[Hervé]

...and a great artist is nothing without audience.

very good point Tom.. but... shhhtttt.. the audience is listening... hi hi

Houllebecq (a novelist) recently said.. the mass always win...

[Frances]

...and a great artist is nothing without audience.

Perhaps an artist cannot be proclaimed as great without an audience, but then neither can a 3d visual.

[ivox3]

and what makes a great artist ?

Great thought.
Great effort.

Even if it gets to the point of being easy for the artist ..... Exactly how many years did it take for that ease to come about ?

Moral: Shortcuts = illusion.

*** 5 Year old prodigy types on You Tube are exempted !

Example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAhZZc_Bwps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUx4t4W4eVY

[tom]

...and a great artist is nothing without audience.

Perhaps an artist cannot be proclaimed as great without an audience, but then neither can a 3d visual.

Right. Then it must be the engine which makes it a 3D visual.

[Hervé]

he he .. we off off topic.. the initial question was "WHAT" makes..... not "WHO" makes...

who... is off course Maxwell. no...? try to make it with brushes and pencils..

[Calico Jack]

I think good 3d-model is the answer. Of course idea is also important. Check this dude: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread. ... ight=nitin

[Bubbaloo]

I think good 3d-model is the answer. Of course idea is also important. Check this dude: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread. ... ight=nitin

Cool design but those renders could be improved...

[Frances]

...and a great artist is nothing without audience.

Perhaps an artist cannot be proclaimed as great without an audience, but then neither can a 3d visual.

Right. Then it must be the engine which makes it a 3D visual.

It is not the hammer that builds the house.

ETA, a 3d visual could be composed of good modelling, good texturing, good lighting and good camera work - but not necessarily be great. As Herve said, (to paraphrase) it is the thought behind the work that can make it great. Thought that goes into composition, thought that goes into what the artist or illustrator intends to convey with the visual. A stellar representation of a poor design is still just a great picture of something bad. But who decides what is good design or poor design, and what constitutes poor composition or camera work in a visual? The viewer. So I guess it could be said that it is the viewer who makes a work great?

For interior visualization (I know, it's boring to many people here), I like an image that goes beyond looking good and actually evokes something in the viewer. Preferably the feeling that the designer wishes someone to have when they are in the actual space, whether it's peace and tranquility, or energy and vitality.

[Hervé]

It can be a great visual.. or picture.. or render... if one look at it more than a min. (and a min. looking at something is long), then it starts to be interesting.. a good image should be interesting to watch for what's in it.. not how it was made..

This is where we are biased.. at least with renders.. we watch it another way...

best is to show a render to "3D un-educated people"... then you know ...

[sandykoufax]

Great eyes.

[tom]

It is not the hammer that builds the house.

Although, there are examples which are free of art but looking perfectly photoreal. "What makes a great 3D visual?" --- The aim of creating a 3D visual is all about attempting to simulate it as much photorealistic as it can. As every piece of art is not a 3D visual, every 3D visual doesn't have to be an art but "photoreal". That's why I think it's the engine which makes a great 3D visual, otherwise we could still do good with raytracers with art and the artist.

[VisualImpact]

It is not the hammer that builds the house.

Although, there are examples which are free of art but looking perfectly photoreal. "What makes a great 3D visual?" --- The aim of creating a 3D visual is all about attempting to simulate it as much photorealistic as it can. As every piece of art is not a 3D visual, every 3D visual doesn't have to be an art but "photoreal". That's why I think it's the engine which makes a great 3D visual, otherwise we could still do good with raytracers with art and the artist.

so, are realism painters paintings free of art.

[tom]

Art itself is heavily subjective. You should agree everything is art or nothing is art. Of course, you can still say "good art", "bad art" etc. and it's obviously relative. For example, I make a product visualization render and the design of product itself may be classified as art but, the render itself is only a 3D visual. On the other hand, the reality of 3D visualization itself could be great and it's about the engine if that is a render, unless it's painted by hand which would make it art. Otherwise, anything is art...

[Hervé]

anything can be art.. the artist decides... the people vote..

(Cf. Marcel Duchamp)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

[Frances]

It is not the hammer that builds the house.

Although, there are examples which are free of art but looking perfectly photoreal. "What makes a great 3D visual?" --- The aim of creating a 3D visual is all about attempting to simulate it as much photorealistic as it can. As every piece of art is not a 3D visual, every 3D visual doesn't have to be an art but "photoreal". That's why I think it's the engine which makes a great 3D visual, otherwise we could still do good with raytracers with art and the artist.

Your criteria for a great 3d visual is photorealism. In your mind, photorealism is engine-dependent and not user-dependent. If it is the engine that makes great 3d visuals, then why isn't every single image submitted to this forum great and photoreal?