PDA

View Full Version : [HALO 3] First ever cinematic render



Elite Killa
June 12th, 2007, 06:05 PM
http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=12539

Discuss.

Dootuz
June 13th, 2007, 09:53 PM
yay

Zeph
June 14th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Only thing I have to say is that the weapons are nice and dark in the wireframes. That is such a good thing.

Limited
June 14th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Ok, wheres the render? All I see is a screenshot on the cinematic project in a modeling/animating program. I see no render of it.

p0lar_bear
June 15th, 2007, 12:02 AM
... that is a render.

:v:

CtrlAltDestroy
June 15th, 2007, 12:24 AM
haha, owned

Limited
June 15th, 2007, 10:14 AM
... that is a render.

:v:
Uh no its not :)

Reaper Man
June 15th, 2007, 10:17 AM
Yay, Maya.

p0lar_bear
June 15th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Uh no its not :)

Look up the word "render." As textureless as it may be, it is still a render.

klange
June 15th, 2007, 11:58 AM
Look up the word "render." As textureless as it may be, it is still a render.
Indeed, it's the 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional set of points.
Ooh, I like this definition:
To transform digital information in the form received from a repository into a display on a computer screen, or for other presentation to the user.

Limited
June 15th, 2007, 12:29 PM
I know you can get broken down renders, that have no textures, very basic low res models its basically just a place holder. However this picture hasnt been rendered.

Its just a picture of the view port. Hence the X,Y and Z axis in the bottom left. Hence the yellow lines around some of the distinctive edges of the models.

Its a screenshot of a cinematic being made, NOT A FUCKING RENDER

p0lar_bear
June 16th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Its just a picture of the view port.And what is the viewport showing? I'll give you a hint:

It begins with "ren" and ends with "der."

Veegie
June 16th, 2007, 02:38 AM
I know you can get broken down renders, that have no textures, very basic low res models its basically just a place holder. However this picture hasnt been rendered.

Its just a picture of the view port. Hence the X,Y and Z axis in the bottom left. Hence the yellow lines around some of the distinctive edges of the models.

Its a screenshot of a cinematic being made, NOT A FUCKING RENDER
If those models weren't being rendered, the viewport would be black you fucking retard.

Teroh
June 16th, 2007, 03:22 AM
Limited, do you even know what a render is, or are you just pulling definitions out of your ass?

Veegie
June 16th, 2007, 03:42 AM
I'm going to have to go with the latter.

Limited
June 16th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Bah
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5150/notrenderbg7.png
There is a camera in the scene, you can see it in the top right view port.

The so called "render" view port has an axis, I dunno why a render would have an axis. It has black but that isnt the viewport background its probably some effect added from the camera. The reason it doesnt show any viewport background (black) is because its in a vehicle, Therefore the only thing to look at is model.

Now, if we want to be really picky we could say that of course is a render as its being rendered onto the screen, but then everything you see on a pc is a render which wouldnt really count. This is a view of the camera, the block whos operating the machine didnt press "the render button" yet.

PlasbianX
June 16th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Bah
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/5150/notrenderbg7.png
There is a camera in the scene, you can see it in the top right view port.

The so called "render" view port has an axis, I dunno why a render would have an axis. It has black but that isnt the viewport background its probably some effect added from the camera. The reason it doesnt show any viewport background (black) is because its in a vehicle, Therefore the only thing to look at is model.

Now, if we want to be really picky we could say that of course is a render as its being rendered onto the screen, but then everything you see on a pc is a render which wouldnt really count. This is a view of the camera, the block whos operating the machine didnt press "the render button" yet.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. K?

LEIK NO NO NO NO NOOOO GUYZZZZZZ THE PICCCCC IZ A PIC OF A FUCKIN MASTERCHEIFFFFF DONUTZZ LOLOLOLOIOIOLOLOLOL! ZOMG GUYS! I SEE DER CAMERA! OMFG GUYZZZZZZZZ ASLKJAHSJKHSAKJ!

Limited
June 16th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Compelling post ^

Well veegie is the king of rendering but ill think what I want :)

render or no render, its still pretty cool

Veegie
June 16th, 2007, 05:27 PM
Rendering is the process of generating an image from a model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_model), by means of computer programs. The model is a description of three dimensional objects in a strictly defined language or data structure. It would contain geometry, viewpoint, texture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping), lighting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighting), and shading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shading) information.Maya/3ds Max applies a 'fast-shader' to keep view ports at a suitable frame rate.
Holy shit there's a camera and an axis in the lower left? I had no idea. Obviously you've completely missed the point. When you see vertex info, poly arrays, and tri strips being compiled into a suitable visual form that reacts to any form of light source, it's called a render you incompetent moron.


Well veegie is the king of rendering but ill think what I want :)
If you don't mind facts slapping you in the face contradicting your every word... sure.

Limited
June 16th, 2007, 06:01 PM
lol I got warned for what exactly? :)

Oh and I mean render is in the render known in the modeling program, not in the sense of rendering onto the viewport. A true render.

Zeph
June 16th, 2007, 06:10 PM
You got it because of the 'I dont care if I'm wrong I'm still going to argue my point regardless of what proof is shown against me'. thing. You're presented with dictionary evidence to counter your claim and you still persist.

Limited
June 16th, 2007, 06:14 PM
"But ill think what I want" = my opinon still stands, however as veegie is more experienced in the matter, I conceed the arguement :P

So, lets talk about the actual content, is it a trailer or the cinematic's thats in the game :)

Zeph
June 16th, 2007, 06:17 PM
I warned the last post of your series of it. vBulliten lacks any 'warn this group of posts' functionality.

Syuusuke
June 16th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Heh I see a baldy in that render.

Elite Killa
June 16th, 2007, 10:10 PM
"But ill think what I want" = my opinon still stands, however as veegie is more experienced in the matter, I conceed the arguement :P

So, lets talk about the actual content, is it a trailer or the cinematic's thats in the game :)
I guess it would be in the game. I'm not sure, though.

klange
June 17th, 2007, 01:54 AM
When you see vertex info, poly arrays, and tri strips being compiled into a suitable visual form that reacts to any form of light source, it's called a render you incompetent moron.
There doesn't even need to be a light source, technically... I can give an example, but I'm too lazy and it's 2:00 AM


If those models weren't being rendered, the viewport would be black you fucking retard.
Sigged.

Reaper Man
June 17th, 2007, 04:50 AM
That is Maya, you noobs

DaneO'Roo
June 17th, 2007, 09:52 AM
<3 Maya

and @ Zeph, yes dark wireframes are :awesome:

(means "teh gunz has moar polys" for simple people)

Patrickssj6
June 17th, 2007, 02:36 PM
Fuck I didn't shave myself today...

oh well 1000th post hurray

Veegie
June 18th, 2007, 08:22 PM
That is Maya, you noobs
Was it the file name: http://www.bungie.net/images/News/InlineImages2007/mayaCinematix.jpg that gave it away? Or was it the Maya GUI?


<3 Maya

and @ Zeph, yes dark wireframes are :awesome:

(means "teh gunz has moar polys" for simple people)
No, it means the polygon topology is far more dense than its predecessors.

Also, the Master Chief only has a 5,138 tri-count, sorry to disappoint.


Fuck I didn't shave myself today...

oh well 1000th post hurray
Great. Besides being pointless, one could judge by that post that the previous nine hundred ninety-nine posts were shitty as well.

Dole
June 19th, 2007, 12:10 AM
No, it means the polygon topology is far more dense than its predecessors.
If the polygon topology is denser it's because it has more polygons, not because they have been reconcentrated from one particular area to another.
Dane's post was valid.


Great. Besides being pointless, one could judge by that post that the previous nine hundred ninety-nine posts were shitty as well.
Such commentary is unnecessary.

Veegie
June 19th, 2007, 01:40 AM
If the polygon topology is denser it's because it has more polygons, not because they have been reconcentrated from one particular area to another.
Dane's post was valid.
I guess you missed the idea that I was addressing the fact that he spoke like a complete idiot...

Dole
June 19th, 2007, 02:03 PM
This is the internet. If that's what you're saying, you'll have to say it.