New Planet

Started by efflux, August 07, 2009, 10:17:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

efflux

This is actually quite a high view. We are above a canyon here. The foreground is near the edge of a cliff. The stones you see are not fake stones but my own graph as posted in the forum. Detail goes down to gravel sized level but also canyons so I'll try to capture these things in other renders. It is so difficult to get a planet to work at a few metres from the ground up to thousands in altitude. Something that looks good at ten metres might look rubbish at a hundred never mind thousands of metres and vice versa. This is probably what I spend most of my time working on.

Henry Blewer

I have learned that macro-scapes are much harder than a landscape 'photo'. This looks quite promising. Great choice for color.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

efflux

Near the edge. New shot:

Naoo

Hi

Both images are beautiful, but I love #2.
Excelent rocks.
Maybe more rocks shoud be deeper in the ground.


ciao
Naoo

Henry Blewer

I like both, I can not decide which is better. The rocks are fine. There are similar rocks near Binghamton NY. The water could not move them, or they were left from the last glacial period.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

rcallicotte

Wow.  I love your stuff, efflux.
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

RArcher

Very nice, I really like your textures.

littlecannon

Very nice, detailed textures and scenes. The stones are cool.
I just need to tweak that texture a bit more...

mhaze

No 2 is my favourite - imaginative stuff as usual. I always find your work inspirational it has a poetic quality to which I aspire in my own work.

Mick

Tangled-Universe

This looks good! I like the rocks and details very much. The strata are very nice as well.
The next thing you have in mind is probably some more color-variation in surfacing?
Looking forward to see more of this!

Martin

efflux

Thanks.

I was happy with the textures but not on the stones. I fed ground textures to the stones and they were not ideal for the displacement but I'm trying to work on various things at once to keep moving ahead in terms of planetary scale. I'm trying to avoid getting precious about certain details at the expense of other things. This is not easy and very time consuming especially with the speed of my computer.

I also have a work flow that I'm now consistently using now and it is very important to the look I'm getting. Firstly I adjust exposure in Cinepaint to make sure the sky isn't blown out. This is crucial to the look of the sky in my more recent renders. This also makes the ground too dark but I export a 16 bit tif from Cinepaint into Lightzone and use it's relight algorithm. In Lightone I do all the other general level tweaking, colours etc. These two apps enable me to adjust the overall exposure without tricky post editing in a normal 2D app i.e. blending two differently exposed exrs. Then I take into Gimp and I've been using a plugin called Redux which sharpens and refocuses. It creates a blending layer for this operation which is quite cool. It's good because it doesn't sharpen all over. However I find sharpening difficult with TG2, at least on this planet because it is a bit noisy in places.

What detail levels and ant-aliasing do people here generally use? I've been using around 0.8 for detail and 6 for anti-aliasing. Less detail can create issues, especially with shadows and I don't really want to bump setting up much more. I had thought of increasing anti-aliasing to smooth things. I don't know if this will be effective. I still can not achieve as good a look as if I render big then downsize.

efflux

Also, I have a colouring issue. This has always been an issue between various apps. For example, colours in Lightzone are much more vibrant than the exported tif or jpg (I've tried the jpg - it's the same). So these two images are not as vibrant as they should be, at least that's what it looks like from my computer. It is of course easy enough to go back into Lightzone and compensate for this since Lightzone is non destructive real time editing. I didn't do this with these renders. Will do so next time. Lightzone also has a non destructive cloner. This is great for taking out any dodgy areas - render issues etc. The last image had a couple of minor pixel sized problems after I changed the exposure.

Tangled-Universe

I always render at slightly higher settings, but that's mainly because I often have populations. With "terrain only" renders I often use about the same settings.
Sometimes a relatively low AA setting can give surprising results. I once or twice rendered something with detail 0.85 and AA3 and the grains and rough details came out very nicely compared to AA7-8 which smoothed it out too much.

efflux

I'm going to experiment further with that. Slight blurriness is OK, better than noisiness.

One thing I am very happy with is distant terrain look. Spike limit is your friend here - to create sweeping horizontal shapes rather than fractal looking spikes. This never looks good. Terrain is seldom spiky and that always look bad in the distance. Also, I have redirected part of the terrain here by it's own fractal or rather a duplicate of it's general shape. The more outcropped areas are another fractal that has not succumbed to the redirect due to being in areas where the lower redirected terrain has low value. The redirect goes in X,Y and Z. Going in one or two directions is cool except when you start moving around the planet.

efflux

Just another point. The redirection is actually everything (surfaces as well). I have lots of surface altitude and slope constraints and the redirect screws this regularity up very nicely.