3D kitchen

Started by inkydigit, June 30, 2009, 07:52:03 am

Previous topic - Next topic


Quote from: inkydigit on June 30, 2009, 07:52:03 am

Lolz I used to have a fridge like that!!!
wow this is cool very natural would be a nice place to have a brew and a chat :)
My terragen gallery:


Looks real.  Reminds me of some kitchens I saw in my relatives' homes who lived in the outskirts of the city years ago.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Zairyn Arsyn

makes me think of my grandparents kitchen :)

i7 2600k 3.4GHZ|G.skill 16GB 1600MHZ|Asus P8P67 EVO|Evga 770GTX 4GB|SB X-FI|Antec 750W

Henry Blewer

A 1956 Better Homes and Gardens photo.
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T


http://www.terragen.org - A great Terragen resource with models, contests, galleries, and forums.


i loooooove this kind of render !
i really would like to do something like that :(
one day or another, i need to learn modelling !!!


Professional Silo is on Sale now for $129, until July 3rd.  That is, if it matters.  I'm sure you might not feel the urge to run right out and buy this.  Lots of tutorials for it, though.  Another couple of good programs are zBrush and Modo, both of which seem to be improving quite a lot.

Quote from: Seth on June 30, 2009, 12:08:44 pm
i loooooove this kind of render !
i really would like to do something like that :(
one day or another, i need to learn modelling !!!
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?


Very nice render, but something about it instantly screams CGI to me. I think its the over-use of the grunge textures on everything, on otherwise immaculate surfaces. No dustbunnies in the corners, nothing on the floor - it all just looks a little unnatural, that the level of wear looks artificially made - seems to lack a human quality to it. Hard to put my finger on it I guess.

But good work just the same.

Terry Gilliam's case against CGI was this - shooting things in-camera, be it a real city or a model or whatever, bears the imprint of many real people interacting with real things. CGI tends to be one guy an a cubicle, so everything has only the imprint of the one guy who built the geometry, painted the textures, lit the scene, etc. It hasn't been "handled" by anyone, and thus lacks humanity. I guess that's the vibe I get from this image - that it has the patina of age, but lacks humanism.


got this url from the fridge magnets!....some more info(english)


Wholeheartedly agree Scott, and Gilliam's comments make a lot of sense. I hadn't heard that before.

- Oshyan


its a very good 3d work this must have been an immense workload to put in the detail. I think one point which makes it look a little bit unreal is the outside of the window - I guess on a photo this area would "blow out" and be almost pure white. Also the little plants around the window have an artificial color.

But I think when flipping through a magazine, 99% people wold take it a s a photo.


These are all interesting insights and am glad I come here to get these points of view.  I wonder if the reason quoted by Scott is why Pixar does its work the way it does.  For a huge 3D house, it would be easy to create stuff more realistic, but Pixar stays on the side of cartoon-like.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?


well, I think its even more complex. Even if Pixar mostly does "cartoon" style - most of their work "feels" real and thats probably even more complicated to reach.


July 02, 2009, 06:29:50 am #14 Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 06:31:22 am by schmeerlap
What scott8933 says (and Oshyan wholeheartedly agrees with) may be true, but then that critique surely applies to all cgi. What do you want these artists to do? If you want 100% authenticism complete with dust encrusted corners and "dust bunnies" I suppose you've got to take a photograph of a museum display, and even that is not going to be 100% authentic as it's been artificially set up.
If the guy had'nt used as many grunge textures to simulate that lived-in look, I wouldn't mind betting that some wise-acre would have criticised the scene for looking too cgi because most of the models were too clean/pristine looking. Is it a matter of balance, and who's to say when that balance has been struck right?
No. I'm happy to sit back and admire work like this; the incredible amount of detailed modelling, the excellent lighting, and, yes, the grunge texturing, which IMO is proficiently applied. I know I haven't the patience, or indeed the ability, to construct a scene like this. So, it's a big thumbs up from me.

I hope I realise I don't exist before I apparently die.