diegel wrote:I was involved in producing games in the 80s. There was no rendering or raytracing that time. Every pixel was set by hand. This is the reason why the graphics looks more like a cartoon. The graphics were mostly produced directly on the target system. 4096 colors was a dream that time, in most systems you had to deal with much less than 256 colors.
diegel wrote:in the 80s. There was no rendering or raytracing that time.
robespierre wrote:it depends on your definition of workstation. The IRIS 2000 was ...
robespierre wrote:The very first film-quality 3D graphics was all done on custom, one of a kind hardware. You can see pictures of some of it here: http://dave.zfx.com...
robespierre wrote: I think, is that those systems were not optimized around real-time display of models but pure rendering and high-resolution output ability. The scenes would have been developed using vector display terminals like tektronix 4014 or other similar things, almost entirely as wireframes.
robespierre wrote:i NURBS were developed to make modeling organic shapes easier, don't know if I would call that a success.
The objects often looked "phong-solid" rendered (shades of one color) and only on some objects low resolution textures (maybe procedural) were used. Was also the color pallete smaller? Also the pictures often had much more "cartoon" look and less "contrast". Were mainly 4096 colors (12bit) used in the middle of 80ties?
robespierre wrote: ... I first learned of NURBS because Wavefront was promoting them.
guardian452 wrote:Nowadays all the CG effects in games and movies try and show everything dirty and post-apocalyptic. Check out the high-fashion trends, black on black etc.. gunmetal wheels on cars, that new Lamborghini with the matte paint...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest