Author Topic: CG Talk  (Read 6227 times)

Offline rcallicotte

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9542
CG Talk
« on: July 09, 2007, 04:42:49 PM »
Has anyone ever seen a TG .09 or TG2 picture on CG Talk?  If so, would you provide a link?
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Offline Oshyan

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13027
  • Holy snagging ducks!
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2007, 05:49:50 PM »
Over the years there have been quite a few but use of Terragen and similar applications is often frowned on there so postings of TG-based images are certainly much less than other applications. Here are a few examples:

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=473929

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=449762

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=448544

A search for "Terragen" in the 3D gallery should bring up more.

- Oshyan

Offline rcallicotte

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9542
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2007, 06:07:06 PM »
Thanks!  I was beginning to believe they had banned Terragen.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Offline rcallicotte

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9542
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2007, 06:15:35 PM »
Hey, this is what one of the authors there said, but I don't believe his assessment of Terragen is correct.  Or is it?

"Although I like your work, Bodnar, I think it's a borderline insult to suggest using Terragen to a hardcore 3DS or other high-end user! Terragen, when you have Studio Max? All he really needs to do is run some displacement maps on the terrains, which is precisely what's happening in Terragen, and then not only will it be more detailed but will also have the benefit of true 3D displacement, as opposed to Terragen's one-dimensional displacement (heightmapping). Terragen looks cool, but has serious drawbacks in this area, just like Bryce did."
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Harvey Birdman

  • Guest
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2007, 06:29:19 PM »
Hi, Calico -

I don't really know that much about it, but that sounds wrong to me. I mean, you can do lateral displacement, or displacement based on normals, among other things, so it's not one-dimensional. You can create overhangs, etc, right? This is something that can't be done in a strictly heightfield-based system.

I could be wrong, but it sounds as if the person you quoted doesn't know what he's talking about.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 06:31:12 PM by Harvey Birdman »

Offline Oshyan

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13027
  • Holy snagging ducks!
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2007, 07:11:49 PM »
That comment was probably referring to TG 0.9. It is correct in a technical sense, but not in an artistic or absolute sense if you ask me. You don't see many good 3DS Max landscapes and there's a reason for this. Even TG 0.9 was better at making landscapes as far as that specific purpose is concerned. Max is obviously more versatile, but if what you wanted to do was landscapes then TG was a better bet, unless you had the $600 DreamScapes plugin.

The simple fact is that some people pay large amounts of money for their software, or steal it and think that the more it costs, the better it must be. So they have the misconception that money has something to do with quality and capability in a fundamental sense. There is obviously a real-world relationship, but it is a secondary effect of economic factors, not a primary definer of this reality. So when these people, heavily invested in their application of choice, see a program doing what they struggle to do much easier, they dismiss it as "cheap", "too easy", etc. Somehow it must not be "art" because it's "easy".

Clearly these people are also often laboring under the impression that "art" has anything to do with effort. The definition of art is a tricky one, but I don't think effort is a necessary qualifier.

In any case there is a lot of bias in certain posters on CGTalk. You can be sure of the value of someone's opinion if they judge the finished product and not the application. They would argue that some programs make it easy to create great artwork virtually without effort, but such a reality, if true, should also be taken into account when judging *all* art, and thus the standard should be raised and again we are back to the basic fairness of judging a work by its merit and its peers, plain and simple.

Another interesting thing these people seem to overlook is that "point and click" is exactly what photographers do - they don't even press a button to auto-generate their landscape - and yet photographers still produce some of the finest and most well-regarded art to this day. If the value of an image is in how much work went into it, how much of it was "buit" by the author, then surely any photograph must inherently have little value because they are usually a simple capture of an existing scene in the real world, one which the artist (the photographer) often had no influence on or part in constructing. Was Ansel Adams' work less meaningful because he did not help create Yosemite?

- Oshyan

Offline rcallicotte

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9542
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2007, 08:26:04 PM »
Oshyan, these are all very good points.

I love photography and worked in a black & white lab for almost 6 years.  Photography is a blast and is as you say - art and not necessarily blood, sweat, and tears.

That said, I think the fact that Planetside has toiled with procedural graphics in TG2 and are making something so unique and valuable is proving that TG2 is an application with lots of diligent work behind its interface.  Leaving us the nodes to further touch that program is leaving open an area of art and science that could well fit the definition of including "high-end users".  I'm still very green in digital art, but I have already seen examples of high-end users (like volker, o_b, sjefen, bzzzz, hillrunner, and I can't remember everyone's name and don't have time to think and list everyone) creating magnificent pieces of art with TG2.  It's inspirational, really.

Now that I know people have submitted Terragen drawings to CGTalk, I'm going to try.  I hope others do. 
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Offline Will

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2282
  • For the easily entertained!
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2007, 08:28:16 PM »
brings up an interesting point, if a picture is worth a thousand words how much is an animation worth?
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

Offline old_blaggard

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2524
    • http://sdcarpenter.free.fr/paul/
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2007, 08:39:27 PM »
Hmm... at 25 frames per second, I guess (shameless self-promotion follows :D) this one would be worth something along the lines of 3.75 million words.
http://www.terragen.org - A great Terragen resource with models, contests, galleries, and forums.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2282
  • For the easily entertained!
Re: CG Talk
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2007, 08:43:17 PM »
hmm well that means if my teachers tell me to write a two thousand world paper then I can make a two frame .gif animation presenting my thesis Brilliant!
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.