[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] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: 20190718_133308.jpg (107 KB, 498x486)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
Anyone knows how that 3d art style is called ? Or what define it ? How to achieve it ?

You can see this 3d style in some old crappy 90s movies, or in some pc games in the mid 90s as pre-rendered animation.

Even in killer instinct or Donkey Kong Country

The perfect example would be the dialogs in fallout 1&2
https://youtu.be/B_qYMipxsog

But also in popular games as Final Fantasy 7 and Resident Evil 1,2,3 (not the characters/objects but the backgrounds)


Most recently you can find this style in five nights at Freddy's.

Any ideas ?
>>
>>689710
Has no name you fool. It's simply that we tried our best with what was available...while tech and capabilities of software steadily progressed.
The end.
>>
>>689716
But there should be a way to recreate this feel, as its done in Freddy's...

I wish to be able to do it for a personal project
>>
File: zam3598a.jpg (251 KB, 1262x1667)
251 KB
251 KB JPG
>>689710
On a side note (and if you're some zoomer or 3D newbie), that's all pre-PBR workflow, both in shading/lighting and material creation.

Also nobody touched poly modeling for high profile work, it was either all NURBS based or scanned from physical references/models.

We used a lot more procedural textures.

Textures were created and palletized according to their intended use.

Raytracing was expensive, so it was either used sparingly or substituted with tricks or hacks. Especially for reflections/refractions.

Raytraced shadows were out of the question in animation, so we used shadow-mapped lights.

Global illumination existed only in a few high end renderers like Lightscape and was out of the question. We emulated radiosity by placing individual lights or creating dome setups with a lot of lights. Soft raytraced shadows could be achieved by things like the "spinning light trick".
Spinning light domes could be used to create something that resembled ambient occlusion.

Particles and volumetrics were a lot more primitive, if tools had them at all. Again, lots of fakery to achieve certain effects.

Rigging was more tedious, time consuming and error prone. In the early 90s only high-end tools had things like bones or IK. Imagine you have to animate a walk cycle in FK and you get the idea.

Until HDDs became big and fast enough, you had to output your stuff to animation recorders or, if you were lucky(or rich) to digital animation recorders.

note on that FO stuff:
These talking heads come from actual clay models captured with a MicroScribe 3D digitizer.
>>
>>689710
just do shitty lighting and you're good to go
>>
>>689718
Should be possible.
>>
>>689719
Thanks a lot for your answers !

Im a yoomer but yes im really noob at 3d

My goal is to create some face animations for a YouTube video that im creating with friends, as i was playing lighthouse (sierra) back when i was a kid, i remembered that i was very scared of these kinds of 3d animations, maybe it's the look of it or the low animation frame rate, but I've always been fascinated by that.


Now that I'm starting to play with 3d, i though it would be easy to recreate such graphics, but whatever i try, i can't get the right feel.

But I'll look into what you said thanks...

You seem to have worked on such graphics back in the days, do you have some examples of your old works, or stories about it ?
>>
File: Parocket.jpg (138 KB, 640x512)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>689719
in the mid- to end 90s it was mainly modeled with Power Animator or Softimage 3D and rendered with Renderman or maybe early Mental Ray. The SGI workstations were much stronger in their Graphics pipeline and already 64bit Irix.
But with PA came seperate programs for particles, rigging like Kinemation and Dynamtion. They were all lumped together by then end of the 90s in MAYA. Maya's renderer was quite crappy that's why it got Mental Ray later
>>
>>689729
Like many people back then I started messing with CG on my Amiga.
After film school I worked as a generalist, at first for local businesses and TV stations. Most of my work was for broadcast/TV.
At Amblin I worked on season 3 of Seaquest.
The only two feature films I contributed to were Ghost in the Machine while at PDI and Armageddon under Digital Domain.
I also did art for games between 1995-1997 on a freelance basis.
Got really fed up with things in 2001 and changed career.

>>689731
This is a latter release of PA with all the dynamics and particles directly integrated.
Some excellent modeling tools AFAIR, especially the NURBS stuff.

Mental Ray was great, used it often with Softimage. Renderman was only found in larger studios with the budgets and manpower to operate it.


Some of the oldfags here remember Electric Image Animation System? Probably the only good piece of Mac software I worked with back in the day.
>>
>>689773
Electric Image Animation System was like Infini-D and Ray Dream Studio right? I remember that it had it's own rendering suite.

I also remember when learning MoGraph with Trish and Chris Meyer books, they mentioned that they used EIAS.

http://www.eias3d.com/
>>
>>689719
Oooh, that's some good information, anon. I never knew NURBs were prolific back then. Your post also has a few goodies, even though I'd probably cheap out and just go the fast food route of achieving this affect:
>raytrace all the things
>pitch black ambient lighting, or lack thereof
>meshes modeled as if PBR or modern workflow enhancements didn't exist
>really thicc use of bump maps
>little subtility when it comes to shiney or reflective surfaces
>here and there intentionally shoddy model work
>really dead simple materials
And for bonus points:
>use a genuine 90s or early 2000s renderer. Blender Internal would actually suffice, I'd say.
In fact, part of using an old renderer is how complex lighting effects that we take for granted today would likely not be on by default if available, for that much more.

I think that alone is pretty convincing and the biggest parts of the look.
>>
>>689786
Vastly more powerful than both these tools. One of the fastest, high-quality renderers out-of-the-box back then. ILM and some other studios used it extensively throughout the 90s. Often paired with the Form-Z modeler because it lacked own modeling tools in its older versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaBJlyiiZV8&t=201s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bPEhLmn3Hk
low quality but you get the idea

Surprisingly it's still under development.
>>
>>689710
use blender render instead of cycles
>>
>>689719
It's a shame Sonic became such a meme series
>>
>>689719

do you remember modeling heads using the sock puppet method where you would start with the mouth and work your way outwards? hahaha so unintuitive
>>
>>689710
>How to achieve it ?
git bad, forget anatomy
>>
>>689710
>The year is 2019, kids are working hard to learn how to make graphics look worse since the default settings in their software creates to good results.

Dystopia.jpg
>>
I would say what makes mid-90s stuff is
-relative low poly
-bare gouraud shaded surfaces
-render size 480/360p
-prominent Gauss filters and anti-aliasing
-LOTS of bump mapping
-pixmaps for things like trees/plants instead of 3d models
-massive use of procedural textures (avoids also the need for UV mapping)
>>
>>693289
>relative low poly
not necessarily
>bare gouraud shaded surfaces
even Autodesk 3D Studio DOS had Phong shading
>render size 480/360p
720x486 or 720 × 576 in 24 bit for broadcast purposes
>prominent Gauss filters and anti-aliasing
we used as little filtering and as little AA passes as we could get away with
>LOTS of bump mapping
for stills yes, for animation it was often avoided because it created flickering with the already low AA
>pixmaps for things like trees/plants instead of 3d models
good for background stuff
>massive use of procedural textures (avoids also the need for UV mapping)
yes, we also surfaced even complex objects by breaking them down and using planar mapping
>>
>>689731
in the 90s I used POV for rendering via, yes, scripting...

and 3D Studio (for DOS)
>>
>>689773
Lightwave was very popular on scifi shows back then; I had wet dreams about the lens flares it could produce
>>
>>693223
I never modeled characters, I focused on environments
>>
>>693296
Don't forget so-called "metal" shading in 3DS4.
>>
it's such an ugly style. please post if you manage to come up with something that looks good.
>>
>>693306
shoo shoo zoomlet
>>
>>689719
>>693289
>>693296
>>693299

>tfw you will never produce a cheesy 90s sci-fi indie movie with digital creatures, bipedal mechs and massive space battles.

why even live?
>>
File: folder.png (19 KB, 398x721)
19 KB
19 KB PNG
downloaded & installed a metric shit ton of old graphics software, hoping to produce some A E S T H E T I C / A S S T A S T I C work.
>>
>>693829
You have to keep this in an archive. I also recommend making one giant folder and uploading it to web archive.
>>
File: folder2.png (5 KB, 213x273)
5 KB
5 KB PNG
>>693829
also managed to get all that old stock explosion/fire footage they used in 90s/early 00s shows and games from some anon on /vr/
>>
>>693987
>>693829
Looks like you've got a retro goldmine.
>>
>>693829
>>693987
ARCHIV THIS
>>
>>694028
why? all this stuff is still on cgpersia forums, vetusware, archive.org and rutracker



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.