- Drew, We are primarily a Cinema 4D shop, for a variety of reasons. It s fast to pick up, which is important considering our workforce, many of whom aren tMessage 1 of 15 , Jan 7, 2013View SourceDrew,
We are primarily a Cinema 4D shop, for a variety of reasons. It's fast to pick up, which is important considering our workforce, many of whom aren't fulltime 3d professionals. It is still extensible, and there's are two extensive scripting systems (Python & Xpresso), etc. Particle system & volumetric shaders seem to be biggest weakness, but can be worked around.
We have also begun to integrate Vray (for c4d) as our renderer of choice, both because its texturing system is quite nice (and cross platform) and because the forthcoming 1.5 & 2.0 updates will allow it to do distributed rendering across unlimited nodes, supports GPU acceleration at render time and in the viewport, etc.
Maya & 3D Studio will both have an eventual place in our workflows, but as adjunct tools, not as primary platforms.
Other solutions -- Lightwave, Blender, Bryce, Vue - are all interesting & useful, but I don't consider them in the same league.
--- In email@example.com, Drew Gilmore wrote:
Just wanted to thank everyone for your responses. A lot to absorb!
Just a guy made of dots and lines.
- Hi Fulldome Community. First : Best Wishes for this new year ! My point of view about 3D software for fulldome creation is simple : the faster the renderingMessage 2 of 15 , Jan 10, 2013View SourceHi Fulldome Community.
First : Best Wishes for this new year !
My point of view about 3D software for fulldome creation is simple : the
faster the rendering process, the more I'll focus on creation.
So, using a 3D soft that handles 180 fisheye rendering out of the box is
good for the movie quality. The problem is that some render engines wont
make a good job on all the aspects of 3D rendering / textures / shaders.
My actual choice is 3DS Max with V-ray (integrated VrayDome Camera) and
Krakatoa Plugin for particle intensive rendering. Krakatoa has a camera
modifier for fulldome rendering.
I'm also testing the Clarisse Fx. It's not a modeler but some sort of
after effect for 3D scenes.
The Clarisse FX team just added support for fisheye rendering to 360°
Amr El-Laithy wrote:
I'm working for planetarium post-production for 3 years now , based on
our workflow in cinema4d , and it's nice . we start produce the dome
master just like the old schools with the 5camera Rig which is working
nice even now . then we start to use the Dome shader for c4d and other
plugins.and i may publish one of my tutorials for how to produce dome
master in c4d .
From: Andy Dolph >
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org "
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 8:46 PM
Subject: [fulldome] Re: Seeking recommendations for 3D software
I know that Alex Lindsay at Pixel Corps strongly recommends people
start in Cinema4D for both learning curve and workflow reasons. I have
a lot of respect for his opinion, but that's general advice, not dome
specific and I don't know what would be required to get dome masters
out of Cinema4D.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Drew Gilmore wrote:
First of all, by 3D I mean modelling and rendering 3D or volumetric
objects - not stereoscopic shows. I have so far worked mostly in After
Effects for show production and feel pretty comfortable there.
We're now looking to add 3D animation to our production capabilities.
I am realistic that we aren't going to produce a full,
beginning-to-end, 3D modeled extravaganza right out of the gate (or
necessarily ever), but it's time to enhance our tools and skills. We
have been granted some funding for production software and training in
the coming year, so we have a couple questions for those with experience.
I know there are plenty of Blender fans out there, and I'm all for
free stuff. But taking cost out of the issue, are there good reasons
to favor 3D Max, Lightwave, Maya, Cinema4D or something else over
Blender? Could I (as one person doing most of the visual work) get
much more out of commercial software than I could out of Blender? Are
there specific pros or cons, strengths or weaknesses for one package
versus another - especially for someone just getting started?
And without intending to start a holy war on the list, is there any
consensus on which software package is more useful or more commonly
used for fulldome work? It seems all over the map what people are using.
Just a guy made of dots and lines.
Ph : +33 950 822 822
email : carlos@...
- i have heard that c4d has a fisheye modifier now ? any newsMessage 3 of 15 , Nov 6, 2013View Source
i have heard that c4d has a fisheye modifier now ? any news
- There is a cylindrical lens post effect, but it s not terribly useful. Have not seen any new dome-related feature in R15, unless I m missing something. WeMessage 4 of 15 , Nov 6, 2013View Source
There is a “cylindrical lens” post effect, but it’s not terribly useful. Have not seen any new dome-related feature in R15, unless I’m missing something.
We use vray (in c4d) as our primary renderer and get great directly-usable results from its “VrayCameraDome” tag attached to the camera. Plus, you get the benefit of vray’s cooler texturing system, which is something we like. Vray for c4d 1.8.x is new, and its distributed rendering is a work in progress, but we think it’s evolving into a great platform for this kind of work. It’s also now mostly core-for-core up to date with current Vray releases (excluding 3.x) for other platforms feature-wise, with some exceptions that don’t matter much to us.
University of Colorado Boulder
- I haven t heard of any updates that adds an internal fisheye to C4D. Here is a list of the current plugins for C4D. http://software.multimeios.pt/wfcam4d/Message 5 of 15 , Nov 6, 2013View SourceI haven't heard of any updates that adds an internal fisheye to C4D.Here is a list of the current plugins for C4D.