A very useful video. It really takes an incredible knowledge to do the job well in 3d visualization. Also, customers refer to the best work and offer incredibly low prices. Also, people often work one person and the workload becomes very heavy. Maybe someday you will create a work schedule for single person workers. This is very important because you are very good at it.
I believe this is simply part of progress. The world will never be the same, just as it wasn’t after any previous stage of evolution. The world never goes back to what it was; it always moves forward. For centuries, even millennia, new tools have rendered old professions obsolete. Yet, with each historical turn, the number of professions only increases. People still need architects, whereas in the past, only builders were required. And before that, people dug their own shelters. Just 20 years ago, visualizations didn’t even exist, and now it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. To answer your question directly - yes, AI will replace some of us. But the visualization and 3D industries aren’t going anywhere. For instance, do we still need to spend days or weeks on matte painting? No, we don’t. But will marketers, architects, developers, and builders create their own visuals? No, they won’t. They’ll still need professionals to provide that service. The difference is that those professionals will be using new technologies. Some will excel, and others will fall behind.
@@danielnagaetsliveThe evolution of the world was its own process. These are the unchangeable laws of nature. But when man consumes the raw materials, he will sit down and eat the skyscrapers he has erected! Capitalism and neo-liberal economic policies will bring the end of everything, not just jobs.
круто! на счет нейронок интересно не добавляют ли они налет " зловещей долины " понятно что глаз воспринимает обработку как вау , но мозг запомнит это как что то жуткое , ( как и весь арт нейронок вызывает тошнотворный эффект) так как все складки отражения вмятины и тд что добавляет нейронка весьма нелогичны и лишь пытаются быть настоящими , короче абсурдно использовать физикл материал и потом шлифовать это нейронкой) жаст май опинион
Legacy shader, as in the name, has a legacy shader model, which is still decent but older technology, slightly less accurate. Legacy shader was/is meant to be phased out eventually. Pysical is better in terms of accuracy, fidelity, energy preservation and compatibility.
Decent video but some of the information when it comes to shader creation is misleading. First of all, there is absolutely no reason to mix diffuse color and textures in any percentage. This will only make you lose texture detail if anything. It also totally depends on the texture itself. If the idea is to reduce texture detail by reducing the contribution 20% only to "flatten" the texture, this can be done with proper post processing, or just a color correction node, but ideally with a shader authoring software, properly delighted. You definitely are not creating albedo when you mix it with base color. Second, there is also no reason to avoid using bump maps. Reflection glossiness/roughness, or better, microsurface details, would give you most of the details one can't get from bump maps, and is enough for some surfaces, however bump map is necessary to show actual surface detail for rough objects. This is specially true for wood, natural stone, tiles and plaster, exactly the opposite of what you explain. Those should be used bump and roughness/glossiness combined. The way you explain it might threw of a beginner.
I agree with your saying about the bump+reflection on the materials especially wood and plaster. I was confused why he told us to not use it there when we all know it is necessary. Maybe he wanted to put somewhere in the explaining a Displacement map so it got confusing, who knows :)
It’s pretty difficult to debate images just with words. I’ve shown examples that back up what I’m saying. When I have a goal to create a certain material, I look for photos that match the result I want to achieve and try different methods to get there. The conclusions I’ve drawn are in this video. The thing is, if you’re a pro, you already know what to do without me telling you. But the problem is that many beginners end up ruining their work by overusing bump maps, sharpness, or other effects. Honestly, they’d be better off not using them at all.
I can not agree on the overall pipeline. Usually the modeler job is to deliver high quality models not scene ... you combined modeling and layout in one stage which is completely wrong, also the art direction should start in parallel with the modeling. The best option here is modeling and art direction in parallel, after that artists take the scene and do their magic. In your pipline if the client returns comments on overall layout it will be modeling team responsibilities to fix them, which will bring the project 3 stages back ... maybe the only option this will be efficient if you use USD but i doubt that.
