Inspired by some episoded of Planet Earth. I recently bought it on Blu-ray and it's truly amazing :)
There is an episode about caves where you can see people actually base-jump into a 400m deep cave.
I tried to reproduce this a little bit. It's still a WIP. Especially the clouds in the background bother me quite much.
There are 7 different populations in this scene and "only" a couple of 100k instances.
Rendersettings: detail @ 1, AA 10 (MN filter), GI 2/2, 80 atmo samples and took 9 hours on my Q6600.
Thanks for stopping by!
Martin
Beautiful Scene and Nicely setup Martin. I wonder how much faster it would render without the low clouds?
Very nice populations and lighting.
Thank you Jay :)
The clouds have edge sharpness 16 and density of 0.0025 and the quality setting is 1.46195 which results in just 48 samples.
Therefore I think the clouds do not add that much more rendertime, but maybe I should check that to be sure.
The reason for the somewhat long rendertime is the crazy detailed rockstructure (some redirects, strata, voronoi etc.). Together with GI 2/2 and detail @ 1 it is quite demanding.
I might decrease rockstructure complexity, since the majority is in the shadow, but you'll never know for future ideas so I'm happy it's already there :)
Martin
Great work Martin. What really works for me is the close mist and the vegetation that seems wet really fits with the scene. I am sure your rockface is amazing, but we will have to wait for another scene to really see all of it. The only portion I don't like is the fog in the distance, it gets really solid around the trees and I wish it was more like the areas in the foreground.
Thanks Ryan!
You're absolutely right about the clouds/mist in the distance, hence my introduction-post for this image.
I'll see if I can make more justice for the rocks as well as improve the clouds/mist.
Martin
Lovely image, I can how you were inspired by the Planet Earth DVD. I too would like to see more of the rock face but as Ryan says that will have to wait for an other scene. I'd also like to see some variety in the tops of the distant fog bank, overly very flat, could you attach a redirect shader with a PF in the y axis, that might do it.
Great work
richard
very nice work, Martin... impressive rock wall and population/cloud control!
you should change your fog ... i don't know if anybody told you to but it would be a good idea ...
hahahaha
sorry :p
private joke
Haha...fool ;D lol
Beautiful render, nice variations in the trees as well.
Further work on this...
Made some adjustments to the displacements and I think they look much better now.
I reduced the size and increased density of all the populations to increase the sense of scale of the cave.
Also made some optimisations: rendertime is now "only" 4,5 hours :D
To do: reduce palm-size, increase overall density of populations slightly, work on colors of rocks and test rendersettings for better quality of populations.
Martin
spectacular render, Martin!
A matter of taste, but what I really would enjoy seeing is the rock having a greyish and partly moss covered rock surface. To my taste the red doesn't go so well with the rest of the scene. In my eyes, this would make the perfect image!
Cheers,
Frank
I agree with Frank about gray and some moss, but this is (as Franks says) a matter of taste.
Great lighting, once again. I wish some of us would put together a lighting tutorial. I've been messing with a combination of pretty cool lighting techniques I've learned over time from people in this forum. It would be nice to get a better handle on this and you are one that does already understand lighting pretty well.
Thanks for the compliment and response Calico :)
I'll see what I can do about a kind of tutorial for lighting. I honestly don't do anything really special I think.
I just use some simple strategies, but maybe that's something I should write up then.
I'm working on the moss and coloring right now.
Depending on my plans tomorrow I'll render overnight or bigger (1920x1080?) and more detailed for a whole day.
Also depends on my own expectations :)
Martin
I prefered the first palm population seed (with the big one on the lower left part) but the fog is far better ;)
nice job on the surface
I am in no hurry for the render or the tutorial, but I will be happy to see both.
Quote from: calico on April 03, 2009, 10:44:14 AM
I agree with Frank about gray and some moss, but this is (as Franks says) a matter of taste.
Great lighting, once again. I wish some of us would put together a lighting tutorial. I've been messing with a combination of pretty cool lighting techniques I've learned over time from people in this forum. It would be nice to get a better handle on this and you are one that does already understand lighting pretty well.
The new Wiki (http://www.planetside.co.uk/wiki/) would be perfect for this. ;D
- Oshyan
Yes Osyhan, the wiki would be great for that and I already made a contribution to it, however regarding another topic.
I don't want to sound like a n00b but I don't really understand how to organize a wiki.
I added something to the tutorial section but I want that when people click on "tutorials" they than can click on a seperate link for articles I created, but now the complete text appears inmediately.
How do I do this properly?
I'm rendering a final version of this picture @ 1920x1080, detail 1 and GI 2/4. The render crashed after 7 hours, probably because of memory-issues.
TG used 3.05GB of RAM and 3.8GB of virtual memory. Then I receive a rundll32 error and saw that 2 of the 4 threads died.
So I'm rendering this in crops now, which will probably take quite some time...
Martin
Working with a Wiki does take some getting used to. Basically what you do when you want to create a new section is make an internal link to it (it's ok that it doesn't yet link to anything). Then save your edit and go back to the page and click on the link you made. It will automatically bring you into editing of that new page and create it for you once you save your changes. Then the link you made previously will lead there. So for example if you wanted to have a special Martin's Tutorials section, you would make a link to "Martin's Tutorials" from the main tutorial page, and then once you edit the new page, add link to your tutorials if they're off-site, or if you are going to be putting them into the Wiki itself as text, make links to *internal* pages for each one, then do as above, click on the links and edit the page, putting the contents of your tutorials in there. The Wiki can function well as both a collection of links, and an organizer of content.
- Oshyan
Ok guys,
I have made 5 attempts so far to render the final image of this little project.
Settings are:
Resolution = 1920x1080 (need a nice wallpaper for my new LCD-tv)
Detail = 1
AA = 12
GI = 2/4 (works faster than 3/3 and looks even a bit better)
SS-prepass
7 highly detailed populations, about 400.000 instances in total (wild guess)
First I rendered it uncropped and it crashed after 8 hours when rundll32.exe requested to shut down TG2. Two threads were killed highly probable because of memory problems since TG2 was using 3.05GB of RAM and 3.9GB of pagefile ;D
Even croprenders use pretty much resources (see below) so it seems I really make TG2 cry for mercy now ;D 64-bit *cough* :) lol
Then I made 4 attemts to render vertical crops from 0 -> 0.4, 0.3 -> 0.7 and 0.6 -> 1.
However, my PC keeps crashing unexpectedly while TG2's RAM usage is "just" 2.4GB and pagefile = ~2.8GB.
It still has to do with these problems I have posted before:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5590.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5590.0)
I've checked my harddrives pretty thoroughly in the meantime and they really seem fine, so I now suspect my memory.
Maybe someone else has suggestions for problem solving? It would be greatly appreciated :)
In the meantime please be patient :)
Martin
Can you render at high resolution with lesser detail? Try 0.5 just for experimentation.
- Oshyan
Hi Oshyan,
I shall try that. What's the thought behind that? Just to reduce memory-usage?
Yesterday I installed a new harddrive and also installed XP x64 on that drive.
Rendering the same project with the same settings also resulted in a crash, so I'm at least now pretty sure my other harddrive is ok.
I'm running WinDiag memory-tester now at the moment to see if I can detect malfunctioning memory.
However, I'm not sure if it can map my 8 GB of RAM using WinDiag.
I have DDR2-800 memory and it's voltage is set at 1.80. Does anyone know if increasing voltage will make the memory more stable?
(if that's the problem)
I'm open to more suggestions.
Martin
thats really an amazing scene and render!
Quote from: Walli on April 07, 2009, 03:27:57 AM
thats really an amazing scene and render!
Thanks Wallis :)
More to come soon! (hopefully :))
Well...I've been fiddling around with my pc for about the whole weekend.
I switched some RAM modules and I upped the voltages for CPU and RAM a bit (+5% and +10% resp.).
Don't know which of the 3 things actually did it but so far I had no crashes (knocks on wood infinitely).
So I finally managed to render almost the whole first 40% crop of the image, but then....TG2 crashed because the scene seemed to be too demanding :(
Attached are screencaptures of the error message and taskmanager-stats as well as a screenshot of the aborted render so far.
Unfortunately the resolution is greater than my screen so you won't be able to see the actual detail :(
Anyhow it will give you a nice impression so far :)
The error message appeared 4 times (one for each thread I assume?) and then as you can see in my taskmanager-screenshot you can see that TG2 becomes dead in the water.
I thought I could save the dead-render and continue with a crop then, but now TG2 can't abort the render anymore? :( :( :( Probably because there are no threads to close and TG2 can't handle that, don't know??
This is going to be pretty time-consuming all in all. Mainly because of my pc but this is also a good example why it would be fine to have 64-bit version of TG2 :)
Hope to be able to finish this scene within a week though.
Martin
This is going to be top notch ! :)
I love the subtle fog layer, very realistic.
I totally agree about the 64 bit version but I wouldn't hold your breath, I kind of think there will be quite a lot of work to get that going.
I'm sure you've optimized everything you can, cloud samples, population detail level, ray tracing, GI etc.
Good luck and looking forward to seeing the finished result.
richard
a stunner! fantastic, Martin!
Your patience is really put to a test here, if you're looking to get more crops rendered.
Have you looked in your temp folder if the crop has been saved there at all? Although, it probably hasn't.
Regards,
Frank
Beautifully lush and convincing. Hope you can overcome the technological challenges to realising your vision.
If the render output is displaying at full size, can't you do a Print Screen and save it in say Photoshop?
That obviously won't work if you were rendering to an EXR or anything ... but it should work if you were rendering to an 8bit format.
Right?
Anyway - that's an incredible image! Hope you can get it finished in high rez. I've been showing it to friends to demonstrate the power of the software. They've been extremely impressed.
Regards,
Micheal
Looks nice, hopefully you can get it to render. At this point it does look like it may be memory-related, even though it's not *at* the 4GB limit. I don't suppose you had any other apps running at the time?
The intention of rendering at lower detail was indeed to try to reduce memory. Actually reducing AA may be the better approach, and if you can handle lower AA (maybe with a softer pixel filter) it will actually render and look pretty good?
- Oshyan
Thanks Oshyan,
And no, I didn't had anything else running while rendering.
I have 8GB RAM so other running apps can benefit from the other GB's left over.
You say it is not *at* the 4GB limit, but TG2 is 32-bit and theoritically can use 4GB in a 64-bit OS, but is it really capable of?
I did another overnight render with reduced crop-size and that again had problems. Got 6 traceray errors and 3 of the 4 threads were dead without further warning.
Also the GI-prepass had 2 completely black (bucket)holes. It was still rendering, but with 1 core and it wasn't at 20% even, so that would take an eternity to finish. So I aborted it.
I can lower AA and choose another pixel-filter, but honestly I really like the settings now as they are, however they are quite demanding.
Martin
I've used TG2 just about up to the 4GB limit, so it can go to that level, albeit a bit dangerously. Although the fixes in the coming update are not specifically for bucket crashing and some of your other issues, I'm still curious whether it will have any effect for some of your problems.
- Oshyan
OH ::) MY FUCKING ::) LOVELY SHIT!!!!
This is Amazing!!!
::) Definitely deserves to be in the Official Website.
you talk about the bug ro-nin ?
Quote from: Seth on April 09, 2009, 02:34:06 PM
you talk about the bug ro-nin ?
LMAO ;D Awesome Seth! :-*
Thanks for your enthusiasm Ro-nin :)
Though Seth has great sense of crude humour :) he's also right. With those errors there is still not much to see, but this screenshot, unfortunately.
I'm trying to render this with the beta, but it is not backwards-compatible with the latest version, because the way models are being handled is changed. So this will take a while, unfortunately.
I also mentioned this image has some holes in terrain errors, so maybe it is even best to wait for the update/patch?
Martin
Ok, think I solved the problem so far.
So for everyone who's rendering complicated/heavy stuff. Keep the cache as low as possible.
On my system this will not result in missing buckets/broken threads.
Monday this should be finished after 2 overnight renders :)
Martin
Ah! I'm glad that solved the problem. :)
Frankly there is seldom a reason to change the cache from defaults, as was also the case in TG Classic (0.9x). Many people experimented with the cache, hoping it would improve render time or have some other positive effect, but in 99% of cases it does not. We choose default values with the intention of minimizing the need to change it, though the setting is provided for those few cases where it may be needed to adjust it.
The danger is in finding a setting that works for one particular scene, and assuming you must use the same setting for all other scenes to avoid the same problem you may have solved in that scene with these settings. One should always start with default settings and only change them if it seems like it may resolve a particular issue. If it does not immediately resolve the issue, always remember to change it back to defaults.
- Oshyan
Thanks again for explaining and this time for everybody else. Very useful.
The first half is nearly finished.
The reduced cache size gives different memory-statistics (of course):
RAM usage = 1,8GB (instead of 3.1)
VM Size = 2,3GB (instead of 3.8)
Nice to have a stable render now with still all 4 threads going strong :P
Martin
Cool to have it rendering now... Did you lower your quality settings at all?
Quote from: MacGyver on April 12, 2009, 08:09:42 AM
Cool to have it rendering now... Did you lower your quality settings at all?
No ;D
It was really the disadvantage of using too large render-cache size which caused the render-problems.
No I have lowered it, it renders fine and in reasonable times. The first half took 11h30m.
Next half will be rendered tonight and the first final will be posted tomorrow-morning.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on April 12, 2009, 09:03:30 AM
Quote from: MacGyver on April 12, 2009, 08:09:42 AM
Cool to have it rendering now... Did you lower your quality settings at all?
No ;D
It was really the disadvantage of using too large render-cache size which caused the render-problems.
No I have lowered it, it renders fine and in reasonable times. The first half took 11h30m.
Next half will be rendered tonight and the first final will be posted tomorrow-morning.
Looking Forward to seeing you First Final. First Final? Is that an Oxymoron? Sounds Familiar? ;)
Haha yes oxymoron alert :)...you know me...when someone has good suggestions I'm mostly willing to implement them...that would be a second final then ;)
So what is your working cache size now?
Oh yes, sorry...of course: it is rendering at the default size of 400MB, so nothing exciting :)
Ah, so you had changed it before and that didn't work out. So you see there is a default setting for a reason ;)
Quote from: Mohawk20 on April 12, 2009, 12:51:55 PM
Ah, so you had changed it before and that didn't work out. So you see there is a default setting for a reason ;)
Of course, wiseguy ;)
There was a good reason to use a greater rendercache than the default.
Since I have >4GB of RAM TG2 should be able to utilize all available resources up to its own limitation.
By offering a greater rendercache you could theoritically offer TG2 more "room" to work with.
This could also increase renderspeed and in some cases could also prevent counter-errors.
Matt made this educated guess some time ago and it worked fine for a couple of scenes before.
Probably with this one lots of RAM was already allocated by the cache and more RAM was necessary for other processes.
At that point some threads crashed because of memory-issues.
At least, these are so far the most recent thoughts on what was happening.
Unless you have a better understanding of it and knew I really had to use 400MB, then I'm really happy to hear :)
Martin
Actually there are so far only very few scenes where I have seen any positive difference with increased caches. In *theory* a larger cache will provide better performance, but in practice I think other overhead factors reduce the impact of this. So as a general rule again it is best not to change it. Once TG2 goes 64 bit that advice may change since it will then be possible to use much more memory, but still it is not useful to use more memory than "necessary". This is particularly so with very complex and demanding scenes since they already take up a lot of memory even before rendering.
- Oshyan
Ok, here it is:
Rendered in <20 hours @ 1920x1080.
Detail 1, AA 12, GI 2/4 + SS-prepass, Mitchell-Netravalli filter + Bloom.
96 atmosphere samples and clouds @ quality 1.5.
Rendered in 2 crops and used the region padding feature which resulted in 2 perfectly seamless crops :)
Click here for 1920x1080-version:
(http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc673/th_20525_Jungle-V5-HD_122_673lo.jpg) (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=20525_Jungle-V5-HD_122_673lo.jpg)
Enjoy!
Martin
oops...double-post, sorry :)
~Fantastic. It's as good, if not better, than RArchers Climbing the Chimney render. Can I use it as a wallpaper? :D
I love the fuzzy rockside with the ferns. Is that procedural, or a grass pop?
Quote from: PG on April 13, 2009, 06:49:13 AM
~Fantastic. It's as good, if not better, than RArchers Climbing the Chimney render. Can I use it as a wallpaper? :D
Thanks :) Feel free to use it, I made it for the same purpose ;)
Quote from: Mohawk20 on April 13, 2009, 06:49:22 AM
I love the fuzzy rockside with the ferns. Is that procedural, or a grass pop?
Thanks too :)
Unfortunately not procedural, it's indeed a grass pop, about 1.1 million instances (only around the crater!).
Martin
awesome vegetation.... great place to abseil!
very very good lighting dude !
love the population and the realistic look
Awesome work Martin. Keep it up.
- Terje
Ok, so which grass was it? I like how it covers even the steep slopes.
Quote from: Mohawk20 on April 13, 2009, 10:59:10 AM
Ok, so which grass was it? I like how it covers even the steep slopes.
Here's the clipfile of the grasses. The camera is positioned in the crater.
Hope this will provide enough info :)
Martin
I can't check it out now, rendering on both pc's. But the fact that you can share objects in a clipfile means you used the internal grass object. Nice to see those looks pretty good as well.
Quote from: Mohawk20 on April 13, 2009, 11:06:57 AM
I can't check it out now, rendering on both pc's. But the fact that you can share objects in a clipfile means you used the internal grass object. Nice to see those looks pretty good as well.
Ghehe...that's a mis-assumption. The clipfile still contains the path to the model, but not the model itself.
As you can see it is the first Gras model from Klas.
Martin
This has become the great render it promised to be in the earlier partial renders. good to see this as a whole now. :-)
Do you still have the .exr? I think it can be improved a little more in post, to make the lighting a little more dynamic. I would also try a slight blur. Also you could try that LAB mode curves adjustment on a and b.
Regards,
Frank
Quote from: FrankB on April 13, 2009, 11:51:21 AM
This has become the great render it promised to be in the earlier partial renders. good to see this as a whole now. :-)
Do you still have the .exr? I think it can be improved a little more in post, to make the lighting a little more dynamic. I would also try a slight blur. Also you could try that LAB mode curves adjustment on a and b.
Regards,
Frank
Thanks Frank :)
Of course I still have the .exr
You're really better at this than me. I did some curves in LAB- and RGB-mode. But more subtle. You'll see clearly a difference without it, but perhaps I'm a bit to reserved with it.
If you want I can pass you on the exr when you're online.
I deliberately did not blurr it because then the tiny details in the grasses will be lost. A gaussian blur of 0.2 or 0.3 radius will look fine.
Martin
This is really great. :o
As Frank said the finished version truly lived up to the potential of the drafts.
Fantastic image, Martin. You really get sucked into the depths. Do you find much difference in detail when using 1 instead of 0.5 or so? I did some sample renders with different settings, and there's wasn't a huge amount of difference, so now my standard is 0.5 and AA 5. No GI as well, but 1 or 2 fill lights. These were also the settings for my medieval Zutphen image.
---Dune
I'm not Martin, but let me try to answer anyway :)
Yes, there is a lot of difference between 0.5 and 1. However it depends on the level of detail that your render produces. Depending on the distance of the camera to - let say - a rock surface, you may not be able to distinguish certain rock details anyway.
Usually for stills, it's well worth to increase the render quality to above 0.5 in the final render. My personal preference would be to use 0.8 as the minimum for final renders. I'm actually using 0.8 fairly often. Up to 0.9, and if the scene details requires it, I also use 1 every now and then.
For Martin's jungle render, I reckon, 0.9 would have been sufficient IF he had used the soft AA filter. Could have saved him a few hours of render time. Now that we have a choice of AA filters, they really have a big impact on the visible detail in the render. Martin prefers the Mitchell-Netravali filter, probably because it somewhat brings out detail even stronger. As a matter of personal taste, I prefer the soft filter for renders with a lot of distant vegetation - reminds me more of how photographs look like. That filter however "destroys" some detail in the render, hence decreasing the render detail from 1 to 0.9 in the jungle render would have been acceptable.
However, once you do have a lot of potential detail, 0.5 is definitely wasting lots of it. At the very least, use 0.7.
Cheers,
Frank
Thanks for jumping in Frank :)
A bit scary the way you seem to know me in the meantime ;)
I think you have explained it very well about choices for renderquality.
I prefer the Mitchell-Netravalli filter because compared to sharper filters and the softest filter like cubic b-spline this filter offers a bit of both. It's a nice blend :)
I agree for distant populations the b-spline would look more convincing. Then I would indeed have to lower the AA from 12 to about 9 and then together with a detail reduction to 0.9 it could indeed save some rendertime. My guess would be around 20% for certain.
However, I'm not sure about the details of the rocks then.
Therefore the MN-filter, quality 1 and AA12 seemed best for me, though not rendertime-wise :)
Martin
Great work, beautiful combination of different plants. distribution was successful. Very realistic! I love this picture!
Thought it would be nice to render this one using the raytracer for objects.
Rendered at 1600x900 in 8 hours. My estimation is almost twice as fast than the micropolygon renderer would do (just under 20 hours for 1920x1080).
The lighting on the models is much better and as you can see the raytracer is much preciser as well, hence the grasses are "gone".
They are there of course, but so thin that you can't distinguish them anymore. To get them visible I'd have to increase the density twice or something.
Martin
[attachimg=#]
Awesome!
sweet rerender!
couldn't resist, Martin ;)
Quote from: FrankB on January 04, 2010, 08:29:02 AM
couldn't resist, Martin ;)
I don't blame you ;)
A tad bit overdone, but nice indeed :)
Nice :)
It is a dramatic render time improvement as well like a new powerful cpu .
Planetside should emphasize this.
Kadri.
I also think you should've rendered this with higher AA settings.
Quote from: FrankB on January 04, 2010, 08:53:22 AM
I also think you should've rendered this with higher AA settings.
Yeah I can try that, but I hate to say that it probably won't make too much of a difference. It is now rendered with AA10 and maximum samples already (customised sampling method).
I think I rendered this scene by accident at near perfect settings for the micropolygon renderer. It meets the quality of the raytracer, but not the speed by far.
So I can up this to 12, but I'm not entirely sure if it will look any better.
Maybe I can change the filter as well (is Mitchell-Netravalli now).
What do you think?
Use an old computer like mine. Everyone should experience fantastically long render times at least once. LOL
Quote from: njeneb on January 04, 2010, 08:58:39 AM
Use an old computer like mine. Everyone should experience fantastically long render times at least once. LOL
Ghehe, you think I haven't been through this, boy ;D lol
This costed me around 60 hours if I remember correctly, maybe even more:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=4231.msg47308#msg47308 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=4231.msg47308#msg47308)
I will re-render this one as well soon using the RTO.
Martin
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 04, 2010, 08:57:06 AM
Yeah I can try that, but I hate to say that it probably won't make too much of a difference. It is now rendered with AA10 and maximum samples already (customised sampling method). ...
Maybe I can change the filter as well (is Mitchell-Netravalli now).
What do you think?
hm,, intersting. So either it's the model in the foreground which looks just too coarse, OR it's indeed the AA filter. I never use Mitchell-Netravali, I find it's too sharp. The default filter should be ok, though.
Frank
Nice to see this one again. If it was in 1920x1200 one could compare it side-by-side of course ;) :P
I'm also looking forward to see the "A brand new Day" render redone, one of my all-time favorites :)
Magnificent POV and overall image, Martin! Your work here is so excellent. One small observation- and this may just be a matter of personal taste- the small areas of dark green in the foreground seem to have too much of a blue tint to be realistic. Linda
Sweet... the jungle canopy looks great.
Simon.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 04, 2010, 08:57:06 AM
Quote from: FrankB on January 04, 2010, 08:53:22 AM
I also think you should've rendered this with higher AA settings.
Yeah I can try that, but I hate to say that it probably won't make too much of a difference. It is now rendered with AA10 and maximum samples already (customised sampling method).
I think I rendered this scene by accident at near perfect settings for the micropolygon renderer. It meets the quality of the raytracer, but not the speed by far.
So I can up this to 12, but I'm not entirely sure if it will look any better.
Maybe I can change the filter as well (is Mitchell-Netravalli now).
What do you think?
I agree that higher AA probably won't visually improve the image. But if you had used the default adaptive settings it would have rendered faster, probably without any visible reduction in quality.
Hardly an area not covered by vegetation makes this truly a dense jungle as you might find in South America. The second version is much better; but, I would suggest that you decrease the density of the low clouds by at least 50%. Reason: The sun is high; and, usually it tends to burn off the fog/clouds at bit. However, it is a matter of taste.
Bob