1980's computer animation

>>500020

The only part of the "look" that would be tricky to replicate is the emulation of the post processing effects of old displays as digital ones aren't as prone to distortion as current ones. Faking VHS bleeding etc.

It's a bit like using filters for emulators, you can get reasonable results, but they'll never be the same.

The outputted animation (or in the case of an emulator, the pixels) are the easy part.

just do what mega 64 does

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRg9QvJLHWs&feature=iv&src_vid=6rSLInBkY9I&annotation_id=annotation_1578896607

>>500020
This 'true look' isn't about software it's about hardware. Record your stuff onto old media and then digitize the signal of that recording should go a long way to make it look authentic/shitty.

>>500024
It's both. It's also about the techniques artists employed back then to try and get a "good" look out of the shitty software. It's not as simple as just using the software if you don't know the production tricks they were using.

>>500020
Nurbs surfaces.
Rasterizer not ray-tracer.
Very little texture usage, most stuff is just material changes or procedural, because they had such limited memory back then.
Point lights.
Phong material (invented in 1973, the primary material used before the late 90s.). Though there's a chance a studio may have written their own tweaked shaders models as well.
Lots of outdated traditional post-processing affects that were sometimes carried out on the physical film itself.

>>500025
But you don't need legacy software to use legacy technology. Just disable the AA filtering and render goraud or wire at low res and you're back in the 70's if that's what you crave for.

It's interesting how often this question keep poping up on /3/. Usually it's people being nostalgic about N64, playstation one era graphics. But now we're moving back even further.
Soon we'll probably have t/3/pots inquiring if it's still possible to enter vertex positions by after hand sketching meshes on grid-ref paper or if they have to restrict themselves to an amiga 500.

>>500059

True Playstation/n64 graphics are a little harder to emulate due to the crazy warping effect they've got going for them.

But just at a base level it's easy enough to build the scenes the same way. Just like doing true NES graphics is easy as long as you research the limitations such as palette limits, palette per sprite, sprites per region of the screen etc.

>>500060

n64 didnt have that warping problem the ps1 had. It did have some texture bluring so you dont see every indivual pixel in the textures like you did on the ps1.

Is there any way to get some intentionally bad aliasing in C4D? Something like the Jaguar, or late 80s/early 90s 3D. Tried turning off AA in C4D but it didnt turn out shitty enough.

>>500062

Ah yeah, sorry. It's been a while. You're absolutely right.

But yeah, I don't think people would be emulating old styles if it was hard work. Making old looking things is usually just limiting yourself while using modern tools. If someone wants to make a modern version of the "Money for nothing" video they'd just make it in modern software with limitations rather than loading up 3D Studio 1 in Dosbox.

>>500063
Turn off AA and render at half or quarter resolution, then simply scale the video back up with 0 filtering.

File: a7aaLMU[1].png (7KB, 638x399px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 638x399px

>>500020
just emulate pic related at 640x480 resolution with 256 colors.

>>500020
I'll explain how to animate and model something in the 1980's.

You open up a text editor and begin typing the numbers into it.

Those numbers are the transform, rotation and scale.

Good luck!

>>500146

Op said he wanted to recreate the visuals, not the workflow.

Don't be such a sperg next time since you're not anonymous you're easily filterable.

>>500142
Your namefag choice cracked me up bad, I'm in tears.

>>500230
i use it mostly on /pol/ for logical fallacies and forgot to change it back

>>500157

If you want to get a authentic look you might want to limit yourself to to the possibilities back then.

But yeah, moving individual verts around without a rig doesnt sound like much fun and a bit extreme.

>>500026
>Point lights.
What's wrong with point lights that makes them look dated? Unless you mean per vertex lighting?

>>500254
Point lights have no area. Real world lights have area unless you're trying to light something with a laser-pointer. They're not physically accurate. If you're using them in your scene, you have a lot to learn about photo-real lighting.

>>500290
>anything not photo real looks like 80's retro graphics

>>500292
That wasn't the point. It was that they look dated, not specifically 80s. Area lights and lights with physical shape were not used in the 80s, thus, point lights.

>>500294
>dated
I hate this word so fucking much.