camera for 3d graphic artist?
Discussion
Hello, my job is as a 3d graphic artist for a games company, and I need a camera for that one specific purpose - creating textures to use on 3d models.
The main thing I need is sharpness of image - typically I will take photos of source material (eg a wall, road surface etc..) at around 4 to 8m away, not using any zoom, or close up shots for details at about 1m.
For my job the images need to be of a resolution of perhaps 6000 to 8000 pixels wide, as typically the images will be cropped, edited in Photoshop etc... to produce textures at either 4096 x 4096 or 2048 x 2048.
I currently have a FujiFilm camera and, while it has plenty of options, in the end their compression algorithm seems to produce a sort of swirly pattern when you get to a pixel level, so sharp details are smudged a bit into this specific pattern.
Ideally I would prefer a small portable as I tend to gather reference material whenever I'm out and about so I don't want to carry around anything larger, and I'm not looking to spend lots of money on features that will never get used - clarity of image at a good size is the only thing that matters.
Can anyone recommend a camera I could try?
Thanks
James
The main thing I need is sharpness of image - typically I will take photos of source material (eg a wall, road surface etc..) at around 4 to 8m away, not using any zoom, or close up shots for details at about 1m.
For my job the images need to be of a resolution of perhaps 6000 to 8000 pixels wide, as typically the images will be cropped, edited in Photoshop etc... to produce textures at either 4096 x 4096 or 2048 x 2048.
I currently have a FujiFilm camera and, while it has plenty of options, in the end their compression algorithm seems to produce a sort of swirly pattern when you get to a pixel level, so sharp details are smudged a bit into this specific pattern.
Ideally I would prefer a small portable as I tend to gather reference material whenever I'm out and about so I don't want to carry around anything larger, and I'm not looking to spend lots of money on features that will never get used - clarity of image at a good size is the only thing that matters.
Can anyone recommend a camera I could try?
Thanks
James
Hi Mikef - For tiling textures I always use the offset and clone brush in PS.
First I get the main part of the texture sorted out, so perhaps merging bits of various photos, erasing things, hand editing in some cases. I use the clone brush to remove any features on the texture that will obviously repeat once the texture is tiled, eg. larger bits of dirt, scratches, features like cracks etc.. Depends on the texture, colours, how its going to be used etc..
If I'm laying lots of texture pieces together then I often find it best to use the erase brush to blend the pieces by erasing bits from higher layers to allow lower layers to show through. I often use a more naturally shaped brush rather than just using a soft round brush, to prevent areas becoming faded out by the soft edges of the brush. So eg for a road surface where I don't want any semi-erased stones, I randomly erase around stones using a harder edged brush of some sort, and in a completely random way to make any joins much harder to spot.
Then I use the offset function to shift the texture across by 50% of the width, and use the clone brush to erase the join. Then I offset it back 50%, and then offset vertically by 50% and repeat the clone brush process.
Finally offset it back to the position I started with, check for any joins at the top middle, left middle, right middle and bottom middle that have been created by using the clone brush. If I find anything I fix it with the clone brush. If it looks OK then I offset by 50% both vertically and horizontally and check the centre of the image for joins. Once done offset back and its completed.
First I get the main part of the texture sorted out, so perhaps merging bits of various photos, erasing things, hand editing in some cases. I use the clone brush to remove any features on the texture that will obviously repeat once the texture is tiled, eg. larger bits of dirt, scratches, features like cracks etc.. Depends on the texture, colours, how its going to be used etc..
If I'm laying lots of texture pieces together then I often find it best to use the erase brush to blend the pieces by erasing bits from higher layers to allow lower layers to show through. I often use a more naturally shaped brush rather than just using a soft round brush, to prevent areas becoming faded out by the soft edges of the brush. So eg for a road surface where I don't want any semi-erased stones, I randomly erase around stones using a harder edged brush of some sort, and in a completely random way to make any joins much harder to spot.
Then I use the offset function to shift the texture across by 50% of the width, and use the clone brush to erase the join. Then I offset it back 50%, and then offset vertically by 50% and repeat the clone brush process.
Finally offset it back to the position I started with, check for any joins at the top middle, left middle, right middle and bottom middle that have been created by using the clone brush. If I find anything I fix it with the clone brush. If it looks OK then I offset by 50% both vertically and horizontally and check the centre of the image for joins. Once done offset back and its completed.
PGD5 said:
Yeah very interesting stuff
I work in 3D too but rarely create my own textures tbh. Time just doesn't allow it in most cases.
Have you some examples of your work, would be good to see it...
Phil
+1I work in 3D too but rarely create my own textures tbh. Time just doesn't allow it in most cases.
Have you some examples of your work, would be good to see it...
Phil
It's something I mean to try out some time but I work with very tight deadlines
so I never really get round to it.
Whatever you use, you should consider 2 issues for 'tiling' photographs; vignetting and lens distortion. In the case of a DSLR this will largely be dependent on which lens you use, obviously in a compact you're stuck with whatever's on it. Shooting in raw and using a processing program like Lightroom will enable you to fix both vignetting and distortion (for many lenses, and to a large degree) with a single mouse click.
I'm not an expert by any means, but FWIW I'd probably go for a DSLR and long-ish prime lens; a prime should be better image quality and less distortion, and a long one to reduce the effects of perspective. Since you don't need a fast lens (i.e. big aperture) it shouldn't cost too much, but a mega resolution DSLR will be expensive...
I'm not an expert by any means, but FWIW I'd probably go for a DSLR and long-ish prime lens; a prime should be better image quality and less distortion, and a long one to reduce the effects of perspective. Since you don't need a fast lens (i.e. big aperture) it shouldn't cost too much, but a mega resolution DSLR will be expensive...
PGD5 said:
Yeah very interesting stuff
I work in 3D too but rarely create my own textures tbh. Time just doesn't allow it in most cases.
Have you some examples of your work, would be good to see it...
Phil
Not got anything handy on this PC but the last released game I worked on was Need For Speed : Shift 2, doing environment artwork.I work in 3D too but rarely create my own textures tbh. Time just doesn't allow it in most cases.
Have you some examples of your work, would be good to see it...
Phil
Also involved with Project Cars.
http://www.wmdportal.com/projects/cars/
mikef said:
Sony DSC-RX100 or Canon Powershot S110? I seem to recall a good S100 thread on here with pictures, but as usual search isn't working...
I'd be interested to know what technique you use to make repeating tiles from your texture images?
Thanks, I'll check those 2 out.I'd be interested to know what technique you use to make repeating tiles from your texture images?
Edited by mikef on Wednesday 7th November 08:41
On an off-topic subject and something I was just wondering as I work in a tiny niche of 3D work.
Have you came across anyone using procedural methods for building up the basics of enviroments for games
came across an interesting article by Kim Goosens about using Houdini for this.
http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content...
Not that I know anything about work in the games industry and if it was impractical etc. But as a heavy Houdini
user I found it very interesting.
Have you came across anyone using procedural methods for building up the basics of enviroments for games
came across an interesting article by Kim Goosens about using Houdini for this.
http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content...
Not that I know anything about work in the games industry and if it was impractical etc. But as a heavy Houdini
user I found it very interesting.
JimSuperSix said:
For my job the images need to be of a resolution of perhaps 6000 to 8000 pixels wide, as typically the images will be cropped, edited in Photoshop etc... to produce textures at either 4096 x 4096 or 2048 x 2048.
If you need that sort of native resolution (ie not upscaled) you're looking at either the Nikon D800e (ideally, no anti-aliasing filter so sharper) or medium format digital (eg Phase One or Leaf, or Hasselblad H4D) and the associated ££££s. I use a Canon 5D Mk3 which is as good as it gets in Canon for resolution but still it can't get to those kind of resolutions natively.Also if you're taking photos with such a need for accuracy I'd look at tilt and shift lenses, IIRC Nikon calls them Perspective Correction, or movements on a medium format camera, perhaps something like a Fujifilm GX680.
All in all it is going to cost you a fair bit to get that kind of resolution.
Thanks for the info - any resolution above 4096 is likely to be fine for most things that I need.
The Sony DSC-RX100 looks interesting but at about £450 it's a bit out of my price range. I think I'd be paying for features that will never get used, such as HD movie recording etc...
Are there any cheaper compacts that can shoot in RAW mode?
The Sony DSC-RX100 looks interesting but at about £450 it's a bit out of my price range. I think I'd be paying for features that will never get used, such as HD movie recording etc...
Are there any cheaper compacts that can shoot in RAW mode?
Looking at this article, seems like the ability to shoot in RAW mode is the most important thing to picture clarity at a pixel level.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers...
JimSuperSix said:
Looking at this article, seems like the ability to shoot in RAW mode is the most important thing to picture clarity at a pixel level.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers...
Don't put too much stock in shooting raw as being the answer. Good technique and the right setup will produce better results than using any particular camera.http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers...
A low end DSLR from Canon or Nikon will most likely be more than you need. Next you should buy a study tripod and a flash or strobe lighting kit.
This is not a quick way of taking pictures but will get you what you need. Just using a more expensive camera will just result in a slightly nicer snapshot rather than really sharp photos.
JimSuperSix said:
a small portable as I tend to gather reference material whenever I'm out and about so I don't want to carry around anything larger
Olivero said:
DSLR from Canon or Nikon will most likely be more than you need. Next you should buy a study tripod and a flash or strobe lighting kit
You have to love PH forums...Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff