3 ms·

I agree. I think a REPL (which I consider the command line to be one of) and something like Excel to be immensely useful no matter what the language or profici

by pfranz 8y ago

I agree. I think a REPL (which I consider the command line to be one of) and something like Excel to be immensely useful no matter what the language or proficiency. I think code is much sturdier and I'm more likely to experiment if I can iterate over code after typing every few words instead of (even in a language I'm proficient at) writing a whole page of code, then running it to correct my typos and errors. I work in visual effects. Most of our software has a build-in Python interpreter. I was talking to a tech savvy junior who was interested in becoming a full time modeler/artist. He was asking if he should learn programming/Python and I advised against it (unless it scratched his particular itch). I felt his efforts were best put towards getting better at modeling. Most large places I've worked at the artist can get by with a sticky note of common commands. There's usually someone they can ask for advice or small scripts when things get hairy. Smaller places you're more on your own. But it is surprising when you have 100+ items, you need to be sure they all have 2 sets of UVs. The manual way is to click on each one and pull a drop-down menu or with Python you can write a one-line foreach to test and print. It's all about knowing which screw to turn[1] I often challenge myself in doing something in a single line just to scratch my own itch. Often when tackling daunting tasks (do this thing 20-50x) I weigh the benefit of doing it manually, but bias a tad toward automating even if I'm throwing the code away. But I don't think it's worth most people's time. The biggest benefit of working the same place a long time is knowing who to ask about things. Second is knowing the history of things. Third is having a junk drawer of scripts that don't quite work out of the box, but they have idioms I can grab when I need to hammer something out. [1] https://calvincorreli.com/blog/1397-knowing-which-screw-to-turn https://calvincorreli.com/blog/1397-knowing-which-screw-to-t...

pasabagi 8y ago
I do a lot of 3d stuff (not a pro) and I've found a passing knowledge of programming is quite useful when you're doing something a little bit more unusual or complex. I did some pretty big cityscapes made out of modular components, and it was nice to have python for stuff like twisting 300 TV aerials so they're all a little bit differently wonky, or making lines of washing. I'm also a big believer in mastering your tools. An artist is limited by their imagination - and imagination is largely structured by your knowledge of materials and the capabilities of tools. If you're working with 3d models, and you plan on mastering it, having an idea of what you can do with An artist is limited by their imagination - and imagination is largely structured by your knowledge of materials and the capabilities of tools. It spurs you on to try new and ambitious stuff, new styles, new forms.
- pfranz 8y ago
  As passing knowledge is great, but focus and mastery just requires too much time (and time to maintain). Something as large as Maya or computer graphics you have to pick your battles. If you're completely independent or at a very small studio you have to be scrappy, but I think that means more of having a wide toolset, a lot of copy/paste and experimenting. You just don't have the time to master and maintain that mastery. My career has let me focus on the backend and internals. I know people way more proficient than I am with Maya, but they know little to nothing about Python or the DG (or maybe MEL). I know a few vfx sups who can cobble together a basic shell command, but aren't masters and don't know a bit of Python. It's much easier to interact with them (especially over chat/email--I can send them a command and trust them to modify paths and run it), but it's not worth their time to invest in honing those things. It's probably cheaper to fly someone from a different state to do these things for them than it is for them to spend half a day writing something to parse and edl to rename some Quicktime files or troubleshoot a bad power supply in their workstation. I've also noticed that the more technical they are, the deeper the hole they're in before they ask for help. Hopefully that means they're more productive (and are more ambitious), but it usually means I have to ask them what their original problem was, then what was the first thing they did, then the second, and unwind the situation. For the situation you described of turning buildings there are probably 5-10 completely different approaches you could take (apart from manually placing them), only a few use Python. At a moderately sized studio (on a moderately sized project), I'd reach for something like Houdini to do what you're asking and you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would use Python for this kind of thing in Houdini. On the flip side I was handed a project at a small place that was well suited for Houdini. We didn't have a license so I cobbled something together in Maya. The producers were telling me in their experience they'd hire someone who would do a project in Houdini, but later when they needed changes and that person wasn't available they'd have to hire someone to redo it in Maya. Reality is hard. My thoughts about this really clicked with photography. A lot of photographers are just technical enough. Most of the process is a black box, but they've had their camera for years, tested enough inputs and outputs that they can trust their tools to do what they want. Other photographers dig into the tech. They can't, by definition, have as much time in the field. They can tell you a lot more "why" and might be equally good or better in many respects, but it can be really easy to get lost in the tech and miss out on the practice.

by pfranz 8y ago

pasabagi 8y ago

I do a lot of 3d stuff (not a pro) and I've found a passing knowledge of programming is quite useful when you're doing something a little bit more unusual or complex. I did some pretty big cityscapes made out of modular components, and it was nice to have python for stuff like twisting 300 TV aerials so they're all a little bit differently wonky, or making lines of washing. I'm also a big believer in mastering your tools. An artist is limited by their imagination - and imagination is largely structured by your knowledge of materials and the capabilities of tools. If you're working with 3d models, and you plan on mastering it, having an idea of what you can do with An artist is limited by their imagination - and imagination is largely structured by your knowledge of materials and the capabilities of tools. It spurs you on to try new and ambitious stuff, new styles, new forms.

pfranz 8y ago
As passing knowledge is great, but focus and mastery just requires too much time (and time to maintain). Something as large as Maya or computer graphics you have to pick your battles. If you're completely independent or at a very small studio you have to be scrappy, but I think that means more of having a wide toolset, a lot of copy/paste and experimenting. You just don't have the time to master and maintain that mastery. My career has let me focus on the backend and internals. I know people way more proficient than I am with Maya, but they know little to nothing about Python or the DG (or maybe MEL). I know a few vfx sups who can cobble together a basic shell command, but aren't masters and don't know a bit of Python. It's much easier to interact with them (especially over chat/email--I can send them a command and trust them to modify paths and run it), but it's not worth their time to invest in honing those things. It's probably cheaper to fly someone from a different state to do these things for them than it is for them to spend half a day writing something to parse and edl to rename some Quicktime files or troubleshoot a bad power supply in their workstation. I've also noticed that the more technical they are, the deeper the hole they're in before they ask for help. Hopefully that means they're more productive (and are more ambitious), but it usually means I have to ask them what their original problem was, then what was the first thing they did, then the second, and unwind the situation. For the situation you described of turning buildings there are probably 5-10 completely different approaches you could take (apart from manually placing them), only a few use Python. At a moderately sized studio (on a moderately sized project), I'd reach for something like Houdini to do what you're asking and you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would use Python for this kind of thing in Houdini. On the flip side I was handed a project at a small place that was well suited for Houdini. We didn't have a license so I cobbled something together in Maya. The producers were telling me in their experience they'd hire someone who would do a project in Houdini, but later when they needed changes and that person wasn't available they'd have to hire someone to redo it in Maya. Reality is hard. My thoughts about this really clicked with photography. A lot of photographers are just technical enough. Most of the process is a black box, but they've had their camera for years, tested enough inputs and outputs that they can trust their tools to do what they want. Other photographers dig into the tech. They can't, by definition, have as much time in the field. They can tell you a lot more "why" and might be equally good or better in many respects, but it can be really easy to get lost in the tech and miss out on the practice.