Archaeology

[TheBadger]

Yes photoshop. But you could do the same thing in after effects for an animation.

[TheBadger]

^^ Hannes is the one who got me to understand why I should turn blur off in Terragen. Now I don't like to render blur at all. So I spend a lot of time learning about post tricks. I find it to be a lot of fun for some reason. I think I just like the control. Not that Im great or anything, because Im not. But I do have my fun 

[TheBadger]

masonspappy

Oh sorry. Did you mean a step by step? It takes like three min to do. So I can write the steps if someone wants. Its only slightly more complicated than adding a tilt blur. Than 3-4 more stems for the control aspect. Nothing fancy. The instructions to do it in After effects would be more work though.

Just let me know.

[Volker Harun]

Great work ... and the blending of the ruins got very good. It is still at a level to attract attention without getting lost ... in an outstanding terrain

[Dune]

Blur is such expansive scenes isn't appropriate. I would add it only if you have a very close foreground and the 'camera diafragm' can't handle the sharpness all the way from 50 cm to infinity.

[masonspappy]

So I can write the steps if someone wants.

Hi Thebadger,
When you have a few minutes, I would really appreciate that.
- MP

[TheBadger]

I do not disagree with you Ulco, or Hannes . I was playing with the image with an editors mindset, where the intention of the OP image and the end use were not the same.

Imagine that the image is just one frame of a sequence. And that you need to focus the view on the dig site because an explosion will be composited, or something else.

I meant only to explain why it is not always a bad idea to apply control blur on a wide shot, it cannot be a rule.
It is done a lot in film and, often very well. Though often very poorly too.

In my example I would probably remove the bottom portion of the blur. But I think the top portion is rather effective even in this example.

@MP
Ill do that and post a new thread for you

[Hannes]

Thanks a lot, Badger, for your efforts!!! I really appreciate that.
However I have to agree with Ulco. The images I saw in your tilt shift thread were mostly shot from quite close. Even if the blur isn't meant to give some realistic effect but more an artistic one, the eyes are used to see DOF blur in certain situations, which is objects quite close to the lens.

Recently I wanted to take a photograph of a nice landscape with some leaves of a tree blurred in the foreground. It just didn't work until I had the leaves millimeters in front of the camera. I could have zoomed in from a certain distance to get that blur. Anyway it wasn't easy.

Now if you take my image: the camera seems to be hundreds of meters away from the ruin. Any additional blur would make this look like a model of a terrain.
So if I were the director or the editor (hey, I AM the director!!! ), I would rather use some other methods to focus on the center of the scene if necessary.

Thanks anyway!!

[TheBadger]

I think I agree. Its just an interesting conversation/subject is all.

[Hannes]

Yes, it is indeed!
Here is a quick and dirty example of what I don't want! 

[TheBadger]

lol.
You know though, Hannes. That does look really cool! You should composite in a video of your hand reaching in like the hand of God and squishing all the little people with your finger.  . I would do this my self but I lake ambition right now

The thing is, that render now looks absolutely real. A photo. Just a photo of a little model. Its an interesting thing, by making your model look fake, you made your render look completely real. There must be away to use this, and yet avoid the issues you are bringing up.

[Hannes]

...just for fun...

[TheBadger]

  Thats really fun! Looks great too. YOu did a nice job extracting the hand from the rest of the photo.

This gives me lots of ideas Hannes.

[Walli]

Tiltshift photography ;-)

[Hannes]

Couldn't resist.