Wikipedia:Picture peer review/ImpressiveBlender3DWork

A Lone House[edit]

I saw this picture in Blender (software). It is, atleast to me, very striking that such an artwork has been made with 3D software which is completely free. Sharp, pretty natural lightning, adequate composition but what grabs me most is the atmosphere. Sorry if I have done something wrong with this nomination/review. On a scale of 1 to 10 my wikipedia-newbiness is say 7 and wikipedia-featured-picture-newbiness is exactly 12. Credits and applause goes out to Michael Otto.

Nominated by: PureRumble 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

You did exactly the right thing! This is precisely where and how you are supposed to suggest images if you aren't sure if they should be featured. There is at least one other computer rendered featured picture: Image:Glasses_800_edit.png. However, I remember, but can't find, another very pretty rendered scene that didn't pass. If this were a picture, people would complain that the building's verticals aren't vertical. I honestly have no idea if this image would pass; I was hoping for some one else to comment with more of an opinion. - Enuja (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then we might as well wait a little bit longer! PureRumble 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

My big problem with this is that I think it's entirely unencyclopaedic for Blender. Blender is a 3D program, used for animations and modelling among many other things, but this image simply looks like a 2D art work. It may be 3D, but there's certainly nothing either in the image or its description to suggest this. This is therefore rather an atypical use of Blender, and probably something that would be better made in another program (in fact it looks like nothing I've ever seen done in Blender, but I guess we can believe the creator that it was in fact done so). I actually like the image itself, but would Strong Oppose it on FPC on encyclopaedic grounds, and am even inclined to remove it from the Blender article. Sorry. --jjron (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. 3D modelling isn't all about making 3D models and toons, it's also a very common method of creating photorealistic images using 3D frameworking as a base. See this gallery for similar examples of 2D Blender images. As I say, opening this nom up to FPC would be a good way of establishing exactly how enc it is, but it's certainly not mis-posted at Blender, AFAICS. --mikaul^talk 12:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the images in that gallery clearly have a 3D look. This doesn't. Just because you can do something in a piece of software, doesn't mean you should. (I could write an essay in Photoshop, but it's a misuse of the software when Word will do it much better). Would still definitely oppose. --jjron (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To jjron. Reading the description that Michael Otto (the creator of the image) wrote says "A lone house. Made using Blender 3D". No other software or techniques is mentioned. When I look at the image, I think it is reasonable to state that it has been made with blender. I can not point out anything that seems "suspicious" and might have been done with some other software. The tree model might have been downloaded from internet and imported into the scene, which is perfectly fine. I can not say I know all of Blenders features, but I am sure there is a way to do multiple copies of a model and make them all to look different and/or have slightly different rotations. That would explain the grass. As for the pretty natural lightning, there are raytracing plugins for Blender. All the other objects can simply be created in Blender in a matter of hours. PureRumble 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that is what is what the image description stated, which is why I said we'd have to believe him. I have very limited experience with Blender myself, so it's quite possible you can create images like this. However, as I say, it strikes me as a very atypical use of the program. (Incidentally, you said you are a relatively new user - it looks like you are just typing in your signature. You can automatically insert it by typing in --~~~~, or by clicking the 'signature' icon above the edit box (it's about halfway along with a Qu on it). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I do type ~~~~, and I still get problem with some bot that suggests that my comments have no signature (like above here). What do you mean by atypical? PureRumble 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check your preferences and clear out the signature box if there's anything in there. thegreen J Are you green? 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atypical just means not typical. In other words, as I've been saying above, this image while nice enough in itself, doesn't seem to me the type of image that you would usually create in Blender, and therefore is not a good illustration for it. --jjron (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I will later today upload it to FPC. PureRumble 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have time today! :-( Can't someone else do it.... please? Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. PureRumble 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

I will update it today or tomorrow, I promise! :-/ PureRumble 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

Seconder

I think it's great & would make an interesting FPC as we need to establish how good an example of its kind it really is. The perspective criticism might run for a photo, but this is a (good!) mimic of the effect perspective gives at this approximate focal length. Go for it. --mikaul^talk 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Fcb981, second this rendering and will offer Weak support On WP:FPC -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support this fully. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]