3D Modeling is a lot of fun. I have really been enjoying it and its versatility. 3DS Max is also a great tool, helping me to complete my projects, and I've run into few problems using it. The program is well made, and while I wouldn't say that it's easy to use, its only from the amount of things you can do with it. The sheer amount of menus, functions, engines, and tools is overwhelming- in a good way. There's so much that you can do that it's a wonder that the systems are so well organized.
Below you can see one of my rendered models. It's a table with a lamp, vase, flowers, and a wine glass. Everything but the flowers was made with splines, 2D bezier curves and shapes that you can turn into 3D models. It just goes to show the versatility of the program, being able to make something like this in that way- even if my work is far from good. All in all, 3D Modeling is a lot of fun. I really, really like it, which is a good thing. Next year, all we do is 3D Modeling. All year. Nevertheless, I really enjoy this unit, and I particularly look forward to when we do 3D Animation. I want to see how different it is from 2D Animation, which I did not like too much. I think it'll be easier, if not simpler- most things in 3D are more complicated than those in 2D. In Summary - 3DS Max is very versatile - There are many ways of accomplishing a single task - I very much enjoy it, and I cannot wait to begin 3D Animation
0 Comments
3D Modeling is not hard. I've had limited use of Blender before, but I honestly think that this is one of the easiest units we've had in this class. (for the second half of school, at least.) I really like the process of modeling, and the products that come out of it.
3DS Max is a useful and versatile, but complex. There's a lot of things to do do it, but there are also a lot of sub-menus and it can be hard to do simple things. However, I have not had any problems doing anything with it, and while I don't think my models are the best, I do believe that that's due to a lack of skill, rather than any fault of the tool. Above, you can see two of my models. One is a cartoon head, one of my first models, and the other is a futuristic city, which is my latest model. I think that I have improved a bit on my detail and skill, though the city was very, very simple and easy to make. Next year, we are supposed to spend the entire year on 3D Modeling. I am personally excited for things like texturing and animation- and I think that 3D Animation is much easy and simpler than using something like Adobe Animate. All in all, 3D Modeling is fun, and easy to do. It is complex, but you quickly get used to it. I personally cannot wait to use 3DS Max more in the coming weeks. In Summary:
Recently in my DDA class, we have been working with three different Adobe products- Adobe After Effects, Premiere, and Animate. All three of these have their strengths and weaknesses; some more so than others.
Once you get the hang of it, Animate is at least tolerable. That's the only good thing I have to say about that program. After Effects was easy to use, if a little bit more clunky than Premiere. I enjoyed making my motion graphic on it, and it was really easy and cool to see what I'd done. I've only used Premiere once now, and I think it's honestly the best of the three. If you've ever used iMovie, you'll get the hang of this program pretty quick. It's literally just that, but a whole lot nicer. I found Animate frustrating and annoying to work with, and I can't say that, concerning quality, I'm terribly proud of the things I made in it. For example, I thought the brush tool was broken, making it so that I couldn't use tweens on a layer where I had used it. But no, I just had no understanding of the symbol system (I still don't). After Effects is a well polished program. It's easy to use, and I have no problems with it. I really can't think of anything I don't like about it. On the other hand, while this hasn't happened to me, my teacher mentioned the Premiere is a drain on system resources, and one kid had problems with the program crashing. Each product has their advantages and disadvantages. I personally felt let down by Animate, as I was really excited to start animating. I ended up glad that we only did two assignments in it. Otherwise, I've been really happy with the programs we've been using. In Summary;
2D Animation has been around since the 60's, and techniques used back then are still used today. We still use keyframes to simulate movement, for example. But animation of all forms has come a long way since then. There are countless tools that make starting with animation easier and more accessible, and with sites like Machinina and Newgrounds, sharing those animations to the public has never been easier. I personally grew up using Scratch, where I made garbage stick figure animations, but those helped me learn techniques and tools that are vital to animation. Because of Scratch, animation has become something I do for fun. I would use a Adobe product if I had the money, but I have to settle for Krita. Krita uses bitmap graphics, while back in the early '10s, I used vector graphics. The difference is huge. Vector was much more efficient for me to churn out smooth animations, but I found the level of detail somewhat limited. Bitmap definitely takes longer, and I can never seem to finish and animation, but for some reason, I vastly prefer it over other vector programs I've used. My teacher mentioned that we'll be using Illustrator for animation, and I'm okay with that. Illustrator is a great tool, and I've made some decent items with it, but I think I would still prefer to use Photoshop. Regardless, animation is something I really enjoy doing. My animations aren't particularly good, in fact, they're pretty mediocre. I've deleted most of them, and the few that are left are unfinished and rough. But for some reason, I still love animation. It's something I do for fun, and I'm excited for our next unit. Summary:
Credits: “2D Animation, Storyboards, Compositing, Animation, Outlines, Coloring.” Studio Plumeau, studioplumeau.com/2d-animation-process/. “Computer Animation.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Jan. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_animation.
In Dead Cells, you're a beheaded corpse fighting its way through hordes of revenants, using a variety of swords, bows, bombs, and magic spells. The game has been praised for its varied and fast-paced, flowing combat, its melding of two polar opposite genres, and astounding environmental design. Each area has its own mood, architecture, and mechanics, each brought to life by the game's great use of color. In the screenshot above, you can see the Beheaded standing in one of the later areas in the game, the Forgotten Sepulcher. The maze-like catacombs are shrouded in a thick, red darkness that hurts you if you stand in it too long. To help you along, however, two kinds of lanterns are scattered throughout the level. Smaller, more common blue lanterns light up when you touch them, and break after a small period of time. The other kind, a big yellow orb, is only found next to portals, and doesn't break. Below, you can see a basic color wheel. You can see that the color of the fog is completely opposite to the color of the blue lanterns. Color Theory states that this creates a complementary scheme. The high-contrast lanterns draw players in like moths to a lamp. Even without knowing what it does, they go to inspect it, and realizes that it's just a special version of the bigger, yellow orbs that they encountered earlier. Speaking of which, you'll also notice that yellow is one color away from red on that color wheel. This creates a split complementary scheme, providing a nuanced and good-looking environment. The red creates a foreboding sense of dread, while the yellow and blue provide a sense of safety, even when there is none. This is just one example of the amazing use of color in Dead Cells.
When you hear the word Photoshop, you think of photo editing, or maybe illustration and graphic design. And that's what Photoshop is used for. But lately, Photoshop has been criticized for its use in fashion. Everyone knows that fashion magazines present their models in an unrealistic way. The men and women modeling in those magazine are presented in a golden light. They look too perfect; there's no way that they can actually look like they do. And that's true; photos like that are doctored to make the models look ten times more handsome or beautiful. Usually, that wouldn't be a problem. They do that to insinuate that if you buy their product, then you will look like this person. And that's just marketing. Most people don't really pay attention to this. Most. Those supermodels and actors with perfect bodies and beautiful faces make some strive to achieve something that's impossible. Those people see those photos, unconsciously latch onto them, and don't let go. They want to be that perfect, that handsome, which is impossible. And yet, they still try. Some begin to dislike how they look, striving to reach that golden standard, but they never do. Self-hate creeps in, filling their minds and thoughts. It sometimes leads to eating disorders, depression, or many other mental sicknesses. These marketing strategies can, and have, ruined lives. Some blame the corporations that make these photos, others blame the software used. Photoshop's gotten a bad rap for being used by these companies. But is really to blame? I don't think so. You don't blame the gun for shooting someone; you blame the shooter. As a private company, Adobe (The makers of Photoshop), could limit who could and couldn't use their products, but would that really be fair? No, it wouldn't. In summary:
|
AuthorHi! I'm Thomas MacDougall, a sophomore at DSA. Here you can check out my thoughts and recent activities. Please note that the views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Durham School of the Arts or Durham Public Schools. Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|