Strata --> FINISHED

[rcallicotte]

Spectacular rocks and mountains and terrain.  No to the trees, unless you bunch a forest of trees at the bottom and not on the hillsides.

[Tangled-Universe]

Don't take this wrong, as this image is spectacular.

However, as stated, these trees don't work for this image the current way they are set up.

Additionally, the lighting looks odd in places, though this could be due to the render's issues (which will hopefully be improved by next update).  Did you use fill-light?

Otherwise, the rock specularity is nearly spot on!  Nice work.

Thank you for your comment and constructive criticism
In which areas in particular does the lighting look odd? I deliberately used specularity on the rocks on the right.
The lighting setup is one global light @ 3.5, one fill light @ 0,75 which doesn't cast shadows and which is 180 degrees opposite from the global light. It is supposed to lighten the big shadow casted by the mountain. I'd love to let GI handle it but I don't know how (yet).
Further more 2 soft fill lights for colortone (strength @ 0.15).

The rock formation continues to be the really unique thing about this image - BUT with the trees (although I agree they look like they don't belong there), the impression of massiveness that the rock/mountain is receiving from the trees being there, is simply awesome.

Maybe it's just a question to have one object in the scene that doesn't look out of place, but still offers the right sense of scale. Maybe a plane? A hut and a couple of birds, smoke from a fireplace?

Cheers,
Frank

Also thank you for your comment and crits/suggestions.
The idea which appeals most to me is to add some birds. I'll see if I can do that in 3D, otherwise good'ol 2D

Spectacular rocks and mountains and terrain.  No to the trees, unless you bunch a forest of trees at the bottom and not on the hillsides.

Thanks calico!
I've tried a dense forest at the bottom and not on the hillsides, but it made my renderer crash twice.
Maybe my new render-machine can handle it, but so far I think I'll get rid of the trees.

[NWsenior07]

I'm going to say no to the trees too, although a fairly dense, well placed population of vegetatio at the base would be good. The rock is spectacular though very well done indeed.

[rcallicotte]

When you can get the forest below to work, it could be close to the best thing I've seen here.  I've run into similar problems with displacements like this and tree populations.  Have you tried connecting to the objects with the last displacement?  If so, have you just tried elevating the tree objects 500 or so meters above the surface and make sure there is nothing touching the sides of the wall?  Sometimes using the preview view helps.

[Tangled-Universe]

When you can get the forest below to work, it could be close to the best thing I've seen here.  I've run into similar problems with displacements like this and tree populations.  Have you tried connecting to the objects with the last displacement?  If so, have you just tried elevating the tree objects 500 or so meters above the surface and make sure there is nothing touching the sides of the wall?  Sometimes using the preview view helps.

Thanks for thinking along with me.
I don't have any troubles with placing the populations onto the displaced terrain. The compute terrain node serves as base for the populations and works fine. I've checked it with high res crops and alle the populations sit perfectly on the terrain (see also my node-screenshot a couple of pages back). The only problem is that my machine couldn't handle the dense populations and it consequently crashed.

[j meyer]

Hi,
as for the lighting:to me it seems that the darkest shadows
are on the wrong side of the crevices and also the trees
shadows should be more visible,but that's just my opinion
and could of course be wrong.
Hope you'll find the solution,good luck!

[moodflow]

In most cases, I am not a fan of fill lighting "IF" GI can do the job properly.  TGTP's GI seems to work quite well.  Of course using fill-lights for additional effect is a situational thing.  I know Oshyan pioneered some good fill light methods.

Were the GI settings on at all for this image?  I thought that they were though the way you recently made it sound, they were not. 

If not, try GI of 2, and turn on GI surface detail.  From all the tests I've run, anything higher than GI of 3 is barely even noticeable, and above 4, UN-noticeable, except for massively increased render times.

Also, a suggestion is to play with the shadowing.  I always turn soft shadows on with a diameter of 20 @ 9 samples (unless there is a prominent flat surface - the samples need to go up in such a case).  When I turn soft shadows on, I bump up the sun strength to 5.0, else the image is a little too dark.

As stated, this image is incredible as-is, and these are only suggestions that may or may not make it even better.  Hopefully I don't sound like I am hijacking the image here, but I really think its great!   

[moodflow]

Thank you for your comment and constructive criticism
In which areas in particular does the lighting look odd? I deliberately used specularity on the rocks on the right.
The lighting setup is one global light @ 3.5, one fill light @ 0,75 which doesn't cast shadows and which is 180 degrees opposite from the global light. It is supposed to lighten the big shadow casted by the mountain. I'd love to let GI handle it but I don't know how (yet).
Further more 2 soft fill lights for colortone (strength @ 0.15).

If you look at the prominent "fingers" on the right side near the bottom, you can see that areas that should be shaded somewhat are artificially lit up, causing it to look "flatter" than normal.  I think with the GI up, and soft shadows on, you can get more of a natural looking feel to it.  Thats my hope atleast! ;-)

Youch, I hope I don't sound like a "rear-end hole" or like I am hijacking this thread.   

[Tangled-Universe]

Thank you for your comment and constructive criticism
In which areas in particular does the lighting look odd? I deliberately used specularity on the rocks on the right.
The lighting setup is one global light @ 3.5, one fill light @ 0,75 which doesn't cast shadows and which is 180 degrees opposite from the global light. It is supposed to lighten the big shadow casted by the mountain. I'd love to let GI handle it but I don't know how (yet).
Further more 2 soft fill lights for colortone (strength @ 0.15).

If you look at the prominent "fingers" on the right side near the bottom, you can see that areas that should be shaded somewhat are artificially lit up, causing it to look "flatter" than normal.  I think with the GI up, and soft shadows on, you can get more of a natural looking feel to it.  Thats my hope atleast! ;-)

Youch, I hope I don't sound like a "rear-end hole" or like I am hijacking this thread.   

Oh no, not at all! This is exactly what this thread is meant to be about and what I like to see from the users here.
Critics and suggestions, all more than welcome.

GI was actually on on this one, both settings at 1.
The fill light doesnt cast any shadows and is about strength 0.75. It might be a little bit too strong but as far as I know it is the only method to lighten up shadows. Also, without the fill light the "fingers" look lit up and flat as well.
I don't know how to manipulate the GI/Enviro Light settings to get nice light and detailed shadows.

I could try rendering it with GI at 2/2 on my new quad-core and with upcoming beta (since rendering with multiple instances can differ in GI results, isn't it?) because on my current machine it would take ages, you see.

In this render the soft shadow settings are at a diameter of 5 and 15 sampling, if I remember correctly (am currently at work). 99% sure. I'll test your settings. I understand that increasing sun's strenth to about 5 lightens up the image, but I don't want the overal image to be lighter but the shadows in particular.
The standard shadows created by GI are way too dark and look unnatural to my taste.

Thanks for your suggestions Moodflow. I don't feel like you're hijacking the thread or being a rear-end hole

Regards, Martin

[JimB]

Have you tried increasing the GI Strength on Surfaces in the lighting setup? Also, switching on 'GI on surface details' in the Render setup (not sure if that'll do much)?

[Tangled-Universe]

Yes, GI surface details were checked, but I didn't increase the strength on surfaces.
I shall try that a.s.a.p.
Thank you!

[overlordchuck]

I like the trees as a reference point for size, but I don't think they look that great.

[Tangled-Universe]

Hi everybody!

So this is really the LAST render of this image.
I've lost my interest in it a little and I think it's good enough to consider it finished now.
I've added an other type of crack function and rendered it larger.
Almost 24h of rendering on my 'old' machine.
I'm pretty satisfied with it and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
Crits and comments are always welcome of course.

Martin

[rcallicotte]

Very nice work, Martin.  I wish I understood as much to do this sort of work.  Cool.

[choronr]

Thank you Martin for this thread and all those who have presented ideas and questions. The depth of this program is amazing; and, you have used it in an outstanding way to create a highly detailed strata.