Author Topic: Nebulae  (Read 27382 times)

Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #240 on: April 29, 2018, 07:41:16 AM »
What two approaches are you talking about?

Oh I just mean the different approaches to post processing, whether just in TG or post-processing in another program. There is a lot of power in post processing that TG can't offer.

Our game engine has some post-processing, but it will not affect the contrast or brightness of the picture. In addition, those images (that I'm sharing here) are not the ones that will go for our background, for example I can not do aberrations or make nebulae so bright.

Yeah I figured the images you were sharing were just personal "polished" iterations. I imagine for the game it'd be much bigger, and a little more flat for the post processing in the engine.

Yes thank you! I love aberrations. It's great that someone noticed this ) And here I have a legitimate reason to use them - on all real space images and can be seen quite well.

I've always done similar in a lot of my work, I actually didn't know the name of it for a long time (and forgotten when I did figure it out) and had to reproduce it based on memory in PS which didn't yield the best results. I'm still trying to a effect I like the best to make a photoshop action out of.
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #241 on: April 29, 2018, 08:11:58 AM »

"Chromatic aberration" Photographers try to avoid it.
Render people try to incorporate it to perfect renders... :-X
(We talked this quite a lot here and i tried not to post but i can't hold myself)

Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #242 on: April 29, 2018, 06:35:21 PM »

"Chromatic aberration" Photographers try to avoid it.
Render people try to incorporate it to perfect renders... :-X
(We talked this quite a lot here and i tried not to post but i can't hold myself)

Though even that's changing, now we see professional photographers, designers, and promotional artists incorporating it in ads, commercials, movies, etc. At first it was a artifact of lenses, but now is seen as "hyper realism" as ALL lenses produce chromatic aberration 
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #243 on: April 29, 2018, 10:36:11 PM »
Our eyes does have chromatic aberration too.
But we have DOF, myopy, presbiyopi and what not too.
Some of those we are aware, some not so much.
Should every image contain those things? You can of course use them as an artistic choice whenever you want.
But like the shaky cams in movies it feels cheesy, bad and the easy way to do something after a while.
So when someone says, he likes chromatic aberration, i get that feeling that he tries to put it in anything he does.
Basically what i don't like is the overuse mostly.
I like clear images because i hate blurry images (i have goggles). But i like of course when those "imperfections" are used in good places.

I don't care if this or that is used now much. It won't be 5-10 yeas later. Probably something"new (!)" will come.
From the hype of HDR TV's (for itself it is a good thing actually) it looks like something on that line will be overused for a time.


Edit: Screw that. When i read what i wrote it felt more like i have an obsession. Should take a break probably.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 03:24:55 AM by Kadri »

Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #244 on: April 30, 2018, 03:30:00 AM »
Our eyes does have chromatic aberration too.
But we have DOF, myopy, presbiyopi and what not too.
Some of those we are aware, some not so much.
Should every image contain those things? You can of course use them as an artistic choice whenever you want.
But like the shaky cams in movies it feels cheesy, bad and the easy way to do something after a while.
So when someone says, he likes chromatic aberration, i get that feeling that he tries to put it in anything he does.
Basically what i don't like is the overuse mostly.
I like clear images because i hate blurry images (i have goggles). But i like of course when those "imperfections" are used in good places.

I don't care if this or that is used now much. It won't be 5-10 yeas later. Probably something"new (!)" will come.
From the hype of HDR TV's (for itself it is a good thing actually) it looks like something on that line will be overused for a time.


Edit: Screw that. When i read what i wrote it felt more like i have an obsession. Should take a break probably.

Than again, if someone incorporates something like this, it would be considered part of their style. I'm not sure that's something to argue against.

For example I feel with Denise's work it's as if we're viewing a raw image of a nebula via some sort of probes high definition digital camera. Without post-processing the raw image would have peripheral lens aberrations due to light exposure, and also chromatic aberrations from the overall lens curvature.

Edit: Oh I see you edited the post since I made mine haha.
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #245 on: April 30, 2018, 03:34:56 AM »

No it was before :)

Offline Dune

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14970
    • www.ulco-art.nl
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #246 on: April 30, 2018, 05:47:22 AM »
I kind of agree with Kadri; all this fiddling to get imperfections in is sometimes too much. Or becomes a trick. Wisely used in appropriate images it's okay.
And btw.
Quote
Denise's work
... it's Denis, not Denise. Denis might not like it  ;)

Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #247 on: April 30, 2018, 06:29:12 AM »
I kind of agree with Kadri; all this fiddling to get imperfections in is sometimes too much. Or becomes a trick. Wisely used in appropriate images it's okay.
And btw.
Quote
Denise's work
... it's Denis, not Denise. Denis might not like it  ;)

Motion blur, lens artifacting effects, lighting effects, all "imperfections" of lenses, whether your eye or camera. When you work with things yourself you can be bias to this because your tastes are vastly different as an artist yourself. However, you can't argue with real world applications where everything is littered with effects for hyper realism because the average person likes these effects (moth to light effect). Chromatic Aberration is used in movies like LOTR and The Hobbit and looks wonderful all throughout. There weren't clearly "cameras" in this world, but that's what they did. It's used really in a lot of situations where it's not even noticed because it's methodology is used for a new effect altogether like HBO (I don't know what this stands for and have only seen it in HLSL form) where you take a Chromatic Aberration and than blur it, and sharpen it, and overlay it, creating a appearance of more detail, especially on already detailed areas. The shift of the aberration is only one pixel in opposite directions.

It's also really popular in science fiction and space stuff in general, like everything modern uses it pretty much as far back as Battlestar Galactica on Scifi.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:34:12 AM by WASasquatch »
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #248 on: April 30, 2018, 10:09:26 AM »

"hyper realism" of what? Cameras,photos or how we see the world?
Even if you use googles that have cracked glasses you won't see the cracks after a while.
The world will look perfect despite what you have in front of your eyes.
Popularity doesn't mean "good".
Having to adjust the effect shots to the real shots is one of the things i can understand and have no problem.
But putting the same things "always"to shoots that doesn't have those kind of problems is laziness and just because of"they like these" attitude and has nothing to do with art in general. For me at least. But as i said they have their places of course.

Technical limitations of the past (and now) are one of the problem that some things are still considered for some ok.
With 4K and maybe latter 8K you will look at movies done today and say 40 years later"Wow what shit have they done to that movies?".
You can't use the same techniques (at least at the same pixels levels) on 4K movies. It wouldn't look "hyperrealist" it would look bad.

My eyes have those kind of imperfections. When you add those imperfections to what i see those imperfections get doubled.
Show me how it should be as clear as it can be. Then my own imperfections will do the rest already.

There are more nuances of course.

Can you go more realistic then a documentary? When i look at the word documentary something like these come up:
 
*- Which serves to document (record and: or illustrate) a subject of, related to, or based on documents
*- A film, TV program, publication etc. which presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner
 presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter
*- A factual and objective presentation

Would you add those imperfections (or use even black and white today) to a documentary to get "hyperrealism" (I hate that word too by the way :) ) ?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 10:17:53 AM by Kadri »

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4386
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #249 on: April 30, 2018, 04:45:19 PM »
Well, here are my two cents. It all depends on what you want to achieve.
If you want a perfect digital image, then don't use it. If you want to make your image look like a photograph, then it's OK to use chromatic aberration and all the other stuff that imitates lens imperfections. Lens flares as well. Also something that photographers usually try to avoid. But an image with the sun right in front of the camera without any flare might look unnatural. Somehow dead. Or just digital.
Of course all this should be used correctly, when you want that photoreal look. Some people use DOF or lens flares just because they they can, even if the whole image looks cheesy in the end, because it's not used correctly. OK, incorrect DOF can be used as an effect as well, if you want to make your image look like a miniature.

Imperfections are quite interesting and inspiring. Imagine overdriven electric guitars. The sound is created originally by using a tube amplifier that is strictly speaking a bit too weak, so the sound is overdriven, but it sounds good, since it's a harmonic distortion. This is an imperfection. There are effects devices that simulate exactly that. Should we now say, that we shouldn't use those, because a guitar has to sound like a guitar? Imagine the sound of a Hammond B3 without the imperfections of the amp and the Leslie speaker. Boring!!
Once again it depends on what you're after. When used moderately dosed it's great, otherwise it sounds or looks awful.

I know, that I am one of those who relentlessly use chromatic aberration, because I want to make my images look photoreal (as far as I am able to). I might tend to overuse it, I know, but if I put the original image and the one with CA side by side the difference is very subtle to my taste, and it adds some unexplainable organic feeling I think. Hard to explain...

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4386
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #250 on: April 30, 2018, 05:17:42 PM »
Sorry for the offtopic posting, Denis!

Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #251 on: April 30, 2018, 05:23:31 PM »

"hyper realism" of what? Cameras,photos or how we see the world?
Even if you use googles that have cracked glasses you won't see the cracks after a while.
The world will look perfect despite what you have in front of your eyes.
Popularity doesn't mean "good".
Having to adjust the effect shots to the real shots is one of the things i can understand and have no problem.
But putting the same things "always"to shoots that doesn't have those kind of problems is laziness and just because of"they like these" attitude and has nothing to do with art in general. For me at least. But as i said they have their places of course.

Technical limitations of the past (and now) are one of the problem that some things are still considered for some ok.
With 4K and maybe latter 8K you will look at movies done today and say 40 years later"Wow what shit have they done to that movies?".
You can't use the same techniques (at least at the same pixels levels) on 4K movies. It wouldn't look "hyperrealist" it would look bad.

My eyes have those kind of imperfections. When you add those imperfections to what i see those imperfections get doubled.
Show me how it should be as clear as it can be. Then my own imperfections will do the rest already.

There are more nuances of course.

Can you go more realistic then a documentary? When i look at the word documentary something like these come up:
 
*- Which serves to document (record and: or illustrate) a subject of, related to, or based on documents
*- A film, TV program, publication etc. which presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner
 presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter
*- A factual and objective presentation

Would you add those imperfections (or use even black and white today) to a documentary to get "hyperrealism" (I hate that word too by the way :) ) ?

Depends on the documentary... Even dinosaur CGI uses Chromatic Aberrations. Also a lot of science documentaries these days, even some older stuff like the Chasing UFOs series. You keep giving examples where it's actually used on a regular in modern applications. Even used in JW and just about every modern movie. Even older stuff like Tron Matt worked on.


Again you are arguing personal tastes with art which is about the biggest no-no there is. It's like art class. Any style someone adds is not against the curriculum. It's their style. As long as the base work is completed.

I also think when you think of CA you're thinking of high range shifts and not subtle 1px shifts you probably aren't noticing in most it's used (especially after dynamic scaling). It actually fools the eye into more depth and detail. And yes, again it's popular in hyperrealism is sketches, final photographs  of sculptures, etc. Again, because of it's ties with realism, despite debate.

Also when it comes to making money in media, what's popular is what goes... That's plainly evident in just about everything. The moth effect is the biggest trend in cinema. Over using lighting effects and CGI relentlessly to attract audiences even if the movie is absolute crap. 

I feel like if you aren't teaching a class where some is willingly coming to learn from your style, it is fairly rude to tell someone what to use or where to use use it in art. It purely goes against the principles therein and why just about every major artist never took a class, and that's what personifies them. Following in line with set rules isn't really art. It's fabrication. Like the Asteroid I did. I was trying to make an Asteroid. Not art. It follows real world settings as best I can. I fabricated an asteroid. It isn't suppose to represent anything meaningful or from some deep part of me. Though I do intend to add it to a art piece at some time if I can ever get a nebula scene looking nice.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 05:43:10 PM by WASasquatch »
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #252 on: April 30, 2018, 10:03:17 PM »

I wrote too much and still looks like i could not write clearly what i actually mean.

Using those imperfection in renders is not realism (like showing how the real world looks).
It is only mimicking the look of cameras, photos.

Labeling the later as "realism" is what i don't like.
Otherwise nor chromatic aberration nor DOF etc. or whatever in itself  is what defines art.
What art is is quite another very subjective topic.

I know for example that Hannes uses it mostly and i like to tease him about that mostly :)
That doesn't mean that i don't like his pictures. Quite the opposite. 

Anyway. Sorry Denis.





Offline WASasquatch

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3106
  • The Homeless Landscape Artist
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #253 on: April 30, 2018, 11:08:34 PM »

I wrote too much and still looks like i could not write clearly what i actually mean.

Using those imperfection in renders is not realism (like showing how the real world looks).
It is only mimicking the look of cameras, photos.

Labeling the later as "realism" is what i don't like.
Otherwise nor chromatic aberration nor DOF etc. or whatever in itself  is what defines art.
What art is is quite another very subjective topic.

I know for example that Hannes uses it mostly and i like to tease him about that mostly :)
That doesn't mean that i don't like his pictures. Quite the opposite. 

Anyway. Sorry Denis.

I guess what I mean isn't easily translated either. You know what you are talking about, which makes you inherently biased to it's use, as you know what it's from, what creates it, etc. This however is not the case with the general populous. In fact it's the opposite, they're ignorant to most every subtle effect, but overall add to them the perception of detail, appeal, etc.

For example, no one is generally using it to recreate a camera effect, they're using it as an effect in general, void of specific camera/era. For example, it's use in science fiction. For some reason it's just been related to space and such. Games use it on the regular, as well as movies and tv shows in this field. Regardless of your tastes, if is generally well perceived, and again is part of a personal style, is the effect itself art, no, but it is only a small variable of the larger picture.

Art is not subjective, it's relative. You can judge other peoples art, but generally, it means nothing. It's relative to what they like, you know? Eye of the Beholder, and all.
Art can be a window into the soul

Offline Oshyan

  • Planetside Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 12968
  • Holy snagging ducks!
Re: Nebulae
« Reply #254 on: April 30, 2018, 11:36:49 PM »
OK guys, please move the detailed discussion of post processing to another thread if you wish to continue. :)

- Oshyan

 

anything