[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

Can anybody explain to me why do mid 90's prerendered backgrounds from the psx looks like earlier 90's CGI?

Why even if I have tried to make them, I can't get that earlier CGI quality with modern blender.

Is there any technical reason over the algorithms used?
Shaders back then were incredibly primitive compared to now. You pretty much only had a diffuse and a specular shader, no PBR, no SSS, none of the fancy stuff we have today. There's also lighting, forget global illumination, we didn't even have AO. Just some very simple lights (if any at all).
If you want to try replicating the look, you'll have to use Blender Render. Don't even think of using Cycles, because the tech there is a full generation ahead.
>If you want to try replicating the look, you'll have to use Blender Render.
Unity could work as realtime render to replicate that, they have basic shaders and illumination as default
That's true too, any game engine could give you that look. Just said Blender because it was mentioned in the OP.
I can imagine a modern art museum setting up an installation like that.
What in the fuck are you talking about?

You just don't know jack about rendering engines, lightning and materials.

I could recreate that shit in few hours using the 'blender internal' engine to render. In fact do a better job at it with the same technical limitations.

This is not even good art by 90s standards. Look at those disgusting textures. You never use 255 digital blue, 255 digital red - that was an artists choice from the color picker.

The look apart from the artist being shit comes from the technology used. There is only one light bounce - that has a typical shitty look, sRGB textures (not linear) and a lot of texturing to hide having a poor shading.

There is just very basic-OpenGL level shading and color maps on geometry. No speculars etc.
You want speculars you have to paint them on.
He's not wrong. Nostalgia is poison, 90s CGI (and now people are talking about 2000s CGI) did not, technically speaking, look good but what made it good was more fundamental choices regarding color palette, lighting, scene composition.
Imposing artificial limitations on yourself while you clumsily ape the style of things you liked isn't going to produce a good result, you're basically doing the same thing retarded indie "pixel art" idiots are doing but with 3D.

t. 36 year old
File: 234312.jpg (163 KB, 1150x720)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
You don't though, you loved the edginess, the willingness to try weird shit, the desire to create and view things that were thought provoking.
The 80s and 90s were a time of tremendous prosperity, so much so that people were actually "bored" of all this prosperity to the point of being unhappy about "rampant consumerism" (aka "everyone is so rich they get to have whatever they want and the economy is going so well that we can constantly make new and better stuff all the time that everyone can afford").

Because people were so wealthy and so well off, they were bored with their regular lives and the real world, so they longed for interesting and dangerous worlds. They unironically said things like "I wish something interesting would happen here", not realizing that something interesting is a plane flying into the twin towers and slowing down progress to a crawl for the next 100+ years
Good god, I can't help but pity you

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.