I think you’re coming from the basic misunderstanding that anyone wants to hit a billion. That’s not the case. What we want is for the limit to be so high, we don’t have to think about limits.
Using even version 1.55 of Zbrush, a person is able to create many of the effects of realism and detail using the 2.5D tools and some basic low poly models. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Less labor involved, too.
Of course. And for a single static image, that’s the best way to go about it.
What you’re missing is a fundamental difference between 3D and 2D, or even 2.5D – the 3D assets you create can be repositioned, repurposed, and reused in other static images. Yes, you can detail your scene in 2.5D, it’ll be faster and less demanding of your system resources… But, you can’t take that detail with you. Embed it in the model, and you’re set.
What I am asking is who, professionally, for money, needs to manipulate actual polygonal geometry with these very large numbers of polygons and vertices? If this is actually an industry based need, could you please explain to me how you are making use of them?
Trick question. The industry need is for all of that detail to be stowed away in displacement maps so that nobody will manipulate actual polygonal geometry with anything close to that number of polygons and vertices. Same as it ever was.
I know people creating gaming characters are using normal maps created from high resolution models, but I don’t think even they are at a level where that many polygons are necessary to create the very limited level of realism that is practical to employ in modern games.
First off, you’re saying this at the absolute beginning of PS3’s life. Give it a year or two, and see what kind of realism is necessary for a game to even compete in the modern market.
Second, the generation of games currently on shelves pushed Z2 well past it’s limits. Artists had to find workarounds, break their characters into pieces, detail armor seperately, etc. Eliminating that hurdle frees the artist to better integrate all the pieces.
Does all that detail contribute to gameplay? Not particularly. It promotes immersion, which is sometimes useful. But mostly it just bolsters sales.
Regardless, realtime gaming is a warped example to begin with. It’s film you should be looking at.
We are all being pushed to constantly ugrade our hardware to accomodate, if I may use the word, our high tech lust - not for any reason relating to necessity, just lust for more.
Increased poly limits were demanded by the users; professional or amateur is beside the point. Nobody’s pushing us to do anything. But, many have been constrained for too long, and now they’re not.
Truthfully, it is not photorealism that is any longer the goal.
“The goal” doesn’t exist. There’s no unified vision of where creativity should be steered. The trend seems to be towards hyper-realism – stylized, but believable in the context it’s presented.
That was achieved with far smaller polygon counts. Real life objects are not viewed at distances, normally, where the kind of detail displayed in the models made with ZBrush 3 are visible.
Key word: Normally. CG lives for the exceptions.
Just look around you. Look at life. More likely, many users are simply demonstrating an increasing obsession for micro detail, the kind not visible in nature or elsewhere other than in the regions that the electron microscope has enabled us to “see”.
They’re exploring a freedom they didn’t have a few days ago. Let the novelty wear off a bit and see what they come up with.
(but, yes. there will always be trolls and zombies.)
I’m beginning to think that the majority of ZBrush users are simply demonstrating examples of their growing obsession. I don’t see an overwhelming industry need for these kinds of physically detailed models. Not unless all of the motion pictures and games, from this point on, will contain nothing but more and better orcs, cave trolls and nasty cave dwelling creatures.
They won’t. But, demo reels might. And, that’s fine – one anatomy study’s as appropriate as another. (Meanwhile, your reel should reflect a personal obsession or two…)
Does anyone else find the overwhelming presence of yet another monster or human face a tad monotonous? Is there anyone else out there that has a desire to see something else - possibly even something beautiful?
Are you saying there’s no beauty in the human face? No diversity in monsters? I find that hard to believe.
Regardless, this isn’t an art gallery. It’s the user group for a piece of software, and the work displayed will naturally reflect what the users feel like doing with it in their spare time. If the will of the people is not to your liking, you’ve basically got two options: Lead by example, or abandon ship.
shrug