Jump to content

Dear Visitors

If your confirmation email doesn't arrive, give us some time while we manually approve your account. Support ticket is not necessary, we are checking new registrations regularly and approving if registration requirements are met.

Please read Rules & Guidelines before posting around Forums. Information we seek is minimal and in the end saves us a lot of time and we are able to provide solutions faster.

Please consider supporting us via Contributions for all the work we are doing. Contributing even with the smallest amount, will remove ALL AD's and unlock some nice features like being able to be Tipped for providing help, or file etc.

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Today
  3. Lukasz Pazera https://www.lukaszpazera.com
  4. Just an idea: - Start with approach 1 - Lower the output resolution to something like 160x100 - Carefully position the Camera, so that a voxel roughly equals an output-pixel (you could make an overlay for the camera with a grid of output-pixels) - Everything including shadows should now be pixelated - Upres in post as needed (without filtering for "clean" pixel look)
  5. Wow...that is really ingenious how you did it. Sometimes, creating a low tech look can only be accomplished with a high tech approach. So you want just the shadows to be heavily pixelated? The first thing that came to mind was to use shadow maps with an extremely low resolution but the lowest custom setting in C4D was 40 x 40. That created this result (settings to the side) So while the pixelation is there, it is not as pronounced as you desire. Another approach would be if you had Redshift and set the initial ray cast levels extremely low as well but that could have other unintended consequences. Interesting challenge to make something look 8 bit with 64 bit tools. Dave
  6. Lovely work! I tested a similar package of separate HDR studio lights a few weeks ago and got some really nice results. It’s funny how the digital world circles back to the analog. It reminds me of the tape emulation plugins used on lots of music these days. There’s something about those barely audible changes (or visible, in the above renders) that are very pleasing to the human senses.
  7. No, that's not gonna work. Those meshes have nothing in common, which would make them un-morphable via that method. Pose Morph, in this context, only works on meshes with identical point counts and orders. It is further doomed to failure by the terrible geometry and resulting ngons usually present in spline based lettering. Morphing between utterly disparate models is very hard for any DCC to deal with - most don't have any native way of doing it, and this is true for Cinema as well to a large extent. That is not to say you can't find inventive ways around this if you are prepared to accept some restrictions / changes though. For example you can use a cloner and inheritance to morph a load of particles / clones from one base formation to another, and then source and target meshes don't need to be the same at all. You can use Pose morph with a spline (but NOT use a different unrelated spline to morph to) and use that inside a generator like a loft for example - you can get quite convincing morphs that way, but even then you need to move the individual points in a way that they don't cross each other and intersect during the morph. CBR
  8. Hey guys! I’m dealing with an interesting challenge. Basically, I’d like to light my scene in a pixel art fashion (except in 3D, so I guess that would be in a "voxel" fashion). I initially wrote a wall of text, but I've decided instead to make a few renders to better illustrate what I'd like to achieve. First, this is my setup (viewport screenshot): https://i.imgur.com/nzJK5iP.png Now, a traditional way to light this scene would be to use a Spotlight, as such: VIDEO 001 : https://i.imgur.com/XYmDKFk.mp4 But this is not the result I want. I would like to find a way to be light my scene/meshes in a way that resembles this: VIDEO 002 : https://i.imgur.com/Xza6tnQ.mp4 Problem: The method I used to create the render above is utterly inefficient and CPU-intensive. In short, I'm duplicating each voxel of the bicycle, extruding those duplicates on the Z-axis and detecting any intersection between those extrusions and the "wall". See here (in red): VIDEO 003 : https://i.imgur.com/gH8ZwSG.mp4 Objective: I would like to find an efficient way of having the boundaries of the lights/shadows projected onto my meshes to be restricted to the voxels/cubes they (those same meshes) are made of, i.e. in a pixel art fashion. I've attached the demo scene to this post. Please note that Octane was used in this project file, but I'm also opened to using default materials if needed. At this point in time, I’m wondering if this is even possible to do with Octane, or Cinema 4D for that matter (unless I decide to dive into Python or something). That said, given my novice status, there could be a ridiculously obvious solution that I haven't thought of. I feel like this could be more likely... Any advice/tip/insight would be hugely appreciated. Seriously. Even just keywords to Google, etc. Thanks a ton! BIKE_DEMO_001.c4d
  9. So I'm trying to morph between two objects, they are quite different and don´t know if what I´m trying is the best solution. Even so, nothing seems to happen when trying to morph. Using the morph tag with points. I don't know if its because the logo I want to morph into is in different meshes. I´m working on C4D r25. SH07-v3.c4d
  10. Hi, Cerbera, That has done the trick. I used a point cache tag to bake the assets only, then added them to the scatter and it worked beautifully. Cheers, guys, case solved.
  11. Had a bit of spare time today so made the headband quickly to check my previous advice was correct. And indeed we can start this with a cube or, as I did in the end, a simple 8 sided cylinder. Again, could have gone 2 way symmetry if wanted, but only went with 1 as I don't like having symmetry along the centre of tubes. Edge flow fairly simple and predictable, and whilst initially built straight, 'tuning fork stylee', a bend deformer curved that in to meet in the middle. So next we need to decide what to do with the mesh bit inside this, and I delayed this decision til later, but knocked up a base mesh for it that could be equally useful as a base for material meshing, or as an object to deform any actual modelled meshing around. I actually recommend you don't try and make that meshing - it is ridiculously hard to model, and massively painstaking for a result that would be only about 5% better than doing it with materials and bump / normal mapping. So that's just a sliced Capsule, cut in half, FFD to make it match the reference curvature, quadrifed at the ends, and bend deformed so it fits with the rest of it. No need to add thickness yet until we decide what to do with it ! Together with the chrome ends, which are just rounded cylinders and ball joints, that comes together to gives us this for the headband... CBR
  12. Here's what I'd do when you get to that volume knob... Again, 2 way symmetry means we only have to make quarter of it, which is what I did, but you could equally get a 60 sided cylinder, delete all but 1 segment of that, and then array it back into the complete form for ultimate time saving. Other than that, it's a basic inset, extrude back, and control loops. This shows a decent alternative way to close a circular section with many segments, collapsing them in as they get near centre reducing from 60 edges to 20 which can be solved to quads with minimum complex poles, not that they matter here anyway, because it's flat. CBR
  13. Oh, it's animated .... I guess you should try baking it or export and re-import it as an alembic... If the sound field does not apply the same deformation to all instances (and the instances are a lot) i'm afraid the scene is gonna get very heavy. But before doing that tweak a bit the type of instances and try putting the geometry under a Connect object and use that as an instance if all fails you'll have to bake...
  14. I don't have Arnold either, but on checking the manual I see that no indeed, Cinemas deformers are not supported at all by that system - only effectors. So, yes, you're gonna have to bake any animation in by the looks of it. CBR
  15. Yesterday
  16. Hi, Happypolygon, Thanks for the advice. Won't this only bake a single frame of the bend? I have a sound field applied and it moves in time with a mp3 track. I therefore need to bake all the keyframes, don't I?
  17. I don't use Arnold but it is possible that it cannot recognize the deformer because it's not a geometric entity. Try to bake the bent object using the Current State to Object command.
  18. Also a few more with the PINGO vfx lighting kit from last week.
  19. Moody samples on a test scene I made for workflow from Vectorworks to Twinmotion. Still testing that, but here's some quickies' from Cinema. Based on the work of Edward Gordon Craig.
  20. Hello, world, I am trying to manipulate a bunch of objects using a bend deformer and Arnold Scatter. The scatter works fine, but the deformer (which is a child of the objects I am duplicating) has no effect. Can somebody please point me in the right direction? I need the bend deformer to take effect while placed within the scatter. Thank you!
  21. Yep, me too - hardly any clients give a damn what qualification you might or might not have in this - you are as valuable to them as your portfolio / last render demonstrates ! ALL my client modelling work comes from word of mouth, and not once has anyone ever asked what my qualifications are, over and above 15 years in this software ! Another option is some good quality 1-1 remote tutition, like the kind I just so happen to offer for example ! 😉 Some people entering this industry find it very helpful to have a very experienced, ongoing 'mentor' type person on hand, to solve all your problems for you, and help you directly over any specific hurdles you encounter, as well as being there to give you a slow, staged, cumulative understanding of all major areas of this immense software via 1-1 remote screen sharing. This avoids having to build up knowledge in the very slow and protracted way from a series of disparate free tutorials of widely varying standards, some of which may contradict each other, or leave questions unanswered. That has a lot of advantages over group lessons, or uni courses, because not only are you getting 1-1 attention ALL THE TIME, but also because your lessons can be tailored specifically to what YOU alone want, in the order you want it, or that would be most helpful to you and your plans. Once the basics are out of the way you can set a balance between more theory-led lessons and project based learning. Just a thought, but I don't often have ongoing tuition spaces free, and you happen to catch me at a time when I do, so thought I'd mention it ! If interested feel free to PM me for more info. CBR
  22. Yes. You never should have built that body part, because now its topology is unrelated to the thing it needs to join to ! So in the bin it goes, and we will create the rest of that white plastic part out of the bit we already have, by selecting its perimeter loop and ctrl scaling out before moving that edge forwards to start to form the shape of that indent... Then we shall rinse and repeat a few times to get the rest of the form, then add our control loops, then add extra loops to account for the extra cut-outs on the side etc... This should show you what loops are needed where... Note: As the perimeter of this section is hidden behind the rim of the rose gold outers I haven't been too careful to prettify it, but as long as it intersects cleanly, and the rim has that extra centreline loop from which you will create the magnet holes you should be good... Talking of which we don't ever want to have insets (for magnet holes) directly on borders, so get your control loops in for this rim BEFORE you do them, which isolates the insets from the edges, where they would screw with our nice clean borders were that not the case. CBR
  23. I agree with Imashination. If you look at the top presenters at Siggraph or NAB for Maxon or Autodesk I suspect you will find very few (maybe none) who completed any masters program related to 3D. The majority never even studied any 3d at university. Self learning is the norm for 3d. I encourage you to jump into employment where you will gain real-world experience. That will teach you more and provide income over further expense. Ongoing learning is always a part of this career, but this can be done while gainfully employed, with free learning or via: -fxPHD -School of Motion -Udemy.com / Lynda.com / Skillshare.com None of us will never "finish" the internet, and no one will ever 100% master all aspects of 3d. Not even close. That keeps it fun and challenging. Another benefit of employment is that you will learn tremendously from your boss and your peers...and perhaps most importantly, from real-world projects. When I ran an interactive motion studio I would say about half our notable projects required new learning for our team. We would land the contract and need to scramble to determine how exactly we could best achieve our goals. I definitely preferred these projects, and I suspect you will too.
  24. You can delete all mac and non R25 files and see if that helps, but I can confirm that on my installed development version of R25.117 the plugin lists its welcome message in the console window as expected. And plugin is available in the extension menu. Even with all mac files and non R25 files present. Cannot help you further, sorry!
  25. Ok, quite complicated for me 😉 I would like to keep the volume of the pictures. It really is part of the staging here. I rather see that the white against the background is the problem here. It settles too sharply. Putting a blurred image behind the original sounds good, but with the color white, blurred is only white. A blur that only applies to the edges, and only refers to the Pictures, is there such a thing in cinema?
  26. Thanks! I just created this mesh. But, I have no idea of combining it with the body part I've created earlier. Could you teach me?
  27. Your problem is a question of contrast, display methods and motion blur. When a real object moves, it creates a level of motion blur when recorded to film. This means when the video is played back, the sharp White-Black-Blue edges your images create (white photo, black cube edges, blue background) should blur into one another, but because youve rendered without blur and havent applied any in post, you have perfect crisp edges which are asking for trouble. On top of this you are displaying a 25fps video on what is almost certainly a 60Hz screen. This means that display-wise the monitor is having to show 2 frames of one animation frame. then 3 frames of the next animation frame, then 2 of the next. This framerate mismatch is going to make things even more difficult to display because it doesnt divide evenly into the display refresh rate, creating stuttering as it moves. Solutions: Lose the crisp edge of the images. Do this by getting rid of the black sides of the blocks so the image planes ar 100% flat, thats one element of contrast reduced. Next either enable some motion blur or look for a visual way of softening the edges. Maybe a blurred faded copy of the image sat behind the main one. Another option is to speed up and slow down. If you did 90% of the camera movement in 10% of the time, this means theres only 4-5 frames of fast movement , then 100's of frames of super slow movement. This would prevent the stuttering as the motion would be ~400 pixels per frame during the fast parts and then 2 pixels per frame when slow, compared to your current 20 pixels of motion at the moment
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2021 Powered by Invision Community