.com/brycea.htm
http://www.conquerordesigns.com/old-gallery/index.htm
http://digitalblasphemy.com/seeall.shtml?y=1997

I love this demo so much.
The intentional or unintentional surrealism, the fantastic 3D sound stage and the primitive and eery 3D graphics are just fucking fantastic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oSlbyLAksM

Also, RIP Aureal A3D sound. Fuck Creative for ruining you and their fucking Patent trolling.

>>650173
Hey, you found my old shit

Partially related

Pretty much forgotten, but very influential on developments: Lightscape Renderer, a feasible radiosity solution as early as 1993...and what did people use it for? Of course, ArchViz...

>>650800

>>650800
>>650801

>>650800
>>650801
>>650803

>>581068
This will always make me laugh. Incompetent riggers can be covered by competent animators making due with shit controls or even hand animating vertices. Incompetent animators can be made decent with prebuilt excellent emotion/face controls by a competent rigger. Everyone was just so bad here there was no saving it. It's like they literally hired high school computer class students.

>>651065
well, that's what they got for hiring based on memes instead of merit but yeah, this shouldn't be part of this thread.

>>651065
It was neither the fault of the riggers or the animators, its a full blown management failure.
Some fucking idiots in suits made a couple of decisions without having the knowledge to actually making them.
no1. Some Suit saw "No mans sky" and decided that's the route to go for an new Mass Effect game. Bioware spend countless man-hours trying to get this done with an engine they barely knew and that has the following reputation: if the engine does something well, it does it exceptionally well like a F1 car when it comes to speed. When it doesn't do something well, it simply doesn't do it.
no2. Some idiot in a suit made the glorious decision, to switch DCC In the middle of production. From Max to Maya or the other way around, i don't remember anymore. Doesn't matter anyways. They changed the complete pipeline while in the middle of creating a game.
no3. They spent too much time in pre-production and trying to get that procedural planet tech RnD going they actually forgot to start seriously with the game in a proper planned manner.
no4. Actual production time was WAY TO LITTLE. They knew it. EA knew it.
no5. They where seriously understaffed.
no6. They actually released the game in this state since the suits demanded it.

>>570286
Fuck you, I'm a dragon

>>649665
If that's the Cray I think it is, I actually have one of those PCB slots in the picture. It's to a Cray-1 s/1000 I Believe.

bumpo

bump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c3nWhR41D0

https://youtu.be/hl2lhtBIt2E
Was watching a documentary on the history of CG, and saw this.

I found this hilarious when I watched Robocop 2. Milking the weird effect of that kind of animation, feels before its time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E4_K_tAmC8

>>656156
Pretty revolutionary. They found a way to directly drive the motion channels with some input device, allowing one animator to "puppeteer" the cain face in realtime for showing emotions more effectively. Another reason: severe time constraints, so iterating with keyframe animation was pretty much off the table.

my fellow t/3/apots if we make one post every 2 days starting from this post we can keep this thread going until its 2 year birthday

>>618162

bump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADF3-6owY0A

bump

Aged like milk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhM_LxeKgEQ

>>661564
I know my SoftImage (Creative Environment) scanline renderer when I see it

>>595706
ofc, it already is fashionable in the contmporary art and fashion worlds - therefore it'll trickle down to mainstream culture soon.

e.g Jon Rafman, Weekday's newest campaign

>>650691
The stories are not always pleasant or understandable to the outside world

>>570286
>mfw this thread will still be open for another 2 years

<iframe width="1905" height="801" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0fy2bmXfOFs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5__U-kYrFIg5OEfvtnw0Cp1u8pqe1DMN
While not story-driven, this series of instructional vids is full a mix of old CGI and VFX

bump

http://cd.textfiles.com/gifsgalore/GIFS/RAYTRACE/

>>667527
Some of these shovelware CDs have a few of my old artworks. The price you pay for uploading your work to every graphics BBS in NA and Europe.

pump

>>585274
holy fucking shit, I actually watched the shit out of that crap when I was a kid

>>570286
freaky shit

>>585274
Man, that type of 3D used in those 90s shows have dated hard.

>>585274
Imagine doing all that with just primitive subd and texturing. Must have been a hell.

>>651071
>he doesn't know that most of the animations in Mass Effect Andromeda were procedurally generated with the intention of replacing them...
They didn't have enough time to replace the compooter animations with real animations because the animators they highered weren't diverse and progressive enough... Wait. Hmm... Nah, it was actually the big wigs upstairs. It couldn't have been the fact that their animators were working at three fifths the needed production rate.

>>674737
Just like you, anon

>>674738
This is pure NURBS and some poly modelling, no sub-d.
Also lots of procedurals.

Wasn't exactly hell, just time consuming like it is today.

t. 90s / early 00s 3D artist

this is terrifying but strangely beautiful

>>570286
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikoWh1M-4zU

How could somebody recreate retro looking 3d? Do you use old software? or do you just use current software and style it like old 3d? How do you think Jack Stauber created the effects in the video above? Sorry I'm a Dazfag and new to the rest of the 3dcg world.

>>675110
I keep some old versions of tools around for stuff like that, but you can recreate such styles in modern software.

>>675110
>jack stauber
blurgh, sorry.
i’ve talked with him, it’s just blender put through a VHS cassette.
he also records a CRT screen with an old camcorder, that’s how you get those wobbly text effects. it’s rendered out to a black BG and then chroma keyed in. he also uses the rotoscope function of AE to draw directly onto frame (those sketchy 80s pattern things you see), and processes it through the same VHS + camcorder + CRT fx chain

poor CG isn’t that hard to do though. it’s not the technical limits that made a lot of the early CG look bad, it was the poor stylistic choices made + unskilled artists

also, pop food is objectively better than his latest album. much stronger songwriting, it’s almost like he’s gotten lazy bcuz of the viral fame he got and stopped evolving

also, a lot of his fanbase is quite cringy in terms of how they search for this “meaningfulness” in his work, when a lot of it is faux deep (i have friends who know him IRL, that’s how i got a lot of this info). cringy fanbases are expected though

additionally. i could easily make plenty of jokes about the basedboy tier beard, the 30 year boomer tier nature of his work (the fact he was born in 1996 makes it worse, because it’s basically fake nostalgia), but i’m not going to

>>675230
Pretty much this. Fake nostalgia. Also it seems like he's really going nowhere as an artist.

>>675236
>Also it seems like he's really going nowhere as an artist.
Hahaha? What? Hes going further than you anon. He’s getting deals with adult swim and everything, of course he’s going somewhere. I hate the people on this board, always shitting on talented people who get (deserved) success, and then raging because they’re not as talented.

>>675240
Not him, but artists are worthless. They produce nothing of real tangible value. If you do 3D, do product and industrial design, 3D printing, CNC or at least archviz. Something that makes it into the real world for real humans to interact with, not just some flashy pixel garbage. You art not doing "art", you just contribute to the noise.

>>675263
You think your post is something other than dull pixel garbage? I'm sorry, Anon, but you're not making "a valid point", you just contribute to the noise.

>>675272
I never posted anything here. I design and construct engine parts and program CNC machines. Things of actual tangible value.

>>675274
>Things of actual tangible value.
Between your works and those of Michelangelo, which ones do you think would be saved in the event of a fire?

>>675263
This but unironically. The vast majority of 3D artists are parasites.

>>675278
Good thing my works are fireproof by design, anon.

>>675281
Missed the point entirely. Typical engineerlet.

>>675288
Go play with something shiny or model a dick or something.

>>675289
>model a dick or something
Sure, because otherwise you wouldn't have the basis for even drawing a draft, am I right?

>>675274
I don't understand why you'd be on this board then. I mean I agree with you somewhat, that stuff is more directly beneficial to society, but still, this board is primarily for artist types who do CG. Most of the posts cater to that

>>675353

I'm not sure if you know this, but trolls typically butt in where they're not wanted in an attempt to get people riled up.

>>675574
>I have the life experience of a wet rag
>everyone not doing 3D weebshit or gaming garbage is a troll

>>675263
>artists are worthless. They produce nothing of real tangible value.
NGMI

>>576387

Faces remind me of Virtua Fighter.

>>676028
That means YOU, asshole

bump

Why is it that so often 3D renders aren't commercial worthy? They need some kind of filter or something to make them look better.

>>678018
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.

>>678020
You didn't get the joke, did you?

>>678025
There's a joke in there?

>>678026
Do you mean here >>678018, or here >>678020?

>>678018
Because it's supposed to be part of a pipeline you dip. Renderers are not end all be alls.

>>678133
>>rendered in Cycles, no post-processing, 10 bazillion samples

>>678149
You're retarded for thinking that.

Take your shitposting elsewhere.
This thread is and has been about old CG for almost two years

bump

>>678172
based SGI poster

http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/an-introduction-to-ray-tracing-is-now-free-for-download/

>>682134
That book still sits on my shelf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrttTR8e8-4

>>571095
Saved

>>573914
Leave the man alone

Found something very special
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3j9eEwqcww

>>683324
?

>>683324
Really neat but also a picture book perfect example of how most 3D animators in the 80s and 90s seems to have been trippin' HARD.

But I shouldn't have looked into the comments. Seems like some leddit part found that video
>haha I maed funy comend

>>683334
>most 3D animators in the 80s and 90s seems to have been trippin'

Bit of an exaggeration.
I never delivered something like this and time for own projects was practically non existent, at least if you wanted to eat regularly.

>>683393
>>683334
>>683324
Stuff like that was often done by either bored teens messing around with cracked copies of whatever 3D software they got hold of - or considerably worse - pretentious art students

>>683397
>often
emphasis on often, not always.
also, your post is in part bullshit because even if they pulled the software from somewhere, most computers even up to 1996 would barely or not be able to run 3D modeling software, especially not rendering clips like that without taking literal months to render.

>>>/a/156906406

>>683413
>run win95 in a vm
>give it 5ghz
>done in 10 seconds

>>587320
"Grass looks much greener, but it's just green painted cement"

>>574434
I want to fuck that robot

>>683985
this is a real weird lyric to drop here especially considering I am listening to it right now

>>686093
no

>>683413
>literal months to render
No.

@thread
3dmemes@1994

>>576387
The hand looks like it had a stroke

happy 2nd anniversary, thread. it's been great

>>687993
Holy fuck, I remember starting this thread like it was just a week ago.
Time runs way too fucking fast.

sneed

this thread needs to go

>>683334
I'm sure some of them were literally tripping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pPBSGIvOcs I wonder how long it to to render/simulate that stuff back then.

>>688437
OK-ish.
This specifically was, as far as I could gather(and identify by style), done in Imagine, a popular mid-range 3D tool on the Amiga that was also later ported to the x86 architecture.
An Amiga with decent accelerator board could crunch through that in a few days at broadcast resolution.

>>587320
I've actually put a lot of thought into this.
Realism is a style on it's own, and requires the least artistry (and the most craftsmanship), but it's bounded by the technology of the time. We are long past the point where a game designed to look as realistic as possible actually looks bad once the novelty of the graphics wear off. If your game/movie/whatever is designed with a different style, though, one which is bounded by the creativity of the artist rather than the resources, then it will probably look good in perpetuity, since a style is only made worse by being compared to something better, there are thousands of distinctive styles even within a single medium, and not a lot of people have the talent that artistry takes.
Remember: everyone thought E.T. looked good when it came out. It was the gameplay that people had a problem with. Now that we are where we are in computer graphics, the game looks like shit, too.

>>688497
An Amiga as in an Amiga 500?!?!? I had a buddy who had one of those in the early 90's, we played games on it.

>>688507
No no no, A3000 / A4000 with 68040 + FPU accelerator and as much RAM as possible.

Some guy is recreating this style pretty well. Found a video of his recent portfolio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAzTeOcMPc

>>690032
Okay, still not perfect.

>>688126
No it doesn't

bump

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12w2j

Old The Prodigy music video.

>>651065
>>581068
its EA you fags they cut corners in everything.
Literally push game out ASAP even if its broken.

>>571402
>LOOKER
That scanning tech!
How can we get this scanning?
Because photogrametry is cancer and hobo scanning and google cardboard of 3D scanning.

>>570286
Also enjoy this old CGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33u7P-XokE

>>573552
>big wave of 80/90's nostalgia
Wrong! The early 3D is something that looks different something you don't see every day.

>>687994
iktf

>>631795
they're not even hiding it

>>646172
FIGHTING
POLYGON
TEAM

Don't bother watching this, just skip to the robot sex part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRuJfZJKgUo
this one is less trippy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWKz7TTBPbQ

>>701421
I just love how rough and unpolished literally everything about those is.

>>701423
cry more fgt

>>701448
I actually meant it and wasn't sarcastic, you retard.

>>701448
I actually meant it and wasn't being sarcastic, you retard.

>>701510
always gave me goosebumps when i was a kid, wondering how i could get to this area in the game, thinkin "mama mia mario where r u, that place looka scary"

>>683397

When I was in college in the mid 80s I saw a lot of weird animation in my computer graphics design class. My final project was a knight walking through the corridors of a spooky castle, he approached a sword stuck in an anvil and when he grabbed it to put it out he transformed into a skeleton and did a funky dance before transforming back into a knight and then walking away like that shit was just too damn freaky for him to deal with.

Wish I still had it now. I wonder if anyone ever found the old 3/4" video tape it was recorded on and kept it.

Feels strange to make the bump limit post after 832 days. Was probably the longest lasting thread I've ever had and those years went by way too fucking fast.
Thanks to everyone who contributed

>>571638
Man... Computer Dreams from 1988.
When I was still in college in 2014, I started smoking weed with a couple of buddies who were all nerdy/autistic and into CG or Programming. We watched the whole thing stoned out of our minds. Repeated this like a tradition every few months because it blew us away. Then Vaporwave started becoming a thing and the rest is history...

>>650804
This is Beautiful

Here's a glorious early 90s CGI compilation scored by the guy who did all the music for the first three seasons of Miami Vice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zMtCvWhG0

>>704757
indeed, I have been digging this stuff for a while now, have been trying to find disc images of ether dvd's or laserdisc/tape rips of these old cgi compilations, demo reels, and documentaries. (including a few that I actually own on laserdisc and vhs) it's kinda sad to see this thread go I guess.

thread 2 when?

byebye thread..