Hello, lads. I have a bit of mograph experience with C4D and have recently taken to creating VFX for film. I was just wondering if there are any real drawbacks to doing this in C4D as opposed to Blender or anything else? I know you can basically do the same shit in all 3D modeling software but I never hear about C4D being used in film production.
I am sorry to inform you that you have been lied to. It is not true that you can do the same shit in all 3D modelling software. That is why nobody uses C4d for VFX. Nor Blender. Because generally they suck at it. That doesn't mean that you cannot use them for some VFX, it means you cannot use them for everything (VFX) which is what companies who specialize on something do. Depending on what exactly you want to do, you will be either able to do it without problems, with some problems or not being able at all. Also use the fucking question threat you dolt, a thread died for your sin.
>>655066don't listen to this dumb fuck, he never contributed anything to this board other than confusion and anger.you can do everything you want with c4d and blender. and even if you made a mistake by using the wrong program, composition nodes are the same shit across all programs. good luck
>>655069Yeah so what? It actually proofs my point. Set extensions are one of the lowest forms of VFX. They can be done in all programs because they are simple (in terms of merging digital set extensions with live footage). If you read the article carefully you realize that for the real VFX they used Houdini.Same is true for the Next Gen movie. All those flashy explosions and smoke and fire and water was done in Houdini.Because Blender sucks huge Donkey balls when it comes to simulate this kind of stuff. Same is true for C4d.
VFX? For film? Use Houdini with Nuke or Fusion.
>>655071>you can do everything you want with c4d and blender.If it where possible, people would do it. Fact is you cannot do with Blender or C4d anything like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2Ly7jJuOQAnd this is a nearly 10 year old movie. Where are the movies with these amounts of detail made with Blender or C4d?Where the fuck are they??? Can you name at least one?You can't because they don't exist.So shut your fucking stupid mouth and stop lying to people about the actual abilities of 3D software.
>>655069Oh my god why do you blendlets always quote the same fucking show? Oh right, because there's barely anyone that uses blender, that's why you always quote the same 3 movies and artists. I feel bad for you.
>>655076lmao, i know you haven't touched a composition node in your life. i would be surprised if you ever opened photoshop.you do realize that the quantity of movies made in a particular software does not attest to its capabilities?its like saying toyota corolla is the best car because it was the best selling car of 1999. people have been making awesome drawings in sketchbook,gimp,photoshop,krita,sai and various others. you wouldn't even know how blender or c4d handles vfx because you never used them, your'e not a real artist that can portray examples and talk about technicalities. >o shut your fucking stupid mouth and stop lying to people about the actual abilities of 3D software.i actually know how composition nodes work and how they are used, you are just talking out of your arse with no experience in 3D whatsoever. iv composed dozens of artworks (that i made myself). what the fuck do you have to show for?
>>655080Shut up fucking blendlet.
>>655080>you do realize that the quantity of movies made in a particular software does not attest to its capabilities? You are the idiot who said Blender and C4d can do EVERYTHING, you gotta proof that, i don't have to proof a negative.What has been asserted without proof can be ignored without proof. If the quantity AND QUALITY of media made in a particular software does not attest to its capabilities, then what does? >you wouldn't even know how blender or c4d handles vfx because you never used them>your'e not a real artist>you are just talking out of your arse with no experience in 3D whatsoeverYou are one salty motherfucker. What happened? Did a real (non-blender, non-C4d) VFX artist kick you in the balls, raped your mom and pushed your granny down a stairway? >composition nodecompositing node, you fucking idiot.
>>655085>i don't have to proof a negative.but you can, just name the features that are missing in blender regarding vfx, and ill answer. its very simple.oh, whats that? you don't know 3D? well looks like there is nothing to argue about.
>>655089Damn son, i feel like i speak to an 3rd grader. He who makes the claim brings the proof, that is the rule in an adult conversation. You claimed that C4d and Blender can do everything, you have to convince me and everybody else. > just name the features that are missing in blender regarding vfx, and ill answer. its very simple. I already shown you a large sample of end results of features that are missing in Blender regarding VFX. You just have to look at them and use your brain to interpret what you see. Its very simple and its very obvious what i am talking about.
>>655095yes but like i said, there are obvious reasons why autodesk is still being used at every industry. all art schools and colleges still teach autodesk products because it was the standard. even if there was a slightly better alternative, this isn't enough to switch an industry standard to something else.2.you need 3ds/maya for most job applications, this is tried in directly to how colleges operate, you have your artists with a degree and a specialty, and industries that require them. 3d companies has been competing with eachother before we were even born. so one company comes up with a sculpting feature, and then another company, and then you have this update, and this plugin, and that mod or whatever. due to the industry being so competitive there is no incentive to switch from old traditional software to new one. one software will always have a slight edge depending on the time-period.
>>655089>that are missing in blender regarding vfxLet's try an easy one: object instancing. Show me how to fill a terrain with 2M instances of different types of vegetation, without loss of performance in the viewport and keeping memory consumption to a minimum. I don't ask for a practical example, just an indication of the steps to follow.
>>655110I have criticized Blender quite heavy in this thread but this is actually not problematic to do. Depending on the complexity of the meshes you might need some heavy hardware.You save your vegetation meshes in a separate file and then you can link (load them in) and distribute them with a particle system. Now i don't know how 2million instances will work in my viewport, maybe it will be shitty, but it will keep memory consumption to a minimum and will render without problems.
>>655110you can do that, you can do group instancing look it up.
>>655069You do know that there's more shit than this to go to when it comes to Blender in the industry right?Hell, one of the animators for the Pokemon anime uses Blender ffs. Seth Green's animation studio used it for VFX on Supermansion, it's been used at small effects houses like CoSA and Barnstorm, it was used in Hardcore Henry. and THIS is always their fucking default argument.Just goes to show most blendets are lazy in more ways than one.
>>657929you can't name a feature no one uses
>>657931Oh my god, this comment is going up in the Blendlet hall of fame, hahahahahahahahahaha
>>657931Once again you prove my point. Blendlets are fucking clueless about what the pros need, thatès why they think their shitty software is better than pro software.UDIMS are essential for high quality work for vfx and animated movies, because a single 0 to 1 space is not nearly enough for rendering the skin, the clothes, the hair, without going at ridiculously high resolutions.Stupid blendie, back to your youtube circlejerk.
>>655119It seems like it can do viewport instancing, and I assume also rendering instancing, alright. But I couldn't find a way to apply custom shading per instance. Is that possible? (It's a needed feature for, say, setting up a crowd and changing their clothes randomly.)
>>657931Get a grip anon. UDIMS are standard.
>>657990eh, hold on hombre. this is something else.last time i used a randomize function it was something like this. now i assume that with textures you just punch in a few mixrgb textures in none particular order to get the same effect>>657972>without going at ridiculously high resolutionsyou do realize how offline rendering works right?even if you have 100mb textures the time wasted on rendering only accounts for what is showing on the screen.
>>657972>back to your youtube circlejerk.>implying youtube itself isn't a circlejerk by default
>>658005yes but it only allows you to have texturesets per material, which i guess its a big deal. but not groundbreaking as anon makes it out to be
>>658010Do yourself a favor and stop talking about things you are obviously clueless about. UDIMs are a huge fucking deal. They enable a massive leap in detail while keeping the increased complexity manageable in a pipeline. To give you an idea of how big of a deal UDIM is most shops won't touch software that doesn't support it. Substance painter was ignored by VFX until they got rudimentary UDIM support, and the current lackluster UDIM support is still holding it back in VFX. UDIM is a key part of the modern VFX workflow. Blender users should be directing their anger at the lack of UDIM at Blender foundation and nobody else. Everything else is a waste of energy.
>>658006>>without going at ridiculously high resolutions>you do realize how offline rendering works right?>even if you have 100mb textures the time wasted on rendering only accounts for what is showing on the screen.Sure, let me load this 20480 x 102400 px diffuse so I can fix that tiny spot near the eyes.
>>658011sure, but i do know that artists are not bitches like you. as an artist you are tasked with an assignment and that's pretty much it. you have to find a way around the hardware/software limitations like people did for decades. we have games that use 512x512 textures and they are equally impressive as the realistic games that use 4096 textures because the artists made sure to be efficient as possible.no real artist loses sleep over tools.
>>658014It was impressive that they managed to pull it off, and it took an artist a week to make textures like that. Modern tools makes it easier to create beautiful art efficiently. Don't defend tying your hands behind your back while you work because doing so is "impressive." If that's the best you can say about Blender you should go back and rethink.
>>658014>no real artist loses sleep over toolsBiggest line of bullshit in your stinking pile of a post. Artists do literally lose sleep working around the limitations of thier tools. Enagaging in logical fallacies doesn't make you look like you know what you are talking about. It just underscores how absolutely clueless you are.
>>658016ok brother. iv been posting art on this forum ever since the board was in its diapers. if UDIM comes to blender let it be. its alright with me
>>658018It will be great and it will make Blender more attractive option for artists doing high res art work.
>>658019>It will be great and it will make Blender a possibly viable option for artists doing high res art work.FTFY.