3 ms·

3D content is an order of magnitude harder to build than 2D content Not really. It requires a different process and a different training regimen. ZBrush makes

3D content is an order of magnitude harder to build than 2D content Not really. It requires a different process and a different training regimen. ZBrush makes 3D content creation easy enough that you can be done with the dog model in the video in a matter of minutes, but only if you're trained with ZBrush.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
but only if you're trained with ZBrush Only proving my point - but not really taking it far enough. If I asked the average designer to give me an image of a dog for my website/app etc... they could do it incredibly easy. Either get a dog and take a picture with a regular camera, maybe crop and edit or find/edit many of the ones you see now in well known software. If I asked that same group to make me a 3D model of a dog it would be literally orders of magnitude more complex. Knowing a 3D interface takes quite a bit of time. Building the model, especially if you want any kind of accuracy, even moreso.
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  That group isn't qualified to do the task that you're asking them to do. There are different types of artists. A 3D artist isn't the same as a 2D artist, which isn't the same as a designer. It wouldn't make sense to ask a devop to write you a website, then claim that webdev was an order of magnitude more difficult than devops.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    That group isn't qualified to do the task that you're asking them to do. Again, this is my point. The number of 3D content developers is staggeringly low for the amount of content that needs to be created. Irrespective of that, for comparable skill levels the time it takes to produce 3D content again dwarfs that of 2D content - often cause you need a lot of structured 2D content for it to be shaded and texture mapped/baked correctly.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      for comparable skill levels the time it takes to produce 3D content again dwarfs that of 2D content In my experience, the skill levels can't be compared like that. A 3D artist is a difference in kind from a 2D artist. It's not nearly as difficult to create 3D content as you're suggesting, though. you need a lot of structured 2D content for it to be shaded and texture mapped/baked correctly. Actually, this isn't how ZBrush works. You can paint your model in whatever fashion you want. There's no structure needed, and no baking process. The final step is to convert the high-res painted model into a low-res exportable version, which is largely an automatic process. Your points appear to be (a) many more people are trained in Photoshop than ZBrush, and (b) ZBrush isn't Photoshop. That's true.
      - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
        It's not nearly as difficult to create 3D content as you're suggesting, though. Not to go all "appeal to expert" here but I've been 3D modeling since the mid-90s. My company is deep into 3D rendering, scanning and content generation. Creating something in 3D is trivial. Creating something that looks like something with accurate scale, correct UV mapping and polygon normalizing is a highly technical skill which increases in difficulty logistically. It takes our expert modeling team at the absolute fastest, 1 hour to build a single 3D model of a small 5 foot long sofa, without baked textures or high quality detail. Compare that to lighting and taking a photograph of the same sofa in a studio. Actually this is an interesting comparison because we have worked so heavily on this particular problem. I know how Z-Brush works. All I can say is that it is not how you create content for VR/AR - it's not high enough precision and it's really only suited for "organic" 3D modeling. Characters? Sure. Environments, engineered objects, interfaces? Absolutely not. No the point is, "content" as generated today - by your average Joe in the form of 2D images and text, or by retailers/designers in the form of 2D product pictures, is trivial to produce and takes marginal skill. The content of AR is 3D. Your average Joe cant produce it at all, most retailers/designers have no clue how they would start, and those who do know can't find enough 3D modelers to keep up with demand.
        sillysaurus3 10y ago

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

but only if you're trained with ZBrush Only proving my point - but not really taking it far enough. If I asked the average designer to give me an image of a dog for my website/app etc... they could do it incredibly easy. Either get a dog and take a picture with a regular camera, maybe crop and edit or find/edit many of the ones you see now in well known software. If I asked that same group to make me a 3D model of a dog it would be literally orders of magnitude more complex. Knowing a 3D interface takes quite a bit of time. Building the model, especially if you want any kind of accuracy, even moreso.

sillysaurus3 10y ago
That group isn't qualified to do the task that you're asking them to do. There are different types of artists. A 3D artist isn't the same as a 2D artist, which isn't the same as a designer. It wouldn't make sense to ask a devop to write you a website, then claim that webdev was an order of magnitude more difficult than devops.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  That group isn't qualified to do the task that you're asking them to do. Again, this is my point. The number of 3D content developers is staggeringly low for the amount of content that needs to be created. Irrespective of that, for comparable skill levels the time it takes to produce 3D content again dwarfs that of 2D content - often cause you need a lot of structured 2D content for it to be shaded and texture mapped/baked correctly.
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    for comparable skill levels the time it takes to produce 3D content again dwarfs that of 2D content In my experience, the skill levels can't be compared like that. A 3D artist is a difference in kind from a 2D artist. It's not nearly as difficult to create 3D content as you're suggesting, though. you need a lot of structured 2D content for it to be shaded and texture mapped/baked correctly. Actually, this isn't how ZBrush works. You can paint your model in whatever fashion you want. There's no structure needed, and no baking process. The final step is to convert the high-res painted model into a low-res exportable version, which is largely an automatic process. Your points appear to be (a) many more people are trained in Photoshop than ZBrush, and (b) ZBrush isn't Photoshop. That's true.
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      It's not nearly as difficult to create 3D content as you're suggesting, though. Not to go all "appeal to expert" here but I've been 3D modeling since the mid-90s. My company is deep into 3D rendering, scanning and content generation. Creating something in 3D is trivial. Creating something that looks like something with accurate scale, correct UV mapping and polygon normalizing is a highly technical skill which increases in difficulty logistically. It takes our expert modeling team at the absolute fastest, 1 hour to build a single 3D model of a small 5 foot long sofa, without baked textures or high quality detail. Compare that to lighting and taking a photograph of the same sofa in a studio. Actually this is an interesting comparison because we have worked so heavily on this particular problem. I know how Z-Brush works. All I can say is that it is not how you create content for VR/AR - it's not high enough precision and it's really only suited for "organic" 3D modeling. Characters? Sure. Environments, engineered objects, interfaces? Absolutely not. No the point is, "content" as generated today - by your average Joe in the form of 2D images and text, or by retailers/designers in the form of 2D product pictures, is trivial to produce and takes marginal skill. The content of AR is 3D. Your average Joe cant produce it at all, most retailers/designers have no clue how they would start, and those who do know can't find enough 3D modelers to keep up with demand.
      - sillysaurus3 10y ago