Generic Mountainside Project

[Tangled-Universe]

Getting better and better

Portrait works well, but I think I'd prefer it to be a bit wider fov and tilted slightly more upwards.

The distribution of veggies are really awesome!
I also really like what you're doing with the rock structures.

I'm getting really good results lately with my rock structures + granite shader when rendering detail 1.5 with AA12 (CR or MN filter).
It's something I have been doing since the discussion around one of Mick Haze's fjord render where he compared upres vs higher detail rendering.
This showed that rendering at higher detail and AA greatly reduces TG's propensity for rendering too bright speckled surfaces.
It will also make your displacements shine more, probably.
Perhaps you could try a crop and see how it looks?

It seems you're dealing with the same issue I'm also always having trouble with: muddy looking renders.
There's a kind of veil of haziness with large scale TG renders which I for the life of me can't get nailed correctly.
"Yes of course, that's atmospheric haze adding up over distance" one would reply lazily, but it's not that easy.
Just go to whatever landscape photo website and see photo's of landscapes (similar to this render) with great atmospheric clarity and rich colours.
If you drop densities in TG's atmo model then the sky gets devoid of any scatter and will completely destroy richness in colours.
Too much logically also doesn't work.
All in all I find TG's fall-off of density very difficult to handle and not realistic.
There's just too much discrepancy with what I see with my eyes as well as what I see on many many photographs online, regardless of post-processing renders/photographs as they allow for similar opportunities for post-processing.
Second or adding to this is that TG's atmosphere also does not really seem to "radiate" as much as you'd like to see.
Say you like a clear sky, but still with some rays then it's either not possible because the sky is too "thin" for rays or when you increase "thickness" of sky you do get rays but your entire render is covered in a veil of haze/muddy look.
It's very difficult to explain, but I have said it before that there's something off about how haze and lighting work together in TG and how haze drops off over distance.

Cheers,
Martin

[DocCharly65]

I like the latest render very much!


Could it be, that rays without any clouds or haze are in reality some kinds of lense-effects?
Perhaps in a future Terragen version it's possible to add lense-flares and stuff like this. I'd prefere to get such effects inside Terragen instead of postwork.

[Tangled-Universe]

I like the latest render very much!


Could it be, that rays without any clouds or haze are in reality some kinds of lense-effects?
Perhaps in a future Terragen version it's possible to add lense-flares and stuff like this. I'd prefere to get such effects inside Terragen instead of postwork.

I did not say without clouds, I'm only talking about atmospheric haze/blue sky.
But yes, there are also many examples of mostly lens-induced rays. So definitely could be!
Those should not be confused with what I'm trying to say though.

At some moment it will come to me how to explain properly what I'm missing.

[sjefen]

That last render is just awesome! 

[mhaze]

This is really good. The rock structures are excellent and the vegetation is superb.

[DannyG]

Awesome is right

[Gannaingh]

Thanks all!

Martin, thanks for the suggestions! I'll do some crop tests to see how noticeable the improvements could be. Also, I know what you're talking about in regards to TG's atmosphere. It really is hard to put it into words.

[Matt]

Say you like a clear sky, but still with some rays then it's either not possible because the sky is too "thin" for rays or when you increase "thickness" of sky you do get rays but your entire render is covered in a veil of haze/muddy look.

To get light shafts / god-rays from clouds I find it's better to use a second cloud layer with very low density, below the main cloud layer. I think this produces more natural results. You can precisely control the depth and density of the light-catching cloud to keep the clouds both hazy and contrasty at the same time. I'm thinking about ways to build this capability straight into the cloud layer in future versions.

Matt

[Tangled-Universe]

Say you like a clear sky, but still with some rays then it's either not possible because the sky is too "thin" for rays or when you increase "thickness" of sky you do get rays but your entire render is covered in a veil of haze/muddy look.

To get light shafts / god-rays from clouds I find it's better to use a second cloud layer with very low density, below the main cloud layer. I think this produces more natural results. You can precisely control the depth and density of the light-catching cloud to keep the clouds both hazy and contrasty at the same time. I'm thinking about ways to build this capability straight into the cloud layer in future versions.

Matt

Thanks Matt, that's definitely a good suggestion.
Perhaps I'm trying to do too much with too few nodes.

[TheBadger]

Perhaps I'm trying to do too much with too few nodes.

Perhaps TG requires to many nodes to do things 

^^JK a little


Very nice image!

[Gannaingh]

Here is a comparison I've done between the settings I was previously using (0.8 detail / 8AA, NC filter) and the ones suggested by Tangled-Universe. In both images, the image on the left is the original and the one on the right uses the suggested settings. The new settings noticeably cut down on the speckled-ness of the rock surface and improved the look of the forests on the mountain side. Unfortunately, the new settings took nearly four times as long to render as the old settings. I might do some tests to see if there is a happy medium since I do like the rock surface much better using the new settings.

[Tangled-Universe]

I really like the way the rocks look with my suggested settings. It worked out pretty much like I expected/hoped for.

Yes, the vegetation looks somewhat better, but not drastically much.

In the end all counts is whether you find it worth the extra rendertime. 4 times longer is long, definitely.
At least, depends on the initial rendertimes of course, but given 0.8 and AA8 it's not so fast for starters.

What's interesting though, to me, is that some aspects of the texturing looks quite different and everything looks better defined and "blends in" better.
I guess those litchens you tried before may actually work out better with these settings?

[Gannaingh]

After a lot of testing I've found a middle ground that gives some results closer to the higher detail and AA settings, but doesn't take a year to render. I need to do some adjustments to the vegetation on the hillside since some of the populations seem to almost glow in the shadows. I might bump up the AA a bit (currently at 10), since render times aren't too bad, and it will improve the forest's appearance. Thanks for taking a look.

[Oshyan]

All the elements look fabulous to me. The rock surfaces are highly realistic with variety and detail; the vegetation distribution is well thought out and executed; and the background clouds, although occupying only a small part of the image, are still quite realistic and natural looking.

My only complaint is the whole thing seems rather blue-green and quite hazy. It *might* be realistic for a long view on a hot day, but if I were a photographer standing there I'd probably do everything I could to clear it up a bit while maintaining that sense of distance. So, pretending to be the photographer of the lovely scene you've created, I went and did a little post processing on the image. I hope you don't mind if I post it here. As always, results vary between monitors and color calibrations, but this looked "nicer" on my displays, and I felt it highlighted your excellent scene construction a bit better. Again pardon me taking liberties with your work!

P.S. It may be a bit too warm and the shadows in the foreground may be "smashed" a bit, but I found that the background trees were a bit too bright, as you mentioned. Without doing fancier editing with graduated filters and whatnot, it was hard to fix one without the other going awry. But hopefully you get the idea. I know you've got your own post processing workflow that would probably also make the end result look fantastic.

- Oshyan

[mhaze]

I wish we could simply turn it off! In England, after a cold front shower, and at high altitudes there isn't much loss of the red wavelength.