Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Underwater-blender.png

File:Underwater-blender.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2010 at 15:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Underwater-blender.png Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Underwater-blender.png

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Niabot (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Size is to be borderline. Why ?   • Richard • [®] • 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Im currently rendering on an higher version of the image, that should had been up by now, but i made a mistake. So im currently rendering it again (will maybe take some hours) --Niabot (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I know how it's difficult to achieve such a result but it's not quite to the today standards in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Uploaded the updated version, that should had been up for some hours. --Niabot (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Interesting, but does it have any educational value? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, sorry; this would be impressive in the nineties, but not in 2010. --Aqwis (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @Aqwis: 90th? You must be kidding. Show me any comparable picture from that time.
    • This movie came out with the first release of AW Maya 1998, so it should be done in 97. Here is one from 1995 Maybe they hadn't all that features of nowadays packages, but that was still a time where most of the features was drawn or faked - as example caustics. Shurely you can't expect that most of the users can understand features like normal mapping, subsurface scattering or ambient occlusion. They compare it with the graphic impression not with features.   • Richard • [®] • 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @The High Fin Sperm Whale: It uses different raytracing techniques, like displacement mapping (rocks), normal mapping (fishes), subsurface scattering (anything thats transparent), soft shadows (overall), particle systems (grass, bubbles), billboards (lightrays in the back), ambient occlusion (overall) and any of the more usual techniques. --Niabot (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment @Niabot: It might add a lot of value if you put in a few annotations that explain which technique was used where. Apart from that, it would be great to have the original Blender file so that whoever feels like it can play around with it. --Kabelleger (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Which's species of fishes and jellyfishes have you represented ? --Citron (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not so good quality (not state-of-the-art). Also composition is cluttered. Moros y Christianos (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The quality isn't that bad. I like it better than your other pictures. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Info I added some annotations, maybe someone want to read and correct them (my english is not the best). The species are not modeled after a real counterpart, they are purely imaginative. I might upload the blender file later, but i have to exclude some textures for which i only have a personal license. --Niabot (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment For textures, I'd be surprised if you can't find adequate material on commons :). And for justifying my oppose (and others'), I share this little link, where you'll find some very nice scenes from Gilles Tran. Most of them (if not all) rendered in Povray (Gilles Tran won several IRTC contests). Many of his 90s scenes would earn my support. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Many of his late 90s scenes ;) (just had a look again...) - Benh (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For a better comparison i searched for underwater scenes. That are all i could find inside your linked page: [1] 1998, [2] 1999, [3] 2001, [4] 2005.

If you need something freaky inside this image. No problem, then i will create something more abstract. But that wasn't my intention. --Niabot (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree it's more difficult to create organic things. But I feel Gilles tran images are better thought in their composition. As mentioned, general impression is more important than the features. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: Textures on commons? Are you kidding? There is not a single Texture with a corresponding normal diffuse, specular, whatever map. Didn't saw even one seamless texture. --Niabot (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I hardly remember about the normal diffuse or whatever things, but for seamless issue, you can work a little bit with photoshop and cloning tools. You may even find textures so large that they won't need to repeat. But, do we really need specular I don't know what to get good images ? Do the normal/specular stuffs really have to match the original textures ? I don't see many textures here but I love this picture. - Benh (talk)

• just browsed and found this using same software. I like it more. - Benh (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose Just not Featured-level impressive. Steven Walling 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Steven. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose , though thanks (honestly) for reminding me of the 1990s graphics --Avala (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Sorry, but I don't really see how this is featured-worthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)