here are 2 new sunsets in cinemascope AR.
Two times the same scene, one with a horizontal FOV, another with a vertical FOV (same value). Both scenes have been rendered in quality 0.8, took ~35 minutes.
What I'm doing here is testing a few new techniques for the sunset pack II.
Before i continue down that road, I would be happy to hear a little bit from you on what you think about these two renders. Both renders have been postwork only slightly to add a little more contrast to the sky, so that the lit clouds come out better and more prominently.
Cheers,
Frank
Both really lovely :) I'm leaning toward the first but its very close. It would be great to get a popper "path of light" running from the sun to the foreground but I think thats another issue.
Richard
Very nice! I agree with Richard, am leaning towards the first a bit more too.
Perhaps a dumb question, but it seems that the type of FOV really gives different results, why/how is that?
Martin
thanks for the comments Richard and Martin.
On the wide AR the narrow horizontal FOV is essentially a zoom. I'm fitting 25 degrees horizontal FOV to 2.55:1 AR
If you look closely you'll see that the second render is just the center of the first render. The ship is fooling you, because I have pulled that closer for render 1. Just look at the sky and you will see.
Regards,
Frank
the first image without question...
the detail in the clouds is really nice...
Quote from: FrankB on June 15, 2009, 01:55:31 PM
thanks for the comments Richard and Martin.
On the wide AR the narrow horizontal FOV is essentially a zoom. I'm fitting 25 degrees horizontal FOV to 2.55:1 AR
If you look closely you'll see that the second render is just the center of the first render. The ship is fooling you, because I have pulled that closer for render 1. Just look at the sky and you will see.
Regards,
Frank
Ah yes, of course....you fooled me, easily :) Where's my tg-sharpness gone? :P
I'm in the minority - the second one is far nicer in my opinion. In the first one, the detail in the clouds just seems a little too sharp.
Both very nice images, I'd agree with others, my preference is for the first.
Is there a stronger post contrast on the second? Certainly looks as if there is.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 15, 2009, 02:43:52 PM
Ah yes, of course....you fooled me, easily :) Where's my tg-sharpness gone? :P
you still score 12:1 against me in that visual recognition of techniques used :)
It's frightening at times how well you know the program! :P
I just figured i need another ship. I like this one, it was a free model, but for a change, I need one with sails set. Preferrably a free model. Anyone know such a model?
Thanks,
Frank
Hi,
you could try sharecg there is a nice schooner model(obj) and some pretty
decent historic vessels (bryce 5 models) iirc.
thanks, I'll check that out. I have also found a free texaco freightliner as 3ds, but I can get poseray to convert this successfuly to obj... some object groups are "moved" against each other, so that the op and the bottom of the ship don't match anymore...
That's kind of common behaviour for many 3ds files unfortunately.
Nice. I like these ship scenes. They give a good sense of mood and space.
One thing I notice with skies is that real skies tend to have a lot of subtle variations like colour and atmosphere and of course a lot of variations in clouds. The cloud forms are obviously more difficult to vary that much however I find a little a little colour washing in post can dramatically improve skies. Not that I've done this that much but the images where I have done it are much better. It's best if it's very subtle. I find this app I use called Lightzone to be extremely useful for this because you can draw shapes on the effects layers and alter the blending areas. It's all non destructive so you can tweak around very subtly to get it just right.
thank you efflux. Thanks also for the tip with Lightzone. I will have a look at it. I agree that these subtle color variation greatly add to realism, if done right. I have attemped to use TG2 natively to create those color variations, in these 2, but also in a few other renders, such as this one here: http://nwda.webnode.com/album/photogallery/#anewdaydawns-web-jpg
I think it works pretty well. The abiIity to use multiple clouds layers at varying alitudes and densities gives you a lot of possibilities in this regards.
I had to "enhance" skies more in TG0.9 renders in the past. For example in this one here: http://www.planetside.co.uk/gallery/f/tg09/GalleryImage499686.jpg.html
Regards,
Frank
The one with the windmills is cool. I had thought of using different cloud layers for this kind of thing or we could have a future facility to drive the cloud colours with a fractal even the same fractal that is driving the shapes. I'm playing with that first render you did because it's the type of thing I'd bring into Lightzone. Lightzone has this relight algorithm that achieves some interesting effects especially with clouds. I will post the results so you can see what it does.
Hi Frank.
I didn't get around to this until today. Here is a post worked version in Lightzone. Ideally you want to get a 16 bit image into Lightzone. I tried to increase the sense of depth. Break it up a bit. The relight effect gets good results on water.
I see the difference. However I like the original lighting better, in this case - but thanks for demonstrating this with my image anyway. I've seen most of the tutorial videos on the Lightzone website and I am convinced that this tool is great. It's just that I did not always agree their end result was "better". Maybe it was, but I think a couple of the demo shots became less interestig the way they applied the changes.
Cheers
Frank
I had a go at LightZone, great potential, my only issue is that it don't seem to recognise the exr format. Seems like a hole bunch of potential is being missed ...
:)
Richard
I think the problem is that some of the effects, specifically the relight one, are being demonstrated as some complete fix for a picture that was originally very badly lit or exposed. I see the beauty in minor tweaking - just washing across with various subtle effects. It's great for this because of the non destructive real time - you can go back and alter any effect layer.
It doesn't do exr. You have to use another app then bring into Lightzone as 16 bit tiff. Of course it would be cool if it did do exr but I suspect that having loads of real time effects layers with visual editing of selections etc all updating with every tweak could be a problem with exr.
I do things in stages. Sort the exposure of exr in Cinepaint (or whatever app you use) then I bring into Lightzone but often after than I bring into Gimp - mostly sharpening or refocusing etc after I have the final size for the image. Gimp seems good for this last adjustment.
Also, the general idea behind Lightzone is implied in it's name. If follows a system Ansel Adams used for zones of tone. You see each zone in a small thumbnail - highlighted when you hover across them in the zone mapper. I find the app very very good simply from a visual feedback way of working. At the end of the day, although other apps can do the same things, you actually can't do it because you can't see what you are doing and go back and change anything easily.
Of course what I especially like is the Linux version :)