I'm about to embark on quite a demanding task; making a 150 x 10 foot wall for a museum, all TG3. It's supposed to be one terrain, extending from right to left, spanning 250.000 years.
So..... thinking about this gives me the creeps already, and I would like to have any input by you guys. Anyone have any experience with this?
Luckily there are gaps, and it doesn't need to be one huge file. But still, they have to merge into each other, which I will do in PS. But perhaps PS can't handle a huge file. And how about cutting it in pieces and then stitching the non-merged bits together? The cut bits will fit again exactly anyway. But what will a printer need, one huge file, or can he work with the fragments? It will probably be printed on something flexible to accommodate wall curves.
And how large should I render? 30-50px/inch, billboard quality I guess. How many inch in a foot? Why don't we all just use the metric system? I'll figure this out, no problem.
But I also saw that if I take a render ratio of 1000x300 for a chunk, and I need a less wide chunk next to that, say 600, but same height 300, the whole POV changes. What would be better, using all the same chunks? Looks like it. I can divide the whole wall in 5 chunks, or 10. The latter is easier to work in of course, but needs more stitching work. But it seems another ratio changes the perception of the terrain......
Speaking about fitting chunks together: I can't really change the sun, as it would be some sort of cylindrical view, flattened to this wall. If I change the sun from one chunk to the next to keep light always from one angle, you get shadow discrepancies. So, one sun. There's bound to be an area with back light and/or one looking into the sun.
Another difficulty: it's a hilly terrain, but near the floor of the museum they want grass and stuff. like you're real close, so not an aerial view. That can be done, but I like to see into the distance as well (though not necessarily everywhere). So the camera should be on a hill or you look against the first hill and no further. But if you have the camera on a hill, 1.6 meters above ground level of that hill (which may be 40m high), you have a valley in front of you, and you can't really see the bottom, or you'd have to point the camera down. But if you point the camera down, you won't have the horizon at 1.6 meters above actual floor level. If you use wide-angle, there's too much distortion. So I guess a normal lens of 60 (default) or maybe 50 would be best to use.
Again another problem is to make it believable. The right hand side of section 5 needs to be a forest, but I only got 2-3 meters or so. Then you get a meter of tundra, a meter of ice age, another meter of tundra, then wood again. Wow.
If anyone has some bright ideas, I would greatly appreciate them.
Oh yes, and these are just tests, ground and veggies need a lot of work, and by coincidence 2 instances of a tree are rotated exactly alike.
Hi Ulco
1 foot = 12 inches
1 inch = 2.54 cm
I have printed one of my tg3 view and use a render of 300px/inch or 120px/cm
To give you this example i printed a 60cmx40cm so i used a render 7200x4800 dpi
Hope it could help you
David
It will be important to speak to the printer to see what he can handle.
Hi,
I know that this is only an early test, and I think it´s a good start.
Just some ideas about some of your questions:
-If you need panels with different proportions, but the same POV , can you simply crop them?
-One meter per "age" isnt much, ´but if you concentrate on the midground (except perhaps for the wooded times) you have a lot more space for the transition, an iceage would in the foreground be no more than a meter wide lump of snow, but in the midground there is room for mammoths.
- I am not sure if shadow discrepancies would be so bad. If you can integrate your looking into the sun artistically, then it´s fine. But in my humble opinion, shadows moving slightly (you don´t have to maintain the sunlight at exactly one angle relatively) in a panorama that represents millenia could also have an interesting effect. just look what works better, I just want to say shadow discrepancies aren´a knockout, I think.
that´s myideas, Ihope they help a little.
best Regards,
Jan
Just your writing up the challenges that face you shows one that you already have a good focus on what you are about to encounter.
A very good converter: http://www.worldwidemetric.com/measurements.html
The hills have to be much lower, which has its advantages and disadvantages. Less interesting, less distance possible, but you can look into 'valleys' now. Another test, just checking if I can get a medieval road and a Roman road in without conflict. Found that if I turned the camera for the other sections I get the same road in the ice age :-\ Good for the reindeer.
I also found that I have to make sections of 3:1, or I will get to the same point again while turning the camera. If I make it 2:1, I have to turn the cam 50 degrees, same as with a 3:1 ratio, but have to make more turns to fill the 50 meters (80 m. in fact!), thus ending up more than 360 degrees around. And I have to turn, or the alignment of objects won't stand. You can't just move the cam aside and turn. Pretty hard nut to crack.....
detail 0.5, AA 5, 1+ hour.
@Jan: It would be great if I could use just one POV, and crop render different parts (or render as a whole), but you can't work properly in a very wide ratio (50:3) render frame. Try it and you'll see that you can't zoom in. So I have to use less ratio, and turn the camera. I also agree about the ice not extending to the front (I already had a distance shader mixed with the camera mask, but turned it off while doing these tests). One meter of snow isn't working, especially not with the tree shadows across the ice age snow. Shadow discrepancies may indeed be not too bad. I can always blur them together in post. Unless they're very distinct, like form buildings. But they will be far out anyway. But I think I can get away with a steady sun.
Thanks guys.
This is far more than I would ever take on. Early results are very impressive and I look forward to more.
Should the sections not represent the duration of the age? That is, If from one end of the printed work to the other is 100%. Than what percent of the time periods represented was the ice age?
Also, in terms of construct, it feels a little like you are attempting to work this out in the software?
Why not attempt to represent the possibilities by "thumbnail" on paper?
For example, the composition is going to be of great importance, not just in the usual way, but also in terms of representing history artistically or scientifically (literally). So, if (again for example), the ice age represents 20% of the total amount of time being covered, and say that, that time compositionally falls center frame. Than what does it look like with a lot of white in the center, flanked (presumably) by lots of greens?
Since you already know the dimensions/aspect ratio of the final. Than simply print out a scale box of the frame and on a bunch of paper and start coloring in ideas. Not details like hills and trees, but color information by percentage... The colors being representative of both period (non literal sectioning) and also literally the colors you would see at the time on the landscape (plants, snow, so on)
It sounds like your spending a lot of time just trying to figure the canvas out (so to speak) But I again would repeat what I said in the other thread on this topic a while back. use photo techniques:
http://www.aaronpriestphoto.com/pano/2013-04-13_Spring_or_Winter/ zoom in and see what I mean
You could simply process the frames flat with no distortion to hang on a wall in the traditional way.
Same could have been done with this:
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/150/2/3/panorama_museum_1453_by_lapinaru-d3hn8em.jpg
Work in 180-360 degrees. and stitch them.
(Autopano pro) You will have to render what would be the ground at your feet, and lots of the sky to get a flat pano (no distortion) that would all be cut out in the end though.
p.S. edit
like this http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1287247 but with even less distortion ;)
I'd agree with a few of the suggestions here.
Definitely start with the printer to see how it will be printed. That will determine how you will have to slice the image. If you can produce a single render for each panel that should be the simplest
Doing it as a 360° panorama would provide a range of lighting angles that could be used to good effect. If you're printing a number of vertical panels you wouldn't need to stitch the images together. Just render each panel and then re-project it to a cylindrical projection. For your given proportions, that will result in a vertical fov of 23.7°. You'd need to render a little higher than this to allow for re-projection, how much depends on the horizontal fov of each image. If you want help determining the required vertical fov for this just drop me an email when you know how you're slicing the image.
What are the gaps you mention in the first post?
Quote from: bigben on August 27, 2013, 09:23:23 AM
.... Doing it as a 360° panorama would provide a range of lighting angles that could be used to good effect. If you're printing a number of vertical panels you wouldn't need to stitch the images together. Just render each panel and then re-project it to a cylindrical projection. For your given proportions, that will result in a vertical fov of 23.7°.
Silly me ;) Of course with a cylindrical projection you could do whatever horizontal fov you wanted to since each piece will just butt up against the previous one. You could for example, go to 540° and still have one sun
You would need to toggle the visibility of overlapping parts as you rendered or it might be easier to split it into multiple TGDs covering 180° so that you can duplicate part of the scene in each that consitutes the transition and then change everything else. You could even do multiple revolutions, obscuring additional occurences of the sun by clouds. The wider you go horizontally, the more vertical fov you can use to provide a better perspective with foreground detail (difficult to do with only 24° vertically)
If you don't have much space for forests, possibly just use one or two large trees at the back and gradually increasing density of smaller trees in front. The size and type of trees used should give enough of an indication.
I appreciate your thoughts on this, guys. Michael: the archaeologist already put all detail on paper, eras, amount of wood, details he wants, so I got the layout in front of me. My main problem is to make the terrain continue and populate and color it as the eras progress. A cylinder is the only thing that works, or shrub or hillock or road in front won't line up when stitching. I don't think I need to stitch them all, as there is some overlap and gaps here and there (a door, a little nook going around a corner), but the terrain more or less needs to continue.
I plan to mask eras by a camera driven gradient mask, so you get 'slices of cake' projecting outward. This could all be one tgd. But as you can see in the panorama photo you linked to, Michael, the ground area will be quite small, as you move around on that one tiny spot with your 'camera'. It's maybe 10m wide. So you can't really color the eras in the grass at your feet, so to speak. But as you walk along that wall in the museum, it would be nice to see different vegetation at your feet at each section of the 78m (!) wall. A more or less aerial view without grass at your feet would be easier, but they want grass at your feet (like your walking along a grassy lane looking at the ages). I think that's my main concern, but I think it's unsolvable unless with a lot fiddling in photoshop. It will be more like standing on a grassy hill looking around at the ages, but then on a flat wall, not like in the renderosity diorama. So a bit of a discrepancy to be overcome.
So that's why I have to figure this out in TG3, it's my only option. That's my camera shooting pictures.
By the way, the ice age is the hard part as that's only a few meters, flanked by woods, as you said, it's only 5% of the wall. The rest is more gradual, wooded, less wooded, etc. I agree using a few (smaller) trees in front and making woods denser in the distance, or you wouldn't be able to the distance.
What do you mean (Bigben) by 'the wider you go horizontally, the more vertical fov you can use, etc'? If I change the camera angle from 60 to 80, e.g. you might get angled trees at the edges, which will be harder to stitch. I also found that if I change the ratio, it won't just cut off a piece of left and right, but also from top and bottom. Which is what I don't want. It condenses the whole terrain, as you can see from these screengrabs. So I can't use different ratios for different sections or they won't fit together. Or am I not clear in the head?
Ok Ulco. I was going to post this before I saw your response. But then I thought I should post it anyway, because it may still at least provide some creative stimulation.... Of course it was designed to be (and was) a moving picture. But nonetheless it demonstrates a creative solution used in a very famous film.
[attach=1]
[attach=2]
[attach=3]
Of course the ideas I was playing with would be terribly render heavy. You necessarily would need to overlap. So a one render solution is ideal.
Quote from: Dune on August 28, 2013, 03:26:38 AM
What do you mean (Bigben) by 'the wider you go horizontally, the more vertical fov you can use, etc'? If I change the camera angle from 60 to 80, e.g. you might get angled trees at the edges, which will be harder to stitch. I also found that if I change the ratio, it won't just cut off a piece of left and right, but also from top and bottom. Which is what I don't want. It condenses the whole terrain, as you can see from these screengrabs. So I can't use different ratios for different sections or they won't fit together. Or am I not clear in the head?
If I understand your approach, you're looking at doing this in a single camera view(?) That limits your options for vertical fov. What I'm referring to is using several camera views and converting each render to a cylindrical projection. If your camera is horizontal (eliminates the need for stitching), you can just keep rotating your camera around to build up the scene. So if you're looking at roughly 8:1, for 40° horizontal fov you have only ~5° vertically. If you use 2 x 40° views you then need ~10° vertical fov to keep the ratio and so on. I'd work the problem in reverse. Find the vertical fov that gives you the depth perspective that you're looking for and then calculate the horizontal fov of a cylindrical image to match. If it's less than 360° then you're laughing. If it's greater than 360° it's still possible (but challenging), and I can explain that if needed.
For the mask I'd use a vector in the xy plane from the texture xyz to the camera position and then create the masks for specific bearings. That makes the mask independent of camera movement
Just a wee clarification. It's likely that you may want to tilt the canera upwards, which is ok for determining the composition, but for this approach you'd need to render with a pitch of 0 and crop from the bottom. Most people don't push cylindrical images beyond 120 deg. vertically but that allows for a 90 deg vertical fov tilted up at 30 deg. All you need to do is play around to get the vertical perspective you want and then determine the pitch/tilt angle of the top and bottom of the image. If you give me those I can crunh the numbers for you to work out the corresponding horizontal fov.
Playing on the train.
A 360deg cylindrical panorama with an image proportion of 78:10 has a vertical fov of 43.9deg with a camera potch of 0deg
For a cylindrical image with a vertical fov of 120deg you'd need 1,548deg horizontally. Difficult but not impossible (although a little repetitive). ;)
I have to think very hard on this, Bigben (though I sometimes think too complicated, and in fact it's simple, but I just don't get it). I don't think a very large vertical fov will work. It would be nice of course to look down at your feet when walking along that wall, but it also gives some perspective issues, which are harder to stitch. I've done some testing again to show what I mean. When doing a single shot in the setup attached, the amount of ground at your feet/bottom end, measured with the measure tool, is approximately the number of meters of wall, sometimes a little less, sometimes more. If you point the cam down for the lower half render (when using 2 pitches), you see less grass/meter in the rendered stretch at your feet than if you have a 0 degrees pitch. When printed to a wall, that might look odd.
The main problem is that it's not a 78:10 wall, but 82:2.8. Very long. To not make it overly complicated I think I can get away with a single shot with a -2 degrees tilt, so the horizon will be at about 1.6 m on that wall of 2.8m high. Then I would have to turn the cam for every new section by about 60 degrees, a little less if I need the room to stitch. With a render ratio of 3:1, I will then have about 8.5 meters of wall in one shot, 8.5 in the next, etc. Meaning I need to turn about 560 degrees.
If I make the render aspect 4:1, I will have slightly more than 11m in one go, so a a bit more than 7 turns of 60 degrees = 420 degrees. That's not too bad. I might be able to change the terrain in the last turn, only keeping the previous to stitch by using a camera mask. Although the terrain will be so differently filled that the same hills won't harm.
I'll add a simple test tgd, so anyone can play with it, and maybe come up with a perfect solution.
I really appreciate your thoughts about this.
OK, so now I've got the proportions right...
Your image has a vertical fov 21.8°. I rendered out 45° square tiles for a complete 360° and loaded them into PTGui. The following screen grabs will show the 8 tiles with numbers in them, and copies of them without numbers to pad out the rest of the image. For your vertical fov I get this:
[attach=1]
For a 45° vertical fov:
[attach=2]
To eliminate the need for stitching, render your images with 0° pitch. Use something like Hugin/PTGui to remap the images to a cylindrical projection. No stitching required, the images will just line up.
To get a tilted view, render an image that is higher. e.g. you had a vertical fov of 21.8, -2° tilt so you need 2° added to top and bottom = 25.8. To get your final image, convert to cylindrical projection first, then just crop off the top of the image.
The only other thing you have to allow for is that the top/bottom of the image will become curved, so you have to add a little extra vertical fov to allow for the reduced height at the corners.
[attach=3]
It then depends on how they will be printed. If they're going to be vertical strips you can render an image that will match the width of the print, which would probably be the simplest for the printer to manage. I'd set the vertical fov for your camera rather than the horizontal. This will let you change the width of your render if required without having to recalculate anything.
Thanks bigben. I think we're on the same line, if I understand you well. But I don't understand the preference for a vertical fov instead of a horizontal. Won't they be the same, depending on what kind of view I'd want in one render? Too much vertical degrees and you'll end up with more distortion at bottom and top between the parts. I see in your second 45 degree sample that you need a lot of frames and the camera goes around 4 times for the 1300+ degrees total. That means 'sun problems'. Though I might want to render with quite a high sun, and perhaps move it along with the turning camera, kind of lagging behind, if I won't get into stitching problems, that is.
Or just leave it at one point and not go round too many times, like in your first sample. The latter I just tested, and came up with this. There's some discrepancies, as I just turned the camera and I might need to do that more careful for each frame, even moving X and/or Z a wee bit. I can check each overlap with landmarks at the corners. The discrepancies were also probably caused by a turn mistake (silly miscalculation of degrees) or change in terrain fractal after the first round. I added another fractal's displacement in frame 7, blended by a (Z) distance shader perpendicular to the render cam at that point. But I might even leave that terrain change out. People won't recognize the same terrain 50 meters further along the wall, I guess. Different trees anyway.
I used the default horizontal fov of 60 degrees and a render ratio of 3:1 for each frame, ending up with 10 frames (going around about 575 degrees), which more or less filled the 82 x 2.8 meters. Either Stitcher Unlimited and Photoshop merge didn't do very well, so I placed them in Photoshop by hand. Your PTGUI might be the answer for that.
There are some points missing in your considerations from my point of view.
It is a long wall,so it seems very likely that it will not be viewed as a whole.
Thus I think it's of relevance to know how far people will be away from the
wall while viewing it.And how far away is the furthest point/area people
can be while viewing.Furthermore I would take the fact that humans have
a pretty small field of focus into my consideration.
That leads to the question if it is really necessary/useful to choose an elongated
panorama approach,especially as it seems that your client wants to create sort
of an illusion effect,if I got you right.
I would look at some of Eschers techniques of combining perspective systems!
You have seven sections(if I counted correct),so you could use seven vanishing/
look at point systems and even them out via one skystrip for example or some
other trickery.(Maybe the gaps you were talking about could help with that)
With soft transitions the viewer could have a 'correct' impression of depth/perspective
for each area.
Just some musings,excuse me,if it's bullshit to you.
That is a consideration that I was ignoring for now ;-), but a valid one to consider. It will partly depend on the amount of space in front of the wall. Is it a large open space or a long corridor? It would be nice if the perspective of the ground in the image was a continuation of the floor when viewed from the most likely viewing distance by a person of average height. If you don't mind how many revolutions are required, it would be a better basis for determining the fov of your render.
As for preferring a vertical fov.... I provide technical support for a living and the number one rule is to allow for change. If you specify a vertical fov you can change the proportions of your render at any stage to meet requirements without having to calculate anything. If you specify a horizontal fov and you then change the width or height of your render, you'd have to calculate a new fov to keep the same perspective. e.g. you start planning to render strips for a 1.5m wide printer, but before you finalise the TGD they find someone who can print at 2m wide
And here are some images to demonstrate how the projections join up. 2 adjacent 45° renders, rectilinear and cylindrical project.
Does the spherical camera in TG3 support smaller fovs or is it designed just to render a full 360x180° image? If it does allow for smaller fovs you could use this to do the renders as well since there is not that much difference between the projections at a smaller vertical fov so it would save an extra image processing step. [edit - you could always try cropped renders if the spherical camera is fixed at 360deg]
No bullshit at all (thanks for thinking along!), but I can't change what the client wants, Jochen, and he is quite specific; one continuous landscape. I would have preferred 6 or 7 huge billboards, each with its own era, lighting and atmosphere, but they want continuous. The wall extends along the outer long end and partly on a short end of a rectangular space of about 60x18m, so it can be viewed from quite a distance as well from very close by. Which makes it more difficult. I know about trompe l'oeil techniques, but I have to accommodate to both viewing distances, or find a reasonable average. Much easier to make something that can only be viewed from say 10m distance :-\
I still don't get your point in the second paragraph, bigben; if I set a vertical fov of 21.8 degrees, and change the render's frame ratio from 3 to say 2, the whole perspective changes, same as when specifying a horizontal fov of 60 degrees. Am I so daft?
I think spherical cam won't work, and seems to be slow. I'd rather stick to what I know for now.
I did something wrong again in animating the render sequence for this trial, so there's gaps again. I had to take out the local clouds and objects for the second 'run' over 360 degrees, and forgot some animation keys in the additional displacements in that same second run. So the terrain slowly moved >:(
So I had to add them together by hand, stitcher didn't recognize the right order. But we're slowly getting there....
Quote from: Dune on August 30, 2013, 04:28:08 AM
I still don't get your point in the second paragraph, bigben; if I set a vertical fov of 21.8 degrees, and change the render's frame ratio from 3 to say 2, the whole perspective changes, same as when specifying a horizontal fov of 60 degrees. Am I so daft?
Maybe have a look at http://archive.bigben.id.au/tutorials/360/background/projections.html (http://archive.bigben.id.au/tutorials/360/background/projections.html), taking particular not of the difference between rectilinear and cylindrical images.
I think you may be confusing rectilinear distortion with perspective. The perspective criteria for your image are the pitch angle to the horizon, and the pitch angle to the bottom of the image. i.e. the vertical fov of the image. It doesn't matter what the width of the individual renders are if you convert them to cylindrical projection.
Your last image looks like your using rectilinear images, and if your camera was tilted slightly downwards it will be impossible to match them across the joins.
Compare the joins in your image with this 360° cylindrical panorama.
[attach=1]
Note that the top and bottom edges are curved, so you have to allow a little extra fov to avoid gaps in the corners of the renders. If you want a tilted camera, add the tilt angle to the vertical fov and render with a horizontal camera. To produce the downward tilt you just crop from the top of the image. e.g. your vfov is ~22, with a camera pitch of -3° tha puts the bottom edge of the image at -(22/2) - 3, or -14°, so you'd need to render with a vfov of 28°
The goal here is to reduce the possible technical issues and let you get on with the creative bits...
- No stitching required, the images can simply be placed next to each other.
- Complex parts of the scene can be rendered at narrower horizontal fovs to reduce memory requirements
- Calculating camera rotation is simple
Here are my previous samples with the extra grids for reference.
There's something strange going on. I'm getting results I don't want. >:( :( :-\ While it looks alright in TG, the stitcher throws all numbers around.
Luckily I know more about PTGui than TG ;)
Firstly, it looks like you're trying to get PTGui to align the images for you. The beauty with using CG renders is that you know what all of the numbers are. PTGui opens up in a simple mode by default, hiding the things you need. You want the Advanced mode.
[attach=1]
This opens up a lot of new panels of which you need only 4
Lens settings:Set horizontal fov of the renders, lens type rectilinear (default)
Panorama settings:Set the projection type. fov's aren't really required, there's an easier way to set those.
Image parameters:This is the key one, where you set the camera positions for each of the renders
Create panorama:Your output options.
A few notes of use:
PTGui has live links to the files. Change a render while PTGui is open and the image will change in PTGui.
You can combine images with different horizontal fovs, by ticking the boxes in the lens column under "Use individual parameters for:" on the Lens settings tab. On the Image parameters tab you can then enter the fov for each of the images you ticked.
An easy way to set the dimensions of the output of the stitched result is to use the panorama editor (Tools > Panorama editor) and tell it to fit the output to the images (Edit > Fit panorama)
You can also crop the output image in the panorama editor by dragging from the edge of the image.
And now for the biggy... You are going to end up with a VERY big image(s) and it will be impractical to try and do all of this in PTGui. For your final renders I'd recommend something like this:
- Load images (you don't need to do them all at once)
- Lens settings: set fov of renders
- Image parameters: skip this!
- Panorama settings: Choose projection
- Panorama editor: Fit panorama and crop image vertically as required
e.g. [attach=2] - Create Panorama: Width = width of input images, Layers = Individual layers only
This will give you separate images of each render that can simply be butted up against each other in Photoshop. Attached a PTGui project file illustrating this. (just rename it to ".pts")
Once you have a project file set up I'd recommend saving it as a template (File > Save as Template). This makes it easy to re-use the settings. You just have to load some images and then File > Apply template.
Having a play with your TGD. The camera tilt is -3, I'll give you a demo of why it's better to use 0 and crop.
OK, so what the hell was I rabbiting on about in my early replies. Let's start with your sample file. 60° horizontal fov, -3° pitch. Mapped on to a cylinder correctly, you get this:
[attach=1]
Note the top and bottom are curved, and the sides are skewed (the panorama is wider than the image for demo purposes). If you want the centre-bottom section of the render in the final image you will have to increase the vertical fov of your render. The skewed sides create a whole range of complications, hence the recommendation to render with the camera tilt at 0°
Next: render the same scene with a camera tilt of 0, increasing the height of the render (I used 1200x700)
[attach=2]
Change the vertical fov using the scroll bar on the right to set the crop for the bottom edge.
[attach=3]
This is your target for rendering. To get the -3° tilt you just have to crop the image from the top. Now you want to find the smallest TG render that will fit to this projection, allowing for the curved top and bottom of the remapped image. To do this, you need to decide on what horizontal fov you want to render.
Wider fovs will require fewer renders, but slightly taller images (wider = more curvature at edges).
Wider fovs will have more interpolation of the image at the outer edges when remapped to cylindrical projection.
It's up to you but I'd suggest 45° or 30°. I'll use 30° for this example... so set the width of the panorama to this and create a "panorama". To figure out what rectilinear image would be required to fit all of this image in, we create a new PTGui project using the image we just created as an input image (fov: 30°, lens type: cylindrical panorama). Then go to the panorama editor and set the projection to rectilinear (probably is by default) and adjust the fov sliders so that it is cropped to show the entire image.
[attach=4]
The final fov is shown in the lower left corner. As you can see in this example, to get a 30x27° cylindrical image, you need to render a 30x28° image in TG
Your final setup for remapping and cropping your images will then look something like this:
[attach=5]
Thanks a million, Ben. I will study this and try to get it working the way you described. Meanwhile I did manage to get a panorama out of TG. Because I rotated the camera more than 360 degrees without changing the terrain, it was a 'double' set, so PTGUI had some difficulties. So I combined 2 sets of PTGUI'd stitches in Photoshop. In the end I hope to have it set up so I have the minimum of rendering and stitching/deforming to do.
One more question for the time being: won't I have to rotate too many times in TG when using a 30 or 45 degrees horizontal fov? Too many rotations raises other difficulties, like changing the terrain.
Slowly getting further, but I'm still not satisfied with the setup needed. In other words; I don't yet fully understand it. So I used your render ratio of 12:7, made a render of 1000x583 with vertical fov set at 26º. TG says that horizontal fov (grayed) is then 38.2022, and focal length 51.9777 (while film aperture is 36x24).
Imported this into PTGUI, set lens to rectilinear, set the horizontal fov to the (greyed in TG) value of 38.2022, and ended up with a focal length of 53.97. Which is different from that in TG. How come? Should I change the film aperture to the render ratio of 12:7?
After fitting the image in the panorama editor following your instructions (lining up the sides and bottom to fit) and a horizontal fov of 45º (instead of 30º, at least I think I did that), I get a final fov of 38ºx23º. I saved it as a template and can indeed produce adjusted images for each render. Though these images don't exactly line up, there is still overlap, but Photoshop stitches these fast and without any problem.
Also; PTGUI gave a different optimal width for the panorama, slightly less than the 1000 image width (957). Or should I force the 1000?
But what do I do with this 38ºx23º ratio in TG? Should I set the render ratio to that value, i.e. 380x230 pixels or equivalent? Or the film aperture ratio? How many degrees should I turn the camera for each render? Arbitrary for some overlap, or an exact number of degrees to get exact line up? Can I already crop the top off here for the final render, or should I render and cut that off later after applying the PTGUI template?
With a fov of 45º I can turn the camera 8 times for one round of terrain, before I have to change the terrain. If I use the 12:7 render ratio I should theoretically end up with 4.8 meters width for every 2.8 meters height, a bit more if I cut the top off to allow for the downward tilt of 2º (which should be enough). So say 5 meters times 8 is 40 meters of wall. Thus, I have to make two 360º turns to cover the 78m of wall. That should work.
But I hope you can explain a PTGUI noob what my next steps should exactly be, Ben!
I added a slightly changed tgd, with a more suitable terrain.
The 1200x700 render was just to increase the height of the image to make sure it filled the frame. The original was 1200x400 in your sample. Both kept the same horizontal fov. Changing the ratio meant unchecking lock aspect ratios in TG so as not to change the horizontal fov. In this particular case I was just trying to get an image that would extend beyond the remapped image regions so the height was going to be excessive to what was ultimately needed.
So we've determined that you need to render 28° vertically in TG and you want to use 45° sections. What I'd do is go to PTGui and set up a panorama with those setting i.e. rectilinear, 45° x 28°. Go to the create panorama tab and enter the desired width of your render in pixels (1200 in this example, "link width and height" is checked). This gives you a render size for TG of 1200 x 722 pixels. Plug this into your render node in TG (uncheck lock aspect ratio first) and then set the hfov of the camera to 45°.
I see you also have rotations of 55° for your camera (left over from 60° renders I guess) You can change this to 45° as you won't need any overlap.
In PTGui, for your final output, you want a cylindrical projection with a vertical fov of 27° (and a width of 45° if you're just remapping individual images).
You can ignore any differences in calculated focal lengths between PTGui and TG, those numbers are not important. The crucial one is the measurement in degrees and all of the stitching I've done from TG has been pixel perfect in this regard.
The "optimum size" button in PTGui makes an allowance for interpolation where remapping makes considerable changes to the images e.g. circular fisheye to equirectangular, but it is a guide only. In this case, just ignore it and use the same width as the width of your render.
There was a slight flaw in my suggestion to fix the vfov. Yes it does allow you to change the width of your render at will (with lock aspect ratio unchecked), but it does make rotating the camera harder to match the edges up exactly. Sometimes the quality control on my ideas is a little slow ;)
You could always make up 2 templates, one with all image angles at 0,0,0 for remapping the images, and one with the images at yaw intervals of 45° to produce a stitched panorama. You won't be able to stitch images beyond 360°
PTGui template for stitching a 360 panorama attached.
Thanks again, Ben. I hope to get it fixed now.... still many obstacles to take, but this is crucial.
You're welcome. You're right in that planning out the basics of how you are going to render the mural is crucial to sort out early. A change of direction midway through could mean a lot of reworking/rearranging. It's an interesting and challenging concept to visualise and I'm sure everyone will be interested in following its progress.
Maybe they'd like to make the finished image available via something like http://gigapan.com/ (http://gigapan.com/) for some extra exposure of the museum? .. or publish a zoomable version of it on their own website?
I can always give them a hint in that direction. Might be a good idea.
After some initial mishaps (not fitting images, probably a small mistake somewhere again), I managed to get it working. Saved the 'individual panorama PTGUI project' for final renders. Lined the individuals up in PS and it worked flawlessly! Terrific! Two bigger tests are now rendering (4200x2527), see what they do...
As I have to fill about 80m of wall, I have to go round twice, with two different terrain bases or it will be too much the same. I have to figure out a way to fit those two together, although a small change is not too bad, there's a gap in the wall there anyway.
This is a very exciting and cool project, I'm thrilled to see it being tackled in TG. And to see 2 of this communities masterminds/evil geniuses focusing formidable mental resources on it, that's quite important and gratifying. Can't wait to see how this progresses, it's an epic task!
- Oshyan
One step further, slowly getting some shapes... the matching is quite perfect, only in some cloud there's a tiny color difference between renders.
Another step ahead....
Impressive. Your client should be very satisfied with your efforts.
This would be fun to walk by at a VERY large size!
It will be 82 meters by 2.8 high, so I can't wait to see it in real life. But it'll need a lot of fine detail and a big render!
That is gigantic!!
I am sure this pix will be a main attraction over there ;)
Anghiari Battle from De Vinci : 17 meters long
Ulco Art : 82 meters long
You're a Master
Hope for you it will survive more than the Battle, but i would like to see it for real
When it is finally printed and mounted, would like to see a photo of it with you standing beside it.
Nice progress Ulco !
QuoteWhen it is finally printed and mounted, would like to see a photo of it with you standing beside it.
I will fall into insignificance ;)
Just thinking about a render for such dimensions.. *ouch
Wish you all the best and that next/upcoming tasks will work in favour of you and like intentioned in all! (http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr196/hypatia320/GIFs/Smileys/fingerscrossed.gif)
Quote from: Dune on October 18, 2013, 02:43:26 AM
QuoteWhen it is finally printed and mounted, would like to see a photo of it with you standing beside it.
I will fall into insignificance ;)
Oh, just go ahead a have a friend snap a pic. We're all raring to see it.
Enorme Ulco. :) ;)
A little progress.
This is immense! I know what I'm going to say next might seem crass, but I hope you're being well-paid for this! lol :)
Well, I'm not doing it just for the fun of it ;)
Do you render this as a single image on one PC? OR across multiple PC's?
This is a series of 6 renders, simply put next to eachother in PS (little white triangles at bottom are separations). So the final big renders will be about 16x one section, but at quite large px size. I render on one pc.
It is coming together beautifully.Are you committed to a target date for completion?
looking really good... the detail is astonishing!
:)
It should be finished somewhere next spring.
Quote from: Dune on November 13, 2013, 02:43:54 PM
It should be finished somewhere next spring.
whoa! That is much longer than I thought you had. IT makes it more interesting too. That much time can really help or hurt the final result. I know for me, when I have that much time, I usually don't do so well. But others seem to benefit a lot from far out dead lines.
If it's not too hard, a tight and quick deadline works fine, but this is so complicated that I have to build it up very carefully. Rushing things may leave me scratching my head when wanting to render and noticing something essential I forgot. It is complicated as I have to turn twice 360º at least to cover 82 meters of render, and the terrain must continue, but with different populations every 10 meters or so, gradually changing. The front has to be believable as well, I mean the grass and veggies should look at the right size when you stand in front of that wall. Distance is easy, but front :-\ The path you see twice here (once medieval, once Roman) is the same, crossing the hill you stand on. I used a warped SSS, no map, so all the other stuff has to fit to that. Perhaps, now that I think of it, mapping the whole lot would have been easier.
The reindeer will come in near the end, Michael! So there's a little time.
Amazing work this, really looking forward to the final.
Looks already good Ulco!
But will look better... with some more flowers...
Beautiful coverage of grasses and flowers. And, the landscape is very good.
This is getting better and better!
that last one is really great! :o :o :o :o :o
Love it all. But my eye really went to the hill in the back. Where I live we have lots of glacial drumlins (is the hill in your image a drumlin?). I love seeing how the woods thins near the top. Looks great!
The grasses in the foreground look quite nice. A couple of low-poly looking trees though (flat planes for leaves/branches). Otherwise quite nice.
- Oshyan
I have to find what a drumlin is (sounds like a hobbit), but I don't think so; these are just low rolling hills in the South of Holland (Limburg), with an occasional steep bit. No glacial stuff here, the ice didn't get that far.
I know about the trees, Oshyan, they worry me, because this needs to be rendered rather large. I might have to build a higher poly one. Can be done, because this one is only 10Mb, and I have plenty of 'space' for more veggies, memory wise.
Some more tests. Too much, too big flowers in some, lowered the sun angle from 35º to 25º in another, changed the clouds (I want some shadows over land here and there), add some long grass in yet another, replaced the large trees, added more smaller ones.... I need to keep in mind that this is going to be huge, so all details have to be believable.
In number 6 there's place for another Roman villa, I think, with entrance and road.... to the right of that I'll start working on the iron age.
I like number three, reminds of the south downs where I grew up
These are looking really superb Ulco, lots of nice detail. Nice clouds too!
- Oshyan
Each of these are done with pleasing details. We all can learn by looking at such excellent work.
They are very well done. I'm also particular to #3
LM-4B-10-0006A.jpg really stands out for me.
Unfortunately it's not just one that needs to be perfect, they all need to be, as it's one long wall.
Made some changes again. Dumped the localized 'mist', they became too hazy, IMO. Other clouds and I like the dramatic effect. Maybe I'll ditch some areas without loosing the shadows. The red are some changes I wil make (porch near Roman villa, dots are sheep, etc). On the right side were getting into the Iron Age.
Any suggestions? I want to add stuff, e.g. I just made a scarecrow which I'll put in somewhere. Just found out how to drape cloth in Lightwave... awesome feature.
^^ they are all good, Ulco. I just picked the part I liked looking at the best.
Lovely images and will have to take the time to read through this ! Beautiful work Ulco !
Paul
Another lo-res update. Slowly getting its final proportions, as all items have to fit on a wall with firehoses, doors and nooks and crannies. It's not just one straight wall, I'm afraid.
The amount of 'warp' between sections is so small, that it's hardly noticable. And only a minimum of light difference in the clouds. These are just the 45º renders stuck against eachother, no PTGUI work, which would save me on render time, as I will loose bands top and bottom if I use PTGUI. Lucklily the terrain is lsightly wobbly anyway.
Beautiful. Wish I could see it in person when it is finally up on the wall.
Up to the second half. First basic layout (probably). What I noticed is that the sky in the 45º section above the 'ice age' turned out much lighter that in the sections before and after. Could that be caused by GI (reflection from the snow)? I guess so, and it's not too bad to darken it a bit in PS.
As for the sky it's much more visible on the right side while it's hard to
notice at all on the left,at least for my eyes.Maybe it has to do with
the density of the cloud cover,too.Much more and thicker clouds to the right.
Just an uneducated guess,though.
Keep it up,you'll get there,no doubt.
You're right, it's more on the right side. The clouds are the same in all sections, it's a render difference. I can fix it in PS, but I'm just curious about the cause.
Update in section 7-8. Not satisfied with the grasses, too rough and translucent, I'll try some others. Smoke is post.
This just gets better and better!
Updated cows and tested a bit larger Roman section for detail. Still need apple trees there and some 'stuff'.
Superb work! There are a lot of details.
Truly inspiring, each image yields beautiful depth and realism.
I made some changes to the grassy hill upon which the viewer is standing. It was too 'decent' for rough country, so I replaced all grasses by new ones, plus some heather. Getting there, slowly. I don't know if you guys like to see this all, so do tell me if I overfeed.
Any comments welcome of course.
Wonderful Ulco.
Just on the 2nd view. Animals (i guess pigs ?) seem smalls even if I think you put them at the right scale.
Still a big fan ;)
Keep 'em commin' I for one enjoy watching the evolution of your work. These last 3 "snapshots" are wonderful and your use of vegetation is excellent - where do the grasses come from? The covered shelf!(what do you call that) is a very convincing model but the wood needs some lichen or moss to make it perfect.
Please keep them coming. This is outstanding stuff and delightfull to look at.
Your in a league all your own Ulco, killer stuff man !!
Just noticed in view 3 that a small branch without leaves seems floating alone in the right tree
Absolutely, keep on posting your progress. Your vast populations of vegetation show many varieties of plants ...so very realistic. As I mentioned earlier, I believe all of us would like to see the finished project up on the museum wall. At some point, you might ask your client if they would like to post something like this on the web of your magnificent work: http://www.mnh.si.edu/vtp/1-desktop/ .
So I'll keep 'm coming. Here's the next WIP for a further 30 odd meters. Still a lot needs done.
And thanks for thinking along, I like feedback. I could miss something. The animals are an old race of small sheep, hardly a meter long, and the celtic fields are 40x40m, but I agree they look kinda small. The veggies I make myself, and in fact there are only 3 grasses in the rough area, one heath and 5 or so weeds/flowering plants. Along the verges of the path I have some 4 additional weeds, 2-3 additional grasses, and maybe 6-8 trees/shrubs.
I started out with a ground/terrain of some colors, bumps and fake grass (just one stretched fake stone shader), but now replaced this (within a circle of 100m around the camera) by clumps of soil, and some pebbles, so the fake grass is only in the distance. Where there are no grasses, the clumps may show up.... although I admit they don't really because the grass is too thick. Anyway, I didn't like it with the fake grass in front areas. I have to keep in mind that the final renders will be much larger than this and everything (all my mistakes) are exxagerated.
I'll try to get some moss or lichen on the beehive shelter, good idea. In future we can have stuff grow on objects, but for now it'll be procedural.
After this WIP I have already changed the way the heath is frosted (with a gradual change towards the ice age), and the layout of the river. More to come...
Il y a un rectangle blanc au dessus du vert à gauche.
Yeah, what is the white square? Rest is looking good.
That's where a small village should come. Pay no attention to it.
Ah, ok. ;)
Thank you for the explanation. Seeing the transition of greenery to snow and frost is interesting. More on frosting the vegetation would be helpful.
Well, the transitions are not my favorite, but it's needed. It's not very natural to go from ice age to thick forest in a few meters, covering maybe 10.000 years, but I have to. I think I'll also have to compromise earlier, near the grave mound, as it's all thick forest, but you won't see very far then. And that's a pity. I have to ask if I can make it opener, much nicer. It ain't finished yet.
If the theory that a meteorite hit the Earth (in the gulf of Mexico) is correct, the atmosphere turned dark with gasses and debris - then came the ice age. As it came out of this age, the atmo might still be somewhat heavy with red decay. Maybe you might have a section where the image displays this before getting into the greenery?
These are looking really good. The most obvious errors from not reprojecting the images to cylindrical would be a slight V-shaped join in clouds but that's more of an issue as you move up from the horizon and it's not really noticeable in these. Rather than using white rectangles you might consider at least giveing it an image map e.g. (http://3d-walkthrough-rendering.outsourcing-services-india.com/images/billboards_advertise_design.jpg) ;)
You are unreal. I am in love with LM-6-dec-.0002part.jpg and especially that beehive model. How wonderfully organic! Also the tree stumps in your latest are magnificent. How the heck do you get all this vegetation in without running out of memory? Don't tell me these all low poly models.
@Bob: this is the last ice age that didn't quite reach the area I'm depicting (South of Holland), and it was in the Weichselien, between 120.000 and 10.000 years ago. Long after the 'meteorite extinction wave'. I have to ask how much snow they want, as it might have been quite pleasant in summer back then, with flowering tundra veggies and so on. So lots of ochre, reds, instead of white.
@Bigben: I found that too. It's a hilly terrain anyway, so the regular dips are hardly noticable either, especially with the weeds. Saves me using your (fantastic) method this time, and also some render time, as nothing is lost.
@Otakar: they are not too heavy; the beehives+shelter is about 600kB. I could have made it much heavier, but a little bump does wonders, and I have to keep the memory use as low as possible. And little errors I can always paint/clone out in post. Added some lichens to the shelter, by the way. Really nice.
Here's an update again, better placement of stuff, as it needs to fit with doors, etc. The only thing I don't like is that I can't change the light over the 82 meters. So, going round from my little hill, I always get some areas in straight backlight, which is a mortal sin (in photography). Makes the forest kind of bland (if that's the right word), so I'm thinking of adding a few trees behind me, to give some shadows. Maybe some localized mist will work as well. And I will add some trees/trunks right in front, so you're more in the wood, while keeping the view. They have to be high poly, but only 4m high perhaps, and then nothing. Too many yellow flowers by the way, must have hit the wrong button.
I admire your abilities of using TG3 as you do. What you've done here is absolutely beautiful.
Why cant there be more transition? Not so much a dividing scene or season, but just a little bit of snow and bare trees on the left of the line. Just not so abrupt, I mean.
Because it has to fit the total exhibition, with dioramas, etc from certain eras. Very tight. I would rather have made 5 or so seperated eras for different walls, but the client is king!
Xmas update. Getting there, with still quite a few changes to come. I was also thinking of adding a little stream (from under your feet), going downhill.
The top of the right tree stump does not work,too many straight edges.
At least if it is that close to the viewer.
Otherwise nice update.
After viewing enlarged sections of the strip, I find little to be critical about. The details are pleasing.
Thanks Jochen. You're right, and I can fix that in LW. On the other hand, I probably will have to paint some stuff in PS anyway after it's rendered into it's final state and I can easily correct such issues. But it's also nice to try to fix such things in advance.
Going faster than my shadow; here's another day's work. Only the stream part is taking a long time to render, even at this 0.5 AA4 low quality render, so I'll think of something else, see if that's any quicker. Still issues to sort.
And a screengrab of my network for part 1, just for the fun of it. A lot of internal stuff not visible of course.
Looks beautiful.
And thanks for the screebgrab network. It gives an idea of the huge work you're doing.
The fire looks great. I just keep noticing those sharp ends of each tree branch, but I am sure you'll take care of that in PS.
The forest fire trees have them, as well as the biggie in front. But I've taken care of the ancient oak (added leaves to them, even cut the top half completely off as it's outside viewing angle anyway). If I make these trees perfect, they need much more polys, and I'm a little 'mean' on the polys in this stage. PS does wonders after rendering indeed.
Images are looking great.
The screen grab makes me dizzy. :P
I made a new hideout for the reindeerhunter. I'm reasonably satisfied with it (discovered clothFX to drape the hides, fascinating).
That's very good. Also like the vines on the tree base. And, the background is pleasing.
Very nice deer hide! I like the ivy too.
Every things looking very good Ulco. That node tree above makes me ill though.
Looks good Ulco!
Starting to test some settings. Usually I work with detail 0.65, but as a lot of objects are covering the ground, maybe 0.5 would be enough. AA is usually 6, but I've done some testing with higher AA (8, 12) but reduced first samples from 1/4 to 1/16 and threshold from 0.05 to 0.1. They went remarkably fast, but I will still have to check carefully if there's any difference.
Do you guys see anything or have a recommendation?
Just went to the printer today; they got stuff that is 5m wide and hundred or more meter on the roll, so the whole wall can be printed in one piece! Poor gluers. I think I'll settle for a resolution of 25dpi (so I can render 14 times a 45º render of about 3000x5500px, as more would take a lot more time. Viewing distance will be from 10-1m, so quite close. Again; any recommendations, ideas?
You're only going to see a difference with Bloom enabled if there are very bright parts of your image, usually specular highlights, or the sun. None of your test areas with bloom on/off appear to have any features that would show any differences, and I'm not sure your scene as a whole even has any (maybe the water/ice areas).
- Oshyan
So I can easily turn it off and save on RAM?
Another question; I have rendered these quite small crops (1% if the total, or less), and they use around 6GB. How much would you expect the total to be? I suppose/hope it's not a lineair thing?
Well,since nobody besides Oshyan said something,let me add my two cents.
On my monitor and to my eyes the examples rendered with bloom and AA6
seem to be better than the others.Personal preference of course.
To be sure I would render a crop region at final size that would be an area
of 20x30cm on the actual wall and print that out with the desired resolution
of 250dpi (I assume you meant 250 and not 25).Thus you'd get the best
impression of the quality the viewers will have later on.
That's what I would do at least.
I mean 25! 250pixels per inch would be quite gigantic a render for a wall of nearly 3m high and 82 meters long. Takes me years! I believe billboards are printed at that resolution, that's why I computed the final size from that. I'd rather make it 50 but that already multiplies render time times 4. I need to check out how many pixels I need to render for a nice enough image once printed on 3m high, and with viewing distance of 1+ meter.
The actual printing itself probably happens at much higher dpi than 25, but that's extrapolated from my total pixels.
Do you mean you render at 25dpi?
If so,how is that done?
Nonetheless I'd do the above mentioned test print to see how that looks
compared to the on screen version.
Yes, if you find that Bloom does not add benefit to your renders, you can turn it off and potentially save memory, or even just use it on the views where it does make a difference (again, only with really bright areas!).
- Oshyan
Just an idea to test the 25dpi . As 250dpi is the minimum resolution for quality printing (and don't forget that it is for the "arm length distance"), he wants to reduce it at 10%.
Use any of the Ulco views he shares with us then resize the view at 10%. Save it on your computer and use window viewer and use the zoom to make nearly a fullscreen (depending on resolution of your monitor).
At 1 meter distance, i must say it is not nice, but from at least 3-4 meters i consider it works.
I reduced the image below for the test.
Well, that looks afwul. But still, I figured if you have 25 dpi, so a pixel every millimeter, viewed from a meter+ distance it can't be too bad. But I have to try indeed, or maybe compromise on quality or AA and get more pixels. If nobody has any experience with this sort of thing I have to find out myself.
Here is something that could helps you Ulco
It is based on Power of Separation of Human Eye. Power of Separation requires a minimum angle of 0,017°. So the minimum distance between 2 points (for being detected as 2 independants points) depends on the distance of the observer.
This graph shows you for example that at 2 meters distance, the eye can't detect 2 points if the resolution is higher than 43 dpi.
As you plan to use a 25 dpi resolution, ideal distance to watch the wall rendering should be not less than 4 meters.
David
I'm glad you posted that kaedorg, I was thinking of doing a search for that.
Dune, it would be simple enough to test if you have a decent desktop inkjet around. Just render a crop of the image at the resolution you've been planning and output it at its real world size and you'll have a good idea of what it will look like. Then tack it up on your office wall and see what it looks like at the distances you are thinking with.
Obviously, the more small detail you want people to be able to experience, the higher the rendering resolution will need to be. And, as for it being *intended* to be viewed at 1 meter, that's all well and good ... but unless there's a railing, you know there are going to be people putting their noses right on this thing, right? At least, I would for sure! It's just too cool not to see how much you can see in it. :)
I wish I could visit the museum to see this in person when it's done. It's certainly looking incredible so far.
~Micheal
Quoteyou know there are going to be people putting their noses right on this thing, right? At least, I would for sure!
Me too!
Some people will walk by and not even look up. But those who do will be, or already were interested. If it looks like art to them, then they will think about it like art, and they will want to get close to it.
Like a painting or etching or any kind of print making, people will want to see the thing up close. it wont simply occur to most people, that there is a scientific way of determining viewing distance or anything of the sort. They wont care that its not a painting, they will want to see the brush strokes... A railing may be a good idea. you don't want people putting there hands on it. I cant tell you how many times I have seen museum guards warn people not to touch, believe it or not.
But its an understandable impulse. Touch is a fundamental way to have an experience. Haven't you wanted to touch a marble statue? I feel the same way about paper.
If I saw this thing on a wall, and did not have any knowledge of this topic. I would walk up to it too. I would want to see if when I got close, I could see more details. Like the veins in a leaf. You have to think of a way to control and direct the veiwers exsperence, if at all possible. But I realize thats probably not up to you. Its just fun to think about :)
Maybe you should have your own show, Ulco. You have enough work.
I'd really want this thing to be as sharp and detailed as possible, people can and will get close indeed, but I have to make a fair decision before I turn my i7 on on 82x3meters of render of a certain resolution :-\ I may have to compromise on detail or AA and get more pixels out of it. I'm thinking hard if I need soft shadows, but believe it will be much more natural, but that also takes time. I'm glad I don't have much transparent water...
No room in the client's budget for render farm time? :D
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on January 10, 2014, 01:29:54 PM
No room in the client's budget for render farm time? :D
- Oshyan
Or use your free credits (assuming you haven't already).
If it helps, and is allowed, you can use mine too! (Seriously). I'd like to see this rendered at high resolution. :)
You can have mine also............. :)
I also can add 2 of my i7 if it helps.
... and mine as well
You're awesome guys! I mean that, and I have to think if that would work. The files to upload will be quite large. As for a render farm; that is hard as I need 14 renders and each one needs GI cached before I send it up, as the farm can't do the GI cache on one computer, so gets blocky if rendered in different computers or cores or whatever. This happened before, so I have to cache the GI and send that up as well (really big). Not once, but for every 'frame' of 45º, so I have to upload everything 14 times. Then it might be easier to just put on the i7 and leave it mumbling for a week or more. Or accepts your gracious help. Problem (well problem) with that is that you get all my stuff, and I have to figure out if I can do that, or whether an NDA is needed.
Anyway; here's an update on the second half, and some pretty large render crops. Still work (and thinking) to do.....
The reindeer are Michael's, and really good, though I have to conjure up more variation!
First I checked NDA on Google (was not sure about what it means). First google result was NEW DRUG APPLICATION....what does it mean Ulco ??? :P
Hopefully i saw Non-disclosure agreement.
I will only speak for myself but I think that all other guys think nearly the same.
To this offer was attached a complete confidentiality. I would not even think to keep a copy of your work or use any of your nodes without your permission.
Any problem for me to sign a NDA then
David
Yes, Non-disclosure agreement. Glad you're thinking the way you do.
Some more tests, this time about twice the size (9960x6000px, cropped, detail 0.6, AA 6 default). I don't see much difference in soft shadows or no soft shadows in this area, which I wanted to confirm. The render time difference is enormous, soft shadows @ 0.6 (not 0.8 ) and 4 samples 1.12 hours for this crop, no SS was 37 min. So I think I will render without SS, only do some crops of frontal areas where it does matter, and paste those over in post.
Then I have to check what caused the black lines in the reindeerskin, think it was unpremultiply color (I hope it isn't GISD), and I see some dotted lines around the branches. I also need to decrease bump size in the branches and add some bump in the front shrub branches of the vertical rendercrop. And I will change the ivy leaves (they're very clean and straight).
I'll just go on adding some images, nearing final stages now. The reindeer shot is the largest I will make all renders, it'll be fine at a meter's distance. Only have to change their river passing depth. Now wish it would be possible to transform (rotate) instances in an easy way by mask. I can do it by hand of course, but that's a lot of work. They should bend a little to pass the river in a more straight angle. Maybe a nice feature request...
A little brushwork on the little villages, which will be needed on the whole render series anyway. Can't do it all perfectly in TG in this big a setup.
Hi Ulco,
I'm willing to help too, if there's need.
We can meet somewhere in between our places and exchange your data on a USB-HDD?
Or perhaps sending with TNT Express is even cheaper!
As you may know, I live in Rotterdam.
Cheers,
Martin
Ulco, this is insane! Wish I could help too, but my machine is almost always in use (and far too slow!!!)
Amazing work, as ever, this just gets better and better. I have a spare i7 if you need it.
Hi Ulco,
was curious about your heard. Do you intend that the final will have them going down the river rather than simply crossing?
I was guessing that you just have one population there, and therefor were consigned to straight(ish) lines. OR do you have some source that explains that the animals to do this in nature?
Regardless, I was also interested if you could use a simple shape with a wiggle in it, to create a path with an arc that the populator must adhere to?
Or are you going to populate all your animals by hand?
Continuously beautiful work! My machine is almost seven years old; otherwise, I would offer it to you to use.
All of them are good but i like especially the last two images Ulco!
At last I did rotate all individuals in the river by hand, it wasn't that much work after all. I suppose they walk along the river until they find or know a good spot to cross, then do it as straight as possible. That's what will happen now. I did use a warped fractal as a 'trail of reindeer', but you can't bend the instances the same way, only the pop.
Waiting for final approval now....
Some small crops at higher resolution, found out some small issues (liking floating ruin, and too flat moss under reinderhunters tent).
Some more, final checks. The larger ones were done in a slightly less detail and AA (0.5 and 5), and look quite good too, so I'll have to check what settings are really needed.
I hope this pays well because I think you have done an amazing job here. Those transitions are really well done and the ample detail is outstanding, but we're used to that from you :) . It would be nice to take a short video or at least a few stills of the finished installation.
To see a short video or some photos would be nice indeed.
Still can't find the right words for describing your great visual outcome of your uber-project (and your patience for such a task).
Bravo..
Alex
It pays well enough to dive into it (of course I want more ;) ), as it's also a great experience to see if I can get it together without my brain exploding. Taught me a lot, also.
Now, please tell me what you think of these. Tried different settings to see what I will use for the final render; detail 0.5 and AA5 and detail 0.6 and AA6, both at final size (crops of 8000x4500px frames). There is a time difference (in title), but to be honest, I can't see much difference in AA. detail is hard to tell here, I need another shot for that. So I might even go for higher resolution instead of higher AA or detail.... or do soft shadows after all.
These are the plain renders, no post.
If it were for time i would say use the lower settings because even that there are some differences it is nothing major .
It could be even from GI differences .
I go for higher settings sometimes just for the sake of to be sure.
As you said soft shadows or more translucency kinda settings instead of more AA and detail could be better maybe.
You are close to final as it looks Ulco :)
I'd go for the higher settings as it is to be printed large.
Detail wise I don't see real a difference.
You may go with Detail 0.5 and AA6 then.
For me, the lightning seems a bit more balanced from foreground to background in some places and shadows with AA 6.
But true, maybe this is because of possible GI differences..
I see barely any difference between the two. But, since it will be printed large, perhaps it it best to go with the 6/6.
I would significantly favor higher resolution because the relatively minor differences in AA and detail won't make nearly as much impact as higher source resolution for the print. So if it's really a choice between the higher detail settings, or the lower ones with a higher resolution render, definitely go fort he latter. By the way Detail is only going to affect terrain and sky, and only sky if you have defer atmo off, so in the images you've shown, Detail is actually doing virtually nothing for you as there's no terrain (and barely any sky) visible. You could even do Detail 0.1 (assuming you're using Defer Atmo) and get the same quality result, because everything is covered by plants (objects) anyway which will be raytraced regardless. On some of the images you've shown before there was indeed a lot of terrain, which would benefit from decent baseline Detail settings, but I don't think you need to go over 0.5 anyway.
- Oshyan
Thanks guys, and Oshyan; I indeed mentioned your point about detail in my post, and might do another test. But what I have seen in some other large crops, is that you're probably right; that 0.5 is good enough. The only ground is quite distant, apart from the gravel track. I only have to take care that AA5 doesn't give me grain in clouds, so I have to check some cloudy part (near the sun as that 'grains' most in my experience). Clouds are all at default settings, so I'd either up that or AA to 6.
So it might be 14x a render of 10000x5500 or so.
Render the clouds separately if you need to Ulco.
Well, I'd like to keep it simple (haha), so I won't venture into layers yet.
Quote from: Dune on January 29, 2014, 08:28:32 AM
Well, I'd like to keep it simple (haha), so I won't venture into layers yet.
Not layers Ulco.
Render the clouds with different settings with or without layers.
I used for an animation higher settings and resolution for the ground
and half resolution and lower settings for the clouds for example.
You can render for example full HD the ground and objects and half HD the clouds
and probably no one will see the difference because of the nature of clouds.
The render times does make a great difference in animation.
But for stills and if you have time it is not important of course.
I don't quite understand how you mean that. I want to render all in one go, so how can I do the clouds in a different resolution?
Quote from: Dune on January 29, 2014, 11:42:47 AM
I don't quite understand how you mean that. I want to render all in one go, so how can I do the clouds in a different resolution?
You just comp ( resize etc) them later in a photo editor if it is a still.
For animation you use video editing software like Sony Vegas or After Effects etc.
In this animation i used 3 different resolutions for example.
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,14208.msg139127.html#msg139127
The original is much better. Recompressing of that sites makes it look worse then it is.
Thanks Kadri.
Sometimes when doing a larger test some nasty mistakes turn up... >:( :(
I think you are pointed out that dark shadow at the base of the tree?
Quote from: Dune on February 04, 2014, 12:31:24 PM
Sometimes when doing a larger test some nasty mistakes turn up... >:( :(
I think i know how you feel about this , but with a render this big and without animation-right?- i would correct many things in post.
Someone like you can do this easily !
No, not the shadow. The smaller branches have a wrong UV ratio (too large and stretched) and the tree that's behind the first one has too large leaves. I'm redoing them as we speak.
This is a combination of 2 renders from 2 files, by the way. Like all frames they fit exactly, even though these are from 2 different tgd files to cover the total 14 frames of 45º, in the second file the terrain outside the camera hill is overhauled. The 2 trees are in both files on exactly the same spot, and obscure the change in more distant land- and cloudscape. So this little test was quite helpful.
You're right, Kadri, I will and can do a lot in post. Like paint in some people and stuff, and correct things. I'll paste an image of myself somewhere obscure, like Hitchcock did :D
Which software did you use to create the tree?
Some Speedtree, some in XFrog. The one I mentioned in Speedtree.
Here's your reindeer at final resolution, Michael! Added one of your last postures to 4 that were there.
Ah, I just see some 'Mozeslike' reindeer...
Biggie as test, but with defer atmo off. No good clouds, and I have to check the tree as well, still the wrong branches, and the oak leaves have a white border. I have to check whether that's due to the unpremultiply thing or whether the alpha tif is no good. Maybe I change the tree, it needs to be a very precise specimen, as it will be right in front of you and 3m high.
I also need to extend the grass mask to cover more distance.
How stupid can I be:
1: I hadn't set TG to automatically save renders ::) >:(
2: I rendered certain frames, but didn't copy them all immediately to my working machine :(
3: I made a backup of my working pc, and backed up my render machine ???
Conclusion: I lost 25+ hours of work.... damn frustrating. File recovery software I have crashes on win7... recycle bin didn't reveal anything... >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
And Kaedorg had a power loss due to the storm and also lost hours of working on a frame for me.
Second conclusion: I will be very happy once this project is done.
I was looking at your tree image (Reply # 166) for minutes and I had no idea which nasty mistakes you were talking about.
Now that you've mentioned it, I see what you mean. Sometimes some mistakes may be barely noticeable, but I know, as the creator it's impossible to say, I'll leave it like that, because nobody will notice it.
In one of my images I saw, that, after a long render had finished, all the opacity maps for the trees' leaves were inverted. It was again barely noticeable from a distance, but I had to render it again.
This is especially a problem if you need to render a meters big image. Viewers will see everything, whereas for a magazine or something, small mistakes won't be apparent.
I also noticed that the sandy gravel I intended is a bit more like smooth rounded pebbles, even though the fake stones were 0.005 and (less) 0.01 m, so I might do a crop with improved rough gravel.
By the way; I found a free recovery tool that DID RECOVER MY LOST 25+ HOUR FILE! So I'm happy again.
And here's a small sample of the final image, with a little painted in, perhaps 0.01% of the total ;)
Insane!! I'd like to ask you, are you really a human being? Do you sleep sometimes? Eating and drinking can be done in front of the screen, but some other things...
I mean, you seem to spend 26 hours a day for this project, don't you? ;) ;) ;)
I must admit I'm totally dedicated (mildly said), working 7 days a week, if I am not dragged away by my wife. I indeed have breakfast in front of the screen, but at dinner time, the machine is supposed to be shut down. Supposed...
Just received a file Martin did for me. Fantastic. One floating tree, but I'm really pleased with this. Here's a very small part again.
Then Ulco, I do understand why you dedicate your books to your wife ;)
Yes, without her I couldn't do what I do. She's a sweetheart!
Quote from: Dune on February 05, 2014, 06:52:38 AM
Some Speedtree, some in XFrog. The one I mentioned in Speedtree.
Here's your reindeer at final resolution, Michael! Added one of your last postures to 4 that were there.
Ah, I just see some 'Mozeslike' reindeer...
Looks pretty good Ulco. Is that all the poses then? I don't remember what I sent. LOL yes, walking on water is quite biblical ;D
No I didn't put all the poses in. This frame is now rendering, so I'm quite curious how it comes out. Had to move the reindeerhuntersshelter a bit backwards, as the maximum texture I had (still 12MB or more) wasn't enough to cover a square meter of reindeerhide in final resolution. Still stills to go.
Another 100% screendump. I will probably add some cows here, and some other stuff to make it more alive.
QuoteI will probably add some cows here, and some other stuff to make it more alive.
Slaves. Your scene needs slaves. The romans did not work their own fields.
Very good. What caught my attention is the way the shadowed background makes the foreground pop nicely.
I'll add some nice slaves!
Yes, that was one feature I didn't want to loose when changing clouds. The overall image is getting together really nicely. Some parts (not all) are really very nice, and where it is not very nice I do some crops with refined elements and paste it over.
Like this area:
Its actually very nice to have some areas obscured by foliage as in your example above. I think if everything were perfectly set out and presented it would loose some energy. But like with anything its a balancing act.
Looks like your doing just fine though, Ulco.
Really looking forward to seeing photos of this thing with people in front of it like your last large scale project.
Agree with Badger. This is really stunning!
Talking about slaves. I think Dune has a few in his cellar cranking out renders left and right. That's the only way he can post all this amazing stuff without any breaks.
Just kidding. More humans in the picture would be nice, I agree. Be it slaves or children or vagrants....
Once again, the dark background makes the foreground stand out beautifully.
Well, at first I thought not to include many 'moving' stuff, as the landscape then immediately is a static thing. If you don't have them, you may expect something to appear anywhere, and that makes the landscape less static. Like a painting with a flying bird is much different from a painting with a quitely sitting bird on a branch; you are anticipating movement and that makes it a more interesting painting. Or is that too far-fetched?
Anyway, I will add some stuff, but they will be photo's or drawn. A wolf, a deer, a hare, a wild boar, I have so far, just to feed the story the museum guys and ladies will tell to visitors. I will put myself in as well, as a Roman perhaps, not sure yet.
I would like to express my warm thanks to David, Micheal, Martin and Richard for helping me render some chunks of the wall. You did a great job and it all went smoothly. Total render time was around 417 hours, which for some pro's wouldn't last a heartbeat, but for my lone i7 would take up precious time. So, thanks guys!
Small image is a crop I did to get some more reindeer in the tundra.
And I just got a 1x2m test print today of a 100% size section of the wall, and it looks just as I expected in terms of colors and contrast. Sharpness/resolution is just fine. Can't wait to see it on the wall....
Really happy that everything works fine.
It has been a pleasure to help you. Anytime you need again, just ask ;)
David
Can't wait to see the finished product.................and you are very welcome. You know where to find me if needed.............. :-*
Great to hear this, it's so close! Very exciting. Can't wait to see photos of it in place. :D
- Oshyan
You're welcome Ulco! I was happy to be a part of this. :)
Added some people.... and got permission to print the whole thing.
Wish I could see this in person..............looks fantastic. :)
Where did you find those fitting people models?
Good luck for the printing process!
Looking so nice. By what means will you be attaching the final work to the wall?
I used photo's of reenactments, altered them to fit the scene. They're not models. I wish I could have done the whole thing with models, but that would have been too much. I fitted in some extra animals too, a bear, a peregrine, some raven, some quite hidden, to give the kids in the museum something to do (count the animals).
It will be printed by some Dutch company who can print 5m by virtually endless in one go. On some thin, but strong plastic-like sheet. The gluers will have the daunting task to glue 7 segments to a wall with angles, doors and power plugs. Opening is in May, you're all welcome!
Looks great Ulco!
Wish i could see it too!
Dune you have to have to have to make a picture of that wall and post it if possible! :D
A picture is not enough. I would say a short movie recording a walk along the wall. ;)
There will be a movie (time lapse) of the making of the museum. No doubt he will incorporate the image. I'll post a link when it's ready.
Looking forward to this monumental project to unfold.
looking forward to the recap ^^
Dune, est-ce que tu peux montrer tes placement de nodes ? Tu arrives à te repèrer ?
Dune, Does Can you show your placement nodes? You get to to spot you ?
(gooogle translate)
Bastien.
Quote
QuoteThere will be a movie (time lapse) of the making of the museum. No doubt he will incorporate the image. I'll post a link when it's ready.
Cool, but also go there with your smart phone or mini cam and just record a walk along too! Watching all these threads is a little like a reality TV show, and I want a good view of the final episode!
What do you mean, Bastien? I posted a screenshot a few pages before, I believe. If you want to know how to get a panorama, the trick is expained as well, with the gracious help of BigBen. Though I didn't use his method after all, as the distortion is hardly noticable. I just rotated the camera 45º (14 times), and the renders fitted exactly in Photoshop. But only because the camera is not tilted but pointing straight ahead.
As I speak French :P, I think Bastien is asking you for a screenshot of your nodes window.
He seems interested to see how you connect your nodes and how you can keep to know what they are as you use a lot of (notes for examples)
David
Superb work - the figures are beautifully integrated. I might try and get to the museum next year to see the whole thing.
You should!
@Bastien: on page 8 there's a node view. I don't make notes, I just remember what I do where, and (very important!!!) I give all nodes a desriptive name.
Excusez-moi, ça vous a vexez.
Excuse me if this has offended you. Dune.
:-[
No problem, is that what you meant?
Oui, c'est ce que je voulais dire Dune. ^^
Merci Kaedorg pour la traduction ! Je parle pas anglais et je traduis avec google, alors ce n'est pas facile !
Yes, it's what I meant, Dune. ^^
Thanks Kaedorg for translation ! I don't speak english and I translate with google, so it isn't easy !
;)
Some footage of the gluing.... ending in a Dutch discussion/argument whether to keep a glass cabinet open or not, 'not' blocking part of the wall. I'll vote 'open', obviously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXawNA24GM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XXawNA24GM)
That looks fantastic Ulco.......................... 8)
Really happy to see that everything is going fine. And happy to brought you some little help on this fantastic project.
Can't wait to see more about it
David
That is absolutely amazing. A project like this one, so enormous, so detailed, so risky... Madness! Or not. Happy for you.
Congrats Dune! ;)
An outstanding accomplishment Ulco. Will we see more?
8) Yes!!! :)
A wonderful achievement, fabulous work.
Holy shit, this is incredible! Congratulations, Ulco!
You've made Terragen users proud with this project Ulco, well done!!!!
Its a good/interesting/meaningful/challenging/important thing, Ulco. Hope to see something of mine is a similar way one day.
But who are the people in the argument, and who is holding the camera?
My guess Ulco is the tallest gentleman with glasses.
They are the builders of the new setup, and the project manager is holding the cam, discussing whether to 'blind' the backs of glass cabinets in front of the wall. I'm not there, never been at the museum yet. Second of May it will be opened with some 'important political people', as I was told.
Some guys want the cabinets closed at the back, but then you can't see the whole wall from top to bottom from a distance, which I think is a pity. Behind the glass cabinets, the floor is raised to a platform of say 4m wide, where you are level with the wall and passing right by it. So, on the oppsosite side of the cabinets the floor is lower, and others stuff is being displayed.
I'll take some pics when there 2 May.
I'm quite proud of this thing, and very grateful for all the help I got from several of you guys. Now I want MORE ;D ;D (and hope the same for you, Michael)
I had a big grin on my face and was happy to see this.
Seeing something on the computer or print is nice but this is great from everywhere i look.
Congrats Ulco :D
Ulco, that looks incredible! You have every right to be proud, very proud indeed. Surely this is the largest Terragen piece ever printed and displayed, by a wide margin. An impressive accomplishment regardless of software, technique used, etc.
- Oshyan
This is simply incredible. Congrats.
Beautiful achievement. Congratulations!
Btw, are there any longer threads in this forum? (reply 231 and 6612 views at the moment!)
Wow!
Only 2 by Replies! But lots by Views. ;) http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php?action=stats
- Oshyan
Thanks guys... and those are interesting stats. Never checked them out.
You are right Hannes, it is a boys club..............14.4/1. :o
I told ya ....but then I guess no one was listening. ;)
All those stats about the site.....kind of like the NSA. ::) ;D
Opening was yesterday. Very nice museum and terrific archaeology exhibition. We were there before opening and had time to stroll around in quiet solitude. The light and sound effects are awesome, changing from night (owls) to dawn (with dawn sounds, you know), even thunder and lightning. Lots of buttons everywhere to change and view stuff. Magnificent diorama's (several eras). Pity it's not nearby and the traffic is bloody awful, or we would go more often to see everything in detail.
Anyway; the wall is great. Printed without overlap and colors exactly like on my monitor. Received well. Here's a few shots.
That looks fantastic............wish I could see it in person. :)
That looks great...GREAT!
Sorry i had too :D
Ulco that's awesome. You can be proud of your work.
For sure i'll visit it next time in Holland
David
Absolutely fantastic!!
huge work, that's looks great !
Congratulations for this impressive work !!!
8) Hi5 ;D
Work such as this is rare and extraordinary. I have a feeling it will bring you new projects in the future having this in your resume.
Simply spectacular. Must be quite something looking at this in person, Ulco. If a render can stand up to being reproduced in this scale it's an accomplishment not only for the creator but also for the tool used to create this.
Makes me happy I have invested my time and earnings in this software even though I can never hope to achieve anything even remotely close to this :)
Wow...nuff said...just agree with the preceding comments. Ulco you are the Master at getting Terragen out of the box as it were. This is even cooler than being used in movies. Conga rats man
Thats really awesome Ulco, congratulations
Great to see the progress on this (been a while for me). Looks fantastic.
Thanks a lot for your kind words, guys. But if this forum wouldn't have been here, I couldn't have done it.
Up to the next challenge...
Quote from: Dune on May 04, 2014, 09:48:26 AM
Thanks a lot for your kind words, guys. But if this forum wouldn't have been here, I couldn't have done it.
Up to the next challenge...
Awesome
and Modest
Congratulations! An extraordinary achievement!
Incredible Ulco, absolutely incredible. Hope I can see it in person one day. :)
- Oshyan
Thx for the photos!
Breathtaking product! Well done man ;)
Really superb stuff Ulco. If I could I would make a special trip to Holland just to see it :-). Congratulations.
Regards,
Jo
Just beam yourself up, Jo, right through Mother Earth.
Utterly remarkable. Well done indeed - incredible stuff!
Congratulations Ulco :)
Worth all the hard work!
Martin
Hoi Martin. Voor jou is het niet te ver. De moeite waard als je eens in de buurt bent. En niet alleen voor de wand...
groetjes,
Ulco
Bravo!
Limburg Museum Link
They updated the page. On the background, we can see Ulco's work.
http://www.limburgsmuseum.nl/en/exhibitions/permanent/neanderthalcity/
David
They should make something like they show the restaurant. I'll drop them a line....
I'm astonished for this, I thought that is not possible.... it simple incredible! Congrats for the GREAT works done, definitely worth seeing from real! :)
Just found a little video, featuring my wall. In Dutch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15R-FJ4x0E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15R-FJ4x0E)
Looks amazing.
Fantastic. 8)
Impressing!!
Great :)
Stunning Ulco! I imagine you're quite proud of that one. :)
Closed Captioning->Language->Auto Translate=yes! Hehe.
- Oshyan
I want to add my congrats to this thread. What an accomplishment. It is great to be in the same forum with one so talented. I have the grass sample you did for me a long time ago......I am sure others have similar things from you. Almost like having an autograph from a celebrity. Honored to know you.
Quote from: Dune on December 10, 2015, 02:50:49 AM
Just found a little video, featuring my wall. In Dutch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15R-FJ4x0E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15R-FJ4x0E)
very cool man