Commodore Remix

I made these intro rolls for a web based network for a particular show, in the end another submission was picked.

I think they had a movie package like that on the Amiga once. Not as slick as the nice graphics here but very impressive for what you could do at home in the late '80s. I recently saw the promo film on Youtube, where the picture zoomed into the CGI house's window, closing in on shots of real people coo-ing at their Amiga.

And to think we thought it probably couldn't get much better!





Now for the Daz doorstep challenge: Can you make a moving model and film it as the BBC did? And this guy.....

the model is cool, the bbc have always excelled at creating something amazing out of the simple things..

but, the days of models are gone sadly, render render render..

Well do build one of these models, you have to first make a plan and a list of all the materials needed and figure out the mechanics of the motor etc..than go out and buy the materials and try to put it all together, usually the first time around you will have to make adjustments since not all plans work the first time around. So now you have spent time and money on this thing, anywhere from 2 days to a week.

Someone sitting at a computer with 3D Software can model and render this in under 2 hours and they can easily try different variations, colours and looks, which you can easily achieve with a model.

Having a physical model doing this, is a pretty cool thing, but when it comes time and practicality Render wins.

Imagine if you have multiple logos and stuff and you have these boxes or whatever and you have to store them somewhere, and will need repair from time to time when they break.

Yeah but a model 'looks more real' though. Not that I'm minimalising your talents Analog, I know I couldn't do it. And you've done it very well with the textures and perspective and things. But I like the idea that someone at the BBC actually made something with his hands and videotaped it convincingly, and that 'workshop' idea connects with me. Same with the chap's home-made model.


But then I suppose it's all pointless now anyway. Somebody else already made the ultimate video, which was then actually advanced. There's nothing we can do to create the impressive experience any more. It's all being jaded from here on end.

That's it, game over. We can all go home.



1:

2:



And before anyone says, yes it's a fake. But we all love our favourite dramas and don't care that they're actors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgkc5LLEZao

I think the only reason people like that video is because of her boobs.

If you have the talent, money and time and want to build a box that does something interesting I say go 4 it. I'm not against it, I was merely stating my opinion as to why I think rendering something is more attractive than building something in real life, especially when time and money are a factor.

Her boobs aren't in it. But things just 'pop in' by suggestion don't they!

I wasn't having an argument though. It's nice to see these bits and pieces, not least because the rest of us can get some ideas. It gets the portfolio out there doesn't it. I just like the models though. Sometimes when Rolf Harris or someone used to say 'Those models are actually CGI', then's the time I was doubly impressed!

If I was good enough to create CGI openers, I would want what appear to be huge billboard screens coming towards you, alternating on the left and right of the screen, a kind-of roadway in the middle and green all around. On these screens would be various scenes based on what you're talking about. As the perspective goes past these boards, they get bigger and disappear. That would be quite nice.




I like the CGI they had by the 80s:

Not just on the trailer with the stamps but the shiny lettering and all the rest. I remember that super-storm as well. I was annoyed actually because the teacher wouldn't let us home until it passed, though it was only a normal storm where we were.

Okay I just have to pick up on this.. One of my Real pet hates..

The guy at the BBC had the distinct advantage that the objects he used to create this model already existed in the real world, surface properties are fixed, metal is metal and looks like metal, reacts like metal to light and atmosphere etc.. In otherwords all he has to 'deal' with is the light and modelling. the 3D artist has to KNOW how to create metal in the software, how light is absorbed/reflected/transmitted to make primitive shapes look like the material he wants. he has to spend years and years building the experience to know how to create the surface properties of the items in the world he is building. THEN! he has to be able to actually model every single facet of the items in that world, how to make a ball out of primitives, ( okay the software does that bit for you now but beyond those primitives you're on your own .. ).. and so on and so on.. Then comes lighting? light behaves the same way in a renderer as in real life, but you have to tell the software where to place it, where it goes, where it doesnt. The BBC guy had none of that, he moved a lamp back and forward, the light again was a a fixed entity ..

Basically what I'm getting at is the skillset required by a 3D artists is just as high as the real world modeller if not more so.. Real world provides a lot of the fiddly bits for you. the 3D world is brutal and barren by comparison. Does the use of VST's and virtual instruments make the music created any less 'musical' because it's not played on a piano or violin? it connects in the same way, it still exists?

3D always has had a bad rap, prefer models, not real, doesn't look right ..'blah blah blah.. As far as I'm concerned Analog's images and renders are just as creative and require JUST as much experience based skill. At the end of the day I've seen some pretty poor models, and damn poor special effects in both mediums and that is down to the skill of the creator. Does the work done by Ray Harryhausen in the sinbad films surpass this guy at the BBC ? Damn straight it does, does the work of Weta Digital ( avatar ) surpass Analog's , ( I dont think he'd mind but. ) again damn yes.. So in the end, It's down to the creator.. I'm pretty sure we've all seen 3D CGI and not realized, does that imply it's just not as good? or does that imply It's obviously JUST as good because you didn't notice.

The BBC world logo I posted in my link up top was created in Bryce, using exactly the same ( virtual )setup as the BBC guy,( a mirrored surface, model of the earth ) and took 5 minutes to render and model.. Give me the time he had and It'd be pretty much exactly the same' and I'd be damned if anyone could say I didn't put as much into it either..

If someone said to you , yeah that music you do, the notes are okay and your press the buttons well enough I suppose, and the pick thing.. I mean all you're doing it slapping a few strings in the right order.. any monkey could learn that right? Then the average persons reply to someones 3D "And you've done it very well with the textures and perspective and things" seems very similar?

damn hehe rant mode off er... er..

Thing I think i'm getting at is 3D and computer artwork has always been seen as an easier thing to do.. It might as well be said the machines doing it for you and I've always wanted to know why this is too. Any ideas on that one??

sorry for the rant, but... it drives me crazy heh

Commie_User wrote:Yeah but a model 'looks more real' though. Not that I'm minimalising your talents Analog, I know I couldn't do it. And you've done it very well with the textures and perspective and things. But I like the idea that someone at the BBC actually made something with his hands and videotaped it convincingly, and that 'workshop' idea connects with me. Same with the chap's home-made model.

3D always has had a bad rap, prefer models, not real, doesn't look right ..'blah blah blah..

Depends what you're trying to imitate. If you want your CGI to resemble planets, cars, offices and other physical things then you'll rate what you see on the likeness. Same with the Renaissance pictures. But if you want to stick abstracts up and twist things about and all else then there's more room for imagination and suspension of belief.

And as I say, I wasn't putting Analog down. I rather like what he's done.

Machines doing the work for you? Whether it is or just looks it can be down to perception and your own resources I suppose.




And as for my music, people can say what they like and they have. I like doing my chiptunes and hearing others but I also appreciate someone picking up an instrument and making wonderful music and sounds using just their own two hands. There's a reason plenty of people strongly prefer the sound of real instruments as opposed to something obviously synthetic. It's that natural sound, though I defy them to notice that I've relentlessly comped all my more complex multi-tracks.





(And it can be largely a question of monkeys at typewriters with today's production methods. It's just whether or not something sounds good I question.)

That's the key problem with 3d.... Everyone assumes 'Imitation'..... It's just whether or not somethings Looks! good I question too..

As for the real instruments, sadly I bet you most people couldn't tell a real instrument from a virtual one anymore..

Do you have a soundcloud page or something like that? It's good to hear what people here are upto beyond 64 music..

Commie_User wrote:

3D always has had a bad rap, prefer models, not real, doesn't look right ..'blah blah blah..

Depends what you're trying to imitate. If you want your CGI to resemble planets, cars, offices and other physical things then you'll rate what you see on the likeness. Same with the Renaissance pictures. But if you want to stick abstracts up and twist things about and all else then there's more room for imagination and suspension of belief.

And as I say, I wasn't putting Analog down. I rather like what he's done.


And as for my music, people can say what they like and they have. I like doing my chiptunes and hearing others but I also appreciate someone picking up an instrument and making wonderful music and sounds using just their own two hands. There's a reason plenty of people strongly prefer the sound of real instruments as opposed to something obviously synthetic. It's that natural sound, though I defy them to notice that I've relentlessly comped all my more complex multi-tracks.


(And can be largely a question of monkeys at typewriters with today's production methods. It's just whether or not something sounds good I question.)

I have no Soundcloud page. But I have a few MP3s lying around. Here's a C64 chiptune file, trying out theme tune ideas: http://www.dustybin.org.uk/VSTi_and_sample_demo.mp3


Here's a favourite harmonium, Hammond, drum and electric piano thing I did a few years ago: http://www.concept-single.net/Blowin%27_In_My_Wind.mp3


Main music theme a 'gothic organ' C64, drums and cowbell: http://www.concept-single.net/cs9_music.mp3


Old project music: http://www.dustybin.org.uk/Neo-Lib_Fun_Pack.mp3





http://www.leftiness.org/Records.htm


Pick one and enjoy, if to your taste.

AndyUK wrote: 3D always has had a bad rap, prefer models, not real, doesn't look right ..'blah blah blah.. As far as I'm concerned Analog's images and renders are just as creative and require JUST as much experience based skill. At the end of the day I've seen some pretty poor models, and damn poor special effects in both mediums and that is down to the skill of the creator. Does the work done by Ray Harryhausen in the sinbad films surpass this guy at the BBC ? Damn straight it does, does the work of Weta Digital ( avatar ) surpass Analog's , ( I dont think he'd mind but. ) again damn yes.. So in the end, It's down to the creator.. I'm pretty sure we've all seen 3D CGI and not realized, does that imply it's just not as good? or does that imply It's obviously JUST as good because you didn't notice.

I dont mind at all, as a matter of fact, whenever I watch a CGI production, I say to myself, I wish I could have the ability to render a Single Frame of what I'm seeing on the big screen.

Are you able to replicate these?



2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IF-0XNKlhk



I used to watch those shows and it would be interesting to see them 'digitised'.

Hey, my two main music loves just converged (Trade test music and C64 stuff)... maybe this is why I loved loading music and loading screens so much.. even TV channels had them!

Is it me, or is "Near and Far" (first video) freaky and unnerving? But then, I was freaked out by Mary, Mungo and Midge, so I guess my freakout-threshold was fairly low when I was young

Chris

You have the BBC Radiophonic Workshop to thank for all the strange and iconic tunes. Mostly for schools and science programmes, though Doctor Who is one internationally known.


And then there are the PIFs - Public information films. These are also fondly remembered or used for nostalgia.


PUBLIC: Leave Bombs Alone:




FOREIGNERS: They're not as degenerate as you are all the time:




LET THIS BE A LESSON - Never Do Anything:








MILK KILLS:




PROBABLE OVERDUB PUNCH-IN ERROR: "Think about 'black-sination'":





NOTHING LIKE KIDS BEING RUN OVER, DROWNING IN EXCREMENT OR SCREAMING TO DEATH TO SET YOU UP FOR THE DAY: