CG Done Old School (circa 1976).

...so, don't nobody ever complain about how Poser/DS/Cinema4D/whatever runs, ever again.

 That's pretty intense!  Thanks for sharing ;)

He was actually using physical dials...

And some of those set ups could probably be recreated in a modern modeling program in just a few minutes by someone who knew what he was doing.

Fascinating!

Where can I get dials like that? Actually, they look a lot like the dials of a GenRad (now known as IET) Decade Resistor but appear variable rather than discreet steps.

OK, I'm done "nerding-out".

I'd guess the dials are just high-quality pots, hooked up as voltage dividers
into some kind of multi-channel ADC.  I know those were available in that era
(but wildly expensive, like $2000.)  

the computers on the Apollo mission held about 4k of data; they were surpassed by pocket calculators barely a decade later...;) And the original Eniac (1940s) would fit on a single chip by the 80s...;)

Thanks - really interesting.

Quote - the computers on the Apollo mission held about 4k of data; they were surpassed by pocket calculators barely a decade later...;) And the original Eniac (1940s) would fit on a single chip by the 80s...;)

And within 10-15 years we'll have computers with as much processing power as our brains.  I was reading on gamespot that networked PS3s could brute force 4 million passwords a second.

Poly count has less impact on quality then texture.

Low to medium poly count with a good texture brings quality.
High poly count with a medium to bad texture is pollution.

Every poly has "to do" something in 3D topology, or delete it.

High subdevided polycount is the number one reason we are seeing that many "plastic dolls" lately. That combined with 'smooth polygons" and you get plastic;

Also, it puts a limit to morphers , they can only move around in the "Z";
As in "X" and "Y" the mesh is already too dence...

That high poly count brings quality, is a myth.
Only a singe line in the book of sellers.

Especially, since the introduction of "Smooth polygons" in the render engine.

The above, for all standards "screen" renderswith the main figure 3 to 4 inch high.
Low poly with a 2048x2048 texture will do just fine.
For close ups, go to 4096x4096., for more detail use bump - displacement mapping.
Brings U a zillion options, and less PC (or MAC) hungry....

Quote - Poly count has less impact on quality then texture.

Low to medium poly count with a good texture brings quality.
High poly count with a medium to bad texture is pollution.

Every poly has "to do" something in 3D topology, or delete it.

High subdevided polycount is the number one reason we are seeing that many "plastic dolls" lately. That combined with 'smooth polygons" and you get plastic;

Also, it puts a limit to morphers , they can only move around in the "Z";
As in "X" and "Y" the mesh is already too dence...

That high poly count brings quality, is a myth.
Only a singe line in the book of sellers.

Especially, since the introduction of "Smooth polygons" in the render engine.

The above, for all standards "screen" renderswith the main figure 3 to 4 inch high.
Low poly with a 2048x2048 texture will do just fine.
For close ups, go to 4096x4096., for more detail use bump - displacement mapping.
Brings U a zillion options, and less PC (or MAC) hungry....

Long Live PosetteV3!!!
dph

You are so right.
i did a topology study lately, and Posette and Judy, still have the best topology of ALL.

The breasts are OFF, but at least they can be morphed.
Same fot Judy's buttocks.
At least they can be morphed without spending weeks staring at "points".

yes dph, you are so right.

I've also just recently remapped Terai Yuki 2, and while I believe that she's a bit higher poly than Judy, she also shows great promise as far as ease of posing and render are concerned.
I've also just finished remapping Miki 2, and while she's a great figure, posing her is a bit like stirring cold molasses.
dph

Quote -
And within 10-15 years we'll have computers with as much processing power as our brains. 

PROUD COMPUTER TECHNICIAN: "here it is sir the "UltraKray MK11" 3 Billion teraflops per second!!".

BOSS: "Ok then have it crunch these numbers"

>>2 seconds later<<<

PROUD COMPUTER TECHNICIAN: "Done sir!! here is the print out"

BOSS: >>Looks over results<<

"WOW!!... AMAZING!!.. Son  it would have take a team  of 1200  human Mathematics scientists over 600 years ....to make a mistake THIS HUGE!!! "   ;-(

Quote - Poly count has less impact on quality then texture.

Yes and no... :)

A crap mesh that easily tears isn't going to get much help, even from the best texture mapping. A solid mesh with crap textures will still look ugly. Excellent and mindful lighting can overcome some shortcomings in either texture or mesh (or both), but bad lighting can make even the best marriage of texture and mesh look like utter sh!t. A renderer that isn't up to snuff (or is set horribly wrong) can destroy an image faster than even the crudest of any component.

Composition figures in there too, big time. 'Cross-Eyed Slack-Jawed Vicky Staring Into Space' (whilst carrying $weapon in $temple, natch), anyone? Figures that float above the floor - no amount of kick-ass lighting, mesh-work, or texturing can fix that one. Breasts that defy gravity. Joint bends that even the most flexible gymnast would wince at.

'course, such things as lighting and composition are all up to you, the user. The mesh and texture are (unfortunately) usually up to the merchants (unless you roll your own). Renderers and compositing suites are usually up to the vendors (but even here you can do quite a bit to improve over any shortcomings found in any one suite/app, courtesy of exportation and importation, yes?)

But... it's all a balance.

I just thought it was hella cool to see how they did it back in the day, back when a simple fly-though scene took weeks of painstaking work (and some damned primitive but pricey gear), just to get the literal equivalent of a wireframe animation.

I think I'd like to re-create that scene sometime... wireframe and all, just to see how long it would take.

*And within 10-15 years we'll have computers with as much processing power as our brains.  I was reading on gamespot that networked PS3s could brute force 4 million passwords a second.

*I read this on a dutch news site today: researchers of IBM are creating a computer with the same capacity of a cat's brain, they used 147.456 processors en 144 terrabyte of memory to make a simulation of a cerebral cortex.

Here's the link to the IBM site:

www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/28842.wss#release

But although it can simulate the brain it's about 100 times slower.

They expect to have a computer that can simulate a human brain round about 2019.
I think it's about time to dust off some old Azimov's books about the laws on robotics.

Best regards,

Bopper.

Don't forget to watch the I, Robot movie.  It makes a good point where those laws can lead.

Also while computers can do some things a lot better than humans, things like thinking, free will, etc, aren't so easily replicated.  AI is a pretty woeful field... just ask gamers.   Usually it's bad and for bosses, cheap as well.

Way back then
We had a starwars games looked a lot like that video.

I like ZBrush and the 10 million polycounts :)

And free will eludes most humans.

Quote - Fascinating!

Where can I get dials like that?

3dconnexion's space navigator is the modern version of all of those dials.

they work in Poser, D|S and some modeling programs.

Quote - You are so right.
i did a topology study lately, and Posette and Judy, still have the best topology of ALL.

Better than V4? You must be joking. Posette is a mess. Not as bad as V3, but still a mess.

Incidentally, the "real" V4 has a lower poly count than Posette as well, and that includes decent teeth, whereas Posette's are a joke. It's just because of Poser's idiosyncratic polygon smoothing that she's been subdivided once.

Wrong odf, I've remapped both Posette and V4 and I know bloody well, vertice by vertice just how many polygons each of these figures have.  The real V4 isn't available for poser, but just for D/S, and certainly won't work with all the free and 'Poser' commercial personnas.  V4 also has a very short hip, form naval to crotch, and overly long thighs, whereas real women are just the opposite.
Posette by far was the best model ever created.  As for here teeth, they primitive, based on a kind of billbord concept that was prevalent at the time (and so were V2's and M2's, also remapped by me), but then Poser women aren't called upon to give a orthodontal yawn all that much.
dph

you can load any version of V4 in to C4D and sub divide the mesh n it still looks good.
cause V4 was modeled in Modo to be sub divided.

posette was not modeled to be sub divided.just not what she was made for.
if you load her in to C4D n sub divide her she looks bad , but it's not what she was made for.
but C4D,Max,Maya,XSI,Lightwave,ZBrush D/S would consider posette to have bad topolagy for those app's, you just would not use posette for thos app's.

sence Poser does not use subD's topology is not a mager facter.
Don't know why topolagy would matter for maps.

All my meshes have ZBush maps.
one click of ya mouse n ya mesh is mapped.
 

also the topology that ZBrushes Zspheres 1 Zspheres 2 make are considered bad topolagy

Quote -
Also while computers can do some things a lot better than humans, things like thinking, free will, etc, aren't so easily replicated.

Agreed Not matter how Powerful& fast or seemingly "intelligent" a computer becomes
in the end its just a device that facilitates some  objectively measureable level of material production more efficiently
(ie. Faster).

A.I.?
Bah!! No amount of processing/CPU speed will be able to look into your Wifes eyes know that she simply needs a hug
at this moment and not some "logical analysis" .

Quote - > Quote -

Also while computers can do some things a lot better than humans, things like thinking, free will, etc, aren't so easily replicated.

Agreed Not matter how Powerful& fast or seemingly "intelligent" a computer becomes
in the end its just a device that facilitates some  objectively measureable level of material production more efficiently
(ie. Faster).

A.I.?
Bah!! No amount of processing/CPU speed will be able to look into your Wifes eyes know that she simply needs a hug
at this moment and not some "logical analysis" .

Excuse the theology, but what I percieve that you are saying, and to which I most wholeheartedly agree, is that computers, no matter how 'Intelligent' that they may be, will NEVER have a SOUL!
dph

Quote - V4 also has a very short hip, form naval to crotch, and overly long thighs, whereas real women are just the opposite.

Well, I was talking about the topology, not the shape. The claim was that Posette and Judy had the best topologies of all Poser figure, and I disagreed. I won't dispute that V4 is shaped more like a Barbie doll than a real woman.

Same thing with V4's original low-poly mesh. I know it's not available for Poser, but with the right software, one could still use it for making morphs, UV mappings etc. and then lifting those up to the version that is available. Morphing a 15k figure with mostly decent edge loops is still more fun than morphing a 21k figure whose mesh looks like a town planner's nightmare.

Not to diss Posette, mind you. She's still better than most of what came after. If I didn't have my own figure to look after, she might well be my mesh of choice.