Creek in swampy lowland

[Dune]

And another detail, more upcreek.

[Tangled-Universe]

I love these close-ups. Like your previous work it all looks so "alive" and realistic.
I'm really wondering how stuff like this would look when it's rendered at just some bit higher settings, say 0.65 quality and AA7 for example.
Yes, it would take about twice as much time at most, but the result will be even more terrific.
Is this also for a book (same perhaps?) and therefore the high-res output?

By the way, in your second close-up the waterscales don't look that very big. Still a bit too big, but not as much as in the main shot. A bit strange, probably me
Have you tried the fake volumetrics of the watershader to simulate mud?
I've already seen you're quite comfortable with manipulating water, perhaps something nice for you to dive into.

Martin

[tee]

Pretty dam stunning piece of work, the amount of detail in this is incredible. Pretty sure my machine would just laugh at me if I tried to render this.

[Dune]

Well, I'm not gonna try rendering this until tomorrow morning, as I do want a good nights rest. I've had some problems starting a large render, and can get quite disturbed and not sleep over it.
I need this for a book, yes, and, no I didn't use the volumetric desnity of the water, although I know it works kind of similar to what I did here. But I wanted a muddy shore anyway, so why not put some mud colour over the whole botom at the same time.
I figured that this render at 4800 px wide would take about 6 times it did for a 1600 px render, which was 2.45 hours. So I might try a higher detail. On the other hand, I did some tests a while ago and didn't see a huge improvement. It might be easier to (like TG) do a slightly larger render and decrease size in PS.

---Dune

[Tangled-Universe]

Well, I'm not gonna try rendering this until tomorrow morning, as I do want a good nights rest. I've had some problems starting a large render, and can get quite disturbed and not sleep over it.
I need this for a book, yes, and, no I didn't use the volumetric desnity of the water, although I know it works kind of similar to what I did here. But I wanted a muddy shore anyway, so why not put some mud colour over the whole botom at the same time.
I figured that this render at 4800 px wide would take about 6 times it did for a 1600 px render, which was 2.45 hours. So I might try a higher detail. On the other hand, I did some tests a while ago and didn't see a huge improvement. It might be easier to (like TG) do a slightly larger render and decrease size in PS.

---Dune

Ghehe, I recall a similar discussion about this in your previous work's topic. I understand the increase in detail increases rendertime but I'm absolutely sure that it pays off in comparison to rendering it bigger and downscaling it. I think there are plenty examples showing that. However, if this approach gives the desired result for a book-print then why mess with it. I understand your feelings for rendertime, not your reasoning though lol

[choronr]

Close-up or distant, you've got a real goodie going on here!

[Falcon]

Absolutely brilliant.

I do agree, though, that slightly higher detail settings and AA would probably improve it. The detail shot seems to have some hard noise in it that gives it an artificial look, the only reason why it doesn't seem to be a photo.

[Dune]

Thanks for all the compliments, guys. The hard noise might be the in promptu sharpening I did in Irfanview for this detail. Not the most subtle way, I confess. But, you may have convinced me to try some higher detail and AA. I'll do some detail tests first. And I will add another fallen tree (or two) at the far bank, where the creek turns left and eats from the sides. It's just the place, and will give another point of interest.
I don't know if more detail and higher AA will cause a crash easier than a bigger render. I wouldn't mind about the time really, as I have another machine steadily working on it, whilst doing my normal work on this one. I'm not sure about the filter as well, but I'll test that as well.

[Dune]

What I dreaded happened; unknown errors, so I stopped after 3 hours (only tiny dots visible, and I couldn't see it working) and changed some settings. GI was 2/2/8 and is now: 1/1/2. I kept detail at .65 and AA 7. Changed the size from 4800 px wide to 4400 wide and now render in 6 crops. At least it's working now. I'll keep you posted.

[Dune]

Well, I've got him nailed. Total image 4400 x 2600px, took about 30 hours @ detail .65 and AA 7, GI 1/1/2. Here's a detail, without any postwork except curves. I might post the total later, but I would like to enter this one for the contest. At 1600 px wide and less than 250 kB the total thing won't survive, though. It has incredible detail and that will diminish into jpg artifacts. What to do? Enter anyway?

---Dune

[domdib]

You could always enter a crop. Also, if you check the NWDA competition thread, there's some discussion right now about the 250 kb limit.

[Henry Blewer]

Will FrankB and NWDA accept jpeg2000? It does a better job. Personally I like PNG.

[Dune]

Well, here's the final image I entered in the contest (I mailed it, guys). Due to all the structures it had to be a small one, to keep it under 250kB. But you should see the detail in the large sized picture!

---Dune

[domdib]

Great image. You could always post the bigger one over at Ashundar.

[Henry Blewer]

Great render! The distribution of the various terrain types really makes this picture.