An exercise: photoreal versus fully handpainted skins

[Lionheart]

eeeks!

Thanks for the heads up Chris.



Bill

 

[yago9]

Just because it can't be proved doesn't make taking other peoples pictures and using them without permission any less wrong.

Corect , but you can find tones of non copyrighted photos..and I never used a copyrighted one..ever..pls prove me wrong .You cant so why are we bringing this up for ? It never happend..and so far we just insinuating things ,including myself with the payware Cobra guy and that,s not right either.No proof ,no crime, no crime topic

 

[MCDesigns]

In FS9 I probably preferred photoreal, but in FSX with all its self shadowing, bump mapping and specular mapping I much prefer to have a hand painted scheme.

However as has been said, if done right, both can look stunning.

Agreed. technically, there really isn't much of a difference, I have seen paintings that mimic a photograph to a T and when you "bake" textures to a model, you are still applying fake shadows, same as a photo texture.

Funny, in my CGI work, I take parts from ultra high res human form images and do the same thing to a 3D texture sheet to try and create a credible human 3D model. I have to deal with eliminating pre cast shadows and highlights on the textures, because the rendering software provides for realistic lighting and shadows, unlike the FS engine, like the aircraft model renders you see in max. This is why phototextures work well in FS, they provide for the inadequacies of the FS lighting to give you a more realistic visual experience

 

[Quixoticish]

Corect , but you can find tones of non copyrighted photos..and I never used a copyrighted one..ever..pls prove me wrong .You cant so why are we bringing this up for ? It never happend..and so far we just insinuating things ,including myself with the payware Cobra guy and that,s not right either.No proof ,no crime, no crime topic

Ignorance truly is bliss it would seem.

 

[Cobra8472]

Agreed. technically, there really isn't much of a difference, I have seen paintings that mimic a photograph to a T and when you "bake" textures to a model, you are still applying fake shadows, same as a photo texture.

Funny, in my CGI work, I take parts from ultra high res human form images and do the same thing to a 3D texture sheet to try and create a credible human 3D model. I have to deal with eliminating pre cast shadows and highlights on the textures, because the rendering software provides for realistic lighting and shadows, unlike the FS engine, like the aircraft model renders you see in max. This is why phototextures work well in FS, they provide for the inadequacies of the FS lighting to give you a more realistic visual experience

The diffirence with baking GI is that you're doing just that, baking Global Illumination- i.e. ambient occlusion.

Shadows that would appear in practically all light conditions due to natural properties of light.

This is being done on the fly in more advanced engines today (CryEngine is a good example). Shader wise- usually called Ambient Occlusion.

Us FS Developers are simply doing the same step but in our 3D tool of choice.


Nick

 

[N2056]

Potayto, Potahto...

I guess I'll never get why this whole debate goes on...
You use what you like. What others think means nothing at that point...to me at least.

 

[CBris]

eeeuuuwww.... ripples in a pond:naturesm:and it was only such a small pebble :d

Of course, taking your own photos and pasting them goes as OK without saying. Where I started wondering was when I read an article on copyright marking of photos - where the C holder can embed code in his online photos. This makes them traceable and I was wondering if this code gets transferred when it is used on a photo paint.

As for Airliners net, they put visible watermarks on most pictures. I'm not sure about invisible ones though.

On the other hand, copyrights are there to prevent (ab)users making money out of a person's work, which is something we painters have no intention of doing.

And thanks too, for the other hints about re-working paints. I'll have to delve deeper into such techniques and things.

 

[yago9]

Ignorance truly is bliss it would seem.

Very true ! When you fake it ..yes it,s even better..

 

[tigisfat]

Agreed. technically, there really isn't much of a difference, I have seen paintings that mimic a photograph to a T and when you "bake" textures to a model, you are still applying fake shadows, same as a photo texture.

Funny, in my CGI work, I take parts from ultra high res human form images and do the same thing to a 3D texture sheet to try and create a credible human 3D model. I have to deal with eliminating pre cast shadows and highlights on the textures, because the rendering software provides for realistic lighting and shadows, unlike the FS engine, like the aircraft model renders you see in max. This is why phototextures work well in FS, they provide for the inadequacies of the FS lighting to give you a more realistic visual experience

That was perfectly said. There is clearly a stigma or 'cheapness' being associated to photo repaints here, and it doesn't make sense. The object is to produce the most realistic looking aircraft and sceneries possible, right? If a given handpainted from scratch texture looks better than a given one developed from a photo, then I'll choose the handpainted first. I'm the consumer, and I don't care which set of textures involve more talent and/or time. I want the best looking ones. Like everyone else, I shop based on realism; and aesthetics have a lot to do with my decisions.
These days, with a jillion polys more accurately simulating form, wrapping photos onto models and then editing them for correctness appears to be really getting the job done.

Just because Yago's technique has him turning out repaints in a hot minute doesn't mean they aren't internationally recognised as greatness, even if it comes at the dismay of hard working painters everywhere.

Such is progress and capitalism. If I'm manufacturing a widget that takes me a day to produce and someone is making a better liked model that is produced in five minutes, I'm still the loser. Noone's going to care if mine takes me a day plus blood,sweat and tears to make, they only know what they like.

 

[yago9]

There is clearly a stigma or 'cheapness' being associated to photo repaints here, and it doesn't make sense. Just because Yago's technique has him turning out repaints in a hot minute doesn't mean they aren't internationally recognised as greatness, even if it comes at the dismay of hard working painters everywhere.


.

woowww a stigma ,cheapness..with photoreal paints ??it,s ok ,all good.. but never heard that ones before...Listen, i don,t have enough talent or even if i had, enough time not to use any means available to reach the desired end result.Simple as that..maybe you all interested parties shoud give it a try in case you didn,t cause I would say it requires much more than painting skills and you can,t feel that unless you try it yourself.it a lot of fun also.It,s a bit confusing to me because not once my paints were labeled photoreal when no photo material was used or very little to qualify as such..Are this two photoreal or not ? I will show you the only photos i have for this two planes..does it looks I,ve ripped and used any part of this photos ? Maybe the dog,s head..does it make it photoreal ?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania---Air/Aero-L-39ZA-Albatros/1149446/M/

 

[2Low]

That was perfectly said. There is clearly a stigma or 'cheapness' being associated to photo repaints here, and it doesn't make sense.

I'm still at a loss to find this kind of statement. Some prefer one, some the other but it's been just about unanimous that either done well are impressive. They are similar yet different forms of art.

There is no need to defend photoreal work as no one is attacking it unless I missed a post? Some like jets, some props. Some like GA, some vintage millitary. Same thing IMHO. Don't get this.

 

[Henry]

I'm still at a loss to find this kind of statement. Some prefer one, some the other but it's been just about unanimous that either done well are impressive. They are similar yet different forms of art.

There is no need to defend photoreal work as no one is attacking it unless I missed a post? Some like jets, some props. Some like GA, some vintage millitary. Same thing IMHO. Don't get this.

They are my thoughts exactly
H

 

[tigisfat]

I'm still at a loss to find this kind of statement. Some prefer one, some the other but it's been just about unanimous that either done well are impressive. They are similar yet different forms of art.

There is no need to defend photoreal work as no one is attacking it unless I missed a post? Some like jets, some props. Some like GA, some vintage millitary. Same thing IMHO. Don't get this.

They are my thoughts exactly
H

There have been several posts of late attacking photoreal stuff; pretty much implying they take no talent to make and such. One example can be found in the L-39 sticky that's still up. It came up in several other threads, so I figured this thread, as a conversation, was warranted.

 

[Kiwikat]

...

There have been several posts of late attacking photoreal stuff; pretty much implying they takes no talent to make and such. One example can be found in the L-39 sticky that's still up. It came up in several other threads, so I figured this thread, as a conversation, was warranted.

I haven't seen anyone attacking anyone elses' work (on this topic anyways). I simply said I don't prefer to use photoreal paints and don't like to create them. I'd rather make paints based on a paint kit and use other peoples' non-photoreal textures. I don't like the look of photoreal aircraft in a non-photoreal environment.

If anyone reads my statements as of late and thought they were implying it took no talent, you'd best read them again. The implications are all yours and not my intent. Yago originally asked a question about whether people preferred photoreal or art-based textures. All I did was answer his question.

 

[VCN-1]

I for one am totally mystified on how the photo-real textures are done.
Anyone who has the skills and talent to do one I tip my hat to.

I am also amazed at the work that is done using hand painted textures.

I have a problem trying to draw a straight line with a T-Square.

Regardless of the method I want to say thanks. It is added enjoyment to my hobby.

My only problem is I can't seem to find all the textures that are previewed.

VCN-1

 

[yago9]

There is nothing to defend...Wird why is such an ungoing issue,for years now..My problem would be , why someone feel that is a need for this texturing style , to be label as such , in the title , description or in general.Why the label? it,s not such a clean cut as i just showed you...Is it necessary to say ; "photoreal L39" " photoreal style L39 " handpainted or mixed L39 " ? Why.. it,s not like serving coffe.."oohh did you put sugar in it ? sry I can have it with sweetner only" . A download wont give you a waist line nor extra sugar in your bood..Maybe for some of you,..a bit in your urine, but nothing bad will happend to you ,I promise. You get what you see,you see what you get ..If that was misleading for you,simply remove it. Was my last comment on the issue .Cheers !

P.S.
I have a request though, a hand painted piece of texture for the L39,if any non-photoreal painter whould be willing to help me out ..I tried to do it "legit" by hand but i,m worthless,i just can,t do it right..Kiwicat you ?.. no ? anyone ? pls..!
I want to finish this texture but i cant, it will be a joined effort,mentioned as credit with the upolad.Thank you.

 

[Lionheart]

Potayto, Potahto...

I guess I'll never get why this whole debate goes on...
You use what you like. What others think means nothing at that point...to me at least.

Well put.

:d

 

[Gibbage]

There are two sides to using photo's in textures.

First, there is the bad. CFS3 cockpits. Ugh were they UGLY!!! Really really bad use of photo's.

Second, the L-39. They look REALLY good! A talented artist can do some amazing work with photo's. I have used photo elements in many of my skins. Tires, gas caps, labels, and other things. Some people may see it as a short-cut, but I dont. To be able to color match, and align a 2D photo over a 3D surface takes a LOT of talent and time! Maybe just as much as hand painting!

As for using someone elses photo's, it depends on a few things. First and foremost, if you post a photo on the internet without any type of text saying NOT to use it, then you can have no reasonable expectations for people to NOT use it. Its like yelling a secret in a crowded room, and expecting people to not share it. Thats just stupid. It would never hold up in a court of law. A great deal of what texture artist's do is sampled from random photo's we find on the internet anyways.

There are limitations to this. #1 is privacy. Using someone's face, for instance. Recently a company was sued for using a photo of a womans baby she posted on Facebook without her permission. #2, is if the photo was an image of something thats copy written. Say a photo of a corporate logo. Like a sponsor's logo on the side of an aircraft.

There are some other issues with using photo's. Its a bit of a sticky situation sometimes, and thats why in FSX you dont see default aircraft with real airline liveries. Its better to be safe then sorry, thats for sure.

 

[Bone]

Hand painted skin or photo real skin. Either can look absolutely incredible, or like mown over dog crap. It's a function of talent and effort of the person doing the work, not the type of skin.

 

[harleyman]

I'm getting bored with this discussion over and over....


Go fly a plane......LOL