The first TG2 render I'm really satisfied with...
Render size (2960x1050) set to fit my dual screen (1680x1050 + 1280x1024).
There was a lot of grain in the render, so I had to increase the clouds quality like I never did before :
- Quality 8 (1024 samples) for the big clouds
- Quality 13 (329 samples) for the fog-like clouds
- 256 samples for the atmosphere (I just saw that - I thought it was only 192 -_-)
Render time : 56 hours at detail 1.05 (yeah, I'm a bit crazy). AA 6, GI 3/3, GI blur radius 5.
Nice one. The interaction between the sun and the atmosphere is really nice.
You have done a great job here. I look forward to seeing more!
This is truly fantastic. And I mean it literally :)
Did you really required a detail of 1.05 and relative GI detail at 3? Have you tried doing crops in lower settings? I'm curious about the difference.
Thanks all :)
I think a lower detail would have still given a very good quality, but I'm not able to put a detail lower than 1. Something in my brain that says "noooo, no, it's bad !" ^^'
I always had a very old computer for my renders, and now that I have a good one, I can't help but put insane settings... For now.
looks great, i like the light on the clouds :)
sooner or later I'm going to make render for my dual screens at my job
The colours, the curvature of the planets, the overall composition drives my imagination ... lots of details that keep me interested. I am glad that You are satisfied with it ,-)
Quote from: Rhalph on September 10, 2009, 01:29:35 PM
I'm not able to put a detail lower than 1. Something in my brain that says "noooo, no, it's bad !" ^^'
we share the same problem ;)
Yeah, guilty pleasure. I think I saw this posted on facebook a couple of days ago.
You wouldn't see a difference between 0.8 and 1.0, not mentioning values above 1 :-)
Higher overall quality values are needed if you're doing some specific vegetation work or things including transparency (like water with visible beach for example).
I was starting with Q:0.9 and gradually decreased even as low as Q:0.7 for procedural-only renders (compensated with 2 or 3 more AA samples).
I've never completed anything with cloud samples at 1024 though. Respect :)
Spanking gorgeous... ;D
Hi
ahhhhhh wonderful...
ciao
Naoo
Quote from: PorcupineFloyd on September 10, 2009, 02:06:52 PM
I was starting with Q:0.9 and gradually decreased even as low as Q:0.7 for procedural-only renders (compensated with 2 or 3 more AA samples).
I always do detail 1 for final render and my AA usually is between 9 for no vegetation render to like 15 for vegetation's ones...
I agree that he may not see the difference between 1 and 1.05 but I really think he will if he put 0.7 :D
Yes, 0.7 would be too low for this one. I usually do my renders at resolutions 3600x2400 or bigger, so 0.7 is enough :)
I usually do 1200x750 or 1440x900 and always use 1 ! lol
Yes, on lower resolutions it's better to use higher quality settings and perhaps a sharper pixel filter, but on those really big scale renders it's usually not necessary.
Quote from: PorcupineFloyd on September 11, 2009, 11:00:57 AM
Yes, on lower resolutions it's better to use higher quality settings and perhaps a sharper pixel filter, but on those really big scale renders it's usually not necessary.
why is that ?
I would have think that with bigger size, you would have been able to see more details (or more lack of details)
Yes, you would be able to see more details, but those details progress relatively to the main quality slider and the resolution itself. If there isn't enough space available to render the detail a quality of 2 or even 3 won't help you.
Those super-low scale details won't even be noticeable if you decide to print the picture in 20x30 cm format, so I prefer to not pump-up the detail too much on bigger renders.
I would have to do some test-renders someday and put them on the wiki for public use.
Wonderful image, any chance you post a link to the big version of it? :D
Quote from: MacGyver on September 12, 2009, 05:12:24 AM
Wonderful image, any chance you post a link to the big version of it? :D
I can PM it to those interested (provided they are not complete strangers), but I don't want to post it directly :p
There were enough cases of renders being put on wallpapers websites or even being sold as posters, without authorization...