3d raytracing programs - which is good for price

mikkie wrote on 5/17/2003, 11:40 AM

No short answer I'm afraid... A lot I think depends on if you're working for/by yourself, or if you want (or might want) to take these skills you develope and use them as an employee of one of the render or effects houses. In the latter case, you might want to look at softimage, Maya, & the ever present 3D Studio Max. FWIW, Maya has a decent online and free self-training program you can gain a LOT from. None of the software is cheap, and frankly some will probably scare you.

All these programs have strengths and weaknesses, some are better for modeling, others surfacing and so on. For rendering they can all do the job, and you could always use the blue moon render setup, depending on what you can find and their current legal status.

That said, a lot of video folks use Cinema 4D & it translates well for them. Caligary is a bit different, can do decent work, but again is, well, different - how well your experience will transfer is really up in the air. 3dsmax is almost a standard because so many game development folks use it, but *I* don't think as elegant as the other top tier. Rhinosaurus is becoming very popular for modeling, but that's about all you'll use it for. Lightwave seems to be lagging a bit of late IMO in comparrison to Maya & Softimage, but still nice and solid. At the lower end you'll still find RayDream which does well enough, and it's relative (whose name has escaped me at the moment - was bought by metacreations and then sold off).

There's also Strata 3D, which has been around a long time. For titles there's Ulead cool 3D and Crystal 3D - both easy to use. If you weren't after photo-realistic you might like Macromedia's Extreme 3D, though it hasn't been updated forever.

Generally 3D is a complete field unto itself, large enough for several subspecialties. Some folks try it, fall in love, and never look back (seriously - I'm talking doctors and lawyers as well as people from every field). Others find themselves doing the bare minimum because they feel they have to use 3D to remain competitive.

My advice first off would be to dedicate some learning time to playing with the Cool 3D demo or similar, just sorting out how well your brain and perceptions function in 3D work. Then move up to the Rhino demo to see how well you like modeling. If you survive that, I think Maya & Lightwave both have large enough communities and training demo versions that one or the other will take you quite a ways.

And there's nothing wrong if you stop with Cool 3D... 3D work is in my experience something that you're kind of genetically suited for or not, whether it'll be like pulling hen's teeth or as natural as well, better leave that part blank. Some folks fall somewhere in between. Determine *your* comfort level and then it's easy (or at least much easier) to find tools and methods that *you* can work well with.

Chanimal wrote on 5/28/2003, 3:48 PM

I have recommended Asymetrix Web3d 2.0 / 3DFX (same program, different clipart). But it is hard to find. The rights were purchased by a person in Florida who contacted me, but I can't find his info.

This is an extremely easy to use 3D rendering package that is not for modeling. It does design elements such as backgrounds, text (still, rotating, spinning, etc.). You can also pull in your logo's. It will do chrome, glass, reflections--really HIGH end look and feel--incredible stuff. You can use full raytracing or simulation--both look terrific. I have used it for spinning titles, incredible rendered backgrounds with shadows, chromes, marble, gold, etc. Check on the Internet to see if you can get a copy.

I thought it didn't work on XP (so I delayed), it does! A few personality querks (trying to edit some of the existing scenes sometimes changes the shape), but otherwise it works well. AVI or other codec's supported with multiple frame rates, resolution, etc.

Very easy to use and produces stunning (real (not that fake Cool 3D junk) effects) results. It sold new for $79-$99 and was a steal!

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/28/2003, 5:58 PM

thanks i will give it a look

efiebke wrote on 5/28/2003, 6:34 PM

I've got trueSpace 6.5. I've had this Caligari program since the version 2 (still have the original floppy disks).

Ummm. . . . it's a tough program. I'm only beginning to feel comfortable with it now, utilizing its more "advanced" features. Damn, the animation looks great onced rendered!

Also own Ulead's Cool 3D Studios.

So much simpler. . . er. . . user friendly. And the animation looks just fine onced rendered.

I prefer trueSpace.

JonnyMac wrote on 5/28/2003, 10:02 PM

If you're on a budget, check out Blender (www.blender.org) -- it's free. I used it to create an animated opening from my little movies.

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/28/2003, 11:04 PM

When I look at the galleries of True space they dont seem photo relistic.
When I look at Lightwave or Cinema4d they seem like photos.

I mean that a Red Corevette looks like a REAL RED Corvette.

I've seend uleads cool 3d and I even d/l the demo. It flat out sucks for comparison to lightwave or cinema. After all you get what you pay for. However I'm looking for bang for the buck. So far Cinema 4d looks awsome but I want to check out the other program Asymetrix Web3d 2.0 / 3DFX .

auggy

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/28/2003, 11:40 PM

ok I looked and I did not like! I looked at Truespaces official site and it seems to fall just shy of cinema 4d.

Now does anyone know how any of these programs animate.

I like keyframe. I hate scripting!!!

If anyone has some helpful insight I would appreciate it. I am really looking to animate text. Like text that goes across the screen like in Terminator 2 or Aliens

Auggy

Chanimal wrote on 5/29/2003, 2:22 AM

I am trying to track down a resource for Web3D. I found the original lead developer, but am still trying to find the place that said they had purchased the source code and could re-sell it.

I did find a site with a review at http://www.designer-info.com/master.htm?http://www.designer-info.com/Writing/asymetrix_web3d_2.htm

And another site that had samples--which is the impressive part (considering some of these items could be "assembled" within minutes. Play attention to the clarity of the rendering. Live is just as clean. http://www.cedesign.net/3d/

I'll check back if I find a source. This is a must-have application for video work (I have spinning logo cubes, spinning signs, twirling names, in glass, gold, chrome, marble, water, etc. All look incredible! And so easy to use - 1 hour to learn, max.

Chanimal wrote on 5/29/2003, 2:28 AM

I finally found the "exclusive" source for Web3d:

Digital Video Solutions, LLC
P.O. Box 250652 - Daytona Beach, Florida 32125

Toll Free Sales: (877) 227-6281 -- Daytona Beach: (386) 672-1941
Technical Support: (386) 672-1907 -- Fax Line: (386) 676-1515
http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com/web3d.htm

Good samples on site. You MUST get this application--won't be disappointed!

Chanimal

Zendorf wrote on 5/29/2003, 3:25 AM

Do yourself a BIG favour and buy Cinema 4D...you will find no finer, easier to use, stable and better rendering 3d app.I quietly laughed to myself as my friend recently showed me his latest proud purchase of Maya 5, and it was crashing every 5 minutes ;)
Cinema is very easy to use (a lot to say for a 3d proggy) and is the dream 3d program to use with Vegas...It has never crashed on me and is actually more stable than Vegas ...which is saying a lot coz vegas has only ever crashed about twice on me ;)

Erk wrote on 5/29/2003, 11:47 AM

Re: Truespace, I think there the previous version is available for free on disc attached to one of those 3D computer mags. It should still be on the shelf at your local superduper bookstore.

G

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/29/2003, 6:16 PM

so does anyone know about animating with these programs if one is clearly superior.

Gene

PixelStuff wrote on 5/29/2003, 10:20 PM

I think I have to agree with Zendorf. I've used TrueSpace v5 and now Cinema 4D r8. Cinema 4D is much better an considerably more stable. If Vegas is the perfect NLE, then Cinema 4D is it's parallel in the 3D world. The interface is clean and well laid out. I like it.

I can't however comment on how the animation features compare to the big boys. But then I can't afford any of the big boys so it doesn't really matter to me.

As far as logic would dictate, Maya is likely the top of the line, PERIOD. Best features, and most capability. However, not dictated by logic, the best interface. What lures the Hollywood types the most are extendability. And that, my friend, is why Maya is at the top. It can be programed to do anything you want (if you want to program).

I would say go with Cinema 4D unless you want to market your 3D skills later on. If that's your plan then go with Maya.

JBJones

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/30/2003, 6:52 AM

i will go with cinema 4d,

Thanks for the help everyone

DocHogan wrote on 5/30/2003, 12:26 PM

For one coming from the 3d side of things, and just getting into 'live' video and editing, here's my viewpoints:

LightWave: Seems to be universally loved. I can't stand it. The non-transparent integration of modelling and animation just bugs the heck out of me (you model in one aspect of the software, animate in a different aspect). Is considered to have the single best native rendering engine in the 3d world.

Rhino3d: Amazing modelling program. I can't strress how awesome a modelling proggy this is. Should I say modelling again? Obviously, it's not a great animation package...it has some *extremely* limeted animation possible, but mostly you model here and import into your 3d package of choice. The available Flamingo rendering engine add-on is excellent.

Caligari trueSpace: This was my first experience with 3d, way back n the Amiga days ;) Extremely easy, and very powerful. It's interface is *completely* unique, and may require some getting used to, but once you do get used to it, you can do some *very* powerful things with this app. Good modelling, decent rendering. Not feature-movie quality, but still...

3dStudioMAX: My favorite 3d package. (although I am beginning to lean toward Maya lately) Very powerful modelling and animation. Can do almost anything. Don't let people tell you 'Oh, MAX is for game dev." That's BS. Yes, many game-dev houses use it; largely for it's scalability, ease of use, scriptability, huge amount of community (read: free) plugins and support, and stndardized interface. If you saw the movie Lost in Space, the opening sequences of Matt le Blanc flying around in that fighter, the launch of the fighter down the gantryway, etc, that was all done with MAX. Not so game-centric, hmmm? Rendering: Amazing native renderer. Runner up in the best native render engines (LightWave first). But add the Brazil rendering engine, and you'll have hard time keeping yourself from tryin to reach into the screen to touch your models ;)

Maya: Just getting into it, so I can't really compare everything to the rest of the packages yet, but... Wow! This is on amazing package, with a pretty steep learning curve (as compared to MAX, LW, and tS6). I think that once I become comfortable with it, I will most likely be able to at least as much with this as I can with MAX.

SoftImage: Run for the hills! Although the interface has cleaned up considerably since the software was owned by Softimage in Canada, the learning curve is a very steep slope. This program still scares me, although it is considered to be the best 3d package out there.

Houdini: Unarguably the most powerful 3d package available on the commercial market. That said, it is also probably the hardest to learn. It uses a completely different paradigm of modelling, animation, and rendering from any other package out there. If you can learn it, you will find that you can do things that no other package can even consider. It does crash a lot on WinXP, haven't tried the UNIX/Linux, Mac, or Irix ports.

POV: It's not just for scripting anymore ;) Seriously, for a scan-line renderer (and free!) this is a pretty amazing package. And there are so many modellers made for it now that you can go without knowing POV script for the most part. Check the pov site for links to compatible modellers.

If you want to see how some of these packages work, and get an idea which would fit into your work-flow and mentality, check http://www.3dbuzz.com Buzz develops *amazing* professional quality training for 3d, and is a highly regarded 3d instructer at the Renaissance Center. From his site you can view *all* of the training modules (he charges *nothing* for his training, and the quality is the best I've seen, better than any expensive training I've bought).

What it boils down to: for the most part, the only difference in *any* of these 3d packages is *you*. All of them are roughly the same in capability. The major differences lie in the way workflow is handled, and how that workflow integrates itself into your preferences. Everyone thinks LightWave is very intuitive, I find it cumbersome and hard to accomplish simple thing; I think in a significantly different way than the layout and processes require. 3dMAX makes sense to me; it is laid out in a way intuitive to the way *I* think and work; that make it more powerful *for me*. Maya, SI:XSI, etc, all depending on how *you* work and think.

Again, check http://www.3dbuzz.com and watch some of the videos. It might help you decide which is right for you, and it *will* teach you how to use these programs, not for the HUNDREDS of dollars you can spend (and I have definitely spent) on even one training module from other vendors.

fwtep wrote on 5/30/2003, 3:31 PM

Each of the programs you mentioned is fine. Here are some comments:

1) Understand that whichever you choose, it'll take quite a while to get to the kind of photoreal images you're seeing. Those were created by top people. It's no different than seeing a guitar demo by a world-class guitar player and saying "wow, I'll get that guitar" and expecting to be good at it. Sure, buying something with limited features will be, well, limiting, but in 11 years in the visual effects business in Hollywood I have yet to see more than a handful of people who are experts with all of the features in a particular package. And remember the old "artist vs. the tools" concept. While the tools are certainly important, what ultimately matters is the person using them. Put a pencil in my hand and one in DaVinci's hand and you'll see that it's not the tool that counts-- my drawing will look like it was done by a third grader. Therefore, go on to #2:

2) Get demo versions of the software. Generally speaking, and certainly for a beginner, each of them will have the same basic features. However, what matters most isn't just a feature list, it's HOW those features are implemented, how well they work together, and how they are from a user perspective that matters. For example, Adobe Premiere has all of the basic features of Vegas, and vice versa, yet everyone here on this forum clearly enjoys working with Vegas over Premiere. Interface is sometimes MORE important than features. For example, 3D Studio Max has a very difficult to use interface. I've never known anyone who uses it and also uses other 3D software refute that. People who ONLY use Max and have never used anything else will argue that, of course.

3) Expect to spend a LOT of time getting up to speed no matter which one you choose. 3D is way different than anything else you do with a computer. It's about as complex as you can get. There's no "make realistic" button. The cool things you see in movies and on TV are done with teams of people working long days and with lots of people.

4) The best 3D people are problem solvers. There aren't buttons for every single thing you want to do-- if there were, there'd be thousands of buttons cluttering up the screen. Experimentation-- trial and error-- is the way to learn and to do the best work.

Alliante wrote on 5/30/2003, 4:04 PM

And I've been very happy with it :)

Alliante wrote on 5/30/2003, 4:08 PM

True,

But it takes a very specially trained eye to get that uber-realistic look (and it can take years to get to that point) with Lightwave (Or any other package in my experience)

DocHogan wrote on 5/30/2003, 6:40 PM

fwtep

I agree entirely. Well, mostly. As I said in my over-long diatribe, the major differences which will influence choice between the packages lie in the interface.

I do disagree with your statements on the MAX interface, and I *do* work in other packages. I find the MAX interface very intuitive to the way *I* think; I come from more of a programming background and think procedurally more than artistically. This has made many programs' interfaces *very* difficult for me to grasp. As embarrasing as it is, to this very day, I have never been able to use Bryce or any other Kai-designed interface. I struggle with Painter. MAX has always felt 'normal' and intuitive to me.

As I play more with Maya, the more I like it, but I am definitely spending more time getting used to the interfce than I did with MAX.

So, I guess it just re-emphasizes the statement that it all depends on how you work/think, and how well the interface fits in with that. After that, after learning the interface, somes learning to truly model in 3d, and *that* is a *completly* different issue ;)

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/30/2003, 7:09 PM

ok so does anyone have some takes on cinema 4d?

I realize the artist is always more important than the tools 99.9% of the time. However I don't want to purchase something that I can do nothing with.
For example I toyed with POV and while it does do some amazing renders I can't build a frikin thing with the scripting language. Yes I read the manual, and it didn't help.

So if POV were still a script based renderer and it sold for 2000.00 and I saw these images on the net and said "WOW! I've got to have that" and spent 2000 bucks I would vomit cause the only thing I can build are primitives and scripting camera angles is like pulling teeth!

So with that said....
I am a beginner but I would like something that does a nice job and is easy to learn with a nice animation interface.

again I'm looking at Cinema 4d but I will take the advice of the doc and d/l the demos.

Auggybendoggy

fwtep wrote on 5/30/2003, 8:07 PM

Cinema 4D is fine. I'd also check into LightWave, which I like better.

By the way, I just noticed your screen name is "Auggy Ben Doggy," which is funny, because I did the FX for the special edition of "Hardware Wars" (with the cheesy CGI stuff). That was all done in LightWave, by the way, but don't let that turn you off to LightWave-- it was *supposed* to look bad, in keeping with the flavor of the original. :-)

Fred

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/31/2003, 7:29 AM

fwtep,
your my hero!!!!
the movie is a classic.

auggybendoggy wrote on 5/31/2003, 3:44 PM

fwtep,
have you done any animation work with lightwave?

fwtep wrote on 6/1/2003, 3:36 AM

> fwtep,
> have you done any animation work with lightwave?

Only for the past 11 years. :-) I'm also part of pmG, which makes animation software that works stand-alone or as a plug-in for LightWave, Maya, Max, and Cinema 4D (not v8 yet). The web site for that is: http://www.projectmessiah.com But I think it's beyond what you need right now. Plus it doesn't have its own modeler (I'm talking about our software here-- LightWave has a great one).

The "Hardware Wars Special Edition" is something I'm proud of though, because it was my idea. I just couldn't resist when I heard what Lucas was doing to the original Star Wars, so I tracked down the producer of the original HW and presented him with the idea, which he thought was funny too. So we just did it. If you've seen that one and liked it, thanks! :-)

Fred