Another Non-TG Nature render thingy

[Tangled-Universe]

I think you're right Matt. It's also something which was said in that topic on CGS.
That part of the discussion arose since submissions were also accepted purely for technical reasons, as admitted by the moderators involved in the discussion, which in fact is similar to 'because it's CG'. See?
Eventually it evolved into something similar like you just said.

So that also makes me realize that it needs something extra to make it "je ne sais quoi" like.
For that you either need a unique quality and especially a main subject of interest.
TG2 may not be suitable enough to add extra character to the image to gain broader interest.
What I find immature then is that these subjects of interest cannot be something else than a cyborg chick, a shiny car or cave troll.

In the meantime I'm pretty fine with it as it's something I'll never be able to change.

[freelancah]

What I find immature then is that these subjects of interest cannot be something else than a cyborg chick, a shiny car or cave troll.

Indeed

[Walli]

i have no problem with images beeing rejected and I still plant to work on the other pov´s. I also have images there that have been accepted. I know what work has been done for the accepted ones and for the rejected ones. Also I think that some of my accepted pictures are much weaker from a visual side, not only from the workload. The only "problem" I have is to understand what is considered worthy.
Anyways, don´t wanted to start a disucssion about rejection-politics;-)

[cyphyr]

There was an image submitted a year ago or so, it was of a scrub desert scene if I remember correctly. Maybe by Frank or TU or one of our stalwarts (sorry I don't remember) It had that "je ne sais quoi" quality, it almost looked like a casual polaroid taken in passing from a car window. It was not a "Great Photo" technically (from that kind of point of view) there was loads "wrong" with it but the artist had achieved a quality to the work that I thought astounding. It would easily have sat beside a pile of holiday snaps and not stood out at all. And that is a great tallent, to be able to blend in perfectly.  The level of subtility needed to achieve this is something that I think is missed by a lot of CG purists (wrong word I'm sure!). Matte painting and set extension (something TG is used for a lot I believe, or certainly could/should be, and I'd like to see some tuts for) for example are often completely missed and indeed should be almost unnoticeable but do deserve recognition.

Richard

[Walli]

I am experimenting with night lighting on a different scene. But I want to use the experience for the shack at night version

[Tangled-Universe]

Walli, Frank, T-U, I love some of the work that you do, but I think every time one of you has mentioned being rejected by cgsociety the image in question didn't really have that 'je ne sais quoi' that I would look for in the cgsociety gallery. If this were a photograph, would it be an exceptional photo? I don't think so. Why should it be accepted just because it's CG?

I really like the shack in the twilight.

Matt

Here we go again:
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g85/352985/352985_1326849696_large.jpg
A vue render this is.
I know at least half a dozen more examples like these which make it through.

So Matt, how sure are you exactly about how Terragen is looked at at that place?
Also from a sponsor point of view? Since you advertised there and sponsored a contest once.
If I were you I'd seriously question their ways with how they treat 'us' and you/PS as a customer/client/whatever.

I know it is a 'false dilemma' or an 'ad ignorantium' to say that the lack of TG2 work there is proof, but it definitely is a correct observation.

[cyphyr]

Sad to say but I agree with you Martin.
Maybe we should submit images as Vue renders .... It would be interesting to see what would happen.
Cheers
Richard

[freelancah]

Wow. When I looked that my first thought was that your link must've been very old work.. apparently it was accepted this month?! seriously? Its not even good imo :O

[Oshyan]

Vue has an entire discussion category there, which I think came about from user/member demand and the amount of Vue-related discussion happening "off-topic" in other areas of the site. Like it or not, TG is not often discussed there (though it's always nice to see people mention it in a relevant thread!). Whether it's a "chicken and egg" thing where it's not discussed much because people feel unwelcome there, or people feel unwelcome or that there is no interest *because* there is no discussion, I don't know. I'd like to think that if TG discussion picked up more there, receptivity would increase, and perhaps even a dedicated forum would be justified at some point. The Vue forum doesn't really get that much traffic...

- Oshyan

[Tangled-Universe]

I'm not sure how that even remotely connects to what I've been saying?

I'm talking about an influential website which is ran by people who obviously are strongly biased to certain tools and types of CG.
Not about Vue having a separate forum.

But, since you mentioned, I clearly remembered the difficulty involved in even getting TG2 listed as an app for creation when you submit your work.
In other words, they denied its existence as long as they could. And they still try to do.

Hence the articles on feature films where Terragen 2 was involved, ever seen that mentioned?
It's either them trying to ignore it or Planetside's PR Pick one

[Oshyan]

The reason I brought up the Vue forum is it (theoretically) demonstrates the amount of discussion that happens (or happened) there, which justified its own area for said discussion. I keep an eye on CGTalk as you might imagine and there's very little TG discussion by comparison. As I said it may be a "chicken and egg" thing, but I honestly don't know how to solve the community side of the equation (i.e. why people aren't discussing it) besides just increasing the user base, as we of course always strive to do. Interestingly Photoshop and Corel Painter share a forum over there, two similar but actually fairly different applications from different publishers, and Adobe Photoshop in particular being a major app, you would assume it would have its own forum. Given that precedent, it almost makes more sense to have a "Landscape Renderers" discussion forum than a dedicated Vue one...

Regarding PR, as far as I've seen none of the software publishers really get preferential treatment in the articles, the focus is squarely on the production team and the project details. Software is often mentioned, but generally only in passing. TG has been mentioned in at least 2 articles, one about Parnassus and one about GI Joe. I think it also depends who they end up talking to on the production side. If it's one of the studios using TG, they'll likely mention it, as was the case with those two articles. I think the reality is there are so many studios working on each production and so many aspects to the visual effects in each film, that even an article "About visual effects in Sucker Punch" is unlikely to cover say TG, especially when they're only a few pages long. As far as I've seen Vue is not often mentioned either actually.

Where I do see a difference is in the handling of press releases. We do submit news to CGSociety when appropriate, but actual "articles" like this one (from a press release) about Vue 10 don't happen: http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/vue_10
It may well be that we're just not submitting things to the right place or in the right way, or there may be promotional dollars involved. We'll see what happens with the 2.4 release for TG2...

In any case I'm not saying there's no bias there, but I suspect if there is it's confined to a very few people who happen to have stronger influence over the gallery selection, and I think in general they are not terribly open to tools that are not both "professional" and "popular". I think it would be hard to argue now that TG is not "professional", but how "popular" it is could be debated based on its presence (or lack thereof) on the CGS forums in general discussion. Hopefully as we work to increase TG's visibility and market share that will change organically. I don't see another way to do it, besides efforts from some of the passionate TG users here who do occasionally pipe up over there, which is certainly appreciated. The important thing, I think, is to maintain a positive approach.

- Oshyan

[Tangled-Universe]

Hi Oshyan,

Reading back my latest post it seems I tried to put words in your mouth in my last couple of sentences, apologies for that.

Yes I think you're right the passionate users there should maintain a positive approach.
I plead guilty that I'm not always able to do so, because of aforementioned reasons, but I'll try to do the best I can
I'm happy to read though that you recognize the terrible mechanisms there.

I agree there's little you can do about it, but I feel that if you're an advertiser/sponsor of a website you can't ignore being ignored, see what I mean.
An organic change, as you mention, is the most favorable way and I agree with that.
You can't push TG through ones throat, but as I said you neither should be ok with having your product actively being boycotted.
Some careful pro-activity there may be desired at some time.

[Matt]

If it's one of the studios using TG, they'll likely mention it, as was the case with those two articles. I think the reality is there are so many studios working on each production and so many aspects to the visual effects in each film, that even an article "About visual effects in Sucker Punch" is unlikely to cover say TG, especially when they're only a few pages long. As far as I've seen Vue is not often mentioned either actually.

What tends to happen is that an article on a film will be about one VFX vendor at a time, e.g. Pixomondo, rather than every vendor that worked on a film. Terragen wasn't used on Sucker Punch by Pixomondo so of course Terragen won't be mentioned in that article. It was used by Prime Focus. On some films CG society will have a few different articles. Or Tron Legacy, where Terragen wasn't used at Digital Domain so of course it won't be mentioned in the Digital Domain article.

Matt

[Matt]

but as I said you neither should be ok with having your product actively being boycotted.

I think that's a pretty wild assumption, Martin.

Matt

[Tangled-Universe]

Yes sorry, it is
It lacks proof, but (in the meantine quite some) first had experience from some people makes it tend to draw that kind of conclusion.
In many cases the truth is somewhere in the middle, which in this case also is not ok.

Slightly different and maybe another topic, depending on how you look at it, TG2 exists for 5.5(!) years now and despite it's improvements and increasing popularity among hobbyists it still has not grown much in popularity in the industry, which is kind of reflected at CGS. I think that's not a wild assumption or weird to say.

Sum the two up = a problem I'd say. However, it seems I'm the only one who's seeing it? I mean to say, am I so completely wrong on this?