Silly title, but it says what it is; a Dutch village from above. A commission to show what the landscape will look like after some 'landscape rearrangements'. Small village with some farms, some moist meadows with Marsh Marigold fields, as well as fields with cereals or bare, and heathland surrounding it.
I have to render it bigger, this is a WIP, and waiting to be improved. I think the textures of heathland are ok, but the meadows are too rough. What do you think? Any comment, what can I improve? Lighting? It doesn't look photographic enough to my eye.
It's another great Dune shot, most definitely. But I agree there is something that's not photorealistic enough about this, and if you ask me, it's the light. It's too bland. What if you give the whole scene more light and contrast, and perhaps also render at a higher quality?
Cheers,
Frank
Quote from: FrankB on December 21, 2010, 04:22:40 AM
It's another great Dune shot, most definitely. But I agree there is something that's not photorealistic enough about this, and if you ask me, it's the light. It's too bland. What if you give the whole scene more light and contrast, and perhaps also render at a higher quality?
Cheers,
Frank
Yes, hits the nail for me as well.
Thanks, Frank (and Martin). I did this with 2 fill lights and GI 1/1, but I dumped the fill lights and set GI to 2/2. I also used soft shadows, so the render took 4 hours at detail 0.55 and 5. I am now rendering at 0.7 and 5 without soft shadows, and it will probably be much better (and faster). The softness of the shadows is hardly visible anyway. I changed the exposure to 1.1, sun strength from 3.5 to 4, gamma from 2 to 2.1. We'll see how this goes.
But I think the roughness of the grass is also a big culprit. I changed it and it looks much better already.
Next iteration, with the aforementioned changes, and a little curves post in PS. Faster indeed, this rendered in 1.5 hour. I still think it can be improved. For one thing, the objects seem to stand out too much. Perhaps the cloud shadows give it too much of a 'model' look. Any comments, guys? Perhaps I will still need an extra overhead shadowed sun to get darker shadows under the trees?
Good period with very nice pictures from all here !
Much better Ulco, wouldn't you agree?
The objects that seem to stand out... maybe that's due to too much sharpness? If this were a photograph, I reckon all the objects would be blurred a little bit more, especially the forest canopies.
Regards,
Frank
You might try changing the pixel filter. B-spline would be too blurry, but maybe box or tent would work.
It is indeed much better, but I want it perfect! This filter is Mitchel-Netravali, I'll test another one, and maybe I'll work on the object textures a bit, they seem very 'gray'.
I think MN is a fine filter. The setting of 5 for AA is probably a bit less and also the use of odd numbers for AA isn't ideal.
I can't remember if Matt explained this here or on the alpha forum some time, but the AA settings work ideally with powers of 2. So AA8 would work "best", but that's quite slow.
In my opinion the most bang for buck for any filter is AA6 with full sampling.
That looks at least as good as AA8, but is significantly faster.
I would actually apply the blur in post. To high AA will maybe kill detail where you rather want to preserve it. It's hard to say, but I would try and take the render and fine tune it in post, just to see if that gives you more control.
Otherwise, TUs suggestion on AA 6 is generally good advice - judging from my own experience.
Frank
Quoteodd numbers for AA isn't ideal
Interesting to know. Thanks. I even employ 0.65 sometimes... Perhaps 8 would be fine here as this render took only 1.5 hours. Immensely faster than we used to experience. So, for a final render of 4000-4500 px wide detail 0.8 and AA4-6 would not be too long either (half a day perhaps). I'll do some crop tests...
Nice scene, as usual, Ulco! Cool.
I also like the MN pixel filter, it's a great balance between hard and soft, gives a lovely definition around high contrast areas very well. I think a higher detail is all that's needed here. I think that cubic B-spline would destroy too much of this, already soft looking, render.
Matt explained the odd number of AA thing in the 'guide to raytracing in 2.1' sticky thread.
I'll have look there, thanks, probably missed that among all the daily things to read.
Here's a new iteration, good enough IMO to send off as a concept for the client. He has to say whether fields are placed right and such things. This was done in 1.5 hours, with soft shadows at 1 with only 4 samples, detail 6 and AA4 (default samples). Just one sun, and GI 2/2, so very basic really. Contrast at 0.25 and gamma at 1.8. I later had to decrease the gamma, raise the lightness and contrast to get this.
I noticed that I had some displacement in the buildings, which of course is absolutely unnecessary here. That's why they became so dark I think.
I also did some crop tests with different detail settings at 4000px wide, but I could hardly see any difference, so that's why I chose the fastest option to render the complete thing. I'll post the result here as well.
Oh, the top right needs a cloud, as this is where my masks didn't go.
sampletest
That looks great so far Ulco :) It's not difficult to imagine a whispy cloud at the top right so I'm pretty sure this will be a very fine commission in the end.
As usual the distribution and masking of the models is very good looking.
I think the render setting comparison is a bit useless as in my opinion the results aren't different because of lack of resolution.
With these smaller than subpixel detail you would always need crazy AA to get smoother results so that's why your render setting tests show no difference.
Besides that the change in lighting conditions make things not 1:1 comparable for quality as well as rendertime.
Also, the use of soft-shadows @ 1 with 4 samples is definitely a source of noise. The default radius of 0.5 is conform nature and the default 9 samples is really the least you should use.
Thanks, Martin. I know about the soft shadows, but I found that with rough ground, the noise is not really visible, and 4 samples definitely speeds up render time compared to 9. But I might change it again to 0.5 if that's indeed conform nature.
I can't remember exactly why 0.5 is conform nature. I thought it was because the sun's radius is also 0.5 degree (degree what, I don't know) which is similar to the real thing.
Do you really need soft-shadows at this altitude? I think it isn't noticeable, scale-wise, and it would save you some hassle.
As you may notice I always take a lot into consideration when I render an image :) I hope you don't mind :)
Maybe I don't need it, but I found that it often softens the mood just a bit. The trees' shadows are often very rough, rougher it appears than the trees themselves. Especially if the shadows are strong and dark they draw too much attention IMO.
I appreciate your attention to detail, Martin. I'm a perfectionist too. Even if a picture is perfect, I tend to find faults and things to improve, or do differently. Tiresomely so... while clients often don't see it at all.
I know that feeling. I often also pay attention to details which are often not seen, also not by many here. Oh well, as long as I like it :)
You might consider this approach to lighten up shadows:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=10869.msg113537#msg113537 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=10869.msg113537#msg113537)
If you need any help or are interested in the atmo node I used for that then just let me know.
Martin
very nice work...I like the 3rd one better!
Thanks, Martin, I saw that thread indeed and did some renders trying it out. But as usual, I build up scenes and forget to incorporate a whole lot of interesting ideas, that I know in the back of my head, but that don't come out at the right time. I'll try this one with the village.
Springs to mind Chris Hunt's wonderful demo reel, where the final image of the dying dinosaurs have a great lighting. The darkness under their bodies is what I try to achieve with buildings, for instance. These are often too light inside.
I now put an extra sun at strength 0.2 and shadows right overhead, which works fine to lighten up shadows and at the same time add some darker areas under trees. No real need to soften the shadows, although it does look (slightly) better. But I would like to know your 'double atmo setup' . As far as I see, you can add another planet atmosphere, but to get something overcast you'd need soft (cirrus) clouds or so at higher density, not just an extra atmo node. Or your method is perhaps by making a setup with a merge shader, several atmo's and cloud layers, some of which primary and /or secondary.... ??
No you won't need a cirrus or cumulus layer by definition. Denser and higher altitude haze is sufficient in many cases.
Just connect an extra atmosphere shader after your first atmosphere shader and disable primary rays of that new atmosphere node.
Set haze density to 4 and haze exp height to 8000 for starters and start working from there.
I'm currently at work so I can't provide you with my atmo node right now, but it's pretty similar to what I have just described.
Let me know how it goes so far today and I could send it to you later tonight perhaps.
Cheers,
Martin
Ulco, for your scenes where no sky is visible, I think your best bet is to rely on GI, but help it by increasing the color of the background node to a shade of grey.
Regards,
Frank
That's an interesting thought, Frank. Never thought of entering that node really. I have just rendered another iteration of the glacier with the yurts, but it struck me that inside the yurts (the door is open, so you see the inside) the ground is not much darker than outside. I will do some tests with one yurt and several lighting conditions to see how I can get it dark inside, as it should be.
Outstanding work. I would be tempted to increase the haze a bit. This would best show in the distant part on the scene.
You're right, I probably will. The whole thing probably might be just a little hazier, the shadows not as dark as here, for more reality. It is, after all, quite an area and quite a distance from the camera.
And I must reply on my own comment about the shadows missing under my yurts.... I forgot that they were sitting on snow, which had some luminosity :P GI 2/2 worked just perfectly.