/3/ - 3DCG

Hm, that is really true. Why *do* all these instagram "3D artists" use C4D? Time after time I come across those weird softbody pastel heads against pastel backgrounds and without failure #c4d appears in the description.

my second ever (first was zanoza modeller because NFS car modding lol) experiences with 3D modeling was with with Cinema4D back in 2001. it was a trial on some computer magazine CD and I still have a soft spot for this software even though I stopped using it way over a decade ago. the radiosity stuff was absolutely magical to me back then.

it sucks that it seems like it's losing more and more users, at least the hype over autodesk products or blender seems to be monstrous at the moment.

my second ever (first was zanoza modeller because NFS car modding lol) experiences with 3D modeling was with with Cinema4D back in 2001. it was a trial on some computer magazine CD and I still have a soft spot for this software even though I stopped using it way over a decade ago. the radiosity stuff was absolutely magical to me back then.

it sucks that it seems like it's losing more and more users, at least the hype over autodesk products or blender seems to be monstrous at the moment.

>>653858
any links to specific instagram pages. am interested in seeing what you're talking about

for some odd reason. the majority of c4d users are graphic designers

>>653878
C4D was the king of motion design because you could wave modulate dozens of parameters.

>>653878
Motion graphics

>>653880
this

>>653873
https://www.instagram.com/_estebandiacono

>>653854
C4D is unironically the worst 3d package out there, it sucks at modeling and rigging, it's pricing system it's stupid, it doesn't come with a raytracing engine, etc. Its only useful to do "cute" mograph effects.
I actually feel respect for all this graphic designers who create nice art with this shit software

>>654088
It's perfectly fine for modelling. Rigging could be better, granted.

>>653933
some of that mocap stuff looks impressive. is it easy to do in C4D?

>>653854
Is that why Blender is doing its best to look like C4D now?
hmmm

>>654088
It actually does come with a raytracer now, 2 infact. Physical renderer (about 3 years ago) and ProRender (this year I believe, it's GPU too).

>>653878
It has tight integration with After Effects.

Between his Hollywood gigs, OP opens up this thread and then bunch of industry professionals gather to discuss shortcomings of Cinema4D package in professional environment.

>>654175
this.
>>654088
c4d just happened to have a friendly user interface that attracted those who wanted to have fun with 3d.

>>653854
I work on a primetime show that uses C4D, AE, and Blender.

>>654200
I still think C4D has the best UI/UX out of the packages I've tried. Was really intuitive to me.

>>654200
Doesnt it make mograph effects much easier that other sortware? So with less effort you can make something look cool and put on Instagram. I dont know, im not a graphic designer or have ever used c4d

>>654215
it's got some great pipeline with after effects that they never shut up about.

I've been using it for the last 4 years.
Had to learn it for a junior position which then got me an automotive position using C4D/Octane/AE. I grew up thinking it was for your stereotypical mac user because there was a pretentious mograph abstract animation student on my course whos projects seemed to be a few seed/colour parameters away from a GSG tutorial and refused to use anything but.

It's really nice and quick for advertising jobs and small teams. When a client comes in with a project that they need done by the end of the day/week it really shines and I'd use it over anything else but fuck me if you try and work with it a team higher than 3 people or have a rig more complex than a simple IK in it you are asking for a headache half way through.

It's really intuitive and the only reason I got into 3D due to its After Effects pipeline. Same goes for Octane being easy too. Tutorials are hard to come by though for anything not instagram-tier and it's so easy to get started with, so I can see why a lot of amateurs flock to it. I want to learn more about Maya and 3DS max especially when it comes to animation but fuck me if I have the time for it.

as a c4d user who switched to houdini a couple yaers ago, the program is good entry tier shit, but doesn't really help you truely understand 3d, but I work in a studio where a lot of people make dope shit in c4d too, tools in the right hands etc etc

>>653858
That's all I ever see as well. I'm convinced that most of the people doing that shit don't know much more than getting a DAZ model and sticking mocap data on top of it in C4D (or even worse just primitives with reflective shaders). All while trying to seem like their stuff has some "deep meaning" when it's shallow as fuck. They're all trying to emulate people like Beeple, and while his stuff is good, it still gets to be pretty generic and samey looking. I used to think C4D had some magic button that just makes renders look good, but now I can pick out the renders pretty easily and I'm honestly tired of how the renders come out looking. Everything looks like default shaders with no real personal touches. Just feels like most people using C4D don't really know what they're doing, but figured it was easy to use as a beginner friendly software (which I guess it is). Kind of like when you want to get into music production and you pick FL Studio. It's not as professional feeling as stuff like Ableton or Cubase (or at least it wasn't back when I used it), but you can still make decent music with it, and many pros use it as well.

There's some good artists here and there, but most shit I come across on Instagram is pretty weak. I'm sure most people put #C4D just because it has a large audience and thus gets more views too though. It's all to do with mass market appeal. This just happens to be what's "in" at the moment.

>>654125
most c4d renders iv seen look good.
even tho most of the stuff was particle effects and advertisement material

>>654738
>the program is good entry tier shit
>costs over 1k
inb4 hurrdurr birade id.
there's entry tier shit that literally costs nothing and you don't have to ruin your machine with computeraids for it

>>653858
They sell their shit at 50-100 freedom monies a piece.

>>654738
How was the switch over to Houdini from C4D?
What were you doing in C4D before you switched?
How long did it take to get comfortable with?

It's one of the next packages I want to learn just so I can apply for more jobs and push away from solely advertising work

>>654761
>ruin your machine with computeraids for it
maybe if you're retarded

>>653933
Some do look nice, what's the deal with his obsession with naked old man though.

>>655029
>he thinks all of his torrent buddies are honest people
>he thinks in a worst case scenario his antivirus will save his ass when there's tons of shit around that fucks with your shit down to an on CPU hardware level that can't even be reliably detected

>>654740
Let's see some of your work!?

It's easy to use.

also

>cinema4d users are worse than blender users

>implying blender users are bad

>>655060
Name a 3D package with a more annoying and worse userbase. No, SFM and MMD obviously don't count.

>>655067
Easy
daz

>>655059
"This food tastes like shit"
>WELL LET'S SEE YOUR COOKING THEN

>>655067
If there is an absolute bottom garbage tier userbase category, then Daz and Blender would be in it.
C4d is in the annoying basedboy hipster faggot apple-fanboy userbase, which is slightly less shitty by a thin margin.
C4d users are less ideological indoctrinated, more critical of their tools and much more aware of the limitations of their software (and their own abilities), which makes it possible to deal with them in an civilized way. The DAZ and Blender userbase is just cancer+aids.

>>655067
People who use premium software without paying for it.

>>655102

Only a fucking retard would pay $250 a month for Maya (or any software for that matter). Autodesk are probably laughing at those people too.

>>655114
It's tax deductible.

>>655084
... Yes? When you critique something you're expected to show you know what you're talking about.

I don't ask obese guys for fitness routines.

>>654200
I want more

>>655161
By your logic it should be a bit requirement for liking something aswell. And considering the kind of shit that gets unwarranted attention, I'm perfectly okay with that.

>>655161
Sure, I'll bite.
At this point though, you've already formed a negative opinion of what I've had to say, so clearly you'd find any little thing to nitpick about my own stuff just to try and invalidate what I've said. Even though the two have nothing to do with each other.

You don't have to be an expert at something to form an opinion about it. You don't have to be a director to not like a movie.

>>655059
>>655177
Obviously it's different when you're talking about the effectiveness of tools. You don't have to be an expert on something to dislike the end product. No shit. But who cares? If you're going to drone on about how bad it is on a technical level, you're no longer a random giving an opinion; you're a chef speaking among cooks about why you prefer electric stoves over gas. In this case its better to know what you're talking about, otherwise you're at the peak of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

>>655215
>looks at leaning tower of Pisa
>hey Bonanno, your tower is leaning. Did you build it on bad foundations?
>LET ME SEE SOME OF THE BUILDINGS YOU'VE MADE, YOU MUST BE SUCH AN EXPERT AT MAKING BUILDINGS.
>IF YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME I MESSED UP ON A TECHNICAL LEVEL YOU MUST ALSO BE AN ARCHITECH.
>OTHERWISE YOU'RE ON TOP OF THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT

This is how you sound, anon. Do you even know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is? It doesn't really relate to this, the guy said he doesn't like the way things look and that they all look boring to him, then you demanded he prove his worth in order for his critique to be counted, then you declare that he must be really bad and thinks hes good? Are you fucking retarded?

>>655234
Feel like I need to clarify the first part was direct critique of your claim, the second was an explanation of what happened.

>>655215
I didn't say shit about the effectiveness of C4D. Only the people using it. I actually said it was a decent program. The way people use it and the stuff that comes out of it is boring to me. For some reason though you've got it in their head that I was shitting on the program. I don't give a fuck about what someone uses, just use it effectively and don't settle for what everyone else is doing. Which is what I was complaining about, on Instagram all you see is the same stuff by people using C4D, and it's shallow and boring to me. I just want to see something more than mocap data on bald people pretending it's "deep".

Also
>>655235
This guy >>655234 , isn't me.

>>655234
"It looks bad" is subjective, "If you change [this, this, this, this, and this] you will get a result that more closely conforms to your goal" is objective

Subjective "lmao it's shit!" opinions are absolutely worthless, you aren't helping the guy get better (incidentally, this goes both ways: subjective praise like what you get from friends and family is also shit)

Objective "If you change [these render settings], and [add a 3 point lighting system], and [adjust the camera settings] and [arrange the objects in the scene in a deliberate way], it'll be more effective [as archviz / animation / a still render / whatever]"

Technical flaws are fixable, subjective "I don't like this, it doesn't appeal to my tastes" can't be fixed

>>655067
Blender is free and popular, so naturally it has a metric fuckton of users. Of course you're gonna come across idiots more often than in pricey industry standard software because the audience is bigger and more amateur.

>>653878
I'm a graphic designer who decided to stuck with C4D after trying out Maya and 3DSMax. It has an easier to understand UI/UX compared to the other 2.

And yes, I suck beeples dick and try to emulate his dailies from time to time.

>>655337
If he had built the tower on better foundation it wouldn't be leaning. That's an objective fact. I don't need to explain to you that I don't need to show the buildings I have built to show that I know he should have used better foundation.

What's the point of your post?

>>655090
What does that eve mean? Can you give me examples of blender users being toxic? Not like one guy in a thread nobody saw, I mean a general behaviour among the userbase.

>>657373
They're not toxic as much as they are just blind followers. It's fairly rampant among Blender-focused YT creators, though thinly veiled. The big names like The Guru himself and Zacharias / Gleb, etc. etc. If you find any Blender-centric Discord servers, join it and you'll know what it's like immediately. While Blender isn't a bad program, per se, these people will deify it like it's the second coming of Christ or something. Going to great lengths to draw up excuses, shifting the goalposts constantly, or straight up ignoring you whenever you try to ask why Blender can't do this or that.

>>657373


Go read the comment section of any 3ds max/maya videos on YT. Chuck full of blendlet retard who keep saying "blendaaah is bettah" with dumb arguments that don't stand. Even in blender video comments you can see blendlets raging about Maya like a bunch of elementary school kids.

cute girl

I've been a full-time C4D freelancer for 7-8 years. It's a great niche if you can UV/model/texture/light things properly, since the userbase is huge and clueless. I made $140,000 CAD this year


There are plenty of artists using it making non-shit work, they're just not on instagram. It has lots of really excellent production friendly tools that save me a lot of time. I'd much rather be using it than Maya (was a maya user for 2 years for a job)

>>655067
It's likely you'll just filter out anything actually truly terrible because "dude I've never encountered anyone who uses that lmao", and they cause actual harm by trying to trick beginners into believing it's a bargain because it costs 3% of what autodesk charges even though it's ancient depreciated shit like silo 3d

>>653854

I have no idea who these instagram cucks are, but I'll tell you, the void of awfulness that is deviantArt is filled to the brim with autistic as FUCK Five Nights At Freddy's fetishists using C4D for making just...the most worthless waste of bits.

I love working within C4D myself, but just...holy shit, most of the community truly is garbage.

>>659066
>Five Nights At Freddy's
Wait, what the fuck? FNAF's still a thing?

>>659075
Never underestimate the hole of autism known as deviantArt.

>>654111
Is it? It's new 2.8 UI is reminding me more of a Maya or 3ds max vibe than c4d. Although I haven't used any of those in a long time, only touching 3ds max for some source engine project like 3 years ago.

>>654111
from memory i dont think 2.8 looks all that much like C4D and if anything the UI update seem more logical to do what its done then copy C4D.

>>657422 sure

I still main C4D because I'm stuck in the absolute misery that is the ad industry. Everything has to be quick, dirty, cheap, barely screwed together, so I need C4D, because in Maya I need a lot more time to even make something function at all. Maybe I could get quicker in Maya with some practice, but I really only want to do character animation, which I do quicker in Maya now. If only someone would bother giving an old faggot like me a chance in the games industry, I would kiss C4D goodbye.

To be fair, Blender doesn't even qualify.

>>661842
Blender users.

>>661788
This. Was working in advertising agencies few years back and you could not get around c4d simply because it was cheap. Was alright working with it, but I was a lot more efficient with 3dsm.

>>653854
Idk man, I am getting paid rather fucking well for doing dailies-tier shit with c4d and octane.

>>661842

>>661842
>maya

>>661842
>3ds max

>>661842
>Lightwave

I got my job at Amblin when season 3 started.

>>664941
Yup, 3ds... MAX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-A7-3_zYRY

>>664966
This was mainstream trash even back then