WIP, trying to tinker around and see how "real" I can get with terragen. Should be fun :P A lot of work is actually in retexturing objects, which is where this all started from. C&C welcome.
I like it.
I like it a lot. As far as C&C go... The leafs could use some color variations, not to certain about your translucency. The tree trunks look a bit low poly (along the edges is visible). Everything else looks very nice. Keep at it for certain.
That's always a big challenge; to get photo realism into a close-up, harder than distant views. And it very much depends on the objects. Chris is right; some color variation may do a lot, also some blemishes on leaves by tiny world scale fractals perhaps. You can't do much to the tree edge, except doubling the polycount in Poseray, or perhaps using forced displacement. Or obscuring it by having something grow (populate) on the trunk, like moss. Or make an ivy (ivy generator).
But it's a good start, and I'm keen to see where you can take this!
it's a good start. Agree with what's been said, also might try to soften shadows on the tree trunk. If this is not a maintained/manicured lawn then perhaps vary height of grass blade's a bit more.
Overall though this is looking really promising!
Hey everyone, thank you for the comments. I have another version rendering now in which I've added some "stuff" to make it feel less empty/boring.
Dune - I've never tried populating on an object, is there any way to populate on just one part of the object, say the tree trunk, without getting the leaves as well?
It is very nice. My only thing is that the trunk of the tree should be more in the focus. The background is nicely blurry but the trunk is not enough sharp imho. It might be the low polly what others mentioned...dunno.
Quote from: Cocateho on December 26, 2015, 08:12:17 AM
Hey everyone, thank you for the comments. I have another version rendering now in which I've added some "stuff" to make it feel less empty/boring.
Dune - I've never tried populating on an object, is there any way to populate on just one part of the object, say the tree trunk, without getting the leaves as well?
You might try a Distribution shader with Height control...never thought of this before. Too bad you can't populate on populations but that is likely not doable ever.
Bobby nailed it, I'd try that first. I think you can also paint (painted shader) on an area that looks like the trunk (like sss, raised, at that location) and use 3D, but that needs some experimentation. Yeah, I forgot to mention soft shadows! Big difference then.
In my Eyes soft shadows is the most important first, but anyway a very good start!
Agree with other suggestions on variation. Also some variation in leaf color saturation might be valuable.
I think the current very intense blue sky, while possible, could use a bit of cirrus or haze to represent more common conditions. But I guess what is common depends on where you live.
Here's the one I had rendering earlier while at work. A bit higher quality, a few extras. I'll have to try soft shadows, usually I hate to use that just because of render times, though I guess if I want detailed realism I should expect to have to wait a bit :P ... Along with variation, I'll definitely see if I cant figure out some "moss" on the tree trunk and I may add some low ground fog. in which case I may opt not to do DoF, or reduce the effect.
Yes, I'd try without DOF first, as it may be a bit too much even. As for soft shadows; set the number of samples lower (5 instead of 9), it's much faster, and often not noticable, especially on rough textures. My olive tests used 6 samples for soft shadows.
Quote from: Dune on December 27, 2015, 02:43:31 AM
Yes, I'd try without DOF first, as it may be a bit too much even. As for soft shadows; set the number of samples lower (5 instead of 9), it's much faster, and often not noticable, especially on rough textures. My olive tests used 6 samples for soft shadows.
Yes lower samples usually works, but if you check the shadows of a tree on a flat white plane then you'll notice that the default 9 samples is VERY low. Even 25 samples or more doesn't give completely smooth results.
Considering the not so bumpy bark, I disagree a bit with Ulco here, I'd tend to say to reduce the image resolution a bit (to reduce render time) and bump up soft shadow samples, actually.
The best thing you can do anyway is to do a crop render of the trunk to see how many samples you need.
If realism is your goal then more samples will give you more realism, but the long rendertimes are an unwanted reality ;)
For crop test rendering you may need to set "ray detail region padding" to "crop region" mode and give it a value of 3-5. This will extend area of the crop render region for shadows/reflections and such.
First try without, but you may need this setting to make sure that the cropped render "catches" the shadow from the tree outside of your camera and your cropped render region.
Here's with soft shadows, samples set to 14. Still pretty grainy.
rendered the tree using forced displacement, and while I like it on the trunk it seems to mess the leaves up and no matter how low I set displacement on the leaves, or even turn it off it still doesn't look right, so I probably won't use it in the final unless I change the POV a bit. While I do like the overall soft shadow effect I'm not sure if it will be practical if I have to ramp up the samples that far.
Any suggestions stylistically? Things to add?
If you don't displace the leaves then they should look fine I'd tend to say. Strange.
The bump/displacement of the bark is a bit too much to my taste. It's a CG give-away so to say.
It seems you indeed need more soft shadow samples. Given that 14 isn't enough, then I guess around 25 should give you acceptable results.
You may try turning off jittering with 15 samples and see if the banding (as a result of not jittering the shadow samples anymore) is something you can live with.
I like the dof and the added flower ;)
The trunk looks weird on the left side of the tree...
I do believe that Forced Displacement turns off Ray Tracing on the whole object whether displaced or not, not too bad on populations where you can select Ultra quality (Slowest) in the Render quality drop down. Just what I understood...
Some information about Forced Displacement that Matt had laid out.
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=20358.0
Ah yes I forgot about that.
In this case, when you render the objects with the micropoly-renderer you need to increase render detail to something like 0.8-1.0.
Depends a bit on how fine the detail in the textures is and whether they should be visible if you consider the size of the texture to your rendered frame (screenspace size).
I wouldn't render this with AA smaller than 8 anyway, btw.
Upped the detail to .9 from .6, also toned down the displacement a bit, and upped soft shadow samples a little as well. Looks better, although I'm not sure I like the force displacement effect, in this case at least.
From what I understand of that post force displacement actually reduces quality?
Force displacement takes the RayTracing out, as Bobby wrote, so detail is not as 'fine'. What did you use for displacement, a PF or the bark texture displacement/bump map? Maybe the latter is too refined, and needs some smoothing. I can make a bump map for you with PixPlant if you wish. The white areas are really smooth so should raise smoothly and quite sharply off the darker parts, and the darker areas are rougher.
Quote from: Dune on December 30, 2015, 03:21:45 AM
Force displacement takes the RayTracing out, as Bobby wrote, so detail is not as 'fine'. What did you use for displacement, a PF or the bark texture displacement/bump map? Maybe the latter is too refined, and needs some smoothing. I can make a bump map for you with PixPlant if you wish. The white areas are really smooth so should raise smoothly and quite sharply off the darker parts, and the darker areas are rougher.
Ooooh my wish list just got longer...as a freelancer PixPlant is affordable....have to try out the demo....thanks for the hint....
Actually, I don't really know what apps like Pixplant do to a texture, is it merely converting to greyscale and adjusting sharpness of certain levels? You can do a lot in Photoshop itself by converting to greyscale and smoothing out certain areas or grey-ranges, or even everything. Increasing lightness by hand for certain areas. As a real life person better sees what should be raised and what not.
Some textures have light falling on areas that shouldn't really be more displaced, but of course it depends on the quality of the texture.
Quote from: Dune on December 31, 2015, 03:57:40 AM
Actually, I don't really know what apps like Pixplant do to a texture, is it merely converting to greyscale and adjusting sharpness of certain levels? You can do a lot in Photoshop itself by converting to greyscale and smoothing out certain areas or grey-ranges, or even everything. Increasing lightness by hand for certain areas. As a real life person better sees what should be raised and what not.
Some textures have light falling on areas that shouldn't really be more displaced, but of course it depends on the quality of the texture.
I hear you and already make rudimentary bump, dispersal, lightening layers, etc. in PS...was wondering about where it gets the 'normals' info when it makes them or if it just colours a greyscale bump map.
Think only maps Terragen can use are Color, Specular and displacement (bump) .
Quote from: masonspappy on December 31, 2015, 05:21:20 PM
Think only maps Terragen can use are Color, Specular and displacement (bump) .
I find a greyscale can be used in any map input to to control the particular item...works for me....
I think these softwares only interpret the colors, as there are no normals in a texture image. Goes well often, but not well, just as often ;)
I actually just used to texture image for displacement. Its fairly well suited just because it the white&dark patches but I'm working on tweaking a greyscale map now that will hopefully work a bit better :P
I changed out the main tree... same bark texture with the new bump map. Leaves are custom as well, the tree model is actually the european chestnut from xfrog. Certain things I like, The main issue is forced displacement seems to have "exploded" the nearest branch, although others seem fine. The leaves I think actually turned out really well but I'm not sure about how they fit on the tree, and the bark actually looks more "oaky" than maple. On the trunk though I think the bark turned out well.
Quote from: Cocateho on January 03, 2016, 09:58:28 AM
I changed out the main tree... same bark texture with the new bump map. Leaves are custom as well, the tree model is actually the european chestnut from xfrog. Certain things I like, The main issue is forced displacement seems to have "exploded" the nearest branch, although others seem fine. The leaves I think actually turned out really well but I'm not sure about how they fit on the tree, and the bark actually looks more "oaky" than maple. On the trunk though I think the bark turned out well.
the scale of the displacement is very important. If there is only one shader for all the bark a good displacement on the trunks will be huge on smaller branches, and often 'explode' them if there are too few polys to work with.
I can't figure out the lighting/shadows on the bark of the tree.
Where do those harsh dark shadows on the right of the trunk come from?
I also see soft shadows cast from things on the left outside of the camera frustum.
Are you using multiple light sources?
If so, do they all cast shadows?
Quote from: bobbystahr on December 31, 2015, 05:10:43 PM
Quote from: Dune on December 31, 2015, 03:57:40 AM
Actually, I don't really know what apps like Pixplant do to a texture, is it merely converting to greyscale and adjusting sharpness of certain levels? You can do a lot in Photoshop itself by converting to greyscale and smoothing out certain areas or grey-ranges, or even everything. Increasing lightness by hand for certain areas. As a real life person better sees what should be raised and what not.
Some textures have light falling on areas that shouldn't really be more displaced, but of course it depends on the quality of the texture.
I hear you and already make rudimentary bump, dispersal, lightening layers, etc. in PS...was wondering about where it gets the 'normals' info when it makes them or if it just colours a greyscale bump map.
http://www.crazybump.com/
Check out CrazyBump bobby! The free trial will allow you to play around with it. The settings allow for you to create very detailed, or soft normals/displacement and even textures. You can remove shadows/highlights from textures without all the isolation in photoshop.
I got it as a gift, but still I think it's worth it. Works like a charm.
On to the image - This is really awesome! I am wondering though, does those maple trees come with multiple leaf groups? You could vary each leaf groups color slightly to give different stages of decomp, like ones about to fall off, and others that have just recently changed.
Very cool...nice and crisp!
Love the colours!
:)
J
Here's a PixPlant made bumpmap of the chestnut bark.
Nice bump map...even more tempting.....
Thanks for the bump map Dune, I'll give that a shot with the original chestnut bark texture, it'll probably work a bit better given it was actually made for the model and not just a random image I found ;D although I still really like the custom texture for the other tree i originally had.
WASasquatch - I'm honestly not sure how I would vary the leaves in such a way because it is just one leaf texture... other than to add a fractal, but even then I wouldn't have the level of control you're talking about. I'm sure there's a way I just don't know what it is haha.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 03, 2016, 05:21:11 PM
I can't figure out the lighting/shadows on the bark of the tree.
Where do those harsh dark shadows on the right of the trunk come from?
I also see soft shadows cast from things on the left outside of the camera frustum.
Are you using multiple light sources?
If so, do they all cast shadows?
To be honest, I have no clue either, only have sunlight and envirolight. I don't know if it has something to do with the object itself?
Quote from: Cocateho on January 09, 2016, 12:30:16 PM
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 03, 2016, 05:21:11 PM
I can't figure out the lighting/shadows on the bark of the tree.
Where do those harsh dark shadows on the right of the trunk come from?
I also see soft shadows cast from things on the left outside of the camera frustum.
Are you using multiple light sources?
If so, do they all cast shadows?
To be honest, I have no clue either, only have sunlight and envirolight. I don't know if it has something to do with the object itself?
You could try to look at the trunk model in the preview with 'smooth shaded' mode enabled
or make a crop render without textures just grey colour to check the model. The jagged look
of these dark parts is suspicious.
You can
A) Ditch textures and use PF for distance trees
B) Apply a surface layer between the part and the default shader and apply colour variation. Disable fractal breakup (optional) and adjust coverage to taste.
Here is a method I devised from past advice on population colour variation. It basically creates a unique seed based on position. Lots of customization options. You can use the final merge shader as your colour input into your surface layer/default shader.
The control is random, as it would appear in nature. You can change the scales.
(http://i.imgur.com/odp5GGK.png)
Interesting, i will have to use this in some new endeavors.
Quote from: Chris on January 09, 2016, 06:20:43 PM
Interesting, i will have to use this in some new endeavors.
Defintiely! Go for it! Took me forever to discover this method browsing the forums. Never knew what people meant by "vary your population colour" besides adding new populations with new colours.
There is a specific input for the Populator that takes an input shader and varies the color of the population by it. So you could have a Power Fractal with 2 colors which would influence the population's colors. Or this whole shader chain that you've put together. I guess I just wasn't quite getting why you said you didn't know what people meant when they said "vary your population colour"...
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 09, 2016, 08:09:15 PM
There is a specific input for the Populator that takes an input shader and varies the color of the population by it. So you could have a Power Fractal with 2 colors which would influence the population's colors. Or this whole shader chain that you've put together. I guess I just wasn't quite getting why you said you didn't know what people meant when they said "vary your population colour"...
- Oshyan
I have tried this the colour variation tint thing, and it creates black objects for me. I don't know why. No displacement, both colors checked. It also seems to do the entire object rather then specific things like leaves. And if you mean the default shader, that's what I meant by option B, either default shader or a sufrace shader. I use the surface shader cause with no fractalization and lowering coverage you can get some leaf detail from the texture through.
You have to increase the Diffuse Color Multiplier as by default the input shader multiplies the base colors, meaning it will always make them darker. So put it up at 2 or something, with the same input color settings, and it should work fine. If you're using very dark input colors, use a higher multiplier (or lighten your input colors). I admit that this is a bit confusing that the defaults do not produce results that are generally similar in lightness to your original though.
And yes you're right that it varies the entire object, not per-leaf. So working directly inside the object with the Default Shader inputs is the way to go for per-component color variation.
- Oshyan
Hmm, I'm pretty sure I upped the multiplier, not that high. I'll have to test again.
Here is an example of what I meant by varying the autumn colours. This was a xfrog summer birch, no autumn colours. Single population.
(http://i.imgur.com/FzPf9fs.jpg)
Really like the autumn forest WAS...will play with your .tgc tomorrow...too eye tired ...just in from hearing a young friend play...more 'sound horney' than '3D horney' rite now....hee hee
The color variation method has been there for a few years now, ever since Matt made the transform shader. And there are tgc's around, gathering dust, I guess ;)
Quote from: Dune on January 10, 2016, 02:37:47 AM
The color variation method has been there for a few years now, ever since Matt made the transform shader. And there are tgc's around, gathering dust, I guess ;)
I mainly use a PF shader in greys - white
Rendering a test now, I know about the PF to vary population color but I never quite figured out effective variations on single objects, I usually use a PF there in the color function, which helps but not quite the effect I had originally wanted to achieve as far as variation.
Quote from: Dune on January 10, 2016, 02:37:47 AM
The color variation method has been there for a few years now, ever since Matt made the transform shader. And there are tgc's around, gathering dust, I guess ;)
This has nothing to do with the transform shader. It's basically a seed for merge sheders mix function from noise derived from Get Position. Get Position picks up a new location on each iteration. Idea is from the population varying topic. I guess it allows the texture to be independent from the objects texture map. Not exactly sure
Quote from: WASasquatch on January 10, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Quote from: Dune on January 10, 2016, 02:37:47 AM
The color variation method has been there for a few years now, ever since Matt made the transform shader. And there are tgc's around, gathering dust, I guess ;)
This has nothing to do with the transform shader. It's basically a seed for merge sheders mix function from noise derived from Get Position. Get Position picks up a new location on each iteration. Idea is from the population varying topic. I guess it allows the texture to be independent from the objects texture map. Not exactly sure
Ghehe...interesting reply :)
:D I wasn't talking about your setup, Was.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 11, 2016, 01:56:47 AM
Quote from: WASasquatch on January 10, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Quote from: Dune on January 10, 2016, 02:37:47 AM
The color variation method has been there for a few years now, ever since Matt made the transform shader. And there are tgc's around, gathering dust, I guess ;)
This has nothing to do with the transform shader. It's basically a seed for merge sheders mix function from noise derived from Get Position. Get Position picks up a new location on each iteration. Idea is from the population varying topic. I guess it allows the texture to be independent from the objects texture map. Not exactly sure
Ghehe...interesting reply :)
You believe the Get Position (http://planetside.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Get_Position) shader and noise shaders use Transform Shader (http://planetside.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Transform_Shader)?
Quote from: Dune on January 11, 2016, 02:38:17 AM
:D I wasn't talking about your setup, Was.
My apologies, I thought we were on topic to what was posted ;) Sorry for the confusion, I believe I already mentioned it's derived from past methods.
No it wasn't about what you said technically WAS.
I just had to chuckle a bit when you were first pretty firm/sure and then end your comment that you aren't sure.
Never mind, it's not important, I just liked it :)
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 11, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
No it wasn't about what you said technically WAS.
I just had to chuckle a bit when you were first pretty firm/sure and then end your comment that you aren't sure.
Never mind, it's not important, I just liked it :)
Well that comment is to the last sentence. Lol
Here's a small crop, I decided to change tree models (still the chestnut though) seems to have helped with the weird shadows. I could probably get away with upping the displacement a bit.
A question as far as object rendering: Is it possible to have both ray tracing and displacement on an object?
It is clear from you guy's conversation how little I actually understand of how Terragen really functions, so much of this goes over my head :-\ but having a better understanding would probably fill some gaps as far as things that I always wished I could do thinking there just wasn't any good way to do it.
this latest one looks great!
the answer is no - only pseudo displ. (bump) as far as i remember..?
:)
J
You currently can't raytrace the displacement as far as I know, pending Matt confirmation.
Regarding your picture, the bark is indeed much better!
I would be carefull about the colors as the red bush looks very saturated and generally your trunks look very bright. Ideally you want your materials to be consistent and make sense. A good idea would be to look at your picture in black and white and see if everything seems to fit together.
Adding a fractal noise to introduce color variations in the bushes/trees would greatly help you shot! You will indeed need to add a transform shader after your powerFractal and check "world space position" in order to get it to give you variation over the whole model.
Otherwise it's going to be mapped as a 2D image and you won't be able to break up the color of the folliage.
The grass and the pool of light under the big tree in the background is really nice. You could also pump up the transluceny of the leaves!
Cheers!
Unfortunately you can't use raytracing and displacement at the same time. That's why there is an option as to which render method to use. If we could raytrace object displacement it would just be *the* way to do things. :D
- Oshyan
Big change for the positive, with a nice texture like that you may get away with just a bump mapped and ray traced. I've stayed away from the Displace option except for one unsatisfactory test.
Quote from: Cocateho on January 11, 2016, 05:03:33 PM
Here's a small crop, I decided to change tree models (still the chestnut though) seems to have helped with the weird shadows. I could probably get away with upping the displacement a bit.
Maybe its just my phone but the tree trunk sure looks nice now. The tree colours don't seem so hard anymore either.
The cropped one ist already a big improvement! Great!
So I think I've got the hang of the color variation, did this test do I could work faster, used a merge shader so I could have 3 colors instead of just two ;D pretty happy with the result. Thanks guys! Now to put it in the actual scene...
Side by side view of ray trace vs force displacement.
Ray trace to me looks much nicer, the texture quality is way better... So I tinkered a bit with no luck, but I was wondering if there was some way to possibly overlay a PF or some sort of displacement so it sat on the object or specifically the bark so that it could add displacement without actually being rendered as part of the object, and that way be able to get both ray tracing and displacement on the same object?
I can't think of an easy way to do what you're suggesting because the Power Fractal (or other displacing shader) would have to be applied to something the same shape as the tree (and hence an object), and then you run into the same issue of Raytrace vs. Displacement. However you can at least increase the quality of non-raytraced objects, in a population make sure that the rendering quality is set to high (in the population node itself), or if it's a single object, you just increase Detail. You could consider rendering an image of just this one tree in the scene, with all else turned off (besides atmosphere and lighting), at high detail, then render everything else, minus this tree, with raytracing enabled, and composite them together. But that's a lot of work to get a slightly different result.
Another option which may not be available to you but is worth considering would be to add actual geometry displacement to the trunk in another application (Zbrush for example), then reimport the model into TG. It can handle pretty high resolution geometry, so even though the tree would end up several million polygons, it should be OK if you have a decent amount of memory and aren't using them in a population.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Cocateho on January 12, 2016, 12:14:04 PM
Side by side view of ray trace vs force displacement.
Ray trace definitely looks cleaner and smoother. The new tree colour variation is nice as well.
Quote from: Oshyan on January 12, 2016, 02:06:19 PM
I can't think of an easy way to do what you're suggesting because the Power Fractal (or other displacing shader) would have to be applied to something the same shape as the tree (and hence an object), and then you run into the same issue of Raytrace vs. Displacement. However you can at least increase the quality of non-raytraced objects, in a population make sure that the rendering quality is set to high (in the population node itself), or if it's a single object, you just increase Detail. You could consider rendering an image of just this one tree in the scene, with all else turned off (besides atmosphere and lighting), at high detail, then render everything else, minus this tree, with raytracing enabled, and composite them together. But that's a lot of work to get a slightly different result.
Another option which may not be available to you but is worth considering would be to add actual geometry displacement to the trunk in another application (Zbrush for example), then reimport the model into TG. It can handle pretty high resolution geometry, so even though the tree would end up several million polygons, it should be OK if you have a decent amount of memory and aren't using them in a population.
- Oshyan
Well... dang haha. I'm guessing Zbrush isn't free, either?
Quote from: Cocateho on January 12, 2016, 12:14:04 PM
Side by side view of ray trace vs force displacement.
Ray trace to me looks much nicer, too! It seems to have more natural looking shadows in my eyes.
I haven't read each posting here, but I assume you're looking for a way to use raytrace and displacement inside one object. It can be done by cheating a little bit.
Let's say you have a population of trees and you want the bark to be really displaced and the rest raytraced. Copy the whole population, so that you have two identical ones. Use "force displacement" for the first pop and give every shader except the bark an opacity of 0, so the leaves won't appear anymore in this pop.
Use default or force raytrace for the second pop and give only the bark shaders an opacity of 0. Like this you have a really displaced bark and raytraced leaves.
Quote from: Hannes on January 14, 2016, 06:42:10 AM
I haven't read each posting here, but I assume you're looking for a way to use raytrace and displacement inside one object. It can be done by cheating a little bit.
Let's say you have a population of trees and you want the bark to be really displaced and the rest raytraced. Copy the whole population, so that you have two identical ones. Use "force displacement" for the first pop and give every shader except the bark an opacity of 0, so the leaves won't appear anymore in this pop.
Use default or force raytrace for the second pop and give only the bark shaders an opacity of 0. Like this you have a really displaced bark and raytraced leaves.
D'uh...now why the heck didn't I suss that out...sounds like something I'd do...good one Hannes
I think we have a winner! ;)
Thanks for the idea Hannes, it worked pretty well I think. A few more tweaks and I think this scene should be good to go.
Here we go! I'm glad I could be of help.
Man o man do I love this forum...it's like my early years on Amiga playing with Imagine3D....happy to have a new home here
That worked. 8)
You got it now, looking very good indeed.
Quote from: Dune on January 17, 2016, 02:07:54 AM
You got it now, looking very good indeed.
Echo Echo Echo Echo Echo
Great work! :)
... nice echo, bobby ;)
The overall population-aspects of the last render are very good. I like the texturing. I am missing a bit, that keeps my attention in the scene ... this is a composition's lack in my personal opinion.
So here's an unfinished render that was going to be a final but I realized I still wanted to do some more tweaking. Thinking I might add some creatures into the scene as well :P
So I went to try using this butterfly model I'd found online... I'm dying laughing right now ;D
So what if I still have the humor of a 12 year old haha...
Hilarious! ;D ;D ;D
Ha ha ha ha ha, but I'm 67 and in my 2nd childhood so I have an excuse....
Absolutely! I love intelligent filenames ;D ;D ;D
There, i fixed it.
Quote from: Chris on January 21, 2016, 06:58:50 AM
There, i fixed it.
;D ;D ;D hahaha I actually tried to use a picture of a butt for the the face texture and I was going to post it ...butt... you couldn't tell it was a butt once it was on the model. Boo.
At least you tried. ;)
;D ;D
Well, that cheered me up!
So I'm calling this final... for now. I already have in mind a few things I'd like to improve but I'd like to sit a wait a bit and come back with fresh eyes. Still pretty happy with it overall though. Thank you everyone for the help and comments!
Added a 2nd version with more contrast and saturation, as my monitor is high on both so the first one looks good to me but the second may look better for some people.
A beautiful autumn scene. Great colours.
Since your thread is called "realism", I'd like to suggest adding a very subtle slightly blueish mist or fog, to create a little more depth.
That's the most realistic trunk I think I've ever seen rendered in Terragen. Well done. :)
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 22, 2016, 04:41:38 PM
That's the most realistic trunk I think I've ever seen rendered in Terragen. Well done. :)
- Oshyan
Gotta agree...and full marks to Hannes for suggesting the double model technique that enabled the completion of this scene
Yes, that looks simply fantastic.
Thanks everyone!
Quote from: bobbystahr on January 23, 2016, 10:57:16 AM
Quote from: Oshyan on January 22, 2016, 04:41:38 PM
That's the most realistic trunk I think I've ever seen rendered in Terragen. Well done. :)
- Oshyan
Gotta agree...and full marks to Hannes for suggesting the double model technique that enabled the completion of this scene
Yes, a LOT of credit to Hannes for that. Simple, yet genius ;D. Indeed this scene would not have come together without you guy's help in general, and I learned a lot working on this. That's the beauty of these forums though, right? :)
A side note for anyone who tries the force displacement for bark: at first I found the texture images to be pretty blurry with the displacement on, so I upscaled and sharpened the texture image a bit and that seemed to help. May not work as well for really close up shots but it seemed to help it "feel" less fuzzy.
Quote from: Chris on January 23, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Yes, that looks simply fantastic.
Thank you!
Btw, those are your clovers poking up though the grass ;)
Wow - Great work.
Quote from: Cocateho on January 23, 2016, 05:55:27 PM
Quote from: Chris on January 23, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Yes, that looks simply fantastic.
Thank you!
Btw, those are your clovers poking up though the grass ;)
Now that you mentioned it, i see them. There is a lot to look at.
Absolute fantastic now! :)