Thanks guys.
Hey Frank. These plates were rendered out as .exr for a colleage to composite, and he was basing his colour judgement on some actual air to air footage, where the background didn't actualy have that much contrast. The objective here was to make the plane model pop and look quite natural in scene. That being said, yes there could have been a lot more work done on the BG.
The other thing to note, was that I was being told things like, could you move that mountain over to the left a bit, and down a bit, and could you move the snow caps down in altitude etc, so the scene had to have flexibility in being reactionary to the director. Also, there had to be a quick turnaround in production, and this had to be rendered a few times to deal with off camera shadows poping, so there had to be 0.3 or sometimes more padding in the ray and GI calculation. One part of the mountain looked as if it was a neon light bulb starting up, which I couldn't seem to fix, so had to paint it out in the end. It seems there has to be a balance in your displacements, or you have to apply a lot of time in investigating settings, to stop certain textures turning themselves on and off as the camers moves.
I've had trees in a population disapeer in the same frame rendered twice on the same machine, so something tells me that theres some 'jittering' going on in rounding off PFs. Not sure. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.
