New render.
Woah, brillant, Kadri! Very cinematic! Maybe a tad too sharp imho.
Quote from: Hannes on June 19, 2020, 08:11:42 AM... Maybe a tad too sharp imho.
Thanks Hannes. I wasn't sure about the sharpness. Preferred this sharper version here but could be a little less maybe :)
Calm, very pretty! Is your lens effect PS or TG bloom? I like the sharpness.
Quote from: luvsmuzik on June 19, 2020, 09:45:38 AM... Is your lens effect PS or TG bloom? I like the sharpness.
Thanks. It is from Hitfilm.
Terrific render! A photo, until you see the 'wasps'. A tad less sharp would do it for me too.
Thanks Ulco.
That's pretty awesome! Great sense of scale and great sci-fi mood, very convincing!
What were your render settings? The water could use some extra AA love and there's also some noise in the clouds which together takes away some of the realism.
Wonderful! The colour is great and yes it could be softer.
Thanks all.
Regarding sharpness you are right. As i said above i don't know why but in this one i preferred the sharpness (i still do :) ).
Normally i try to use it moderately. But it is hard for sure here.
I wanted it more then normal to make it different as a science fiction image because the science fiction elements are not much here.
Martin, i think it looks more hard because of the highlights too a little. The sun strength was 15.
Detail 0.7, AA 5, Defer ON (v. 4.1.25) V2 clouds.
The noise in the clouds is more from post work from sharpening mostly i think, as i didn't add any. At least not deliberately.
Just to have a better look you can see the original render below.
The interesting thing is that like i like to tease ( :) ) Hannes sometimes of his chromatic aberration use in his images,
i actually saw the noise and sharpness but it looked OK here this time to me. Kinda funny-ironic ? :)
Why detail 0.7 and AA5? I would say detail 0.5 and AA 6 or 8 would yield better results. The only detail is in the water, unless you wanted that to be extremely crisp.
Quote from: Kadri on June 20, 2020, 07:24:08 AMThe interesting thing is that like i like to tease ( :) ) Hannes sometimes of his chromatic aberration use in his images,
i actually saw the noise and sharpness but it looked OK here this time to me. Kinda funny-ironic ? :)
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Dune on June 20, 2020, 07:51:49 AMWhy detail 0.7 and AA5? I would say detail 0.5 and AA 6 or 8 would yield better results. The only detail is in the water, unless you wanted that to be extremely crisp.
I think, Ulco is right. Compared to the sky, the water looks very rough.
And there's this vertical line in the water. I remember there was a workaround for that, but can't remember at the moment.
Quote from: Dune on June 20, 2020, 07:51:49 AMWhy detail 0.7 and AA5? I would say detail 0.5 and AA 6 or 8 would yield better results. The only detail is in the water, unless you wanted that to be extremely crisp.
Yes that and because i made an animation test for a better look with different sun positions. Didn't want it to take too long.
Hannes (by the way ;D ) i searched for the workaround but couldn't find it strangely about that water problem.
I don't remember how to change it. Getting old probably.
I am just testing a crop with a planet node instead the lake object to see if there is any difference.
I am rendering one with 0.5 detail and AA 8 right now. Curious how it will look.
Ulco i actually use mostly AA6 and AA8 indeed when not needed more of course.
And as i had many versions i saw that the one i used had the sun strength not at 15
(that was a version with a much lower sun) as i said above.
It was 1.2 in this version. Soft shadow is ON this time.
I changed the water transparency to zero now as it is probably not much important here.
This will take a while. As it wasn't for the Ryzen 9 i bought lately i wouldn't do much of the latest renders probably.
Wasn't it something inside the render subdivision settings? Detail jittering or microvertex jittering?
Quote from: Hannes on June 20, 2020, 08:30:37 AMWasn't it something inside the render subdivision settings? Detail jittering or microvertex jittering?
Maybe. I will look later. For now postwork is OK. Thanks Hannes.
Isn't the line because of the 256 variation limit of a PF or something? And having to do with the x=0 line? Maybe shift the lake (if you used one).
I would indeed loose the transparency, but also the soft shadows won't be very visible. But if you have such a Ryzen monster, who cares?
Thanks Ulco. I will have a look later.
Soft shadow won't be visible probably but yeah as you said why not :)
This looks wonderful. Awesome pic, well done.
Thank you.
I tried some softer renders. In one the water was bad because of some things i changed probably (using a planet,soft light or whatever).
I just didn't change those things and just added a soft light and tried the suggestions from Hannes and Ulco about the vertical lines.
It worked as it looks. Thanks.
Detail was 0.7, AA 8. I think especially the changes about water made the image very slow to render. Instead of 3-5 hours it took 14 hours.
But no problem for a still image.
Curious what you think about this softer version.
I think, this is great now!
Yes, totally agree with Hannes. Terrific. But still I think detail 0.5 and maybe AA6 would yield similar results, and be faster. Maybe PT isn't even needed?
Thanks guys.
Ulco it could be enough probably. I wanted just to be sure instead of many re-renderings.
My Terragen version is old 4.1.25 there is no PT. Maybe the water especially could look different but i don't know.
Even better! Great work! :)
Quote from: Kadri on June 21, 2020, 08:34:10 AMThank you.
I tried some softer renders. In one the water was bad because of some things i changed probably (using a planet,soft light or whatever).
I just didn't change those things and just added a soft light and tried the suggestions from Hannes and Ulco about the vertical lines.
It worked as it looks. Thanks.
Detail was 0.7, AA 8. I think especially the changes about water made the image very slow to render. Instead of 3-5 hours it took 14 hours.
But no problem for a still image.
Curious what you think about this softer version.
I like this one...I see you got rid of the "center line" in the water....that bugged me in the earlier one
Thanks all :)