Attached Link: http://gallery.mcneel.com/?language=en&i=13881

One example = http://gallery.mcneel.com/?language=en&i=13881

To protect their own reputation and credentials, a company should not accept images for display as examples of work done with their product without an explanation of programs used to create the image. To not display such information is negligence.

Ethics.

A disappearing archaic concept, apparently.

With the popularity of game shows like survivors giving awards to those who lie and cheat to win the "game" I think the trend is toward a day when many will not even know what you are talking about when you say words like ethics and honesty.

If I bought a watch from a catalog that used photos of Rolexes instead of their own product, and when my order arrived it was a Timex, then I shouldn't complain, right?

No wonder that corporations are having employees sign affadivits saying that they will not steal from their employers... sad, sad, sad.

My question is, when do the corporations start signing those affadavits?

This is probably getting all out of proportion. Carrara is a great product and I have enjoyed using it and its predecessors for years... just wish they would polish up their marketing tactics.

Attached Link: http://www.eovia.com/solutions/gallery/gallery_illustration.asp

++"What is the url to the "made with Carrara gallery"?
I could not find it."++

As far as I know there is no such gallery.

What I said was, "gallery work labeled as "Done with Carrara." If you look at the Carrara/Eovia gallery of samples, there are categories (under the thumbnails) of what program was used to create the image - it's here = http://www.eovia.com/solutions/gallery/gallery_illustration.asp

Whether a potential client is new to 3d or not, I don't think claiming or implying that an image was made with a particular software is right unless it was. Disclaimers like modeled with, rendered with, etc. is the way to put all the cards on the table.

In most of my illustration work, when I use 3D, I model major parts of the project in Rhino and, like Marcel, take it to Carrara for rendering. So, I am well aware of the use of multiple packages to create images. Nearly everything I do is finalized in PhotoShop... the client/viewer does not care, but I am delivering illustration, not selling a software product. If someone asks, I am not hesitant to explain in detail how it was created.

Fair is fair...

Thanks for the link to Marcel's explanation of his Pirate piece... it is just as I expected. (I need to learn Zbrush, dang, that is awesome!)

I appreciate your input, and hope that Carrara/Eovia will get on the wagon.

That's a good idea...

The implication is that what is on Carrara's site, in their ads and on the box that contains Carrara, was actually modeled in Carrara. Unfortunately, I don't think that would be an accurate assumption.

Just about anything going to press has to be tweaked and color corrected (usually in PhotoShop). That is normal production procedure regardless of how the art was created.

Something that says "made with Carrara" but was actually modeled in another 3D program (like Z-Brush) should clearly be marked as such. Rendering is great, but the modeling is the heart and birth of a project.

I'm pretty sure that the pirate they are using in their email promos for Carrara upgrades was not modeled in Carrara. I wish someone would tell me I'm wrong, because it is awesome work. (Looks like the work of Marcel Laverdet to me... perhaps I should email him and get the straight scoop about his work appearing in the Carrara promotions.)

Ahh.... yes! The incredible "View-Master" - wonderful device... I think they are still made. Will have to do some surfing. However, I'm looking for ways that my publisher can produce - in print and on the internet. Thanks for the kind comments. Guess I am spoiled by memories of the short-lived surge in 3d movies in the theaters in the mid-50's... Creature from the Black Lagoon, House of Wax, Fort Ti(conderoga?)... scary as all getout and those arrows and stuff came right at you out of the screen in the theater... old farthood has its advantages. What goes round comes around or back or something... but the first impressions are the best ones. I've learned a lot in the past couple of days, thanks to a great start in this thread and some persistent web surfing.

Message edited on: 02/21/2005 12:25

Most people seem to have a dominant eye... either right or left and it seems to me to be apparent in viewing these images to me when I turn my head slightly one way or the other. Closing either eye does not work at all - (of course you lose any 3D perspective when you close an eye).

Anyone else notice this?

I also think the crappy 3d glasses I have (copped from a dvd movie I bought) don't help, or the fact that I wear glasses. I ordered a pair of professional clip-on 3d anaglyph glasses... hope that will improve things.

I have seen some outstanding examples from companies who do this for a business. Of course, they are not telling how they do it.

I'm still looking for their secrets.

thanks, all

You dudes are absolutely awesome!!! Thanks a million for all the info... it will take me a while to digest all of this and figure out how I can use it for my projects. Rdnderosity rocks! Again... thank you

Shonner...

I have been to and bookmarked your gallery.
What you are doing there is precisely what I am looking for. It seems I'm going to need to update to C4 and pick up a few more plugs from Digital Carver.

Thanks for the pointers. Truly amazing.

Will look to see if you have posted any tutorials also.
(Have you?)

Nate.

First pix shown above is using exact settings that falconperigot recommended... not working too well.

Second pix (next post) is toon 3 setup - it is closer to what I was hoping to get.

Really appreciate your help!

Ooops... my bad....

I expected the Toon render to be in the render room... how silly of me... of course the toon render would not be in the render "room" but in the effects closet in the properties room... guess I need a map to get around in all the rooms...

Thanks --- I will try all of these and see what I can come up with....

regards,
Nate.

Thanks...

As I said in my first message, vector style doesn't cut it as it needs to simplify things too much... just one light source, etc.

Carrara 3 has no toon setup... that apparently went south with version 2. It has the NPR (aka Non PhotoRealistic) setting which, as I described is what I'm trying to work out.

will check the dcg for what's new...

I think that ominousplay's idea is probably close to a solution. Perhaps I will do the animation without the string. Make the animation into a series of numbered jpeg frames, open these in Flash and add the string in flash...

It's a lot of handwork, but probably the most "do-able" way to work with what I have.

thanks to all for the good thoughts and inspiration!