/3/ - 3DCG

Blender is actually fucking great for sculpting. I think most people admit it.

It's the Artist, not the tools.
What do you think he could do in Mudbox or Zbrush ? That said, I've seen much better though

>>588660
>What do you think he could do in Mudbox or Zbrush ?

Probably about the same, Truth about sculpting is all everyone does is use the move and clays brushes 90% of the time + masking.

>>588654
Although you can achieve your pic in all 3; You're talking about 3 different programs..

Blender is great for sculpting.

Zbrush is going to add more detail to said sculpture.

C4D is made for motion graphics so if you want to composite and animate said sculpt, then C4D will do the job

Like the other anon said..It's the artist, not the tools.

Nice bait fag

>>588660

The tools can actually help artists getting better results.

>>588654
Why do you Blender apologists NEED to defend the software so much? I use both programs and ZBrush is superior by far for sculpting. Anyone with some sense or experience will agree.

I will now proceed to post some work made in ZBrush. This software can handle way, way more polygons than Blender and has way more advanced tools for sculpting, not to mention resources like IMM brushes (curve based and not).

>>588683

>>588685

>>588683
1000x this

everytime a blenderfag posts some average artwork thinking it will blow everyone away they get properly destroyed, so stop doing that >>588654

So, have you (fag) made something better in Blender?

>>588686

Software wars are retarded. Everyone is different, everyone has different goals with what they want to make, everyone has different preferences for UI, price, workflow, etc, etc. Just fucking make things, stop worrying about this nonsense.

>>588683
>Why do you Blender apologists NEED to defend the software so much?
wew lad.

>implying op isn't a blender hater that started this thread just for your very reaction

you
are
on
4
chan.

stop forgetting that.

>>588691
Yeah, my bad. I tend to be retardedly naive. Sometimes there are worthy posters here and I get ideas of /3/ being a something else than what it really is.

>>588686
I don't even mash digital clay around and I can say a simple extrusion shits on this entire design fundamentally

>>588688
dude this is so easy. with blender all i have to do is open the sculpting toolset and im already halfway there. try again.

>>588654
yes, me

>>588660
You cant say it's the artist and not the tools and then say "he could do better with better tools" in the same sentence.

>>588688
quite the hostile approach mr.skilled

I like how antiblenderfags avoid mentioning Blender is free kek

Sculpting is for fucking fags you have way less control over your model

>>588688
What about this is good that blender can't do it?

Blender's sculpting tools would be absolutely tops if Dynamic Topology didn't produce such crumpled-up looking surfaces. Even in OP's picture, with a sculpt done by a skilled artist, you can see how jaggy the neck wrinkles and clavicle area are. The artist was probably tired of smoothing that stuff up for the face and just left the neck as it was.

It really just needs an extra "relaxing" step the way Sculptris does it after creating new geometry. Cmon devs, it's just this one thing!

>>588735
your settings are bad, has nothing to do with the software. i sculpt with it myself

>>588739

I'm just using the default... Cranking up the resolution helps somewhat but it's still not as smooth as Sculptris.

>>588740
not the best example but those were my settings last time i used it

>>588741

Did you use the smooth brush on that frog in any way? Cause in my original post i said that you can always smooth it over like the artist in OP's pic did. It's the geometry generated from using anything else like the Draw brush has that has a jagged "low-res" look, especially noticeable when using flat shading. I've noticed that even artistically very well-made sculpts like pic related have it.

>>588742
his shading is flat anon

>>588712
It's the same thing OP said.

>>588655
Too bad the poly density is utter shit compared to zbrush

>>588735
>>588742
This desu. Also Sculptris was doing an alternative right but Pixlogic killed its development before you knew it

>>588763
what

>>588763
Yup. Not a coincidence all of Blender's "detailed" sculpts are just floating heads or busts.

>>588772
You can just merge different sculpts

>>588772
because zbrush has dynamesh. but you can do full bodies in blender.
>>588765
no, the guy who posted that example is a retard. some people sculpt with flat shading before they get to detailing

>>588743

Smooth shading only masks the underlying problem with the geometry. Try this on one of your sculpted models - choose a shiny matcap, set shading to smooth and then add a SubSurf modifier. All those jaggies are going to pop out like a sore thumb. This is what i did in this picture, after drawing on a cube using >>588741's settings.

I'm not trying to shit on Blender here, i use it for just about everything else and it pains me that i can't sculpt in it without getting an "inherently flawed" mesh. I still have to resort to running decades-old Sculptris under WINE. In my next post i'll illustrate the difference.

>>588778

(continued)

Here i've put Blender's wireframe side to side with Sculptris, and right away you can notice that Blender sticks way more conservatively to a rectangular grid. Even though Sculptris does the same type of subdivision at first (seen in the middle of the brush stroke), it quickly spreads out to a more evenly distributed and less grid-like structure once a certain threshold is reached. Blender on the other hand, sticks to making squares at a certain preset resolution and as a consequence sloped areas often get edges that are improperly aligned along a world-space grid instead of following along the slope's direction. Edges like this result in tiny "micro-bumps" on a surface that's meant to be smooth, and even SubSurf assumes they're supposed to be bumps so it makes them even more pronounced.

>A good artist can still make good are with a shitty tool

Imagine my shock

>>588735
Couple of tips:

Firstly, when you turn on dynamic topology you can turn on smooth polygons (from the dynamic topology area) and a matcap and ambient occlusion (check the menu on the right side of the 3D view) for better aesthetic results. In addition, the bleeding edge dev version of blender is going to come out with some viewport changes which will likely make things better.

Secondly, all brushes have a "smooth after stroke" setting near the top where you choose the size and density and such, which might achieve what you desire.

>>588781

- As i mentioned in >>588778 and >>58877, things like smooth shading and chalky matte-looking matcaps only mask the problem with an aesthetically pleasing result.

- Bleeding edge version will only allow you to work with denser meshes from the get-go, which remedies the situation a little, but doesn't really address the issue directly.

- "Smooth after stroke" is just a lazybrush setting and doesn't change how the mesh is subdivided in any way.

An actual workaround solution would be to separate your sculpting workflow into 3 steps:

1. Sculpt with DynTopo until the mesh looks 80% finished and you have all the major details in place
2. Turn DynTopo off and continue refining the mesh using standard sculpt-mode so that the stepped areas get relaxed when you go over them with the Smooth brush
3. Retopo the thing so you get a clean poseable mesh and then bake the detail from the unretopologized mesh as Multires using the Shrinkwrap modifier.

>>588785

My mistake. I'm actually looking at some of the subdivision methods of blender myself and yeah, they are pretty rough around the edges.

I bet the math is some super advanced shit, too, so it's probably not easily fixable

>>588785
>>588789

This is the shit you're talking about, right?

>>588790

Yes man, exactly that.

>>588789

I'm not entirely convinced it's such a big issue, it probably just needs a bit more polish, but nobody bothered to improve it after its original 2012 introduction because few people have complained. And those who do get labeled as "Blender haters" or "unskilled noobs".

Blender's implementation is based on this 2011 paper by Lucian Stanculescu:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0097849311000720

And the example app called "Freestyle" that went along with the paper had some pretty advanced shit, better than Sculptris IMO. For example it would let you punch a hole straight through a mesh and the way it relaxed the subdivided geometry was better. The original creator of the paper continued developing Freestyle into what's called Neobarok now, and it's seriously awesome. It's free, but as in beer - neobarok.com

>>588790
>>588785
>>588794

no problems here, you guys are faggots
i even took a closeup shot just to prove that you can't use blender.
the reason why blender sculpts have these imperfections is because the artist had a weak computer and was forced into sculpting with a low resolution before he could add details

>>588654
Seen 100x better shit coming out of ZBrush in magazines in two-thousand-and-fucking-seven so I don't see how this could possibly come across as a win for Blender. Do you want to pin a little badge on it that says "Ten years late to the party"? A consolation prize?

>>588796

Are you using dynamic topology or just regular subsurf?

>>588798
i used dynatopo
learn the tool and to optimize your sculpts
yanal sosak is making clean sculpts with it, just watch his channel

>>588796

Making a hyperdense mesh is a workaround solution for this problem dude, and i've mentioned it multiple times already. You shouldn't have to "throw more computer at the problem" while other software does it elegantly. All you're doing here with this example is shifting the blame to the GPU instead of Blender.

It doesn't matter whether you excuse your jagged model with "i had a weak computer" instead of "i used Blender", you still made a jagged model.

>>588799

Obscuring the mesh by subdividing heavily does not make the topology less shit

I like blender, dude, but I ain't blind to its flaws and you shouldn't be either

>>588800
i didn't say it was a workaround. but you can't compare sculptis to blender because its 2D based and takes half of the computing power of blender. of course polygons are gonna be slower.
its just something nice to have, if you gonna compare a proprietary sculpting software to blender sculpting its just gonna end up nowhere.

>>588803

Sculptris is GPU based just like Blender - you're thinking of zBrush, which has a unique rendering method that's different from everything else in the 3D sculpting field.

Also i'd say comparing a dinky freeware app coded by one guy in their spare time to Blender is a pretty fair comparison, don't you?

>>588685
das good maine!...now retopo that fucker without losing all the detail

>>588794
this software is rly interesting...how come I've only just heard of it?

>>588806
well it also got dynamesh which is the arguably the most powerful tool in 3d period. so again, i don't see how you can compare a proprietary 3D sculpting app to blender. i do my sculpts in blender and if i really need to punch in extra details i move it over to zbrush

>>588814

Im talking about sculptris you dense mofo

>>588832
sorry i don't use abandonware.
unlike most of the users on /3/ i don't flirt between various 3D programs until i find one that is actually perfect for my needs. i put hundreds of hours into any program of my choosing and my work magically become better

>>588833

I'm sorry to inform (You), but this discussion actually isn't about what (You) use.

>>588834
i had to point that out since most users on this board talk more about software than how to actually be good and develop good habits.
every piece of software has at least a million functions in its arsenal, there is no point in complaining on every little thing

>>588837

We've heard that many times before and it's not really worth discussing - you're either good or you ain't, that's about it. There's people out there that do amazing art with just popsicle sticks, another dude was making amazing action figures out of flip-flops found in the trash... I'm sure you can make photorealistic portraits in mspaint if you really try hard.

>>588842
>'m sure you can make photorealistic portraits in mspaint if you really try hard.

Its actually impossible.

>>588844

You'd be surprised

>>588845
Thats not photorealistic

>>588842
sure but that's not what iv been wanting to say. you desperately trying to compare blender to the same cases of people making art with primitive tools.
i used to think blender has the worst UV tools, i actually tried to make it work with plugins or thought about downloading UV layout. now that i actually know what the fuck im doing, i could wager that i make the best unwraps on this board

>>588851

No, i'm just complaining that DynTopo produces geometry artifacts. You're accusing me of being incompetent. Which is just an easy way to ignore the problem.

>You think realistic MS Paint art is impossible? No, you're obviously too incompetent to make it yourself.

>>588855
DynTopo produces geometry artifacts
So what? It serves its purpose well enough. It is just a tool for concepting shapes. Nobody leaves it like that as the final stage, for that the topology is insufficient anyway.

>>588911

Except you can't bake a normal or displacement map from the hi-res mesh without transferring the defects too. Stop blindly defending, it's not healthy.

>>588960
i already told you that some people make clean sculpts with blender. why are you still here ?

>>588735
>It really just needs an extra "relaxing" step the way Sculptris does it after creating new geometry. Cmon devs, it's just this one thing!

That's called auto-smooth, and it's one of the big problems with blender in general: the features are all there, but you have to go and design your own brushes

>>588964
that's not a problem with blender, modo,max and maya doesn't have that either.
are you guys desperately trying to lowblow?

>>588963

Because all you're doing with that is playing down an actual problem for the sole purpose of defending the software and being right on the internet. To quote a little sticky from the blender forum:

"Fanboyism: The collective outlook and behavior of a group of people concerning a subject (movies, games, hardware, comic book characters, etc.) which when challenged results in an antagonistic, passionate, and unreasoned response. "

>>588967
no. the entire basis of your argument that blender can't get any clean shapes. i debunked it and now your'e calling me a fanboy.
you are looking an easy way out by blaming the tool. i didn't downplay anything. im just saying that its easy to complain about something you don't fully understand, just like when people complain about trump being a racist

>>588965
>are you guys desperately trying to lowblow?
Dunno what you mean, zbrush has a hundred billion million zillion brushes out of the box, and a trillion more you can buy or download

Blender has some texture brushes you can download, and there are videos and tutorials on recommended brushes to make (such as the "trim" brush, a "polish" brush that smooths without moving verts so much, etc) but none of that comes "out of the box", you've got to make it yourself by messing with the brush curve, textures, brush settings, or finding the stuff on the internet

>>588969
What did the artist at >>588963 do to get "clean shapes"?

>>588970
yes because zbrush was solely made for sculpting you dumbfuck. years of development count when developing sculpting-only apps.

>>588971
he watched tutorials

>>588972
The discussion at hand is about the quality of blender as a substitute for zbrush, you subnormal pile of rancid degenerate filth unworthy of life.
All you've done is admit that Zbrush is better than blender for sculpting, now please fuck a cheese grater.

>>588974
yes. but you are making a bad comparison.
zbrush is years ahead of any sculpting app. if you want to compare blender to modo or 3d coat id be more than happy to listen

>>588976
btw even the second best sculpting app (mudbox) isn't comparable to zbrush. this is how far the difference is between blender and zbrush

>>588969

Debunked it how? By showing that someone made a mesh dense enough to hide the artifacts? As for "not understanding" - i was there when Nicholas Bishop did the original dyntopo commits and "fixing the blocky appearance" has been on the todo since then: https://nicholasbishop.net/?p=474

>>588971

The hair is made using curves and doesn't use DynTopo, for the face and body he got it dense enough to where the surface artifacts can be smoothed over. I never you couldn't get clean shapes, you just need a powerful GPU to work around the problem.

>>588974

Settle down

>>588963
This guy is a good sculptor but his style, for some reason, makes me want to shoot myself. He is also one of the biggest Blender shills I've seen. He used to work with Zbrush but since he found a huge fallowing with Blender users, tries to pass blender as a new holy coming.

>All those great models made by incredibly skilled people
>While I'm a sketchbabby working on a toaster
JUST

>>588844
>>588850
How about this?

>>588807
Why? Just so you could desperately find a flaw?

>>588683
this looks really fucking flat, great modeling and material but the composition is really messing up the image. There is barelly any depth of field being used and the light sources are dark as fuck, those lamps are behaving like they arent on.

>>588683
no one here said blender is better than zbrush or equal to it.

and also, since when arguing in favor of a certain program is now "defending it"? this board is sick and immature

>>588654
teach me blender sculpting, sensei. Where do I start?

>>589027
Hey man, I too was a babby working on a toaster. Now I'm a babby working on a toaster, with published works in AAA games.

That said, my work PC is much more powerful, but I managed with my toaster to get the job in the first place. You just gotta believe anon.

why blenderfags feels the need of being accepted by the comunity?
also no one in videogames or movie productions uses blender anyways, its an already lost battle

>>589511
what do you mean by community? are you implying that "the cg community" is some kind of separate entity?

>>589511

Because they feel insecure about their shitty software and feel the need to push it down everybody's throat. It's not just blenderfags tho, it's the same with every small softwares around. The Reaper fanbase (audio software) is identical to the blender fanbase. Don't even get me started with Linuxfags.

>>589526
you can read the full blender vs. maya comparison here ill leave it here so we won't have any more arguements

http://polyknightgames.com/from-maya-to-blender-the-road-less-traveled/

>>589490
If you can't see how blender cultists defend and attack other software on /3/ and in this very thread then you have mental issues and should leave, thanks. Take your holier-than-thou 'maturity' with you.

>>589531
maybe that's true for a few troll posts but its not a trend

>>589541
yes, of course, most Blender users are cool as well as other software users... it's just that loud minority and boys looking for a reaction with troll posts and threads such as this one.

>>588654
What sculpting tutorials do you reccomend?

>>589545
>it's just that loud minority
It's not, it's literally you pretending to be both sides.

>>590480
It's not, it's literally you posting pretending to know shit about what you're talking about.

Wow, this is easy!

I just wonder why it matters to other people which software you use. Is it just corporate white knighting?

>>588977
so how further ahead is zbrush to mudbox? muddy is the one program I could probably afford the monthy sub for

>>590505
Same reason people argue over game platforms and cellphones. For the sake of arguing

>>590487
Guys guys guys.

Can't we all agree that everyone on /3/ are just giant faggots who barely know what they're talking about 90% of the time?