I used Walli's dry grasses, Marc Gebhart's pine, sugar maple, and Chinipin Oak.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/njeneb/6341088331/sizes/o/in/photostream/
I think this is one of your very good ones Henry. Very nice render :)
You got your new PC ? How long did it take to render ?
Congrats with your new system Henry :)
Everytime I get one it offers more options for creativity and productivity, hope it will do the same for you :)
Nice image, I'm curious about the rendersettings and rendertime too.
What is it with you and those dark trees? ;) Some more diffuse colour and translucency may be able to improve it.
Cheers,
Martin
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on November 13, 2011, 04:22:50 PM
...
What is it with you and those dark trees? ;) Some more diffuse colour and translucency may be able to improve it.
...
I do not know that trees. In general they could be brighter maybe , but i like the look here , Martin.
Brings kind of a contrast to the image.
The render time was 6 hrs. 6 mins. Detail 1.0 and AA 10, GI 2/4/6, and supersample prepass. I used the Cubic B-Spline pixel filter. Why? I wanted to try out Martin's render settings, but they were taking too long to render. (I'm still burning in the new processor. I have to watch the heat.)
Thanks for the nice comments. :)
I'll see what I can do about the trees being too dark.
Thanks Henry!
On your old PC you would have maybe waited more then a day .
I think you are very happy recently :D
Very good Henry. You might try reducing the white mountain top to more of a gray color thus reducing the stark contrast of the trees against it.
I like it too. An additional comment from me would be to eliminate the trees from the steepest and highest parts, but it's minor!
Quote from: njeneb on November 13, 2011, 06:03:32 PM
The render time was 6 hrs. 6 mins. Detail 1.0 and AA 10, GI 2/4/6, and supersample prepass. I used the Cubic B-Spline pixel filter. Why? I wanted to try out Martin's render settings, but they were taking too long to render. (I'm still burning in the new processor. I have to watch the heat.)
Thanks for the nice comments. :)
I'll see what I can do about the trees being too dark.
Don't use detail 1, because that calculates sub-pixel detail (perhaps sub-subpixel or even smaller) and is a total waste of rendertime.
Detail ~0.8 is what I use in 90% of the cases and in rare occasions 0.85 or 0.9.
This will chop off quite some rendertime already.
Be aware that if you use greater AA values that you need to use more aggressive adaptive AA, so set the first sampling level to 1/16th and increase the pixel noise threshold to something like 0.1. This will prevent the adaptive sampling to apply AA samples where it isn't needed.
At the moment the biggest gain for this technique is when objects are being rendered directly against bright objects/sky, since AA at the moment only is based on luminance if I'm correct.
Cheers,
Martin
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on November 14, 2011, 03:33:54 AM
At the moment the biggest gain for this technique is when objects are being rendered directly against bright objects/sky, since AA at the moment only is based on luminance if I'm correct.
Using luminance for adaptive sampling just means that I take the greyscale version of the pixels to decide whether more samples are needed, instead of individual RGB components.
Bob, the mountain has more detail. The Cubic B-spline pixel filter 'smooths' out detail (works good for animation in Blender)
Martin, the detail setting of 1.0 was to test render time. At detail 0.5 and normal AA of 6, my graphics card had difficulty moving the pixels as they were rendered! (Just kidding :D) I'll render this again using the Mitchell-Netrivelli pixel filter with detail 0.825. I had the pixel noise ratio sampling at 0.2.
Luminance for adaptive sampling? That reduces the render time by quite a lot I would think. Great choice Matt.
Here's another render using Martin's settings. I added some of Walli's weeds from his weed pack available at NWDA.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/njeneb/6347473836/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Now this one is really beautiful Henry ...much, much better.
Fantastic Henry, you must be pleased with your new rig.
I am still trying to get used to the speed. I used to go grab a coke and some junk food during test renders. Now I barely get out of the chair and the test is finished. 8)
hehehe... :D - yeah you gotta be really really fast, especially when your tests take 30secs
Quote from: njeneb on November 16, 2011, 08:11:07 AM
I am still trying to get used to the speed. I used to go grab a coke and some junk food during test renders. Now I barely get out of the chair and the test is finished. 8)
I like the POV, though some of the trees in the middle ground look a bit dark.
good terrain too.
Quote from: njeneb on November 16, 2011, 08:11:07 AM
I am still trying to get used to the speed. I used to go grab a coke and some junk food during test renders. Now I barely get out of the chair and the test is finished. 8)
Gotta love that huh :) What I also like about it is that I can easily do test-renders @ near final render settings/resolution.
Especially nice when you want to fine tune fake stones surfaces or fake stone under water surfaces and such.
By the way, you already became a bit leaner then? ;) lol
Leaner? No. Meaner, definitely!