Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 02:24:28 UTC No. 955605

>>955603
*yawn*

B O R I N G

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 04:00:41 UTC No. 955614

>>955603
Damn that's good

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:32:42 UTC No. 955618

There's nothing more boring then 1:1 photorealism. Just go outside if you want to experience a much better version of it.
CG is for stuff that's impossible irl, like stylized/fantasy/scifi

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 06:53:49 UTC No. 955619

Not this again.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 08:36:33 UTC No. 955626

>>955618
Based, screw hyperrealism

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:10:13 UTC No. 955630

>>955603
>the future
you are >20 years late, lad.
>>955618
Photogrammetry is just a tool, and it really useful in vfx among other shits.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:32:37 UTC No. 955631

>>955630
No, its not. Vfx is 99.99% compositing in fantasy

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:33:24 UTC No. 955632

I feel like photogrammetry is a more of a intermediate step. Sure it's an easy way to produce highly detailed textured meshes with little work.
The reason I don't like it is it's not really editable. Sure you can sculpt and texture paint it and that's fine if you have things like rocks, cliffs and other geological features.

There's currently no way to properly infer occluded geometry (leaves)
Using still images or pre-recorded video means you can't go back and refine the scan easily.
Ideally you'd have a smartphone app that uses the phones IMU to estimate the initial position, run a fast version of the algorithm on the phone itself and stream the data to a proper computer that runs a high quality algorithm and stream the result back.
Then you could view the model on the phone while you're scanning and revisit areas that don't look right.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:37:08 UTC No. 955634

>>955618
>>955626
In the context of archival/preservation, it's just 'realism'. I think you guys are set in a certain mindset for creating 3D works for entertainment purposes. Obviously real life supercedes entertainment so no need to be aggressively opinionated about the value in this style of modelling.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 09:48:39 UTC No. 955635

>>955618
I always hated that cope. The point of any art is make it as realistic as possible. If it wasn't we wouldn't have bothered advancing beyond cave paintings.
It's really weird how one certain tribe lack any real artistic ability so they just drizzle paint on a canvas and then argue art is "open to interpretation" and "everything is art". If that isn't cope then it must be a pure coincidence.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:27:37 UTC No. 955640

>>955635
You understand that there's a middle ground between dripping random lines of paint onto a canvas and photorealism, right? Look at this mountain. Is it phototealistic? Far from it, but most people would agree that it is very nice to look at. The reason we advanced beyond cave paintings wasn't because we someday wanted to create perfect recreations of what we saw, if that were the case paintings wouldn't exist at all because photography is objectively better at capturing realistic pictures. The point of art is to make something that looks nice, irrespective of whether that art is realistic. You have a very narrow-minded view of the subject.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:32:39 UTC No. 955641

>>955640
>The point of art is...
Oh no no no

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:36:28 UTC No. 955644

>>955635
loser that will never amount to anything:
>The point of any art is make it as realistic as possible.
Michelangelo:
>I'm going to make the Virgin Mary be 10 heads tall

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Aug 2023 13:19:52 UTC No. 955646

>>955634
post that shit on /b/

Anonymous at Tue, 22 Aug 2023 10:29:04 UTC No. 955903

>>955646
nta, but it's a fruit afaik