Planetside Software Forums

General => Image Sharing => Topic started by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 10:08:57 am

Title: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 10:08:57 am
My attempt to reproduce this photo of Kirkjufell mountain in Iceland
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: inkydigit on March 01, 2016, 10:51:09 am
looks great! 8)
any info on how?
:)
J
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: archonforest on March 01, 2016, 10:59:59 am
stunning end result :)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Kadri on March 01, 2016, 11:15:48 am

Looks great.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: mhaze on March 01, 2016, 11:29:38 am
Superb - the water is particularly good
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 01, 2016, 11:47:56 am
Indeed, a great render. I would very much like to know how much is TG, and if any photo's are used.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 11:54:30 am
Thanks for your comments!

Inkydigit - some info

It's all vector displacement, no proceedural terrain, I grabbed a low res 3d model from Google Earth of the area and sculpted around that. Actually, I couldn't get any detail for the foreground area, so had to sculpt that from the photo reference, so I think I screwed up the scale a little. :-)

Used Maya and Realflow to add the grass (using fur) and water, and hand painted the snow masks for the mountain.

I thought it would be a challenge to recreate, espcially as the original photo has a nice overcast look, whilst still being quite punchy, but getting that in Terragen was quite difficult and made the image look very flat! So I went with a more directional look for the lighting.

Dune - no photos at all, just a lot of masks!
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 01, 2016, 12:26:31 pm
Good to hear that, DG. But realflow is external and I was hoping you'd have a nice new way to do water in TG  ;) So the water is an object, or how does that work? If you care to explain, that is.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 12:46:29 pm
Hi Dune,

Sorry to get your hopes up for a new water technique in Terragen!

Realflow (or Bifrost in Maya or Houdini) is the best way to get that kind of water flow. And the white water is mostly particles, so they are rendered in Maya and composited over the TG renders.

Just had a look at your website and there's a really nice image of a medieval shipwreck, with some spray - did you do yours in TG with volumetrics?
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 01, 2016, 01:18:03 pm
QuoteUsed Maya and Realflow to add the grass (using fur)


I think maya for the fur. Is that also comped or do you know a way to export maya fur???! I find fur to be really nice to use, easy and quick, can't find a way to export though. Any thoughts on it?

Great image and effort, really enjoyed seeing a return to iceland. Thanks.


Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 02:08:42 pm
Hey Badger,

I comped the fur, I didn't try to export it as geometry, though I think you can. The file sizes would be huge though and you'd lose the native hair shaders which are much more effcient at rendering the hair.  Using the hair in this instance needed a lot of blending into the TG terrain, so comping it in was the best way to go.

p.s you can convert paint fx hair to polygons in the Modify/Convert menu
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 01, 2016, 03:09:12 pm
Thanks. I don't think there is any way to export the fur. I was just hoping you knew something that had not been shared on the open web.
I don't really like the paint effects fur too much compared to the "fur", the fur is much easier to deal with for sure, for me in terms of getting a particular look. But I guess  I could also just make a fur to paint with too.

I am hoping that in TG4 we will be able to export from TG via vector, and also have cleaner more manageable mesh export. Imagine the power of the workflow you just demonstrated when you can go in any direction as much as you like!

thanks agin for info, DG

Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 01, 2016, 03:23:05 pm
Quoteand also have cleaner more manageable mesh export


I use that a lot, but the mesh always needs a lot of cleanup to use elsewhere.

QuoteI am hoping that in TG4 we will be able to export from TG via vector


sounds interesting - what's that?
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: DocCharly65 on March 02, 2016, 02:46:09 am
Nice result anyway  :)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 02, 2016, 03:14:41 am
Thanks for your explanation, DG. Despite (or thanks to) the comping a great image!! Regarding my spray; yes, that's a localized cloud. But doing a river with localized cloud would be a lot harder. You can have cloud follow terrain, but still...

I hope to see more of your work here, inspirational.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 02, 2016, 02:06:02 pm
QuoteI am hoping that in TG4 we will be able to export from TG via vector

sounds interesting - what's that?


I thought you used vector maps to make your image?

Well I think that if we get it, then we will be able to export anything we make in tg as a vector displacement map, So we will be able to easily use TG as a way to create incredibly detailed brushes for sculptures and what ever other soft lets you use vector to displace. Also, I guess that TG will become much more useful for real time.

8)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 02, 2016, 02:40:52 pm
 
QuoteI thought you used vector maps to make your image?

see what you mean now, long day yesterday...

yes, that would be very useful, it's a bit of a mission to export a mesh, clean it up and you always lose a little in translation.

don't think it would be a trvial thing to implement though
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: inkydigit on March 02, 2016, 02:42:37 pm
thanks for all info.. great job! :)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 03, 2016, 02:55:08 am
Well, there is a 'displacement to vector' function, but it's not working (yet) for export.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 04, 2016, 02:15:47 am
Quote from: Dune on March 03, 2016, 02:55:08 am
Well, there is a 'displacement to vector' function, but it's not working (yet) for export.


You should be able to use that to colour a plane (luminosity channel) and render it with a camera looking down from above. The rendered image is then a usable vector displacement map, as long as you save to EXR to record negative values. But I haven't tried it.

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 04, 2016, 02:18:01 am
Okay, thanks Matt, I'll do some experimantation.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 03:05:56 pm
Hey Dune, The Badger and Matt,
I tried Matt's suggestion to get vector displacement output from Terragen and it works.

First I tried regular scalar displacement, heres the Terragen render:
[attach=1]

and a Maya render of a flat plane displaced with an Exr from Terragen
[attach=2]

and a flat plane displaced with the same Exr in Mudbox:
[attach=3]

And also but not least!

The same terrain with some fake stones rendered from Terragen:
[attach=4]

and the Maya scene rendered with vector displacement on a flat plane:
[attach=5]

and finally a plane in Mudbox, using vector displacement  (using Absolute Tangent as the vector displacement type):
[attach=6]

Set up in Terragen as Matt suggested, the trick was to use a Displacement shader to vector piped into a Surface shaders luminosity, but making sure the Displacement shader to vector is taken before the Compute Terrain. Also, making sure the Plane object is sitting at 0 in Y coordinate.

Then used a Render Layer to isolate the plane so the terrain was hidden and did a top down ortho render out to OpenExr.

Works really well!

I used to use the Micro Exporter to get terrain geometry out of Terragen, and I just found a post from Paq about the vertex merging problem, I used a free program called Meshlab to fix those duplicate verts easily and also do a nice decimation, but the meshes from the Mudbox displacement are great, very clean and quads too! (a little on the large side though :-), but you can choose the level of detail you need.

I guess the same process would work with something like Zbrush too, once you've got the vector displacement map.

Here's a link to the Terragen TGD files if you want to have a play:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81475291/terragen_vector_displacement.zip

Graham

p.s vector map is rendered at 4k and a little detail is lost, but I like what it does to the fakes stones!
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 04, 2016, 04:13:13 pm
oh man. Its like christmas, only I did not need to be good at all, and winter is over too.

Which version was this added in?

Gonna down your files so I can see exactly how you set up the nodes so I don't waste any time wit dat   :D 8)

Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 04, 2016, 04:18:22 pm
Quotep.s vector map is rendered at 4k and a little detail is lost, but I like what it does to the fakes stones!


We definitely need to have a max test too! At some point it needs to be known how many pix is needed to get a one to one result.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 04, 2016, 04:19:54 pm
Much thanks for this chain, guys!

:-*
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: zaxxon on March 04, 2016, 05:04:36 pm
This is very, very cool! Almost an 'oh by the way', look what's just sitting there in TG. To be able to take TG terrains out to Mud and other DCC apps has been a problem for sure, but this may be the missing link to accomplish many things on my wish list. Thanks Digital Guru for jumping on this and providing the files.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 04, 2016, 05:56:04 pm
ok

This is a bit confusing to me. Was the same with bringing in vectors at first too though, so hope I will get this. (in the case of bringing in vectors, it took a bunch of nodes at first, but then someone figured that it only took two)

[attach=1]

So for the broken headed among us (mostly me) slow and steady now... How to make this work? I don't feel like I am seeing what was described.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 04, 2016, 06:31:08 pm
Quote from: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 03:05:56 pm
Hey Dune, The Badger and Matt,
I tried Matt's suggestion to get vector displacement output from Terragen and it works.


Living up to your name, Guru :)

Thanks for trying it out and confirming that it really works. This technique could be really useful.

I don't understand why it wouldn't work when connected after the Compute Terrain, but that suggests there could be a bug in Displacement To Vector.

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 06:38:55 pm
QuoteI don't understand why it wouldn't work when connected after the Compute Terrain, but that suggests there could be a bug in Displacement To Vector.


That had me going for a while, when I rendered the exr it looked like there was diifuse shading in the map.

Plugging it in before the Compute Terrain produced a render that looked like a proper greyscale luminance map (this was when I was testing a straight displacement to scalar before trying out the vector method)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 07:09:57 pm
Badger.
No worries, here you go:
•   Set up your terrain displacements. In this instance, all of the terrain is defined before the Compute Terrain node. I haven't tested it yet with any major displacement after that node.
•   Create a Plane object in Terragen.
•   Line it up so it covers the terrain you want to capture in X and Z coordinates, and covers the area needed. In this instance the Plane is 8000 x 8000.
•   Create a camera, set it to Orthographic and line it up over the Plane. Set the Ortho width to 8000 to match the Plane (and the Terrain).
•   Create a Displacement shader to vector node and connect it to the last node under the Terrain group before the Compute Terrain node.
•   Go into the Internal Network for the Plane, where you'll find the Default shader attached to the plane.
•   Open up the Default shader and turn Diffuse Color down to zero, we only want to see the luminosity from the shader.
•   Create a Vector to Color node and pipe it into the Luminosity Function of the Default Shader.
•   Connect the Displacement shader to vector from outside the Planes internal network to the input of Vector to Color shader. Now the displacement from the terrain is piped into the Luminosity of the Planes shader.
•   Now go up a level into the Main node network.
•   This part had me going for a while, I could see the vectors projected on the plane successfully, but I thought I should move to the Plane up in Y so it would occlude the terrain in the final render. But the rendered image didn't match the original terrain.  So I translated the Plane down to 0 in Y and it worked - not sure why! Maybe it's because the Displacement tests against the ground level of the Planet to see what is positive and what is negative displacement, Matt would know more about this one.
•   So, make sure the Planes Y coordinate is 0.
•   All that's needed now is to make only the Plane renders and not the Terrain.
•   Create a new group and move the Plane node into the group. Right click on the Group and select Group:Capture Nodes.
•   Create a new Render node and attach the Ortho Camera.
•   Create a Render Layer and attach it to the new Render node.
•   In the Objects tab of the Render Layer add the Group containing the Plane to Object Group 1.
•   Turn off Cast shadows and other rays for the Object Group 1.
•   At the bottom of the Objects tab, make sure Render is set to Invisible and Cast shadows and other rays is turned off.
•   The original terrain will now not be visible in the final render.
•   Set the Render node to a square format, for example 4096 x 4096.
•   Turn off Do Shadows, Atmos/Cloud Visible and set the output to OpenExr.
•   Render was relatively quick, I left Detail and Anti-aliasing to the defaults of 0.5 and 0.3, don't think they are that crucial when rendering displacement for a map, but Matt can correct me on that one.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 04, 2016, 08:44:55 pm
Quote from: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 07:09:57 pm
•   This part had me going for a while, I could see the vectors projected on the plane successfully, but I thought I should move to the Plane up in Y so it would occlude the terrain in the final render. But the rendered image didn't match the original terrain.  So I translated the Plane down to 0 in Y and it worked - not sure why! Maybe it's because the Displacement tests against the ground level of the Planet to see what is positive and what is negative displacement, Matt would know more about this one.


When the plane is rendered, its surface position determines the texture coordinates for the shaders it's sampling. Power Fractals are 3D textures, so changing the Y position of the plane will change the texture which is generating the terrain. So the plane needs to perfectly match with the undisplaced planet. For complete accuracy you should just render a planet, not a plane, because of the curvature.

Quote
•   Render was relatively quick, I left Detail and Anti-aliasing to the defaults of 0.5 and 0.3, don't think they are that crucial when rendering displacement for a map, but Matt can correct me on that one.


Personally i would increase the Detail to about 0.8 (or maybe even 1.0) to get the micropolygons to be about the size of a pixel. Otherwise you're not really getting the full benefit of that 4k resolution and potentially producing artefacts as values jump from one micropolygon to the next (because each micropolygon is solid shaded). Anti-aliasing of 3 should be good enough.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 04, 2016, 09:06:22 pm
Hi Matt,

Thanks for the info! Good to know.

QuoteWhen the plane is rendered, its surface position determines the texture coordinates for the shaders it's sampling. Power Fractals are 3D textures, so changing the Y position of the plane will change the texture which is generating the terrain. So the plane needs to perfectly match with the undisplaced planet. For complete accuracy you should just render a planet, not a plane, because of the curvature.


Thought it might be something to do with that, and I guess on a small-ish patch of 8000m x 8000m the curvature is minimal.
I'll try using an additional planet instead of a plane tomorrow.

QuotePersonally i would increase the Detail to about 0.8 (or maybe even 1.0) to get the micropolygons to be about the size of a pixel. Otherwise you're not really getting the full benefit of that 4k resolution and potentially producing artefacts as values jump from one micropolygon to the next (because each micropolygon is solid shaded). Anti-aliasing of 3 should be good enough.


Ok! So Detail 1.0 = 1 micropolygon per pixel

Even so, rendering at Detail 0.5 produced a much much better match when displacing in Maya than I've seen before, Detail 1.0 should look very good indeed!
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 05, 2016, 02:42:34 am
You beat me with your experiments, great job. Good that it works! But do you really need a compute terrain? I do a lot without one, which is much faster (~50%). And if so, how about patch size?
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 05, 2016, 08:10:15 am
QuoteWhen the plane is rendered, its surface position determines the texture coordinates for the shaders it's sampling. Power Fractals are 3D textures, so changing the Y position of the plane will change the texture which is generating the terrain. So the plane needs to perfectly match with the undisplaced planet. For complete accuracy you should just render a planet, not a plane, because of the curvature.


I couldn't make projecting the displacement onto a planet work, so I used the Lake object instead as that follows the curvature of the planet - works just as well. Haven't tested it on a very large terrain, but I imagine that's where you might see some misalignment.

I've attached a new TGD file for this, and added a render layer for the Beauty render which hides the water object.

QuotePersonally i would increase the Detail to about 0.8 (or maybe even 1.0) to get the micropolygons to be about the size of a pixel. Otherwise you're not really getting the full benefit of that 4k resolution and potentially producing artefacts as values jump from one micropolygon to the next (because each micropolygon is solid shaded). Anti-aliasing of 3 should be good enough.


Tried it at Detail = 1 and it's better, at a minimal increase in render time.

Dune - no, you don't need a Compute Terrain node. In fact, as mentioned, the Displacement to vector should be taken before that node. The test scene I used is very simple and there's no shading going on that needs the Compute Terrain piped into it, I just didn't delete it.

The next thing to test is add small scale displacement further down the tree into the shading group. My approach has usually been to do large scale displacements / terrain sculpting then a Compute terrain - then adding small scale displacements along with shading after that. It will be interetsting to see how that could work and preseve that extra detail. You say you don't use the Compute Terrain node sometimes, are there certain situations where you don't need it?


Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: j meyer on March 05, 2016, 11:28:47 am
Very interesting experiments. 8)

I'm afraid this does not work with ZBrush, though. As far as I'm aware ZB does not read
vdisp maps it just produces them for export.
If anyone knows a way, please let us know.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 05, 2016, 12:28:02 pm
If a slope is not needed you can very well do without a compute terrain. Heights seem to be updated from the first displacement, so that's not the problem. Sometimes a XYZ shader is enough and you can get interesting results using that along the line somewhere (not even need for using its input). Only if you work with blue nodes and get position, that sort of thing, it is sometimes needed. When using smoothing and displacement intersection obviously you do need one.
I am lately trying to get decent terrains as fast as possible.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 05, 2016, 02:43:32 pm
Quote from: digitalguru on March 05, 2016, 08:10:15 am
QuoteWhen the plane is rendered, its surface position determines the texture coordinates for the shaders it's sampling. Power Fractals are 3D textures, so changing the Y position of the plane will change the texture which is generating the terrain. So the plane needs to perfectly match with the undisplaced planet. For complete accuracy you should just render a planet, not a plane, because of the curvature.


I couldn't make projecting the displacement onto a planet work, so I used the Lake object instead as that follows the curvature of the planet


I just tried it with a planet and it works for me. Newly created planets are in a different position from the default scene, and that produces different results, but if I just copy the original planet it works correctly.

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 05, 2016, 02:53:21 pm
thanks Matt, I'll give it a go

update: yes it does... I made a new a new planet node last time and coped the values from the default - must have missed something somewhere



Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 05, 2016, 07:41:53 pm
GREAT!

But this IS very complex, don't you guys agree?

I have to say I'm conflicted on the Vector to Zbrush issue. On the one hand I say good!.. Serves you right for having so much awesome that you need a little suck. But on the other hand, Im like, AH CRAP!.. Needs me to see some work from the Z guys on this.  ;D
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 05, 2016, 07:49:17 pm
Are you talking about the displacement map export?

It's simpler now, no need to set up a plane, just copy the Planet node and plug the displacement to vector (or scalar) nodes into that.

Check out the attachment in the previous post.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 05, 2016, 10:51:27 pm
Quote from: TheBadger on March 05, 2016, 07:41:53 pm
GREAT!

But this IS very complex, don't you guys agree?


It's not a feature as such, so yes it's more complicated than I'd like. If it were an advertised feature it would have to be simpler than this. I do want to add this as a proper feature in future. But I'm glad TG has the low level tools to do all sorts of things like this (by design).

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 05, 2016, 10:54:37 pm
The steps involving Render Layers aren't necessary if you just enable and disable objects by hand.

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 06, 2016, 02:07:47 am
I haven't checked your files yet, nor done any experiments, but why would you need 2 planets? Isn't the existing enough? Just unhook the initial line of displacement, I'd say, from my head.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 06, 2016, 04:54:03 pm
QuoteIt's not a feature as such, so yes it's more complicated than I'd like. If it were an advertised feature it would have to be simpler than this. I do want to add this as a proper feature in future. But I'm glad TG has the low level tools to do all sorts of things like this (by design).

Matt


Looking forward to a refining, Matt. I have opened an old project and started working again because of OP's work. Going to see how much trouble I can cause.

It was already set up for this (started it in TG and built it to be exported). Hope I can get through it. Also going to use it for the VR thing if I can make it work. Only have a couple of days a week now to play, and sadly not even all hours of those days.  :-[

Will prove very useful project going to unreal too, if I can get through the first two softs. Then I will understand in practice how well the free flow pipeline can really work, or not work.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 06, 2016, 05:32:44 pm
Hey Dune,

No reason not to use the original planet, I used the render layers so it could always be setup and you wouldn't have to disconnect and reconnect nodes to re-render the vectors.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 06, 2016, 06:05:04 pm
DG,
What else are you working on using the methods so far discussed in this thread?
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 06, 2016, 07:44:47 pm
Just refined the method a bit.

Check the attached files.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: bobbystahr on March 06, 2016, 08:23:30 pm
well done, fake stones and all.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 07, 2016, 02:02:01 am
Thanks for the setups, DG. It's great that this works.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 07, 2016, 08:44:45 am
I've just realised that the scalar setup scene had one small error - one of the displacement objects was casting shadows in the main render, so updated scene attached.

Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 07, 2016, 01:04:55 pm
some more experiments...

taking the feed for the displacement from before the Compute Terrain is a bit limiting, so the next step was to test if I could export the displacement further down the chain - after say, you've make some smaller displacements along with surface shading.

Vector displacement seems to work ok, but scalar (non vector displacements) not so well.

Problem is, if I take the displacement after the compute terrain node,  looks like diffuse shading gets into the map, when it should be a pure greyscale map:

Scalar displacement with Compute Terrain OFF:
[attachimg=1]
Scalar displacement with Compute Terrain ON
[attachimg=2]

These are using the blue Displacement to Scalar node - I don't seem to have that problem with the Displacement to Vector node

To get around that I used a Displacement to Vector node and converted that into a scalar using this combination of blue nodes:
[attachimg=3]

Is there a better way of converting the vectors to a scalar in this instance? The displacement doesn't match as well as when I plugged it in before the Compute Terrain.

At the end of the day, using outputting vector displacement is the most accurate way to go, but there are situations where regular scalar displacement is the only option (using it with Zbrush fro example) - but it would be great to get the process working as well with scalar displacements as with vector.

p.s attached updated TGD scene files:




Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Dune on March 08, 2016, 01:51:28 am
How about 'vector to colour'? Did you change the patch size of the compute node? It might need to be a meter or so, instead of 20m.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: Matt on March 08, 2016, 05:06:09 am
Either simply take the Y component of the vector or do a dot product with Get Normal In Geometry. For terrains near the origin both methods will give the same result.

By the way, converting scalars to colours is redundant, and so is converting vectors to colours. These conversions happen automatically.

Matt
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 08, 2016, 07:36:25 am
that's great and much simpler  :)

[attachimg=1]

vector displacement is very accurate comapred to the original terrain,

good now scalar works, but obviously any non Y displacement is lost.

wish I had this working when I made this original Kirjufell render!

thanks for all you advice
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 08, 2016, 12:05:13 pm
I can understand that you and matt understand what you are talking about, but thats about it.
Still VERY glad for the work you are doing, and for your doing it in the open.

THANK YOU!!

8)
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 08, 2016, 12:27:32 pm
hey Badger,

it's a lot simpler now, try this scene - just change the output path in the Sequence/Output tab of each render.

Then try loading the vector render into Mudbox to displace a terrain. Note this terrain is 8000x8000 so create a flat plance the same size.

Or if you have a 3d package that does vector displacment do the same with 8000 x 8000 plane.

give me a shout if you have any questions :-)

p.s if I get some time, I'll do a video tutorial
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 08, 2016, 04:52:38 pm
Hi, I have a couple of days now this week, so I plan on going on a 3D binder  :D I will try to go through everything paying close attention to what you and others wrote, but my only real hope is just to use what you did effectively.

I will be glad to see a tut on this topic. Hope it gets others involved too. Love to see what people can do once they learn this method for the soft that they own or have access to.

Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 11, 2016, 06:54:06 pm
Saw an image from this thread in the new news letter, that linked to Facebook. Gives me hope that behind the scenes PS hs taken a big interest, since they used the image from mud... But the link from the image did not talk about vectors... Well I did not go through every link that Oshyan posted, so not sure. But still, the more interest PS takes, than the bigger chance they will develop for the topic in this thread sooner/better!

Just wild speculation of course.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: digitalguru on March 14, 2016, 11:54:01 am
That's cool!

b.t.w I posted a video for in the tutorials section.
Title: Re: Kirkjufell mountain
Post by: TheBadger on March 15, 2016, 12:04:24 pm
Great!!  8)