Hannes - My home is my castle - WIP

yossam · March 10, 2016, 04:41:22 PM

I did a test render at 8k...............it could actually use more to get real quality.

Hannes · March 10, 2016, 04:59:51 PM

Maybe.
I'm rendering an 8K render at the moment. 4K looked not too bad, but way too low. I'll see...

bobbystahr · March 11, 2016, 10:17:53 AM

Quote from: Hannes on March 09, 2016, 04:13:01 PM
OK, is this the right place for WIPs?
About two weeks ago I was just about to post an image, when I accidentally read about the VR challenge. I had created an interior scene with the well known Sponza Atrium model and a beautiful leather sofa from "Cadnav.com" and some more models from there.
So then I decided to give it a go. I don't know yet if this scene will work in a VR environment, but there's nothing to lose. In the meantime I added loads of models, so that there is some stuff everywhere the camera points to.
I had to rework the texturing of almost every model. Sometimes completely, so it was a lot of work so far, but I love it. I'd love to live in a place like this!

Here are three views of this scene. Still some work to do, and then I'll have to find some nice places to put the camera(s).

Scratch one environment I was going to try...maybe have to do one of my other room set-ups. Nice start by the way...I've looked at all in this thread.

Hannes · March 12, 2016, 05:38:11 AM

Thanks Bobby.
After 36 hours my 8K render is finished. It seems that the ambient occlusion (one of my favourite features!) has to be increased a little bit, when you are rendering with a very high resolution.
You do a test render at a lower resolution, adjust the AO until it's OK, but it is too "fine" at high res.

All in all I think 8K looks quite good when you load it into a pano viewer, but I guess for a really perfect experience it should be at least 16K.

Dune · March 12, 2016, 05:42:38 AM

Interesting that you mention the AO. I had the same, if I get your point right; doing a low res test, shadows were nice and had some refracted light, but at high res with soft shadows, they turned almost black.

Hannes · March 12, 2016, 06:03:36 AM

No, actually I meant it's the other way round.

But after a direct comparison it seems like I was wrong... $:-\$
See image below: the first crop is of a 3K render (a normal view, no spherical camera), and the second crop is of the 8K spherical render of the same area of the scene.
It seems that the resolution of the area is just not high enough. To create a pano in the same resolution like in the first crop, it has to be at least 16K, if not 24 K.

masonspappy · March 12, 2016, 08:16:58 AM

Hannes you are masterfull with the detailing!

Kadri · March 12, 2016, 11:43:59 AM

Quote from: Hannes on March 12, 2016, 06:03:36 AM
No, actually I meant it's the other way round.

But after a direct comparison it seems like I was wrong... $:-\$
See image below: the first crop is of a 3K render (a normal view, no spherical camera), and the second crop is of the 8K spherical render of the same area of the scene.
It seems that the resolution of the area is just not high enough. To create a pano in the same resolution like in the first crop, it has to be at least 16K, if not 24 K.

Hannes i haven't tried any VR or those programs, but just in case, can it be kind of a resampling of those programs?

Hannes · March 12, 2016, 12:22:01 PM

No, it's on the original output. But it's very subtle.

j meyer · March 12, 2016, 12:34:32 PM

As far as I can remember you need a higher 'radius' for larger images to get a
similar effect. What did you have to adjust?

Oshyan · March 12, 2016, 04:25:04 PM

Yes, the radius for GISD is in pixels, so it's render resolution dependent.

- Oshyan

Hannes · March 12, 2016, 04:58:35 PM

Good to know, I never cared about this value!
Thanks guys!!

Dune · March 13, 2016, 03:14:33 AM

Yes, of course in pixels! Never thought about that. Wouldn't it be better to have a percentage as default?

And for an equirectangular render with more or less similar sharpness, you need to make it around 4 times larger in width and height, if you consider it's going 'around you'.

Matt · March 13, 2016, 03:25:32 AM

Quote from: Dune on March 13, 2016, 03:14:33 AM
Yes, of course in pixels! Never thought about that. Wouldn't it be better to have a percentage as default?

Maybe. But 1) the radius affects the time to calculate, 2) larger images should have more samples in the GI cache, so even though the GISD radius is smaller in world space the distance between GI cache samples is smaller too. GISD is only intended to make up for details not captured by the GI cache.

Quote
And for an equirectangular render with more or less similar sharpness, you need to make it around 4 times larger in width and height, if you consider it's going 'around you'.

I don't see why.

Matt

Dune · March 13, 2016, 03:43:56 AM

Yes, I knew about 1) (better is always more 'expensive'

But 2) I have to think about. Does that also mean that it's better to increase those samples for say an 8k image?

3): I guess we have a small misunderstanding; if you look at your monitor you see one (~1/4) part of the globe the equirectangular image is projected on, the rest is on the right, left and behind you (and above and below). The part in front has a certain sharpness, but so need the other parts. That differs from a straight render that fills the monitor. That's what I meant. So an equirectangular render of 8k wide would, IMO, look kind of similar as a 2k normal render, roughly said.