Hi all. I was mucking around with the X-Frog Sweet Birch model and thought I'd give it a run for its money. There are 3 different models here, a young, adult and a mature. I have had a go with adding some translucency to the leaves. I may well muck around with the ammount. Quick question, do you need to specify the leaf image map in the translucency image bit or can you just plug in a number?
Anyway, heres the link http://www.gintdev.co.uk/mr-miley/grafix/Things%20are%20looking%20up.jpg (http://www.gintdev.co.uk/mr-miley/grafix/Things%20are%20looking%20up.jpg). The file size was too large to post here cause its at 1600 x whatever.
C&C Welcome
Miles
I like the lighting, looks quite natural.
The bark is a too dark here on my tft at work.
I can see that the bump-map you've used results in spiky displacements.
You can better not use a grayscale version of your image map for displacement.
An approach is to make the image map grayscale and then run a "charcoal" like filter over it in Photoshop.
Then blur this result significantly and use that as a bumpmap.
The bumps will look more natural and on the right place and is also less spiky.
If you'd like I could send you some files to demonstrate.
It's also posted here on the forum, but can't remember where. If I do remember I'll post a link here.
Martin
Some translucency in the leaves would make it more realistic.
I look forward to see what you do, Mr. Miley.
Quote from: mr-miley on July 10, 2008, 07:57:44 AMQuick question, do you need to specify the leaf image map in the translucency image bit or can you just plug in a number?
Just using a number is fine, because it is basically a multiplier for how much of the diffuse colour (including diffuse image and diffuse function) gets through to the dark side. Using another image for the translucency, or tinting the translucency colour, can richen the effect, but it still acts as a multiplier for your diffuse colour/images etc.
Matt
Ta very much for the comments...
TU, Yeah, the displacement was a bit much :) I have turned it off for the render below, it didn't realy need it as the bark map looks good without it. I didn't do the bump map properly in the 1st place.... too lazy ;D
Calico, I did use a bit of translucency on the 1st one, but not too much (or should that be not enough).
The one below has a lot more dialed into the leaves and definately looks better (well I think so anyway :D )
Matt, thanks for that. I presumed it was the case. Does that mean that if you use a transparency map it constrains all other efects (colour, translucency etc) to the opaque area?
The below link shows the more translucency version full size, the thumbnail goes to a resampled version. I ran the finished render through Corel Photopaints Auto Adjust and tweaked the tone curve very slightly. C&C wanted.
http://www.gintdev.co.uk/mr-miley/grafix/Things%20are%20looking%20up2.jpg (http://www.gintdev.co.uk/mr-miley/grafix/Things%20are%20looking%20up2.jpg)
Miles
I agree. The leaves look better in this one. Fine work.
Quote from: mr-miley on July 11, 2008, 04:08:25 AM
Matt, thanks for that. I presumed it was the case. Does that mean that if you use a transparency map it constrains all other efects (colour, translucency etc) to the opaque area?
An opacity map controls where the leaf is visible, so in that sense it constrains all other effects, yes.
Matt