hodapp/blag
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fixed Blender post

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Chris Hodapp 2016-06-04 22:13:29 -04:00
parent 2d7c7e70cc
commit 2ad8bee8c9
1 changed files with 82 additions and 16 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

98
posts/2011-02-07-blender-from-a-recovering-pov-ray-user.md
View File

@ -1,29 +1,95 @@
--- ---
layout: post
title: Blender from a recovering POV-Ray user title: Blender from a recovering POV-Ray user
tags: CG date: February 7, 2011
status: publish author: Chris Hodapp
type: post tags: CG, blender
published: true
--- ---
This is about the tenth time I've tried to learn [Blender](http://www.blender.org/). Judging by the notes I've accumulated so far, I've been at it this time for about a month and a half. From what I remember, what spurred me to try this time was either known-Blender-guru Craig from [Hive13](http://www.hive13.org/) mentioning [Voodoo Camera Tracker](http://www.digilab.uni-hannover.de/docs/manual.html) (which can output to a Blender-readable format), or my search for something that would make it easier to do the 2D visualizations and algorithmic art I always end up doing (and I heard Blender had some crazy node-based texturing system...
Having a goal for what I want to render has been working out much better than just trying to learn the program and hope the inspiration falls into place (like it would appear all of my previous attempts involved). This really has nothing to do with Blender specifically, but really anything that is suitably complex and powerful. I have just had this dumb tendency in the past few years to try to learn all of the little details of a system without first having a motivation to use them, despite this being completely at odds with nearly all things I consider myself to have learned well. I'm seeing pretty clearly how that approach is rather backwards, for me at least. This is about the tenth time I've tried to learn
[Blender](http://www.blender.org/). Judging by the notes I've
accumulated so far, I've been at it this time for about a month and a
half. From what I remember, what spurred me to try this time was
either known-Blender-guru Craig from [Hive13](http://www.hive13.org/)
mentioning
[Voodoo Camera Tracker](http://www.digilab.uni-hannover.de/docs/manual.html)
(which can output to a Blender-readable format), or my search for
something that would make it easier to do the 2D visualizations and
algorithmic art I always end up doing (and I heard Blender had some
crazy node-based texturing system...
I took a lot of notes early on where I tried to map out a lot of its features at a very high level, but most of this simply didn't matter - what mattered mostly fell into place when I actually tried to make something in Blender. However, knowing some of the fundamental limitations and capabilities did help. Having a goal for what I want to render has been working out much
better than just trying to learn the program and hope the inspiration
falls into place (like it would appear all of my previous attempts
involved). This really has nothing to do with Blender specifically,
but really anything that is suitably complex and powerful. I have just
had this dumb tendency in the past few years to try to learn all of
the little details of a system without first having a motivation to
use them, despite this being completely at odds with nearly all things
I consider myself to have learned well. I'm seeing pretty clearly how
that approach is rather backwards, for me at least.
The interface is quirky for sure, but I am finding it to be pretty intuitive after some practice. Most of my issues came from the big UI overhaul after 2.4, as I'm currently using 2.55/2.56 but many of the tutorials refer to the old version, and even official documentation for 2.5 is sometimes nonexistent - but can I really complain? They pretty clearly note that it is still in beta. I took a lot of notes early on where I tried to map out a lot of its
features at a very high level, but most of this simply didn't matter -
what mattered mostly fell into place when I actually tried to make
something in Blender. However, knowing some of the fundamental
limitations and capabilities did help.
However, I'm starting to make sense of it. Visions and concepts that I previously felt I had no idea how to even approach in Blender suddenly are starting to feel easy or at least straightforward (what I'm talking about more specifically here is how many things became trivial once I knew my way around Bezier splines). This is good, because I've got pages and pages of ideas waiting to be made. Some look like they'll be more suited to [Processing](http://processing.org/) (like the 2nd image down below) or [OpenFrameworks](http://www.openframeworks.cc/) or one of the too-many-completely-different-versions of Acidity I wrote. The interface is quirky for sure, but I am finding it to be pretty
intuitive after some practice. Most of my issues came from the big UI
overhaul after 2.4, as I'm currently using 2.55/2.56 but many of the
tutorials refer to the old version, and even official documentation
for 2.5 is sometimes nonexistent - but can I really complain? They
pretty clearly note that it is still in beta.
![What I learned Bezier splines on, and didn't learn enough about texturing.]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/hive13-bezier03.png) However, I'm starting to make sense of it. Visions and concepts that I
previously felt I had no idea how to even approach in Blender suddenly
are starting to feel easy or at least straightforward (what I'm
talking about more specifically here is how many things became trivial
once I knew my way around Bezier splines). This is good, because I've
got pages and pages of ideas waiting to be made. Some look like
they'll be more suited to [Processing](http://processing.org/) (like
the 2nd image down below) or
[OpenFrameworks](http://www.openframeworks.cc/) or one of the
too-many-completely-different-versions of Acidity I wrote.
![This was made directly from some equations. I don't know how I'd do this in Blender.]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/20110118-sketch_mj2011016e.jpg) [![What I learned Bezier splines on, and didn't learn enough about texturing.](../images/hive13-bezier03.png){width=100%}](../images/hive13-bezier03.png)
[POV-Ray](http://www.povray.org) was the last program that I 3D-rendered extensively in (this was mostly 2004-2005, as my much-neglected [DeviantArt](http://mershell.deviantart.com/) shows, and it probably stress-tested the Athlon64 in the first new machine I built more than any other program did). It's quite different from Blender in most ways possible. POV-Ray makes it easy to do clean, elegant, mathematical things, many of which would be either impossible or extremely ugly in Blender. It's a raytracer; it deals with neat, clean analytic surfaces, and tons of other things come for free (speed is not one of them). However, I never really found a modeler for POV-Ray that could integrate well with the full spectrum of features the language offered, and a lot of things just felt really kludgey. Seeing almost no progress made to the program, and being too lazy to look into [MegaPOV](http://megapov.inetart.net/), I decided to give up on it at some point. My attempts to learn something that implemented RenderMan resulted mostly in me seeing how ingeniously optimized and streamlined RenderMan is and not actually making anything in it. [![This was made directly from some equations. I don't know how I'd do this in Blender.](../images/20110118-sketch_mj2011016e.jpg){width=100%}](../images/20110118-sketch_mj2011016e.jpg)
Blender feels really "impure" in comparison. It deals with ugly things like triangle meshes and scanline rendering... ugly things that make it vastly more efficient to accomplish many tasks. I'm quickly finding better replacements for a lot of the techniques I relied on with POV-Ray. For instance, for many repetitive or recursive structures, I would rely on some simple looping or recursion in POV-Ray (as its scene language was Turing-complete); this worked fairly well, but it also meant that no modeler I tried would be able to grok the scene. In Blender, I discovered the Array modifier; while it's much simpler, it is still very powerful. On top of this, I have the interactivity of the modeler still present. I've built some things interactively with all the precision that I would have had in POV-Ray, but I built them in probably 1/10 the time. That's the case for the two work-in-progress Blender images here: [POV-Ray](http://www.povray.org) was the last program that I
3D-rendered extensively in (this was mostly 2004-2005, as my
much-neglected [DeviantArt](http://mershell.deviantart.com/) shows,
and it probably stress-tested the Athlon64 in the first new machine I
built more than any other program did). It's quite different from
Blender in most ways possible. POV-Ray makes it easy to do clean,
elegant, mathematical things, many of which would be either impossible
or extremely ugly in Blender. It's a raytracer; it deals with neat,
clean analytic surfaces, and tons of other things come for free (speed
is not one of them). However, I never really found a modeler for
POV-Ray that could integrate well with the full spectrum of features
the language offered, and a lot of things just felt really
kludgey. Seeing almost no progress made to the program, and being too
lazy to look into [MegaPOV](http://megapov.inetart.net/), I decided to
give up on it at some point. My attempts to learn something that
implemented RenderMan resulted mostly in me seeing how ingeniously
optimized and streamlined RenderMan is and not actually making
anything in it.
![This needs a name and a better background.]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/20110131-mj20110114b.jpg) Blender feels really "impure" in comparison. It deals with ugly things
like triangle meshes and scanline rendering... ugly things that make
it vastly more efficient to accomplish many tasks. I'm quickly finding
better replacements for a lot of the techniques I relied on with
POV-Ray. For instance, for many repetitive or recursive structures, I
would rely on some simple looping or recursion in POV-Ray (as its
scene language was Turing-complete); this worked fairly well, but it
also meant that no modeler I tried would be able to grok the scene. In
Blender, I discovered the Array modifier; while it's much simpler, it
is still very powerful. On top of this, I have the interactivity of
the modeler still present. I've built some things interactively with
all the precision that I would have had in POV-Ray, but I built them
in probably 1/10 the time. That's the case for the two
work-in-progress Blender images here:
![This needs a name and a better background.]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/20110205-mj20110202-starburst2.jpg) [![This needs a name and a better background.](../images/20110131-mj20110114b.jpg){width=100%}](../images/20110131-mj20110114b.jpg)
[![This needs a name and a better background.](../images/20110205-mj20110202-starburst2.jpg){width=100%}](../images/20110205-mj20110202-starburst2.jpg)