incredible realistic computer graphics

[GRT]

TLDR: Plagiarism

This shit wouldn't fly in science, why in techincal arts?

uh, no

look up "fair use doctrine", specifically "transformative use"

artistic inspiration and extension have substantial protection under common law, learn what plagiarism actually entails before accusing someone of the worst crime in creative work



as for the video, wasn't that impressed until animated objects started to show up: birds, trees, grass, person

then i find out those were incorporated live footage

[Elcura]

If the job he wanted required him to make 3D models and create textures, then I would think that this is some shady shit and totally dishonest and wrong. But if he just wants to show off his lighting skills (which from my experience is more perserverance and waiting than skill) then he didn't need to do anything. It would be an awkward conversation in a job interview for sure, but if it wasn't about modelling/texturing then I doubt anyone would care.

People who want to show off texturing skills can use someone elses model and texture them, they don't have to mention the person who made the model or credit them, it just makes things easier/less awkward I guess.

A lot of the time, 3D skills can bleed together. A person who primarily creates organic (character) models would need to know about UV layout, texturing, rigging and animation. If not just to make the whole process faster so you don't get constantly bugged by artists and animators because your topology sucks.

[arus2001]

What frustrates me most about being an artist (more in hobby than profession) is when the standalone complex of creation happens. More specifically, I can make something on my own, then later on down the line see someone do something surprisingly similar or have someone point it out to me if they happen to be looking over my stuff. Typically, claims of originality tend to be against people who aren't pro or published by this point, even if the thing I'd created was done years before the media work.

Overall, my frustration isn't with the other artist(s) at that point (We just both had the same good idea ), but the people who do throw the hissyfits about rip-offs and plagiarism. Seeing how I'm a fan of medieval fantasy, I figure the genre's been stereotyped to death. You'll either get designs hardcore faithful to an actual medieval era, or you'll get things that might defy physics or common sense just because they look cool. I tend to bounce between the two, myself.

Anyway, I figure if I muster the courage to post whatever to the net, it's basically no longer mine to control. If someone wants to steal it, crop it, make a fancy avatar out of it, or whatever, cool. I'm kinda flattered if they use it in a positive light, honestly. Not so much so if it becomes a posterchild for artistic fail, but I tend to accept my mistakes as someone with very little formal training and feeling like they are slowly improving over time. I do wish I was a lot better at CG stuff, though. Me drawing with a mouse just doesn't mix, and while I'll google a photoshop "how to" from time to time, half the problem is knowing what to search for in terminology.

[kuronosan]

When writing a term paper, do you list Microsoft Word on your reference page? What about the company that owns the rights to the font you used? Or the paper company who's paper you printed it on? The manufacturer of your printer?

No, of course not. Why? Because its not required, and frankly its silly to think that you need to.

What the fuck? That is absolutely nothing like what is being said. Obviously you don't source something like what word processor you used and what font you used or anything. Aleth (even if it's in a stupid way) is merely saying that given the situation it appears like he is saying "Yea, I designed the word processor, font, and I made the paper and printer from scratch".

If it's universally understood that most modellers use stock PD material for their art, hey, that's fine. What he's doing is the equivalent of taking a prefab house, putting it in a pre-dug foundation, and having someone connect the utilities, and then flipping the light switch and saying "Look what I built myself!"

A lot more work went into it than just that, and he can hardly claim he did it all by himself. It's not a gigantic deal and not nearly the mountain Aleth is claiming it is but there is a reason why there are movie and song credits you know. Even the fuckface who holds a microphone gets credited.

It's not hard for him to say "3D models courtesy of blah" even if it's public domain. You don't hear someone making a hip hop song using Beethoven's Fourth Sonata, 3rd movement and not crediting what it is just because it's public domain. You don't hear someone singing Jingle Bells and then claiming they wrote it themselves.

It's common courtesy; nothing more. Anyone that doesn't follow it is a douchebag but this entire stink is taking away from beautiful art regardless of where it came from. He deserves praise for that.

He didn't make the buildings. That would be art. CG is a technical science.

Don't be a retard. CG is art. With your logic, you might as well call music a technical science since it's just manipulation of sound frequencies, or call painting technical science, since it's just manipulation of light wavelengths to create color. Absolutely terrible.

[Kerberoz]

Regardless of the originality, I wouldn't call it "incredibly realistic". Show me real-time renders of something organic without camera tricks, then I'll care.

[richardd]

thats what final fantasy videogame gameplay is gonna look like when ps5 comes out baby

[Elcura]

Me drawing with a mouse just doesn't mix,

Do not miss those days. Get a tablet if you haven't got one already. Best thing I've ever bought.

Back on topic, Aleth's td;lr should have been douchebaggery, rather than plagarism.

[Lysithea]

What frustrates me most about being an artist (more in hobby than profession) is when the standalone complex of creation happens. More specifically, I can make something on my own, then later on down the line see someone do something surprisingly similar or have someone point it out to me if they happen to be looking over my stuff. Typically, claims of originality tend to be against people who aren't pro or published by this point, even if the thing I'd created was done years before the media work.

Overall, my frustration isn't with the other artist(s) at that point (We just both had the same good idea ), but the people who do throw the hissyfits about rip-offs and plagiarism. Seeing how I'm a fan of medieval fantasy, I figure the genre's been stereotyped to death. You'll either get designs hardcore faithful to an actual medieval era, or you'll get things that might defy physics or common sense just because they look cool. I tend to bounce between the two, myself.

Anyway, I figure if I muster the courage to post whatever to the net, it's basically no longer mine to control. If someone wants to steal it, crop it, make a fancy avatar out of it, or whatever, cool. I'm kinda flattered if they use it in a positive light, honestly. Not so much so if it becomes a posterchild for artistic fail, but I tend to accept my mistakes as someone with very little formal training and feeling like they are slowly improving over time. I do wish I was a lot better at CG stuff, though. Me drawing with a mouse just doesn't mix, and while I'll google a photoshop "how to" from time to time, half the problem is knowing what to search for in terminology.

I hate constantly being compared to other artists, especially Jaimie Hewlitt (Gorillaz, Tank Girl). At the same time it was flattering, it was also disheartening because I needed to modify a style which I loved drawing in. My work became into an unfinished, rough looking style. I hate drawing actual "finished" work now because it's too clean. Animating it is even tougher. And seriously get yourself a tablet, and sketchbook pro, completely amazing. You can get some seriously amazing work from it.

[arus2001]

Do not miss those days. Get a tablet if you haven't got one already. Best thing I've ever bought.

Back on topic, Aleth's td;lr should have been douchebaggery, rather than plagarism.

Folks got me some cheap-ass wacom when I was like 15. Either the thing was garbage or the tech was still pretty shitty at the time, but I wasn't at all impressed with how unresponsive it was to my strokes or would randomly sputter to different points on the screen.

If Apple turned around and said the iPad could be utilized as a high-end drawing tablet, I might actually consider saving for one. I think there are tablets out now that'll project the image onto the tablet, but they're also stupid expensive. Really, it isn't just drawing with the mouse that throws me, but the visual disconnect between the hand against the page and eye.

This does remind me of the guy that's gutted wiimotes and repurposed them for stuff like projection work. I'd actually considered looking into that at one point, but I don't really have the room/wall for something like that now. Edit: http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/

[graviton]

Don't be a retard. CG is art. With your logic, you might as well call music a technical science since it's just manipulation of sound frequencies, or call painting technical science, since it's just manipulation of light wavelengths to create color. Absolutely terrible.

Art is the product of human creativity - most cg is grunt work, pushing vertices, laying out uvs, fixing broken shit. Chances are most people you meet in the cg industry haven't actually worked on their own projects for a long time.

One person can come up with an idea, and go to a company and get it realised. He is the artist, the company is the artisan. The company gets what the artist wants done. They aren't artists, and most of what they do is technical, and very little is creative. Then again, I suppose coming up and coding a new fur system could be creative. Still wouldn't say it was art.

[Therin]

Movie gave me a major headache due to all the blurring at the beginning. Realistic my ass, shit doesn't randomly blur and unblur like that!

Now I have to go take some Advil.

[Colenzo]

Movie gave me a major headache due to all the blurring at the beginning. Realistic my ass, shit doesn't randomly blur and unblur like that!

Now I have to go take some Advil.

well excuuuuuse me mr awesome eye-sight

[Aleth]

I think people have understood what I meant. It could be called misdirection, or douchebaggery but basically textures are not a small thing when it comes to time spent making CG. To claim you made them when you didn't is very close to the definition of plagiarism, even if legally the texture makers don't care.

"use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

It's the way he credited his work, it could still easily be rectified.

Edit: People who have repeatedly failed to understand what an asset in CG is considered to be after I've told them repeatedly though may never understand.

Also: I don't mind being dumb and right. What use is great intelligence if every thing you think or do is wrong?

[Takedown3]

CG is overrated

[Baha]

If Apple turned around and said the iPad could be utilized as a high-end drawing tablet, I might actually consider saving for one. I think there are tablets out now that'll project the image onto the tablet, but they're also stupid expensive. Really, it isn't just drawing with the mouse that throws me, but the visual disconnect between the hand against the page and eye.

The Cintiq costs what it costs because a drawing tablet isn't the same thing as a touchscreen. They use two fundamentally different technologies.
My Graphire2 was pretty limited compared to an Intuos, but it did ok. The Bamboo (I think the starter Wacom was called that, but not sure) I gave someone as a gift was noticeably worse though, not sure which one you had, but one of those seems to be most likely.
Tablets still leave you with some of the disconnect of drawing in one place and looking somewhere else, but the natural movements help things feel much more comfortable. For involved sketches I still prefer pencil and paper, but for quick drafts/linework and stuff I really preferred my Wacom.

I bought that Bamboo about 8 years ago, and it was pretty much the first tablet that Wacom got out that was more entry-level than the (smallest)Graphire2 I'd gotten beforehand if I recall correctly. Current Bamboo tablets may have improved and may be more on Graphire's level, since it seems to have replaced it. Keep that in mind. Can't go wrong with an Intuos though, and the small version isn't too expensive.

[arus2001]

Honestly don't remember what model it was, and I finally threw it away recently after cleaning out my room some. Best I can describe it as is the tablet was maybe about the size of a small mousepad, hard on the bottom, then had like a 3x4 grid on the top about an inch in from the borders. The pen/stylus was just a little gray affair. I don't know if there was even anything special about it or if the thing just solely responded to whatever concentrated pad contact was made. This would've been a decade ago, and I think my mom got it off some bulk seller from ebay at the time. So, there's a good chance it was either an older model even then or possibly some crappy knock-off which contributed to my performance gripes.

Since money's tight for me and I'm not even drawing as much as I used to, I can't bring myself to pay more than like $200 for a good tablet if there is something out there that could pique my interest with a solid feature list. Granted, I haven't been browsing the market because of the money situation. So, maybe I could be pleasantly surprised by something.

[kuronosan]

Art is the product of human creativity - most cg is grunt work, pushing vertices, laying out uvs, fixing broken shit. Chances are most people you meet in the cg industry haven't actually worked on their own projects for a long time.

One person can come up with an idea, and go to a company and get it realised. He is the artist, the company is the artisan. The company gets what the artist wants done. They aren't artists, and most of what they do is technical, and very little is creative. Then again, I suppose coming up and coding a new fur system could be creative. Still wouldn't say it was art.

You realize that most of the techniques they use to do this are based on human creativity right? We're not machines. We don't use line-by-line algorithms that can be measured in order to make our choices. We use our thoughts and our feelings.

I think you need to go to art school and take some graphic design courses. One person can also come up with a song, but there is a producer, the people who record the music, the engineer, the singer (if he isn't the writer), the dancers, the choreographers, etc, etc who also are a part of that process. They are all artists in their own way as they contribute to the product as a whole.

Saying that someone isn't an artist just because they drag vertex from x,y,z to x,y,z+2 is just a gross overstatement.