3 ms·

Pardon the slight inaccuracy. With "mesh-based modeler" I simply meant a GUI modeler, no matter what the primitives used are. (I would consider a model made of

Pardon the slight inaccuracy. With "mesh-based modeler" I simply meant a GUI modeler, no matter what the primitives used are. (I would consider a model made of many X-spline patches still a "mesh", for the record.) But my point was that some type of modeler is a requirement for creating many photorealistic shapes; nobody is going to make a plausible human programmatically by composing geometry out of primitives like spheres, cones, and boxes. Or even blobs/metaballs or isosurfaces.

virtualritz 4y ago
I would call confusing the "what" with the "how" a "slight inaccuracy" a tad frivolous. And I mean that in a very caring way as handn't wasted 5mins writing a reply to you if this was as obvious as you try to make it sound.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  I am sorry for the confusion, but I did think it was pretty clear that the important part of "mesh modeler" in my comment was the word "modeler" because in the context it was used as the opposite to building scenes by writing code. I did genuinely forget that there exist modelers that work on splines rather than triangle meshes, but I don't really see the distinction as very important in this specific context.
phaedrus 4y ago
Your insistence on using the word "nobody" there is an absolute without evidence. You underestimate the visualization capabilities of savants. For my 3D game prototype, I created all of the meshes programmatically and wrote *and debugged* a mesh-slicing algorithm using only visualization in my own mind. Mostly I did indeed use primitives like spheres, cones, and boxes. Granted, huge caveats - I never finished a game from the prototype, and the meshes involved weren't that complicated; I was modeling imaginary robots not people. It's painful for me to use GUI or CAD tools because they're so much slower and less capable than the Dall-E image generator/CAD modeler/Star Trek Holodeck I have inside my own brain. This is in some ways limiting, analogous to a mathematician refusing to learn to use a computer. Nevertheless back to your point, I'm fairly certain I could model a plausible human programmatically from geometry primitives, but I won't claim to until I try. However what I am certain of is somebody can.
virtualritz 4y ago
> [...] nobody is going to make a plausible human programmatically by composing geometry out of primitives like spheres, cones, and boxes. Or even blobs/metaballs or isosurfaces. Actually that is exactly what people did in the aformentioned Organica modeler in the 90's. Yes, using a GUI modeling app but that is not a requirement here. Some vids that show what is possible with a text editor and not much effort (if you have a lib of ready-made SDF components you string together in code): https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3lsSzf https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3lsSzf https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh So yeah, I'd disagree with the 'nobody'. I wrote shaders for blokcbutser VFX as part of my job for over a decade. We regularly did some very complex SDF stuff there simply because we had to. I think Gilles Tran especially would be the kind of person who'd do that sort of stuff[1] if the object in question was central enough to the image. Which the motion blurred human figure in the "The wet bird" was not. [1] http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=6 http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=6

virtualritz 4y ago

I would call confusing the "what" with the "how" a "slight inaccuracy" a tad frivolous. And I mean that in a very caring way as handn't wasted 5mins writing a reply to you if this was as obvious as you try to make it sound.

Sharlin 4y ago
I am sorry for the confusion, but I did think it was pretty clear that the important part of "mesh modeler" in my comment was the word "modeler" because in the context it was used as the opposite to building scenes by writing code. I did genuinely forget that there exist modelers that work on splines rather than triangle meshes, but I don't really see the distinction as very important in this specific context.

phaedrus 4y ago

Your insistence on using the word "nobody" there is an absolute without evidence. You underestimate the visualization capabilities of savants. For my 3D game prototype, I created all of the meshes programmatically and wrote *and debugged* a mesh-slicing algorithm using only visualization in my own mind. Mostly I did indeed use primitives like spheres, cones, and boxes. Granted, huge caveats - I never finished a game from the prototype, and the meshes involved weren't that complicated; I was modeling imaginary robots not people. It's painful for me to use GUI or CAD tools because they're so much slower and less capable than the Dall-E image generator/CAD modeler/Star Trek Holodeck I have inside my own brain. This is in some ways limiting, analogous to a mathematician refusing to learn to use a computer. Nevertheless back to your point, I'm fairly certain I could model a plausible human programmatically from geometry primitives, but I won't claim to until I try. However what I am certain of is somebody can.

virtualritz 4y ago

> [...] nobody is going to make a plausible human programmatically by composing geometry out of primitives like spheres, cones, and boxes. Or even blobs/metaballs or isosurfaces. Actually that is exactly what people did in the aformentioned Organica modeler in the 90's. Yes, using a GUI modeling app but that is not a requirement here. Some vids that show what is possible with a text editor and not much effort (if you have a lib of ready-made SDF components you string together in code): https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3lsSzf https://www.shadertoy.com/view/3lsSzf https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh https://www.shadertoy.com/view/WsSBzh So yeah, I'd disagree with the 'nobody'. I wrote shaders for blokcbutser VFX as part of my job for over a decade. We regularly did some very complex SDF stuff there simply because we had to. I think Gilles Tran especially would be the kind of person who'd do that sort of stuff[1] if the object in question was central enough to the image. Which the motion blurred human figure in the "The wet bird" was not. [1] http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=6 http://www.oyonale.com/modeles.php?lang=en&page=6