Two Arches by lemonjim
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
Description
Here we have two arches. Please pardon the technical digression...
-*-
On the left is built from primitives including a mesh from Carrara, 12.4MB, 49000 polygons.
-*-
On the right is a single lattice object built from an "altitude render" of the left model, then played with photoshop textures. 7.8MB, 2097400 polygons.
-*-
What's interesting to me is that you win some battles and lose others, the lattice object is a little crude but it sure is easier to manipulate in many ways. perhaps best in the distance. what do you think?
Comments (8)
hyperborea
They both look great but I think I prefer the right one because of 'the life ' it lived.
gerry_g
My personal take on this (for what its worth) is the modeller wins every time, 'fact I often have to bite my tongue when commenting on peoples work or I'd end up repeating over an' over again "For christ sake get a modeller and stop doing it the hard way" like a stuck gramaphone, It's not just flexibilty a modeller brings it's transportability of digital assets, I meen wat are all you Bricers going to do when you buy a real 3D app and want to export your assets, I can take mine into Lightwave, .Maya, Cinema 4D, Carrara et all, how 'bout you ??
lemonjim
just a quick note to gerry_g on portability - you're partially right, although no such problem taking terrain assets to any of those you mention! in fact i could not have made this image without import/exporting many .3ds files between Bryce and Carrara (or Poser) ...hey, just like a "real" 3D app. Still, it's not perfect, and maybe next release they'll support export of more than terrains. none of this would have come up except for the desire to use Carrara modifiers to bend that arch. I wish Bryce had similar modifiers! ;-))
Rochr
I love them both as well, but the details in the right one, are truly the best! Hey gerry...what do you mean by real 3D app??? No offence man, but i consider Bryce to be as real as any other 3D application! If it gets the job done (and it does for me), its real enough! But thats just my humble opinion... :)
AgentSmith
If the Bryce(right)version was used even in the middle ground, much less the background, you could reduce the terrain from 1024 pixels to 512 pixels and take your poly count down to around 524,000, it would also reduce your Bryce file size dramatically. *Some objects can be modeled in Bryce WAY faster than they can in a real modeler. And, some objects can really only be created in a real modeler. I say don't tie yourself to only knowing how to do anything just one way. Great comparison you have there.
shadowdragonlord
Aye, lemonjim, they are both great arches! The heightmapped version allows for some intricate details, perhaps boolean-negative it with the first one with it to produce some even crustier effects? I'm feeling your take, Gerry, is "worth" nothing, although there's rarely anything more exhilarating than bringing oneself up by putting down others. Save your insults for chatrooms, please.
kosv01
You know that i really like to creat architectural pics Lemonjim, so i couldn't resist to rank this picture of yours. According to the other people's comments here, all i got to say is that a beautiful picture is a beautiful picture, no matters what tool we use. We all have seen great pics with programs nobody use any more, so i think talent & fantasy are still count. Congrats for the nice picture of yours. ---Kostas.
Freeze
Splendid, Jim!!! - - We agree with kosv01 :-)))