No one 3D application has all the features I need for my projects. I have often found myself using multiple programs to complete a single project. Problems sometimes arise when I have to convert files to different formats for use in different programs.  In an ideal world I would only need one tool: My Dream 3D App! Here is a wish list of 10 features for the perfect 3D app.

1. UV mapping like Silo3D & UVMapper.
   UVMapper has an easy to use interface for creating basic UV maps. Silo can create UV maps and straighten them using its vertex, edge and face manipulator tools. My dream app would have the best features of both of these pr0grams.
2. Texture painting like Blacksmith3D & BodyPaint3D.
   Once an object has been UV mapped, Blacksmith3D allows the user to paint directly on the object in the round. No more fiddling with seams. You can paint a 3D model as if you were painting a sculpture. Bodypaint3D is a more advanced version of this lower priced tool with painting features similar to Photoshop.
3. Figure animation like DazStudio’s Animate.
   The Animate plug-in for DazStudio is better at blending together separate animations than Poser. I have also found that for popular Daz figures such as Victoria 4 and Michael 4, DazStudio is much more accurate for posing. My ideal app would have these superior animation qualities.
4. Face creation like FaceGen.
   The face room feature of Poser gives digital artists the freedom to create new faces for Poser figures. Unfortunately, it does not work with Daz figures. FaceGen is a very expensive tool which can transform the face of any 3D figure into a face from a well-lit photo.
5. Line-fitting like Shade3D.
   Shade3D can wrap 3D surfaces around any figure using its line-fit feature. This makes it useful for creating clothing.
6. Cloth room like Poser.
   Although DazStudio now has a cloth simulation feature, it is still not as flexible as Poser’s Cloth Room. Poser allows any object to be converted to cloth, provided it does not intersect itself; Daz Studio has special requirements for clotg creation using proprietary developer tools. At the time of this writing, these developer tools have not been released.
7. Lighting and Rendering like Vue Infinite.
   As evidenced by movies such as Pirates of the Caribbean II, Vue can generate images with highly polished levels of realism, provided you have the right hardware.
8. Vertex, face and edge manipulation like Silo3D.
   This feature of Silo3D makes it extremely useful for creating morphs for figures and modifying other objects. The user can precisely control where each vertex, edge or face moves allowing for the creation of zipper morphs for example. Another advantage of Silo3D is that it preserves vertex order so that you don’t end up with a morphing mess!
9. Environment creation like Vue.
   Vue can randomly generate trees, mountains and skies. My 3D app would have this feature to create realistic environments for 3D figures.
10. Sculpting like Z-Brush.
    Even if my dream 3D app could create any face from any well-lit photo, it would still be nice to be able to sculpt new features into that face (e.g. scars, moles etc.). Having done physical sculpture with clay, I can honestly say that Zbrush is as close to that experience on computer.

Listening to CBC’s Spark on the great copyright debate, I was forced to revise some of my earlier ideas. I agree with James Boyle that debates on copyright should be based upon fact. However, it seems that both sides lack at least one important fact. Before making the claim that “file-sharing” has hurt or helped the recording industry or any other industry, we must have accurate statistics about the number of files being “shared”. Industry has an incentive to exaggerate the number (i.e. higher claims for lawsuits). File-sharers have an incentive to minimize the number (i.e. lower claims for lawsuits).  Both sides seem to be making faith-based ideological arguments.

Exactly how many people are downloading files? Getting accurate statistics could be impossible since the people doing the most “file-sharing” have little incentive to be honest when they face potential lawsuits.  Secondly, once a file is downloaded to a computer there is no way to determine exactly how many times it will be re-distributed. Files can be burnt to a CD without going through the Internet. Files can be placed on a USB key or an iPod without going through the Internet. How many times are such copies being made? No one can determine that accurately and anyone who claims they can is engaged in faith-based statistics.

As a professional visual artist, I am keenly interested in the copyright debate; it affects my livelihood. To claim as some people have that money has nothing to do with copyright is intellectually disingenuous. Why has industry spent millions on lobbying for copyright legislation?  Why are some recording artists, such as Elton John or AC/DC, so opposed to the Internet? The perception that money is being lost is at the heart of the copyright debate. To convince the skeptics among us, file-sharers must address the skeptics’ concern about money. Failure to do so will only convince them to be more skeptical.

As an educator I am also interested in how copyright affects academic freedom and the ability of educators to help students develop new knowledge. I find that both sides in this debate tend to have a simplistic one-size-fits-all solution. Throw everyone in jail or make everything free. I think we need different types of copyright to cover the different uses of media.  What that would look like I am not certain but I know whatever solution is arrived at has to address the monetary concern of the skeptics. The skeptics are the source of most of the opposition to new technology.

I wrote this in response to http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/the-ethics-of-file-sharing-2/

I want to pick up on this concept of wealthy patrons.

“Certainly a world without Mozart or Bach would be a poor world to live in. But wait, Mozart and Bach made their music without the support (or even existence) of any kind of record company! Like the painters and sculptors of their time, they were supported by wealthy patrons. I suppose that in this modern era it might be possible that such a system wouldn’t work, but our modern painters and sculptors seem to get along just fine (ok, well most of them have to supplement their income with other jobs, but they still are able to produce great art). So if the record companies collapsed I suspect that music would simply go back to being made in this way. That means that there would certainly be far fewer musicians than there are today, but quantity doesn’t always mean quality. Maybe we would only have one pop band. In fact I think that such a system might even encourage higher quality music, since the musicians would have to fight harder to get patrons.”

The reason the patronage system broke down is because wealthy patrons tend to be conservative in taste. New music and new art was not receiving official support and in some cases was actively suppressed. Artists who were creating unique paintings or unique musical compositions had to fight to get their work seen and heard. In the case of visual art, no one remembers the art of patron-supported artists but everyone has heard of the Impressionists (Monet, Manet, etc.).

The worst thing that could happen to art would be to go back to limiting art creation to a few mediocre artists who have official support. Jazz, Rock & Roll, Reggae, and Punk music were all new musical forms that were suppressed at one time. Conservative people with money tried to destroy these new musical forms. It was because artists were able to make money WITHOUT PATRONS that these forms survived and flourished while the officially supported music of their time has largely been forgotten.