Museum wall

[Dune]

Some more, final checks. The larger ones were done in a slightly less detail and AA (0.5 and 5), and look quite good too, so I'll have to check what settings are really needed.

[otakar]

I hope this pays well because I think you have done an amazing job here. Those transitions are really well done and the ample detail is outstanding, but we're used to that from you . It would be nice to take a short video or at least a few stills of the finished installation.

[Bjur]

To see a short video or some photos would be nice indeed.

Still can't find the right words for describing your great visual outcome of your uber-project (and your patience for such a task).

Bravo.. 

Alex

[Dune]

It pays well enough to dive into it (of course I want more  ), as it's also a great experience to see if I can get it together without my brain exploding. Taught me a lot, also.

Now, please tell me what you think of these. Tried different settings to see what I will use for the final render; detail 0.5 and AA5 and detail 0.6 and AA6, both at final size (crops of 8000x4500px frames). There is a time difference (in title), but to be honest, I can't see much difference in AA. detail is hard to tell here, I need another shot for that. So I might even go for higher resolution instead of higher AA or detail.... or do soft shadows after all.
These are the plain renders, no post.

[Kadri]

If it were for time i would say use the lower settings because even that there are some differences it is nothing major .
It could be even from GI differences .

I go for higher settings sometimes just for the sake of to be sure.
As you said soft shadows or more translucency kinda settings instead of more AA and detail could be better maybe.

You are close to final as it looks Ulco

[mhaze]

I'd go for the higher settings as it is to be printed large.

[Bjur]

Detail wise I don't see real a difference.

You may go with Detail 0.5 and AA6 then.
For me, the lightning seems a bit more balanced from foreground to background in some places and shadows with AA 6.
But true, maybe this is because of possible GI differences..

[choronr]

I see barely any difference between the two. But, since it will be printed large, perhaps it it best to go with the 6/6.

[Oshyan]

I would significantly favor higher resolution because the relatively minor differences in AA and detail won't make nearly as much impact as higher source resolution for the print. So if it's really a choice between the higher detail settings, or the lower ones with a higher resolution render, definitely go fort he latter. By the way Detail is only going to affect terrain and sky, and only sky if you have defer atmo off, so in the images you've shown, Detail is actually doing virtually nothing for you as there's no terrain (and barely any sky) visible. You could even do Detail 0.1 (assuming you're using Defer Atmo) and get the same quality result, because everything is covered by plants (objects) anyway which will be raytraced regardless. On some of the images you've shown before there was indeed a lot of terrain, which would benefit from decent baseline Detail settings, but I don't think you need to go over 0.5 anyway.

- Oshyan

[Dune]

Thanks guys, and Oshyan; I indeed mentioned your point about detail in my post, and might do another test. But what I have seen in some other large crops, is that you're probably right; that 0.5 is good enough. The only ground is quite distant, apart from the gravel track. I only have to take care that AA5 doesn't give me grain in clouds, so I have to check some cloudy part (near the sun as that 'grains' most in my experience). Clouds are all at default settings, so I'd either up that or AA to 6.
So it might be 14x a render of 10000x5500 or so.

[Kadri]

Render the clouds separately if you need to Ulco.

[Dune]

Well, I'd like to keep it simple (haha), so I won't venture into layers yet. 

[Kadri]

Well, I'd like to keep it simple (haha), so I won't venture into layers yet.

Not layers Ulco.
Render the clouds with different settings with or without layers.
I used for an animation higher settings and resolution for the ground
and half resolution and lower settings for the clouds for example.
You can render  for example full HD the ground and objects and half HD the clouds
and probably no one will see the difference because of the nature of clouds.

The render times does make a great difference in animation.
But for stills and if you have time it is not important of course.

[Dune]

I don't quite understand how you mean that. I want to render all in one go, so how can I do the clouds in a different resolution?

[Kadri]

I don't quite understand how you mean that. I want to render all in one go, so how can I do the clouds in a different resolution?

You just comp ( resize etc) them later in a photo editor if it is a still.
For animation you use video editing software like Sony Vegas or After Effects etc.

In this animation  i used 3 different resolutions for example.

http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,14208.msg139127.html#msg139127

The original is much better. Recompressing of that sites makes it look worse then it is.