posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:10 PM
Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by vkey08
Gotta disagree with you on that point, and here's why.
What exactly are you disagreeing with? That 3D is going to be big this year or that this site can benefit from it? If you're disagreeing that 3D is
going to be big this year you would do good to brush up on your sources and the numbers that are coming in. If you're disagreeing with this site
benefitting from it, again, you need to look at the numbers that are coming in and double check your numbers.
Even some of the 3d/stereoscopic renders I've seen done on another site that is on my top sites fav bar (in fact the one I visit more
frequently due to it being part of what I do) it really is a hard medium to get just right so it looks perfec ton all computer monitors and even
moreso when you factor in color settings and the like.
Nothing looks “perfect” on all systems just like audio sounds different when played back through different systems or rooms with different
acoustics. Moreover, you’re basing your opinions on something you’ve seen, but you haven’t seen everything I’ve seen or that my cohorts have
One render looked different on 14 different monitors and only truly showed in 3d (this is using Lightwave to do the processing mind you) on 2
of those monitors tested.
See above, btw, were you present at Autodesk University and will you be present at the 3D Gamming Summit in April?
It's just too much of an effort to attempt to make it across the board perfect, and if your monitor is older and out of calibration, the
migraines will set in rapidly.
Refer to previous comments.
But what do i know I'm just a girl who does CGI for a living.
But what do I know, I’m just a (insert gender here) who is a director of biz dev for a company that specializes in CGI and 3D applications.
[edit on 4-1-2010 by EMPIRE]
Business Development and being on the front lines every day (and quite honestly I can't stand Autodesk for personal reasons, I HAVE to use them
because they bought Maya but that's about the only contact i have with the evil empire) and dealing with the 45 million things that can go wrong with
rendering in true 3d, especially with so many variables is / are two totally different things. I've been doing CGI since the Amiga days and on the
technical end not much has changed, a good discussion was had about Avatar for instance that even by refining the process it's not really showcasing
As far as shows where they show off the latest and greatest? They have everything there calibrated together so there is maybe, MAYBE a deviation
smaller than is measurable by the human eye, it's no surprise that things look better there and magnificent, but when you get it home in a real world
application that it doesn't perform as advertised.
As far as telling me to brush up on my numbers? 3D / CGI has been gaining for 5 years now, ever since Lucasfilm/ILM refined the process so that it
was a bit more usable and Pixar released Renderman. I don't think that 2010 will be the breakout year, why? it's already happened. 2010 may be a
year of refinement of the stereoscopic process, but unfortunately until we can make cheap holographic displays, viewing anything in 3D on a computer
monitor is still a while away. This is coming from a front line , day to day, hands on , and hair pulling out summation of the technology. it's
promising, but not there yet.