Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ImpressiveBlender3DWork

a Lone House[edit]

Articles this appears in: Blender (software) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

This is in my opinion (of course) a very impressive piece of 3D art work, created and licensed freely by Michael Otto. What puts it even closer to my hearth is the fact that it has been created with Blender, an open source software 3D animation program. It gives you an impressive look of the capabilities of open source software, even if it is free and those who are developing it do so, at least most of the time, without any payment. I also feel that there aren't many computer graphics pictures among Wikipedias featured pictures (perhaps even only one?)

But enough about this! Let us look at the picture! Created by Michael Otto (applause going out in his direction). Let us get the essential things down right first.

It has a free license.
It is of high resolution.
It makes itself of good use in the Blender article, and I think it qualifies to be put in several other articles about computer graphics. This image simply says you can do impressive and realistic pictures by using 3D software.
It is definitely among Wikipedias best work when it comes to images generated by (3D) computer graphics software. As far as I can recall, there is only one other such picture among wikipedias FP.

But what strikes me most is the touch of realism that it offers. At the very first eyesight, you can't really tell that it has been computer generated. It is when those in learned rules (can you say that?) in you brain examine it further that you start realizing that this is 3D artwork, but I was simply even more impressed at that moment.

Some of you might complain about the position of the tree or that wooden thing to the right (no, I can see what it is! I just don't know the English name of it.) But I humbly believe that the old rules of composition do not qualify for reviewing this picture, as the purpose of this pictures is totally different. I believe the encyclopedic purpose of this piece of it is to show the potential of what 3D software has to offer. And having a close up on a big building and a tree that both look realistic and have a pleasing look fulfills that purpose.

I also want to talk a little about the "3D-features" that this pic has and that I (from my own (limited) experience) know are hard to accomplish.

Objects in large numbers, managed and spread all over the scene to give it the realistic look. I am talking about the small objects that you can see; pieces of wood, tires, tractor, etc. close to the wall of the house, the leaves surrounding the corners of the building, the birds, but perhaps the most impressive aspect: the trees and their leaves and the grass on the ground.
Textures, that give the objects their looks. They have to have several properties to look realistic, but especially their color and look and how they reflect light, all related to what object we are talking about.
But what I like most is the lightnings, especially how it has been put on the building to the left.

So, there you go. Now let's here the verdict! PureRumble 13:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support as nominator PureRumble 13:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom, but it needs to be added to an article. That shouldn't be too hard though: Blender, 3D animation, open-source, etc. would all make good homes.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but just to make it clear, it is already on the Blender article! PureRumble 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just to make this clear: I (the nominator) haven't made this picture. It is the work of Michael Otto. Sadly, he doesn't have a wikipedia account so I can draw his attention to this. PureRumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Wow! That's all I can say. Clegs (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent 3D render to be sure. There are two thinks I dislike about it, one is the crow sitting on the tyre in the lower LHS - it looks too small. Crows are very large birds and from this perspective I'd imagine it would look much larger (especially in comparison to the grass). The other thing is the (driveway?) furrows - they look a bit liquid/glassy. However that doesn't significantly detract form the excellent attention to detail elsewhere. --Fir0002 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how much I wish I had the original blender file so I could fix that. :-[ PureRumble 22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment What article is illustrated by this picture? - 80.172.45.45 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blender :-]. PureRumble 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Not only is it a beautiful image, but it's a fantastic representation of what the software is capable of. faithless (^speak) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I noted in extensive discussion on the PPR nom, while I like the picture, I think it is a poor representation of Blender. To quote myself "Blender is a 3D program, used for animations and modelling among many other things, but this image simply looks like a 2D art work...This is therefore rather an atypical use of Blender, and probably something that would be better made in another program." --jjron (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I had this discussion on the peer review site, but just to share it with our new friends here and I also want to add somethings too. Jjron, if we are supposed to follow your argument, then an artist that one day decides he wants to visualize (for the viewer) a scene of an abandoned multiple-storey house, surrounded by the atmosphere created by a sunset and close too a garden that has been abandoned too, in a location where there are lots of trees and close to mountains/hills... then that artist shouldn't use a 3D software, but instead 2D software. Yet Michael Otto simply proves your argument wrong by creating and showing us his work that we are discussing now. And what other program are you referring to anyway? I can think of nothing but only headaches if you were going to create something like this in let's say photoshop. PureRumble 13:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

Which perhaps simply goes to show you don't know much about different types of software. Photoshop is an photo/graphics editing program, again a poor choice for creating works like this. As I pointed out in the PPR discussion, I can write an essay in Photoshop or Excel, but Word is a far more suitable and intelligent choice. Just because you can do something in a program, doesn't mean you should. --jjron (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what I said. "I can think of nothing but only headaches...". I explicitly stated that photoshop would be a bad choice. You are correcting me on something that I have not stated/said! My initial question remains open; what other program are you referring to that would be a good choice for creating this scene? --PureRumble (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jjron, a movie is just made out of lots of images like this, no big difference.. and this looks awesome =) Yzmo ^talk 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have no idea how a movie relates to anything I said. So we are again reducing FPC to pretty pictures? That's not its purpose. --jjron (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know Blender, or how difficult or easy it is to produce this picture using that software, but I'm not convinced that this picture illustrates Blender any better than any other picture that might be created using that software. For example, are any of Fir's photos encyclopedic for the camera used to take them? I suspect not. Pstuart84 Talk 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither do I know of blender (in fact, I know NOTHING of it. ) In fact, I disagree. Say we have a camera X, yes? This camera is capable of amazing detail in photography, and yet, is easily obtainable and the maximum of it's capacities are, in fact, unknown to the majority. If that were the case, we could put a picture (of great quality) there to exemplify this. Boiled right down to it, what I mean is that this clearly demonstrates something blender can and is very good at doing, that the majority doesn't know, and as such, has quite an encyclopedic value. My two cents. --Mad Tinman _T _C 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blender is general purpose 3D software developed for the tasks of modelling, texturing and animation. This simply means that there is no single button to click to create a building, or several birds in the sky, etc.. I'm saying this to address your first question. On your second point, I don't know what you mean by "Fir's photos". However, since as I said Blender is a general software program, it is difficult to say that some picture "illustrates it better than any other picture". I don't think that is what we are trying to do here. We just want to present ONE picture that presents the capabilities of Blender, even if you can create pretty much any picture you can think of with features far greater than this one. PureRumble 14:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

I'd say , File:Blender sculpt.png, and heck, probably even give a better indication of what Blender is designed to do and its true capabilities (all also from the article, and no I'm not putting them up as alternatives). --jjron (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am putting this comment here because (in my humble opinion) some weird arguments have been presented against this picture. First of all some of us are discussing the purpose of Blender and if this picture represents that purpose. I answer to this explicitly like this: Blender is a general purpose 3D program. This means that the goal of the developers (or more the community, because I am now thinking of those who develop plugins too) of the program is that you should be able to create ANY scene that you can think of. A car? Horse? Architect who need to create a mock up? Architect who needs final renderings of how it will look like? Fantasy creatures? An abandoned house in a sunset scene? You name it!

Second. Yes, in my nomination I put big emphasize on Blender, and now this is in some way being use as the make or break point of this picture. It is like it MUST represent blender, otherwise it is out. But I feel it represents Blender, 3D software packages, Computer Graphics, art, open source projects, etc.. And hence what qualifies this picture is that it simply looks very good, realistic, has something to tell the viewer, etc., free license, big resolution. And it also shows what you can do with Blender, what you can do with 3D software packages, what you do in Computer Graphics, how art can be created/represented, just how serious is the open source community, and something related to etc. ;-). So hence it represents several topics in an encyclopedic way. Those are my five cents. --PureRumble (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think this is enc for Blender - in the same way that a photograph does not illustrate the camera used to take it. Pstuart84 Talk 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you can use a picture as a representation not of the camera that took it, but rather of the capacity the camera that took it has. For instance, every picture (I think) Fir has taken has the camera he took it with identified - which would be pointless if the photograph was in no way representative of the potential of the camera. Given that, this is perfectly enc in blender as it shows the full potential of the program. Support and cheers. --84.90.46.116 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (Mad Tinman _T _C 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - But I still don't think that any of Fir's photos could be added to the Wikipedia page for his camera and then nominated here as enc for the camera article. Pstuart84 Talk 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is a particularly good illustration for the Blender article. There is no user interface visible or explanation in the caption of what specific features were utilized. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So we are getting more and more comments about this picture not being representative of Blender's features and capabilities. However, there is another computer generated fpc (don't have time to find it, glasses with wine, dices I think, made in cinema 4D). I presume that it has been nominated since it appears in some other article than cinema 4D. How about we do the same thing for this picture? I do not think this is cheating. That cinema4D picture shows a close up on a still, just a certain few objects. This picture shows a completely different aspect of what you can do with CG. For instance, this one is an outdoors scene with environment lighting. Also, the objects appearing here are natural and organic as opposed to the cinema 4D picture. Any comments on this idea? --PureRumble (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some comments here seem to be based on the premise that the Blender article could have only one FP, and this FP should be of the user interface. However, we have articles that have more than one FP, and adding an FP does not necessarily mean the previous one has to be demoted. This is only usually done when both images illustrate the same aspect of the subject. So having two FPs, one for the user interface, and one as an example result, would be acceptable; however, I also don't know of any screenshot of a graphical user interface being promoted, but it's possible someone will correct me. Generally, the problem is that screenshots are fair use images and thus ineligible for FP. To return to the image at hand, I think it demonstrates the versatility of Blender very well, and as such, has exceptional encyclopaedic value. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking for myself, I have no problem with an article supporting more than one FPC. However, I'm still interested to hear in what way you think this illustrates Blender any more than a photograph illustrates the camera used to take it. Pstuart84 Talk 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the fact that it was made with Blender is the most remarkable thing about it. I'd hope you would concede that a stereogram would likely be a better illustration of the technique than a picture of the camera itself.
    Just to clear up any confusion, the reason this is illustrative of Blender's 3D modelling capabilities is the lighting, which could not be generated without rendering the scene from a 3D framework. To mark this down for being a 2D image is to completely miss the point – that it's a remarkable example of the power of modern 3D rendering software in generating 2D artwork with near-photo realism. --mikaul^talk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments here there & everywhere. --mikaul^talk 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't like composing a document in photoshop, because you really are not using the tools in photoshop to do anything creative. The fact that Blender can also be used for this type of work (in which the creative tools of blender were used), I see no reason to oppose. -- RM 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lone House.jpg MER-C 04:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]