Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:22:07 UTC No. 882635

>>882630
really, you should look for 90's textures. The big thing about the old school renders is how shitty and basic the shapes are. Not a whole lot of detail but just enough to get the point across. Look at the arm of the couch for example.

But I would totally go onto Archive or in the /3/ pastebin and just look for really shitty looking textures

https://pastebin.com/cZLVnNtB
https://archive.org/details/1078-weird-textures
https://archive.org/details/graphic-textures/GraphicTextures4.jpg

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:41:47 UTC No. 882644

>>882630
I hope you realize that the vast majoirty of renderers ARE from the late 1980s-mid 1990s. They are ancient.

Some "retro" renderers for you.

1.Mental Ray. Created first in 1987. This was included in a bunch of different softwares including Softimage 3D, Softimage XSI, 3DS Max, and Maya. The best one I listed.

Earliest video of mental ray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOVmmml7PCs

2.3DS Max Scanline Renderer. Created during 1995-1996. This was the first renderer in 3DS Max before add-on renderers (like mental ray were added).

Early video :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8azQEceSJo

3.Maya Software Renderer. Released in 1998, (but very likely based on 1980s renderers by Alias and Wavefront). This is (or was) the default Maya renderer before Arnold. It's OK, but it is very old and can be buggy.

4.Cinema 4D Standard Renderer. Made some time in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Hasn't changed much since then, either.

5.Bryce 3D. A good and cheap software. Not good for modeling. Only for rendering and generating landscapes mostly. Very good render quality.

6.Blender standard renderer. This was made in 1996. The most modern one out of the ones listed here. I don't think this is in the most modern versions of Blender. You might have to use 2.79, IIRC.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:49:19 UTC No. 882649

>>882644
>I hope you realize that the vast majoirty of renderers ARE from the late 1980s-mid 1990s. They are ancient.
the rendering equation, much like the laws of physics, hasnt changed. Get over yourself.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:53:09 UTC No. 882651

>>882630
I think it might be hard to achieve this look in a modern render engine. As for actual 90s software it might be hard to get a hold of it and to make it run on your PC. An older version of blender that still includes blender render might be a good option.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:53:47 UTC No. 882652

>>882630
Some tips if you're looking to emulate that "style"
1.No global illumination, caustics, etc. These weren't really used until the very late 1990s/early 2000s.

2.Don't use linear workflow/gamma correction. Gamma correction was very rarely used in the 1990s for CGI. So turn it off if you can.
Also, you might want to use Softimage XSI and or Softimage 3D for this. They are both dead products, but XSI is the most modern. XSI has the best version of mental ray, and even has the original mental ray procedural textures. I can be found on the archives.

Pic related.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:01:44 UTC No. 882656

>>882651
>As for actual 90s software it might be hard to get a hold of it

See:
>>882644

The software doesn't matter. The renderer matters the most for how it looks.

Also, here are some of the mental may procedurals that are in XSI/Softimage.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:03:20 UTC No. 882657

>>882649
Not sure what you meant by this?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:44:09 UTC No. 882675

>>882630
Fuck you kid.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:45:56 UTC No. 882676

>>882675
Sorry, was that your render?? If so, nothing but respect, old-timer. I think its jank-assedness is rad.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Feb 2022 22:46:03 UTC No. 882677

OP please kys.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:53:54 UTC No. 882838

>>882630
>Thoughts?
You're hopeless if you can't recreate something from 30 years ago with all that marvelous overkill of today's tools.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:30:43 UTC No. 883240

>>882838
>You're hopeless if you can't recreate something from 30 years ago with all that marvelous overkill of today's tools.

Yep.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:27:19 UTC No. 883264

Noobs don't consider the time it takes to model texture and compose even a "janky" scene like this

Look at the scene, the keys of the keyboard are modeled out- The buttons on the monitor- The arm rests of the desk chair- The knobs on the drawers- All of these components require attention and care on an individual level

maybe because of the lower resolution of the image, and maybe the tracer's 'dated' look, noobs will identify this image as "easy" for today's standards! Right ? How to make a janky image like this!! This is going to be my style! Surely, this is piss easy

That's why it angers the experienced- I've thought about this, why I felt angry towards OP. Maybe even insulted. It is because There is no easy path even to "janky" scenes, and to assume otherwise is further insult to the already extremely hard-working 3d artist

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:58:20 UTC No. 883271

>>883264

Where did I say that it was easy to get to that point? You're just assuming that's my motivation based on nothing.

That said, none of the modeling is an issue. I've modeled more complicated stuff than that. I'm just wondering about how much the renderer and/or any particular texturing techniques/whatever factor into making it look authentic.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:17:59 UTC No. 883276

>>883271
Maybe it wasn't you I felt anger towards, in hindsight, OP- I think it is mostly those who do not give enough merit to the sand which the beach is made of. Sorry, I was venting a bit and didn't mean to attack you

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:57:48 UTC No. 883309

>>882644
this post answers it.
Blender Render, Scanline, MentalRay all pretty much look like OPs pic. I'd recommend blender render cause it's the easiest to use IMO

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 13:53:03 UTC No. 883344

>>883264
This anon understands. Thank you.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:04:47 UTC No. 883351

>>882630
Less noodling and mental masturbation, more doing and making would be good, anon.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:44:28 UTC No. 883372

>>882635
would the renderer help to?
With autodesk I think MentalRay pulls that effect, but with Blender can it be done with Cycles / Luxcore or Eevee

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:08:33 UTC No. 883398

>>883264
post your work.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:14:07 UTC No. 883413

>>883271
>any particular texturing techniques/whatever factor into making it look authentic.

Do NOT use gamma correction or linear workflow for your renders. I said this before, but they were very rarely used for 3D renders back in the 1990s.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:17:48 UTC No. 883414

>>883372
>but with Blender can it be done with Cycles / Luxcore or Eevee

That is a BIG nope. The Blender Standard renderer is prior to 2.8, and it can look "retro" as it came out in '96.

Cycles,Luxcore, and Eevee are about as modern looking as you can get and very different looking than OP's pic.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 22:46:47 UTC No. 883427

>>883264
This is some spicy pasta.

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Feb 2022 22:47:48 UTC No. 883428

>>883398
Fuck off cris

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Feb 2022 10:06:36 UTC No. 883481

>>882630
Git gud

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:54:44 UTC No. 883531

>>883398
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMY-1m6BMm8

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:01:52 UTC No. 883535

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Feb 2022 17:34:56 UTC No. 883539

>>883537

Here nigger, all you need for trully authentic 90's graphics look.
All the key recipe, the secret sauce, dumbed down for retards like you.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:00:59 UTC No. 883783

>>883309
>>882630

Which part of the 90s are you trying to emulate?? If you're talking about the early-mid 1990s there ware few things to keep in mind.

1.There was no Subdivision surfaces until around 1997-1998, so there was no way to smooth low poly models into smooth, high poly ones. Can you imagine moving thousands of verticies around by hand? Yeah... not happening.

During the early-mid 1990s there was only low poly modeling, extruding along splines, revolving/lathing splines, and NURBS for high-end work.

2.As far as texturing goes, there was not automatic UV unwrap like today , so people just used simple texture mapping options like planar, spherical, or cylindrical mapping. Or they relied on the fact that spline objects (lofts/extrudes, lathes/revolves, and NURBS) all had automatic texture coordinates. (e.g. if you were to take a spline and revolve it into a vase, cup, jar, etc. the texture coordinates would be automatic)

There was also the option of using 3D procedural textures (wood, marble, noise, cloud, granite, etc.). These didn't require texture coordinates at all.

3.For lighting and rendering, people tended to use shadow maps or very sharp, hard raytraced shadows. Soft raytraced shadows take a very long time to render. Also, gamma correction was almost never used.

4.Animation: High end 3D software had the option to use skeleton deformation, but low end work tended to consist of characters that were just made of seperate objects "parented" to one another.

To get an idea of what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJgV6LBUFgA&t=14m17s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDZZze4w20&t=0m22s
-----------


There really isn't much difference between the very late 90s (like 1998-2000). Because all the things above I mentioned don't apply. They had all the "advanced" features that people take for granted today (subdivision surfaces, automatic uv unwrap, etc.)

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:06:21 UTC No. 883790

>>883783
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJgV6LBUFgA&t=14m17s


Oh yeah, forgot to mention skip to about 14 minutes in to see the chrome robot guys.

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Feb 2022 23:34:12 UTC No. 884323

>>883783
very helpful

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Feb 2022 23:46:34 UTC No. 884324

>>884323
You're very welcome ,anon. :)

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:02:59 UTC No. 884370

>>882630
Take your meds, Schizo

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:15:48 UTC No. 884394

NGMI

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:22:57 UTC No. 884395

>>882630
1. fuck off cris
2. everything done today will look jank-ass 20 years down the line
3. fuck off cris

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Feb 2022 21:11:01 UTC No. 884432

>>884395
The stuff from 2002 still looks good today. I don't think 3D CGI can really progess/evolve much further than it already has, and it will become just like traditional art (painting,sculpting,etc.).

Anonymous at Sat, 12 Mar 2022 06:15:22 UTC No. 886613

>>882635
Thx

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Mar 2022 04:49:10 UTC No. 888289

>>883414
>Cycles,Luxcore, and Eevee are about as modern looking as you can get and very different looking than OP's pic.

Where do I get the old blender??

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Mar 2022 04:53:32 UTC No. 888291

>>888289
https://download.blender.org/release/

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Mar 2022 06:37:27 UTC No. 888302

>>882630
Goto 3dlinks (if it's still up, or check wayback machine.) It was a site which listed older programs, some free. A bunch of them use oldie renderers that can probably do what you want.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Apr 2022 21:48:20 UTC No. 890143

>>882630
If you can't do this in blender (which is easy as fuck) you can't do it in anything. The hardest part would be accurate textures but just download gimp or krita

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Apr 2022 20:38:26 UTC No. 890308

>>890143
Don't. They are shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Apr 2022 03:12:52 UTC No. 890369

>>890308
yeh but they can excel at simple pixel stuff like the wallpaper in OP