Here is a new one based off some DEM data for the area just North of Vancouver / South of Squamish along the Sea-to-Sky highway in British Columbia. The camera is roughly positioned around here a little bit in the water and pointing across the inlet: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.624668,-123.207121&spn=0.053488,0.132093&t=h&z=14 (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.624668,-123.207121&spn=0.053488,0.132093&t=h&z=14)
I rendered this one in two passes, the first at Detail 1, AA 5, GI 1/3. The second pass was just the foreground area and this was set to Detail 2, AA 3, GI 1/3. I did it this way so that the underwater features were clearer due to the way the renderer simplifies underwater geometry. All told it was still under 8 hours or so for it to finish.
The image was inspired by a photo I took a few years ago from this area, though I didn't push the clouds as low in the render as they were when I took the photo since I wanted to see a bit more of the cliffs/trees across the water: http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=photography/west-coast-p1&image=20070730_coast_water_modified.jpg (http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=photography/west-coast-p1&image=20070730_coast_water_modified.jpg)
Thanks for taking a look!
*Edit - Version 2 with less reflective rocks here: http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=11317.msg116151#msg116151 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=11317.msg116151#msg116151)
Ryan, this is really excellent. I like the comments which go with the image also. The high detail of the 2nd render pass really worked out well.
Thanks Henry, It's an image I've been meaning to get around to doing for awhile now.
Superb render. Essentially photorealistic. It would be interesting though to see if you can achieve the look of the clouds in the photo, denser, more whispy, and sticking to the mountains more. The new cloud control functions should help there.
- Oshyan
A challenge. 8) But I think Ryan can do it.
not required if you ask me. Ryan, in all honesty, this is one of the most photorealistic renders I've seen, maybe ever seen.
Great!
Frank
Not required at all, I love it the way it is. As I said, "it would be interesting...". ;)
- Oshyan
Oshyan, are you looking for a new image for the site gallery? This qualifies. It would be nice to see it with other lighting and cloud cover. Show off some more of the programs power...
It's already in my "possible future gallery updates" folder. ;D
- Oshyan
Excellent render, Ryan, I love the wet look of the mountains, but I have one point to make (literally): should there be highlights on rocks under water?
Superb clouds and background. Like Dune, I'm a little bothered by the foreground - and are the little white flecks there all from water reflection?
Looks fabulous Ryan!
What really makes it work for me is the water.
It looks really glossy and wet :P
Often I find the water in TG2 very ridged and plastic looking, but this looks nice and shiny and appears somehow smoother rippled. (although you can see ridged parts of course, but still) It's a matter of settings of course + camera angle.
You might even consider rendering the bottom part again at detail 3 to get 0.75 detail equivalence for the stones.
I shall take a closer look at the clouds at home as my screen on work is not so well at displaying subtle contrasts and stuff.
Cheers,
Martin
on the money Ryan....super super scene!
Superb! Looks very photorealistic
very nice....
A rockin' render. It just works, could be a photo.
Damn! This is incredibly awesome! :o
not much to say, but: very nice render!
I still think, and this is meant positively, that highlights on stones UNDER water don't exist in reality!
Thanks very much everyone, I meant to comment on a few things but the last couple days have been busy! You may certainly be right about the highlights Ulco, though the water is very shallow where you can see the stones. I'll have to pay attention in the spring when next I get out to a lake that isn't frozen, see if I notice any reflectiveness at all from any stones underwater. I have the bottom section rendering again at Detail 3 as Martin suggested and I also removed the reflective shader from the stones so we'll see how it looks. Looks pretty good so far if slightly less interesting without the highlights. Should be able to get it put together for tomorrow.
Looking forward to see that Ryan :)
I think Ulco is right about the underwater reflections.
Right or not it certainly looks less messy ;D Foreground rendered at detail 3, 3 AA GI 1/3
Thanks for the feedback, it is always appreciated.
Severe awesomeness ;D
These kind of renders really make my day :)
How long did it take to render all in all?
good work but arent you missing refraction in the water??
The water isn't very deep, nor are there strong ripples which would emphasize the refractive effect I think.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on December 10, 2010, 07:50:29 PM
The water isn't very deep, nor are there strong ripples which would emphasize the refractive effect I think.
I think it would still refract as soon as you start moving away from camera.....
You have a special way with lighting that results in superb realism.
Hmm. Both are nice work but I cant seem to decide which one I like better. Perhaps a mix of both I guess ;)
Thanks Martin, the crop at Detail 3 took just under 10 hours to finish. Combined I would guess it took 12 hours or so total, but if I had rendered everything at detail 3... well it would probably still be rendering!
As for the refraction... I would assume that it is correct since the water is set at 1.33 which is the Index of Refraction of water as far as I am aware. The water is quite smooth and the smallest detail is not set to be all that small because I did not want the tiny ripples which would give more distortion.
WOW
Just awesome. :o I would like to see this with different lighting. Without the mountains being so dark and hidden in the clouds. But the render time might be prohibitive.
very, very nice! I just think that the shadows of the stones in the front look a bit sharp. I mean, a lot of the scene cones from an overcast sky, at least it looks to me this way. And in that case I wouldn´t expect that sharp shadpows. Of course it could pefectly be the case, with some sunbeams hitting the ground here in front.
I think if the speculars on the rocks are imagined to be from being "wet", then yes they would not shine this way as the specularity actually comes from the water surface, which here is now well above the rocks and flat. ;) If there was a bubble of air around each rock, you'd see a sub-surface specular effect too (different of course, the edge of the bubble...).
But anyway, that's only if we imagine the specularity comes from being wet. What if the rocks themselves are polished and shiny? ;D If that's the case then indeed they could be specular underwater. Nonetheless I agree the first image does appear to be showing "wet specular" and is probably not technically "correct" from that perspective.
Regardless, both are excellent.
- Oshyan
Fantastic render!
How about animating it? ;D
Regards,
Terje
Beautiful sceneries Ryan!
That's what I want to create when I have learned how TG2 works (maybe in year 2013).
Kind regards
Great work, just that!
It's sensational and inspiring!
Woah!