I have not figured out what to call this yet. I did a high res render to check how the various plant models populations and scales fit together.
Walli's Pines
Marc's Birches
Crocus and Dry Plants Pack
http://www.flickr.com/photos/njeneb/5114320520/sizes/o/in/photostream/
nice render, almost looks photo real, :)
i can imagine/hear the wind in the trees in that scene
Nice one! But where are the crocuses??? ah, right next to the button labeled "AA increase HERE" ;)
Kidding aside, a nice scene Henry! Needs more AA though to be really perfect!
Cheers,
Frank
Call it "Approaching End of Cliff." ;D That's what I thought it looked like when I saw it.
Great realism here, nice work!
very natural and balanced, great work Henry!
The tiny purple dots are the crocus. It rendered enough to let me see how things were working together.
Render detail was 0.8 and the AA was 8.
hmmm doesn't look like AA 8, unless.... have you had raytrace objects switched off?
No, I have a partial render done. I changed the spacing of the bushes and rendered with render quality of 1. This changed the placement of the bushes.... Will know tomorrow morning when I render the second half how this affects everything.
Both images are/were rendered using the Catmull/Rom pixel filter.
looking forward to seeing the next version henry. :)
Catmull/Rom would explain the sharpness, it's a very sharp filter. Frankly I'm not sure there's much point to using AA at 8 if you're using such a sharp filter. You could use 6 or even 5 and use a softer filter and get similar results. But personally I'm a fan of a bit smoother look (you don't see a lot of aliasing in nature! ;D), so I'd use Mitchell-Netravali or similiar.
- Oshyan
Latest render is nearly finished. I used a sharp pixel filter to make the object details more clear. It's not so much the terrain which makes my renders look good. The objects I use, mostly Walli's and Marc's, make my renders more interesting.
Quote from: njeneb on October 27, 2010, 08:03:51 AM
Latest render is nearly finished. I used a sharp pixel filter to make the object details more clear. It's not so much the terrain which makes my renders look good. The objects I use, mostly Walli's and Marc's, make my renders more interesting.
I kind of agree with the logic of your idea, makes sense. However, if you study photographs of landscapes you will often mention that trees etc. don't have much details either. Except for more close-up situations of course. The difficult thing with TG2 and models is that if you want to make models look really good you indeed need to choose the "right" filter (I'd tend to say MN, like Oshyan) but more important is the lighting.
For example here:
http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg2/ryan-archer-99-wallis-field.jpg.html (http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg2/ryan-archer-99-wallis-field.jpg.html)
http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg2/yellowstone_saurav_subedi.jpg.html (http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg2/yellowstone_saurav_subedi.jpg.html)
I believe this is the first of two versions which doesn't use ray traced objects because it wasn't available back then.
So imagine how important lighting is.
Here is the latest finished render. It was a bit dark, so I used Windows Media Center to touch up the contrast.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/njeneb/5120505593/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Thanks for the lighting advise. I don't think I'll ever get how much exposure to use, sun strength, atmosphere enviro light, to use.
This latest and the first are looking mighty fine Henry. I like the lighting on the first; and, the detail on both are great.
very realistic render