Jon Anderson = Yes, Vangelis (?)
Ian Anderson = Jethro Tull, 1 solo album (which dissapperated on me sometime in the past..;)
Mr. Anderson = 'My Name Is ' Neo...;)
Hans Christian Anderson= the 'Disneyfier' of fables and fairy tales (original versions are much more gruesome, and final, than your memory would surmise..;)

hope that clears things up..;)

I must confess, I occasionally make a mesh, then stick a pretty lady in front of it, or no one will look...;)

Gad! I have started the 'neverending thread'!

Jon and Ian Anderson=Yes
Vangelis=Yes
Emerson, Lake and Palmer=Yes (Remember the Gieger 'Alien' covers?).
Yes=Yes

Mr. Anderson='Bullet shot' Sorry, old trick in the FX community. Dennis Muren did it in his garage in 1969 with 30 Polaroid cameras. Looked pretty cool even in grainy black and white and 16mm.

Hans Christian Anderson:=Read the original stories. Everbody dies/gets eaten/stays dead. So there Uncle Walt!

chohole=Big thank you. I don't think post work counts. I (along with many, many others use it as a matter of course). Just part of the normal work flow IMHO.

Thanks for the heads up Pakled, next time I'll stick a pretty lady in the foreground in one of my renders. :)

Of course I'll be orginal: Just a have her wear a thong and swing a sword. Hmm...maybe in an ancient temple. With chains. And  a dragon. And a blank look. And a 'caution, contains nudity' tag.

Might work, never been done, gotta be orginal. :)

Either that, or make a thumbnail with parts of the girl's leg or face.. then remove her from the actual render.....  Ppl will be clicking to look and looking for that girl who isn't there.

LOL D_A_M!

The creative demon inside me is nagging to post that type of work!

If I do, this it might start a flame war between the Poser people and the Brycers.

I'll think I'll do it.

I'm still waiting for some 16 year old nOOb from Poser to discover this thread and than the Vigaro will hit the mixmaster!

Everbody better brush up on their l33t speak!

Quote - Rayraz....I think you have restricted yourself way too much....how can you make a balanced decision on such a narrow list of criteria....you have just got to learn to take more things into concideration!

I'm only 22, i need more life experience to take on such a task!

BTW Happy Birthday Ray! :)

@ deadwarrior: It might be fun.. "where in the render is vicky?" Just make sure it does not violate any TOS.

Quote - BTW Happy Birthday Ray! :)

OOPS! hahahaha my bday isnt untill the 22nd :D and im actually 21, typing 22 was a typo i didnt notice untill just now! hahaha wow whatta mix-up :-P

SoRay, you are a Christmas baby as well?!

Ok - Happy Birthday 2 weeks early then. :-D

nope.. as far as i know christmas isnt on september the 22nd :-P

Ah, but 9 months earlier.... (grin)

Quote - Hi,I just found out how poor this system is.! I just checked the sea/undersea genre...
 Max made an excellent image..     http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1482684  
 ...with 32 ratings,yet this image,that should be in the top 100 ratings has been excluded because someone rated it less than 5.
 Seems to me that we are all loosing out when work of this callibre does not get to what I believe is a showcase for the best of Bryce for the the whole of Renderosity!
  Thanks for the image Max!
Cheers! Jed.

Jed, I just stumbled upon this thread by chance and I must say I was a bit surprised when I noticed the subject.  I am most honored that someone would go out of the way to notice and appreciate my work.  
Like you, I have also noticed that the exellent work of many artists get completely overshadowed by 'poser chicks' , a subject which I briefly mentioned sometime last year after I had a hard time finding top monthly/weekly Bryce images.  I still believe the old 'Hot 20' was better than what they have now.
Again, thank you for your kind words.
Max-

Quote - Ah, but 9 months earlier.... (grin)

oh gross thanx for THAT mental picture...

I have thought for a long time that ratings were based on the following...

**1. Nudity

1. Friends
2. Decent piece of art
   **
   I tried a test once and called a picture Naked Winter. With an average of 60 views per image, I got 169 views on that one. 
   I'm thinking of pulling all my art from Renderosity unless the rating system changes. I post my art to get feedback in order to better my art. But if it doesn't work like that, I don't see the point.

Sorry if it sounds harsh, I really like everything else about Renderosity.

'"I tried a test once and called a picture Naked Winter. With an average of 60 views per image, I got 169 views on that one. "

LOL.

Maybe we should fight fire with fire and label all our images with one of the following titles:

naked
nude
naked nudeness
nude nakedness
nudotopia
nude and deadly
naked and angry

On a more serious note, perhaps they should split the galleries into two categories: 'nude art' and 'real art'. :)

Why does anyone even bother with ratings? What value do they have?

@max, you forgot "nudity"

Quote - Why does anyone even bother with ratings? What value do they have?

That's actually a deep and profound question that could be extended to other human endeavors like the need for humans to keep football scores, baseball scores, golf scores, soccer scores and Olympics scores. Unfortunately I don't have the answer yet.

Yeah, but how difficult is it to do nudity? The image "max" has done, is overlooked, and I can see the image took a lot of effort, skill.  

Quote - Yeah, but how difficult is it to do nudity?...

Prepackaged Toon Porn? easy as pie...
Photographically realistic nude human being? Different story altogether.
I personally feel it is not possible w/ current CG technology. If it is, I've never seen a still render of a human being that fooled for more than a minute; and that is in the best of the best category at the top high-end cg sites. And just a handful of those. Most take few seconds to tell it is CG. Really really good CG, but still CG.

Prepackaged Toon Porn? easy as pie...
Photographically realistic nude human being? Different story altogether.
I personally feel it is not possible w/ current CG technology. If it is, I've never seen a still render of a human being that fooled for more than a minute; and that is in the best of the best category at the top high-end cg sites. And just a handful of those. Most take few seconds to tell it is CG. Really really good CG, but still CG.

Agree, although we know what it is, or all about. All the same in the gallery. Get the picture?  

No. I don't get the picture. Explain please :)
Do you mean the gallery here, or...?

No. I don't get the picture. Explain please :)

Ah...your putting me on the spot....lmao!

*Do you mean the gallery here, or...?

Yeah. I was referring here, mostly. Although I been on other CG sites, they do not show much nudity or galour of female posing, as in here. Although, for example: http://www.cgsociety.org/ which I would think what I see there, would be same here, as I would like. But not so.  

Quote - > Quote - I've never seen a still render of a human being that fooled for more than a minute; .

 

This comes quite close don't you think... 
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=832490

I applaud renders like this, but I do think there are too many straight posed 'just for the sake of it' renders for gratuitous nudity. 

As for the rating system, each person has a choice for this included with comments, and I like to have them as they give me a high and inspiration to create. ... and whats wrong with that. :)
I would however like to see the rating out of 10 instead, or even a 100 as that could be more finely judged, and one could see how they are progressing or indeed how one might be rushing out a render for their daily fix LOL. :D

Quote - This comes quite close don't you think...

Actually, I was talking about the kind of renders that make you examine them for a while to distinguish them from real photographs.
Along these lines:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=532817
It was linked to in the Poser Forum here a while back.
The resolution of the images isn't in question. Obviously Mobius' is much higher resolution, clearer, sharper, etc. but...
Which one would be more likely to fool someone into thinking it's a real photograph?
I'd be curious to know what you think and also why, just to get some other perspectives and opinions on what actually constitutes "photorealism". Call it research. :)

See your point, but that image is a real photo superimposed onto another image. The clue is in the weightiness of the body, something that 3D modelling/posing cannot achieve so easily.
It would be easy to photograph a real person, create a body texture map, and pose a poser model using the body textures. There is too much manipulation going on there. If it were a real render (which it isn't), it would still be a boring scene in my opinion.
One thing the creator failed to do was to integrate the model properly into the scene. The shadows on the floor would be very bad if it were a photorealistic render. LOL.

No it isn't a superimposed photo. It's not projection mapping either.
He has a video tutorial of the making of the image and provided scene asset files to prove it.

Quote - Originally posted this work back in January, I have now finally had time to finish it. No projection techniques used contrary to what people may think. All assets are available on my site and I can supply any wire frame/texture/mode/uv shots if requested.

If you scroll the thread, the wireframes are posted right there.
It is postworked, but that's normal.

I took a look at it and i'm not convinced.

In this instance I do have to agree with Dhama. I am sorry I do not think this is true 3d.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great technique, but there is a lot of manipulation going on there.

BTW he might have links to vid tut's, but surprise, surprise I can't get them to work.

Maybe he took the .mov files down. Not everyone has infinite web space and bandwith.

It seems kind of weird to me that a person is expected to document their procedures and workflow in video to prove the worthiness of work.
Speaks volumes to me of the state of 3d graphics 'communities' on the internet.

It's the new "Is it art?" horse that hasn't quite been beaten to death yet.
"It's nice, but is it TRUE 3D?"
So... Postwork is no longer acceptable for True 3D, what else.
These are the ones I know of:

• Must be animation.
• Must follow 'accepted' guidelines (which, of course, vary from site to site).
• Must use "accepted" software (another site variance).
• Is there a hardware requirement?
• How about style? Content?

Besides, it is the "CG Society"; It isn't the "3D Society".
Or is 3D the only TRUE Computer Graphics now?

It reminds me of the way real-timers think of 'other, lesser' forms of 3D graphics. They don't even call their apps "real-time 3d apps", they just call them "real 3d apps". Other types of 3d apps (or work) are not real 3d.
Also reminds me of the sculptor down the road that says: None of 'that computer stuff' is TRUE art anyway?

Hey I never said I don't think postwork is acceptable. I have been accused many times  of not being a purist (as well as being a heretic on the Brysters scale) because I almost always use postwork, whichever program I am using at the time.

 I just have my doubts about this image. I am not doubting that he has made a 3d image. However I feel that he has made the image in such a way as to allow him to then postwork a true photo over the top.

I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong.

Quote - ...I would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong.

I'm not trying to prove someone's work as valid. I guess if you really meant that, you would contact the artist; or the CGSociety (which cleared it to go on their front page).

I was just making the point that it isn't 'simple' or 'easy' to make an image, just because it involves a human figure.

Errr... ok... usually i don't enter this type of discussions in quite as agitated a state as i do now but for anyone to say Infinite Realities' virtual humans are not true 3d just really sounds almost blasphemous to me.
Have you even really looked into the techniques used? the material provided? have you viewed the videos at infinite realities website?? theres wireframes of 3d models, theres open GL views, theres textures, theres the process shown of virtual models being compared to reference photographs, video footage of the process of hand-drawing texturemaps! Generating this kind of realism is not as simple as taking a photo of a human and slapping it on a 3d model! There's a serious art to carefully creating seperate diffuse textures, bump maps, specularity maps, and things like that. You can see the process of a bump map being drawn by hand right on the site! theres the .mov files showing the 3d room and the 3d model. This is as true 3d as true 3d gets!

The techniques used are native to many, many production pipelines throughout the 3d industry;

• Photographic reference? who cares! everyone uses it those at some point.
• Textures produced partially with the help of photographs? happens all over the place! do u want to call the shitload of poser renders 'not true 3d' because of their textures?
• Hand-drawn bumpmaps? normal, happens all over the place.
• Digital 3d model? noticed the 2nd word?
• Using digital lighting setups that match real photographs in order to look realistic? If thats not 3d then what do we call HDRI-lit renders in bryce 6?
• Using postwork to match color tones, adjust image, color, textures. Common to any efficient production pipeline.
• Using sculpting software like Zbrush? whats not 3d about it?

Did i miss any important "true 3d-destroying" techniques here?

Saying Infinite Realities' virtual humans are not true 3d is like taking some of the most brilliant surgeons in the world, giving them some of the most advanced medical tools, and letting them perform an amazing ground breaking medical science defying life-saving surgery. And then saying they're not true doctors because they used technology and/or skills not common to just your average hospital surgeon.

Wait! ZBrush is 2.5d.
That means any displacment maps made using is isn't PURE 3d. :biggrin:

Zbrush can do 2.5D, but its not exclusively 2.5D. The work shown on the site is clearly full 3D... thres a complete 360 degree model and the sculpting and texture drawing is done upon the 3d model. Zbrush 3D objects work with polygons just like any normal 3d object, you have wireframes (OT: you can even re-wire your Zbrush objects! isnt that hot??) The displacements are no 2d illusion of a 3d effect either, its full 3d displacement. U might want to update your definition of 2.5D ;-)

Well, I would say that image is pretty well done and counts as 3d in my book ;)

On the other hand the artist at the top of the most favourited list when I looked earlier today has eight images of a lady with big lady lumps against poorly composited backgrounds..... (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=523378)

:b_confused:

I was only joking Rayraz.
I was the one saying it was 3D in the first. The other guys are the skeptics.

lol okay :-) guess we're allies then :-P

Big tits are popular?:ohmy:
Who'd've thunk it?

Lot of people that post to the gallery at this site are hobbyists and don't care if their work gets better or worse or stays the same. It's just fun for them. If they use Poser or D|S, naturally you would expect that the renders focus on humans, and are probably not 'Sistine Chapels" either.
Should they be banished?
Constantly ridiculed/slandered/embarrased w/ negative comments?
Rated as -4 on a scale from 1 to 5?

Real 'community spirit'. :tongue1:

Is friendly 'way to go man!!!" comments a bad thing for a community?
Is it so bad that somebody who isn't Rembrandt feels good about something they painted?
For 3d, should you be made to feel like dirt if you aren't at Stonemason's level?

I was a gilder for 11 years, spent lot of time around real art communities. They all have some very bad artists among them, ones that try and try but are never going to make it as even passably good artists. They aren't beaten into the ground, at all, by anybody. It's a community, people there care about each other. Slandering assholes are not allowed to remain in the art community.
Maybe the people posting negative non-constructive comments and rating pictures as poor are the ones that need to banned to make this like a real art community; that is interested only in seeing the overall talent level of members increased.

On the other hand the artist at the top of the most favourited list when I looked earlier today has eight images of a lady with big lady lumps against poorly composited backgrounds..... (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=523378)

*Now I gotta speak up.  Out of curosity I went to link and looked at the art of  the most favorited shown above.  It is proof that of where the brains of the largest number of the viewers here are centered.  "And the winner.... (drum roll)  is the one who can post  a morph of the biggest boobs."  This is not Renderosity's fault.  They are only reporting the statistics.  I do fault Renderosity only that they have not recognized that the attempt to replace the "Top Twenty" only resulted in replacing placements from who had the most comments (read popularity contest) to another avenue that has nothing to do with skill or talent. 

I'm not jealous my name is not in any list.  I admit I am a hobbyist; but, I would like to see some sort of panel judged selection of the best in each gallery genre.  Maybe the powers at large need to read their own banner "Renderosity Art Community"

I will now step off the soap box.

Breasts as art?
Could be.
The human form can easily be argued to be the ultimate creation of an infinitely advanced being. The embodiment, so to speak, of an artistic expression that is beyond anything that mere humanity can ever hope to achieve.

Since the very beginnings of human history, the human form has been an integral, possibly essential, component of human expression. The earliest cave scratchings have pictures of human beings. It is not just one culture either, it is a universal human trait.

Nudity is nothing new in art either; neither is the idea of an absolute perfection of form. In fact, many cultures viewed such as gods, or a way to represent divinity. A perfectly fashioned, ideal, female body, often represented fertility or motherhood or seasonal cycles.
Would anyone here care to make the claim that Michelangelo or Da Vinci weren't making 'real' art, because they often depicted nudity?
Should Renderosity hire guys to paint clothes on the nudes?
How about the great greek artisans? Lysippus, Pheidias, and so on.
Was Praxiletes a no good hack, because he sculpted Aphrodite naked?
Could someone make me an Athene Parthenos? I could actually use a fifty foot tall gold plated ivory statue, believe it or not.

Roman wall frescoes, Greek statuary & painting, Cretan tile mosaics, Egyptian engravings, Mesopotamian clay imprints, Neanderthal cave paintings, back as far as we know.

There are many books written regarding this topic. To casually dismiss what has been a major pre-occupation of humanity in general, and of art in specific, for at least 7,000 years as somehow inherently unartistic seems a bit absurd to me.

I don't have a problem with nudity or boobs as art, especially when they're well done. A good sample would be RGUS who I reckon does some pretty good work, FB101 or mjr before he left :(

the point I was trying to make was that this artist was Favourited the most - so that's beyond someone saying -'Well Done'  or even 'Well done maybe next time you could try and get the babe and background to the same scale' - it's someone saying this guy is so good I want to go back and see more of his work. To me it implies that this isn't an art community  it's a badly rendered boob community (except the bryce, photgraphty and blender forums of course :) )

The answer is go to real art community site then: find one that fits your (no one in particular) ideas about art and visit that site.
There is a big 3D world on the internet, Renderosity is just one little tiny part of the whole picture.

Yes, what Gog said. 

It is not the nudity-as-art question at all.  It is more in line with what started this thread--an exceptional render by Max- gets overlooked and no recognition for pushing the status quo envelop.  It is about what does get the recognition and the applause.  If the badly morphed monster boobs get to be on top of a published list then Renderosity (this community at large) needs to recognize talent and skill also no matter the subject, nude human form included.  I stand by my comment that what showed up on the top of the list is a reflection of the viewers mind set of what is good.

In a way talent and skill are being recognized when somebody posts a badly rendered DAZ mil. figure. The talent and skill of the development team that spent thousands of hours making the figure.
No matter how little time somebody spends setting up a render w/ one of them in it, there is still a combined amount of time spent on the picture that dwarfs anything a single person is likely to ever put into any image, unless they plan on building a photoreal human from the ground up. Even something like one of my favorite images ever; Flak's "Siege" ( http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=322332 ). But if you ask Flak how many hours spent on it, it would not come close to equalling the amount of time DAZ spent to make V3 figure.
Does that mean that Flak's work is lessened or not recognized?
No, It is ranked 3rd on the all time highest rated list.
It means that people's eyes are smarter than you think they are. The eyes recognize the detail of the Mil. figure and the amount of time and effort it took to make it.

Now I'm unsubscribing from this thread, because it has degenerated to 'dead horse' status, IMO. I.e. "What is art?", "What is 'good' art?", and "Is using a labor division approach to CG valid art?"