http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=11&Index=3443
Click on the blog.chipp.com to find a bigger version. There are things I don't like about Vue but this is cool.
this is also cool
but all these new 7.5 shots have very little depth in them compared to terragen 2
(http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs41/i/2009/051/9/a/The_Elysium_Seed_by_nukeation.jpg)
I agree. More images by the same artist (not the first one but the one in wetbanana's post):
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Procedural-Terrains-II-121599577
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Clementine-Wall-121330799
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Elysium-Wastelands-107082842
It looks like E-on have radically improved terrain generation and probably other ways of using procedurals. The only thing that lets it down in my opinion is the clouds. Both TG2 and Mojoworld have better clouds. TG2's atmosphere is better. The planetary thing in Vue 7 in no way compares either as far as I can see but there are clearly definite improvements elsewhere.
A lot of users use geocontrol and i think that mountain in the image i posted is from geocontrol
I wonder how he textures his rocks etc I assume it is all image imports I could be wrong ???
if you look at this image here
(http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs45/f/2009/123/e/d/ed6ea2007618498269a1b57d2acfe16d.jpg)
you can see that he hides alot of the poor texturing detail with the sun position i would like to see that first image with a different sun position :-\
here are some waterscapes with the new '7.5'
(http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs43/f/2009/146/8/a/8ad267831d59aa244051c065cb5c42fa.jpg)
um they look great at first bht when you look a little closer the fractal detail looks rather crummy I know terragen can do better water than that I just wish we could have a better foam system like vues
It does look like Geocontrol but those other renders seem to be using a lot of procedural distortions for both terrain and some displacement and colouring of surfaces. This is something new. Definitely as far as terrain is concerned. The terrain builder in Vue used to be chronically bad. It has clearly moved to way more powerful procedurals.
poor wouldnt you say?
not a pach on nvseals
(http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs43/i/2009/122/c/5/Vue_7_5_Planet_by_nukeation.jpg)
compared to
(http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/147/0/3/A_Different_World_UPDATED_by_nvseal.jpg)
As far as I know this planetary thing in Vue does not mean you can have the kind of infinitely vast levels of scale shown on nvseal's image.
Also, TG2's level of surface detail in the renders seems very good (somehow) compared to Mojoworld and Vue.
However, I see elements of procedural processing going on in Vue 7.5 that TG2 is not capable of without at least some more functions such as a proper curve graph and colour gradient. Stuff that Mojo is capable of.
Judging Vue by its planetary renders isn't fair, nothing compares to nvseal's planets. But even for landscapes it doesn't match the best work that I've seen on thse forums.
whenI get into an argument with vue fanboys i always show them this image
(http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=518&g2_serialNumber=2)
It seems to shut them up!
and yeah agree with efflux we need more tools to mod are terrain :(
@ darthvadar im judging vue by all its buggy new tech thats been cramed in their for the mases at top wack prices when they still havent even fixed performance issues memory leaks display issues and a list as long as my arm that have been in vue since I first started useing it and they where the days of Vue d'Esprit 4:o
My bad, my remark about not bashing Vue was not sarcastic enough, all of my experience with view has sucked as well.
no problimo dude lets bash vue together lol ;D im a fanboy :-[....!
No I still use vue sometimes I used to use it heaps before I got into terragen I was a vue suporter right up til 7 then it went downhill from their :'(
I just got the new e-on newsletter: http://www.e-onsoftware.com/about/newsletter/
All their new features and adverts to use GeoControl just show they're trying to catch up on a lot of native Terragen features 8)
Quote from: wetbanana on May 28, 2009, 12:38:38 AM
A lot of users use geocontrol and i think that mountain in the image i posted is from geocontrol
I wonder how he textures his rocks etc I assume it is all image imports I could be wrong ???
if you look at this image here
(http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs45/f/2009/123/e/d/ed6ea2007618498269a1b57d2acfe16d.jpg)
you can see that he hides alot of the poor texturing detail with the sun position i would like to see that first image with a different sun position :-\
He (nukeation, dax phandi) told me once he mainly uses World-Machine for his terrain and further adds details/displacements using built-in Vue-functions. So it are not imported images as far as I'm told/know.
He's a friendly and helpful guy by the way, doesn't bother him to explain how he did certain stuff and if I'm correct he's setting up a site with lots of tutorials and resources.
Let's say he's to Vue what we're to Terragen :)
Martin
the first image is great !!!
Awesome images. But, then I always say that and someone points out flaws. Okay...let's hear it. :P
Vue is coming along but it's still snubbing the hobbyist market. Plus it's not a good sign when game developers can acheive a similar result in their games. Re: Alan Wake
Alan Wake... one day maybe just maybe, it'll get released ;)
Not to detour this thread, but is Alan Wake another DNF?
No, it needs another decade under it's belt before we can call it that. There was a new trailer released recently (for Alan Wake recently anyways) so it should one day be on the shelves.
Im no way saying his work is bad his work is bloody amazing and i will be buying a few of his getspinning tutorials because they look brilliant maybe they can relight my vueside ;D
his clouds though are getting pretty close to tg standard and i think the lighting in the shadows of the renders I have seen looks much much better than in terragens
also this is really cool
(http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/126/5/7/57ae7c7be57ddca1aa8b2efcf75293b4.jpg)
Daz is obviously in a class of his own
I mean look at this
(http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs39/f/2008/357/4/1/410a90e552c8d68923b41636076c718e.jpg)
I wish we could do terrain and surfacing like this :(
and this image is truley amazing :o
(http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2008/242/7/f/The_Gate_to_Elysium_by_nukeation.jpg)
Vue procedural's
(http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Sphere-HyperTerrain-117189146)
As far as I know most of those last images are just Vue primitives or metablobs with photo-based textures and displacement. Similar things are possible in TG2 with the right images. Have you experimented much with photo-based displacement or texturing with TG2?
- Oshyan
I have but its always plagued with spiky artifacts everytime i have tried to do it
Probably your displacement amplitude is too high or your source image is too noisy. You definitely need to have the right images to make it work well.
- Oshyan
nope i have just done a quick test now and this actually seems to work damn well!
fist I create a surface layer
then I create an displacement shader
i then plug into the displacement shader an image map
i then go into the image map and change from through camera to plan Y and change the size from 1X1 to 1000X1000 (you can set it smaller if you need to) then i set the amplitude to around 5-10 in the displacement shader and the displacement shows up right away!
Could you let us see the image?
here are some very early beta test still needs a heap of work :-\
this first image is just one basic normal map applied to an inverted crater nothing to special but as you can see the concept is clear naturally you wouldn't leave this by itself you would add tg2 displacements
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2rgmjaq.jpg)
This second image is a combination of 3 normal maps and 2 displacement maps as well as a procedural displacement layer also some basic texturing (nothing to do with displacements
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2vhtzco.jpg)
Im going to find some more textures on cgtextures I will try ind some really odd ones see how they turn out ;D
Thanks - very interesting. When you say the second image has two normal maps and three displacement maps applied, what exactly is the distinction you are making?
this is a normal map
(http://i41.tinypic.com/24mxloj.jpg)
this is a displacement map
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2lnydxc.jpg)
OK, next question (pardon my ignorance). What is the difference between them with regard to what they do to the heightfield? And are they plugged in in different ways? (OK, 2 questions ;))
um.. wow, I never thought of displacing things this way...
I'm impressed, and have some new ideas.
You'll want to use a standard displacement map for TG2. I don't think a normal map like that will be interpreted properly.
- Oshyan
normal waps seem to work better than displacement maps for me ???
A normal map will work, I think it's just being interpreted in greyscale anyway. Convert your normal map to greyscale and see if you get the same results. I could be wrong here...
- Oshyan
I want to try bringing textures into TG2. Specifically from Mojo to get around for example no Voronoi basis in the power fractal.
Oshyan. I'm not so sure those textures in the Vue images are brought in maps. I think they are procedural. The link to these images at the e-on site at full scale fails for some reason so unfortunately they are small.
Large amplitude displacement:
(http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_7_infinite/images/s-materials-small_sha_lnk.jpg)
Volumetric:
(http://mirror-us.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_7_infinite/images/hypertexture-small_sha_lnk.jpg)
As far as I am aware Vue has two fundamentally important features. The ability to create curved functions and colour gradients.
Don't get me wrong though. Vue has a long way to go before I would start using it if in fact ever due to the high cost.
By the way, the bias and gain nodes now in TG2 have COLOSSAL importance for being able to create simple curves. Eventually I will get around to showing some ways of utilizing that (if nobody else is going to).
They are at least partially imaged based. See the following:
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Forest-Nook-116802716 (note in the description "image-based displacement")
And another:
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Quad-HyperTerrain-Mark-II-116664900
"This is a major displacement material that uses 2 bitmap displacement layers based on my own photos..."
Compared to a pure procedural version, which is much less interesting and impressive (the one he uses in his tutorial on the technique):
http://nukeation.deviantart.com/art/Creating-HyperTerrains-115406323
- Oshyan
Hey guys, thanks for the props for the image at the top of this thread. I'd like to make a couple of points about it and Vue in general.
First off, until recently, TG has had much better fractal diffuse maps than Vue ever had. But with Vue 7.0, Vue is starting to catch up. The image you referenced was a single and basic terrain fractal, with a bunch of distortion added.
Someone noted TG seems to do better large scenes (vistas) with depth in them than does Vue. There are of course some vista type scenes created by Vue, but one sees many more in TG galleries. You can check out this page (http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/index.php?index=0.041666666666667&page=nature&cat=2#) for some vistas-- be sure to click on the icons to see them in full size. I'm not sure, but I believe the vista issue has something to do with workflow as opposed to capabilities of each program. For instance, this recent render (orig 1600 wide, 2.2 hrs rendertime on 2.50 GHz Intel Core2 Quad CPU | scene creation time ~3 hrs):
(http://www.widgetgadget.com/stuff/HeroTree800.jpg)
Uses a single procedural terrain for the canyons and a HyperTerrain for the center rock formation. Granted, a single TG's Xfrog tree is still better than Vue's HD trees. The point is, IIRC, one 'searches around' for a view in TG, whereas typically one creates the view with multiple terrains in Vue. In the view above, I used the TG way of 'searching around' to find the scene for the hero tree. Still, I'm not sure Vue's fractals are quite as good for these type of scenes as TG's fractals are.
Regarding Vue's fractals, all of my terrain work, and most of Dax's terrain work (not all, but most of the recent work), I've been told is done directly in Vue's terrain editor. He's got a pretty nice tutorial out on it as well. And most all of his HyperTerrain work is done with procedural displacement, bump and diffuse maps. Vue doesn't do normal maps at this time. In particular, the distortion capability is nice for creating mud slides like in this image (~3 hrs rendertime | scene creation time ~3 hrs--already had model):
(http://www.widgetgadget.com/stuff/ScienceCenter800.jpg)
Clouds seem to be pretty much the same for both apps these days. Vue now has spectral2 clouds which are really quite impressive. Dax has some major cloud test renders here (http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs42/i/2009/121/1/0/Vue_7_5_Experiment_52_by_nukeation.jpg).
So, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask a few questions about TG2:
How long do you all typically take to setup a scene? How long to render? Can you get radiosity bounce from surrounding surfaces? This last question is particularly interesting, because IMO Vue's 7.0 lighting model really enhances landscape renders using radiosity-- just check out the top image in my post.
Lastly, I really do think it's more about the artist than about the software. It all comes down to what one is comfortable with.
best regards,
Chipp
I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure radiosity is the same thing as GI. It's only a different way of calculating it.
I belive what you see in your first image there is very possible with Terragen 2.
- Terje
Quote from: sjefen on May 31, 2009, 08:50:58 PM
I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure radiosity is the same thing as GI. It's only a different way of calculating it.
I belive what you see in your first image there is very possible with Terragen 2.
- Terje
Vue is very different w/regard to GI vs Radiosity. You can see an example here (http://blog.quadspinner.com/post/2008/07/22/Global-Illumination-vs-Global-Radiosity.aspx). I believe Radiosity is a superset of GI. In anycase, I don't know how TG interprets either.
I took a look at those images and to me it doesn't even look like the GI engine work. It is almost totally dark in the shadow area and that is probably why you have to use the radiosity engine.
- Terje
Quote from: sjefen on June 01, 2009, 07:52:11 AM
I took a look at those images and to me it doesn't even look like the GI engine work. It is almost totally dark in the shadow area and that is probably why you have to use the radiosity engine.
- Terje
I agree, however I think the Radiosity gives results which are not very easy to achieve with TG. You'd need some fill lights or extra enviro light set to AO and then mix it properly to get the right balance.
A single "engine" like radiosity would be quicker and easier then.
Another thing that can be done in Vue is you can choose what objects you want the light to effect which can be very helpful in some scenes. Would love to see this option in TG as well.
I'd just like to second TU's and Buzzzzz1's requests!
As for as I know, in a broad sense, GI is the overall lighting "concept". Radiosity is just one sub-concept of GI (ie. one way to pull it off). I believe "ambient occlusion" is another.
So in the case on the above post showing the examples, this is Vue's way of doing it.
Martin,
As to my other question, how long did it take you to setup this scene and render it? TIA -Chipp
(http://files.nwda.webnode.com/system_preview_detail_200001219-b5cdcb6c7e-public/Jungle-V6.jpg)
ambient occlusion with the right settings mixed with global illumination and a second dim sun backlight along with the main sun at brighter settings can pull of global Radiosity effects wish we did have a proper global radiosity as the one in vue really brings out the detail ;D
Quote from: wetbanana on June 01, 2009, 11:54:13 PM
ambient occlusion with the right settings mixed with global illumination and a second dim sun backlight along with the main sun at brighter settings can pull of global Radiosity effects wish we did have a proper global radiosity as the one in vue really brings out the detail ;D
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6581.msg70027#msg70027 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6581.msg70027#msg70027) ;)
Quote from: chippwalters on June 01, 2009, 10:38:19 PM
Martin,
As to my other question, how long did it take you to setup this scene and render it? TIA -Chipp
(http://files.nwda.webnode.com/system_preview_detail_200001219-b5cdcb6c7e-public/Jungle-V6.jpg)
Sorry, I think I missed your other question, however...I can't remember exactly.
From my head it took about 30 hours to render at 1080p resolution with pretty insane settings.
Setting up the scene from scratch, exclusive tinkering with TG bugs, was about 2 to max 3 working days I think.
I presume you'll reply you can do it faster with Vue :)
Martin
He could do that in Vue by pressing the New button ;D
QuoteI presume you'll reply you can do it faster with Vue :)
Not my point at all. I was just wondering. I've had Vue renders which take significant time to complete with not so hot results, so I'm in no position to throw stones at such an exquisite render.
best, Chipp
Quote from: chippwalters on June 02, 2009, 10:13:32 PM
QuoteI presume you'll reply you can do it faster with Vue :)
Not my point at all. I was just wondering. I've had Vue renders which take significant time to complete with not so hot results, so I'm in no position to throw stones at such an exquisite render.
best, Chipp
I don't think chipp is here to bash terragen I think he is just curious about are renders and how they where made
Quote from: wetbanana on June 02, 2009, 10:27:27 PM
Quote from: chippwalters on June 02, 2009, 10:13:32 PM
QuoteI presume you'll reply you can do it faster with Vue :)
Not my point at all. I was just wondering. I've had Vue renders which take significant time to complete with not so hot results, so I'm in no position to throw stones at such an exquisite render.
best, Chipp
I don't think chipp is here to bash terragen I think he is just curious about are renders and how they where made
I too thought that wasn't chipps intention :)
Thanks for the compliments chipp :) The image's thread can be found here:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5981.msg64223#msg64223 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5981.msg64223#msg64223)
Oops...what did I see there? It rendered in >20 hours...not ~30 ;D
Quote from: chippwalters on May 31, 2009, 09:12:33 PM
Vue is very different w/regard to GI vs Radiosity. You can see an example here (http://blog.quadspinner.com/post/2008/07/22/Global-Illumination-vs-Global-Radiosity.aspx). I believe Radiosity is a superset of GI. In anycase, I don't know how TG interprets either.
Hi Chipp,
Vue and Terragen use the term "global illumination" to mean different things, so it's not always obvious how to compare them directly. In Vue, "Global Radiosity" is a more realistic solution than "Global Illumination", but that's just a Vue thing. It may be an unfortunate side effetc of their introducing their better global illumination (which they called radiosity) after they had already released a simpler solution called global illumination (I may be wrong about the reasons though). In Terragen, Global Illumination is analogous to Vue's Global Radiosity (as I understand it). Global Illumination in Terragen tries to account for diffuse interreflections, specular interreflections (with limited quality), as well as light from luminous/glowing/emitting surfaces and atmosphere and clouds. Also, the clouds and atmosphere react to global illumination just like surfaces do (I think Spectral Atmospheres 2 has this now too).
So when we say Global Illumination in Terragen we're talking about a solution that tries to account for *any* kind of secondary light in the scene. No exceptions (unless you count inaccuracies or level-of-detail simplifications). In Vue, I think this happens with their "Global Radiosity", but they are using the term 'radiosity' incorrectly. In CG research, 'radiosity' is an old algorithm which was developed a long time ago to simulate
diffuse interreflections only. Global Illumination is a more general term for all lighting contributions which are not coming from direct light sources (to put it informally). So Radiosity is a
subset of Global Illumination in the wider CG community. In Vue it's just become a bit confused because of the terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(3D_computer_graphics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity_(3D_computer_graphics))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination
The radiosity article i linked to above is not to describe how Vue does it, because I believe Vue uses a Monte Carlo solution which is (or can be) more general than radiosity.
Matt
Quote from: wetbanana on June 01, 2009, 11:54:13 PM
ambient occlusion with the right settings mixed with global illumination and a second dim sun backlight along with the main sun at brighter settings can pull of global Radiosity effects wish we did have a proper global radiosity as the one in vue really brings out the detail ;D
In TG2, Ambient Occlusion is just a simplified version of Global Illumination that does not look at the colour of the surrounding environment, it only calculates the shadows, and you have to decide what colour and intensity to use. Global Illumination should give the most realistic results. Adding a second Ambient Occlusion light just adds more 'fake' light that really shouldn't be there. Sometimes this looks better because it allows you to simulate more skylight without making the sky brighter, which might be a way to deal with the huge contrast between sky and landscape, but I wouldn't say it's more photorealistic. OTOH, because fine shadow details are difficult to catch - without GI surface details which is SLOW! - there might be
some useful contrast boost within the shadows if you use Ambient Occlusion, but it's not really supposed to work that way.
Matt
If shadows are too dark with Global Illumination in TG2, the first thing I will always suggest to try is increasing the camera's exposure. There's even a widget for it in the 3D Preview as of v2.0 because I think it's a much overlooked setting.
Matt
Quote from: Matt on June 09, 2009, 07:20:28 PM
If shadows are too dark with Global Illumination in TG2, the first thing I will always suggest to try is increasing the camera's exposure. There's even a widget for it in the 3D Preview as of v2.0 because I think it's a much overlooked setting.
Matt
Thanks for the extensive info in your previous 3 posts Matt.
Increasing the exposure is a good solution for lighting up your shadows, but aren't you also increase your directly lit surfaces as well? (probably not directly proportional?) I think that isn't really desired always?
I still think it would be nice to have a setting similar to 0.9's "shadow lightness".
However, I must say that rendering with GI @ ~2/4 gives very nice results, though a tad slow, but still the best bang for bucks imo.
Thanks Matt. This understanding you've given is directly helping me on an image I'm working on now.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 10, 2009, 05:37:52 AM
Thanks for the extensive info in your previous 3 posts Matt.
Increasing the exposure is a good solution for lighting up your shadows, but aren't you also increase your directly lit surfaces as well? (probably not directly proportional?) I think that isn't really desired always?
Yes, it brightens everything, but if you want to brighten up only the shadows it usually looks unrealistic to me. Raising the exposure maintains the correct balance between sunlight and shadow which the GI has calculated for you. I really like that look of super bright highlights when you want to expose things for the shadows. Having said that, with low GI settings it may not be lighting things up quite as much as it should, so this is only a guideline.
Photographers sometimes use bounce cards or fill lights, but that usually looks unnatural to me. I prefer a realistic balance between sunlight and shadow that's motivated by the rest of the scene. But shortcomings of the GI system at low quality settings may influence how you want to change the lighting.
Quote
I still think it would be nice to have a setting similar to 0.9's "shadow lightness".
You can increase the GI contribution above 1. It's not 'correct', but it may do what you want, or it may be justified by a lack of accuracy at low GI settings. If you want complete control over the shadow colour and shadow lightness as in v0.9, just use Ambient Occlusion mode and then you can set whatever light levels you want. That's pretty close to what you did in v0.9.
Matt
I've been amazed at what you can do just by rendering out to a format like EXR - seems like you can bash on the exposure endlessly and still keep the image from blowing out or banding.
Quote from: Matt on June 09, 2009, 07:20:28 PM
If shadows are too dark with Global Illumination in TG2, the first thing I will always suggest to try is increasing the camera's exposure. There's even a widget for it in the 3D Preview as of v2.0 because I think it's a much overlooked setting.
Matt
Agree totally with scott8933.
Since we are actually often trying to emulate photos then we need to use similar techniques. Sky is often very bright compared to ground.
This is one render where I kind of experimented with adjusting sky and ground separately from exr. I think I actually rendered the atmosphere separately to use as a blend between two different exposures (exr adjustments) but I want to try different methods of blending the two exposures. Looking through my work, this image has some nice qualities of space and light that the others don't have. Also, I think TG2 shadows from atmosphere are often too dark. Many lightly overcast days are still quite evenly lit with no major shadowing. Ground may be much darker but not totally shadowed.
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5579.0;attach=14537;image
Agree about EXR. There is an interesting quality to the light here. What exactly do you mean by rendering the atmosphere separately? And how did you do the blending? (Sorry, my image manipulation skills are still in their infancy :))
I can't remember exactly. I used a grayscale of just atmosphere so ground was black. I think I used this as a blend between the sky and ground layers (exposed differently by adjusting in Cinepaint). However, I know I did something wrong. Didn't follow the correct idea somehow and there was some slight issue and workaround I had to perform. I'll do another render like this some time and experiment again.
Thanks for that. Perhaps this thread on alpha channels is related?
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=6066.0 Sounds like it can be used to mask the atmosphere.
I didn't do things quite right but it's something I want to try again. It all depends on the scene though, whether the ground is in shadows or poorly lit.
There would be a few pretty easy ways to do it - you could generate a z-buffer matte and use that to adjust two versions of the images separately. That's the easiest but I don't remember if TG does z-buffers or not.
The old-school 3D approach would be to render a second version of the scene: turn off all lights and atmospheric effects (no fog, no clouds, etc). Make the sky a flat white and 100% luminescent. Render that, and you'll have an image you can use as a matte.
Alternately you could put a big flat plane off in the distance (perpindicular to the camera), also 100% white and 100% luminescent, then render with sky turned off completely. Again, this will give you a nice matte where your background is white and everything in the foreground (that rock formation for example) is black.
Then just comp it up in Photoshop or AfterEffects using this new render as the matte to separate the two adjustments. You'll probably want to have some blur where the horizon is, if your adjustments are drastically different. A little blur everywhere in the matte can help too, since in real photos you tend to get bloom any time a super-bright area meets a dark one.
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.
Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
There would be a few pretty easy ways to do it - you could generate a z-buffer matte and use that to adjust two versions of the images separately. That's the easiest but I don't remember if TG does z-buffers or not.
The old-school 3D approach would be to render a second version of the scene: turn off all lights and atmospheric effects (no fog, no clouds, etc). Make the sky a flat white and 100% luminescent. Render that, and you'll have an image you can use as a matte.
Alternately you could put a big flat plane off in the distance (perpindicular to the camera), also 100% white and 100% luminescent, then render with sky turned off completely. Again, this will give you a nice matte where your background is white and everything in the foreground (that rock formation for example) is black.
Then just comp it up in Photoshop or AfterEffects using this new render as the matte to separate the two adjustments. You'll probably want to have some blur where the horizon is, if your adjustments are drastically different. A little blur everywhere in the matte can help too, since in real photos you tend to get bloom any time a super-bright area meets a dark one.
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.
This tutorial covers all your suggestions :)
http://nwda.webnode.com/news/creating-a-dof-in-tg2/ (http://nwda.webnode.com/news/creating-a-dof-in-tg2/)
Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.
I agree, After Effects is pretty good at that. Have you played much with Nuke?
I've used a little Nuke (actually I've tried
every compositing app I can get my hands on!) but my main needs are animation and graphic design, and AE is really the only decent solution for that, unfortunately. I think After Effects has totally stagnated, that its lack of competition in motion graphics has let Adobe get LAZY as hell. But here we are, stuck with it.
The high end apps like Nuke/Shake/Fusion just don't have much support for hardcore graphics. I guess the big bucks are in compositing. I'd love the methodology of Houdini applied to the graphics ability of AE. But I'm probably in the vast minority of designers who would want such a beast.
Node-based can't be beat, we all know that!
If my main work was in VFX and compositing, I'd have dumped AE years ago in favor of Shake or Fusion, and everyone I talk to these days says that Nuke is definitely the way to go right now. I'd love to hear other opinions on it from other designers - maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance. But I need
very strong typographic and animation support. Didn't seem like it had much in that department. Plus I don't think I could live without Trapcode Particular!
Quote from: Hetzen on June 12, 2009, 05:33:54 PM
Quote from: scott8933 on June 12, 2009, 01:54:22 PM
Personally I prefer AE to do color corrections, since its filtering is non-destructive.
I agree, After Effects is pretty good at that. Have you played much with Nuke?
You and I are very much on the same page. I'd say 90% of what I do is motion graphics, ie more layout and masks. But am increasingly being sucked into more realism, which to me is a good thing. Trapcode Particular I probably use in 50% of what I do, and mostly in unexpected ways, although it does have it's limits. I'm also finding Form to be rather interesting outside the box. Shine! LOL. How many people make a living off that one plugin?
I've just started on Nuke, as Shake seems to have been swallowed up by Apple, but have already seen the benefits in green screen and node application. Still I think AE reigns king in motion graphics, especially with expressions.
for my comp I always use an exr which I run through photomatix naturally ;D
I then use a mixture of photoshop and lightroom in photoshop I use the overlay filter alot which brings out a vivid quality 2 my pictures as well as the flaming pear atherize plugin which adds a dream effect to your pircture as well as the soft glare plugin then with a mixture of light ray brushes exposure settings colour adjustments in lightroom brings out the maximum amount of detail light and colour. :o
Just want to say, I have been using vue for about 6 months and thought about TG2 and trying that out.. but after reading many threads and seeing the TG2 attitude.. i'm kinda disgusted. So many vue haters, tg2 can do this, that etc better. Not really... it all depends on the artist there both equally as powerful tools.. You say "theses are new 7.5 renders and it seems it doesnt have depth like tg2" well DUH cause thats the setting in the atmosphere it doesnt mean vue cant fix that.. its the artist preference. Just annoyed to read so much VUE hate when probably 60% of who tried it and disliked it dont even know how to really work in it. Its ez to open a program and hit add terrain, clouds etc and hit render but to play around with complex settings to get advanced results can take time and most of the time those people are doing bigger things then just hobby work so their images are not posted.
I browsed through tons of tg2 images on this forum and some were terrible but they are learning experiences.. I seen the capabilities of tg2 and both vue7 and they both can create great things.
p.s those images were created in vue cause I seen the making of- used function editor with procedural fractals.. lots of control.
Hey ! Welcome on the forum !
That's a good first post... i mean, coming in and writing you feel disgusted about the attitude of TG2 users... that's a smart attitude ;)
Have any of you tried Blender? The new version has better compositing, material node structure, and it will do many of the things that 'professional' (i.e. expensive) products do. Blender is free, so it would not hurt to look at it. The interface is not the most user friendly. Fortunately, there are a lot of good (and bad) tutorials.
Quote from: njeneb on August 02, 2009, 08:23:09 AM
Have any of you tried Blender? The new version has better compositing, material node structure, and it will do many of the things that 'professional' (i.e. expensive) products do. Blender is free, so it would not hurt to look at it. The interface is not the most user friendly. Fortunately, there are a lot of good (and bad) tutorials.
I hardly can't wait to get some vacation/time-off and then I'll definitely dive into Blender. Hopefully it's bad weather then so I won't feel too sorry for myself sitting inside being a nerd instead of enjoying the good weather :P lol
There is never enough nerd time! ;D
I tried blender and got a decent planet out of it. Then I deleted it, cause the interface was insanely confusing. Like trying to text in a foreign language, while drunk, and covering one eye.
Try modeling a sphinx? I thought it would be cool to line the entrance road to my desert temple. I would get it nearly there, and the surfaces would start going wacky. I gave up. The compositing functions work well, but the interface is still, well just weird.
Quote from: comvat25 on August 02, 2009, 03:04:00 AM
Just want to say, I have been using vue for about 6 months and thought about TG2 and trying that out.. but after reading many threads and seeing the TG2 attitude.. i'm kinda disgusted.
A fool-proof cure for your disgust is to stop visiting this forum and go to Renderosity Vue one; there you will find thriving community of Vue fanboys.
Bye...
Evidently there is a great deal of immaturity here. Seriously, did you read my post til the end or just assume I was bashing from the start? From the way some of you react makes the community so very amateur and not professional at all.
Quote from: comvat25 on August 02, 2009, 01:55:28 PM
Evidently there is a great deal of immaturity here. Seriously, did you read my post til the end or just assume I was bashing from the start? From the way some of you react makes the community so very amateur and not professional at all.
What are you talking about ?
immaturity ? you come in the officila PlanetSide forum, don't present yourself or even say hello bu you start your post, your first post by a sentence that say that you're disgusted by the TG2 community !!! how the hell do you think people can deal with such rudness ?!
I did read your post til the end and I don't see the point... you're here to defend Vue, and it is very honorable of you, but your words are not more legitimate than ours :)
oh ! and I am an amateur ;)
Hi those of you complaining about the Blender interface, you should try the svn version of Blender 2.5 which should be out in a few months. The interface has been given a good go over and looks and feels a lot better. As with any big complicated application like this it's still going to take a while to work out what everything does and to get the most out of it you need to learn the keyboard shortcuts. But once you "get into it" you'll be amazed at what this application can do.
their official gallerie is good : http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/gallery/art-gallery/
Quote from: comvat25 on August 02, 2009, 01:55:28 PM
Evidently there is a great deal of immaturity here. Seriously, did you read my post til the end or just assume I was bashing from the start? From the way some of you react makes the community so very amateur and not professional at all.
I've known some of these people for a long time. We occasionally have fun -but no one here acts inappropriately. As far as immature goes, I will be 53 in a couple weeks, so I would hope that rules me out! You treat the Vue comments as "Vue bashing" or whatever. Most people here have used every single program they can get their hands on, and that would include Vue. There is no thread here for Vue haters, merely people that share the results from their efforts. - period.
First, I am looking forward to the interface makeover of Blender. I use Blender often. It is an amazing program. I do have issues with it, the most frustrating is the interface.
Second, Vue. I have a contact on Flickr who uses Vue. His heart is in the right place, but to be honest, his images are nearly always very novice. It is not for his lack of trying, I think it's Vue itself.
I don't want to bash the program. I used it for about one week, frankly good old VistaPro is a better program. (hmm, guess that is a bash) Anyway, I have seen few Vue renders which come close to what a novice can do with Terragen 2. I say use which ever program is best suited for your requirements and taste.
Seth- Your work is great, I checked out your portfolio. I'm not saying amateur as in work quality i'm saying by some of the attitude and assumptions that are made here to just show vue renders and try in every way to relate it to tg2 and how bad it is without understanding the quality of the render is amateur. Vue can create awesome renders with the right settings, light, terrain, materials and atmosphere just as tg2 can. I am interested in this software but I just find it discouraging to read on how some of the users do no accept other packages out there and just bash them. I can see this being great for a forum on vfxtalk.com or something where its open to any 3d program but you guys need to show respect. This is a Planetside Forum for terragen products. I come here to learn more about it and possible put it in my pipeline but i'm just concerned with some of the community that's all.
Matrix- I agree, I belong to many forums and there is a lot of jokes and stuff that go around but I never seen so many threads geared against one thing in a single forum.
Quote from: comvat25 on August 02, 2009, 05:46:27 PM
Vue can create awesome renders with the right settings, light, terrain, materials and atmosphere just as tg2 can. I am interested in this software but I just find it discouraging to read on how some of the users do no accept other packages out there and just bash them.
I totally agree with that. I like some Vue renders... and i won't be able to do what some people do with Vue. as you said, it is a matter of learning i think.
and I am no part in the TG2 Vs Vue war ^^
still, i prefer TG2 renders in matter of realism, the atmo is just much better to my eyes than Vue's... the main thing about Vue is that it has a much simpler interface, a better objects preview, etc... but at the end, it looks Vue...
anyway, if you wanna learn, you're welcome, but you must admit that your "welcome" post was a bit rude . And that respect must be share by each side.
Quote from: comvat25 on August 02, 2009, 05:46:27 PM
Matrix- I agree, I belong to many forums and there is a lot of jokes and stuff that go around but I never seen so many threads geared against one thing in a single forum.
Hi comvat,
I think you must have started with the wrong threads! This is a long thread, it's been going for a while, and because it specifically talks about Vue there is inevitably going to be some critical comparison between Terragen and Vue. I hope you haven't been put off coming back to our forums. I'd like to make this a place where people can really get a feel for what's possible with Terragen and learn how to get the best from it. This particular thread isn't really representative.
Matt
I don't know how TG2 is discussed in the Vue forums since you can't even access them without owning their software, but I'd be surprised if it was more open and fair than this. ;)
Seriously though, Matt said it well. This is probably one of the less even-handed threads here. There are lots of surprisingly good, balanced discussions, considering this is a TG-specific forum. :)
- Oshyan
Someday I'd like to get another trail of Vue. I am learning so much using Terragen 2 and from this forum, I don't have time. Every tool box has several screwdrivers. It would be interesting to use the best features of each program to make images and animation.
I don't really know what this "bad attitude" is. Sure, there is always going to be disagreements of opinion.
I started on Vue but went to Terragen. Terragen didn't last long due to lacking in procedural control and world scale so I went to Mojoworld. I stuck with that for a while and still use it. Then TG2 came out which had a whole load more power than Terragen so now I use that more than anything. I've used all these apps and at present TG2 has the most power to get the most realistic results. By realistic I don't necessarily mean earth like look just rich believable landscapes.
I started this thread because I could see some major advances with Vue recently from the interesting work.
These apps are competing in many areas. I'm sure the developers are interested in what each app is doing.
I think the problem is that people become fan boys of certain apps and get way too defensive rather than concentrating on what gets the results they want the best. After all, these apps all use many similar approaches. It is not that difficult to move from one to another.
I'm a big fan of 3D Coat. The volumetric sculpting is absolutely awesome. I will argue the case for that app but I can see that ZBrush has some things that are better. I just think 3D coat is excellent value and very well designed whereas many things in ZBrush are way more difficult. I have explored both apps properly.
Besides..... it's good to have two or more software's competing against each other. It makes the developers on both sides trying to be better and make a better software ;)
I choosed Terragen 2 cause it felt more natural for me, I liked the images in the gallery better and even tho I don't understand most of the nodes, I really enjoy what I do understand and manage to do with it.
Regards,
Terje
Quote from: sjefen on August 04, 2009, 02:42:17 PM
Besides..... it's good to have two or more software's competing against each other. It makes the developers on both sides trying to be better and make a better software ;)
Exactly. Vue has some new features and that has to be noted.
One of the problems with TG2 is that if you come from another app then TG2 could be very frustrating. It is capable of similar things and you may understand the theory of how it's done but working out how to use TG2s nodes to get those same results is a pain.
Also, a lot depends on what kind of landscapes you want. Vue is obviously great if you want lots of things in your landscape like vegetation but if you are into sculpting surfaces, rocks and terrains then TG2 is still superior.
I also see a lot of images coming from Vue and Mojoworld which I know TG2 is capable of but see two messages above.