Grainy Dusk

Started by Seth, June 05, 2008, 12:45:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Seth

I tried to fix the bug of the water with some postwork... but i am pretty noob with postwork... so sorry for the low quality of it...
i like the grainy look (so don't tell me to increase the atmo sample, because i won't) and i like the sky too.
i don't like the final result of it but... hey i post it anyway...




as usual, bigger on my blog

Tangled-Universe

This is a quite pleasant image. Strongest point is the lighting of the foreground, looks realistic!
I like the grain as well, though around the sun it is a bit too much, but ok...you won't change it anyway :P
Nice clouds and rays also.

Seth

in fact i like that :



lol

rcallicotte

I like it and I like experimenting.  What I wonder is why that big stone on the left is dark and the others around it aren't.  Is that a shadow?
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

EBAndrew

I love pretty much everything about this, but what really stands out for me are the rocks. They just look so... rockish!
-Andrew

Phylloxera

Hormis le côté "granité de l'image j'aime assez. Joli ciel avec un soleil pleine face bien dosé (intensité)?. Et le temps de rendu combien ?

Except the side “granite of the image I like enough. Pretty sky with a sun full face proportioned well (intensity)?. And the time of render how much?

Seth

the render time is about 250 hours  ;D

here is the tgd ^^

Costaud

Quote from: seth93 on June 05, 2008, 05:10:51 PM
the render time is about 250 hours  ;D

here is the tgd ^^

250 hours for a grainy image!!!!  ;D

rcallicotte

So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: seth93 on June 05, 2008, 05:10:51 PM
the render time is about 250 hours  ;D

here is the tgd ^^

250 hours? I can see in the .tgd 2 reasons responsible for this ridiculous high rendertime.
First GI surface details, you don't need it because it rarely makes a difference and only at least doubles your rendertime. You don't have such small scales which need this settings.
Secondly the raytraced shadows in the clouds, also not necessary because there's no terrain casting shadows on the clouds, this also at least doubles your rendertime.
You could have easily rendered this image in 60 hours or so. I remember I also pointed this to you in your Cave-image which also took too long because of unnecessary settings ???
It just saves you so much time :)

Seth

yeah all that and the fact that i have a slow computer and that i use it during rendering process to try several games ;)
Gi detail is necessary in this one, i tried without it first, but the foreground was less viewable...darker... and look again at the clouds settings, i used no acceleration cache and THAT added a lot of time to the render :)
anyway, i like testing and i must admit that even with stupid values, and loooong render time, TG2 was stable during my last 2 renders !!!


edit : and thanks for the advices T-U  :D

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: seth93 on June 06, 2008, 01:32:57 AM
yeah all that and the fact that i have a slow computer and that i use it during rendering process to try several games ;)
Gi detail is necessary in this one, i tried without it first, but the foreground was less viewable...darker... and look again at the clouds settings, i used no acceleration cache and THAT added a lot of time to the render :)
anyway, i like testing and i must admit that even with stupid values, and loooong render time, TG2 was stable during my last 2 renders !!!


edit : and thanks for the advices T-U  :D

There are many complaints about the stability of the current alpha, but in my opinion it is indeed quite stable when rendering for long times.
It's important to restart TG2 prior to starting your render.

Though it seems that TG2 always crashes on my computer when memory consumption is above ~1.4 GB :(

So I was wrong about the surface detail I see. Great you've tested that, I still find it unclear when this function really is needed and when it is not.
Acceleration cache indeed strongly affects rendertime but believe me, raytraced shadows really cranks it up a lot, way more than disabling the cache.
A combination of disabling rendercache and raytraced shadow indeed increases rendertime tremendously.

Seth

yep ^^
i just wanna see if rays will be more present with raytrace on ^^
i am not sure now... but i believe you on this :)
anyway... next render will be very different i think...

Tangled-Universe

#13
I'm looking forward to see your next one :)
Hopefully something with vegetation etc., like this one:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_Eau-01xL4yI/R2-DM5cT4KI/AAAAAAAAAEM/yJOEsRSlxb4/s1600/Matin%2BCalme%2BRetouch%C3%A9.jpg :)




Seth

héhéhé
i'll see what i can do ;)